KILMARNOCK, earl
of, a
title in the peerage of Scotland (attainted in 1746, and now
represented by the earl of Errol) conferred in 1661, on William, ninth
Lord Boyd of Kilmarnock, descended from Sir Robert Boyd, the fourth of
the name, one of the first associates of King Robert the Bruce (see
BOYD, surname of). The first Lord Boyd, the fifth in descent from this
Sir Robert, was the son of Sir Thomas Boyd, who slew Sir Alan Stewart
of Derneley, and was himself slain in revenge by Sir Alan’s brother,
Alexander Stewart, in 1439. The son was created a baron, by the title
of Lord Boyd of Kilmarnock, by James II. His great abilities raised
him to the highest offices in the state. In 1459 he was one of the
noblemen sent to Newcastle, to obtain the prolongation of the truce
with England, which had just then expired. On the death of James II.
Lord Boyd was made justiciary, and one of the lords of the regency,
during the minority of James III. His younger brother, Sir Alexander
Boyd of Duncow, was appointed to teach military exercises and
accomplishments to the young king; and though the latter was not more
than twelve years old, he began to instil into his mind that he was
now capable of governing without the help of guardians and tutors, and
that he ought to free himself from their restraint. This was done with
the view of transferring the whole power of the state of Lord Boyd and
himself from the other regents. The king readily consented to what was
proposed, and being at Linlithgow at the time, it was necessary to
have him removed to Edinburgh, to take upon himself the regal
government, which the Boyds effected, partly by force, and partly by
stratagem. To protect themselves from the consequences, Lord Boyd and
his brother prevailed upon James to call a parliament at Edinburgh in
October 1466, in which his lordship fell down on his knees before the
king on the throne, and in an elaborate harangue, complained of the
hard construction put upon his majesty’s removal from Linlithgow, and
that his enemies threatened that the advisers of that affair should
one day be brought to punishment, and humbly besought the king to
declare his own sense and pleasure thereupon. His majesty consulted a
little with the lords, and then replied, that the Lord Boyd was not
his adviser, but rather his companion in that journey; and, therefore,
that he was more worthy of a reward for his courtesy, than of
punishment for his obsequiousness or compliance therein; and this he
was willing to declare in a public decree of the Estates, in which
provision would be made that this matter should never be prejudicial
to the Lord Boyd or his companions. At his lordship’s desire, this
decree was registered in the acts of the Assembly, and confirmed by
letters patent under the great seal. At the same time the king, by
advice of his council, granted him letters patent, constituting him
sole regent, and he had the safety of the king, his brothers, sisters,
towns, castles, and all the jurisdiction over his subjects committed
to him, till his majesty arrived at the age of twenty-one years. The
nobles then present solemnly bound themselves to be assistant to Lord
Boyd and his brother in all their public acts, under the penalty of
punishment, if they failed to perform their pledge, and to this
stipulation the king also subscribed. Lord Boyd was now made lord
great chamberlain. His son, Sir Thomas Boyd, received the Princess
Mary, the late king’s eldest daughter in marriage, and was soon after
created earl of Arran.
A marriage
having been about this time concluded by ambassadors sent into Denmark
for that purpose, between the young king of Scotland, and Margaret, a
daughter of the Danish king, the earl of Arran was selected to go over
to Denmark, to act as his brother-in-law James’ proxy in espousing the
princess, and to conduct her to Scotland. In the beginning of the
autumn of 1469, he accordingly set sail for Denmark, with a proper
convoy, and a noble train of friends and followers. The lord
chamberlain, the earl’s father, and his uncle, Sir Alexander Boyd,
being at this time also absent from court, the occasion was taken
advantage of by their enemies to ruin them with the king.
The Kennedys
particularly showed themselves active against them. Their enmity arose
from the following circumstance: The Boyds having, on the 10th
of July 1466, when the king was sitting in the Exchequer at Linlithgow,
ordered a hunting match for his majesty, they, with some other
friends, instead of following the chase, turned into the road leading
to Edinburgh, in which they had not gone far, before Gilbert Lord
Kennedy rode up, and laying his hand upon the bridle of the king’s
horse, requested James to return to Linlithgow, bidding him beware of
those guides who thus treasonably attempted to carry him away. But the
Boyds thought that the possession of the king’s person would guard
them from the penalty of the law, and Sir Alexander Boyd, as if he
meant to resent the insult offered to the king, after some angry
words, gave the Lord Kennedy a blow with his hunting staff, who
thereupon quitted his hold of the bridle, and left them to pursue
their journey to Edinburgh. But he never forgave the blow he had
received, and he eagerly availed himself of the first opportunity that
offered to avenge it.
