LESLEY, John, bishop of Ross, was born on the 29th of September 1527. In an account of his life for which he must himself have supplied the materials, he is said to have been born of honourable parents, and to have been a descendant of the ancient and noble family of Lesleys which then continued to flourish in Scotland. According to another account, which is less vague in its terms, but still disguises the truth, his father was Gavin, a great-grandson of Andrew Lesley of Balquhain,^[1. Laurus Leslaeana explicata, § 31. Graecii, 1692, fol. “Gavanus, Alexandri quartogenitus, ducta in consortem thori N. N. ] the representative[7:13:234] of a well-known family in the county of Aberdeen. Knox has clearly stated that he was the son of a priest;^[2. Knox’s Historie of the Reformatioun of Religioun, p. 262. edit. Edinb. 1732, fol. ] and the illegitimacy of his birth is sufficiently ascertained from a dispensation, granted under the authority of a papal bull, and rendering him capable of receiving holy orders ∙,^[3. - Keith’s Catalogue of the Scottish Bishops, p. 198. Russell’s edit. From the originals belonging to the family of Balquhain, this industrious writer has given the substance of twelve documents which reflect much light on the bishop’s personal history. ] for without such a dispensation, a person of spurious birth was declared incapable by the canon law. In this document, bearing date the 9th of July 1538, he is described as a scholar of the diocese of Moray; and Keith conjectures, with great probability, that he was the son of Gavin Lesley, rector of Kingusie, and likewise, as he supposes, official of that diocese. The bishop’s father is described as an eminent lawyer; and a knowledge of the canon law was indispensable in a person who held this judicial situation.

Lesley prosecuted his studies in King’s College, Aberdeen, where he took the degree of A. M. Keith mentions a deed by the bishop of Aberdeen, promoting him, a “clerk of his diocese, to the character of an acolyte in his cathedral church, dated 15th June 1546.” This statement is scarcely intelligible: the character of an acolyte, which cannot well be described as promotion, is that of an individual who has been admitted to one of the lower orders in the Romish church; the seven orders being those of porter, lector, exorcist, acolyte, subdeacon, deacon, and priest. In the twentieth year of his age, he became a canon of the cathedral churches of Aberdeen and Elgin. It was apparently this improvement in his circumstances that enabled him to obtain the most liberal education which was then to be procured. Having spent some time in Paris, where he directed his attention to the study of divinity and languages, especially the Greek and Hebrew, he proceeded to the university of Poitiers, and there applied himself to the study of the civil and canon laws for the space of nearly four years. He afterwards resided about a year at Toulouse, where he took the degree of licentiate of the civil law; and having returned to Paris, and taken the degree of LL.D, he continued for nearly another year to read lectures on the canon law. With these proofs of his academical attainments, he returned to his native country in the month of April 1554, and successively obtained many different preferments, secular as well as ecclesiastical. He was appointed professor of the canon law in the university of Aberdeen;^[4. Orem’s description of King’s College, Aberdeen, p. 156. ] and on the 18th of April 1558, Bishop Gordon, with the dean and chapter, granted a commission, nominating him official of that diocese. The commission describes him as parson of Oyne and Morthlack, prebendary and canon of the cathedral church of Aberdeen; but a subsequent document, dated on the 2d of July 1559, relates to his induction and investiture in the parsonage, canonry, and prebend of Oyne, stall in the choir, and place in the chapter. “I did accept the office judicator of the dioces of Aberdene,” he remarks, “where in I travelled ten yeres, and how I did behave my selfe therein, I report my selfe to the testimonie of the country; for besids the ministratioun of justice in mine owne office, 1 assisted the sheriffe of the shire with my counsell for execution of justice according to the lawes, and imployed alsoe other whyles great travells in compoundinge and agreeinge of differences betwixt parties, proceedinge either of deadly feads, or other debates for lands or goods, which is the right office of a judge, as saith the jurisconsult.”^[5. Lesley’s Negotiations, p. 7∙ ]

