trusting that he would
die, and that consequently no discovery would take place. Finding
Anderson’s disease taking a turn, the young thieves became alarmed; and
took into counsel another boy named Kennedy, an apothecary’s apprentice,
who supplied them with a drug calculated to keep up the malady under which
Anderson had suffered. The man receiving this in small doses, grew ill
again, and in time died. No suspicion of foul play was entertained, and
apparently the two lads would have been allowed to remain unnoticed, if
they had not offered for sale a gold chain which formed part of their
plunder. Being detained and questioned, they fell into such terror, that
an ingenuous confession of their guilt was easily obtained from them,
accompanied with many expressions of sorrow. They were hanged, ‘both in
regard to the theft clearly proven, and for tenor that the Italian trick
of sending men to the other world in figs and possets might not come over
seas to our island.’ Kennedy, ‘an outed minister’s son,’ was detained for
want of proof, and ultimately banished.— Foun.
Wodrow adds a tale of wonder, as
told him by his mother-in-law, Mrs Warner, who had visited the two boys in
prison. After the burial of Anderson, his nephew, Sir John Clerk of
Pennycuick, ‘was one night lying in his own house, in a room with some
others, sleeping. In his sleep he imagined he heard a voice calling to
him: "Avenge the blood of your uncle!" and wakened, and asked if any of
them had been speaking to him. They declared not. He composed himself to
sleep, and had it repeated; and he asked the former question the second
time, and those in the room denied, as above. He slept again, and had the
same repeated the third time; on which he got up, and went immediately to
Edinburgh and made a particular inquiry into the circumstances of his
uncle’s death, at the two apprentices, but found nothing to fix on at this
time. In a little, Sir John met with a medal in a goldsmith’s shop which
he knew to belong to his uncle. This he traced up till he landed it on the
apprentices, who, upon this, confessed they had opened their master’s
cabinet and taken out money, &c.’
Mr James Mitchell, who made an
attempt on Archbishop Sharpe’s life in 1668, and wounded the Bishop of
Orkney, was taken prisoner in February 1674, and being subjected to
examination, and promised his life if he would confess, did make a
confession—which, however, he afterwards retracted before the Court of
Justiciary, having in the interval been told that nothing could be proved
against him, and warned that perhaps the promise made to him might not be
respected. This conduct put the government to a difficulty, and irritated
them the more against him. At length, after keeping him in a very hard
confinement for two years, they resolved to subject him to the torture, as
the only means left to bring him back to his confession.
It is not proposed here to detail
the sufferings of the wretched Mitchell; but those who know the courts of
law, as they now exist, will probably view with some interest the
arrangements that were made beforehand for that kind of procedure.
Jan 6
The resolution having been formed to put Mitchell to the torture of the
boot, the Council ‘do hereby nominate the Earls of Linlithgow, Wigton,
Seaforth, the Lords Ross and Treasurer Depute as a committee of Council to
meet on the 24th day of January next, at nine o’clock in the forenoon in
the Parliament House, where the justices do ordinarily hold their courts,
and to cause put the said Mr James Mitchell to the question and torture
concerning his being in the rebellion in the year 1666, and appoints the
commissioners of justiciary in a fenced court to be present then and
assistant, in their robes, with their clerks and other officers of court;
and recommends to the said committee, or any three of them with the
commissioners of justiciary, to meet before that time and consider of the
way and manner of the said torture,’ &c.
The Council afterwards ordered that
a bailie of Edinburgh should be present, ‘to receive and put in execution
such orders as the lords shall think fit to give.’—P. C. R.
The unfortunate Mitchell sustained
the torture with surprising firmness, and without making any admission
criminative of himself. A proposal being afterwards made to torture him in
the other leg, one of his friends (so the report went) dropped an
anonymous hint to Archbishop Sharpe, that if he persisted in the
resolution, he should have a shot from a steadier hand; ‘whereupon
he was let alone, but still kept in prison.’—Law. At length the
unhappy man was brought to a regular trial, when the state-officers all
denied in the witness-box that fact of the promise of life upon
confession, which their own record bore, and which Mitchell alleged had
taken place. It is just possible that the record misrepresented what took
place; but it is very difficult to make so largely charitable an
allowance. Mitchell suffered in the Grassmarket (January 1678).
