About the year 1556, Sir James Kirkcaldy closed his chequered career. The latter years of his life, those subsequent to his return from captivity, had been spent in retirement and comparative obscurity. After mentioning his liberation, and the amnesty which put an end to his exile from Scotland, the chronicles and letters of the period make no further reference to him; and it is only from an entry in a writ of Chancery that the approximate date of his death can be determined.

It was as Sir William Kirkcaldy of Grange that his son returned to his native land. The first incident in which he figures, though but of slight importance in itself, is too characteristic of his chivalrous nature and martial spirit to be omitted. It had chanced, some time previously, that in the course of one of those raids, which were of constant occurrence on the Border, John Kirkcaldy had been made prisoner, by a party of Englishmen, belonging to the garrison of Berwick, of which Lord Evers was governor at the time. According to the recognised custom of the age, the young Scotsman was kept in confinement until such time as his friends should pay the ransom demanded by his captors. But, from the account which he gave after his release, it appeared that he had been treated with undue harshness by Lord Evers during his enforced stay within the walls of the English fortress. John Kirkcaldy himself was not of sufficient rank and standing to demand satisfaction of the governor. His cousin, however, was a soldier whose reputation made it no disgrace for the bravest Englishman to break a lance with him. As his kinsman’s champion, the Laird of Grange sent a challenge to the Governor of Berwick to meet him in single combat. But he had not reckoned on the punctiliousness of the English lord. Evers pleaded no justification of his conduct, nor did he deny the Scotsmen’s right, according to the established laws of chivalry, to demand satisfaction; but he would not recognise the simple Scottish Baron as his equal, and consequently declined the encounter. To ignore the cartel altogether, would, however, have exposed the English to taunts too insulting to be borne with equanimity; and for the honour of his country and of his family, Lord Evers’s brother, Sir Ralph, gallantly made known his readiness to fight with the Laird of Grange ‘ane singular combatt upoun horsback with speares.’ To this he received the reply, that Sir William was ‘verrie weill content thairof, and to meitt him in ony place he pleised.’ It was accordingly arranged that the duel should take place at Halidon Hill, in presence of the two garrisons of Berwick and of Eyemouth, but that under pain of treason, no man should come within an arrow’s flight of the two champions. Each of them, however, was allowed to have an attendant to bear his spear. There were also to be two trumpeters, and two lords ‘to be judges to see the matter finished.’ On the appointed day, the two knights rode into the field. Sir Ralph Evers was accompanied by his brother, the Governor of Berwick, in whose cause he was about to fight, and by eleven other English knights. With Sir William Kirkcaldy, there were also twelve gentlemen, of whom one was Monsieur d’Oysel, the King of France’s lieutenant.

When the judges of the field examined the armour of the two champions, some difficulty arose by reason of Kirkcaldy’s better equipment. According to the English annalist Hollinshed, who is as scrupulous in mentioning the detail as the Scottish chronicler Pitscottie is careful to overlook it, they objected that ‘Grange was armed in a coat of plate, and a cuirass aloft upon it,’ whilst Evers ‘was clad onelie in a single coat of plate, without anie other pieces of armor for defense of his body.’ The English knight, however, declared himself satisfied; and the duel was proceeded with. The description given of it by the two writers who have thought it worthy of record, is very characteristic. It shows how national sympathies influence them, even in trifling matters; and may serve to convey some notion of the difficulty which there is in arriving at the truth with regard to more important events. Hollinshed is content with the statement that the combatants ‘ran together, and brake both their staves,’ and that ‘as it fortuned, Master Evers was hurt in the flank.’ Pitscottie has expanded this into a picturesque narrative. ‘When all things war put to ordour,’ he says, ‘and the championes horssed, and thair speares in thair handis, then the trumpetteris soundit, and the heraldis cryed, and the judges leitt thame goe, and they ran togidder verrie furiouslie on both sydis, bot the laird of Grange rane his adversar, the Inglisman, throw the shoulder blaid, and aff his hors, and was woundit deadlie, and in perrill of his lyff. Bot quhidder he died or leived I cannot tell; but the laird of Grange wan the victorie that day.’

