THE death of Elizabeth, March 24, 1603, opened the way
for King James to the English throne. He left Scotland on the 5th of
April, after taking a tender farewell of his Scottish subjects, and
promising to revisit them once every three years. He did not allow one
year to elapse without making an effort to accomplish a union between
England and Scotland; but it ended in the comparatively narrow result of
establishing that the postnati—that is, Scotsmen born after the
king’s accession to the English crown—should be regarded as naturalised in
both countries.
James, thoroughly believing that no puritan could be a
loyal subject, continued to be anxious for the reduction of the Scottish
Church under the royal supremacy and a hierarchy. The personal influence
he acquired as king of England enabled him in some degree to accomplish
this object, though all but wholly against the inclinations of the clergy
and people.
The more zealous Presbyterian clergy had made up their
minds, in a General Assembly now to be held at Aberdeen, to ‘call in
question all the conclusions taken in former assemblies for the episcopal
government.' The king, hearing of their design, caused his commissioner,
Sir Alexander Straiton of Laurieston, to forbid the meeting. About twenty
bold spirits, nevertheless, assembled (July 1605); and when Sir Alexander
ordered them to dissolve, they did not obey till they had asserted their
independence by appointing another day of meeting. When called soon after
before the Privy Council, thirteen came in the king’s mercy; but eight
stood out for the independence of their church, and were sent to various
prisons.
Six of the recusant clergymen were tried at Linlithgow
(January 1606) for high treason, and found guilty. After their
condemnation, they were remanded to various prisons to await his majesty’s
pleasure. (See November 6, 1606.)
At a parliament held in Perth (July 1606), under the
king’s favourite minister, George Home, Earl of Dunbar, bishops were
introduced, and the king’s prerogative confirmed in ample style. The
Scottish statesmen and councillors were full of servility to the king.
James caused several of the more zealous Presbyterian clergy, including
the venerable but still energetic Andrew Melville, and his nephew James,
to be brought to a conference in London, hoping to prevail upon them to
cease their opposition; but it ended in the one
being banished for an epigram, and the other being confined for life to
the town of Berwick. In 1610, the king’s supremacy was acknowledged by the
General Assembly, and consecrated bishops were settled in authority over
dioceses. A court of High Commission, with immense power over clergy,
schools, colleges, and people was also introduced. Regal influence, gold,
cajolery, and a judicious deliberation, effected the appearance of
an episcopal reformation, while the great bulk of the people endured with
a silent protest what they could not resist.
At the same time, the new strength of the crown, as
administered under the able chancellor, Seton, Earl of Dunfermline, and
Thomas, Earl of Melrose (subsequently of Haddington), caused such an
obedience to the laws throughout Scotland as had never before been known.
The attempt at a plantation of the island of Lewis, with a view to the
civilisation of the Hebrides, was renewed under these favouring
circumstances, but altogether without success.
The king’s sole visit to his native
kingdom took place in 1617, as to some extent detailed in the chronicle.
His chief design was to advance the desired reformation of the national
religion, by paving the way for an introduction of some of the English
ceremonies. These were—kneeling at the eucharist, private administration
of baptism to weak children, private administration of the communion to
dying Christians, the confirmation of children, and the observance of
Christmas and Easter. Protestant churches of most respectable character
make no objection to these rites and forms; but among the Scottish people
of that day they were viewed with great dislike. From a subservient
General Assembly (1618), the Five Articles of Perth, as they were called,
received a reluctant assent, and three years after they were confirmed by
parliament.
While these struggles were going on
between Presbyterianism and Episcopacy, the adherents of both systems
cordially concurred in the persecution of the Catholics. Nobles and
gentlemen of that persuasion were unblushingly called upon either to
embrace Protestantism or submit to forfeiture of property and country.
Priests were severely punished; one hanged. Shewing severity to the
Papists was one of the principal means used by the king to conciliate the
Presbyterians to his prelatic innovations.
Beyond inducing a few ministers to
accept the mitre, and obtaining a hollow conformity from persons in
authority, James made no progress in converting the Scotch to episcopacy,
excepting in Aberdeenshire and some other northern provinces. The people
refused to kneel at the communion, or have baptism and the eucharist
administered in private. The holidays were disregarded. Withdrawing from
the churches, the people began to meet in conventicles or in private
houses for worship after their own manner. The established church sank
into the character of ‘an institution.’
The English reign of James
VI.
was, nevertheless, in secular respects, a comparatively serene and happy
time in Scotland. Peace blessed the land. For the first time, the law was
everywhere enforced with tolerable vigour; some practical improvements
were introduced. Even the Highlands began during this period to shew some
approach to order.
James died March 27, 1625, in his
fifty-ninth year, after a nominal reign over Scotland of little less than
fifty-eight years.
1603
Intelligence of the death of Elizabeth—the event took place at an early
hour on the morning of. Thursday the 24th March—was brought to King James
by Robert Carey, a young aspirant of the English court, who, making a
rapid journey on horseback, reached Holyroodhouse on Saturday evening
after the king had retired to rest. This was probably the most rapid
transit from London to Edinburgh previous to the days of railways. The son
of the governor of Berwick came next day and delivered the keys of that
town to the Scottish monarch. On the ensuing Sunday, James appeared in his
ordinary seat in St Giles’s Kirk, attended by a number of the English
nobility; and after service, made an orison or harangue to the
people, promising to defend the faith, and to ‘visit his people and guid
subjects in Scotland every three years.’ On the 5th of April, ‘his majesty
took journey to Berwick; at whilk time there was great lamentation and
mourning amang the commons for the loss of the daily sight of their
blessit prince. At this time, all the haill commons of Scotland that had
rede or understanding were daily speaking and exponing of Thomas the
Rhymer his prophecy, and of other prophecies whilk were prophecied in auld
times; as namely it was prophecied in Henry the 8
days—HEMPE
is begun, God give it long to last; Frae Hempe begun,
England may tak rest. To make it that it may be understood, H for Henry, E
for England, M for Mary, P for Philip, king of Spain, that marryit with
Queen Mary, and E for worthy good Queen Elizabeth: sae it is come that
England may tak rest; for there is no more England, but Great Britain.
