1592, Aug
On the high ground which skirts the Carse of Gowrie to the north, near the
village of Rait, once stood a fortified house called Gaskenhall. Only a
bit of broken garden-wall and a few trees now indicate the site. Here
lived, at the end of the sixteenth century, Robert Bruce of Clackmannan,
chief of the family which had given Scotland a king three centuries
before, and described in the grave pages of Douglas’s Baronage as a
most respectable person, ‘in high favour with King James VI., who
conferred on him the honour of knighthood at the baptism of his son Prince
Henry.’ Let us see, from the actual doings of this knight, what sort of
person he was.
In August 1592, some goods belonging
to Bruce, having to pass through Perth, were subjected to payment of
custom by the magistrates, who, on payment being refused, seized them.
Clackmannan sent a letter of remonstrance, threatening, if his goods were
not restored, to make the Perth citizens suffer for it when they chanced
to pass his house. This not being attended to, he attacked a party of
citizens on their way from Dundee, and despoiled them of their weapons;
for in those days a party of quiet burghers passing through twenty miles
of even this central and comparatively civilised district of Scotland,
could not go unarmed. The only reply the laird got to a message offering
the weapons back in exchange for his goods, was a visit from a company of
Perth citizens, who destroyed a good deal of his growing corn with their
horses. He came out to remonstrate, and an altercation ensuing, he was
provoked to strike one of the aggressors with a pistol. He then seized the
two chief men of the party, William Inglis and John Balsillie, and took
them as prisoners into his house of Gaskenhall.
That same night, a large party of
the citizens of Perth, headed by the bailies and council, came out in arms
to Gaskenhall, where, upon the morrow, before daylight, they sounded their
drum, besieged the laird in his house, and discharged hagbuts and pistols
in at the doors and windows, whereby a servant of his was wounded. At last
setting fire to the house, they entered at the roof, set free their
friends, and seized the laird, whom they ‘transportit away with them ane
certain space, barefooted and bare-legged, not suffering him to put on his
awn claithes.’ They likewise ‘spulyit and took away with them his hail
silver-wark, bedding, claithes, and all the plenishing of his house.’—P.
C. B.
This affair came before the king,
who seems to have taken no step in the case beyond declaring both parties
in the wrong, and ordering the laird and the magistrates into divers
prisons, there to lie at their own respective costs, until they should be
subjected to an assize. A Perth chronicler states: ‘They were thereafter
agreed upon the town’s large charges.’ The agreement, however, does not
seem to have been effectual, for, on the 28th of April 1593, as John
Wilson and John Niven, with other citizens of Perth, were passing the
Coble of Rhynd on their way to the market of St Andrews, they were beset
by the laird, accompanied with nine horsemen and footmen, all well armed.
‘The said John Wilson and John Niven, being baith hurt and wounded in
divers parts of their bodies, to the effusion of their blood in great
quantity, the said laird and his accomplices maist shamefully tirrit them
baith naked, and in maist barbarous and shameful manner scourgit them with
horse bridles through the town of Abernethy, as gif they had been thieves
or heinous malefactors; [then] left the said John Niven lying there for
dead, and took the said John Wilson, naked, as captive and prisoner away
with them.’
On the complaint of the magistrates
of Perth, among whom was the afterwards famous Earl of Gowrie, acting as
provost, the Laird of Clackmannan was charged to appear before the king,
on pain of being denounced as a rebel in case of failure.
‘The ministry of Edinburgh devised
twa purposes, which they had baith in head at a time; either thinking to
prevail in ane or else in baith, as tending to the glory of God, as they
pretended. The ane was to discharge the merchants of Edinburgh from
haunting and resorting to Spain; the other was, that nae mercatday should
be halden in Edinburgh for selling of wool and sheep’s skins; whereat
baith merchants and craftsmen were grieved. The ministers at nae time
proponit thir matters to be reasoned or disputed by the provost of the
town and his council, to whom it specially apperteinit; but, as they did,
thought it mair expedient to divulgate the matter openly in the kirk, in
presence of the haul people, alleging that the merchants could not make
voyage to Spain withott danger of their sauls, and therefore willit them
in the name of God to abstein. At divers times this was openly required,
while at last, finding that the merchants continued in their trade as
before, they cried out that unless they wald forbear, they should expreme
their names to the people, and therefore cited divers merchants before
their session, and there commanded them to abstein. The merchants, seeing
this, gave in their complaint to the king, and tauld how they were
discharged [forbidden] by the ministers, but wald disobey thereunto, if
his majesty wald grant them liberty to pass, whilk was granted; whereat
the ministers were sae grieved, that they boasted [threatened] the
merchants with excommunication. But the provost and council interceded,
and stayed that purpose, because that to the merchants divers Spanyards
were addebted, whilk wald never be repaid unless they went themselves to
make count and reckoning with them; and siclike divers of them were awing
to creditors there, and in that respect till their counts were perfyted
and ended, they could not abstein from travelling... Sae the ministers had
patience for that time, otherwise this matter had turned to a great
popular scism.
'.... the other conceit had almaist
have made a worse end; because it was sae prejudicial to the commonwealth
and estate of the haul merchants and craftsmen, to wit, the abolition of
the Monday’s mercat, whilk was the only special mercat-day of all the week
in respect of the rest. The reason that the ministers had for them was,
that all men that came to the Monday’s mercat did address him to his
journey on Sunday, whilk day sould be sanctified and keepit holy; but
amang many great infallible reasons, it was funden that the maist part of
the mercat folks did never address themselves to journey while Monday
morning, and therefore the mercat should not cease; and as to these that
came far off, it became the pastors of their parochin to hinder them.
