and a most respectable nobleman. Scott of Scotstarvet,
who seems to have had rather more than the usual relish for the
misfortunes of his neighbours, says of Lord Mar: ‘His chief delight was in
hunting; and he procured by acts of parliament, that none should hunt
within divers miles of the king’s house; yet often that which is most
pleasant to a man is his overthrow; for, walking in his own hall, a dog
cast him off his feet, and lamed his leg, of which he died; and at his
burial, a hare having run through the company, his special chamberlain,
Alexander Stirling, fell off his horse and broke his neck.’
1635
The winter 1634—5 is described by a contemporary as ‘the most tempestuous
and stormy that was seen in Scotland these sixty years past, with such
abundance of snow and so rigid a frost, that the snow lay in the plains
from the 9th of December to the 9th of March.’—Bal. Another
chronicler says that between the 26th of January and the 16th of February,
‘there fell furth ane huge snow, that men nor women could not walk upon
our streets [Perth]. It was ten quarter or twa ell heich through all the
town. Tay was thirty days frozen ower. There was ane fast appointit, and
there came a gentle thow, blissit be God.’ From the long stoppage of
running waters everywhere, it became impossible to get corn ground, and a
scarcity began to be felt. Ale became equally scarce, and no wonder—’they
knockit malt in knocking stanes.’—Chron. Perth. Owing also to the
depth of the snow and its lying so long, ‘many bestial, both wild and
tame, died; the flocks of sheep in the Lowlands, and the goats in the
mountains, went all in effect to destruction.’—Bal.
Jan
The excuse of the Marquis of Huntly not being held sufficient by the Privy
Council, he was obliged to proceed to Edinburgh to answer for the
Frendraught outrages. He commenced his journey on the 9th of January, and
came by short stages to Aberdeen. In ten days, he had only reached
Fettercairn in Forfarshire. Thence, after being storm-stayed in the place
for three days, he advanced to Brechin, six miles; thence, next day,
proceeded two miles further to his own house of Melgum. Here the snow
detained him till the 10th of February. He and his lady then proceeded,
‘in ane coach borne upon lang trees upon men’s arms, because horse might
not travel in respect of the great storm and deepness of the way clad with
snaw and frost.’ This journey of about a hundred and fifty miles seems to
have occupied fully five weeks, including the detentions on the way.
The appearance of the marquis before
the Council ended in his liberation, and that of the gentlemen previously
imprisoned, upon their undertaking to repress the disorders, and give
surety for a second appearance at a fixed time, the marquis also giving
caution to Frendraught that he and his tenants should be unharmed, under a
penalty of a hundred thousand pounds [probably Scots money]. The affair
being thus so far settled, the marquis returned to his own country in May.
He returned to the capital in summer, and was favourably received by the
Council on account of his endeavours for the quieting of the country.
Jan ?
‘. . . . there was seen in Scotland a great blazing star, representing
the shape of a crab or cancer, having long spraings spreading from it.
It was seen in the county of Moray, and thought by some that this star,
and the drying up of the pot of Brechin, as is before noted, were
prodigious signs of great troubles in Scotland.’—Spal.
This portent is the more worth
noting, as the description so curiously recalls the appearance of some of
the nebulae brought into view by the powers of Lord Rosse’s
telescope—though, of course, from anything we know of the distance of
these objects, the possibility of one of them coming into view of the
naked eye, would scarcely be surmised by any modern astronomer.
Early in this year commenced a great
mortality, probably in consequence of the scarcity which prevailed during
the preceding year. The small-pox raged among the young for six or seven
months with great severity, and, what was remarked as unusual, some
persons took the disease for the second time.
There was also a scarcity this year.
‘The fiar was ten pounds Scots the boll of meal and beir... Several of the
clergy, to the shame of them all, charged twelve pounds Scots and above.’
Mar 26
Grant younger of Ballindalloch, reported to the Council that he had lately
taken an opportunity to attack some of the broken men who formed the
company of the outlaw James Grant. Entering into pursuit of two, named
Finlay M’Grimmen and — Cumming, he and his people had killed the first,
and taken the second. They had carried Cumming three miles, intending to
exhibit him alive to the Council, along with the head of M’Grimmen; but
the country rising upon them, they had been obliged to put the man to
death. The Lords accepted this act as good service, and ordered
M’Grimmen’s head to be affixed to the Nether Bow Port; at the same time
giving the infringer of it a guerdon of a hundred merks, ‘for
encouragement of others.’—P. C. R.
The year at which we are now arrived
is the epoch of the establishment of a regular letter-post in Scotland.
There was previously a system of posts, in the proper sense of the
word— namely, establishments at certain intervals, where horses could be
had for travelling, and which had the occasional duty of forwarding
packets of letters regarding public affairs. As illustrative of this
system of posts, which was probably limited to the road between Edinburgh
and Berwick (as part of the great line of communication with London), with
possibly one or two other roads—On the 29th of March 1631, the lords of
the Privy Council dealt with the fault of —
Forres, postmaster of Haddington, respecting a
packet of his majesty’s letters which had been lost by his carelessness.
It appears that Forres was bound to have fresh horses always ready for the
forwarding of such packets; but on one late occasion he had sent a packet
by a foot-boy, who had lost it by the way, and he had never taken any
further trouble regarding it. On the ensuing 3d of November, the Council
had occasion to find fault with William Duncan, postmaster in the
Canongate, and more particularly with a post-boy in
Duncan’s employment, because the latter, instead of carrying his majesty’s
packet to the postmaster at Haddington, had given it to ‘a whipman’ of
Musselburgh, to be carried to Duncan’s house there (designing probably
that it should be forwarded by another hand). The Council recommended Sir
William Seton ‘to prescribe regulations to the postmasters, for the sure
and speedy despatch of his majesty’s packet, both anent the postmasters
their constant residence at the place of their charge, and keeping of ane
register for receipt of the packets.’—P. C. R.
