BOYS—much after the manner perhaps of the White Boys of
Ireland, in more recent times. They bound themselves by oath to consider
all quarrels as common amongst them, and are accused of having committed
‘open and avowed reifs, herships, and other enormities, in all
parts where they be maisters and commanders.’ All this appears from a
letter of the Privy Council, of date January 20, 1607, to the Marquis of
Huntly, commanding him to take order for their suppression, ‘as your
lordship wald eschew that hard censure and construction which his majesty
maun mak of your behaviour in this point?
It will be remembered that Gight was
a Catholic, and the probability is that this fraternity of the Boys was
simply a desperate effort on his part and that of his co-religionists to
repel, as far as they could, the persecutions to which they were
subjected.
However this might be, we soon after
(April 2) find the Council engaged in trying to bring George Gordon
of Gight to justice for sundry popish practices of which he was alleged to
have been guilty. It was charged against him that, at the burial of his
mother, Isobel Ochterlony, on a particular day in the year 1604, he had
caused his tenant, David Wilson, to ‘carry ane crucifix upon ane speir
immediately before the corpse;’ in like manner, at the burial of the late
William Gordon of Gight in 1605, he had caused George Crawford, his
servant, to ‘bear ane crucifix upon ane speir the haill way before the
body;’ he being personally present on both occasions: ‘whereby, as he has
offendit God, slanderit his kirk and haly ministry, sae he has committit a
very great contempt against his majesty, and has violate his hieness’ laws
and acts of parliament.’ The laird and his two dependents having failed to
appear on several former occasions, the officers of justice were now
directed to go to them, and command them to enter as prisoners in
Edinburgh Castle within fifteen days, on pain of rebellion.—P.
C. R.
The immediate results of these
measures do not appear. Seven years after (February 1614), we learn that
the Lairds of Gight and Newton, both Gordon; and both Catholics, were
sentenced by the Privy Council to perpetual banishment, and ‘never to set
foot in Scotland under pain of death, unless they submit themselves to the
orders of the church;’ that is, embrace the Protestant faith as professed
in Scotland.
However it was as to their faith,
the Gight Gordons are found in their usual place in Aberdeenshire only two
years after this time. See under December 1615.
Apr
The pest broke out again in Dundee, Perth, and other parts of the
country.—Ab. C. R.
June 2
The Privy Council refer to ‘a very ancient and lovable custom,’ of giving
a blue gown, purse, and as many Scotch shillings as agreed with the years
of the king’s age, to as many ‘auld puir men’ as likewise agreed with the
king’s years; and seeing it to be ‘very necessary and expedient that the
said custom should be continuit,’ they give orders accordingly.—P.
C. R.
The ‘auld puir men’ so favoured were
called the King’s Bedesmen, and were privileged to go about the country as
beggars, notwithstanding any general enactments that might exist against
mendicancy. Their blue cloak bore a pewter badge which assured them of
this right. They were expected to requite the king’s bounty by their
prayers; and, doubtless, as they had such an interest in the increase of
his years, their intercessions for his prolonged life must have been
sincere. The distribution of their cloaks and purses used to take place on
the king’s birthday, at the end of the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, till a time
not long gone by.
June 30
A sad account is given of the country of Athole. This province, ‘whilk of
auld was maist quiet and peaceable, and inhabit be a number of civil and
answerable gentlemen, professed and avowed enemies to thieve; robber; and
oppressors,’ is described as having ‘now become very louss and broken,’
‘ane ordinary resett for the thieves and broken men of the north and south
Hielands;’ moreover, a great number of the native people, ‘sic as John Dow
M’Gillicallum and his complice;’ shaking off all fear of God and reverence
for his majesty and the law; ‘are become maist insolent, committing wild
and detestable murder; open reif; privy stouthrie, barbarous houghing and
goring of oxen, and other enormities,’ without hinderance or challenge.
The Privy Council ordered the
immediate reappointment of a guard or watch for the country, such as was
customary. James Gordon of Lesmoir undertook to apprehend John Dow and his
brother Allaster; and when many attempts had failed, ‘in end lichtit upon
the limmers.’ ‘After a lang and het combat, and the slauchter of four or
five of the principals of them, the said Allaster was apprehendit, and
John, being very evil hurt, by the darkness of the night escaped.’
Allaster, who had many murders on his head, was brought to Edinburgh, and
laid in irons in the Tolbooth, notwithstanding many offers from his
friends for his liberation. He was in due time tried and executed.—P.
