# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Hay, Francis

​HAY, FRANCIS, ninth Earl of Errol (d. 1631), was second son of Andrew, eighth earl, by his wife Lady Jean Hay, only surviving child of William, sixth earl. He was thus, after the death of his brother, the nearest heir, both in the male and female line. He succeeded to the earldom in 1585. Having been converted to catholicism by Father Edmund Hay [q. v.], he became the chief associate of Huntly [see Gordon, George, 1562–1636] in his endeavours to re-establish the old religion. After the defeat of the Spanish Armada he seconded Huntly in his attempts to induce the Spanish king to undertake a second expedition. A letter from Errol to the Duke of Parma asserting his loyalty to the Spanish king was inter​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 ​advised them to clear themselves at a trial. They went to Dalkeith, and sent word that they were ready to be tried at Perth on 24 Oct. The clergy in Edinburgh and their supporters sent a deputation to the king at Jedburgh to crave that the trial should be strictly legal, and that meanwhile the earls should be committed to prison (Petition, printed in Hist. of James the Sext, pp. 284–6). The king by way of compromise entrusted the trial to a convention of estates to be held at Linlithgow after his return from the borders. The clergy resolved to summon an armed gathering to see justice enforced, but were prohibited by a proclamation of the council. The convention was held on 27 Oct. 1593, but the king, deeming the arrangement inconvenient, named, with consent of the estates, special commissioners for the trial to meet at Edinburgh on 12 Nov. (Reg. P. C. Scotl. v. 104). Those summoned failed, however, to appear, and at a convention held on the 19th others were chosen, who on the 26th passed an ‘Act of Abolition,’ granting full pardon to the accused on condition that they did not repeat their offences. They were to have the option of remaining in this country as true protestants or going into exile; the earls were also required to give security in 400l. each; and Errol was ordered to remove from the realm the jesuit William Ogilvy (ib. v. 108). Their choice between exile and protestantism was to be made by 1 Jan. 1593–4. They failed to arrive at a decision within the specified time, and an act was passed on 18 Jan. declaring that they had ‘tint all benefit and favour granted to them by the Act of Abolition’ (Acta Parl. Scot. iv. 52–3). On the 31st Errol was ordered to enter into ward in the castle of Edinburgh within ten days (Reg. P. C. C. Scotl. v. 130), and failing to do so he was declared to be a traitor, sentence of forfeiture being also passed upon him by the subsequent parliament.
Errol now joined Huntly in Aberdeenshire with a formidable force. The authorities of Aberdeen on 16 July 1594 seized the crew of a Spanish ship, from which James Gordon, an uncle of Huntly, and some other jesuits had disembarked. Huntly and Errol threatened to burn the town unless the prisoners were released. The request was complied with (Moysie, p. 118). The king sent a force against them under the command of the young Earl of Argyll, but on 4 Oct. it was, after a severe struggle, completely defeated by Huntly and Errol. The loss on both sides was heavy, and Errol himself was wounded by an arrow in the leg, and was otherwise severely injured (ib. p. 120; Calderwood, v. 348–53). On the arrival of the king in the north Huntly and Errol kept themselves quiet, ‘and no intelligence was to be had of them.’ Slains Castle, the seat of Errol, was demolished in the presence of the king, but no special effort was made to pursue him. The king returned south on 9 Nov., leaving the Duke of Lennox as his lieutenant to keep the catholic earls in check. On Lennox's persuasion Huntly and Errol left the country, their lands being given to the duke ‘by way of factorie,’ but their wives being made ‘intrometters therewith’ (ib. v. 357). In the following January Scot of Balwearie revealed the signature in the previous August of a bond between the northern earls for the imprisonment of the king and the coronation of the young prince. The revelation did not injuriously affect Errol's relations with the king. On 26 March 1594–5 a proclamation was issued to mariners and skippers against bringing the earls or any of their adherents back (Reg. P. C. Scotl. v. 217). Rumours of his conspiracies abroad caused Errol to be arrested by the States of Zealand, and detained a captive in Middelburg (Cal. State Papers relating to Scotland, p. 713). Subsequently he was surrendered to Robert Danielstoun, the Scottish king's conservator in the Low Countries, who permitted his escape (Reg. P. C. Scotl. v. 315). He returned home secretly in September 1596, and on 22 Nov. a declaration was issued by the council to the effect that he and others had returned without the king's leave, and warning them that unless they satisfied the kirk the king intended to take the field against them in person (ib. pp. 329–31). On the 30th David Black, minister of St. Andrews, was summoned for asserting that they had returned with the king's consent. The king was clearly anxious to be on good terms with the earls, and was specially desirous to bring about a reconciliation between them and the kirk. On the king's representations the assembly ultimately agreed to release Errol and other earls from excommunication, on condition of their abjuring popery and subscribing the confession of faith. With these conditions Errol (see his answers to the articles in Calderwood, v. 635) complied, and absolution was granted him on 26 June 1597. In the beginning of August he and his friends were also relaxed from the horn at the cross of Edinburgh, and at the parliament held in the following December they were formally restored to their estates and dignities.