These circumstances appear as characteristic of a time
when the postal arrangements were at once very new and very simple.
The necessity of having this system of posts for the
communication of intelligence between the king and his Scottish Council
was partly incidental to the time. In the days of King James, things were
of so simple a nature, and in general so much left to the discretion of
the Council, that a system of posts for the despatch of packets was
scarcely required. Charles, having entered on a course more difficult, and
in which great energy on his own part and that of his subservient Scottish
Council was called for, and all little enough as being contrary to the
general inclinations of the people, found a need for more frequent
communication; and hence these posts in the Canongate and at Haddington.
At length this system merged in one applicable to the
sister-kingdom also, and in which a regular periodical transmission of
letters for private individuals was included. To quote from a contemporary
writer—’Till this time [1635] there had been no certain or constant
intercourse between England and Scotland. Thomas Witherings, Esq., his
majesty’s postmaster of England for foreign parts, was now commanded "to
settle one running post, or two, to run day and night between Edinburgh
and London, to go thither and come back again in six days; and to take
with them all such letters as shall be directed to any post-town in the
said road; and the posts to be placed in several places out of the road,
to run and bring and carry out of the said roads the letters, as there
shall be occasion, and to pay twopence for every single letter under
fourscore miles; and if one hundred and forty miles, fourpence; and if
above, then sixpence. The like rule the king is pleased to order to be
observed to West Chester, Holyhead, and thence to Ireland; and also to
observe the like rule from London to Plymouth, Exeter, and other places in
that road; the like for Oxford, Bristol, Colchester, Norwich, and other
places. And the king doth command that no other messenger, foot-post, or
foot-posts, shall take up, carry, receive, or deliver any letter or
letters whatsoever, other than the messengers appointed by the said Thomas
Witherings: except common known carriers, or a particular messenger to be
sent on purpose with a letter to a friend.""
The post between London and Edinburgh was of course
conducted on horseback. It usually went twice a week, sometimes only once.
Three years after, when the troubles had begun, the communication became
insecure. A person in England then wrote to his friend in Scotland: ‘I
hear the posts are waylaid, and all letters taken from them and brought to
Secretary Cooke; therefore will I not, nor do you, send by that way
hereafter.’
June
‘There was seen in the water of Don a monster-like beast, having the head
like to ane great mastiff dog or swine, and hands, arms, and paps like to
a man. The paps seemed to be white. It had hair on the head, and the
hinder parts, seen sometimes above the water, seemed clubbish,
short-legged, and short-footed, with ane tail. This monster was seen
swimming bodily above the water, about ten hours in the morning, and
continued all day visible, swimming above and below the bridge without any
fear. The town’s-people of both Aberdeens came out in great multitudes to
see this monster. Some threw stones; some shot guns and pistols; and the
salmon-fishers rowed cobles with nets to catch it, but all in vain. It
never shrinked nor feared, but would duck under the water, snorting and
bullering, terrible to the hearers and beholders. It remained two days,
and was seen no more.’—Slightly altered from Spalding.
It seems most probable that this was one of the
herbivorous cetacea, as the manatus. ‘They have,’ says Cuter, ‘two
mammae on the breast, and hairy moustaches; two circumstances which, when
observed from a distance, may give them some resemblance to human beings,
and have probably occasioned those fabulous accounts of Tritons and Sirens
which some travellers pretend to have seen.’ The manatus haunts the mouths
of rivers in the hottest parts of the Atlantic Ocean, and it is just
possible that a stray individual may have found its way to the coast of
Scotland, more especially as it was the summer season.
The author of an Account of Buchan, supposed to
have been written about 1680, tells us that, some years before, two
mermaids had been seen at Pitsligo, by a group of persons, one of whom was
Mr Alexander Robertson, chaplain to the Laird of Pitsligo, ‘known to be
ingenious.’ This writer refers to the strange marine animal of 1635, as a
mermaid.
Aug 19
George, first Earl of Kinnoul, Chancellor of Scotland, had died at London
in December 1634, and now he was to be interred in his family tomb at the
parish church of Kinnoul, near Perth. The funeral was one of those grand
heraldic processions, of which that of the Earl of Buccleuch, under June
11, 1634, has been given as an example. There were saulies,
trumpeters, and pursuivants in great numbers; relatives to carry the arms
of the deceased, his coronet, his spurs, his gauntlet, his mace, and great
seal, and the arms of many of his ancestors on both sides. His physician
and chaplain in mourning, ‘a horse in dule,’ and two pages of honour, were
other figures. And finally came the coffin, surmounted by a pall of black
velvet, carried by twelve gentlemen, followed by the deceased’s son, in a
long mourning robe and hood, assisted by six earls and three lords going
three abreast. ‘In this order went they through the town of Perth, and
near the bridge crossed the water (wharves and boats being appointed on
purpose), and so marched to Kinnoul church, where, after the
funeral-sermon being ended, the corps were set in the tomb prepared for
them.’
A full-length figure of the earl still surmounts his
tomb; a good illustration of the full dress of a man of first rank in that
age. The spiteful Scott of Scotstarvet tells us, ‘he was a man of little
or no learning, yet had conquest a good estate—namely, the baronies of
Kinnoul, Aberdalgie, Dupplin, Kinfauns, Seggieden, Dunninald, and many
others; all which estates in a few years after his decease, his son made
havock of.’