He now
represented to the king that the Lord Boyd had abused his power during
his majesty’s minority, and described the lord chamberlain as an
ambitious, aspiring man, guilty of the highest offences, and capable
of the worst of villanies; he thus succeeded in exciting the fears of
the king, who was easily prevailed upon to sacrifice not only the earl
of Arran, but all his family, to the resentment of their enemies.
At the
request of the faction adverse to them, the king summoned the Estates
of parliament to meet at Edinburgh, November 20, 1469, before which
Lord Boyd, his son, the earl of Arran, though absent on the king’s
service in Denmark, and his brother, Sir Alexander Boyd of Duncow,
were summoned to appear, to give an account of their administration,
and answer such charges as should be brought forward against them.
Lord Boyd, astonished at this sudden turn of affairs, had recourse to
arms; but finding it impossible to stand against his enemies, he made
his escape into England. His brother, Sir Alexander, being then sick,
and trusting to his own integrity, was brought before the Estates,
where he, the Lord Boyd, and his son, the earl of Arran, were indicted
for high treason, for having laid hands on the king, and carried him
from Linlithgow to Edinburgh, in 1466. Sir Alexander alleged, in his
defence, that he and his relatives had not only obtained, in a public
convention, the king’s pardon for that offence; but that, by a
subsequent act of parliament, it was declared a good and loyal service
on their part. No regard, however, was paid either to the pardon he
had received, or to the act of parliament he referred to; because they
had been obtained by the Boyds when they were in power, and masters of
the king’s person. Being found guilty of high treason by a jury of
lords and barons, Sir Alexander Boyd was condemned to lose his head on
the castlehill of Edinburgh, which sentence was executed accordingly.
The Lord Boyd did not long survive his great reverse of fortune, as
his death took place at Alnwick in 1470.
The earl of
Arran, though absent on state business, was declared a public enemy,
and his estates were confiscated. His affairs were in this situation
when he arrived in the Firth of Forth from Denmark with the young
queen. Before he landed he received intelligence of the wreck and ruin
of his family, and he resolved to return to Denmark. Without staying
to attend the ceremonial of the queen’s landing, he set sail with his
wife in one of the Danish convoy ships; and on his arrival at Denmark
was received with the honours becoming his high birth. Thence he
travelled through Germany into France, and went to pay a visit to
Charles duke of Burgundy, who received him most graciously, and being
then at war with his rebellious subjects, the exiled lord offered his
services, which his highness readily accepted. While he remained at
the duke of Burgundy’s court, he had a son and a daughter born to him
by his countess. But the king her brother recalled his sister to
Scotland; and fearing that she would not be induced to leave her
husband, he caused other persons to write to her, giving her hopes
that his anger towards him might yet be appeased, if she would come
over and plead for him in person. Flattered by these hopes, she
returned to Scotland, where she was no sooner arrived than the king
urged her to sue for a divorce from her husband, cruelly detained her
from going back to him, and caused public citations, attested by
witnesses, to be fixed up at Kilmarnock, the seat of the Boyds,
wherein Thomas earl of Arran was commanded to appear within sixty
days; which he not doing, his marriage with the king’s sister was
declared null and void, and a divorce granted, according to Buchanan,
the earl being absent and unheard. The Lady Mary was afterwards
compelled by the king to marry James Lord Hamilton; but it is not
certain whether this second marriage took place before or after the
earl of Arran’s death, which occurred in 1474, at Antwerp, where he
was honourably interred.
James, only
son of Thomas Boyd, earl of Arran, was restored to the estates of his
family in 1482, and died in 1484.
Alexander,
the second son of the first Lord Boyd, was made baillie and
chamberlain of Kilmarnock for the crown in 1505. He had three sons,
Robert, restored to the title of Lord Boyd in 1536; Thomas, ancestor
of the Boyds of Pitcon; and Adam, progenitor of the Boyds of Pinkhill
and Trochrig.
The eldest
son, Robert, Lord Boyd, had a confirmation from Queen Mary, of all the
estates, honours, and dignities that had belonged to Robert, Lord
Boyd, his grandfather.