Besides all this, that mercat-day was authorised to the town by the
princes of ancient time, and therefore it became not a subject to consent
to the abolition thereof, unless the matter was moved in presence of the
three estates of parliament.’—H. K. J. The people in general
murmured at these interferences with their secular affairs, well meant as
they undoubtedly were. Calderwood speaks bitterly of the satirical rhymes
vented on the occasion against the clergy, adding: ‘Such has always been
the religion of Edinburgh, when they are touched in their particular.’ At
length, in April 1593, the affair of the market came to a head. ‘The
shoemakers, who were most interested in that business, hearing that the
same was to be put in execution, tumultuously gathering themselves
together, came to the ministers’ houses, menacing to chase them furth of
the town if they did urge that matter any more. After which the motion
ceased, the market continuing as before. This did minister great occasions
of sport at that time in court, where it was said, "that rascals and
souters could obtain at the ministers’ hands what the king could not in
matters more reasonable." ‘—Spot.
Nov 17
‘Dame Margaret Douglas, sometime Countess of Bothwell, met the king at the
Castle-yett of Edinburgh on her knees, having up her hood, crying for
Christ’s sake that died on the cross, for mercy to her and her spouse,
with mony tears piteous to behold. The king putting out his hand to have
tane her up, she kissed the hack of his hand thrice. Then he passed into
the castle, and the lady came down the street. The same day, ere the king
came out of the palace, the Lairds of Niddry and Samuelston, with sundry
others forfaultit of before, came on their knees in the outward close of
the palace, wha were received in favours.’—Jo.
Hist.
‘Ane proclamation that no man shall
receipt the Countess of Bothwell, give her entertainment, or have any
commerce or society with her in any case, wha had been so lately received
in his majesty’s favour before. Behold the changes of court!
‘—Bir.
Dec 25
A few days before this date, the Earl of Mar was married at Alloa to Mary,
the second daughter of the late Duke of Lennox and sister of the Countess
of Huntly. The king honoured the marriage with his presence, and spent his
Christmas with the newly wedded pair. It is rather surprising to find Mar,
who had always been on the ultra-Protestant side, allying himself to a
daughter of the papist Lennox; but tradition informs us that the god of
love had in this case overcome that of politics—if there be such a deity.
There were also some natural obstructions, for the earl was a widower of
five-and-thirty, while the bride was little more than a girl. The story
is, that his lordship, finding the young lady scornful, became
low-spirited to such a degree as to alarm his old school-fellow, the king,
for his life. Learning what was the matter, James told him in his
characteristic familiar style: ‘By ——, ye shanna die, Jock,’ for ony lass
in a’ the land!’ He then used his influence as virtual guardian of the
Lennox family, and soon brought about the match. From this pair have
descended some of the most remarkable patriots, lawyers, statesmen, and
divines, to which our country has given birth.’
In the midst of the festivities at
Alloa, the king was unpleasantly disturbed by intelligence of the capture
of George Ker, adverted to in the next article.
Dec 27
In the latter part of this year, the king was nearly on as bad terms with
the clergy as ever. They openly reproached him in their pulpits with
slackness of justice against the enemies of religion. One maintained that
he might very properly be excommunicated, if he resisted their behests.
The king told the provost to pull them out of their pulpits when they
spoke so against him; but this the provost plainly said he could not do—he
preferred God before men. Things were in this ticklish state when George
Ker was taken with sundry letters from Catholics at home to Catholics
abroad, and three blank letters from Huntly, Errol, and Angus, believed to
be the foundation of a conspiracy with Spain against the Protestant
religion. The brethren met in Mr Robert Bruce’s gallery to devise
measures, and a huge deputation went down to Holyroodhouse, to confer with
the king. He received them in the great hall, and was at first very angry
with them for their thus meeting unauthorisedly, saying, ‘"he knew not of
it till all the wives in the kail-mercat knew of it." Yet in the end, to
mitigate them in some measure, he said he liked well their zeal, for he
knew they did it for love of the good cause.’—Cal. So began a sort
of civil war, which lasted two or three years, and ended in the banishment
of the three Catholic nobles, as already related.
1592-3, Jan 9
Mr Tytler attributes these new troubles to the persecuting spirit of the
Presbyterian divines. ‘The principle of toleration,’ he says, ‘divine as
it assuredly is in its origin, yet so late in its recognition even amongst
the best men, was then utterly unknown to either party, Reformed or
Catholic. The permission even of a single case of Catholic worship,
however secret; the attendance of a solitary individual at a single mass,
in the remotest district of the land, in the most secluded chamber, and
where none could come but such as knelt before the altar for conscience’
sake, and in all sincerity of soul; such worship and its permission for an
hour, was considered an open encouragement of Antichrist and idolatry. To
extinguish the mass for ever, to compel its supporters to embrace what the
kirk considered to be the purity of presbyterian truth, and this under the
penalties of life and limb, or in its mildest form of treason, banishment
and forfeiture, was considered not merely praiseworthy, but a high point
of religious duty; and the whole apparatus of the kirk, the whole
inquisitorial machinery of detection and persecution, was brought to bear
upon the accomplishment of these great ends.’
