1611, Nov 4
The Privy Council was at this time obliged to renew former acts against
Night-walkers of the city of Edinburgh—namely, idle and debauched
persons who went about the streets during the night, in the indulgence of
wild humours, and sometimes committing heinous crimes. If it be borne in
mind that there was at that time no system of lighting for the streets of
the city, but that after twilight all was sunk in Cimmerian darkness,
saving for the occasional light of the moon and stars, the reader will be
the better able to appreciate the state of things revealed by this public
act.
Reference is made to ‘sundry idle and deboshit persons,
partly strangers, who, debording in all kind of excess, riot, and
drunkenness. . . . commit sundry enormities upon
his majesty’s peaceable and guid subjects, not sparing the ordinar
officers of the burgh, who are appointit to watch the streets of the
same—of whom lately some has been cruelly and unmercifully slain, and
others left for deid.’ The Council ordered that no persons of any estate
whatsoever presume hereafter to remain on the streets ‘after the ringing
of the ten-hour bell at night.’ The magistrates were also ordained to
appoint some persons to guard the streets, and apprehend all whom they
might find there after the hour stated.—P. C. R.
1612
In this year there happened a strife between the Earl of Caithness on the
one side, and Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonston and Donald Mackay on the
other, highly illustrative of a state of things when law had only asserted
a partial predominancy over barbarism.
One Arthur Smith, a native of Banff, had been in
trouble for coining so long ago as 1599, when his man actually suffered
death for that crime. He himself contrived to escape justice, by making a
lock of peculiarly fine device, by which he gained favour with the king.
Entering into the service of the Earl of Caithness, he lived for seven or
eight years, working diligently, in a recess called the Gote, under Castle
Sinclair, on the rocky coast of that northern district. If we are to
believe Sir Robert Gordon, the enemy of the Earl of Caithness, there was a
secret passage from his lordship’s bedroom into the Gote, where Smith was
often heard working by night, and at last Caithness, Sutherland, and
Orkney were found full of false coin, both silver and gold. On Sir
Robert’s representation of the case, a commission was given to him by the
Privy Council to apprehend Smith and bring him to Edinburgh.
While the execution of this was pending, one William
MacAngus MacRorie, a noted freebooter, was committed to Castle Sinclair,
and there bound in fetters. Contriving to shift off his irons, William got
to the walls of the castle, and jumping from them down into the sea which
dashes on the rocks at a great depth below, swam safely ashore, and
escaped into Strathnaver. There an attempt was made by the Sinclairs to
seize him; but he eluded them, and they only could lay hold of one Angus
Herriach, whom they believed to have assisted the culprit in making his
escape. This man being taken to Castle Sinclair without warrant, and there
confined, Mackay was brought into the field to rescue his man—for so Angus
was—and Caithness was forced to give him up.
May
The coiner Smith was living quietly in the town of Thurso,
it under the protection of the Earl of
Caithness, when a party of Gordons and Mackays came to execute the
commission for apprehending him. They had seized the fellow, with a
quantity of false money he had about him, and were making off, when a set
of Sinclairs, headed by the earl’s nephew, John Sinclair of Stirkoke, came
to the rescue with a backing of town’s-people, and a deadly conflict took
place in the streets. Stirkoke was slain, his brother severely wounded,
and the rescuing party beat back. During the tumult, Smith was coolly put
to death, lest he should by any chance escape. The invading party were
then allowed to retire without further molestation. ‘The Earl of Caithness
was exceedingly grieved for the slaughter of his nephew, and was much
more vexed that such a disgraceful contempt, as he thought, should
have been offered to him in the heart of his own country, and in his chief
town; the like whereof had not been enterprised against him or his
predecessors.’
The strife is now transferred in partially legal form
to Edinburgh, where the parties had counter-actions against each other
before the Privy Council. Why the word partially is here used, will
appear from Sir Robert Gordon’s account of the procedure. ‘Both parties
did come to Edinburgh at the appointed day, where they did assemble all
their friends. There were with the Earl of Caithness and his son
Berriedale, the Lord Gray, the Laird of Roslin, the Laird of Cowdenknowes
(the earl’s sister’s son), the Lairds of Murkle and Greenland (the earl's
two brethren); these were the chief men of their company. There were with
Sir Robert Gordon and Donald Mackay, the Earl of Winton and his brother
the Earl of Eglintoun, with all their followers; the Earl of Linlithgow,
with the Livingstones; the Lord Elphinstone, with his friends; the Lord
Forbes, with his friends; Sir John Stewart, captain of Dumbarton (the Duke
of Lennox’s bastard son); the Lord Balfour; the Laird of Lairg Mackay in
Galloway; the Laird of Foulis, with the Monroes; the Laird of Duffus;
divers of the surname of Gordon . . . . with
sundry other gentlemen of name too long to set down. The Earl of Caithness
was much grieved that neither the Earl of Sutherland in person, nor
Hutcheon Mackay, were present. It galled him to the heart to be thus
overmatched, as he said, by seconds and children; for so it pleased him to
call his adversaries. Thus, both parties went weel accompanied to the
council-house from their lodgings; but few were suffered to go in when the
parties were called before the Council.’