Siclike it was spoken in Scots—Ane French wife shall bear a son shall
brook all Britain by the sea. For it is true that King James 6 his mother
was ane French wife, in respect she was marryit to the Prince of France,
wha was so stylit..... It was likewise writ in another prophecy:
[Post Jacobum, Jacobus Jacobum,
Jacobus quoque quintus; At Sextus Jacobus regno regnabit utroque.] ‘—Bir.
Now-a-days, it would be ‘all the
people that had not rede or understanding’ that would be speaking
of prophecies in relation to public events. At that time, however, as has
been stated before, metrical and other prophecies, commonly attributed to
Thomas the Rhymer, a sage who lived at the end of the thirteenth century,
were in great vogue. In this year, Robert Waldegrave printed a brochure
containing a collection of these metrical predictions, ascribed to
Merlin, Bede, Waldhave, Thomas Rymour, and others. In this volume may be
found the prediction of Hemp; but in a different form, and the two others
quoted by Birrel. The reader may turn back to January 1, 1561—2, for an
account of Waldegrave’s book of prophecies, and some remarks on that
special prediction regarding the son of the French wife, which was now
called so particularly into notice.
May 28
‘The queen and prince came from Stirling [to Edinburgh]. There were sundry
English ladies and gentlewomen come to give her the convoy.’ On the 30th,
‘her majesty and the prince came to St Giles Kirk, weel convoyit with
coaches, herself and the prince in her awn coach, whilk came with her out
of Denmark, and the English gentlewomen in the rest of the coaches. They
heard ane guid sermon in the kirk, and thereafter rade hame to
Halyroodhouse.’- Bir.
June
The pestilence, which had for some time been raging in England, is noted
as now affecting the south of Scotland, and continuing till the ensuing
February.—Chron. Perth.
July 21
James Reid, a noted sorcerer and charmer, was strangled and burnt on the
Castle Hill of Edinburgh for his alleged practice of healing by the black
art. ‘Whilk craft,’ says his dittay, ‘he learnt frae the devil, his
master, in Binnie Craigs and Corstorphin Craigs, where he met with him and
consulted with him to learn the said craft; wha gave him three pennies at
ane time, and a piece creish out of his bag at ane other time; he having
appeared to the said James diverse times, whiles in the likeness of a man,
whiles in the likeness of a horse . . . . whilk likewise learned him to
tak south-rinning water to cure the said diseases.’ It was alleged that
James had cured Sarah Borthwick of a grievous ailment by ‘casting a
certain quantity of wheat and salt about her bed.’ He bad tried to destroy
the crops of David Libberton, a baker, by directing an enchanted piece of
raw flesh to be put under his mill-door, and casting nine stones upon his
lands. Nay, he had done what he could to destroy David himself, by making
a picture of him in wax, and turning it before a fire. The authorities
made short work of so grievous an offender by sending him direct from
judgment to execution.’—Pit.
Oct 2
Campbell of Ardkinlas, set on by the Earl of Argyle, exerted himself to
capture Macgregor of Glenstrae, who for some months had been under ban of
the government on account of the slaughterous conflict of Glenfruin. He
called Macgregor to a banquet in his house, which stands within a loch,
and there made no scruple to lay hold of the unfortunate chieftain. Being
immediately after put into a boat, under a guard of five men, to be
conducted to the Earl of Argyle, Macgregor contrived to get his hands
loose, struck down the guardsman nearest him, and leaping into the water,
swam to land unharmed.
Some time after, the Earl of Argyle
sent a message to Macgregor, desiring him to come and confer with him,
under promise to let him go free if they should not come to an agreement.
‘Upon the whilk, the Laird Macgregor came to him, and at his coming was
weel received by the earl, wha shew him that he was commanded by the king
to bring him in, but he had no doubt but his majesty wald, at his request,
pardon his offence, and he should with all diligence send twa gentlemen to
England with him.... Upon the whilk fair promises, he was content, and
came with the Earl of Argyle to Edinburgh’ (January 9, 1604), ‘with
eighteen mae of his friends.’
The sad remainder of the transaction
is narrated by the diarist Birrel, with a slight difference of statement
as to the agreement on which the surrender bad taken place. Macgregor ‘was
convoyit to Berwiek by the guard, conform to the earl’s promise; for he
promised to put him out of Scots grund. Sae he keepit ane Hieland-man’s
promise, in respect he sent the guard to convoy him out of Scots grund;
but they were not directed ‘to part with him, but to fetch him back again.
The 18 of January, he came at even again to Edinburgh, and upon the 20
day, he was hangit at the Cross, and eleven mae of his friends and name,
upon ane gallows; himself being chief, he was hangit his awn height above
the rest of his friends?
A confession of Macgregor has been
printed by Mr Pitcairn. It might rather be called a justification, the
whole blame being thrown upon Argyle, whose crafty policy it fully
exposes. It is alleged that, after instigating Ardkinlas to take
Macgregor, the earl endeavoured to induce Macgregor to undertake the
murder of Ardkinlas, besides that of the Laird of Ardencaple. ‘I never
granted thereto, through the whilk he did envy me greatumly’ [that is,
bore me a great grudge]. His whole object, Macgregor says, was ‘to put
down innocent men, to cause poor bairns and infants beg, and poor women to
perish for hunger, when they are herried of their geir.’