July 9
‘A star was seen at twelve hours of the day by a great company of people
met for sermon on Gargunnock Hills, and that when the sun was
shining.’—Law.
Sep
One John Scott, a Quaker in Leith, was fined by Bailie Carmichael there,
in a hundred dollars, and banished from the town, for brewing upon the
Sunday, and answering, when challenged for it by the bailie and Mr
Hamilton the minister, that ‘he might as weel brew on the Sunday as Mr
Hamilton might take money for going up to a desk, and talking and throwing
water upon a bairn’s face.’ He appealed to the Privy Council against the
sentence as over-severe and beyond the power of the magistrate; but ‘he
was ill set, for he had both the magistracy and the clergy—who solicited
strongly—against him, for both of them would be baffled if the sentence
were found unjust. The Council ratified the bailie’s sentence. .. .
whereupon Bailie Carmichael arrested and seized eighty bolls of malt, the
said Scott had paid ten or eleven pound the boll for, when victual was
dear, and caused apprise and judge it to him, for his hundred dollars.’—Foun.
Dec
For several years there had been a remarkable lull in the spiritual world,
and, whether from the judicious mildness of the government in ordering
that no women should be condemned for witchcraft except upon voluntary
confession, or any other cause, witch cases had wholly ceased. All at
once, the devil’s work recommenced, and a series of dismal tragedies
ensued. It seems to have been primarily owing to a vagrant girl named
Janet Douglas, who appeared deaf and dumb, and who may be reasonably set
down as one of those singular young persons who, acting under a morbid
love of mischief, have at the same time marvellous powers of deception.
Sir George Maxwell of Pollock had
for some weeks been very unwell, with a pain in his side and one in his
shoulder. The illness had first come upon him suddenly in the night, when
at Glasgow, in the form of a violent heat, attended with pain. At the time
noted in the margin, Janet Douglas came to the neighbouring village, and
began to frequent Pollock House. Attracting the attention of Sir George’s
sister and daughter, she endeavoured to apprise them by signs that, at a
certain cottage not far oft’, there was a picture of wax turning at a
fire; and she expressed in her imperfect way a wish that a couple of men
should go with her thither. Lady Maxwell, not being inclined to
superstition, would have denied the girl’s request; but the two other
gentlewomen consented. So Janet went away with two men-servants, and
straight conducted them to the cottage of an old woman of evil fame, named
Janet Mathie, whose son the laird had some time before imprisoned for
stealing his fruit. ‘She going in with the men, the woman on some occasion
stepping to the door, the dumb lass instantly put her hand behind the
chimney, and takes out a picture of wax wrapped in a linen cloth, gives it
to the men; away they all come with it, and let the gentlewomen see it.
They find two pins stuck in the right side of it, and a pin on the
shoulder downward, which they take out, and keeps quiet; and that night
the bird had good rest, and mended afterward, though slowly, for he was
sore brought down in his body: and in two or three days they made him
understand the matter. The woman is apprehended, and laid up in prison in
Paisley! On being searched, several witch-marks—that is, spots
insensible to pain—were found upon her.
1677
On the 4th of January, Sir George’s illness recurred with the same
violence as before, and his face assumed the leaden hue of death. Amidst
the anxieties which this occasioned, the dumb girl sent to inform the
family that John Stewart, Mathie’s son, had made a new image of clay, for
the purpose of taking away Sir George’s life. Two gentlemen went next day
with the girl to Mathie’s cottage, and keeping her at a distance, but
acting under her directions, found such an image under the bolster of a
bed, with three pins sticking in it. The young man and his sister Annaple
were immediately apprehended. From that day, it was said that Sir George
began to recover his health.