All of these friends had, of course, come to see
justice done to their respective principals—that is, to outbrave each
other in forcing a favourable decision as far as possible. What followed
is equally characteristic. While the Council was endeavouring to exact
security from the several parties for their keeping the peace, both sent
off private friends to the king to give him a favourable impression of
their cases. ‘The king, in his wisdom, considering how much this
controversy might hinder and endamage the peace and quietness of his realm
in the parts where they did live, happening between persons powerful in
their own countries, and strong in parties and alliances, did write thrice
very effectually to the Privy Council, to take up this matter from the
rigour of law and justice unto the decision and mediation of friends.’
The Council acted accordingly, but not without great difficulty. While the
matter was pending, Lord Gordon, son of the Marquis of Huntly, happened to
come to Edinburgh from court; and his friends, having access to him, were
believed by the Earl of Caithness to have given him a favourable view of
their case against himself ‘So, late in the evening, the Lord Gordon
coming from his own lodging, accompanied with Sir Alexander Gordon and
sundry others of the Sutherland men, met the Earl of Caithness and his
company upon the High Street, between the Cross and the Tron. At the first
sight, they fell to jostling and talking; then to drawing of swords.
Friends assembled speedily on all hands. Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay,
with the rest of the company, came presently to them; but the Earl of
Caithness, after some blows, given and received, perceiving that he could
not make his part good, left the street, and retired to his lodging; and
if the darkness of the night had not favoured him, he had not escaped so.
The Lord Gordon, taking this broil very highly, was not satisfied that the
Earl of Caithness had given him place, and departed; but, moreover, he,
with all his company, crossed thrice the Earl of Caithness his lodging,
thereby to provoke him to come forth; but perceiving no appearance
thereof, he retired himself to his own lodging. The next day, the Earl of
Caithness and the Lord Gordon were called before the Lords of the Privy
Council, and reconciled in their presence.’
It was not till several years later that these troubles
came to an end.
Mar 28
Proceeding upon the principle that the smallest trait of industrial
enterprise forms an interesting variety on the too ample details of
barbarism here calling to be recorded, I remark with pleasure a letter of
the king of this date, agreeing to the proposal lately brought before him
by a Fleming—namely, to set up a work for the making of ‘brinston,
vitreall, and allome,’ in Scotland, on condition that he received a
privilege excluding rivalry for the space of thirteen years. About the
same time, one Archibald Campbell obtained a privilege to induce him ‘to
bring in strangers to make red herrings.’ In June 1613, he petitioned that
the king would grant him, by way of pension for his further encouragement,
the fourteen lasts of herrings yearly paid to his majesty by the Earl of
Argyle, ‘as the duty of the tack of the assize of herrings of those parts
set to him,’ being of the value of £38 yearly.—M. S. P.
Mar 29
Some of the principal Border gentlemen—Scott of Harden, Scott of Tushielaw,
Scott of Stirkfield, Gladstones of Cocklaw, Elliot of Falnash, and
others—had a meeting at Jedburgh, with a view to making a final and
decisive effort for stopping that system of blood and robbery by which the
land had been so long harassed, even to the causing of several valuable
lands to be left altogether desolate. They entered into a sort of bond,
declaring their abhorrence of all the ordinary violences, and agreeing
thenceforth to shew no countenance to any lawless persons, but to stand
firm with the government in putting them down. Even where the culprits
were their own dependents or tenants, they were to take part in bringing
them to justice, and, if they fled, were to deprive them of their ‘tacks
and steedings,’ and ‘put in other persons to occupy the same.’ Should any
fail to act in this way, or to pursue culprits to justice, they agreed
that a share of guilt should lie with that person. This bond seems to have
been executed with the concurrence of the state-officers, and more
especially under encouragement from the king, who, they say, had shewn his
anxiety every way ‘for the suppressing of that infamous byke of lawless
limmers.’
Mar / Apr
The Presbyterian historian of this period notes, that ‘in the months of
March and April fell forth prodigious works and rare accidents. A cow
brought forth fourteen great dog-whelps, instead of calves. Another, after
the calving, became stark mad, so that the owner was forced to slay her. A
dead bairn was found in her belly. A third brought forth a calf with two
heads. One of the Earl of Argyle’s servants being sick, vomited two toads
and a serpent, and so convalesced; but after[wards] vomited a number of
little toads. A man beside Glasgow murdered both his father and mother. A
young man going at the plough near Kirkliston, killeth his own son
accidentally with the throwing of a stone, goeth home and hangeth himself.
His wife, lately delivered of a child, running out of the house to seek
her husband, a sow had eaten her child.’—Cal. It is curious thus to
see what a former age was capable of believing. The circumstances here
related regarding the first two cows are now known to be impossibilities;
and no such relation, accordingly, could move one step beyond the mouths
of the vulgar with whom it originated. Yet it found a place in the work of
a learned church historian of the seventeenth century.
June
There was at this time an ‘extraordinary drowth, whilk is likely to burn
up and destroy the corns and fruits of the ground.’ On this account, a
fast was ordered at Aberdeen.—A. K. S. R. In September, and
for some months after, there are notices of ‘great dearth of victual,’
doubtless the consequence of this drouth. ‘The victual at ten pound the
boll.’—Chron. Perth.