The king, whether from his natural
disposition, or views of policy, was averse to harassing the papists. He
one day spoke privately to Lord Hamilton of his unhappy position. "You
see, my lord, how I am used, and have no man in whom I may trust more than
in Huntly, &c. If I receive him, the ministers cry out that I am an
apostate from the religion; if not, I am left desolate." "If he and the
rest be not enemies to the religion," said the Lord Hamilton, "ye may
receive them; otherwise not." "I cannot tell," saith the king, "what to
make of that; but the ministry hold them for enemies. Always, I would
think it good that they enjoyed liberty of conscience." Then the Lord
Hamilton crying aloud, said: "Sir, then we are all gone, then we are all
gone, then we are all gone! If there were no more to withstand, I will
withstand." When the king perceived his servants to approach, he smiled
and said: "My lord, I did this to try your mind."
‘—Cal.
Few things could better illustrate the sanctity in which the principle
of intolerance was then held, than to find a contemporary historian
relating this anecdote as one simply illustrative of the infirm adherence
of King James to the presbyterian cause.
The Earl of Errol, one of the exiled
Catholic lords, writing to the king from Middleburg in July 1596, speaks
of having undergone incessant troubles ever since he professed the
Catholic religion, and of having for three or four years past been in
daily and extreme peril of his life. He says: ‘My late and greatest
extremities have proceeded only upon that over-great fervour and
onnecessar rigour of the ministry, wha, disdainfully rejecting all
reasonable conditions, will force men’s consciences, not as yet persuaded,
till embrace their opinions in matters of religion.’’
Mr John Graham of Hallyards, a judge
of the Court of Session, had an unfortunate litigation with Sir James
Sandilands, the Tutor of Calder, about some temple-lands which his wife
had brought to him. There had been a deed forged in the case, and a notary
hanged for it, and a collision between the Court of Session and the
General Assembly as to jurisdiction, and now Sir James Sandilands had
become incensed to a degree of fury against his opponent the judge.
Feb 13
Graham, being charged by the king, for peace’ sake, to depart from
Edinburgh, was passing down Leith Wynd in obedience to the order, attended
by three or four score persons for his protection, when Sir James
Sandilands, accompanied by his friend the Duke of Lennox, and an armed
company, followed hard at his heels. Graham, thinking he was about to be
attacked, turned to make resistance. The duke sent to tell him that if he
proceeded on his journey, no one would molest him; but the message proved
of no use, in consequence of some stray shot from Graham’s company. The
party of Sandilands immediately made an attack; the other party hastily
fled. Graham fell wounded on the street, and was carried into a
neighbouring house. A French boy, page to Sir Alexander Stewart, one of
Sandilands’s friends, seeing his master slain, followed the hapless judge
into the house, ‘douped a whinger into him,’ and so despatched him. Such
was the characteristic termination of a lawsuit in 1593.—Cal.
It is highly worthy of remark, that,
not many months after, Sir James Sandilands was once more peaceably living
at court.
1593
Amongst the complications of the affair between Huntly and Moray in
February 1592, there were mingled the details of a plot in which Huntly
and the Chancellor Maitland were connected with three chieftains of the
clan Campbell—Ardkinlas, Lochnell, and Glenurchy—against the life of John
Campbell of Calder, who was obnoxious to the latter persons on account of
his supreme influence in the affairs of the minor Earl of Argyle. By the
exertions of Ardkinlas, a man called MacEllar was procured to undertake
the assassination of Calder: and in the same month which saw the tragedy
at Dunnibrissle, this wretched man shot Calder with three bullets, through
a window, as the victim sat unsuspecting of danger in the house of Knepoch
in Lorn.
The youthful earl having threatened
vengeance against Ardkinlas, the latter seems to have lost heart; and
being extremely desirous of recovering his young chief’s regard, he
seriously made an endeavour to that effect by means of witchcraft, and was
much disappointed when that resource failed him. He subsequently tried to
accomplish his purpose by revealing what he knew of another plot in which
the same parties were concerned against the earl’s life. This, however, is
aside from our present subject. It may be sufficient to remark that
MacEllar and a higher agent in the a person of John Oig Campbell of
Cabrachan, a brother of Lochnell, were taken and executed for Calder’s
death; but owing to various causes, among which the complicity and
friendship of Maitland was probably the chief, Ardkinlas continued for a
considerable time to keep out of the grasp of the law.
Mar 28
At the time noted, he sustained an assault of private vengeance which
might well make him tremble. A complaint which he entered before the Privy
Council sets forth that, having occasion to be at Dumbarton with some
friends, including Duncan Campbell, Dean of Brechin, on his way to
Edinburgh, whither he was going in obedience to a summons of the king, ‘he
took purpose to hald forward in his journey that same night after supper,
by reason of the troubles whilk are in the country, lippening [trusting]
for naething less than ony injury or trouble to have been intended him.’
Nevertheless, John Buchanan of Drumfoid, with a party of friends, and
‘sundry others, broken men and fugitives, to the number of twenty-four
persons, on horse and foot, all bodin in feir of weir, with lang hagbuts,
jacks, pistolets, and other weapons invasive,’ took up a position in a
yard beside the road, with the design of murdering Campbell. ‘The said
Duncan and ane other of his [Ardkinlas’s] servants, being ganging a little
before him, and the persons foresaid surely believing that ane of them had
been the Laird of Ardkinlas, they dischargit ane dozen of hagbuts at the
said twa persons, and shot the said Duncan in the head; and thereafter,
coming furth of the yard, finding the said Duncan not to be dead, and
still believing he had been the said Laird of Ardkinlas, they shamefully
and barbarously mangled and slew him with swords, and cuttit off his head.