C. R
David, Master of Crawford, was noted
as a wicked and lawless man. In the course of his violent proceedings in
the district where he possessed influence—Forfarshire—he had slaughtered
(October 25, 1605) Sir Walter Lyndsay of Balgavies. This brought out the
violent feelings of the young Laird of Edzell, whom we have already seen
engaged in matters of blood. Young Edzell and his brother determined to
avenge the slaughter of their uncle, Sir Walter, upon the Master of
Crawford, who was also their near relation.
July 5
One summer evening, between nine and ten o’clock, the Master of Crawford
was walking up the High Street of Edinburgh, accompanied by his uncle,
Alexander, Lord Spynie, and Sir James Douglas of Drumlanrig. Lord Spynie
was a popular character, a favourite courtier of King James, and uncle to
both the Master of Crawford and young Edzell. Knowing the revengeful
design of the latter person, he had been endeavouring to bring about a
peace between him and the Master; but his well-meant efforts were destined
only to result in his own death. At this very time young Edzell was lying
in wait with eight armed men to attack the Master. The three gentlemen
approach, and are in a moment beset by the ambushed party; sword-strokes
and pistol-shots are exchanged; the Master and Drumlanrig are severely
wounded, and Lord Spynie receives mortal hurt. Young Edzell then withdrew
his party.
Drumlanrig recovered from his wounds
with difficulty; Lord Spynie died of his in eleven days. Thus the innocent
alone suffered from this attempt at ‘wild justice;’ the very kind of event
which wild justice is most apt to bring about, and for which it is chiefly
to be condemned.
Young Edzell fled, with the dismal
pain upon his conscience of having caused the violent death of his own
uncle, whom he had ever regarded with affection. To escape justice, he was
compelled to retire to the remotest parts of his paternal property in the
Braes of Angus. Meanwhile, his father suffered great harassment from the
law on his account, and was soon brought down in sorrow to the grave. It
cost the son a good estate and ten thousand merks to settle matters
ultimately with the heirs of Lord Spynie.’
July
A tragical event, which now occurred at Dornoch in Sutherland, is related
in a characteristic manner by Sir Robert Gordon.
‘About the year 1585, there came
into Sutherland one called Mr William Pape, a reasonable good scholar, and
of a quick and ready wit. This man was first admitted to be schoolmaster
in the town of Dornoch; then he was appointed to be resident minister in
that same place; and withal he came to be chanter of Caithness. In
progress of time, by his virtue and diligence, he became wealthy, and of
good account in the county of Sutherland. His two brethren, Charles and
Thomas, perceiving his good success, came also thither out of Ross, where
they were born, thinking to settle their fortunes with their elder
brother. Thomas Pape was made chancellor of Caithness, and minister at
Rogart. Charles Pape was a public notary, and a messenger-at-arms; who,
being of an affable and merry conversation, did so behave himself that he
procured the love of his master, the Earl of Sutherland, and the good
liking of all his countrymen, so that in the end he was made sheriff-clerk
of Sutherland. These three brethren married in Sutherland, and anchored
their fortunes in that country; but as wealth and prosperity often beget
pride, so doth pride bring with it a certain contempt of others. These
brethren, dwelling for the most part in Dornoch, being both provident and
wealthy, thought by progress of time to purchase and buy the most part of
the tenements of that town, and drive the ancient and natural inhabitants
from their possessions; which the townsmen in end perceiving, they grudged
in their hearts, though they could take no just exceptions thereat, seeing
that these brethren did purchase the same with their money; yet they
concluded with themselves to utter their hatred and revenge when occasion
should serve. So at last, upon a particular quarrel which began between
one of these brethren, and one of the inhabitants of the town, their ruin
thus followed:
‘Every man being departed from the
town of Dornoch unto this convention at Strathullie [to resist an invasion
of the Earl of Caithness], except William Moray, a bowyer, and some few
others, who were also ready to go away the next morning. Mr William and Mr
Thomas Pape, with some others of the ministry, had a meeting at Dornoch
concerning some of the church affairs. After they had dissolved their
meeting, they went to breakfast to an inn or victualling-house of the
town. As they were at breakfast, one John Macphail entered the house and
asked some drink for his money, which the mistress of the house refused to
give him, thereby to be rid of his company, because she knew him to be a