July 28
Gregor Beg Macgregor, and nine others of his unhappy clan, were tried for
sundry acts of robbery, oppression, and murder; and being all found
guilty, were sentenced to be hanged on the Burgh-moor of Edinburgh.—Pit.
The relics of the broken Clan Gregor lived at this time a wild
predaceous life on the borders of the lowlands of Perthshire—a fearful
problem to the authorities of the country, from the king downward. One
called Robin Abroch, from the nativity of his father (Lochaber), stood
prominently out as a clever chief of banditti, being reported, says Sir
Thomas Hamilton, king’s advocate, as ‘the most bluidy murderer and
oppressor of all that damned race, and most terrible to all the honest men
of the country.' In a memoir of the contemporary Earl of Perth occurs an
anecdote of Robin, which, though somewhat obscure, speaks precisely of the
style of events which modern times have seen in the Abruzzi and the
fastnesses of the Apennines. The incident seems to have occurred in 1611.
‘In the meantime, some dozen of the Clan Gregor came
within the laigh of the country—Robin Abroch, Patrick M’Inchater,
and Gregor Gair, being chiefs. This Abroch sent to my chamberlain, David
Drummond, desiring to speak to him. After conference, Robin Abroch, for
reasons known to himself:, alleging his comrades and followers were to
betray him, was contented to take the advantage, and let them fall into
the hands of justice. The plot was cunningly contrived, and six of that
number were killed on the ground where, with certain friends, was present;
three were taken, and one escaped, by Robin and his man. This execution
raised great speeches in the country, and made many acknowledge that these
troubles were put to ane end, wherewith King James himself was well
pleased for the time.’ We nevertheless find the king’s advocate soon after
desiring of the king that, for the sake of public peace, he would withdraw
a certain measure of protection he had extended to Robin, and replace him
under the same restrictions as had been prescribed to the rest of his
clan.
In this year, a large body of troops was levied in
Scotland in a clandestine manner for the service of the king of Sweden, in
his unsuccessful war with Christian IV. of Denmark. As the king of Great
Britain was brother-in-law of the latter monarch, this illegal levying of
troops was an act of the greater presumption. The Privy Council fulminated
edicts against the proceedings as most obnoxious to the king, but without
effect. One George Sinclair—a natural brother of the Earl of Caithness,
and who, if we are to believe Sir Robert Gordon (an enemy), had stained
himself by a participation in the treacherous rendition of Lord
Maxwell—sailed with nine hundred men, whom he had raised in the extreme
north.
The successful course of the king of Denmark’s arms had
at this time closed up the ordinary and most ready access to Sweden at
Gottenburg, and along the adjacent coast. A Colonel Munckhaven, in
bringing a large levy of mercenaries from the Netherlands in the spring of
1612, had consequently been obliged to take the riskful step of passing
through Norway, then a portion of the dominions of the Danish monarch. The
greater part of his soldiery entered the Trondiem Fiord, landed at
Stordalen, and proceeded through the mountainous regions of Jempteland
towards Stockholm, where they arrived in time to save it from the threats
of the Danish fleet.
Colonel Sinclair resolved to take a similar course; but
he was less fortunate. Landing in Romsdalen, he was proceeding across
Gulbrandsdalen, and had entered a narrow pass at Kringelen, utterly
unsuspicious of the presence of an enemy, when he fell into a dire
ambuscade formed by the peasantry. Even when aware that a hostile party
had assembled, he was craftily beguiled on by the appearance of a handful
of rustic marksmen on the opposite side of the river, whose irregular
firing he despised, till his column had arrived at the most difficult part
of the pass. The boors then appeared amongst the rocks above him, in front
and in rear, closing up every channel of egress. Sinclair fell early in
the conflict. The most of his party were either cut off by the marksmen,
or dashed to pieces by huge rocks tumbled down from above. Of the nine
hundred, but sixty were spared. These were taken as prisoners to the
houses of various boors, who, however, soon tired of keeping them. It is
stated that the wretched Scots were brought together one day in a large
meadow, and there murdered in cold blood. Only one escaped.
The Norwegians celebrated this affair in a vaunting
ballad, and, strange to say, still look back upon the destruction of
Sinclair’s party as a glorious achievement. In the pass of Kringelen,
there is a tablet bearing an inscription to the following purport: ‘Here
lies Colonel Sinclair, who, with nine hundred Scotsmen, was dashed to
pieces like clay-pots by three hundred boon of Lessöe, Vaage, and Froen.
Berdon Segelstadt of Ringeböe was the
leader of the boors.’ In a peasant’s house near by were shewn to me, in
1849, a few relies of the poor Caithness-men—a matchlock or two, a
broadsword, a couple of powder-flasks, and the wooden part of a drum.
1613
After the treacherous slaughter of the Laird of Johnston in 1608, Lord
Maxwell was so hotly prosecuted by the state-officers, as to be compelled
to leave his country. His Good-night, a pathetic ballad, in which
he takes leave of his lady and friends, is printed in the Border
Minstrelsy: afterwards, he returned to Scotland, but could not shew
himself in public. A succession of skulking adventures ended in his being
treacherously given up to justice by his relative, the Earl of Caithness;
and he was, without loss of time, beheaded at the Cross of Edinburgh—the
sole noble victim to justice out of many of his order who, during the
preceding thirty years, had deserved such a fate.