The protestant religion had now obtained a stable footing in Scotland; and the Book of Discipline was presented to a convention of estates held at Edinburgh in the month of January 1561. Several of the papists had been summoned to give an account of their faith; and among .these was the official of Aberdeen, together with Patrick Myrtom, treasurer, James Strahan, a canon of the cathedral, and Alexander Anderson, sub-pr 1 ⅞ncipal of King’s College. The disputants on the other side were Knox, Willock, and Goodman, whom we may easily suppose to have been an over-match for the theologians of Aberdeen. Of this disputation Lesley and Knox have each given an account, nor is it easy to reconcile their statements with each other. According to one of them, the four respondents made a very firm profession of the catholic faith; and of the sacrifice of the mass Anderson gave so able an exposition, that the heretics evinced no further inclination to dispute, either with him or any other catholic, concerning the high mysteries of the true religion. According to the other account, the sub-principal made a very lame defence of his opinions, and finally declined to continue the disputation, admitting “that he was better sein in philosophy then theology.” Lesley was then required to answer the former arguments against the mass; “and he with gravity began to answer, If our master have nothing to say to it, I have nothing; for I knaw nothing bot the canone law; and the grittest ressoun that ever I culd find thare is Nolumus Volumus” The historian of the reformation subjoins, “the nobility hearing that neyther the ane nor the uther wald answer directly, said, We have bene miserably deceaved heirtofor; for if the mess may not obtean remissioun of sines to the quick and the dead, quharefore war all the abbacies so richly dotit with our temporall lands ?”^[6. Knox’s Historie of the Reformatioun of Religioun, p. 262. ] The other historian has stated that he and his associates were subjected to the punishment of being compelled to remain in Edinburgh, and listen to the sermons of the ministers.^[7. Leslaeus de Rebus gestis Scotorum, p. 574.” ] From this statement, which is by no means incredible, there is a material departure in the biography to which we have already referred. “Upon this, the sectarian nobility were, by the instigation of the heretical ministers, so much incensed against Dr Lesley, and the doctors his associates, that they were taken into custody, and put in the prison of Edinburgh, the chief city of Scotland, where, after confinement for some time, they found sureties, who were bound in a very great penalty, that they should make their appearance, in order to their trial, whenever they should be required: upon which they were at length set at liberty, and returned to Aberdeen.” This biographical tract was obviously intended to exalt the subject of it to the character of a great confessor and sufferer for the catholic faith; and some of its statements are apparently to be received with a certain degree of caution, if not suspicion.

On the death of Francis the Second, the leaders of the protestant party sent the prior of St Andrews to France, with the view of preparing the mind of the young queen for a favourable consideration of their cause. In order to suscepit ex ea Joannem episcopum Rossensem.” There is evidently a studied ambiguity in the expression. Air Riddell mentions that the parson of Oyne was summoned as one of the nearest of kin to “Andrew Lesslie, son to the deceased William Lesslie of New-Lesslie, a pupil.” (Remarks upon Scotch Peerage Law, p. 205. Edinb. 1833, 8vo.) [7:13:235]counteract this influence, Lesley was despatched on a similar mission by the popish earls of Huntley, Crawford, Athole, Sutherland, and Caithness, the archbishop of St Andrews, the bishops of Aberdeen, Moray, and Ross. He found Mary at Vitri in Champagne on the 15th of April 1561, and earnestly recommended to her care and protection the interests of the tottering church: he appears at the same time to have recommended himself very effectually to her good graces. She did not however adopt his desperate scheme of landing at Aberdeen, and endeavouring to raise an army for the purpose of restoring the catholic faith. He attended the queen on her return to Scotland, where she landed on the 21st of August. On the 14th of January 1564 he was admitted an ordinary judge of the court of session. If we may rely on the authority of the tract already quoted, he became president of that court, but this statement is not supported by the records: in the absence of the president, he may occasionally have filled his chair, and this is perhaps the only charitable construction which such an averment will easily admit. The queen likewise nominated him a member of the privy council, and bestowed upon him the abbacy ofLindores, which he was allowed to hold incommendam. The bishopric of Ross becoming vacant by the death of Henry Sinclair on the 2d of January 1565, she secured to him this higher preferment, and the necessary bulls were procured from the pope.

In the year 1566 the queen issued, under the great seal, a commission to certain noblemen, prelates, and lawyers, granting to them, or any six of their number, full power and authority to revise and publish the laws of the realm. They were to commence with the books called Regiam Majestatem and (juoniam Attachiamenta, and were to descend according to the order of chronology; but the only apparent fruit of their labours was a publication of the acts of parliament, from the reign of James the First. These were printed under the superintendence of the learned civilian, Dr Henryson, one of the commissioners; and in his preface he has particularly commended “ane Reuerend Father in God, Johne Bischop of Ros, Lord of our Soueranis Secreit Counsall, and of hir College of Justice, for his suggestioun to our Sonerane of this notabili purpose, cirnistfull performing of the said commissioun, and cure in conuening of my Lordis Commissaris his colligis, and liberalitie in the furthsetting of this imprenting.”^[8. The Actis and Constitutiounis of the Realme of Scotland. Edinb. 1566, fol.—In 1567 the bishops of Aberdeen and Ross acted as curators of the younger children of George fourth earl of Huntley, when they concurred in the proceedings for obtaining a reversal of their father s attainder. (Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 572.) ]