And then, perceiving themselves to be disappointed, they sharply followit
the said laird, shot aucht or nine hagbuts at him, and had not failed
likewise to have slain him, were not that by the providence of God he
escaped.’
The next notice we have of affairs
connected with the Campbell conspiracies is a curious, though obscure one,
regarding what was in the language of that time called a Day of Law,
held in Edinburgh on the 19th of June (the king’s birthday) 1593.
There appeared as seekers of justice for Calder’s slaughter, the Earl of
Argyle (seventeen years of age), the sheriff of Ayr, the Earl of Morton,
and some others; as defenders in that cause, Ardkinlas, Glenurchy, and
others. The Chancellor Maitland, whose concern was suspected, but did not
become clear till our own time, had his friends assembled also—namely, the
Earls of Montrose, Eglintoun, and Glencairn, and Lord Livingstone, ‘who
all accompanied Lord Hamilton on the streets.’ Against them were mustered
the Duke of Lennox, the Earl of Mar, Lord Home, and some others, who,
favoured with the countenance of the queen, talked of bringing in Lord
Quondam against the chancellor: by this name they indicated Captain
James Stuart, long sunk out of credit and means, but still eager to take
any desperate means of recovering his place. ‘To this goodly company it
was expected that Lord Maxwell and the Laird of Cessford would soon be
added. The affair seemed so threatening, that the king was seriously
alarmed, and commanded all to keep their lodgings; after which he ‘dealt
with the chancellor to entreat them to depart in peace.’ Such was a day
of law in the reign of gentle King James.
It was not till September 1596 that
Ardkinlas underwent a trial for the slaughter of the Laird of Calder. The
matter having doubtless been arranged beforehand, no pursuers appeared,
and he was set at liberty.
June 21
George Smollett, burgess of Dumbarton (an ancestor of the novelist), was
denounced rebel for not answering certain charges made against him by the
burghs of Glasgow and Renfrew. It was alleged that Smollett, having
purchased a letter of the king, used it as a sanction to deeds of violent
oppression against the Highland people resorting with merchandise to those
towns. ‘He not only masterfully reives the goods and bestial, claithing,
and other wares, brought by the inhabitants of the Isles and other parts
of the Highlands, to the said burghs, by sea and land, but takes,
apprehends, and imprisons their persons, and, sometimes pursues themselves
by way of deid.’ It was added that the people of the Highlands were, in
consequence, inspired with a deadly hatred of the burghs of Glasgow and
Renfrew, and were already committing such reprisals as threatened civil
war.—P. C. R.
July 7
An act of Privy Council, reciting that ‘vile murders have not only been
committed within kirks and other places, but even within the burgh of
Edinburgh and suburbs thereof, ewest [near] to his hieness’ palace, to the
great hazard of his awn person,’ commands the authorities of the city, the
king’s guard, the master and porter of his palace, to ‘search for all
hagbuts and pistolets’ worn by any persons in the city and king’s palace,
and convey the wearers to prison, the weapons to be escheat for the
benefit of the apprehenders. In the parliament which sat down a few days
afterwards, it was enacted: ‘Whaever saIl happen, at ony time hereafter,
to strike, hurt, or slay ony person within his hieness’ parliament-house
during the time of the halding of the parliament; within the king’s inner
chalmer, cabinet, or chalmer of presence, the king’s majesty for the time
being within his palace; or within the Inner Tolbooth the time that the
Lords of Session sit for administration of justice; or within the king’s
privy council-house the time of the council sitting there; or whaever sall
happen to strike, hurt, or slay ony person in the presence of his majesty,
wherever his hieness sall happen to be for the time; sall incur the pain
of treason.’ For those who commit the like offences in places and
presences of less importance, severe penalties are denounced. Another act
aimed at strengthening the hands of the magistrates of Edinburgh in their
endeavours to apprehend turbulent persons and rebels, seeing that the
weakness of such authorities ‘is the original and principal cause wherefra
the great confusion and disorder of this land, in all estates, proceeds.’—
S. A. and P. C. R.
July 22
The feud between the Lord Maxwell and the Laird of Johnston, which had
been stayed by a reconciliation, broke out again afresh in consequence of
a foray by William Johnston of Wamphray, usually called, from his
reckless, dissipated character, the Galliard, in the lands of the
Crichtons of Sanquhar and Douglases of Drumlanrig. The Galliard being
taken in the fray and hanged, his friends, on being pursued for the
recovery of the stolen cattle, stood at bay and fought so desperately that
many of their enemies bit the dust. A remarkable scene was consequently
presented in Edinburgh. ‘There came certain poor women out of the south
country, with fifteen bloody shirts, to compleen to the king that their
husbands, sons, and servants, were cruelly murdered by the Laird of
Johnston, themselves spoiled, and nothing left them. The poor women,
seeing they could get no satisfaction, caused the bloody shirts to be
carried by pioneers through ‘the town of Edinburgh, upon Monday, the 23d
of July. The people were much moved, and cried out for a vengeance upon
the king and council. The king was nothing moved, but against the town of
Edinburgh and the ministry. The court alleged they had procured that
spectacle in contempt of the king.’---Cal.