When informed by the magistrates of the city that they
had got orders for his execution, he professed submission to the will of
God and the king, but declined the attendance of any ministers, as he
adhered to the ancient religion. ‘It being foreseen by the bailies and
others that gif he sould at his death enter in any discourse of that
subject before the people, it might breed offence and selander, he was
desirit, and yielded to bind himself by promise, to forbear at his death
all mention of his particular opinion of religion, except the profession
of Christianity; which he sinsyne repented, as he declared to the bailies,
when they were bringing him to the scaffold.’ On the scaffold, the
unfortunate noble expressed his hope that the king would restore the
family inheritance to his brother. He likewise ‘asked forgiveness of the
Laird of Johnston, his mother, grandmother, and friends, acknowledging the
wrong and harm done to them, with protestation that it was without
dishonour for the worldly part of it. Then he retired himself near the
block, and made his prayers to God; which being ended, he took leave of
his friends and of the bailies of the town, and, suffering his eyes to be
covered with ane handkerchief, offered his head to the axe.’
Thus at length ended the feud between the Johnstons and
Maxwells, after, as has been remarked, causing the deaths of two chiefs of
each house.
Aug
Edward Lord Bruce of Kinloss lost his life in a duel fought near
Bergen-op-zoom with Sir Edward Sackville, afterwards Earl of Dorset. They
were gay young men, living a life of pleasure in London, and in good
friendship with each other, when some occurrence, arising out of their
pleasures, divided them in an irremediable quarrel. Clarendon states that
on Sackville’s part the cause was ‘unwarrantable.’ Lord Kinloss, in his
challenge, reveals to us that they had shaken hands after the first
offence, but with this remarkable expression on his own part, that he
reserved the heart for a truer reconciliation. Afterwards, in France,
Kinloss learned that Sackville spoke injuriously of him, and immediately
wrote to propose a hostile meeting. ‘Be master,’ he said, ‘of your own
weapons and time; the place wheresoever I will wait on you. By doing this,
you will shorten revenge, and clear the idle opinion the world hath of
both our worths.’
Sackville received this letter at his father-in-law’s
house, in Derbyshire, and he lost no time in establishing himself, with
his friend, Sir John Heidon, at Tergoso, in Zealand, where he wrote to
Lord Kinloss, that he would wait for his arrival. The other immediately
proceeded thither, accompanied by an English gentleman named Crawford, who
was to act as his second; also by a surgeon and a servant. They met,
accompanied by their respective friends, at a spot near Bergen-op-Zoom,
‘where but a village divides the States’ territories from the archduke’s....
to the end that, having ended, he that could, might presently
exempt himself from the justice of the country by retiring into the
dominion not offended.’
In the preliminary arrangements, some humane articles
were agreed upon, probably by the influence of the seconds; but, if we are
to believe Sir Edward Sackville, Lord Kinloss, in choosing his adversary’s
weapon, expressed some blood-thirsty sentiments, that gave him reason to
hope for little mercy if he should be the vanquished party. Being on his
part incensed by these unworthy expressions, he, though heavy with a
recent dinner, hurried on the combat. To follow his remarkable narrative:
‘I being verily mad with anger [that] the Lord Bruce should thirst after
my life with a kind of assuredness, seeing I had come so far and
heedlessly to give him leave to regain his lost reputation, bade him
alight, which with all willingness he quickly granted; and there, in a
meadow ankle-deep in water at the least, bidding farewell to our doublets,
in our shirts began to charge each other; having afore commanded our
surgeons to withdraw themselves a pretty distance from us, conjuring them
besides, as they respected our favours or their own safeties, not to stir,
but suffer us to execute our pleasures; we being fully resolved (God
forgive us!) to despatch each other by what means we could. I made a
thrust at my enemy, but was short, and in drawing back my arm, I received
a great wound thereon, which I interpreted as a reward for my
short-shooting; but, in revenge, I pressed in to him, though I then missed
him also, and then received a wound in my right pap, which passed level
through my body, and almost to my back. And there we wrestled for the two
greatest and dearest prizes we could ever expect trial for—honour and
life; in which struggling, my hand, having but an ordinary glove on it,
lost one of her servants, though the meanest, which hung by a skin At
last, breathless, yet keeping our holds, there passed on both sides
propositions of quitting each other’s swords; but when amity was dead,
confidence could not live, and who should quit first, was the question;
which on neither part either would perform, and restriving again afresh,
with a kick and a wrench together, I freed my long captivated weapon;
which incontinently levying at his throat, being master still of his, I
demanded if he would ask his life, or yield his sword; both which, though
in that imminent danger, he bravely denied to do. Myself being wounded,
and feeling loss of blood, having three conduits running on me, which
began to make me faint, and he courageously persisting not to accord to
either of my propositions, through remembrance of his former bloody
desire, and feeling of my present state, I struck at his heart, but with
his avoiding missed my aim, yet passed through the body, and drawing out
my sword, repassed it again through another place, when he cried: "O, I am
slain!" seconding his speech with all the force he had to cast me; but
being too weak, after I had defended his assault, I easily became master
of him, laying him on his back, when, being upon him, I redemanded if he
would request his life; but it seemed he prized it not at so dear a rate
to be beholden for it, bravely replying, "he scorned it." Which answer of
his was so noble and worthy, as I protest I could not find in my heart to
offer him any more violence; only keeping him down, until at length his
surgeon, afar off, cried out, "he would immediately die if his wounds were
not stopped." Whereupon, I asked if he desired his surgeon should come,
which he accepted of; and so being drawn away, I never offered to take his
sword, accounting it inhuman to rob a dead man, for so I held him to be.