To the fortunes of the queen Lesley adhered with unshaken fidelity; and as her career was marked by many actions which set virtue and decency at defiance, his employment as a privy counsellor could not always be very suitable to his character as a churchman. He is supposed to have been the individual who suggested an expedient for granting to the earl of Bothwell an indirect pardon for the murder of the king;^[9. Buchanani Rerum Scoticarum Historia, lib. xviii. p. 356. edit. Ruddiman. ] a crime to which there is the strongest moral evidence that the queen was an accessory, before as well as after the fact. On the 24th of April 1567 the carl seized her person, and conducted her as a prisoner to the castle of Dunbar. This act of apparent violence, which at first seemed to be so unnecessary, had evidently been devised with her entire approbation. 1he ultimate object of such an expedient did not long remain doubtful: in the course of a few days, she granted him a pardon for this treasonable act, and for all other crimes with which he could be charged. By a general clause, inserted in the common form, she pardoned the murder of her own husband, and yet avoided the scandal of mentioning it in direct terms. She soon afterwards created her paramour duke of Orkney; and having hastily procured a divorce from his wife, his infamous nuptials with the queen were celebrated on the 15th of May, about three months after he had assassinated her former husband. The measure of her guilt and folly was now full. She was committed to custody in the castle of Lochleven on the 15th of June, and was finally divested of the royal authority. On the 2d of May 1568 she escaped from her prison, and soon afterwards found herself at the head of a considerable army. The bishop of Ross had retired to his diocese, and, according to his own account, was there employing his time in contemplation and study, and in giving counsel to friends and others committed to his charge, when the queen sent him a message requiring his immediate attendance at Hamilton. In company with certain noblemen, whose names he does not mention, he accordingly hastened to obey this summons; but before his arrival her forces had been completely dispersed at the battle of Langside, and she had found it necessary to consult her safety by proceeding towards the borders of the two kingdoms. In an evil hour, she entered the English territory; for she speedily discovered that she had reposed her confidence in a cruel and unrelenting rival, whom neither the common ties of blood, nor the sympathy due from one sovereign princess to another who had fallen from, her high estate, had any tendency to move with feelings of generosity or even of compassion.

Tàĵ tyįíva; 'bιι<pθο1Z Gvr∣ r rωv, οσοιaw áAavsí, μονα^ί«.. .

Mary again required the services of the bishop, and in the month of September he waited upon her at Bolton castle. Lesley acted as one of her commissioners during the conferences which opened at York on the 4th of October, and in the course of the ensuing month were continued at Westminster. After many debates, which were very ably maintained on both sides, this commission terminated without any immediate result. In February 1569 he proceeded to Tutbury castle, where the queen was detained under the custody of the earl of Shrewsbury; but on some suspicion of having concerted a plan to effect her escape, both he and Lord Boyd were soon afterwards retained in ward at Burton upon Trent, and were not released till after an interval of nearly three months. The bishop was now employed in the capacity of an ambassador to the queen of England, and he acquitted himself with great zeal and ability, but not with corresponding success. He was instructed “to sue earnestly that the queen his mistres might be put to libertie, and restored to her crowne and realme; and to that effect to make such reasonable offers to the queen of .England, as might fully satisfie her for anic speciali debate or contraversie that had hapned betwixt their majesties, touchinge the title of the crowne of England, and to assure that shee would alsoe shew her clemencie toward her subiects ιi in Scotland whoe had offended her.” His instructions embraced other particulars; and he was specially enjoined to acquaint the French and Spanish ambassadors with his proceedings, and to ask their advice in all matters connected with his mission. In the mean time, his pecuniary resources were somewhat scanty and precarious. A messenger brought me advertisement, he informs us, that the earl of Moray “had taken my house of Rosse from my servants, and medled with my whole [7:13:236]benefices, and all thār I had in Scotland, and had sayd to my freinds that he would cause me to leave my ambassade for povertie; which he intended should take effect, for he putt Androwe Monrowe his servaunt in my house at Rosse, whoe had spoiled it before, and slaine some of my servaunts in it, since my cominge into England, albeit it was recovered shortely by my friends in my absence from him at that time: but nowe he hath withholden the same, and taken up my whole fruicts continually since that time. And farther the erle would not suffer anic of my friends or merchants to make me anic furnyshinge; and he did well forsee that the queen my mistres might not support her owne necessitie, nor yet my chargs, at that time a great strayte; for he toke up her whole rents in Scotland, and the prince of Condies armie was licinge then at Poicters and Toures, where the moste parte of her dowrie in Fraunce consists, and by that meanes shee could gett none of it, soe that truely wee were driven to a great strayte.” In the midst of these perplexities, he applied to the French ambassador, who was unable to afford him any relief. Mary then wrote to the duke of Alva; and, on his responsibility, the Spanish ambassador furnished him with a thousand crowns, one portion of which he remitted to the queen, another to the garrison of Dunbarton castle, and the residue he retained for the expenses of the embassy; nor did he obtain any further supply during his residence at the court of England.