Stewart at first denied all concern
in the images, but, on witch-marks being found on his person, he was
‘confounded,’ and joined his sister in a confession, which described
witch-conventions in their mother’s house, along with ‘a man dressed in
black, with a blue band and white hand-cuffs, with hoggars over his bare
feet, which were cloven!’ Three women of the neighbourhood, Bessie Weir,
Margaret Jackson, and Marjory Craig, were accordingly apprehended and
examined, when the second gave a confession to much the same effect, but
the other two proved ‘obdurate.’
In the subsequent judicial
proceedings, Annaple Stewart gave a clear statement regarding the making
of the first wax image in October last in the presence of the Black Man,
her mother, and the other three women. They bound it on a spit, and turned
it round before the fire, saying: ‘Sir George Pollock! Sir George
Pollock!’ The young man, who was not then at home, had returned and been
present at the making of the second image in January. ‘After he had gone
to bed, the Black Man came in, and called him quietly by his name, upon
which he arose from the bed and put on his clothes. Margaret Jackson,
Bessie Weir, and Marjory Craig did enter in at the window in the gable.
The first thing that the Black Man required was that he should renounce
his baptism and deliver up himself wholly unto him, putting one of his
hands on the crown of his head, and the other to the sole of his foot . .
. promising he should not want any pleasure, and that he should get his
heart sythe on all that should do him wrong. (All having given their
consent to the making of the clay image, which was meant as a revenge for
Sir George Maxwell taking away his mother), they wrought the clay, and the
Black Man did make the head and face, and the two arms. The devil set
three pins in the same, one in each side, and one in the breast; and John
did hold the candle all the time the picture was making The picture was
placed by Bessie Weir in his bed-straw.’ On this occasion, they had all
had nicknames given them by the devil, who himself bore the name of Ejool.
It is noted that when the girl,
after confession in bed in Pollock House, was asked what the devil’s name
had been to her, ‘she, being about to tell, was stopped, the bed being
made to shake, and her clothes under her blown up with a wind.’
When the two young people had been
committed to Paisley prison, Janet, their mother, desired to see her son,
and the request being granted, ‘they make a third and new picture of clay,
which the dumb lass again discovers.’ It was supposed that this was
intended for Sir George’s daughter-in-law, who had taken an active
interest in detecting the diabolic conspiracy, and who fell ill about this
time.
In consideration of her nonage and
penitency, Annaple Stewart was not brought to trial, though retained in
prison. On the 15th of February, the rest of the party were tried and
condemned, Janet Mathie, Bessie Weir, and Marjory Craig continuing to deny
their guilt to the last. The obduracy of Mathie was considered the more
horrible, as her two children seriously exhorted her to confession,
Annaple with tears reminding her of her many meetings with the devil, but
all in vain. The four women and the boy actually suffered in Paisley (20th
February). Mathie was first hanged, and then burned, along with the wax
and clay effigies. When Weir, the last of the four, was turned off the
gallows, ‘there appears a raven, and approaches the hangman within an ell
of him, and flies away again.’—Law.
it is perhaps the most singular fact
regarding this case, that the particulars of it are narrated with all
seriousness by Sir George’s son and successor, Sir John Maxwell, who was
subsequently Lord Justice-clerk—that is, supreme criminal judge in
Scotland. He intimates not the least doubt of any of the facts, neither of
any of the popular inferences from them. Other intelligent men in that age
were struck by the manner in which the doings of the witches were
detected, and Janet Douglas was for some time the subject of general
attention. In the same month which saw the witches done to death on
Paisley green, she detected a similar conspiracy against Mr Hugh Smith,
the minister of Eastwood, who ‘was much afflicted with pain and sweating,
to the changing of half-a-dozen shirts some days, and was brought very
low, but after the discovery, and the effigy gotten, and the prins taken
out, grew well again.’ It was given out regarding the girl, that she
understood any language in which she was addressed. When she had somewhat
recovered the use of her own tongue, which was about two months after
these events, she told that three years before, she had had ‘an impression
on her spirit’ to come to Pollock. ‘Being asked how she had knowledge of
detecting witches and other secrets, she declared that she knew not from
what spirit; only things were suggested to her; but denied that she had
any correspondence with Satan.’—Law.