Sep 26
The pest was at this time at Cramond, near Edinburgh— supposed to have
been introduced by a ship from the Low Countries, where the disease
largely prevailed. The inhabitants were ordered to keep within their own
parish, and two clengers from Newhaven were despatched to bury the
dead and take all other needful steps to prevent the spread of infection.
A strict order was issued to prevent the landing of people out of ships
from Holland, or any intercourse with such vessels as might come into the
Firth of Forth. The wife of Thomas Anderson, skipper, having gone on board
her husband’s vessel, and remained there some time, after which she
returned to her house in Leith, she was commanded to remain within doors.
One Francis Vanhoche, of Middleburg, had embarked in a ship bound for
Scotland, in order to settle his accounts for lead ore; he had been
detained by contrary winds, and then landed at Hull, whence he proceeded
to Edinburgh, and took up his quarters with Gilbert Fraser, a
merchant-burgess of the city. To the surprise of Francis, he was shut up
in the house as a dangerous person, and not liberated till the Laird of
Lamington engaged to take him immediately off to Leadhills, where he had
business to attend to. The order for the seclusion of the parishioners of
Cramond caused enormous misery to the poor, who, being prevented from
working, could obtain no supply of the necessaries of life. After a
representation of their extreme sufferings, the order was removed
(December 15).—P. C. R.
During the ensuing year, the plague declared itself in
London, Newcastle, and other towns in England, but hardly appeared in
Scotland till November, when the towns of Preston, Prestonpans, and
Musselburgh were slightly infected.
Nov
Soon after the Marquis of Huntly’s summer journey to Edinburgh, Captain
Adam Gordon of Park, offended at the severe proceedings of the great lord
against himself and others, went to the Council in Edinburgh, and making a
separate peace, gave information which led the Council to believe that the
marquis had receipted and supplied some of the broken men after
undertaking their reduction. The aged noble was accordingly summoned once
more, and forced to obey, though it was now ‘the dead of the year, cold,
tempestuous, and stormy.’ He and his lady again travelled ‘by chariot.’ On
this occasion, he had to submit to a period of imprisonment in the Castle
of Edinburgh, in a room where he had no light, and was denied the company
of his lady, except on a visit at Christmas. He was afterwards permitted
to live in ‘his own lodging, near to his majesty’s palace of Holyroodhouse,
with liberty to walk within ane of the gardens, of walks within the
precinct of the said palace, and no further.’ Thence, in June 1636,
finding himself growing weaker and weaker, he set out for his northern
castle, ‘in a wand-bed within his chariot, his lady still with him.’ He
died on the journey, in an inn at Dundee, whence his body was brought in a
horse-litter to Strathbogie, for burial.
At the end of August, this great man was buried in
state at Elgin, according to the forms of the Catholic Church, to which he
belonged. ‘He had torch-lights carried in great numbers by friends and
gentlemen.’ His son and three other nobles bore the coffin. ‘He was
carried to the east style of the College Kirk, in at the south door, [and]
buried in his own aile, with much mourning and lamentation; the like form
of burial with torchlight was seldom seen here before.’—Spal.
This grand old nobleman had been in possession of his
honours for sixty years. In his youth, he had great troubles from his
rivalry with the Earl of Moray, and his adherence to the ancient faith.
But he had lived down all difficulties, and, considering the sad affair at
Dunnibrissle in 1592, died with a wonderfully good character. ‘The
marquis,’ says Spalding, ‘was of a great spirit, for in time of trouble he
was of invincible courage, and boldly bare down all his enemies. He was
never inclined to war himself, but by the pride and influence of his kin,
was diverse times drawn into troubles, whilk he did bear through
valiantly. He loved not to be in the law contending against any man, but
loved rest and quietness with all his heart, and in time of peace he lived
moderately and temperately in his diet, and fully set to building all
curious devices. A good neighbour in his marches, disposed rather to give
than to take a foot wrongously. He was heard to say he never drew sword in
his own quarrel. In his youth, a prodigal spender; in his old age, more
wise and worldly, yet never counted for cost in matters of credit and
honour. A great householder; a terror to his enemies, whom he ever with
his prideful kin held under subjection and obedience. Just in all his
bargains, and was never heard for his true debt.’
The marquis had had infinite trouble through life in
maintaining his faith as a son of the Church of Rome, and it fully appears
that the Presbyterians had the trouble of converting him four or five
times. ‘In 1588, he gave in his adherence to the reformed establishment,
and subscribed the Confession; but in his intercepted letters to the
Spanish king, he says that "the whole had been extorted from him against
his conscience." In 1597, his lordship was again reconciled to the kirk,
with much public solemnity, signed the Confession of Faith, and partook of
the sacrament. His fidelity, however, was wholly feigned, and did not last
long. In 1607, Mr George Gladstanes, minister at St Andrews, was appointed
by the General Assembly to remain with the Marquis of Huntly "for ane
quarter or ane half year, to the effect by his travels and labours, the
said noble lord and his family might be informit in the word of truth." In
the following year, Mr Gladstanes reported that he had stayed three days
with the marquis, apparently at the time when his lordship was engaged in
the re-edification of his castle of Strathbogie, of whose grandeur the
existing remains as yet afford ample proof; and having among other things
inquired at his lordship "why he resorted not to the preaching at the
ordinar times in parish kirks," he was informed that he could not well
resort to the parish kirk, partly in respect of the mean rank of such as
were within the parish, and partly in respect his lordship’s predecessors
were in use to have ane chapel in their awn house, whilk he was minded to
prosecute now, seeing he was presently preparing his house of Strathbogie."