The scheme of a marriage between Mary and the duke of Norfolk involved many of their adherents in danger and difficulties. The duke was himself committed to the Tower, and several other men of rank were detained in custody. Lesley was repeatedly examined before the English queen and council, and was confronted with the earl of Leicester, who had likewise been implicated in the same transaction. The earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland had recourse to arms, but were not long able to keep the field: a force having been sent against them, they suddenly retired into Scotland, in the month of December 1569. The former of these noblemen having entered Liddaldale, was seized by a band of freebooters, and delivered into the hands of the earl of Moray, who detained him as a prisoner in Lochleven castle. A short time before his assassination, the regent intimated to the ministers of Elizabeth that the earl of Northumberland, and other Englishmen then in Scotland, had mentioned the bishop of Ross as having been cognizant of their designs, and having encouraged them by the promise of obtaining money from foreign princes. In consequence of this information, he was placed under arrest, and was detained in custody for six weeks before he was subjected to any examination. In March 1570 he was brought before the council at Hampton Court, and confidently denied the charge; but what is directly denied in the account of his Negotiations, is virtually admitted in the narrative of his life. He did not recover his liberty till after a further detention of two months, and he was speedily involved in fresh troubles. Ridolfi, a papal emissary, was employed in conducting certain negociations between the Scotish queen, the duke of Norfolk, and the duke of Alva. At Brussels he had entrusted Charles Baily, a Flemish servant of the queen’s, with a packet of letters addressed to Mary herself, to Norfolk, Lesley, the Spanish ambassador, and Lord Lumley. Instead of obeying the bishop’s injunctions, by leaving the packet with the captain of Calais, this messenger retained it in his own possession; and having been searched at Dover, all his papers and books were seized, and he was himself committed to the Marshelsea. Among the books were some copies of the bishop’s defence of Mary’s honour, and her right of succession to the crown of England. By means of Lord Cobham, warden of the Cinque Ports,Ιιe had sufficient influence and dexterity to obtain possession of the most material letters, and having “others made to their quantitie and similitude,” these were transmitted to the council. Of this substitution he contrived to make the prisoner duly aware, in order to allay his fears, and to prevent him from making any dangerous disclosures; for his alarm had been so great that he plainly declared he was the bearer of letters which would cause himself and many others to be hanged. Being now recovered from his agitation, he refused to divulge any material fact on his first examination; but on being sent to the Tower, and placed upon the rack, he avoided the torture by a full confession of his transactions with Ridolfi, and by a statement of the letters having been conveyed to the bishop of Ross. Of this confession the bishop obtained secret intelligence, and he lost no time in preparing himself against its consequences. Only one individual, John Cuthbert, his chief secretary, was acquainted with his ciphers and secret writings: he was immediately sent to a place of safety, and after being concealed four months in London, was secretly conveyed to France. The ambassador took care that no dangerous papers should be found in the search which he now anticipated. In the mean time, his labours, anxieties, and disappointments had severely affected his health, though for the last thirty years he had not been visited with any sickness. For nearly three months he was afflicted with a fever or ague, and was attended by two of the best physicians in London. On the 13th of May 1571, while his malady was still unabated, four members of the council, the earl of Sussex, Lord Burleigh, Sir Walter Mildmay, and Sir Ralph Sadler, came to his residence, and began to interrogate him respecting the facts disclosed by the intercepted messenger. He averred that he was accountable to his royal mistress, and would not admit any other responsibility. They did not fail to enquire for Cuthbert, but found that he could not be traced. They then removed all his servants, except two who were left to attend him during his illness; and two gentlemen of good credit, named Shipworth and Kingsmill, were appointed to remain with their own servants in charge of the ambassador and his house. His papers were carefully examined, and his study was locked and sealed. On the following day, afflicted as he was, he was conveyed in a chariot of the queen’s to Ely House in Holburn, and was there committed to the keeping of the two gentlemen already mentioned, and of the bishop of Ely’s own retinue. When his health was somewhat restored, he was on five different occasions examined before the privy council. The key of his study was at length restored to him; and on the 17th of August he was commanded to accompany the bishop to the country, being permitted to retain five of his own servants, who were to attend their master wherever the English prelate should travel or reside.

The duke of Norfolk, after having been set at liberty, was a second time committed to the Tower; and the investigation of his alleged acts of treason led to further discoveries respecting the bishop of Ross’s participation in his designs. An order was despatched to the Isle of Ely, directing Bishop Cox to send his prisoner to London. There he accordingly arrived on the 19th of October, and was first detained in the house of the lord mayor. Several members of the council, the earl of Bedford, the lord admiral, Lord Burleigh, Sir Francis Knowles, and Sir Thomas Smith, accompanied by the attorney and solicitor general, came to interrogate him on the twenty-fourth of that month, and treated him with the utmost harshness, threatening him with the rack and the gallows. He pleaded the privileges of an ambassador, and, producing the queen of England’s safeconduct, appealed to his royal mistress as the only competent judge of his conduct dur [7:13:237]ing his embassy. He was nevertheless sent to the Tower, where he appears to have been treated with great and unnecessary rigour. “At my entry into the Towre,” he states, “ I was received by the leivetenant, and placed in a prison called the bloudie towre, a very evill ayred and infected house (where noe man of honest callinge had bin kepid manic yeres before) with close windowes and dores with manie locks and bolts, which was torment sufficient enough for any livinge man that had bin all his daies at libertie, with a cockshott, as they call it, sett up without, right against my windowe, to keepe all light and sight from me. And at my first entres I was searched in all parts, and such paper and inke, as was in my companie, taken from me, which was another greife. And in this manner I was straytly and closely kept, and noe man had recourse unto me, butonely the leivetenant himselfe, dur-inge the whole time I was a prisoner.” Of his subsequent treatment, of his different examinations, and of the various attempts to draw from him information which might either criminate himself or others, he has given a circumstantial and interesting detail in his Negotiations.