brawling fellow. John Macphail, taking this refusal in evil part, reproved
the woman, and spoke somewhat stubbornly to the ministers, who began to
excuse her; whereupon Thomas Pape did threaten him, and he again did
thrust into Thomas’s arm an arrow with a broad-forked head, which then he
held in his hand. So being parted and set asunder at that time, Mr William
and his brother Thomas came the same evening into the churchyard, with
their swords about them; which John Macphail perceiving, and taking it as
a provocation, he went with all diligence and acquainted his nephew,
Hutcheon Macphail, and his brother-in-law, William Moray the bowyer,
therewith; who being glad to find this occasion whereby to revenge their
old grudge against these brethren, they hastened forth, and meeting with
them in the churchyard, they fell a quarrelling, and from quarrelling to
fighting. Charles Pape had been all that day abroad; and at his return,
understanding in what case his brethren were, he came in a preposterous
haste to the fatal place of his end and ruin. They fought a little while;
in the end, Charles hurt William Moray in the face, and thereupon William
Moray killed him. Mr William and Thomas were both extremely wounded by
John Macphail and his nephew Hutcheon, and were lying in that place for
dead persons, without hope of recovery; but they recovered afterwards
beyond expectation. The offenders escaped, because there was none in the
town to apprehend them (except such as favoured them), the inhabitants
being all gone to the assembly at Strathullie. John Macphail and his
nephew Hutcheon have both since ended their days in Holland. William Moray
yet lives (reserved, as I should suppose, to a greater judgment). Mr
William Pape and his brother Thomas thereupon left the county of
Sutherland, and settled themselves in Ross, where Thomas now dwelleth. Mr
William died in the town of Nigg, where he was planted minister. Thus did
these brethren begin and end in this country; which I have declared at
length to shew us thereby that man in full prosperity should never think
too much of himself, nor contemn others, upon whom it hath not pleased God
to bestow such measure of gifts and benefits.’—G.
H. S.
Aug 5
A parliamentary enactment had appointed the 5th of August to be kept as a
holiday, on account of the king’s escape from the Gowrie treason. On this
occasion, the day was solemnly kept in Edinburgh. The king’s scoll
[health} was drunk by the duke his commissioner, and some other noblemen,
at the Cross of Edinburgh, which was covered for the greater solemnity.
Bacchus was set up, and much wine drunk, and sweetmeats cast about; much
vanity and pastime, beside ringing of bells, and setting on of balefires.
The pest brake up soon after.’—Cal
The death of the late Lord Maxwell
in the battle of Dryfe’s Sands left a feeling of deadly bitterness in his
son’s mind against the name of Johnston. A series of turbulent
proceedings, marking the untamable spirit of the young lord, ended in his
being warded in the Castle of Edinburgh, where he had for a
fellow-prisoner a Hebridean magnate of similar character and history— Sir
James M’Connel or Macdonald.
Dec 4
‘Seeing not how he was to be relieved, he devises with Sir James M’Connel
and Robert Maxwell of Dinwoodie, what way he and they might escape. So, he
calls ane great number of the keepers of the Castle into his chalmer,
where he drinks them all fou.’ Pretending to act a sort of play, he asked
them for their swords as part of the performance; and having thus armed
himself and his two companions, he passed out with them, locking the door
behind him. The three passed to the inner gate, where a servant stood in
the way, holding the porter in parley. The latter, an old man, tried to
make resistance. ‘False knave,’ cried Maxwell, ‘open the yett, or I shall
hew thee in blads’ [pieces]. He did strike the man in the arm, and
likewise wounded another keeper in the hand. Then he and Sir James ‘passed
to the west castle-wall that goes to the West Port of Edinburgh,’ and
climbing over it, leaped down, and disappeared amongst the suburbs. Robert
Maxwell, however, was locked in and detained. The insular chieftain, who
had irons upon him, was seized in an attempt to conceal himself in a
dunghill, while Lord Maxwell escaped on a horse which had been kept in
readiness for him. ‘The king was very far offended, and made proclamation
that nane should reset him under the pain of death.’
Nov
‘A vehement frost continued from Martinmas till the 20th of February. The
sea froze so far as it ebbed, and sundry went into ships upon ice and
played at the chamiare a mile within the sea-mark. Sundry passed
over the Forth a mile above Aba and Airth, to the great admiration of aged
men, who had never seen the like in their days.’—Cal.