His son,
Robert, fourth Lord Boyd, was one of the promoters of the Reformation
in Scotland, and in the movements that followed acted a principal
part. But he did not go without his reward, for between him and
Glencairn, Henry Balnaves divided 500 of the crowns which he had
received from England, for the assistance of the party besieged in the
castle of St. Andrews, after the assassination of Cardinal Bethune.
Joining Moray and Argyle, when they took up arms in 1565, on occasion
of Queen Mary’s marriage with Darnley, he was obliged to retire to
England, and was denounced rebel in September of that year. After the
murder of Rizzio, he returned, with the other lords, and received a
full pardon. He was one of the assize who acquitted Bothwell for the
assassination of Darnley, and he signed the bond said to have been
given to him by several of the nobility, approving of his project to
marry the queen. In Bothwell’s declaration, quoted by Keith, he is
stated to have been accessory to Darnley’s murder. Though made a privy
councillor after Bothwell’s marriage to the queen, he joined the
association for the protection of the prince. He soon, however,
returned to the queen’s party, and betrayed to them the confederacy of
the nobility. He was with Huntly and his faction at Edinburgh when the
associated lords attacked the city on 12th June 1567, but
being unable to raise the citizens in the queen’s cause, they were
forced to take refuge in the castle. In the following August he began
to negotiate with the regent, Moray, and being shortly after
reconciled to him, was appointed one of his privy councillors.
On Mary’s
escape from Lochleven, he joined her at Hamilton, and fought for her
cause at the battle of Langside, He was one of the commissioners on
her part at York and Westminster, and made many visits to her in
England. According to Chalmers (Life of Mary, vol. ii. p. 242),
he procured from Bothwell in 1569 his consent to a dissolution of
their ill-fated marriage, and was the bearer of Mary’s letter to her
brother, Regent Moray, requesting that steps should be taken for
having it annulled, preparatory to her intended union with Norfolk.
On a visit
to the unfortunate Mary in 1571, he received from her a commission to
establish lieutenants in her name; but the same year he joined the
party of the regent Lennox. He was present at the election of the earl
of Mar as regent, and was chosen one of his privy council. On 8th
September that year, he had a remission to himself and his two sons
for their fighting against the king at Langside, and all other crimes.
He was one of the noblemen employed in carrying through the well-known
pacification of Perth in February 1573, and by one of its conditions,
“the commendator of Newbottle, the justice clerk, and Lord Boyd were
appointed sole judges beneath the Forth, in all actions of restitution
of goods spulzied in the late troubles.” He was appointed by the
regent Morton an extraordinary lord of session, 24th
October, 1573. On Morton’s resignation in 1578, Lord Boyd went to his
assistance, and strongly remonstrated with him for having relinquished
the regency. On the 8th of May the same year, he was
removed from his seat on the bench, but on 15th July
following was re-appointed a privy councillor, a visitor of the
university of Glasgow, and a commissioner for examining the book of
the policie of the kirk, and settling its jurisdiction, and on 25th
October was restored to his place on the bench. In 1578 he was one of
the commissioners for a treaty with England, and again in 1586.
After
Morton’s return to power, he assisted him in his attempts to apprehend
the Lords John and Claud Hamilton, and in the excesses which in May
1579 he committed against their property. On 10th November
following he was appointed a member of the new privy council. In 1582
he was engaged in the Raid of Ruthven, and on James’ recovering his
freedom in the following year was only pardoned on condition that he
should leave the country and retire to France. On his return he was
restored to his seat on the bench 22d June 1586, but resigned it on 4th
July 1588, and died 3d January 1590, in his 72d year.
His son,
Thomas, fifth Lord Boyd, fought with his father and brother on Queen
Mary’s side at Langside, and having been predeceased by his son, the
master of Boyd, was succeeded by his grandson, Robert, sixth lord. The
son of the latter, also named Robert, seventh lord, died 17th
November 1640, without issue, when his uncle, James, became eighth
lord. Being a faithful adherent of Charles I., he was fined £1,500 by
Cromwell’s act in 1654, and died that year.
His son,
William, third earl, voted for the Union, and when the rebellion broke
out in 1715, he steadily supported the government. At the general
rendezvous of the fencible men of the district of Cunningham at
Irvine, 22d August that year, he appeared at the head of 500 of his
own men, well armed, and on this occasion, his son, Lord Boyd, who, as
fourth earl of Kilmarnock, joined the Pretender in the subsequent
rebellion, appeared in arms at his father’s side, though but eleven
years old. In consequence of an order from the duke of Argyle,
commander-in-chief of the government forces, Lord Kilmarnock, marched
from Glasgow with the Ayrshire volunteers to garrison the houses of
Gartartan, Drumnakill, and Cardross, to prevent the rebels from
crossing the Forth. He died in September 1717. By his countess,
Euphemia, eldest daughter of the eleventh Lord Ross, he had a son, the
subject of the following notice.