In 1606, he was accused of giving encouragement to the Roman Catholics,
and thereby occasioning a great defection from the reformed opinions, and
in 1608 be was excommunicated. In 1616, he was absolved from
excommunication by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and afterwards by the
General Assembly which met at Aberdeen in that year. There is, however, no
doubt that during his whole life he was a warm adherent of the ancient
religion.' It would be difficult for a candid mind to say which was most
to blame in all this—the marquis for his insincerity, or the church-courts
for exercising force and accepting professions where they knew that there
was no hearty concession attainable.
In his latter years, the marquis devoted himself much
to what was then called policy—that is, building and planting. We have
already seen that he erected an elegant mansion at Strathbogie— the now
ruinous Huntly Castle. ‘He built a house at Kinkail on the Dee, called the
New-house, which standeth amidst three hunting-forests of his own. He
built the house of Ruthven in Badenoch twice, [it] being burnt by aventure
or negligence of his servants after he had once finished the same. He
built a new house in Aboyne; he repaired his house in Elgin; he hath built
a house in the Plewlands in Moray; he hath enlarged and decored the house
of Bog-Gicht, which he hath parked about; he repaired his house in the old
town of Aberdeen.’—G. H. S.
Dec
We light upon a curious bit of life in the book of the Privy Council. One
day, not long before the date noted, Nicolas Johnston, wife of Mr Francis
Irving, commissary-clerk of Dumfries, was walking on the street of that
burgh, passing from her mother’s house to the residence of ‘Lady Cockpool,’
when she met Marion Gladstanes, spouse of the schoolmaster. Marion, after
many flattering words, invited Nicolas Johnston into her house ‘to drink
with her.’ Yielding with some reluctance to this invitation, Nicolas was
taken into a quiet room in Marion’s house, where presently a mutchkin of
white wine was brought in for the solacement of the two ladies. Marion, as
the hostess, drank the first cupful to the health of her gossip’s husband;
then, while Nicolas was looking at the hangings of a bed (few rooms were
in those days without beds), she filled the cup again. ‘Nicolas, looking
about, perceived her tottering the cup in her hand, as if she had the
perellis’ [paralysis]. Then she gave it to Nicolas to drink. It appeared
to have some brayed nutmeg infused into it. Nicolas, having drunk a
little, handed back the cup to Marion, who, ‘pretending it was to the said
Nicolas’s husband’s health, urged her at three drinks to drink the same
out. Thereafter Marion took the cup, and set it down, saying: "The last
that drank out of that cup, loved the wine the better of the nutmegs," and
with that changed her countenance and grew red. Nicolas, fearing some
harm, and yet not suspecting any poison to be in the cup, the said Marion
took ane clean linen and said: "I think you love not nutmegs," rubbed the
cup clean, filled a drink of wine, drank thereof; and her servant also.’
Nicolas Johnston afterwards proceeded to Lady
Cockpool’s, but in the way experienced a violent attack of thirst, ‘so
that she was forced to call for drink, and could scarce be slockened.
Thereafter, she came to her mother’s house, and being troubled with the
like thirst, drank weak ale and got little rest all the night.’ Next day,
her body, from the middle downwards, was enormously swelled, making her a
monstrous figure, and this illness did not much abate for twenty days.
Soon after, she had to take to her bed again, nor did she begin to recover
‘till she received an antidote from Dr Hamilton.’ Her health did not fully
come back.
A commission was issued for inquiry into this affair,
but with what result does not appear.—P. C. R.
1636, Jan 14
Instances of the capture of Scottish mariners by Barbary rovers, and of
charitable efforts at home to redeem them from a cruel slavery, have been
already intimated as numerous. At this time, we are informed of one which
must have formed a powerful appeal to the humane bosom. A ship called the
John of Leith, commanded by John Brown, and having ten sailors on
board, is quietly proceeding on a mercantile voyage from London to
Rochelle. Near the coast of France, it encounters three Turkish
men-of-war, who give chase from sunrise to sundown, and at last take and
sink the vessel, after easing her of her crew and all her valuable goods.
The poor skipper Brown and his ten men, being carried
to Sallee, were taken to market and sold as slaves. Each bearing iron
chains to the weight of eighty pounds, the eleven men were employed all
day in grinding in a mill, with nothing to eat but a little dusty bread.
‘In the night, they are put in foul holes, twenty foot under the ground,
where they lie miserably, looking nightly to be eaten with rottens and
mice.’ It was further stated, that ‘being but a company of poor seafaring
men, having nothing but their hires whereby to redeem themselves, and
their kin are so mean and unworthy as they will do nothing in that errand,
their thraldom and misery will be perpetual unless they be assisted and
helped by the charitable benevolence of his majesty’s good subjects.’
The Privy Council, looking kindly on the wretched state
of the men, recommended a contribution in their behalf throughout Lothian,
Berwick, Stirling, and Fife, under the care of ‘John Brown and Walter
Ross, indwellers in Preston.’
In the ensuing month, the Privy Council had in their
hands a supplication from James Puncher, setting forth his pitiful estate
as a prisoner among the Turks in Algiers. He had been kept for a long time
there, forced to carry water on his back through the town, ‘with an iron
chain about his leg and round his middle, instead of sark, hose, and
shoes;’ and no food ‘but four unce of bread daily, as black as tar,’ while
obliged to endure ‘forty or threescore of stripes with ane rope of four
inches great upon his flaked body, sometimes on his back, and sometimes on
his belly.’