Even in that barbarous age, when
executions were lamentably frequent, the spectacle of twelve men hanging
on one gallows, one of them a chieftain of ancient lineage, must have been
an impressive one. ‘A young man, called James Hope, beholding the
execution, fell down, and power was taken from half of his body. When he
was carried to a house, he cried that one of the Highlandmen had shot him
with an arrow. He died upon the Sabbath-day after.’—Cal.
The subsequent persecution of the
Macgregors, persevered in by the government during many years, belongs to
history. Its severity ‘obliged multitudes of them to abandon their
habitations; and they retired to such places as they thought would afford
them security and protection. The better sort made the best bargains they
could with their enemies, and gave up their estates and possessions for
small compositions. By these transmigrations, they came, in the end, to be
scattered through all parts of the kingdom, where their posterity are
still to be found under different names, and even many of them have lost
the very memory of their original. . . . They are still pretty numerous in
the Highlands.... many are found in other parts of the kingdom, who are
possessed of opulent fortunes; and some of that race have since made a
considerable figure, both in civil and military government, though covered
under borrowed names.’—Memoir of Sir Ewen Cameron, by Drummond of
Balhadies, about 1737.
Nov 20.
It was found at Aberdeen, that, great numbers of people resorting thither
at Whitsunday and Martinmas ‘for their leesome affairs, some to receive in
their debts, others to uplift and give out siller on profit,’ quarrels
were extremely apt to fall out amongst them, on account of old ‘feids
standing unreconcilit.’ Hence, it sometimes happened that this commercial
city became a scene of wide-spread tumult, the strangers dividing into
hostile parties and fighting with each other, in defiance of all that the
magistrates could do to make them desist. Nay, ‘the magistrates and
neighbours of this burgh, standing betwixt the said parties, for redding
and staunching the said tumults, has been divers and sundry times in great
danger and peril, and some of them hurt and woundit, not being of power to
resist the said parties!
For these reasons, the town-council,
at this date, passed a strict act for the preservation of the peace, but
probably with very little immediate effect.
1604, Apr
‘Ane servant woman of Mr John Hall, minister, died in his awn house,
alleged to be the pest, as God forbid: yet he and his house was clengit.’—Bir.
The fear of pestilence, here so strikingly expressed, was too well
founded. The disease spread in May, and increased in the heat of July. The
people fled from the town, and we find that one William Kerr, a
blacksmith, thought it a good opportunity for helping himself to property
not his own, and was hanged in December for having opened the doors of
several of the empty houses.—Bir.
June 15
‘The men of Black Ruthven and Huntingtower cuist turfs on our burgh moor
at command of the comptroller, Sir David Murray, captain of his majesty’s
guard, and our provost for the time, The town rase aught hundred men in
arms, and put them off. Angus Cairdney died of the apoplexy there. No ma
harm, but great appearance of skaith.’—Chron. Perth.
It is remarkable to find that Perth
could then send out 800 armed men. This, however, was not the utmost
strength of the Fair City; for in the ensuing month, when a parliament was
held there, ‘the town mustered fourteen hundred men in arms and guid
equipage.’—Chron. Perth.
Patrick, Earl of Orkney, paid a
visit to the Earl of Sutherland at Dornoch, where he spent some time,
‘honourably enterteened with comedies, and all other sports and
recreations that Earl John could make him.’—G.
H. S.
James Melville notes in his Diary
the appearance of a brilliant star which shone out this year ‘aboon
Edinburgh, hard by the sun,’ in the middle of the day; ‘prognosticatiug,
undoubtedly, strange alterations and changes in the world; namely, under
our climate.’
This notice most probably refers to
a star, of the same kind with that mentioned in 1572, and nearly as
brilliant, which is described as having appeared in the east foot of
Serpentarius, in October of this year.
Sep 10
‘The general master of the cunyie-house took shipping to London, for the
defence of the Scotch cunyie before the Council of England. Wha defendit
the same to the uttermost; and the wit and knawledge of the general was
wondered at by the Englishmen. The said general and master came hame the
10 of December.’—Bir.
That the general master of the
cunyie-house should have shewed so much wit and knowledge on this
occasion, will not excite much surprise in the reader, when it is made
known that he was Napier of Merchiston, father of the great philosopher.—Bal.
Dec 7
‘Ane hour before the sun rose, the moon shining clear two days before the
change, in a calm and pleasant morning, there was at ane instant seen
great inflammations of fire-flaughts in the eastern hemisphere, and
suddenly thereafter there was heard ane crack, as of a great cannon, and
sensibly marked a great globe or bullet, fiery coloured, with a mighty
whistling noise, flying from the north-east to the south-west, whilk left
behind it a blue train and draught in the air, most like ane serpent in
mony faulds and linkit wimples; the head whereof breathing out flames and
smoke, as it wald directly invade the moon, and swallow her up; but
immediately the sun, rising fair and pleasant, abolished all. The crack
was heard of all, within as without the house; and sic as were without at
the time, or hastily ran out to see, did very sensibly see and mark the
rest above rehearsed. Here was a subject for poets and prophets to play
upon ‘—Ja. Mel.
1605, Jan 19
‘James Young, player at cards and dice, was slain in the kirk [St Giles]
by ane boy of sixteen years of age, called Lawrence Man. This Lawrence was
beheaded on the Castle Hill, the last day of Januar.’—Bir.