According to Sir John Lauder, she
stated that ‘she had all things revealed to her in her sleep by vision.’
This learned gentleman adds: ‘What made her very suspect to be haunted
only by a familiar, was her dissolute idle life, having. . . . not so much
as a show or semblance of piety in it, but much lightness and vanity."
The Privy Council, hearing much
rumour of these things from the west, sent orders to search for and
apprehend Janet Douglas, and she was brought to Edinburgh in May, and
lodged in the Canongate Tolbooth. People flocked to see her, and she began
to exercise her art of witch-finding amongst them, but with no particular
effect. In June, nevertheless, five or six women of the west, whom she had
detected in killing Hamilton of Barns by a wax image, were burned for
their imaginary crime at Dumbarton. Next month we find a reference to her
in another case.
Two sons of Douglas of Barloch
having been drowned in crossing a river at one time, the father was
induced by Janet Douglas to believe that the calamity was an effect of
witchcraft. Barloch consequently caused John Gray, Janet M’Nair, Thomas
and Mary Mitchell, to be apprehended and carried to Stirling Tolbooth.
There, ‘their bodies being searched by the ordinar pricker, there
were witch-marks found upon each of them, and Janet M’Nair confessed that
she got these marks from the grip of a grim black man, and bed a great
pain for a time thereafter.’ After keeping these four persons in jail on
his own charges for fourteen weeks, Barloch found the expense more than he
was able to undergo, ‘being but a gentleman of a mean fortune;’ and on his
petition, the Council ordered (July 5, 1677) that the magistrates of
Stirling should in the meantime ‘entertein the prisoners.’ Against this
ordinance, the magistrates immediately reclaimed, ‘seeing it is a great
burden to the town, who have so many other contingencies to undergo;’ and
the lords, reconsidering the matter, commissioned the Lairds of Kier,
Touch, and Herbertshire, to examine the prisoners, and ‘try what they find
anent these persons’ guilt of the crime of witchcraft, and report.’
What was ultimately done with the
four Stirling prisoners, we do not learn. As to Janet Douglas, the Council
began to feel that she was something of an inconvenience in the country;
so they determined to banish her beyond seas. At first, no skipper could
be found who was willing to take her in his vessel; some were disposed to
set sail without a pass, to avoid being compelled to take such a dangerous
commodity on board. But Janet was ultimately banished and heard of no
more.
1676-7
Lord Fountainhall notes a remarkable homicide as taking place this winter,
at the village of Abernethy in Fife. A butcher and another man, sitting in
an ale-house together, quarrelled, and in a sudden fit of passion, the
butcher inflicted a mortal stab upon his companion. Some gentlemen sitting
in a neighbouring room heard the fray, and, rushing in, found the butcher
with the bloody knife in his hand. Excited by the atrocity of the deed,
they hurried off the murderer to the regality gallows, and instantly
hanged him, though they had no sort of authority to act in that manner.
They probably acted upon a popular notion, that a murderer taken
red-hand, or fresh from the act, may be instantly done to death by the
bystanders; which appears, however, to be a mistake.
1677, Jan
The celebrated Beau Fielding is supposed to have at this time paid a visit
to Edinburgh, while in difficulties on account of his suspected share in
the murder of Robert Perceval—a young libertine found dead one morning
near the Maypole in the Strand. He and two Scotch gentlemen of his own
sort, being met one evening at their cups in a house in Edinburgh, were
reputed to have drunk three toasts, ‘horrid to think on ‘—namely, the
Trinity, their own confusion, and the devil.—Law. The allegation is
but too credible, for about this time there begins to appear an extreme
form of profligacy and impiety—confined, indeed, to a few of the upper
classes—such as had never before been known in Scotland.