July 24
Bothwell had now been little heard of for upwards of a twelve-month, a
long interval of quietness for such a politician. The time had at length
come for a third attempt to regain favour with the king. ‘At eight hours
in the morning, the Earl of Bothwell, the Laird of Spott, Mr William
Leslie, and Mr John Colville’ [‘ to the number of twa or three hundred
men’], ‘came into the king’s chalmer, weel provided with pistol. It was
reported that the said Earl and Mr John were brought in by the Lady Athole,
at the back yett of the abbey. This earl and his complices came not this
way provided with pistols and drawn swords to harm the king’s majesty any
ways, but because he could not get presence of his majesty, nor speech of
him, for the Homes, who were courtiers with the king, and enemies to the
said Earl of Bothwell. Sae they came into his majesty’s chalmer, resolving
themselves not to be halden back till they should have spoken with him;
and sae after they came in, his majesty was coming frae the back-stair,
with his breeks in his hand, in ane fear—howbeit he needed not. The
foresaid Bothwell and his complices fell upon their knees, and gave their
swords upon the ground, and beggit mercy at his majesty; and his majesty
being wise, merciful, a noble prince of great pity, not desirous of blood,
granted them mercy, and received them in his favour; and at four hours
afternoon proclaimed them his free lieges.’
‘There was ane great tumult in
Edinburgh for this. They come all down in arms, and cried to understand
the king’s mind, who cried out and said, that he was not captive, but weel,
in case that whilk was promised by them should be keepit; and commanded
them all to the abbey kirk-yard, to stay there till he called for them.
Immediately thereafter, [he] sent for the provost and bailies, and
commanded them to dissolve and go homeward; he houpit all should be weel.’—Moy.
Bir.
For a time the Chancellor Maitland,
Lord Home, and other courtiers gave way before the replaced Bothwell. The
English ambassador exerted influence in his behalf. The zealous clergy
befriended him, not for any virtues he could be said to possess, for he
had none, but for that which was a compendium of all virtue, his
professing to be for ‘the trew religion.’ King James was obliged to seem
his friend, and to be quite against the Catholic lords. One day, as the
king was travelling by Fala, near Soutra Hill, these nobles came up
unexpectedly, threw themselves on their knees before him, and entreated
forgiveness and favour. He told them be could do nothing for them unless
they satisfied the kirk, and ‘he sent back, that same nicht, the Lord
Treasurer and the Abbot of Lindores to the ambassador of England and the
ministers of Edinburgh, desiring that they should conceive nae evil
opinion of his part for their coming to him.’—H. K. J. Such were the
relations of royalty to the priesthood in those days.
Dec 11
Notwithstanding such powerful support, Bothwell could not long maintain
his place at court. We soon find him again at the horn, and passing
through a rather picturesque adventure on a mountain-road a few miles to
the south of Edinburgh. ‘It fortuned Sir Robert Kerr, younger of Cessford,
accompanied only with one of his awn servants called Rutherford, to pass
out of Edinburgh, homeward to his wife quietly; in the way of plain
accident, [he] forgathered with the Earl Bothwell, and ane Gibson with
him, beside Humbie on this side of Soutra Hill; where, meeting twa for twa,
they fought a long time on horseback . . . . The Laird of Cessford’s man
was hurt in the cheek, and at length baith the parties so wearied with
long fechting, [that] they assented baith to let the others depart and
ride away for that time. Cessford came back to Edinburgh, and tauld the
king’s majesty of that accident.’—Moy.
July 31
Aberdeen, a commercial town with a university, bore a singular moral
relation to the adjacent Highlands of the Dee, where a wild and lawless
population, speaking a different language, and using a different dress,
existed. Many were the troubles of the industrious burghers from these
rude neighbours, who would sometimes come sweeping down upon their borders
like a flight of locusts, and leave nothing of value uneaten or
undestroyed. At this time, we find the council of the northern city
meeting to consider ‘the barbarous cruelty lately exercit by the lawless
hielandmen in Birse, Glentanner, and thereabout, not only in the
unmerciful murdering of men and bairns, but in the masterful and violent
spulying of all the bestial, guids, and gear of a great part of the
inhabitants of these bounds . . . . committit near to this burgh, within
twenty miles thereto;’ for which reason it was ordained that the whole
inhabitants should be ready with arms to meet for the defence of the town,
and to resist and repress the said hielandmen, as occasion shall be
offered.’
1593
The Crichtons and Douglases, whom the Johnstons had plundered in the
summer of this year, having induced Lord Maxwell to take up their cause,
and enter with them into bonds of manrent for mutual support, it
behoved the Laird of Johnston to be stirring. To his aid came the reiving
clans of Scott and Graham, and with them he fell upon and cut off a party
of the Maxwells. This led to a decisive attempt of Lord Maxwell to bring
the Johnstons to subjection; but, though undertaken under sanction of his
office as warden of the west marches, it ended in a way very unfortunate
for himself.