Dr Wilson, master of the requests, was sent to him for the purpose of inducing him to become a witness against the duke of Norfolk, and to deliver certain letters which he had himself received from Ridolfi and others, and which were to be produced in evidence at the trial; but the bishop again relied upon his character as an ambassador, and, according to his own statement, refused either to appear as a witness, or in any other way to furnish information which might tend to the prejudice of any individual. This unfortunate nobleman was convicted of high treason on the 16th of January, and was brought to the scaffold on the 2d of June, 1572. The rules of evidence were at that period little understood, and less regarded, nor was it necessary to produce the witnesses in court, provided there was any other method of rendering their depositions available: previous answers to interrogatories, the declarations or admissions of the prisoner or other individuals, were all received as the most legitimate evidence; and in fact the trial of the duke of Norfolk before his peers, was entirely conducted without the aid of parole testimony. The bishop of Ross, whose name was perpetually mentioned in the course of the proceedings, may be considered as the principal witness against him; for of all the most material charges the proof seems in a great measure to have rested on what are described as the bishop’s confessions, that is, the answers emitted during his repeated examinations after he had himself been taken into custody.^[10. Brown’s Tryal of Thomas Duke of Norfolk by his Peers. Lond. 1709, 8vo. ] On perceiving that all their designs were discovered, Lesley had become more communicative, and had thus contributed to the ruin of a man whom he had so much contributed to entangle in dangerous schemes of ambition.

While he was beset with such perils in England, the regent sent Nicholas Elphinstone with a demand that he should be conveyed to Scotland; a demand which he considered as a sufficient indication of the treatment that awaited him in his native country. But the duke of Montmorency having arrived from France on a special mission, brought instructions from the king to intercede for bis release; and this application was so far successful as to procure his removal to Farnham castle, the scat of the bishop of Winchester. The lieutenant of the Tower charged for his maintenance the sum of two hundred pounds, which was advanced by the French ambassador, and repaid by Mary: he likewise retained as a lawful perquisite the whole of the furniture and silver plate which the prisoner had brought for his own use; and finally, says Lesley, “the gentleman-porter of the Tower retained my satin gown as due to him, because it was my uppermost cloth when I entred.” Being only permitted to take one attendant, he selected Thomas Lesley, a secretary who had resided with him during his captivity, and had himself been subjected to a short imprisonment. In the castle of this prelate, Dr Horne, he has stated, “1 remained the space of a year and three moneths, and all that time was very straitly keept, and two gentlemen did continually wait upon me night and day, and had no liberty to speake to any other his servants but in their presence, nor yet with any other but in my Lord of Winchesters own presence; yet in all other things I was very honourably and friendly used by him.”

During his confinement in the Tower, he had sought for consolation in study and meditation. There he had composed his Pioe Consolationes ; and he was now permitted to transmit them to the queen, who needed consolation still more than her ambassador. From this pious treatise she derived so much gratification, that she devoted some of her prison hours to the task of transfusing a portion of it into French verse. He was induced to prepare a similar work, Animi tranquilli Munimentum, which he sent to her on the 1st of October 1573, and had again the satisfaction of finding that his labours were duly appreciated. In the mean time, he was not free from the apprehension of personal danger; the earl of Morton having twice sent a diplomatic agent, Captain Cockburn, for the purpose of renewing the demand for the delivery of his person. Having some reliance upon his own eloquence, he now addressed to Elizabeth a Latin oration for the recovery of his liberty; and, whatever might be the effect of his classical pleading, he was soon afterwards released from his tedious confinement. The bishop of Winchester, on receiving the necessary order, conducted him to London on the 11th of November. On the sixteenth, he was brought before the council, at the house of the lord treasurer, and was informed that he would be permitted to proceed either to Scotland or France. That Lesley had been deeply implicated in transactions which would justly have exposed a subject to punishment, there seems little or no reason to dispute: the state-papers, as well as the histories of that period, exhibit him in the light of a subtle, restless, and dangerous plotter, who resorted to a great variety of expedients for promoting the interest of the unfortunate queen. The English statesmen seem to have been much inclined to treat him as they ultimately treated Mary herself; and in 1571 they had submitted his case to the opinion of five learned civilians, Lewis, Dale, Drury, Aubrey, and Jones.^[11. Camdeni Annales, vol. ii. p. 237. edit· Hearnii. ] In answer to one of the questions propounded, they declared, that, according to the law of nations, as well as the civil law, an ambassador who excites rebellion against the sovereign to whom he is sent, forfeits all his privileges, and maybe subjected to punishment. But among the more civilized nations it has very generally been regarded as the safest maxim, rather to spare a delinquent than not to spare an ambassador;^[12. ‘¶Levius eorum peccatum fore,” says Cicero, “si homini scelerato pepercissent, quam si legato non pepercissent.” ] and although he was thus subjected to a long and arbitrary imprisonment, the ministers of Elizabeth had never ventured to bring him to a formal trial.^[13. Grotius de Jure Belli ac Pacis, lib. ii. cap. xviii. § iv. 5. Bynkershoek de Foro Legatorum, cap. xviii. p. 533. Wicquefort, l’Ainbassadeur et ses Fonctions, part. i. p. 559. All these writers refer to the case of Lesley, but Grotius in a more cursory manner, in one of his notes. ]
[7:13:238]

In the month of January 1574 he landed in France, and there he remained till the following year, when Mary thought it expedient to send him on a mission to Rome. He experienced a very gracious reception from Gregory the Thirteenth, who in a great measure defrayed his expenses during the three years of his residence in that holy city. Besides the release of the queen from captivity, her ambassador’s instructions related to various other matters, connected with her joint interest and that of the popish faith. The great object to be attained was her restoration to the throne; and with the view of removing some of the obstacles, she was willing to admit her son to a participation of the royal dignity; but in order to render him worthy of being thus associated, some scheme was to be devised for conveying him to a catholic country, and uniting him in marriage either with a daughter of the emperor of Germany or the king of Spain.