Jan 18
The system formerly adopted for keeping peace and maintaining a law in the
Highlands—namely, the making heads of clans answerable for their
dependents and inferiors—was now declared to have been found not to
answer, ‘in respect the said duty doth lie upon many persons in general,
and no person doth make it his work? Consequently, ‘the insoleney and
villainy of thieves, somers, and other wicked and lawless persons do
abound and increase, to the affront of our authority and oppression of the
lieges.’ The government therefore deemed it necessary to try the effect of
a different plan, and granted a commission to Sir James Campbell of Lawers
to use means for apprehending thieves and broken men in the Highlands, in
order that they might be brought to justice. It was also arranged that
when any cattle or other property was stolen, Sir James should make
restitution to the owners, only taking them bound to support him in the
legal processes by which he should endeavour to rescue the goods from the
thieves, and get due punishment inflicted. All sheriffs, chiefs,
landlords, and others were enjoined to assist and countenance Sir James in
this thief-taking commission.
Eneas Lord Macdonald was afterwards
conjoined with Sir James Campbell; and for his service during the year
ending the 1st of September 1671, Sir James was ordered the sum of
one hundred and
fifty pounds! But this seems to have been regarded as rather
scanty remuneration, and it was (September 8, 1677) decreed that for the
future there should be a salary of two hundred pounds to ‘ilk ane of the
said two persons.’
As necessary to support the two
gentlemen in their task, a garrison of a hundred soldiers was sent to
Inverlochy, care being previously taken to have dwellings built for them,
‘as the house there is altogether out of repair and unlodgeable.’ The
Marquis of Huntly and the Laird of Grant were called upon to exert
themselves to convince the minor chiefs in their several districts that
the government was now determined to put down the lawless system in the
Highlands. It was intimated by other means that letters of fire and sword
would be granted against any district in which gentler means had been
found unavailing.
In February 1680, James M’Nab in
Achessan represented to the Privy Council that, being engaged by Sir James
Campbell of Lawers to assist in apprehending Highland robbers, he had, at
the hazard of his life, taken John, Callum, and Duncan M’Gibbons, and
delivered them to the governor of the garrison at Finlarig—an unusually
perilous piece of duty, for which he had been promised the sum of eight
hundred merks, now refused by Sir James. As a plea at law ‘against a
person of such dexterity’ would have exhausted the reward, he had had no
alternative but to apply to the Council.. Sir James was ordered to pay the
reward as claimed.—P. C. R.
A very compendious view of some of
the customs of the Highlanders in the seventeenth century was given by Mr
John Fraser, an Episcopal minister, author of a
Treatise on Second-Sight:
‘In general they were litigious, ready to take arms
upon a small occasion, very predatory, much given to tables,
carding, and dicing. Their games was military exercise, and such as
rendered them fittest for war, as arching, running, jumping, with and
without race, swimming, continual hunting and fowling, feasting,
especially upon their holidays, the which they had enough, borrowed from
popery. Their marriage and funeral solemnities were much like [those of]
their neighbours in the low country; only at their funerals, there was
fearful howling, screeching, and crying, with very bitter lamentation, and
a complete narration of the descent of the dead person, the valorous acts
of himself and his predecessors, sung with tune in measure, continual
piping, if the person was of any quality or professing arms. Their
chiliarchy had their ushers that gaed out and came in before them, in full
arms. I cannot pass by a cruel custom that‘s hardly yet extinct. They
played at cards or tables (to pass the time in the winter nights) in
parties, perhaps four on a side; the party that lost, was obliged to make
his man sit down on the midst of the floor; then there was a single-soled
shoe, well plated, wherewith his antagonist was to give him [the man) six
strokes on end, upon his bare loof [palm], and the doing of that with
strength and art was thought gallantry."
Feb 1
A travelling doctor, styling himself Joannes Baptista Marentini, under
licence from the king, and with the permission of the magistrates of
Edinburgh, had a stage erected in that city, ‘for practising his skill in
physic and otherwise.’ His term of permission being about to expire, and
the magistrates unwilling to renew it, he found it necessary to apply to
the Privy Council for a further term, on the ground that he needed some
more time for effecting the cure of certain persons under his hands. The
Council gratified him with a prolongation till the 1st of April, in order
that, ‘having finished the said undertaken cures, he may the more freely,
and with the greater approbation, depart from this city to some other.’