In spite of the irregular and desultory fighting of which the meeting between Kirkcaldy and Evers was an incident, Scotland and England were not actually at war with each other. France, it is true, was using all its influence to create a diversion in its own favour by inducing the Queen-Regent to send a Scottish army across the Border; and, in anticipation of a conflict between the two nations, the restless and warlike Barons of the Marches were already making inroads into the country of the prospective enemy. But when Mary, after having assembled an army at Kelso, announced her intention of declaring war on England, a powerful party, with Chastelherault, Huntly, Cassilis, and Argyle at its head, obliged her to desist. With a view to checking the power of those noblemen, the Regent formed a plan for recalling the Earl of Lennox from his exile in England. This gave rise to negotiations, in which Kirkcaldy acted as agent, and of which a cessation of the Border warfare also appears to have been one of the objects. They were opened by the Bishop of Caithness, who, on the 10th of November 1557, wrote to Lord Wharton:—

Three days later, Kirkcaldy, in conformity with the instructions he had received, wrote the following request for a secret interview with Wharton:—

Wharton at once sent a reply. He readily consented to an interview with Kirkcaldy, and undertook to observe all the precautions suggested by his correspondent with a view to insuring the secrecy upon which so much stress was laid. His courteous note concluded with the expression of his satisfaction that the Laird of Grange continued his good mind to my Lady Margaret Lennox and her husband, and with the assurance that they should be informed of it. The meeting duly took place in the evening; and the following detailed account of what was discussed at it was drawn up by Lord Wharton next day, and forwarded to the Privy Council.

‘Pleaseth it your most honourable Lordships to be advertised that the 13th of this month William Kirkcaldy sent me a letter; and to the intent to know as I could his meaning or practice, I wrote answer as your Lordships may perceive by the copies of his letter and mine answer therein enclosed. The same night he was with me in my chamber; and first delivered a letter unto me from the Bishop of Caithness, copy whereof I send also with these unto your Lordships. He delivered a packet of letters endorsed to my Lady Margaret Lennox, her Grace, which I have sent with this post towards her and my Lord her husband, with a letter therein from Kirkcaldy to his Lordship. After this I had long talk with him that night, and questioned thoroughly that cause of my Lady Margaret and my Lord of Lennox—from whom the letters were sent, with whose advice, and who would be their friends in that realm, I accounting to him their enemies, which were great and many. His sayings, so near as I could, I gathered as followeth.

‘He saith that the Prior of St Andrews, who is accounted the wisest of the late King’s base sons, and one of the Council of Scotland, the Earl of Glencairn and the Bishop of Caithness, did agree to write the letters in the packet, and that the Dowager is of counsel and consenting therewith; and that she wrote her letters to Monsieur d’Oysel, to cause Kirkcaldy make devise to send the letters to me, that they might pass in haste; and that the Dowager’s letter did meet d’Oysel beside Dunbar, towards Edinburgh, the 13th of this month. D’Oysel returned[1] Kirkcaldy, upon the sight of the Dowager’s letter, with the packet forthwith, who saith to me, it is the Queen and d’Oysel’s device, and d’Oysel very earnest therewith, with many words that he hath given to Kirkcaldy of the great displeasure that the Queen and d’Oysel beareth, especially against the Duke of Chastelherault and the Earl of Huntly, and against others whom d’Oysel nameth the feeble and false noblemen of Scotland. Amongst others, he said when their army retired and their ordnance was to be carried on the water, d’Oysel sent to the Duke that he would see the ordnance returned over the water again and that it might be put in safety. The messenger said to the Duke that d’Oysel was angry with their retire and breach of their promise, and also not regarding the surety of their ordnance. The Duke’s answer was, “Let Monsieur d’Oysel gang by his mind, an he will; for as we, the noblemen of Scotland, have determined and written to the Queen, so will we do, and let him look to his own charge.” The messenger told the Duke’s words to d’Oysel, and so was d’Oysel left. Upon which words, and their manner of dealing, d’Oysel will seek their displeasure by all the ways and means he can, and so will the Dowager, as Kirkcaldy saith.

‘In talks with him, I said it was a great matter to enterprise, to bring into that realm my Lady Margaret Lennox and my Lord her husband, and that power of noblemen and of others, with houses of strength must be provided in that realm, and to be in surety thereof before their coming, for I thought they were personages which would not be sent forth of this realm into Scotland, to live in danger of their enemies, now being great. He said, the coming of my Lady to the Dowager, with their friends there, would order that matter; and said, they might first have the Castle of Tantallon, which is in the keeping of the Lord of Craigmillar, and at the Dowager’s order. He speaketh liberally, that they would have many friends, and also have on their side the authority that now is. Their friends earnestly desire the hasty sending of Nesbit, my Lord of Lennox’s servant. This matter, as I think in my poor opinion, may be wrought for my Lady Margaret and my Lord of Lennox’s purposes, and to continue the displeasure now standing amongst the greatest of that realm.

