Kers.  Buccleuch had chosen, for his guardian, during his residence in England, Sir William Selby, master of the ordnance at Berwick, and accordingly gave himself into his hands.  Sir Robert Ker was about to do the same, when a pistol was discharged by one of his retinue, and the cry of treason was raised.  Had not the Earl of Home been present, with a party of Merse men, to preserve order, a dreadful tumult would probably have ensued.  As it was, the English commissioners returned in dismay to Berwick, much disposed to wreak their displeasure on Buccleuch; and he, on his side, mortally offended with Cessford, by whose means, as he conceived, he had been placed in circumstances of so much danger.  Sir Robert Ker, however, appeased all parties, by delivering himself up to ward in England; on which occasion, he magnanimously chose for his guardian Sir Robert Carey, deputy-warden of the east marches, notwithstanding various causes of animosity which existed betwixt them.  The hospitality of Carey equalled the generous confidence of Cessford, and a firm friendship was the consequence[159].

[Footnote 159:  Such traits of generosity illuminate the dark period of which we treat.  Carey’s conduct, on this occasion, almost atones for the cold and unfeeling policy with which he watched the closing moments of his benefactress, Elizabeth, impatient till remorse and sorrow should extort her last sigh, that he might lay the foundation of his future favour with her successor, by carrying him the first tidings of her death.—­Carey’s Memoirs, p. 172. et sequen.  It would appear that Sir Robert Ker was soon afterwards committed to the custody of the archbishop of York; for there is extant a letter from that prelate to the lord-treasurer, desiring instructions about the mode of keeping this noble hostage.  “I understand,” saith he, “that the gentleman is wise and valiant, but somewhat haughty here, and resolute.  I would pray your lordship, that I may have directions whether he may not go with his keeper in my company, to sermons; and whether he may not sometimes dine with the council, as the last hostages did; and, thirdly, whether he may sometimes be brought to sitting to the common-hall, where he may see how careful her majesty is that the poorest subject in her kingdom may have their right, and that her people seek remedy by law, and not by avenging themselves.  Perhaps it may do him good as long as he liveth.”—­Strype’s Annals, ad annum, 1597.  It would appear, from this letter, that the treatment of the hostages was liberal; though one can hardly suppress a smile at the zeal of the good bishop for the conversion of the Scottish chieftain to a more christian mode of thinking than was common among the borderers of that day.  The date is February 25. 1597, which is somewhat difficult to reconcile with those given by the Scottish historians—­Another letter follows, stating, that Sir Robert, having been used to open air, prayed for more liberty for his health’s sake, “offering his word, which it is said he doth chiefly regard, that he would be true prisoner.”—­Strype, Ibid.]