Dec 6
‘The Lord Maxwell, being on foot 1500 and horse together, coming to the
Lochwood, having special commission of the king to have destroyed the said
Lochwood, and banished and destroyed the hail Johnston; because he [the
laird] was ane favourer of the Earl Bothwell in some of his turns—being
come over the Water of Annan—the Laird of Johnston, with the Scotts, to
the number of 800 or thereby, ombeset the said lord in his way; where,
without few or na strakes, the said lord was slain with the Laird
Johnston’s awn hand [or, as is alleged, by Mr Gideon Murray, being
servitor till Scott of Buccleuch]; never ane of his awn folks remained
with him (only twenty of his awn household), but all fled through the
water; five of the said lord’s company slain; and his head and right arm
were ta’en with them to the Lochwood, and affixed on the wall thereof. The
bruit ran that the said Lord Maxwell was treacherously deserted by his awn
company.’—Jo. Hist.
Such was the famous clan-battle of
Dryfe’s Sands, the last of any note fought in the southern part of
Scotland.
1593-4, Jan 21
For some time we have heard nothing of Eustachius Roche, quondam
tacksman-general of the Scottish mines. From this circumstance, and the
difficulties he seemed to be labouring under the last time we heard of
him, it is little to be doubted that he had found his adventure
unprofitable and hopeless, and given it up. Now another comes forward, one
really notice-worthy, since he prospered to some extent in his
undertaking, and laid the foundation of a property and a work which still
exist. This was Thomas Foulis, goldsmith in Edinburgh.
The Edinburgh goldsmiths of that
day, though only occupying a few small obscure shops stuck between the
buttresses of St Giles’s Church, comprehended in their number two or three
persons of such considerable wealth, as to verge upon a historic
importance. Such, for example, was George Heriot, who in 1597 became
goldsmith and jeweller to the king, and in time accumulated the fortune
which enabled his executors to erect the magnificent hospital bearing his
name. Another of the number was Thomas Foulis, who, when in spring 1593
the king had to march an army against the Papist lords in the north,
supplied a great part of the funds required for the purpose. What the Bank
of England has often in modern times been to the British government,
Thomas Foulis, the Edinburgh goldsmith, was in those days to King James—a
ready resource when money was urgently required for state purposes. On the
10th of September 1594, the royal debt to Thomas was no less than £14,598;
and as a security so far for this sum, the king consigned to him ‘twa
drinking pieces of gold, weighing in the haill fifteen pund and five unce,’
which the consignee was to be at liberty to coin into ‘five-pund piece;’
if the debt should not be otherwise paid before the 1st of November next,
‘the superplus, gif oney beis,’ to be forthcoming for his majesty’s use.
The value of the gold of these drinking-cups at the present day would be
about £950, which shews that the debt in question was expressed in
Scottish money. It may be remarked, that on the same day the king
consigned another gold drinking-cup, weighing twelve pounds five ounces,
in favour of John Arnott, burgess of Edinburgh, who had lent him £6000. It
further appears that Thomas Foulis, very soon after, lent the king £12,000
more ‘for outredding of sundry his hieness’ affairs.’
In consideration of the loans he had
had from Thomas Foulis, the king granted him (January 21, 1593—4). a lease
of the gold, silver, and lead mines of Crawford Muir and Glengoner for
twenty-one years. The Edinburgh tradesman probably had the sagacity to
see, in a little time, that there was not, in those districts, a
sufficiency of the more precious metals to pay the expense of collecting.
We find, however, that in 1597 he was working the really valuable lead
deposit of Lanarkshire, as there are acts of council in that year for the
protection of his lead-carriers against ‘broken men of the borders.’
We shall meet Thomas again.
Meanwhile, it may be observed that his lead-mines in time passed through
his granddaughter into the possession of (her husband) James Hope of
Hopetoun, sixth son of the great lawyer, Sir Thomas, and the founder of
the noble house of Hopetoun. It has long been one of the best estates in
Scotland; and it is certainly curious to trace its origin to the
hypocritical military expedition against the Catholic lords, into which
King James was forced by his ultra-zealous Presbyterian subjects, when he
would have much rather been ‘drinking and driving ower in the auld maner’
at home.
Whatever became of the gold-diggings
in Foulis’s hands, we find that, before the expiration of the term of his
lease, they were actively worked by another person. An Englishman named
Bulmer, with the licence and favour of Queen Elizabeth, and a patent from
the king of Scots, set seriously to work in five different moors—namely,
Mannoch Muir and Itobbart Muir in Nithsdale, the Friar Muir on Glengoner
Water, and Crawford Muir in Clydesdale, and Glengaber Water in Henderland,
Peeblesshire. ‘Upon Glengoner Water he builded a very fair country-house
to dwell in; he furnished it fitting for himself and his family; he kept
therein great hospitality; he purchased lands and grounds round about it;
he kept thereupon many cattle, as horses, kine, sheep, &c. And he brought
home a water-course for the washing of and cleansing of gold; by help
thereof he got much straggling gold on the skirts of the hills and in the
valleys, but none in solid places; which maintained himself then in great
pomp, and thereby he kept open house for all comers and goers; as is
reported, he feasted all sorts of people that thither came.’ A verse upon
the lintel of the door of the house in Glengoner has been preserved:
Sir Bevis Bulmer built this
bour,
Who levelled both hill and moor;
Who got great riches and great honour
In Short-cleuch Water and Glengoner.
Bulmer also set regular apparatus at
work in Short-cleugh Water and Long-cleugh Braes, in Crawford Muir, and
often found considerable quantities of the ore: in the latter place, his
people found one piece of six ounces’ weight within two feet of the
mosses. He also found a considerable quantity in Glengaber, but erected no
apparatus there. After a persevering effort, he became embarrassed, in
consequence, it is affirmed, of prodigal housekeeping, and retired from
the adventure no richer than he commenced it.