The keenness and duration of this
frost was marked by the rare occurrence of a complete freezing of the
Thames at London, where accordingly a fair was held upon the ice. In
Scotland, rivers and springs were stopped; the young trees were killed,
and birds and beasts perished in great numbers. Men, travelling on their
affairs, suffered numbness and lassitude to a desperate degree. Their very
joints were frozen; and unless they could readily reach a shelter, their
danger was very great. In the following spring, the fruit-trees shewed
less growth than usual; and in many places the want of singing-birds was
remarked.—Jo. Hist.
1608
The Lord Maxwell, being proclaimed traitor after the breaking out of ward
in the Castle of Edinburgh, and thereupon driven to great straits, sent to
the Laird of Johnston, craved a meeting, pretending he would now be
heartily reconciled with him, and not for the fashion, as he was before at
the king’s pleasure, because he perceived he did not trouble him now,
being an outlaw, as he looked for. They meet at the place appointed,
Maxwell and one with him, Johnston and another with him; and Sir Robert
Maxwell of Spotts (near cousin to the Lord Maxwell, and brother-in-law to
the Laird of Johnston), who was employed by Maxwell to draw on the tryst.
They meet on horseback, and salute each other heartily in outward show,
and went apart to confer together. While Johnston and Maxwell are
conferring apart, Maxwell’s second began to quarrel Johnston’s second,
[and] shot a pistolet at him, whereupon he fell. Johnston, hearing the
shot, cried "Treason!" and, riding from Maxwell to the two gentlemen, to
understand what the matter meant, Maxwell shooteth him behind the back. So
Johnston fell, and died of the shot. Soon after, proclamation was made at
the Cross of Edinburgh, that none, under pain of death, transport or carry
away the Lord Maxwell out of the country, in ship or craer, seeing the
king and Council was to take order with him, for the traitorous murdering
of the Laird of Johnston and his other offences.’—Cal.
The fact was detested by all honest men, and the
gentleman’s misfortune sore lamented; for he was a man full of wisdom and
courage, and every way well inclined, and to have been by his too much
confidence in this sort treacherously cut off, was a thing most pitiful.
Maxwell, ashamed of that he had done, forsook the country, and had his
estate forfeited.’—Spot.
Horse-racing was early practised as
a popular amusement in Scotland. In 1552, there was an arrangement for an
annual horse-race at Haddington, the prize being, as usual, a silver bell.
Early in the reign of James VI., there were races at both Peebles and
Dumfries. The Peebles race was accustomed to take place on Beltane-day,
the 1st of May; it was the chief surviving part of the festivities which
had from an early period distinguished the day 1 and place, and which were
celebrated in the old poem of Peebles to the
Play.
The great difficulty attending such
popular festivals arose from the tendency of the people to mark them with
bloodshed. Men assembled there from different parts of the country, each
having of course his peculiar enmities, and the object of similar enmities
in his turn; and when they met and had somewhat inflamed themselves with
liquor, it was scarcely avoidable that mutual provocations should be
given, leading to conflicts with deadly weapons. So great reason was there
now for fearing a sanguinary scene at Peebles, that the Lords of Council
thought proper to issue a ~ proclamation forbidding the race to take
place.—P. C. R.
[28th April 1608. ‘Forsameikie as
the Lords of Secret Council are informit that there is sue horse-race
appointit to be at Peblis the day of May nextocorne, whereunto
grit numbers of people of all qualities and ranks, intends to repair,
betwixt whom there being quarrels, private grudges, and miscontentment, it
is to be feint that at their meeting upon fields, some troubles and
incoavenients sall fall out amangs them, to the break of his Majesty’s
peace and disquieting of the country without remeed be providit; Therefore
the Lords of Secret Council has dischargit, and be the tenor hereof
discharges, the said horse-race, and ordains that the same sall be nawise
halden nor keepit this year; for whilk purpose ordains letters to be
direct, to command, charge, and inhibit all and sundry his Majesty’s
lieges and subjects by open proclamation at the mercat-cross of Peblis and
other places needful, that nape of them presume nor tak upon them to
convene and assemble themselves to the said race this present year, but to
suffer that meeting and action to depart and cease, as they and ilk ane of
them will answer upon the contrary at their heichest peril,’ &c.]