‘When the ship is to go to the sea, he must go perforce
arid sustein the like misery there, and all because he will not renunce Ms
faith in Christ and become ane Turk.’ His cruel masters having offered to
liberate him for twelve hundred merks, he now entreated the Privy Council
to recommend his case to the charity of his fellow-countrymen, that that
sum might be raised and sent to him. The Council looked kindly on this sad
petition, and appointed a collection to be made in the sheriffdoms of
Edinburgh and Berwick, the proceeds to be handed to ‘David Corsaw in
Dysart, uncle of the supplicant,’ who had undertaken to administer the
money for Duncher’s relief.—P. C. R.
Jan 27
A bark belonging to Dundee, carrying goods from Camphire, was overtaken
near the mouth of the Firth of Forth by a storm, which obliged the master,
after struggling with great difficulties, to run the vessel on shore in an
inlet called Thornton Loch, near Dunbar. Immediately she was, beset by a
multitude of farmers, Dunbar tradesmen, and others, provided with horses
and carts, who, cutting a hole in her side with axes, seized and took away
her whole cargo. The enumeration of the articles gives some idea of what
might constitute a grocer’s stock in those days, and speaks rather more
strongly of comfort and luxury than many may be prepared for. There were
‘ten lasts of white pease, three lasts and a half of soap, four great
pipes of "alme" [alum?] and three puncheons of "
alme," a ball of madder, three balls of galls, twenty hundred pund weight
of sugar, ten trees [barrels] of white stun [starch], twenty trees of
raisins of the sun, three trees of figs, [three] puncheons of Corse
raisins, ten kinkens [kegs] of powder, twa small trees of brimstone, ane
thousand pund weight of tobacco, seven barrel pipes, four kinkens of
indigo, four hundred pund of pepper, fifty pund of cannell [cinnamon],
thirteen pund of maces, fifteen pund of saffron, twenty pund of nutmegs,
ane thousand pund of ridbrissels (?), ten piece
of Holland cloth, thirty-six pund of silk, ane steik of Spanish taffeta,
three trees of capers, ane packet of pannis’ (?),
and ‘four hundred pund of pewter vessel and stoups,’ besides ‘six
hundred and fifty merks of ready gold and silver, being in a purse, with
the haul abulyiements and clothing belonging to the company and equipage
of the ship.’ Having carried off these articles, they proceeded to sell
them to the country people, without any regard to the remonstrances of the
master of the ship. ‘The like of whilk barbarous violence, committed in
the heart of the country by people who ought to have respect with wines
and other goods to the value of a thousand pounds, for law and justice,
has not been heard of; whereanent some exemplar and severe course ought to
be ta’en, lest the oversight and impunity thereof make others to commit
the like.’
It is gratifying to find the Council taking up the East
Lothian wreckers in this spirit. They did proceed with great energy
against such of the individuals accused as they found to be truly guilty,
imposing on them severally certain fines, from fifty merks up to fifty
pounds, in order to make up a proper compensation to the owners of the
goods.—P. C. R.
In July 1636, the Council dealt with a case of wrecking
which strongly illustrates the state of morals in the Western Islands. The
Susanna, a bark of twenty-four tons, was proceeding, in December
1634, from the port of St Malo, in France, to Limerick, when she twice
encountered stormy weather, and by force of winds and waves, was carried
to an inlet in one of the Hebrides. Having lost their boat, the mariners
made signs to the people on shore, who presently came on board, armed with
swords, pikes, and crossbows, ‘and demanded of the company of the bark
what they would give to bring the bark into we harbour.’ It was agreed by
the distressed crew, that a butt of sack and a barrel of raisins should be
given for that service and for some provisions of which they stood in
need. Then the islanders cut the ship’s cable and brought her to land.
The master and his crew expected here to find kindly
entertainment and to be in full security; but, instead of this, a great
number of people, of whom the captain of the Clanranald and the Laird of
Castleborrow were the chief (three hundred in all, it is said), came down
upon them in armed fashion, and furnished with barrels and other
conveniences; ‘drank and drew out the wine day by day, carried away all
their goods and merchandise,’ and even robbed the strangers of their
wearing apparel, ‘as wed that upon their bodies as whilk was in the bark.’
By threats and ill-usage, they also obliged a young man, a member of the
crew, to assume the character of factor of the vessel, and make a mock
sale of her merchandise, ‘in consideration of a sowm of money, although he
received nane.’ Finally, under a threat of being sent with the crew ‘to
the savages that dwells in the mayne,’ the owner was compelled to accept
eight pounds for the vessel, though it was worth a hundred and fifty, and
then the crew found it necessary to get away as best they could, for fear
of their lives.
The Council summoned the accused
persons, and on their failing to appear, denounced them as rebels.—P.
C. R.
Jan
A difficulty occurring about the election of magistrates for Aberdeen, a
leet was sent to the Privy Council, who selected out of it
Alexander Jaffray, a distinguished merchant, whom we shall meet again in
this chronicle. ‘Many lichtlied both the man and the election, not being
of the old blood of the town, but the oy [grandson] of ane baxter [baker],
and therefore was set down in the provost’s dais, before his entering, ane
baken pie, to sermon. This was done divers times; but he miskenned
(overlooked] all, and never quarrelled the samen.’—Spal.