May 2
A curious case was considered by the Privy Council. James Blackadder of
Tulliallan had been charged by Sir Michael Balfour of Burleigh, to address
himself to Perth, and there buy from him and his factor John Jamieson
three stands of horsemen’s arms, under pain of rebellion if he failed to
do so before a particular day. James represented to the lords that long
before Sir Michael had brought home these arms, he had provided himself
otherwise with ‘twa good corslets of proof for his awn person, besides a
number of jacks for his servants, with certain muskets, hagbuts, pikes,
spears, and all other sort of arms sufficient for aucht persons,’ although
not bound by his rent to provide arms for more than two. He wholly
resisted the demand of Sir Michael, inferring an outlay of sixty pounds,
on the ground that his estate did not extend beyond twenty-four chalders
of victual, out of which he had diverse sums of interest to pay—inferring
that he was not liable to have more than one stand of horsemen’s arms. The
lords decreed that James was in the right, and that Sir Michael’s
proceedings against him should cease.—P.
C. R.
June 17
‘Ane combat or tulyie [was] foughten at the Salt Tron of Edinburgh,
betwixt the Laird of Ogle [Edzell], younger, and his complices, and the
young Laird of Pitarrow, Wishart. The faught lasted frae 9 hours till 11
at night, twa hours. There were sundry hurt on both sides, and ane Guthrie
slain, which was Pitarrow’s man, ane very pretty young man. The 18th, they
were accusit before the Council, and wardit.’—Bir.
The Lairds of Edzell and Pitarrow
were committed to ward, for not having confined their sons, as the
chancellor had commanded. Edzell, foreseeing troubles to himself and his
son from the death of Guthrie, sent a surgeon to examine the corpse, with
a view to establishing that the young man had not died of the wounds he
received in the tulyie, but had been ‘smoored in the throng.’
Edzell was in his way a remarkable
man. Possessing a degree of taste uncommon in that age, he had built for
himself at Edzell on the Esk in Forfarshire, a mansion of singular
elegance, possessing in particular a screen-wall, ornamented with
allegorical figures, the remains of which even at this day excite the
surprise of the passing traveller. His latter days were clouded by the
consequences of the violent passions of his eldest son, one of the
principals in the above combat. We shall presently hear more of both him
and his son.
A man called Alister Mac William Mor,
a servant of Hugh Mackay of Far, happening to go into Caithness on some
business, was there entrapped by emissaries of the Earl of Caithness, who
bore him a grudge for his conduct in a former feud. The earl caused
Alister to be beheaded before his eyes next day. The subsequeut
proceedings are curious. Mackay prosecuted Lord Caithness before the
Justiciary Court at Edinburgh; but the Marquis of Huntly brought them
together at Elgin; and ‘the Earl of Caithness acknowledged his offence
before the friends there present; whereupon they were finally agreed, and
all past injuries were again forgiven by either party.’ Not a word of the
general claim of justice on behalf of the public!—G.
H. S.
July
At the end of this month, the pest broke out in Edinburgh, Leith, St
Andrews, and other parts of the kingdom. Among the first houses infected
in Edinburgh was that of the Chancellor Dunfermline. James Melville,
looking to the recent proceedings of this statesman against the more
zealous ministers, considered him as overtaken by ‘the penalty pronounced
by Joshua upon the building up of Jericho. His eldest and only son died,
and a young damosel his niece, so that he was compelled to dissolve his
family, and go with his wife alone, as in hermitage, with great fear of
the death of his daughter also, on whom the boils brake forth. This was
marked and talked of by the people.’
The Fife adventurers who had been
obliged to leave the Lewis in 1601 on a promise never to return, made a
new attempt at this time to complete their unhappy undertaking. Attended
with considerable forces, led partly by one William Mac Williams,
chieftain of the Clan Gunn, they landed in the island, and ‘sent a message
unto Tormod Macleod, shewing that if he would yield unto them, in name and
behalf of the king [now a more formidable name than it had been], they
should transport him safely to London, where his majesty then, was; and
being arrived there, they would not only obtein his pardon, but also
suffer him, without let or hindrance, to deal by his friends for his
majesty’s favour, and for some means whereby he might live. Whereunto
Tormod Macleod condescended, and would not adventure the hazard of his
fortune against so great forces as he perceived ready there to assail him.
This did Tormod Macleod against the opinion and advice of his brother,
Niel Macleod, who stood out and would not yield.
‘So the adventurers sent Tormod
Macleod to London, where he caused his majesty to be rightly informed of
the case; how the Lewis was his just inheritance; how his majesty was
sinistrously informed by the undertakers, who had abused his majesty in
making him believe that the same was at his disposition, whereupon
proceeded much unnecessary trouble and great bloodshed; and thereupon he
humbly entreated his majesty to do him justice, and to restore him to his
own. The adventurers, understanding that his majesty began to hearken to
the complaint of Tormod Macleod, used all their credit at court to cross
him. In end, they prevailed so far—some of them being the king’s domestic
servants—that they procured him to be taken and sent home prisoner into
Scotland, where he remained captive at Edinburgh, until the month of March
1615 years, that the king gave him liberty to pass into Holland, to
Maurice, Prince of Orange, where Tormod ended his days.’—G. H.
S.
Tormod being thus put out of the
way, ‘the enterprise of the Lewis was again set on foot by Robert Lumsden
of Airdrie and Sir George Hay of Netherliffe, to whom some of the first
undertakers had made over their right. In August they took journey
thither, and by the assistance of Mackay Mackenzie and Donald Gorm, forced
the inhabitants to remove forth of the isle, and give surety not to
return.
‘Airdrie and his copartners,
thinking all made sure, returned south about Martinmas, leaving some
companies to maintain their possession, which they made good all that
winter, though now and then they were assaulted by the islesmen. In the
spring, Airdrie went back, taking with him fresh provision, and fell to
building and manuring the lands. But this continued not long; for, money
failing, the workmen went away, and the companies diminishing daily, the
islesmen made a new invasion about the end of harvest, and by continual
incursions so outwearied the new possessors, as they gave over their
enterprise, and were contented for a little sum of money to make away
their rights to the Laird of Mackenzie [Mackenzie of Kintail]. This turned
to the ruin of divers of the undertakers, who were exhausted in means
before they took the enterprise in hand, and had not the power which was
required in a business of that importance.’—Spot.