May 8
This day commenced an unfortunate adventure of the king for obtaining
silver in certain mines at Hilderstone in the county of Linlithgow. Some
years before, a collier, named Sandy Maund, wandering about the burn-sides
in that district, chanced to pick up a stone containing veins of a clear
metal, which proved to be silver. A gentleman of Linlithgow, to whom he
shewed it, recommended him to go to Leadhills, and submit it to Sir Bevis
Bulmer, who was engaged in gold-seeking there. The consequence was, that a
search was made at Hilderstone for silver, and, some very hopeful masses
of ore being found, a commission was appointed by the king, with the
consent of Sir Thomas Hamilton, his majesty’s advocate, the proprietor of
the ground, for making a search for silver ore, with a view to trying it
at the mint. In January 1608, thirty-eight barrels of ore, weighing in all
20,224 pounds, were won, packed, and sent to the Tower of London. It is
said that this ore gave about twenty-four ounces of silver to every
hundredweight, while some gave double this quantity. Samuel Atkinson, who
was engaged in working the mine, tells that on some days he won as much
silver as was worth £100. The shaft, indeed, received the name of God’s
Blessing, as expressive of its fertile character. The whole results
appearing favourable, the king’s cupidity was excited, and he easily fell
into the proposal of his astute councillor, Hamilton, to become the
purchaser of God’s Blessing for the sum of £5000, and work it at
the public expense. Bulmer, created a knight, was its governor. There were
‘drawers up of metal, drawers up of water, and layers up of water to the
pumps under the ground, shedders and washers, washers with the sieve,
dressers and washers with the buddle, and washers with the canvas,
quarriers, shoolmen,’ and many other workers of different kinds. A mill
for melting and fining the metal was established at Leith. Another
fining-mill and a stamp-mill, with warehouses, were built on the water
running out of Linlithgow loch. Some Brunswick miners were brought to give
the benefit of their skill. All, however, was of no avail. From the time
of the transference of the mine into royal hands, it did no more good.
After a persevering effort of two years and a half, the king gave up the
adventure, with a loss of a considerable sum of money.
The same mine was granted, in 1613,
to Sir William Alexander, Thomas Foulis, and Paulo Pinto, a Portuguese, to
be wrought by them on the condition of their paying a tenth of the refined
ore to the crown. What success attended this adventure is not known.
The scene of the mining operations
is still traceable in a hollow place to the east of Cairn-apple Hill, four
miles south of Linlithgow. A neighbouring excavation for limestone is
named from it the Silver-mine Quarry: such is the only local
memorial of the affair now existing.
May 31
Margaret Hertsyde had entered the service of the queen in a humble
capacity in Scotland, and accompanying her majesty to England, was there
considerably advanced, and received from the queen many marks of favour.
Enriched with the royal liberality, she returned to her native country as
a great lady, attended by her husband, John Buchanan, who had been a
servant of the king. The pair attracted an invidious attention by the high
airs they gave themselves, affecting by the purchase of land to become
persons of quality, appearing in a carriage drawn by white horses, and
apparently wholly forgetful of their humble origin. It was therefore with
no great regret that the public learned that Margaret was apprehended, on
suspicion of having taken jewellery from her royal mistress, to the value
of upwards of £400 sterling. The unfortunate woman confessed her guilt to
the queen; but on her being brought to trial at Linlithgow, some technical
difficulties arose as to how far a person could be considered guilty of
theft who had only withheld unaccounted for certain articles of which she
had been in trust. A direct conviction could not therefore be recorded. In
these circumstances, by an irregularity which marks the character of the
age, the king interfered with an order that Margaret Hertsyde be declared
infamous and banished to Orkney. She was also adjudged to pay £400
sterling to the commissioner upon her majesty’s dotarial estate of
Dunfermline. A grave historian of that day moralises upon the case as a
sad example of the mutability of fortune.
In 1619, ‘her doom having been
humbly and with great patience embraced and underlain by her, and her
behaviour continually sin syne having been very dutiful,’ Margaret so far
succeeded in obtaining the king’s grace as to have the reproach of infamy
removed—Pit. Jo. Hist.
June
By slow and safe steps, King James was constantly working for the
subjection of Scottish ecclesiastical matters to an episcopal model. At
this time, his favourite Scottish minister, the Earl of Dunbar, came down
from London, accompanied by two eminent English divines, Dr Abbot
(subsequently Archbishop of Canterbury) and Dr Higgins, while a third,
named Maxy, came by sea.