This thus ended, I retired to my surgeon, in whose arms, after I had
remained a while for want of blood, I lost my sight, and withal, as I then
thought, my life also. But strong water and his diligence quickly
recovered me, when I escaped a great danger. For my lord’s surgeon, when
nobody dreamt of it, came full at me with his lord’s sword; and had not
mine, with my sword, interposed himself, I had been slain by those base
hands; although my Lord Bruce, weltering in his blood, and past all
expectation of life, comformable to all his former carriage, which was
undoubtedly noble, cried out: "Rascal, hold thy hand!"
Thus miserably, a victim of passion, died a young
nobleman who might otherwise have lived a long and useful life. Being
childless, his title and estates went to his next brother, Thomas. Through
what means it came about, we cannot tell, but possibly it might be in
consequence of some recollection of a well-known circumstance in the
history of a former great man of his family, King Robert Bruce, the heirt
of Edward Lord Kinloss was enclosed in a silver case, brought to Scotland,
and deposited in the abbey-church of Culross, near the family seat. The
tale of the Silver Heart had faded into a family tradition of a
very obscure character, when, in 1808, this sad relic was discovered,
bearing on the exterior the name of the unfortunate duellist, and
containing what was believed to be the remains of a human heart. It was
again deposited in its original place, with an inscription calculated to
make the matter clear to posterity. The Bruce motto, FUIMUS, is also seen
on the wall, conveying to the visitor an indescribable feeling of
melancholy, as he reflects on the stormy passion which once swelled the
organ now resting within, and the wild details of that deadly quarrel of
days long gone by.
‘The unfortunate Lord Bruce saw distinctly the figure
or impression of a mort-head, on the looking-glass in his chamber, that
very morning he set out for the fatal place of rendezvous, where he lost
his life in a duel; and asked of some that stood by him if they observed
that strange appearance: which they answered in the negative. His remains
were interred at Bergen-op-Zoom, over which a monument was erected, with
the emblem of a looking-glass impressed with a mort-head, to perpetuate
the surprising representation which seemed to indicate his approaching
untimely end. I had this narration from a field-officer, whose honour and
candour is beyond suspicion, as he had it from General Stuart in the Dutch
service. The monument stood entire for a long time, until it was partly
defaced when that strong place was reduced by the weakness or treachery of
Cronstrom, the governor. ‘—Theophilus Insulanus's Treatise on the
Second-Sight 1763.
Sep 14
Robert Philip, a priest, returned from Rome in the summer of this year,
and performed mass in sundry places in a clandestine manner, but with the
proper dresses, utensils, and observances. One James Stewart, living at
the Nether Bow Port in Edinburgh, commonly called James of Jerusalem—a
noted papist and resetter of seminary priests—was accustomed to have
this condemned ceremonial performed in his house, in presence of a small
company. Both men were now tried for these offences; and two days after, a
third, John Logan, portioner of Restalrig, was also put to an assize, for
being one of the audience at Stewart’s house. One cannot, in these days of
tolerance, read without a strange sense of uncouthness, the solemn
expressions of horror employed in the dittays of the king’s advocate
against the offenders, being precisely the same expressions which were
used against heinous offences of a more tangible nature. Philip and
Stewart were condemned to banishment, and Logan, in as far as he expressed
penitence and shewed that he had since conformed to the kirk, and even
borne office in the session, was let off with a fine of one thousand
pounds!
Dec 1
Robert Erskine, brother of the lately deceased Laird of Dun, in
Forfarshire, was put upon trial for an offence that recalls the tale of
the Babes in the Wood. To open the succession to himself, be formed the
resolution to put away his two nephews, John and Alexander Erskine,
minors, and for this purpose consulted with his three sisters, Isobel,
Annas, and Helen. These women, readily entering into his views, attempted
to bribe a servant to engage a witch for the purpose of destroying the two
boys; but the man’s virtue was proof to the temptation. Annas and Helen
then made a journey across the Cairnamount to a place called the
Muir-alehouse, where dwelt a noted witch called Janet Irving. From her
they came back, bearing certain deadly herbs fitted for their purpose, and
gave these to their brother. He, doubtful of the efficacy of the herbs,
went himself to the witch, to get full assurance on that point; and,
finding reason to believe that they could destroy the two boys, lost no
time in making an infusion of them in ale, which he administered to his
victims in the house of their mother at Montrose. The effect was not
immediate; but it inflicted the most horrible torments upon the poor
youths, one of whom, after dwining for three years, died, uttering,
just before death, these affecting words: ‘Wo is me! that ever I had right
of succession to ony lands or living, for, gif I had been born some poor
cotter’s son, I had not been sae demeaned [treated], nor sic wicked
practices had been plotted against me for my lands!’ The other remained
without hope of recovery at the time of the trial.