Apr 1
On the application of Mr William Gordon, professor of medicine and anatomy
in the university of Aberdeen, who had hitherto been obliged to illustrate
his lessons by dissecting beasts, the Privy Council gave warrant to the
sheriffs and magistrates of Aberdeen to allow him the bodies of a couple
of malefactors for the service of his class, if such could be had, but,
failing these, the bodies of any poor people who might die in hospitals or
otherwise, and have no friends to take exception; this being with the
approbation of the Bishop of Aberdeen, chancellor of the university.
July 27
This was a terrible day for the broken men who had for the last few
years been carrying on such wild proceedings in Moray-land and other
districts bordering on the Highlands. Lord Lorn—who soon after, as Marquis
of Argyle, became the leader of the Covenanting party—had exerted himself
with diligence to put down the system of robbery and oppression by which
the country had been so long harassed; and he had succeeded in capturing
ten of the most noted of the catterans, including one whose name enjoys a
popular celebrity even to the present day. This was Gilderoy or Gillieroy;
such at least was his common appellation—a descriptive term signifying the
Red Lad—but he actually bore the name of Patrick Macgregor, being a member
of that unhappy clan which the severity of the government had driven to
desperate courses about thirty years before. Another of the captured men
was John Forbes, who seems to have been the fidus Achates of the
notorious outlaw, James Grant. A natural son of Grant was also of the
party. These ten men were now brought to trial in Edinburgh.
It was alleged of Gilderoy that he and his band had for
three years past sorned ‘through the haill bounds of Strathspey,
Braemar, Cromar, and countries thereabout, oppressing the common and poor
people, violently taking away from them their meat, drink, and provision,
and their hail guids.’ They had taken fifteen nolt from one farm in
Glenprosen; had lain for days at Balreny, eating up the country, and
possessing themselves of whatever they could lay hands on, and in some
instances they had carried off the goodman himself, or the man and wife
together, in order to extort money for their ransom. One of the charges
leads us to the romantic scenery of Loch Lomond, where there is an island
called Inchcailloch (Women’s Island), from having been the seat of a
nunnery in ancient times. Gilderoy, in company with his brother, John Dhu
Roy, and his half-brother, John Graham, had come to William Stewart’s
house in this island, and taken from it ‘the whole insight plenishing,
guids, and geir,’ besides the legal papers belonging to the proprietor.
There had also been a cruel slaughter of one of the Clan Cameron. The
other men were taxed with offences of a similar kind.
If the doom of the ten catterans was duly executed—and
we know nothing to the contrary—they were all, two days after, drawn
backwards on a hurdle to the Cross, and there hanged, Gilderoy and John
Forbes suffering on a gallows ‘ane degree higher’ than that on which their
companions suffered, and further having their heads and right hands struck
off for exhibition on the city ports.
Gilderoy, as is well known, attained a ballad fame.
There is a broadside of the time, containing a lament for him by his
mistress, in rude verses not altogether devoid of pathos. She says:
‘My love he was as brave a man
As ever Scotland bred,
Descended from a Highland clan,
A catter to his trade.
No woman then or womankind
Had ever greater joy
Than we two when we lodged alone,
I and my Gilderoy.'
* * *
There is something almost fine in the close of the
piece:
‘And now he is in Edinburgh town,
‘Twas long ere I came there;
They hanged him upon a pin,
And he wagged in the air:
His relics they were more esteemed
Than Hector’s were at Troy—
I never love to see the face
That gazed on Gilderog.’
A various version of this doleful ditty appears in A
Collection of Old Ballads (London, printed for J. Roberts, &c., 1724).
It contains some stanzas not quite consistent with modern taste, and takes
such a view of the offences of the hero as might be expected from a woman
and a mistress:
‘What kind of cruelty is this,
To hang such handsome men!’
As it breathed, however, a strain of natural feeling,
it attracted the attention of Lady Wardlaw, the authoress of the fine
ballad of Hardiknute, and by her was put into such an improved form
as may be said to have rendered the name of Gilderoy classical.
July 28
A petition given in to the Privy Council by the parishioners of Denny,
craving assistance to rebuild a bridge which had been carried away by a
‘speat’ of the Carron, stated the circumstances of the accident in terms
which illustrate the power of running-water in a remarkable manner. The
tempest, it was said, exceeded all that could be remembered, ‘by the
violence whereof not only houses, with men, wives, and bairns, were
pitifully carried away and drowned, but great craigs and rocks were rent,
and huge parts of the same, of forty foot of length and above, carried
with the violence of the speat, above four or five pair of butts lengths
from the craig, within the water of Carron, to the dry land.’— P. C. R.
Aug 2
Lady Rothiemay, after a long detention under caution, was this day
subjected to trial for giving encouragement to the Frendraught spoilers
two years before. There seems to have been a disposition to look lightly
on the offence of a woman who had had the deaths of a husband and a son to
excite her feelings, and the charge, after being twice delayed, was
finally allowed to fall to the ground.
Nov 10
The Privy Council, learning that a number of gipsies bad been seized a
month before, and thrown into jail at Haddington, decreed that, (whereas
the keeping of them longer there is troublesome and burdenable to the
town,’ therefore the sheriff or his depute should pronounce sentence of
death ‘against so many of thir counterfeit thieves as are men, and against
so many of the women as wants children, ordaining the men to be hangit,
and the women to be drowned;’ while ‘such of the women as has children
should be scourged through the burgh."