On the approach of the earl and his
clerical associates, ‘the noblemen, barons, and councillors that were in
Edinburgh went out to accompany him into the town. So he entered in
Edinburgh with a great train. The chancellor, then provost, the bailies,
and many of the citizens, met him at the Nether Bow Port. It was spoken
broadly that no small sums of money were sent down with him to be
distributed among the ministers and sundry others. The English doctors
seemed to have no other direction but to persuade the Scots that there was
no substantial difference in religion betwixt the two realms, but only in
things indifferent concerning government and ceremonies.’—Cal.
July 5
Dundee is described as suffering under ‘the contagious sickness of the
pest, and a great many of the houses are infectit therewith, and greater
infection like to ensue in respect of the few number of magistrates within
the same, and the little care and regard had of the government thereof,
ane of the said magistrates being departit this life, and ane other of
them visited with disease and infirmity, and not able to undergo sae great
pains and travels in his person and otherwise as is requisite at sae
necessar a time.’ For these reasons, the Privy Council appointed three
citizens to act as assistant-magistrates.—P.
C. R.
July 13
We hear at this time of one of the last attempts to settle a dispute by
regular combat; and it is the more remarkable, as several persons were
concerned on each side. On the one part stood ‘the Lord Sinclair, David
Seton of Parbroth, and John Sinclair elder and John Sinclair younger, sons
to the said Lord Sinclair;’ on the other were George Martin of Cardone and
his three sons. A mutual challenge had passed between the parties, ‘with
special designation of time, place, form, and manner of the combat,’ and
the rencontre would have, to all appearance, taken place, had not some
neighbours interfered to prevent it. The parties were summoned before the
Privy Council, to answer for their conduct.
Martin and his sons were denounced
as rebels for not appearing (July 21).—P.
C. R.
The slaughter of Captain James
Stewart by Sir James Douglas of Parkhead, in 1596, had not been allowed to
pass unnoticed by the Ochiltree family, to which the murdered man
belonged. At that time, however, a man of rank was not to be punished as a
malefactor in Scotland. His offence was expiated by an assythment, or the
king interposed to reconcile the friends of the deceased to the culprit
and his friends, as if the affair had been merely an unfortunate quarrel.
For years there stood a variance between the Ochiltree Stewarts and the
murderer of their relation, and from time to time they had to come under
heavy sureties to keep the peace towards each other, Lord Ochiltree and
Sir James Douglas (now called Lord Torthorald) in £5000 each; and the
brothers and nephews of Stewart in lesser sums. This arrangement had been
last renewed on the 30th of May, to endure for a year. All seemed
composed—a General Assembly was sitting in Edinburgh—no one seems to have
been apprehensive of any immediate quarrel or trouble, when a terrible
incident suddenly fell out.
July 14
Lord Torthorald was walking one morning, between six and seven o’clock, in
the High Street, below the Cross, unaccompanied by any friend or servant,
dreading no harm, when William Stewart, nephew of the man he had slain
twelve years before, observing him, was unable to restrain the rancorous
feeling of the moment, and pulling out a short sword he carried, stabbed
him in the back, so that he fell to the ground and instantly died.
William Stewart escaped, and we hear
no more of him. The Privy Council, horror-struck at the outrage, had two
meetings on the same day to consider what should be done. At the first,
before noon, they ordered that the Earl of Morton, James commendator of
Melrose, Sir George and Sir Archibald Douglas, his uncles, — Douglas now
of Torthorald, William Douglas, apparent of Drumlanrig, Archibald Douglas
of Tofts, and Sir James Dundas of Arniston—all friends of the deceased,
and presumably eager to revenge his slaughter—should be confined to their
lodgings. Lord Ochiltree, on whom the Douglases might be apt to vent their
fury, was likewise commanded to keep within doors. At the second meeting,
after noon, they gave an order for the apprehension of the culprit.
There is a remarkable connection of
murders recalled by this shocking transaction. Not only do we ascend to
Torthorald’s slaughter of Stewart in 1596, and Stewart’s deadly
prosecution of Morton to the scaffold in 1581; but William Stewart was the
son of the Sir William Stewart who was slain by the Earl of Bothwell in
Blackfriars’ Wynd in 1588. This, however, is the last open murder of one
gentleman by another which we have to record as taking place on a street
in Edinburgh.
Lord Torthorald lies buried under a
carved slab in Holyrood Chapel, where the guide reads his name daily to
hundreds of visitors, few of whom know what a series of tragic
circumstances in old Scottish history lies concentered in the body of him
who sleeps below.