It will be found that there was a
third attempt to plant the Lewis. See under 1609.
Aug
Mr Gilbert Brown, called Abbot of New Abbey, had for many years escaped
the law while exercising his functions as a priest in the neighbourhood of
Dumfries. The Presbyterian historians stigmatise him as ‘a famous
excommunicat, forfaulted, perverting papist,’ who ‘kept in ignorance
almost the haill south-west parts of Scotland,’ and was ‘continually
occupied in practising against the religion.’ He was now taken prisoner by
Lord Cranston, ‘not without peril from the country people, who rose to
rescue him out of his hands.’ He was brought to Blackness, where, for a
night, he was the fellow-prisoner of the recusant Presbyterian brethren.
It is to be feared that community of misfortune did not bring the two
parties into any greater harmony or charity with each other than they had
hitherto been. When the government thus ‘took order’ with a papist priest,
the only feeling of the zealous people on the other side was a jealous
curiosity to see whether it was in earnest or not. The government, on its
part, felt that it was on its good behaviour, and dreaded to be too
lenient. Abbot Brown, being taken to Edinburgh Castle, was for some time
entertained with an unpopular degree of mildness and liberality, his food
being furnished at the king’s expense, and his friends being allowed to
see him, while the Presbyterian captives were obliged to live at their own
charges. Finally, the ‘excommunicat papist’ was allowed to quit the
country with all his priestly furnishings, not without some suspicion of
having been allowed to say mass in private before his departure.—Cal.
It is probable that this leniency
was found to have been attended with the effect of exciting a troublesome
degree of suspicion against the government, for another ‘priest, who had
been a certain time in ward in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, was (September
27, 1607) brought down on the mercat-day to the Mercat Cross, with all his
mess clothes upon him, wherewith he was taken, with his chalice in his
hand. He stayed at the Cross from ten hours till twelve. Then all his mess
clothes and chalice were burned in a fire beside the Cross, and himself
carried back to ward.’—Cal.
Oct 3
The Privy Council, sitting at Perth, dealt with a complaint from Mr
Alexander Ireland, minister of Kincleven, against Sir John Crichton of
Innernytie, who has already been introduced to our notice as a professor
of the ancient faith. It appeared that the minister had had to adopt
measures of discipline with Sir John ‘for halding of profane plays on the
Sabbath-day, resetting of seminary priests, and divers other offences
condemned by the word of God.’ The knight, rebelling against an authority
which he bore in no reverence, had resented the interference with his
personal freedom by going with an armed party to Ireland’s house and
committing sundry outrages, even to the beating of his wife, though she
was not far from her confinement. Owing to an imperfection of the record,
the end of the affair is unknown.—P.
C. H
Nov 5
On the evening of this day, when the Gunpowder Plot was to have taken
effect, a high wind produced some effects in the north of Scotland, which
seemed in harmony with that wild affair. ‘All the inner stone pillars of
the north side of the cathedral church at Dornoch (lacking the roof
before), were blown from the very roots and foundation, quite and clean
over the outer walls of the church; which walls did remain nevertheless
standing, to the great astonishment of all such as have seen the same.
These great winds did even then prognosticate and foreshew some great
treason to be at hand; and as the devil was busy then to trouble the air,
so was he busy, by these his firebrands, to trouble the estate of Great
Britain.’—G. H. S.
The Privy Council issued sundry
proclamations ‘anent the Poulder Treason,’ one for the apprehension of
Percy, the prime conspirator. There was a general joy in Scotland at the
detection of the plot. In Aberdeen, the people repaired to the church to
give formal thanks for the deliverance of the royal family and nobility.
Bonfires were lighted on the public ways, and the people went about for an
afternoon, singing psalms of thankfulness. The magistrates and others had
also a public banquet at the market-cross, where glasses were ‘drunk and
cassen,’ in token of their rejoicing for the said merciful delivery.—Ab.
C. K
1606, Jan 21
The Earl of Errol wrote from Perth to the king, promising, in compliance
with a command just received, to be ‘careful to provide ane tercel to the
hawk of Foulsheuch,’ and to be ‘answerable to your majesty for the same,
in case the auld tercel be dead.’ Foulsheuch is a sea-cliff about four
miles south of Stonehaven, 200 feet in height, where so lately as 1808 a
family of hawks, of uncommonly large size, continued to build. James’s
love of what old Gervase Markham calls the ‘most princely and serious
delight’ of hawking, caused him to keep up a constant correspondence with
friends in Scotland for the supply of the needful birds, and of this the
earl’s letter is a specimen. His lordship goes on with laudable
particularity: ‘Your majesty’s mongrel falcon, whilk I have, sould have
been at your hieness lang or now [ere now], but that as my falconer was
ready to tak his journey, she contracted ane disease, wherewith he thirst
not adventure to travel her, in respect of the great frosts and storms. I
will be answerable to your majesty that she has been in nae ways stressed,
but as weel treated as any hawk could be. Naither shall your majesty
suspect that I have reteinit her for my awn plesure, whilk I sall never
compare in the greatest thing whatsoever with your majesty’s meanest
contentment, nor am I able as yet, even at this present, to travel upon
the fields for any game. Albeit, how soon it sall be possible that the
hawk may in any sort be travellit, she sall be at your majesty with all
diligence. She had the same sickness the last year, in this same season,
and was not free of it till near March.’