Dec 8
John Greg, ‘in the Haughs of Fingoth,’ complained to the Privy Council of
the conduct of Mr James Stuart, commissary of Dunkeld, who, after passing
upon him sundry affronts, had lately fallen upon a new trick for his
disgrace—namely, to insert ‘Macgregor’ as his name in all public documents
in which he was concerned either as pursuer or defender. ‘Now, lately,
under the borrowed name of David Martin, servitor to the Laird of
Ballechin, he has ta’en the gift of the complainer’s escheat, and in that
same gift he calls the complainer John Macgregor, alias Greg.’ By
this it was assumed that the Dunkeld commissary intended ‘to draw the
complainer under all the courses that sall be ta’en with the Clan Gregor.’
Greg further affirmed that his family name for generations past memory had
been simply Greg, ‘and had nothing to do with the race of Clan Gregor.’
The Council obliged Stuart to give caution that he
would discontinue this singular kind of persecution.—P. C. R.
1637, Feb 23
We have notice at this time of a very pretty quarrel between Lord Fraser
and the Laird of Philorth. ‘The kirkyard dike of Rathin being altogether
ruinous and decayed, the gentlemen and others of the parish, out of
respect to the honour of God and credit of the parish, concluded to repair
and big up the said kirkyard dike,’ except a part which fell properly to
be done by the late Lords of Lovat and Fraser. Owing to the death of Lord
Lovat, the duty of building the latter portion fell solely upon Lord
Fraser, who, when he had executed it, ‘caused put up aboon the kirkstyle
his name and arms in carved stones, after a decent and comely order, never
thinking that any man would have been so void of modesty and discretion as
to have maligned the said wark.’ Nevertheless, Alexander Frisell of
Philorth had come with a number of armed followers, under cloud of night,
and put up three great brods with the arms of Philorth painted on them,
right over the Lord Fraser’s arms, which were now consequently invisible.
Such a proceeding, it was held, could only be
interpreted as meant to stir up Lord Fraser into a deadly quarrel; ‘but
he, out of respect to his majesty’s obedience and laws, whilk he will ever
prefer to his awn unruly passions, has forborne to tak upon him the sword
of justice.’ He applies to the Privy Council for the just redress of ‘this
inexcusable wrong.’
The Council had the accused parties summoned before
them, and the Laird of Philorth, having appeared, could only excuse
himself by alleging what he felt to be due to his late father’s
‘funerals.’ The Lords therefore contented themselves with ordering the
‘brod’ with the arms to be taken down ‘at mid-day, in presence of the
minister of Rathin.’ A counter complaint from Philorth against Lord Fraser
for putting up his arms in stone on the kirkyard dike, was remitted to the
judge ordinary of the district.—P. C. R.
Feb 23
It is remarkable that the government never previously exerted itself more
strenuously for the repression of spoliation and common theft than just
before its hands were paralysed by the outbreak of the religious spirit.
We have just seen justice done upon a number of broken men of the north
and the gipsies of the south; we have now to see even more stern
proceedings against the Border thieves. A commission, headed by the Earl
of Traquair, sat at Jedburgh on the day noted, when whole droves of
culprits came before them, and were dealt with in the most rigorous
manner. The number hanged was thirty! Five were burned, and as many fined.
Fifteen were banished from the country, under caution never to return.
While fifteen were ‘cleansed,’ forty were declared fugitives for
non-appearance, and twenty dismissed with assurance that they should be
treated in a similar manner if they failed to bring forward caution before
a particular day.
The commissioners framed a number of statutes, some of
which speak strongly of the state of things which they were meant to
correct. Any person going to Ireland without a licence was to be held as a
thief, and brought to trial. It was culpable for any innkeeper to have
beef, mutton, or lamb in his house, without ‘presenting the skin, heed,
and lugs thereof, to two or more of their honest neighbours, who may bear
witness of the mark and birn of the skin and hide, and that the flesh
thereof is lawfully becomit.’ No one was to purchase cattle or sheep
otherwise than in open market, ‘at the least before twa famous witnesses
testifying that the guids is lawfully becomit.’ It was a misdemeanour for
any one who had goods stolen to negotiate for their recovery and leave the
thief unprosecuted. No one was to give harbourage or assistance in any way
to men declared fugitives from justice.—P. C. R.
June
During the spring and early summer of this year, the border counties were
afflicted with the pest. Various orders were issued with a view to
confining the range of the sickness as much as possible. From one of these
arose a complaint on the part of Sir John Murray of Philiphaugh, who, as
convener of the justices of his county, had occasion to see the
arrangements carried out. Having gone to Selkirk for this purpose, he
found a citizen named James Murray about to have a daughter married, and
‘a great part of the country’ expected to gather to the ceremony. He
forbade the assemblage as dangerous, and enjoined that not above four or
five should be present as witnesses; but James Murray would not listen to
his remonstrances. When Sir John afterwards sent for him to press still
further the necessity of having only a small company, James Murray proudly
answered: ‘If ye be feared, come not there.’ Sir John then called on the
ballies to commit him to prison, but ‘there was no obedience given
thereto;’ and next day, when the marriage took place, ‘there was about
four or five score persons who met and drank together all that day till
night.’—P. C. R.
July 23
The intrusion of a service-book or liturgy upon the Scottish Church has
been alluded to in the introduction to the present section. There was an
almost universal unwillingness, even among the friends of the reigning
system, to give efficacy to the royal orders; for it was seen that the
congregations would not calmly see this innovation effected. It was
resolved, however, that on Sunday the 23d of July the book should be used
in the cathedral of Edinburgh—the ‘Great Church’ of St Giles—where the
privy councillors, including the bishops and the lords of session, as well
as the city magistrates, usually attended worship, besides a large
congregation of the upper class of citizens.