A little case of the heart comes in
as a pendant to the above narrative. Four days after the end of the term
assigned in the act of the Privy Council, James Baynes, wright, came
before that august body with a petition, setting forth how ‘one Monsieur
Devoe, servant to the mountebank who was lately in this place, hath, by
sinistrous and indirect means, secured and enticed the petitioner’s
daughter and only child to desert her parents, and to live with him upon
pretence of a clandestine marriage.’ There being reason to fear that he
might escape, unless very prompt measures were taken, the Council granted
warrant to have the offender imprisoned in the Tolbooth. After escaping
from these matrimonial troubles, Devoe settled in Edinburgh as a
dancing-master, and we shall find his name coming before us several times
on other occasions.
Feb
The deaf and dumb Laird of Duntreath, a noted person in those days, being
at Paisley, ‘made signs to some of great fightings and troubles to be in
the land in a few months.’—Law.
This gentleman, who was said to be,
notwithstanding his deficiencies, of a very devout frame of mind, had in
the preceding December made a more special divination. ‘There was one of
his acquaintance went forth to a water at a good distance frae him upon
the ice, and had fallen in; and he, at that instant of time, gave warning
of it by a sign.’ On another occasion, when the Dumb Laird was sitting in
his own house at Duntreath, ‘two of his neighbours falling out at two
miles’ distance from him, the one striking the other with a whinger in the
arm, he, in the same instant of time, makes a sign of it.’
It was a general belief that many
persons born deaf and dumb possessed this supposed gift of clairvoyance or
second-sight. One, attended by another man, coming to the Boat of Balloch,
at the foot of Loch Lomond, and seeing a salmon-net drawing in, signed
that there were five fish in it, and one of them with a hook in its mouth,
indicating the hook by crooking his finger and putting it in his check.
‘The other man, being curious to know the truth of it, causes reckon the
fishes, and see if any of them had a hook; and it was found so as it was
signed by the dumb man, He tells the fishers what the dumb man had signed,
and they gave the dumb man one of them.’—Law.
At Colzium House, the seat of Sir
Archibald Edmondstone of Duntreath, there is a portrait of his
predecessor, the Deaf and Dumb Laird, presenting an aspect of intelligence
much beyond what could have been anticipated regarding one subject to so
great an infirmity. It is a tradition in the family that, in early life
finding himself much overlooked on account of his inability to
communicate, and being in particular left at home when the rest went to
church, he was found one day, on the family returning from worship,
sitting among the horses in the stable. When his mother let him know that
this conduct excited surprise, he imparted to her by such means as were at
his command, that, seeing himself treated as if he were something leas
than a human being, he had thought it only right and proper that he should
place himself in the society of the animals which had the same deficiency
as himself. The reproach was felt, and he was thenceforth treated more on
a footing of equality, and allowed to go to church with the rest of the
family.
June
The public mind being again morbidly excited about witchcraft, the usual
result of a fresh crop of cases—a witch-storm, it may be called—ensued. In
the beginning of this month, a serving-woman, named Lizzy Mudie, was burnt
at Haddington for witchcraft. Her mistress, Margaret Kirkwood, had, hanged
herself in her own house on a Sunday forenoon, while the people were at
church. Lizzy on that occasion made some disturbance, by running aloud
over the numbers, one, two, three, &c., till she came to fifty-nine, when
she cried: ‘The turn is done!’ It being found that Margaret Kirkwood,
whose age was fifty-nine, had ended her life at that moment, Lizzy was
taken up on suspicion, and examined for witch-marks. These were found upon
her, and she confessed herself to be a witch. She also delated five
other women (two of them midwives) and a man, as likewise guilty of
witchcraft, relating particular circumstances of their alleged guilt; but
they denied all. Fountainhall says: ‘I did see the man’s body searched and
pricked in two sundry places, one at the ribs, and the other at his
shoulder. He seemed to find pain, but no blood followed... The marks were
bluish, very small, and had no protuberancy above the skin.’ He adds, with
regard to the official pricker: ‘I remained very dissatisfied with this
way of trial, as most fallacious; and the fellow could give me no account
of the principles of his art, but seemed to be a drunken foolish rogue.’