William,
fourth earl of Kilmarnock, executed for his share in the rebellion of
1745, was born in 1704. His father died when he was but thirteen years
of age, and on succeeding to the family estates, he found them much
encumbered. He early displayed great abilities, but his love of
pleasure overcame his desire for study; and, in his youth, he was so
extravagant, that he still more reduced his patrimony. This, it has
been conjectured, was the cause of his taking up arms against the
king. In his confession to the Rev. Mr. Foster, while under sentence
of death, his lordship acknowledged, that his having engaged in the
Rebellion was a kind of desperate scheme, to which he had recourse in
the hope that he might be extricated from the embarrassment of his
circumstances. “The true root of all,” he says, “was his careless and
dissolute life, by which he had reduced himself to great and
perplexing difficulties; that the exigency of his affairs was in
particular very pressing at the time of the rebellion; and that,
besides the general hope he had of mending his fortune by the success
of it, he was also tempted by another prospect of retrieving his
circumstances, by following the Pretender’s standard.” When the
rebellion broke out, Lord Kilmarnock was not concerned in it. In his
speech at the bar of the House of Lords, and in his petition to the
king after his sentence, he declared that it was not till after the
battle of Prestonpans that he became a party to it, having, till then,
influenced neither his tenants nor his followers to assist or abet the
rebellion. On the contrary he had induced the inhabitants of the town
of Kilmarnock, and the neighbouring towns, to rise in arms for his
majesty’s cause; and, in consequence, 200 men from Kilmarnock soon
appeared in arms, and remained so all winter at Glasgow and other
places.
When the
earl at last joined the Pretender’s standard, he was received by him
with great marks of esteem and distinction. He was declared a member
of his privy council, made colonel of the guards, and promoted to the
rank of a general; although his lordship himself says he was far from
being a person of any consequence among them. He displayed
considerable courage till the fatal battle of Culloden, when, finding
it impossible to escape, he surrendered himself prisoner to the king’s
troops. He was conveyed to the Tower of London; and on Monday, July
28, 1746, he, the earl of Cromarty, and Lord Balmerino, were conducted
to Westminster Hall, and at the bar of the lord high steward’s court
arraigned for high treason and rebellion. Lord Kilmarnock pleaded
guilty to his indictment, and submitted himself to his majesty’s
clemency. On the Wednesday following, the three lords were again
brought from the Tower to receive sentence, when being asked by the
lord high steward, if he had any thing to offer why sentence of death
should not be passed upon him, he delivered an eloquent speech, after
which he was condemned to be beheaded, and he was taken back to the
Tower. He presented petitions to the king, the prince of Wales, and
the duke of Cumberland, wherein he set forth the constant attachment
of his family to the interest of the Revolution of 1688, and to that
of the house of Hanover; and referred to his father’s zeal and
activity in support of the crown and constitution during the rebellion
of 1715, and his own appearance in arms, though he was then but a boy,
under his father, and the whole tenor of his conduct up to the time he
had unfortunately engaged in the cause of the Pretender. But the
services of his forefathers could not avail him so far as to induce
his majesty to pardon him. He was beheaded on Tower-hill, August 18,
1746, and interred in the Tower-church, with this inscription on his
coffin, – “Gulielmus comes de Kilmarnock, decollat. 18 Augusti 1746,
aetat. suae 42.”
Lord
Kilmarnock possessed a fine address, and was very polite. His person
was tall and graceful; his countenance mild, but his complexion pale.
He lived and died in the public profession of the Church of Scotland,
and left behind him a widow, who was the Lady Ann Livingston, daughter
of James, earl of Linlithgow and Callendar, attainted in 1716, with
whom he had a considerable fortune, and three sons, the eldest of whom
was the fifteenth earl of Errol, having succeeded upon the death of
Mary countess of Errol, in 1758, to her estate and honours, his mother
being undoubted heir of line of that noble family. He died June 3,
1778. The seventeenth earl of Errol was created Baron Kilmarnock in
1831. [See ERROL, earl of.]