So keenly interested was James
respecting the tercel of Foulsheuch, that he had written to the Earl of
Mar regarding it; and this nobleman replied on the same date with Lord
Errol, assuring the king that he will see after it carefully. ‘I cannot as
yet,’ he says, 'certify your majesty whether he be alive or not, but,
within few days, I think, I sall go near to get the certainty that may be
had of so oncertain a matter.’
There is extant a characteristic
letter written by James at Perth in March 1597, to Fraser of Philorth,
regarding a bird of sport. ‘Hearing that ye have ane gyre-falcon, whilk is
esteemed the best hawk in all that country, and meetest for us that have
sae guid liking of that pastime, we have therefore taken occasion
effectuously to requeest and desire you, seeing hawks are but gjfting
geir, and nae otherwise to be accounted betwix us and you, being sae
well acquainted, that of courtesy ye will bestow on us that goshawk, and
send her here to us with this bearer, our servant, whom we have on this
errand directed to bring and carry her tenderly. Wherein, as he sall
report our hearty and special thanks, sae sall ye find us ready to requite
your courtesy and good-will with nae less pleasure in any the like gates
[ways] as occasion sall present.’
May 29 and 30
The equinoctial gale of this year is described by a contemporary
chronicler as of extreme violence. He says, with regard to the two days
marginally noted: ‘The wind was so extraordinary tempestuous and violent,
that it caused great shipwreck in Scotland, England, France, and the
Netherlands. It blew trees by the roots, ruined whole villages, and caused
the sea and many rivers so to overflow their wonted limits and bounds,
that many people and chattels were drowned and perished.’—Bal.
An outbreak of touchiness on
heraldic matters, which recently took place in Scotland, excited some
surprise amongst English statesmen and others. It is certain, however,
that wherever two nations are associated under one monarchy, the smaller
usually manifests no small amount of jealousy regarding its national flag
and every other thing which marks its distinction and may have been
associated with the national history. The government of Sweden is at this
day under constant anxiety regarding the rampant lion and battle-axe of
the Norwegian flag, lest on any occasion due honour should not be paid to
it, and feelings of international hostility be thereby engendered.
When the Scottish king added England
and Ireland to his dominions, his native subjects manifested the utmost
jealousy regarding their heraldic ensigns; and some troubles in
consequence arose between them and their English neighbours, especially at
sea. We find that at this time, ‘for composing of some difference between
his subjects of North and South Britain travelling by seas, anent the
bearing of their flags, and for avoiding all such contentions hereafter,’
the king issued a proclamation, ordaining ‘the ships of both nations to
carry on their main-tops the flags of St Andrew and St George interlaced,
and those of North Britain in their stern that of St Andrew, and those of
South Britain that of St George.’-Bal.
May 17
In an early and rude state of society, bankruptcy is always looked on with
harshness, and punished cruelly; and perhaps it is really then less
excusable than it becomes when commerce is more advanced, and the returns
of transactions can less certainly be calculated on. Even Venice in old
times had its stone of shame for bankrupts. Well, then, might Edinburgh
have one in 1606. At the date noted in the margin, the Privy Council
ordered the magistrates of that city to erect ‘ane pillory of hewen stone
near the Mercat Cross; upon the head thereof ane seat to be made,
whereupon in time coming sall be set all dyvours,’ wha sall sit
thereon ane mercat-day, from ten hours in the morning till ane hour after
dinner.' The unfortunates were obliged to wear a yellow bonnet on these
occasions, and for ever after—the livery of slavery in the middle ages,
and of which we have a relic in the under-clothes of the Christ’s Hospital
boys in London.
An act of the Lords of Session in
1688 is more particular regarding the indignities to be visited upon
dyvours. It ‘ordains the magistrates of the burgh (where the debtor is
incarcerated), before his liberation out of prison, to cause him take on,
and wear upon his head, a bonnet, partly of a brown, and partly of a
yellow colour, with uppermost hose, or stockings, on his legs, half-brown
and half-yellow coloured, conform to a pattern delivered to the
magistrates of Edinburgh, to be keeped in their Tolbooth; and that they
cause take the dyvour to the Mercat Cross, betwixt ten and eleven o’clock
in the fore noon, with the foresaid habit, where he is to sit upon the
dyvour-stone, the space of ane hour, and then to be dismissed; and ordains
the dyvour to wear the said habit in all time thereafter; and in case he
be found either wanting or disguising the samen, he shall lose the benefit
of his bonorum."
July 1
A parliament met at Perth, chiefly with a view to reinstating the bishops
in those revenues which alone could make them efficient in their office.
They themselves appeared for the first time during many years in a style
calculated to impress the senses of the people. The king had taken care
that they, as well as the nobility, should wear ceremonial dresses. In the
‘riding’ or equestrian procession to the parliament house, they took their
place immediately after the earls, ‘all in silk and velvet foot-mantles,
by pairs, two and two, and St Andrews, the great Metropolitan, alone by
himself; and ane of the ministers of no small quality, named Arthur Futhie,
with his cap at his knee, walkit at his stirrup along the street.’ ‘This
was called the Red Parliament, whilk in old prophecies was talked
many years ago sould be keepit in St Johnston, because all the noblemen
and officers of estate came riding thereto and sat therein, with red gowns
and hoods, after the manner of England, for ane new solemnity; whilk many
did interpret a token of the red fire of God’s wrath to be kindled both
upon kirk and country.’—Ja. Mel.
At this parliament appeared two
western nobles between whose families there had long subsisted great
enmity—namely, the Earls of Eglintoun and Glencairn. Notwithstanding the
known anxiety of the king for an oblivion of all such ‘deidly feids,’ the
two earls and their respective attendants came to a collision on the
street. ‘It lasted fra seven till ten hours at night, with great skaith,’
one man of the Glencairn party being slain outright. It was not without
great exertion on the part of the citizens that the tumult was quelled.