The trade of a pricker of witches,
which had some time before been a regular and a prosperous one, was
beginning to fall under suspicion among the authorities. One Cowan, of
Tranent, who had learned the art from ‘Kincaid, a famous pricker,' was
complained of by one Catherine Liddel, before the Privy Council, about
this time, for subjecting her to the process on suspicion of witchcraft;
and he was by that tribunal condemned to prison during their pleasure. It
fully appears, indeed, that the present rulers of Scotland, while so
ruthless towards religious dissenters, were more enlightened and humane
than any of their predecessors in the matter of necromancy. While
introducing the use of torture in the one case, they discontinued it in
the other. They did, indeed, as we see, still allow of witch prosecutions;
but this perhaps it was beyond their power to resist, and it must be
admitted in their favour that the requirement of voluntary confessions was
a great step in the right direction. On the other hand, the fact of
voluntary confessions being so often made, where death was the certain
consequence, and where a stout denial usually seems to have saved the
accused, is one of a highly remarkable character, and which might give
scope to some interesting speculations. One remark forcibly occurs
regarding such cases, that the accused must have had intentions towards
necromantic results and a full conviction of their possibility, if not of
their occurrence; consequently must have felt guilty.
One of the persons accused by Lizzy
Mudie was Marion Phin, a woman of eighty years of age, living in
Haddington. Being consequently thrown into jail, she lay there three
months in a most miserable condition, suffering much, we presume, from the
severity of the treatment, so unsuitable to her great age, and also
distressed by the loss of her good name, she having hitherto ‘lived always
under a good report, never being stained with the least ignominy, far less
with the abominable crime of witchcraft.’ ‘It were hard,’ she said in a
petition to the Privy Council, ‘that, being of so known integrity, she
should suffer upon the account of such lying accusers, who may and
ordinarily do blunder the best of God’s servants.’ Her petition for being
liberated on caution (August 10) was not yielded to by the Council. They
contented themselves for the meantime with ordering the commission for her
examination to proceed with their duty.
The Florida, a large vessel of the
Spanish Armada of 1588, carrying sixty guns, bad been blown up and sunk in
the Bay of Tobermory, in the island of Mull: an old and consistent
tradition represents it as having come to this fate by means of Smollett
of Dumbarton, presumed to have been the ancestor of the celebrated
novelist The guns, treasure, and other valuable things, known or supposed
to have been on board, made the incident a memorable one, and induced a
desire, if possible, to weigh up the vessel, or at least to fish up from
it such things as might be accessible to divers. In the seventeenth
century, the recovery of sunk vessels and their contents was a favourite
project among ingenious and adventurous men. The late Marquis of Argyle
had obtained from the Duke of Lennox, Lord High Admiral of Scotland, a
formal gift of this vessel, and had become ‘clad with possession’ by
taking guns and other things out of it. In 1665, a more vigorous attempt
was made to get up some of its treasures by the present Earl of Argyle,
the immediate operator being, apparently, Maule of Melgum, a Forfarshire
gentleman, who had invented an apparatus precisely of the nature of what
was a century later revived as the Diving-bell. Another person
engaged in the business was the almost sole active cultivator of physics
in Scotland during this age—the celebrated George Sinclair, professor of
philosophy in the University of Glasgow— who also obliged the world some
years later with a treatise, entitled Satan’s Invisible World
Discovered. Sinclair tells us that on this occasion they brought up
three pieces of ordnance, one of brass, one of copper, and one of iron,
two of which were eleven feet in length, and more things might have been
recovered but for the coming on of tempestuous weather. He says they were
surprised to find that the bullets employed for these guns were of stone,
instead of metal.