The progress of persecution against
the Catholics may be traced all through this period by the equal progress
of the king’s measures for introducing the episcopal system into the
church. A General Assembly, which met at Linlithgow in December 1606, was
brought by court influence to give a consent to the principle of permanent
moderators for presbyteries—a necessary step to the assumption of entire
power over dioceses by the bishops. They sent the act to court, with a
petition for fresh securities against the Catholic nobles of the north,
and their ladies. James affected to listen to their desires, and promised
well, but does not seem to have taken any decisive steps till he found
that the act for constant moderators, as interpreted by him, met
considerable resistance. He then called another General Assembly, mainly
for the purpose of taking ‘strait order’ with the adherents of the
proscribed faith.
This reverend body professed to
consider the country as in unexampled danger from popery. It is found
complaining that Jesuit and seminary priests were allowed to traffic
within the land, that papistical books were brought from abroad, and that
persons in authority often shewed favour to traffickers and excommunicated
papists, ‘such as the abbot of New Abbey and other mass priests, demitted,
as is thought, out of ward, not without reward [bribery], and without all
warrant of his majesty, and presently tolerated in this country without
pursuit.’ Amongst some objects petitioned for from the king, were—that
papists of rank be imprisoned, and only Protestants have access to them;
that orders be given for down-casting of the Laird of Gight’s chapel, and
the house of John Cheyne in Kissilmonth, who receipted all Jesuits and
seminary priests; and that order be taken with the pilgrimages—namely, to
the Chapel called Ordiquhill, and the Chapel of Grace, and to a well in
the bounds of Enzie upon the south aide of Spey.
The most important of their actual
measures bore reference to the Marquis of Huntly, and the Earls of Angus
and Errol, who were considered as the prime supports of popery in the
northern section of the kingdom. Huntly we have seen (June 1597) received
formally and publicly into the Presbyterian Church, with all appearances
of sincerity on his part, while the truth was that he only gave a
lip-obedience in order to save his estates and place in the country, of
which otherwise he would have been deprived. The hollowness of his
professions was soon after sufficiently apparent, for he built a popish
chapel in his house, and he continued, as before, to ‘reset’ priests. The
Presbyterian tutors imposed on his family may be presumed to have made
little progress in their work, as his children all grew up Catholics.
Processes had been raised against him in the church-courts for ‘relapse in
popery;’ and though the king had tried to screen him from the vengeance he
had incurred, it was ineffectual. It was now necessary for James, if he
would make way with his episcopal innovations, that he should give proof
of sincerity in Protestantism, by leaving his old friend and councillor to
the mercy of the General Assembly.
Accordingly, the business being ripe
for instantly proceeding, the moderator—being the same Bishop Law who had
promised such a sore ‘handling’ of the Catholics to James Melville and his
friends in London (see under November 7, 1606) —pronounced the sentence of
excommunication ‘after a very solemn manner;’ while the Earl of Dunbar,
the king’s commissioner, promised that, ‘forty days being expired from the
pronouncing of the sentence, the civil sword should strike without mercy
or favour to him or his; and although some of his friends should come and
buy his escheat, it should be refused.’—Cal. Arrangements were made
for taking the same measures with Errol and Angus, Dunbar promising the
like severity with them.
While the Assembly continued
sitting, a gentleman came on behalf of the Marquis of Huntly, pleading for
a little extension of time ‘till he had perfyter resolution,’ shewing that
he was not opiniatre, as had appeared from his ‘yielding to have
conference,’ and from his ‘going to the kirk;’ he entreated to be heard
for himself before final condemnation. But the petition was set aside as
frivolous, and because he had failed to fulfil his promise given by solemn
bond a month ago to communicate before a certain day.—Cal.
Aug 29
The plague broke out in Perth, and continued till the ensuing May,
‘wherein deit young and auld five hundred persons.’—Chron.
Perth.
Sep 1
It was reported to the Privy Council that a quarrel had arisen between
John Napier of Merchiston, and the sons and daughters of the late Sir
Archibald Napier of Edinbellie, regarding the right to the teind sheaves
of the lands of Merchiston for the crop of the present year. ‘Baith the
said parties,’ says the record, ‘intends to convocate their kin, and
sic as will do for them in arms, for leading [home-bringing], and
withstanding of leading, of the said teinds; whereupon further
inconvenients are like to fall out.’ To prevent breach of the peace,
William Napier of Wrightshouses, a neutral person, was ordered to collect
the teind sheaves of Merchiston, and account to the Council.—P.