Robert Erskine was found guilty and condemned to be
beheaded. His sisters were tried June 22, 1614, for their share of the
guilt, and also condemned to death, which two of them suffered. Helen
alone, as being less guilty and more penitent than the rest, had her
sentence commuted to banishment. The case must have been felt as deeply
afflicting by the friends of the Presbyterian cause, as these wretched
victims of the mean passion of avarice were the great-grandchildren of the
venerated reformer, John Erskine of Dun .—Pit.
1613
One John Stercovius, a Pole, had come into Scotland in the dress of his
country, which exciting much vulgar attention, he was hooted at on the
streets, and treated altogether so ill, that he was forced to make an
abrupt retreat. The poor man, returning full of wounded feelings to his
own country, published a Legend of Reproaches against the Scottish
nation—’ane infamous book against all estates of persons in this
kingdom.’—P. C. R. It will now be scarcely believed, in
Scotland or elsewhere, that King James, hearing of this libel, employed
Patrick Gordon, a foreign agent—himself a man of letters—to raise a
prosecution against Stercovius in his own country, and had the power to
cause the unhappy libeller to be beheaded for his offence! The affair cost
six thousand merks, and a convention of burghs was called (December 3,
1613), to consider means of raising this sum by taxation. This mode of
raising the money having failed, the king made an effort to obtain aid for
the payment of the money from the English resident in the town of Danzig—with
what result does not appear. It is a notable circumstance, that while
James was on the whole a mild administrator of justice, he was unrelenting
towards satirists, and the grossest judicial cruelties of his reign are
against men who had been in one way or another contumelious towards
himself.
1613, Dec 10
One of the king’s large ships-of-war, which had lain in the Roads of Leith
for six weeks, and was about to set sail on her return to England, met her
destruction ‘about the twelfth hour of the day,’ through the mad humour of
an Englishman, who, while the captain and some of his officers were on
shore, laid trains of powder throughout the vessel, notwithstanding that
his own son was on board, along with about sixty other men. ‘The ship and
her whole provision were burnt; only the bottom and some of the munition
were safe. Twenty-four of the men were burnt or perished in the sea; the
rest ‘were mutilated and lamed, notwithstanding of all the help that could
be made. The fire made the ordnance to shoot, so that none durst come near
to help.’—Cal.
‘The sixty-three men that escaped were shipped and
transported to London.’—Bal.
Dec 16
The Privy Council of Scotland had this day under their consideration a
subject which must have sent their minds back to the associations of an
earlier and more romantic age. That custom among the people of the
Scottish Border, of going into Cheviot to hunt, which had led to the
dismal tragedy narrated in the well-known ballad of Chevy Chase,
was, it seems, still kept up. What was once the border of either country
being now the middle of both in their so far united condition, the king
felt the propriety of putting down a custom so apt to lead to bad blood
between his English and Scottish subjects; and accordingly, his council
now ordered that the inhabitants of Roxburgh and Selkirk shires, of
Liddesdale and Annandale, should cease their ancient practice of going
into Tynedale, Redesdale, the fells of Cheviot and Kidland, for hunting
and the cutting of wood, under pain of confiscation of their worldly
goods.—P. C. R.
1614, Jan 18
Hugh Weir of Cloburn, a boy of fourteen years, had been taken out of the
town of Edinburgh from his mother’s friends, and carried over to Ireland,
and there married to the daughter of the Laird of Corehouse. He ‘was, by
Sir James Hamilton’s means, apprehended in Ireland, and sent back to
Scotland, and presented to the Council. He was imprisoned in the Tolbooth,
in a room next the Laird of Blackwood, by whose means the boy was taken
away and sent into Ireland.’—Bal.
Mar 3
(Tuesday) at ‘half an hour to sax in the morning, ane earthquake had in
divers places.’ ‘On Thursday thereafter, ane other earthquake at 12 hours
in the night, had baith in land and burgh.’—Chron. Perth.
Aug 12
Theophilus Howard, Lord Walden (afterwards Earl of Suffolk), made a short
journey of pleasure in Scotland; and as the details give some idea of the
means there were in the country of entertaining a stranger of distinction,
they may be worth noting. His lordship was received by the Earl of Home
into Dunglass House, in Berwickshire, and ‘used very honourably.’ He dined
next day with his brother-in-law, Sir James Home of Cowdenknowes, at
Broxmouth House, near Thinbar. Advancing thence towards Edinburgh, he was
met by the secretary of state, Sir Thomas Hamilton of Binning, accompanied
by a number of gentlemen of the country, all of whom had waited for him
the preceding night at Musselburgh Links, but were disappointed of his
coming forward. He was by them convoyed to the Canongate, and lodged in
John Killoch’s house. Next morning, he proceeded to the Castle, and
‘viewed the site, fortification, and natural strength thereof.’ Having
dined, he rode from Edinburgh with the Lord Chancellor to Dunfermline,
where he was entertained with all kindness and respect till Monday, the
16th. He then went to Culross, to see Sir George Bruce’s coal-works, which
were one of the wonders of the age; ‘where, having received the best
entertainment they could make him, my Lord Chancellor took leave of him,
and left him to be convoyed by my Lord Erskine to Stirling, where he could
not be persuaded to stay above one night. The next day, he saw the park of
Stirling, dined in the Castle, and raid that night towards Falkland.’ On
the way, Lord Erskine transferred him to the care of Lord Scone, who,
assisted by many gentlemen of Fife, took him to his house in Falkland.’