Lesley was more usefully employed in preparing for the press his general history of Scotland, which was published at Rome in the year 1578. It is dedicated to the pope, and the epistle dedicatory is followed by an address to Cardinal Cajetano, described as protector of the Scotish nation. Among the commendatory verses inserted in the volume, we find the contributions of Muretus, Ninian Winzet, and Alexander Seton, afterwards earl of Dunfermline, and chancellor of Scotland.^[14. An epigram in commendation of Lesley occurs among the poems of Joannes Gesseus, in the Delitiae Poetarum Gallorum, torn· i. p. 934. ] These elegant studies of the author were speedily interrupted by a new mission. Hopes were now entertained that the ancient faith might be restored in Scotland by the power and influence of the earl of Athole; and with the view of watching any favourable change of affairs, the pope directed the bishop of Ross to proceed towards the coast of France adjacent to Britain. His holiness having appointed him to supply the place of a nuncio who had recently died at the imperial court, Lesley travelled through Germany, and remained for some time at Prague, where Maximilian was then residing. His instructions from Mary partly related to the Scotish monasteries founded in Germany; some of which having been seized by heretics and other evil disposed persons, he exerted his influence to procure their restoration to the Scotish monks. Monastic institutions have often been the strongholds of political, as well as moral misrule; nor is it difficult to discern the spirit which dictated this ambassador’s instructions. He visited the duke of Bavaria, and other catholic princes of the empire, and was every where well received till he arrived at Falsburg, a town near Strasburg, where he was seized by some officers with a guard of four hundred men, under the command of a protestant nobleman, George Cassimir of Littelsteyn. For the space of nearly two months, he was detained in the castle of Falsburg; but they at length discovered their mistake in supposing him to be the archbishop of Rossana, a papal legate; and on paying a considerable sum of money, he was permitted to prosecute his journey. Passing through Lorraine, he arrived in France, and had there the mortification to receive intelligence of the earl of Athole’s sudden death, which took place on the 24th of April 1579. It was some consolation that the Cardinal de Bourbon, archbishop of Rouen, soon afterwards appointed him suffragan and vicar general of that diocese. In this station he continued for the space of fourteen years. The kingdom was then devastated by civil war, and he naturally adhered to the party of the leaguers, who, with the view of excluding Henry of Navarre, proclaimed the old cardinal king in the year 1589. While visiting this diocese in the course of the following year, Lesley was intercepted and cast into prison; and in order to pay a ransom of nearly three thousand pistoles, he was under the necessity of selling his furniture and other goods. The city of Rouen was invested in 1591, and during the siege he is said to have exerted himself with great perseverance and resolution in encouraging the governor, officers, and citizens. As a reward of his services, the duke of Mayenne recommended him to Clement the Eighth as well qualified to fill the vacant bishopric of Constance in Normandy. The pope issued the necessary bulls, accompanied with an unavailing licence to retain the see of Ross till he should be put in possession of his new diocese; and he was graciously pleased to remit the annats, or first fruits, and other payments which usually attend a bishop’s promotion. As he could not safely present himself at his episcopal seat, the ceremony of his admission was in the year 1594 performed in the metropolitan church of Rouen.

But from this preferment he appears to have derived no advantage; and the unhappy situation of public affairs in France induced him to seek another place of refuge. Directing his course towards Flanders, he reached Chateau d’Aussy in the province of Artois, in the month of March, and afterwards proceeded to Brussels, where he experienced a friendly reception from the archduke Ernest, governor of the Netherlands. Of the history of Scotland, he had at an earlier period transmitted a copy to his catholic majesty, who testified its gracious reception by a letter, written in Latin, and bearing the royal signature. On this occasion he had promised to be mindful of the bishop’s private affairs. On the day before her execution, Mary had addressed to Philip a letter in which she recommended her son to his special protection; and she likewise requested him to bear in remembrance the faithful services which had been rendered to her by the bishop of Ross. He directed the prinće of Parma, then governor of the Netherlands, to bestow upon him the first bishopric or other prelacy that should become vacant in these provinces, and in the mean time to provide for him a suitable maintenance. The prince had accordingly assigned to him a pension of fifty crowns a month, to be computed from the first of June 1587; and this pension still continued to be paid, though not with sufficient regularity to prevent him from being exposed to occasional difficulties. The archbishopric of Mechlin having become vacant, the archduke and the council of state recommended him to Philip for this high preferment; but the design seems to have been frustrated, partly by the unexpected demise of Ernest, who, almost in the article of death, signified to the council his wish that Lesley’s suit should not be neglected. He was encouraged by the nobility and counsellors to await the arrival of the new governor, Cardinal Albert, another archduke of Austria, brother to the deceased; and in order to smooth the path of preferment, he prepared a congratulation, which was not however published till after the death of the author. Part of the summer of 1595 he spent at Spa for the benefit of his declining health, and, as we are informed, “not without great inconvenience, and even the danger of his life, by the incursions of the hereticks and the rebels of Holland; who crowding in those parts, robbed him of all his goods, and endeavoured to seize his person, that they might carry it off.” But all his personal dangers, as well as his schemes of ambition, were terminated at Brussels on the 31st of May 1596, when he died in the sixty-ninth year of his age.^[15. Dodd has recorded his pious benefactions to the church. “He laid the foundation of three colleges for the education of cler gymen, to be sent upon the mission, after the example of Dr Allen, as I find by letters between them upon that subject. Having compleated the establishment of a college for his countrymen in Paris, he gave a beginning to another at Rome, with a subsistence for about ten students; where the Jesuits stept in to be managers. This zealous bishop died in the year 1596, leaving behind him a sum of money towards the foundation of a third college, also for the clergy. The design could not be brought to bear till 16∏9, when a small community was set up at Antwerp, whereof the Jesuits were made superiors. But before matters could be entirely compleated, it was removed to Doway an. 1612, and governed by Walloon Jesuits, till one Curie (son to Mr Curie, formerly secretary to Mary queen of Scots) becoming a Jesuit, and bringing with him an addition of 5000 florins to the original stock, he was made rector of the college about 1620. Since that time the superior has been a Scotch Jesuit. Very few clergymen were educated there afterwards, and of latter years none at all; the old fund, as may be supposed, being swallowed up by the latter addition.” (Church History of England, from the year 1500 to the year 1688, vol. ii. p. 42. Brussels, 1737-42, 3 vols. fol.) ]
[7:13:239]