To pursue the narrative of a contemporary—’How
soon as Dr George Hanna, dean of Edinburgh, who was to officiate that day,
had opened the service-book, a number of the meaner sort of. people, most
of them waiting-maids and women, who use in that town to keep places for
the better sort, with clapping of their hands, cursings, and outcries,
raised such an uncouth noise and hubbub in the church, that not any one
could either hear or be heard. The gentlewomen did fall a tearing and
crying that the mass was entered amongst them, and Baal in the church.
There was a gentleman standing behind a pew and answering "Amen" to what
the dean was reading; a she-zealot, hearing him, starts up in choler:
"Traitor," says she, "does thou say mass at my ear!" and with that struck
him on the face with her Bible in great fury.
‘The bishop of Edinburgh, Mr David Lindsay, stepped
into the pulpit, above the dean, intending to appease the tumult, minding
them of the place where they were, and entreating them to desist from
profaning it. But he met with as little reverence (albeit with more
violence) as the dean had found; for they were more enraged, and began to
throw at him stools, and their very Bibles, and what arms were in the way
of [their] fury. It is reported that he hardly escaped the blow of a
stool, which one present diverted. Nor were their tongues idler than their
hands. Upon this, John Spottiswoode, archbishop of St Andrews, then Lord
Chancellor, and some others, offering to assist the bishop in quelling the
multitude, were made partners of the suffering of all these curses and
imprecations which they began to pray to the bishops and their abettors.
The archbishop, finding himself unable to prevail with the people, was
forced to call down from their gallery the provost and bailies and others
of the town-council of Edinburgh, who at length, with much tumult and
confusion, thrust the unruly rabble out of the church, and made fast the
church doors.
‘The multitude being removed, the dean falls again to
read, in presence of the better sort who stayed behind; but all this
while, those who had been turned out of doors, kept such a quarter with
clamours without, and rapping at the church doors, and pelting the windows
with stones, as that the dean might once more be interrupted. This put the
bailies once more to the pains to come down from their seat, and interpose
with the clamorous multitude to make them quiet. In the midst of these
clamours, the service was brought to an end; but the people’s fury was not
a whit settled; for after the bishop had stepped up into the pulpit and
preached, and the congregation dismissed, the bishop of Edinburgh retiring
to his lodging not far distant from the church, was environed and set upon
with a multitude of the meaner people, cursing him and crowding about him,
that he was in danger of his life, and to be trodden down amongst the
people; and having recovered the stairs of his lodging, he no sooner began
to go up, but he was pulled so rudely by the sleeve of his gown that he
was like to have fallen backwards. Nor was he in more security, having
gotten to the top of the stairs; for the door he did find shut against
him, and so was at a stand, likely to have been oppressed, had not the
Earl of Wemyss, who from the next lodging saw the bishop in danger, sent
his servants for to rescue him, who got him at last, breathless, and in
much amazement, into his lodging.’—Gordon’s Hist,
of Scots Affairs.
Tradition in modern times has represented an
herb-woman, named Jenny Geddes, as the heroine who more especially cast
her stool at the bishop. Wodrow, however, has given us a different account
in his Analecta. ‘It is,’ says he, ‘a constantly believed
tradition, that it was Mrs Mean, wife to John Mean, merchant in Edinburgh,
that cast the first stool when the service-book was read in the New Kirk,
Edinburgh, 1637; and that many of the lasses that carried on the fray were
prentices in disguise, for they threw stools to a great length.’ Mrs Mean
had been the subject of a relenting and humane act on the part of the
government. When her husband was under restraint for nonconformity in
1624, he was liberated on a petition setting forth the delicate state of
his wife’s health, in order that he might be enabled to return to
Edinburgh and attend upon her.’
‘After this Sunday’s wark, the haill kirk doors of
Edinburgh was lockit, and no more preaching heard [for four or five
weeks]. The zealous puritans flockit ilk Sunday to hear devotion in Fife;
syne returned to their houses.’—Spal.
July
The poor and scattered success of the new liturgy is quaintly dwelt on by
a nobleman who took a leading part in the proceedings for obtaining its
abrogation. ‘Sundry bishops,’ he says, ‘did establish [the service-book]
at their cathedrals, as the bishop of Ross in the Chanrie, Brechin at the
kirk of Brechin, Dunblane at Dunblane. It was not fully practised at St
Andrews; only a few of the prayers were read by the archdeacon, and having
no assistance, left the same, after a few months’ practice of a part of it
only. The minister of Brechin, Mr Alexander Bisset, would not practise it;
but the bishop read it by his own servant. At Dunblane, the ordinary
minister, Mr Pearson, a corrupt worldling, read it . .
. . yet did the said Pearson, after consideration of the general
dislike of the service-book, at a meeting of the small barons of
Strathearn, subscribe the supplication against the service-book, as the
Laird of Kippenross. At Chanrie, it was read by one appointed by the
bishop. Except these places, it was not entered nor practised in no place
in Scotland; except Dr Scrimgeour at St Fillans read it, and neither being
dextrous, nor having any to assist him, as it began to be discountenanced,
he dishaunted it. Also in Dingwall in Ross, one Mr Murdo Mackenzie, under
censure for divers heinous and foul crimes, practised the same, to obtain
remission of his offences. Certain prayers were also read in the New
College at St Andrews, some of these that are not themselves corrupt,
though joined with the rest—and this obedience given by that fearful man,
Dr Howie, who hath fallen back from the truth of his first profession.’’