There, doubtless to the great distress of Lord Scone, no entreaties could
prevail upon Lord Walden to stay longer than a night, ‘to receive that
entertainment which he wald gladly have made langer to him.’ So, ‘after
the sight of the park and palace, having dined, his lordship and my Lord
of Scone came to Burntisland, where he had ready and speedy passage; but
the wind being very loud, he was exceeding sick at sea.’ Landing at Leith,
the distinguished company was received for refreshment into the house of a
rich and prominent person of that day, Bernard Lindsay, whom we shall see
erelong entertaining Ben Jonson in the same place. Here the secretary
again took up the stranger, and convoyed him once more to John Killoch’s
in the Canongate, ‘whither the baillies of Edinburgh came to him, and
invited him to supper the next day, but could not induce him by any
entreaty to stay.’ Having dismissed them, he went to see the palace of
Holyrood. Next day, the 19th of August, he left Edinburgh, and rode with
the secretary to Seton, ‘where he was received by the Countess of Winton
and her children, and used with all due respect.’ After taking a sight of
the house, which was of princely elegance, with beautiful gardens, Lord
Walden proceeded to Broxmouth, and there spent the night.
‘In all his journey through this country,’ says the
contemporary writer, ‘great and loving respect has been borne to him by
all honest men, whereof he has proven most worthy; for he has esteemed all
things to the uttermost of their worth, and in his courteous discretion
has favourably excused all oversights and defects. Every honest man here
wishes him happiness in all his other journeys and enterprises, for the
honourable, wise, and humane behaviour he has used amang them.’
In this year, a small volume was printed and published
by Andro Hart of Edinburgh, under the title of Mirifici Logarithmorum
Canonis Descriptio, &e., Auctore et Inventore Joanne Napero, Barone
Merchistonii, Scoto. This was a remarkable event in the midst of so
many traits of barbarism, bigotry, and ignorance; for in Napier’s volume
was presented a mode of calculation forming an essential pre-requisite to
the solution of all the great problems involving numbers which have since
been brought before mankind. John Napier is believed to have been engaged
in the elaboration of his Logarithms for fully twenty years, while at the
same time giving some of his time to such inventions as burning-glasses
for the destruction of fleets, to theological discussions; and the occult
sciences. The tall, antique tower of Merchiston, in which he lived and
pursued his studies, still exists at the head of the Burgh-moor of
Edinburgh.
Napier’s little book was published in an English
translation by Henry Briggs of Oxford, the greatest mathematician of his
day in England. The admiration of Briggs for the person of Napier was
testified in the summer of 1615 by his paying a visit to Scotland, in
order to see him. Of this rencontre there is a curious and interesting
account preserved by William Lilly in his Life and Times. "I will
acquaint you,’ says he, ‘with one memorable story related unto me by John
Man, an excellent mathematician and geometrician, whom I conceive you
remember. He was a servant to King James I. and Charles I. When Merchiston
first published his Logarithms, Mr Briggs, then reader of the astronomy
lectures at Gresham College in London, was so surprised with admiration of
them, that he could have no quietness in himself until he had seen that
noble person whose only invention they were. He acquaints John Man
therewith, who went in [to] Scotland before Mr Briggs, purposely to be
there when these two so learned persons should meet. Mr Briggs appoints a
certain day when to meet at Edinburgh; but failing thereof, Merchiston was
fearful he would not come. It happened one day, as John Marr and Lord
Napier were speaking of Mr Briggs, "Oh! John," saith Merchiston, "Mr
Briggs will not came now." At the very instant, one knocks at the gate.
John Marr hasted down, and it proved to be Mr Briggs, to his great
contentment. He brings Mr Briggs into my lord’s chamber, where almost one
quarter of an hour was spent, each beholding other with admiration, before
one word was spoken. At last Mr Briggs began: "My lord, I have undertaken
this long journey purposely to see your person, and to know by what engine
of wit or ingenuity you came first to think of this most excellent help
unto astronomy—namely, the Logarithms; but, my lord, being by you found
out, I wonder nobody else found it out before, when, now being known, it
appears so easy." He was nobly entertained by the Lord Napier; and every
summer after that, during the laird’s being alive, this venerable man went
purposely to Scotland to visit him.’
As Napier (whom Lilly
erroneously calls lord) died in April 1617, Mr Briggs could not have made
more than one other summer pilgrimage to Merchiston.
Died John M’Birnie. minister of St Nicolas’ Church,
Aberdeen —a typical example of the more zealous and self-denying of the
Presbyterian clergy of that age. A similar one of the next age says of
M’Birnie: ‘I heard Lady Culross say: "He was a godly, zealous, and painful
preacher; and that he used always, when he rode, to have two Bibles
hanging at a leather girdle about his middle, the one original, the other
English; as also, a little sand-glass in a brazen ease: and being alone,
he read, or meditated, or prayed; and if any company were with him, he
would read or speak from the Word to them." . . . .