Bishop Lesley was evidently a man of very superior talents for literature as well as business. His studies and pursuits had been those of a lawyer and statesman, rather than a theologian; and his intellect had been much exercised and whetted by a long course of diplomatic services, of a peculiarly delicate and dangerous nature. With the accomplishments of an elegant scholar, he united the dexterity of a man of the world. He is the author of various works, and several of these must still be considered as valuable. FIis defence of Queen Mary’s honour is written with no small acuteness and address: the task which he had undertaken was sufficiently formidable; if the queen was not guilty of adultery and murder, her conduct had at least exhibited the strongest indications of guilt; but this zealous and able champion shrinks from no difficulties, and is undismayed by the most prominent obstacles. His negociations contain some characteristic details, and furnish some curious materials for history. But the most conspicuous of his works is his Latin history of Scotland, which is written with a very considerable degree of elegance, and, in the more recent portion of it, supplies much important information. The work is divided into ten books; of which the first seven, ending with the reign of James the First, comprehend little more than an abridgement of Boyce. As he descends to his own times, he becomes much more copious and interesting. With the transactions of Mary’s reign, which he has not however prosecuted beyond the year 1562, he had peculiar opportunities of becoming familiarly acquainted; and it is useful, as well as interesting, to compare the statements and reflections of Lesley and Buchanan, the most distinguished adherents of the popish and protestant parties.

Of the works of Lesley we subjoin a catalogue, accompanied with a few notices, chiefly bibliographical.

1. A Defence of the Honour of the right highe, mightye, and noble Princesse Marie, Queene of Scotlande, and Dowager of France; with a Declaration aswell of her Right, Title, and Intereste to the Succssioun of the Crowne of Englande, as that the Regimente of Women ys conformable to the Lawe of God and Nature. Imprinted at London in Flete Strete at the signe of Iustice Royall against the Blacke Bell by Eusebius Dicaeophihis, anno Dom. 1569, 8vo. A Treatise concerning the Defence of the Honovr, &c. Made by Morgan Philippes, Bachelar ofDi-uinitie, an. 1570. Leodii, apud Gualterum Morberium, 1571,8vo. Here the tract relating to the succession bears the following title: “A Treatise tovching the Right, Title, and Interest of the mightic and noble Princesse Marie, Queene of Scotland, to the Succession of the Croune of England. Made by Morgan Philippes, Bachelar of Diuini-tie, assisted with the aduise of Antonie Broune, Knight, one of the Iustices of the Common Place. An. 1567.” This treatise he afterwards translated into Latin, as well as French, and likewise published the original in a separate form, “De Titulo et Jure serenissimae Principis Mariae Scotorum Reginae, quo Regni Angliae Successionem sibi juste vendicat, Libellus,” &c. Rhemis, 1580, 4to∙ “ A Treatise towelling the Right, Title, and Interest,” &c. An.