Errol enjoyed for some years afterwards much of the king's confidence. On 30 Oct. 1601 a commission of justiciary was given him against Gordon of Gicht and the rebels who had adhered to him (Reg. P. C. Scotl. ​vi. 298). Nevertheless he and others formerly known as popish earls were still held in strong suspicion by the kirk. In May of this year deputies were appointed by the assembly to wait upon them for half a year to confirm them in the truth. The deputies who waited on Errol reported satisfactorily (Calderwood, vi. 162), but it was deemed best to continue them in attendance on him (ib. p. 166). At the parliament which met at Perth on 3 July 1602 he was appointed a commissioner to treat of the union with England. A few years afterwards he began to manifest luke warmness in his relations with the kirk, and the absence of the king in England allowed the kirk party to exercise a great influence on the council. In February 1608 a summons was issued against him for having absented himself from the communion, thereby incurring a penalty of 1,000l. (Reg. P. C. Scotl. viii. 63). On 21 May he was ordered to be confined within the city of Perth ‘for the better resolution’ of his doubts (ib. p. 94). At the assembly of the kirk held at Linlithgow in July he was ranked among the ‘professed’ catholics, and as one of the ‘head of the party’ (Calderwood, vi. 752). Shortly afterwards the ‘brethren of the Presbytery of Perth’ appointed to confer with him reported him to be a ‘more obstinate and obdured’ papist than he was before his so-called conversion. It was therefore ordained that he should be excommunicated before 18 Sept. unless he recanted. On 20 Aug. he was, on his own petition, transferred from Perth, on account of a visitation of the plague, to Errol (Reg. P. C. Scotl. viii. 159). On sentence of excommunication being passed against him he was removed to permanent imprisonment in the castle of Dumbarton (ib. p. 176). On 11 March 1609 a decree was issued ordaining him to lose his life-rent and to be put to the horn (ib. p. 262). In 1610 Huntly and Errol made overtures to have their cases reconsidered. A meeting to consider Errol's case was held within the castle of Edinburgh, at which he again professed conformity to protestantism, but, according to Spotiswood, he the same night ‘fell in such a trouble of mind as he went near to have killed himself.’ On withdrawing his recantation he was detained in the castle of Edinburgh till the end of May of the following year, when, although still under the ban of excommunication, he was set at liberty (Calderwood, vii. 159). In 1617 he was absolved from excommunication ‘upon some offers given in of him to some bishops convened at Perth’ (ib. p. 244).
Errol died on 16 July 1631 at his house of Bownes, which he had erected on the destruction of the ancient castle of Slains. He was buried without ceremony within the church of Slains by torchlight, and left instructions that the money which might have otherwise been expended on his funeral should be given to the poor. Spalding describes him as ‘ane trewlie noble man of ane gryt and couragious spirit, who had gryt trubles in his tyme, whiche he stoutly and honorably still careit, and now deit in peace and favour with God and man’ (Memorialls of the Trubles, i. 25). In his lifetime a dispute arose between him and the Earl Marischal regarding the privileges of the high constable, an hereditary office in the Errol and Marischal families. Though the dispute began as early as 1606, the commissioners appointed to consider the matter did not report till 27 July 1631, ten days after the death of the ninth earl. Discussion as to the privileges of the high constable continued for another century (see documents on the constabulary in ‘Errol Papers,’ Miscellany of Spalding Club, ii. 211–250). Errol was three times married. By his first two wives, daughters respectively of the Earl of Atholl and the regent Murray, he had no issue; but by his third wife, Lady Elizabeth Douglas, daughter of the Earl of Morton, he had three sons and eight daughters. He was succeeded in the earldom by his eldest son William.
[Errol Papers in Spalding Club Miscellany, vol. ii.; Hist. of James the Sext (Bannatyne Club); Moysie's Memoirs (Bannatyne Club); Sir James Melville's Memoirs (Bannatyne Club); Calderwood's Hist. of Kirk of Scotl.; Spalding's Memorialls (Spalding Club); Register of the Privy Council of Scotl., especially vols. v–viii.; Cal. State Papers, Scot. Ser.; Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser., Reign of James; Douglas's Scottish Peerage (Wood), i. 549–55.]
T. F. H.