Feb 19
'.... between twa and three hours in the morning, the queen was delivered
of ane young prince, within the Castle of Stirling, in his majesty’s
chalmer there; whilk was a great comfort to the haill people, moving them
till great triumph, wantonness, and play, for banefires were set out, and
dancing and playing usit, in all parts, as gif the people had been daft
for mirth.’—Moy.
The king had scarcely seen his wife
out of the perils of childbirth, when he was obliged to come to Edinburgh
to take measures against the Earl of Bothwell, who was now breaking out
into open rebellion. Fearing to live in Holyroodhouse, which had already
been twice broken into by the turbulent lord, he took up his quarters in
‘Robert Gourlay’s lodging’ within the city.
Mar 13
‘. . . . being Sunday, his majesty came to Mr Robert Bruce’s preaching,
[who] said to his majesty, that God wald stir up mae Bothwells nor ane
(that was, mae enemies to him nor Bothwell), if he revengit not his, and
faucht not God’s quarrels and battles on the papists, before he faucht or
revenged his awn particular.’—Bir.
1594, Apr 3
The king ‘came to the sermon, and there, in presence of the haill people,
promised to revenge God’s cause, and to banish all the papists; and there
requested the haill people to gang with him against Bothwell, wha was in
Leith for the time. The same day, the king’s majesty raze, and the town of
Edinburgh in arms. The Earl of Bothwell, hearing that his majesty was
coming down, with the town of Edinburgh, rase with his five hundred horse,
and rode up to the Hawk-hill, beside Lesterrick [Restalrig], and there
stood till he saw the king and the town of Edinburgh approaching near him.
He drew his company away through Duddingston. My Lord Home followed till
the Woomet, at whilk place the Earl of Bothwell turned, thinking to hiae a
hit at Home; but Home fled, and he followed; yet by chance little blood.
The king’s majesty stood himself, seeing the said chase’ [at a safe
distance, namely, on the Burgh-moor] .—Bir.
Within a few days after this affair,
the earl, seeing he could not effect his object, retired into England.
Soon after, much to the scandal of the preachers, he joined the papist
lords. All his plans, however, were frustrated; and early in the next
year, he left Scotland, an utterly broken man, never again to give his
royal cousin any trouble.
May
Kenneth Mackenzie of Kintail was rising to be a wealthy and influential
man in the west of Inverness-shire. Beginning as simple chief of the Clan
Kenzie, with a moderate estate, he ended as a peer-of the realm and the
lord of great possessions. A remarkable notice regarding him occurs at
this time in the Privy Council Record, and it is the more so, as he had
been for some time a member of that body. It is recited that he had, some
time before, purchased a commission of justiciary from the king, for a
district including the lands of certain neighbours, besides his own, and
conferring the power of proceeding against persons accused of treasonable
fire-raising. This was declared to have been given on wrong
representations, and to be contrary to the laws of the kingdom, and
Kenneth was commanded to appear by a certain day before the Council, and
meanwhile abstain from acting upon the commission.—P. C
R.
As a specimen of how nobles
possessing castles acted towards meaner men who had fallen under their
displeasure—James, Lord Hay of Yester, was charged before the Privy
Council with having, on the day of June previous, gone to the house of
Brown of Frosthill, and taken him forth thereof, and carried him to his
‘place of Neidpath,’ where ‘he put him in the pit thereof, and detenes him
as captive, he being his majesty’s free subject.... having committit nae
crime nor offence, and the said lord having nae power nor commission to
tak him.’ The king had granted letters charging Lord Yester to liberate
Brown, and that they should both come before him; and this had been of
none effect. The matter being now before the Council, and a procurator
having appeared for Brown to explain that he was still a prisoner at
Neidpath, while Lord Yester made no appearance, officers were charged to
go and denounce the latter as a rebel if he should refuse to obey the
king’s command, Brown having meanwhile given surety to the extent of two
hundred pounds that he should be ready to answer any accusation that might
be brought against him.—P. C. R.
July
Robert Logan of Restalrig is one of the darkest characters of this bloody
and turbulent time. A few years later, he was plotting with the Ruthvens
of Gowrie for an assault upon the king. So early as February 1592—3, he
was denounced for trafficking with the turbulent Bothwell. In June of this
year, he was again denounced, and for a more serious matter—his sending
out two servants, Jockie Houlden and Peter Craik, to rob travellers on the
highway, near his house of Fast Castle in Berwickshire. They had attacked
Robert Gray, burgess of Edinburgh, as he was passing the Boundrod, near
Berwick, and taken from him nine hundred and fifty pounds, besides
battering him to the peril of his life.—P. C. R. His
residence, as is well known, was a fortalice perched on an almost
inaccessible crag overhanging the waves of the sea, with black cliffs
above, below, and nearly all round— perhaps the most romantically situated
house in our ancient kingdom. Here, it is known, Logan had Bothwell for
his occasional guest.
In July of this year, Logan entered
into a contract with John Napier of Merchiston, proceeding upon the fact
of ‘diverse auld reports, motives, and appearances, that there should be
within the said Robert’s dwelling-place of Fast Castle a sowm of money and
pose, hid and huirdit up secretly? John Napier undertook that he ‘sall do
his utter and exact diligence to search and seek out, and be all craft and
ingyne that he dow [can], to tempt, try, and find out the same, and, be
the grace of God, either sall find out the same, or than mak sure that nae
sic thing has been there? For this he was to have a third of any money
found. He was also to be convoyed back in safety to Edinburgh, unspoiled
of his gains.