1584, 8vo. “Du Droict et Tiltre de la serenissime Princesse, Marie Royne d’Escosse, et de tres illustre Prince Iacqnes VI. Roy d’Escosse son fils, à la Succession du Royaume d’Angleterre: avec la Genealogie des Roys d’Angleterre ayans regne depuis cinq cens ans. Premièrement composé en Latin et Anglois, par R. P. en Dieu Μ. Iean de Lesselie, Euesque de Rosse, Escossois, lors qu’il estoit Ambassadeur en Angleterre pour sa Majesté, et nouuelle-ment mis en François par le mesme Autheur.” Rouen, 1587, 8vo. The same work was also translated into Spanish, under the title of “Declaracion del Titulo y Derecho que la serenissima Princesa Doña Maria Reina de Escosia tiene a la Sucesion de Inglaterra·”^[16. Antonii Bibliotheca Hispana, tom. ii. p. 354. ] The defence of the queen’s honour, from the edition of 1571, is reprinted in Anderson’s Collections, vol. i∙ and the Latin version of the tract on the right of succession in those of Jebb, “De Vita et Rebus gestis Mariae Scotorum Reginae Autores sedecim,” tom. i. Lond∙ 1725, 2 tom. fol. Of his tract on female government he also published a Latin translation. “De illustrium Foeminarum in Repub. administranda, ac ferendis Legibus, Authoritate, Libellus,” &c. Rhemis, 1580, 4to. This tract was occasioned by Knox’s “First Blast of the Trumpet against the monstrvovs Regiment of Women,” published in 1558. His vindication of the queen’s right of succession was written in answer to a book published in 1560 by John Hales, clerk of the hanaper. Lesley writes in the character of an Englishman, and therefore borrows the name of Morgan Philips, who was a popish priest of Douay∙ In order to maintain his assumed character with more propriety, he submitted the manuscript to his friend and physician Dr Good, “that he might turn into English any Scottish words in it.”^[17. Anderson’s pref, to Lesley’s Defence, p. xi. ]

2. Joannis Leslaei Scoti, Episcopi Rossen, pro Libertate impetranda, Oratio, ad serenissimam Elizabethan! Angliae Reginam. Parisiis, 1574, 8vo. This oration is reprinted in Nichols’s “Progresses of Queen Elizabeth,” vol. iii.

3. Joannis Leslaei Scoti, Episcopi Rossen, libri duo: quorum uno, Piae afflicti Animi Consolationes, divinaque Remedia; altero, Animi tranquilli Munimentum et Conservatio, continentur. Ad serenissiman Principem D. Mariam Scotorum Reginam. His adjecimus ejusdem Principis Epistolam ad Rossensem Episcopum, et Versus item Gallicos Latino carmine translatos, pias etiam aliquot Preces, &c. Parisiis, 1574, 8vo.

4. De Origine, Moribus, et Rebus gestis Scotorum libri decem: e quibus septem veterum Scotorum res in primis memorabiles contractius, reliqui vero tres posteriorum regum ad nostra tempora historiam, quae hucusque desiderabatur, fusius explicant. Accessit nova et accurata Regionum et Insularum Scotiae, cum vera ejusdem tabula topo-graphica, Descriptio. Authore Joanne Leslaeo, Scoto, Episcopo Rossensi∙ Romae, 1578, 4to. Nunc denuo recus. anno Domini 1675, 4to. This latter edition, which is said to have been printed in London, contains a dedication to the earl of Rothes, subscribed by a George Lesley. That portion of the history which relates to the reign of Mary, is inserted in the collection of Dr Jebb, tom. ι

ό. Congratulatio serenissimo Principi et illustrissimo Cardinali Alberto Archiduci Austriae, &c. de fausto ac felici [7:13:240]ejus Adventu ad Regimen Provinciarum Inferioris Germaniae. Per R. in Christo P. Joan. Leslaeum, Episcopum Rossensem, Scotum. Subjicitur series vitae suae. Bruxel∙ lae, 1596, 8vo. This little work is reprinted in Anderson’s Collections, vol. i. Of the account of the author’s life, a translation is inserted in vol. iii.

6. A Discourse conteyninge a perfect Accompt given to the moste vertuous and excellent Princesse, Marie Queene of Scots, and her Nobility, by John Lesley, Bishop of Rosse, Ambassador for her Highnes toward the Queene of England, of his whole Charge and Proceedings during the time of his Ambassage, from his entres in England in September 1568, to the 26th of March 1572. This account of the bishop’s negociations, which extends to 252 pages, was printed, for the first time, in Anderson’s Collections relating to the History of Mary Queen of Scotland, vol. iii. Edinb. & Lond. 1727-8, 4 vols. 4to. As the language was Anglicized by Dr Good, it may be presumed that Lesley intended the work for immediate publication.

7. The History of Scotland, from the death of King James I. in the year m cccc.xxxvi. to the year m.d.lxi. By John Lesley, Bishop of Ross. Edinburgh, 1830, 4to. This valuable relique was edited by Thomas Thomson, Esq. from a MS. belonging to the earl of Leven and Melville. Prefixed is a portrait of the author, copied from an old engraving, and representing him as a man of a dignified and sagacious aspect. Of his Scotish history the Latin is not a mere translation. “The readers of this volume,” as the editor has remarked, “who may take the trouble of comparing it with the Latin version, will readily perceive that the alterations made by the author on his own original sketch do not consist merely in correction and enlargement; but that, in numerous instances, he has been induced to suppress or generalize those more minute details and domestic occurrences which he may have found less susceptible of that classic attire in which he was naturally ambitious of exhibiting his historical work. In this respect, the present publication may be found to contribute some few particulars to the materials of our national history; but a still higher value will probably be attached to it as a specimen of pure and vigorous composition, in his native language, by one of the most able and accomplished Scotchmen of the sixteenth century.” (x.)