This feud; which was of early
origin, acquired fresh stimulus from the murder of the Earl of Eglintoun
by Cunningham of Robertland in 1586, the Earl of Glencairn, as head of the
Cunninghams, being held as in some degree answerable for, and bound to
protect, the actual assassin. The affair now involved the Lord Semple and
other men of consequence in the west, and it took no small pains on the
part of the king and his Scottish ministers to get it composed.
The reconciliation of the Earl of
Glencairn with Lord Semple took place in a formal and public manner, at
the command of the Privy Council, nearly three years afterwards (May 22,
1609). The scene of this important transaction was the Green of Glasgow.
On the occasion, ‘for eschewing of all inconvenients of trouble whilk may
happen (whilk God forbid!),‘ the town-council arranged that the
provost with one of the bailies and whole council should go to the place,
attended by forty citizens in arms, while the other two bailies, each
attended by sixty of the citizens with ‘lang weapons and swords,’ should
‘accompany and convoy the said noblemen, with their friends, in and out,
in making their reconciliation.’—M. of
G.
July
Glasgow—now a city of 400,000 inhabitants, and the scene of a marvellous
concentration of the industrial energies of the nineteenth century—how
curious to look in upon it in 1606! when it was only a small burgh and
university town, containing perhaps 5000 inhabitants at the utmost, some
of them merchants (that is, shopkeepers), others craftsmen—not such folk,
however, as would now be found carrying on trade and the useful arts in a
burgh of the same size, but men accustomed to the use of arms, and the
exercise of the violent passions which call arms into use—not inspired
with the independent political ideas of our time, but trained to look up
to the great landlords of their neighbourhood as leaders to be in all
things followed: in short, a small burgal community, retaining a strong
tinge of the old feudal system.
July 5
The city was at this time the scene of ‘a very great trouble and
commotion,’ arising from a change which had been made in the system of
municipal election. The change seems to have been effected in legal and
proper manner by Sir George Elphinstone, the provost; but it was odious to
a neighbouring knight, Sir Matthew Stewart of Minto, whose ancient local
influence it threatened to subvert. He accordingly wrought upon the
‘crafts’ of the burgh, till he induced them to believe that the new system
was a gross tyranny to their order. They consequently held a meeting in
the house of a citizen—an act unlawful, without the sanction of the
magistrates—ostensibly to get up a petition, but in reality armed for
action with swords, targes, and other abulyiements. Climbing up to the
platform of the Market Cross, they proclaimed their remonstrance against
the new arrangements, in the sight of the magistrates, who sat in their
council-house close by. It was believed that the object of the insurgents
was to provoke the magistrates to come out and interfere with their
proceedings; which might have been made a pretence for involving them in a
murderous quarrel. But ‘God furnished the magistrates with patience to
abide all their indignities.’ They even so far deferred to the popular
party, as to appoint a day when they might meet and argue out their
differences.
According to the provost and
magistrates, in a complaint which they sent to the Privy Council, this
peaceful measure did not suit the views of Sir Matthew Stewart and his
friends. Accordingly, ‘knawing that, upon the twenty-three day of the
month, whilk was the day preceding the appointit time of meeting, Sir
George was to go to the archery, they made choice of that time and
occasion, to work their turn.’ Sir Walter Stewart, son of Sir Matthew,
with John and Alexander Stewarts, ‘lay in wait for him and his company,
wha were but five in number, without ony kind of armour, saufing
their bows; and perceiving them, about seven hours at even, come up the
Dry-gate, of purpose to have passed to the Castle butts, and there
to have endit their game, and James Forrat, ane of Sir George’s company,
going to his awn house with his bow disbendit in his hand, to have fetchit
some Bute arrows; Sir Walter thought meet to mak the first onset upon him,
and thereby to draw Sir George back.’ The assault upon Forrat having
caused a great cry to arise, Sir George returned through the Castle port
to learn what was the matter, when, meeting young Minto in the act of
pursuing the unarmed man, he remonstrated first in gentle words, and then
in language more emphatic, finally commanding him in the king’s name to
desist and go borne. Hereupon a party of forty, all armed with steel
bonnets, secrets, plait sleeves, ‘lang staffs,’ and other weapons, issued
from the wynd-head, where they had been concealed, and, joining with young
Minto, drove Sir George and his small party of friends back to the Castle
port, where they were happily relieved from present danger. Being thus
disappointed of their purpose, the rioters retired to the wynd-head, and
presently sent off one of their number down the High Gait to rouse the
other citizens. This man, James Braidwood, ran along crying, ‘Arm you! arm
you! They are yokit!’ whereupon a great number of the seditious faction,
including Sir Matthew Stewart of Minto himself, assembled in arms, and
joining the other party at the wynd-head, came in full force, and in the
most furious manner to the Castle, where, but for the interposition of the
Earl of Wigton and two other privy-councilors, who were present, they
would certainly have slain their provost. ‘Seeing they could not win
towards Sir George with lang staffs and weapons, they despitefully cast
stanes at him.’ Then, refusing to obey the commands of the privy-councilors
to go peaceably home, ‘they past tumultuously down the gait to the Barras
Yett, far beneath the Cross, and come up the gait again with three hundred
persons, with drawn swords in their hands, some of the rascal multitude
crying: "I sall have this buith, and thou sall have that buith!" and of
new assailit the Castle port, with full purpose by force to have enterit
within the same.’ It was alleged that, but for the courageous resistance
of the three noble privy-councillors, they would have accomplished the
destruction of Sir George Elphinstone on this occasion. As it was, they
laid violent hands on three several magistrates who came to his help,
altogether ‘committing manifest insolency and insurrection within the said
city, to the great trouble and inquietation thereof, and ane evil example
to others to do the like hereafter.’