When he died, he called his wife, and told her he had no outward
means to leave her, or his only daughter, but that he had got good
assurance that the Lord would provide for them; and accordingly, the day
he was buried, the magistrates of the town came to the house, after the
burial, and brought two subscribed papers, one of a competent maintenance
to his wife during her life, another of a provision for his daughter.’
1615
The latter part of the winter 1614—15 was of such severity as to be
attended with several remarkable circumstances which were long remembered.
In February, the Tay was frozen over so strongly as to admit of passage
for both horse and man. ‘Upon Fasten’s E’en [February 21], there was twa
puncheons of Bourdeaux wine ‘carriet, sting and ling, on men’s
shoulders, on the ice, at the mids of the North Inch, the weight of the
puncheon and the bearers, estimate to three score twelve stane weight.’
This state of things, however, was inconvenient for the ferrymen, ‘being
thereby prejudgit of their commodity.’ So they, ‘in the night-time, brak
the ice at the entry, and stayit the passage.’—Chron. Perth.
An enormous fall of snow took place early in March, so
as to stop all comrnunication throughout the country. On its third day,
many men and horse perished in vain attempts to travel. The accumulation
of snow was beyond all that any man remembered. ‘In some places, men
devised snow-ploughs to clear the ground, and fodder the cattle.’ —Bat.
The snow fell to such a depth, and endured so long upon the ground,
that, according to Sir Robert Gordon, ‘most part of all the horse, nolt,
and sheep of the kingdom did perish, but chiefly in the north.’ [This
unheard-of snow-fall was equally notable in the south. When the thaw came,
it caused an unexampled flood in the Ouse of Yorkshire, which lasted ten
days, carrying away a great number of bridges. ‘After this storm followed
such fair and dry weather, that in April the ground was as dusty as in any
time of summer. The drought continued till the 20th
of August, and made such a scarcity of hay, beans, and barley, that
the former was sold at York for 30s. and 40s. a wainload.’—History
of York, 1785, i. 256.]
The Privy Council, viewing the ‘universal death,
destruction, and wrack of the beasts and goods throughout all parts of the
country,’ apprehended that, without some extraordinary care, there would
not be enough of lambs left to replenish the farms with sheep for future
use. They accordingly interfered with a decree forbidding the use of lamb
for a certain time. Nevertheless, so early as the 26th of April, it was
ascertained that there were undutiful subjects, who, ‘preferring their own
private contentment and their inordinate appetite, and the delicate
feeding of their bellies, to the reverence and obedience of the law,’
continued to use lamb, only purchasing it in secret places, as if no such
prohibition had ever been uttered. It was therefore become necessary that
severe punishment should be threatened for this offence. The threats
launched forth on this occasion were found next year to have been of some
effect in preserving the remnant of the lamb stock; and, to complete the
restoration of the stock, a new decree to the like effect was then made
(March 14, 1616).
Jan
The king and his English council having, with the usual short-sighted
policy of the age, decreed that no goods should be imported into or
exported out of England, except in English vessels, the burghs of Scotland
were not slow to perceive that the interests of their country would be
deeply injured thereby, as other states would of course establish similar
restrictions, ‘and if so, there is naething to be expected but decay and
wrack to our shipping, insaemickle as the best ships of Scotland are
continually employed in the service of Frenchmen, not only within the
dominions of France, but also within the bounds of Spain, Italy, and
Barbary, where their trade lies, whilk is ane chief cause of the increase
of the number of Scots ships and of their maintenance, whereas by the
contrary, the half of the number of ships whilk are presently in Scotland
will serve for our awn privat trade and negotiation.’
The king of France did in reality revenge the selfish
policy of England by issuing a similar order in favour of French shipping,
the first consequence of which was that an English vessel and a Dutch one,
lading in Normandy, were obliged to disburden themselves and come empty
home. ‘Ane Scottish bark perteining to Andrew Allan, whilk that same time
was lading with French merchandise,’ would have been subjected to the same
inconvenience, if the master had not pretended to an immunity in favour of
his country, through its ancient alliance with France, ‘inviolably kept
these 800 years bypast.’ The Scots factors in France entered a complaint
before the parliament of Paris, reminding it of that ancient alliance, and
pleading that the French had ever had liberty of trade in all Scottish
ports; shewing, indeed, that Scotland was not comprised in the edict of
the English monarch and his council. The parliament accordingly decreed
that the Scotch should remain in the enjoyment of freedom of trade within
France, as heretofore.
The attention of the king being necessarily called to
the interests of Scotland in this matter, he was found obstinate in favour
of the general principle of the English order in council. ‘Natural
reason,’ he said, ‘teaches us that Scotland, being part of an isle, cannot
be mainteined or preserved without shipping, and shipping cannot be
mainteined without employment; and the very law of nature teaeheth every
sort of corporation, kingdom, or country, first to set their own vessels
on work, before they employ any stranger.' He was willing, however, to
relax in particular cases. James argues logically, but he had not sagacity
to anticipate the doctrines of Adam Smith.