‘After this, Kirkcaldy said, that he marvelled that the communication between Sir James Crofts and him, for a truce of certain days to have been made, was not agreed unto; and said the same matter was one of the occasions of his coming to me, to declare his doings therein; whom I answered that the same was not like to take effect by his doings for Scotland, for, they made sundry meetings and countenances for truce, and when their army was ready, did let the matter fall, which gave occasion to be thought in this realm not well done. And after, he revived again that communication, which, without others calling for, and personages for that realm to have been appointed for that purpose, he ought to think the same could not take effect. After this, he asked me, if it could not be brought to a truce yet. I said I had no commission, nor anything to say therein; what he would say, I would hear it. And then he desired mine advice. I told him what I had seen—that Scotland, in war, had sent messages to officers or to noblemen, and thereupon meetings of commissioners did follow, for abstinence, which was had, and after, peace. And I making occasion of other communications, he came to this again, and desired that a herald should be sent to my Lord of Northumberland, Lord Warden, and to me, having some prisoners taken by the garrison here, that gentlemen might be appointed, and treat for the order of prisoners of both realms, as before they did; and at that meeting, the former sayings of Sir James Crofts and him to be spoken of, for a truce for certain days, and to be remembered by the Scots. I asked whom he thought should be appointed (if meeting were had). He said, the Lord Seaton, Captain Sarlabois—to be one because he was one before—the Laird of Craigmillar, and the young Laird of Lethington; or two of them. These are the Dowager’s and great with her. I told him that I could make him no answer; but said, if it were his mind, I would make advertisements of his sayings, which he desired that I would, to my Lords of the King and Queen’s Majesty’s most Honourable Privy Council. He said that Scotland would agree to an abstinence for twenty days or for three months; but, always they mind to have a licence for an especial man to pass through this realm with the Dowager’s letters to the French King for knowledge of his further pleasure to their treaties and doings. And I asking him what news he had, and reasoning of the present state and devices for the order of their realm, he said, that, on Sunday last, the 7th of November, there arrived a ship at Leith, with letters and money from the French King. He said he read a letter written from the said King to d’Oysel, wherein was that he should have all his desires of men and money; and that a letter was written from Bettancourt, Master of the Dowager’s household (who passed from the Dowager to the French King for an aid in summer last) that he with four ensigns and twelve hundred footmen, and two hundred horsemen, were dispatched to come into Scotland by the West Seas, whom continually they look for there. Captain Crayer and the Englishmen in France are appointed to serve in Scotland as he saith. He said that it was written that the French King was in the field with a great army, and intended to besiege St Quentin. He further said that they have three hundred in garrison in Kelso, and that they have in Eyemouth and Ayton, nine hundred, besides three hundred Scots in garrison, and that they mind, having money now come (whereof was great want), to make a more furniture of five hundred Scotts horsemen, himself, the Laird of Ormistone, James Stuart, one Livingstone, and a fifth, whom he could not name, to be their Captains. I told him these were many hundreds he spoke of, if all might be well paid; and said that his news and these would give occasion to think that this realm should not treat of abstinence nor peace. He answered that Monsieur d’Oysel thought the peace would be made between the King’s Highness and the French King, and doubteth nothing thereof, except the Duke of Savoy; and therefore he would that peace should be treated upon here.

‘He saith that they will have a parliament at Saint Andrew’s day to appoint the marriage of the Queen, which, he saith, will be solemnised after Christmas, or at Easter, and not to fail. He saith the going of Monsieur d’Oysel to Edinburgh at this time, is for the order of the money come, which the Dowager and d’Oysel will keep secret so much as they can, because the Scotts will be greedy thereof.’

On this incident, which does not appear to have led to any definite results, Tytler has founded a charge of gross inconsistency against Sir William Kirkcaldy. Even the fragment of Wharton’s report quoted by him contains nothing that can be looked upon as supporting the accusation. An examination of all the documents bearing on the case wholly refutes it. It makes it clear that the main object of the conference was the recall of the Earl of Lennox—a scheme to which Kirkcaldy, who, in his own words, had ‘always been willing to do pleasure and service’ to the Earl and his wife, might honourably lend himself. With regard to the informal conversation on the subject of a truce, it was, obviously, nothing more than the revival of a subject which had already been openly discussed with Crofts; and whatever construction may be given to it, there is manifest unfairness in distorting it into the abandonment, on Kirkcaldy’s part, of the principles which he had formerly professed; on the contrary, if it can be held to prove anything, that can only be a wish for the establishment of more friendly relations with England. As to ‘inviting a French army into the country,’ there is nothing in Wharton’s report that justifies the assumption that Grange favoured such a measure. He referred to the expected arrival of troops, simply in answer to the question asked him, as to the latest news; and the fact of his communicating such details to an English agent might, with some plausibility, serve as an argument that he had but little sympathy with the Dowager’s French policy.