Such was the Elphinstone story
regarding this tumult. It was, however, met by a counter-complaint from
young Minto, to the following effect. He was, he said, ‘coming down the
Rotton Raw, in peaceable and quiet maner to his awn lodging, accompanit
only with twa servants,’ when ‘he perceivit Sir George Elphinstone with
nine or ten persons in his company, coming up the Dry Gait.’ Although he
was in the straight way for his lodging, ‘yet in respect of some dryness
between Sir George and him, he left that gait, and past ane other way, of
purpose to have eschewit all occasion of trouble and unquietness betwixt
them.’ Here, however, ‘James Forrat, ane of Sir George’s company, cast him
directly in the complainer’s way, and pressit to have stayit his passage.’
When young Minto ‘soberly found fault with him,’ Forrat ‘immediately
bendit his bow, and had not failed to have shot and slain him, were not
ane in company with the complainer cuttit the bow-string.’ Whereupon,
according to the recital, Sir George Elphinstone and his servants fell
upon young Minto and his servants in the most violent manner with their
swords, and would certainly have slain them, if they had not by God’s
providence escaped.—P. C. R.
We learn from another source, that,
after all, ‘the skaith was not great; only ane man callit Thomas Cloggy
died, without ony wound, and sundry hurt with staves'
The government authorities must have
felt puzzled by this local squabble, and hardly known how to apportion
punishment amongst the parties. The Minto knights were ordered into ward
in Dumbarton Castle, and Sir George Elphinstone in the castle of Glasgow,
till his majesty’s pleasure should be known. The Privy Council afterwards
absolved young Minto from the charge of being the aggressor in the
conflict of the 23d July; but the two knights and their principal
supporters were confined for some time in Linlithgow, on account of the
general ‘insolency’ of which they had been guilty.
There is something affecting in the
history of the families concerned in this tumult. A mural tablet in
Glasgow cathedral commemorated the names of six or eight Stewarts of Minto
in succession, ‘knights created under the banner,’ and men of great sway
in the district. But when M'Ure wrote his History of Glasgow in
1736, the family was ‘mouldered so quite away, that the heir in our time
was reduced to a state of penury little short of beggary.’ A memorandum of
Paton, the antiquary, queried, ‘If true that the last of the family was a
poor boy sent into Edinburgh barefooted with a letter to Stewart of
Coltness, who [being] promising, was recommended to the Duke of Hamilton,
got some education, and afterwards went abroad to Darien, where he died.’
Sir George Elphinstone, who had been the familiar servant and friend of
King James, acquired a great estate at Glasgow, and after this time rose
to be Lord Justice-clerk, nevertheless ‘died so poor, that his corpse was
arrested by his creditors, and his friends buried him privately in his own
chapel adjoining his house.’ His family went out in the second generation.
1606, Aug
While the attention of the people was absorbed by the matter of the
bishops and their robes and renewed dignity, the consequences of the
continual neglect of those natural conditions on which their physical
health depended were about to be once more and most severely felt. The
pest broke out and spread over the more populous districts with
frightful rapidity. ‘It raged so extremely in all the corners of the
kingdom, that neither burgh nor land in any part was free. The burghs of
Ayr and Stirling were almost desolate; and all the judicatories of the
land were deserted.’—Bal. It was not till the middle of winter that
it sensibly declined.
The chancellor wrote to the king in
October, that scarcely any part of the country was free of the scourge.
‘This calamity,’ he says, ‘hinders all meetings of Council, and all public
functions for ministration of justice and maintenance of good rule and
government, except sic as we tak at starts, with some few, at Edinburgh,
or in sic other place for a day, to keep some countenance of order.’
The unconforming clergy now
imprisoned at Blackness wrote a petition for mercy to the king (August
23), in which they describe the state of the country under its present
affliction. They speak of ‘the destroying angel hewing down day and night
continually, in sic a number in some of our congregations, that the like
thereof has not been heard many years before.’ They add: ‘What is most
lamentable, they live and die comfortless under the fearful judgment,
filling the heaven and the earth with their sighs, sobs, and cries of
their distressed souls, for being deprived not only of all outward
comforts (whilk were great also), but also of all inward consolation,
through the want of the ordinary means of their peace and life, to wit,
the preaching of the word of our ministry.’
We have a remarkable trait of the
treatment of the pest in outlying districts, in a bond granted on this
occasion by some Aberdeenshire gentlemen to the burgh of Dundee for five
hundred merks, as requital for their sending two professional clengers
from their town to the valley of the Dee, that they might deal with an
infection which had fallen forth in the house of Mr Thomas Burnet,
minister of Strathauchan, and in the house of John Burnet of Slowy - two
places divided by the river, but both on the line of the great road
leading from the south to the north of Scotland. The country gentlemen, on
hearing of the infection in their district, had been obliged to convene
and devise measures for meeting the calamity.
Their first step was to send for two
clenqers a hundred miles off to come with all speed, although at a
high cost, which the gentlemen, as we see, were obliged to pay in behalf
of themselves and neighbours.
Another trait of the public economy
regarding this pestilence occurs in the record of the Privy Council. It
was represented to that august body on the 2d of September, that ‘certain
lodges’ had been ‘biggit by James Lawrieston and David and George
Hamiltons, upon the common muir of Gogar, for the ease and relief of
certain their tenants, infectit with the pest;’ but Thomas Majoribanks,
portioner of Ratho, and other persons had cast down these lodges,
apparently on the plea that the erecting of them was an intrusion on their
property. The Council found that the muir was common property, and ordered
the lodges to be rebuilt by those who had originally set them up, on the
part of the muir nearest to their own grounds, ‘where they may have the
best commodity of water,’ the other party being at the same time forbidden
to interfere under heavy penalties.—P.
C. R. |