C. R. ‘Whilk order,’ says John Napier, ‘is guid eneuch for me, and
little to their contentment;’ that is, to the contentment of his
Edinbellie relatives.
This, it must be owned, is a new
light in which to view the inventor of the logarithms. It is, however,
worthy of observation, that a dispute between other parties on the same
grounds is described in precisely similar terms, and the same arrangement
made to preserve the peace.
Sep
‘In the beginning of September, the Duke of Wirtemberg, a prince in
Germany, a young man of comely behaviour, accompanied with twenty-four in
train, came to see the country. He was convoyed from place to place by
noblemen, by the king’s direction, and weel enterteened. His train were
all clothed in black.’—Cal.
The duke was a great friend and ally
of the king, who, soon after his accession, sent Lord Spencer with a
splendid ambassage to Stuttgart, to invest his serene highness with the
Order of the Garter.
The records of Privy Council are
still full of instances of assaults made by men of rank and others with
deadly weapons upon persons against whom they bore hatred. It would be
wearisome to enumerate even those which occur throughout a single year. It
is to be remembered there were famous acts of parliament against going
armed defensively or offensively; yet in every case we find the guilty
parties set about their vengeful proceedings in steel bonnets, gauntlets,
and plait-sleeves, and with swords and pistolets.
As an example—one Gavin Thomson,
burgess of Peebles, was held at hatred by Charles Pringle, another
burgess; we do not learn for what cause. One day in September 1608, as
Gavin was walking in sober and quiet manner along the High Street of the
burgh, Charles Pringle, accompanied by nine or ten persons, all armed with
lances and whingers, set upon and ‘cruelly hurt and wounded the said Gavin
upon the left hand, drave him perforce back, and housit him within the
dwelling-place and lock-fast yetts of Isobel Anderson; and were it not by
the providence of God, that the Person and Minister of Peebles,
accompanied with some others weel-affected persons to the peace of the
said town, and knawing the said Gavin his innocency, come forth to the
redding, they had not failit, as they hail begun, with great jeists,
trees, and fore-hammers, to have surprised and stricken up the yetts and
doors of the said dwelling-house, and within the same to have unmercifully
slain and murdered the said Gavin.’
For several subsequent months,
Pringle and his associates had lain in wait at divers times to kill Gavin,
so that he had been prevented from attending kirk or market, or going
about the business of his farm. At length, on the 2d of December, as he
was walking peaceably on the street, they attacked him again, armed as
before. ‘Being informit that he had come furth of his house, they first
bostit and menaced him aff the hie street, and he retiring himself hame
again in quietness, they all followit and pursewit him with drawn swords,’
when one of the party, Alexander Dalmahoy, ‘by his sword, with ane great
stane of aucht pund wecht in his hand, hurt the said Gavin his thie-bone’
The assailants ‘hurt and woundit William Murray of Romanno and divers
other gentlemen redders, and in end fiercely pursewit Gavin and housit him
within the dwelling-house of the close yetts of William Elliot, and cryit
for jeists and fore-hammers, and had not fault to have stricken up the
doors and yetts thereof, and to have slain the said Gavin within the same,
were not timous relief come at hand.’
The active parties in this
wickedness were denounced rebels by the Council.—P.
C. R.
Oct
William Turnbull of Airdrie lived in Edinburgh, having in his family a
daughter, Elizabeth, eleven years of age. He admitted to his house, and
often civilly entertained Robert Napier son of William of Wrightshouses—a
gentleman who has just been under our notice. On the 4th of October,
Turnbull complained to the Privy Council that, on the 29th of September,
Robert Napier had by craft and violence taken away his daughter, under
cloud of night, and now keeps her in some obscure place, refusing to
render and deliver her up to her father. The Council caused Robert Napier
to be denounced as a rebel for this fact:
The abduction of women, of which
some examples were formerly given, was still an offence of frequent
occurrence. On the subsequent 8th of December, there is a complaint before
the Council from Margaret Stewart, widow, that as she was walking home
from her booth to her dwelling-house in Edinburgh, between seven and eight
o’clock in the evening of the 5th of the same month, accompanied by her
orphan grandchild, Katherine Weir, fourteen years of age, a young citizen,
named William Geddes, had beset her with six men armed like himself with
swords, gauntlets, steel bonnets, and plait-sleeves, and violently took
the child from her, ‘without pity of her manifold exclamations and
crying.’ Geddes was likewise denounced rebel.