As Logan was competent to make
simple mechanical search for the supposed treasure without the aid of a
philosopher, there is much reason to believe that Napier designed to use
some pseudoscientific mode or modes of investigation, such as the
divining-rod, or the so-called magic numbers. The affair, therefore,
throws a curious light on the state of philosophy even in the minds of the
ablest philosophers of that age, the time when Tycho kept an idiot on
account of his gift of prophecy, and Kepler perplexed himself with the
Harmonices Mundi.
It is not known whether Napier did
actually journey to the spray-beaten tower of Fast Castle, and there
practise his craft and ingyne. Probably he did, and was disappointed in
more ways than one, as, two years after, he is found letting a portion of
his property to a gentleman on the strict condition that no part of it
shall be sub-let to any one of the name of Logan.
This year, in the Merse, there was a
great business about sorcery and the trial of witches, and many was there
burnt, as, namely, one Roughhead, and Cuthbert Hume’s mother of Dunse, the
parson of Dunse’s wife, and sundry of Eyemonth and Coldingham; near a
dozen moe, and many fugitives, as the old Lady A. Sundry others were
delated, and the Ladies of Butt: and Lady B.: the Laird of B.: his sister;
one in Liddesdale by virtue of [a] superstitious well, whereat was
professed great skill; one Dick’s sister, who had her mother hanged before
in Waughton. They confessed the death of the whole goods [live-stock] of
the country.’—Pa. And.
Nov
The disposition to violent and lawless acts at this time is strikingly
shewn in the proceedings against Claud and Alexander, two sons of James
Hamilton of Livingstone, in Linlithgowshire. Having some ground of offence
against David Dundas of Priestinch, they had gone at mid-day with an armed
party to his fold, and, there barbarously mutilated and slaughtered a
number of his cattle. They and their elder brother, Patrick, also
destroyed a mill leased by the same person, and further set fire to his
barn-yard at Duddington. Two months afterwards, when John Yellowlees, a
messenger, went with two assistants to the Peel of Livingstone, to deliver
letters of citation against these young men, the laird, with his wife and
four sons, came forth to the gate, and taking him first by the throat,
proceeded to beat him unmercifully, and then, with a bended pistol at his
breast, and many violent threats, forced him to eat and swallow his four
letters, and to promise never to attempt to bring any such documents
against them in future; besides which, they struck the two witnesses with
swords and pistols, and left them for dead. The family were denounced as
rebels.—Pit.
1594-5, Jan 19
A great tulyie or street-combat this day took place in Edinburgh.
The Earl of Montrose, head of the house of Graham, was of grave
years—towards fifty: he was of such a character as to be chosen, a few
years afterwards, as chancellor of the kingdom: still later, he became for
a time viceroy of Scotland, the king being then in England. Yet this
astute noble was so entirely under the sway of the feelings of the age, as
to deem it necessary and proper that he should revenge the death of John
Graham (see under February 13, 1592—3) upon its author, under
circumstances similar to those which attended that slaughter. On its being
known that the earl was coming with his son and retinue to Edinburgh,
Sandilands was strongly recommended by some of his friends to withdraw
from the town, ‘because the earl was then over great a party against him.
His mind was, notwithstanding, sae undantonit, and unmindful of his former
misdeed, finding himself not sac weel accompanied as he wald, he sent for
friends, and convokit them to Edinburgh, upon plain purpose rather first
to invade the said earl than to be invadit by him, and took the
opportunity baith of time and place within Edinburgh, and made a furious
onset on the earl [at the Salt Tron in the High Street], with guns and
swords in great number. The earl, with his eldest son, defendit manfully,
till at last Sir James was dung [driven down] on his back, shot and hurt
in divers parts of his body and head, [and] straitly invadit to have been
slain out of hand, gif he had not been fortunately succoured by the
prowess of a gentleman callit Captain Lockhart. The lord chancellor and
Montrose were together at that time; but neither reverence [n] or respect
was had unto him at this conflict, the fury was sae great on either side;
sae that the chancellor retirit himself with gladness to the College of
Justice. The magistrates of the town, with fencible weapons, separatit the
parties for that time; and the greatest skaith Sir James gat on his party,
for he himself was left for dead, and a cousin-german of his, callit
Crawford of Kerse, was slain, and mony hurt: but Sir James convalescit
again, and this recompense he obteinit for his arrogancy. On the earl’s
side was but ane slain, and mony hurt.’—H.
K. J.
Feb 18
Hercules Stewart was hanged at the Cross in Edinburgh, for his concern in
the crimes of his brother the Earl of Bothwell. The people lamented his
fate, for ‘he was ane simple gentleman, and not ane enterpriser. ‘—Moy.
He ‘was suddenly cut down and carried up to the Tolbooth to be
dressed; but within a little space he began to recover and move somewhat,
and might by appearance have lived. The ministers, being advertised
hereof, went to the king to procure for his life; but they had already
given a new command to strangle him with all speed, so that no man durst
speak in the contrary. ‘—Pa. And.
Mar 10
Commenced ‘ane horrible tempest of snaw, whilk lay upon the ground till
the 14[th] of April thereafter.’ Bir. |