Hearing of these experiments of the
Earl of Argyle, the eminent lawyer, Sir George Lockhart, prompted the Duke
of York to claim the property as the present Lord High Admiral; and so
there arose a litigation on the subject. Various arguments were presented
against Argyle’s right, particularly that to make possession complete it
was necessary that he should have stirred the ship from the place where it
was when his father got the gift. The earl himself appeared in court, and
made a few remarks, shewing the large expense he had laid out on the
discovery of the lost vessel, and concluding with a wish that it were
brought above board ere any dispute took place about the property, ‘lest
it should verify the story of the king of Spain’s gold.’ The court gave
the case in favour of Argyle.
it is curious to find these two men
engaged in such a plea only seven or eight years before standing in the
relative positions of rebellious subject and vengeful sovereign. Still
more curious it is to hear of this unpopular prince, that ‘he wrote down a
very complimentary letter to Argyle, approving the justice of the lords’
sentence, and shewing his hearty compliance and acquiescence therein.’—Foun.
It is worthy of notice that after
‘unfortunate Argyle’ had passed from life—namely, in May 1686—a warrant
was given by James VII. for a patent to William Harrington and three
others, merchants of London, for enabling them to ‘weigh up, recover, and
obtain from under water, in the roads and seas of Scotland, ships, or ship
guns, treasure, and other goods, which have been shipwrecked, lost, and
sunk, and particularly one ship of the Spanish Armada, sunk in the western
seas of his majesty’s kingdom of Scotland ‘—the patent to endure for
fourteen years.
Oct 1
The Egyptians or gipsies still roamed in a lawless manner over the
country, without attracting much notice from the authorities, their
conduct being now probably less troublesome than it had been in the reign
of King James. Two bands of these people, the Faws and the Shaws, on their
way from Haddington fair to Harestanes, in Peeblesshire, where they
expected to meet and fight two other tribes, the Bailies and Browns, fell
out among themselves at Romanno about the spoil they had lately acquired,
and immediately engaged in battle. ‘Old Sandie Faw, a bold and proper
fellow,’ and his wife, then pregnant, were killed on the spot, while his
brother George was very dangerously wounded. The Laird of Romanno
apprehended ‘Robert Shaw; Margaret Faw, his spouse; James, Patrick,
Alexander, and Thomas Shaws, their sons; and Helen Shaw, their daughter;
Robert and John Paws; John Paw younger; Agnes and Isobel Shaws; Isobel
Shaw younger; and George Faw, and did commit them prisoners within the
Tolbooth of Peebles;’ whence they were speedily removed to Edinburgh to be
tried. We soon after find the Council despatching a warrant to the Laird
of Romanno and Mr Patrick Purdie, to send to Edinburgh ‘the
money, gold, gold rings,
and other things which were upon these persons;’ likewise the weapons with
which they had fought. An account of expenses sent by the magistrates of
Peebles was disallowed, excepting only £15 Scots (£l, 6s. 8d. sterling)
for the sustenance of the company while in jail.—P. C. R.
In February next year, ‘Old Robin
Shaw’ and his three sons were hanged in the Grassmarket for this murder,
and John Faw was executed in the following week for another murder. Two or
three years after, the Laird of Romanno—a quaint physician named Pennecuik,
who wrote verses—erected a pigeon-house on the scene of the conflict, with
this inscription over the door:
‘The field of gipsy blood which here
you see,
A shelter for the harmless dove shall be."
Nov 3
A great fire took place in Glasgow, by which a large part of the
Saltmarket on both sides was burnt It commenced near the Cross, through
the instrumentality of a smith’s apprentice, who being beaten by his
master, set the workshop on fire at night, and fled. This conflagration
was considered an equal calamity to that of 1652. It threw between six and
seven hundred families out of their homes, in a ruined and starving
condition.—P. C. R.
‘The heat was so great, that it fired the horologe of
the Tolbooth. There being some prisoners in it, of whom the Laird of
Carsland [Kersland] was one [who had been confined in various jails for
eight years on account of his concern in the Pentland rising], the people
broke open the doors, and set them free. Great was the cry of the poor
people, and lamentable to see their confusion.’—Law.
The Town Council, in a minute of
December 4, speak of ‘the great impoverishment this burgh is reduced to’
by the fire, which they regard as a just punishment from God for their
iniquities, ‘which we pray him to mak us sensible of, that we may turn
from the evil of our ways to himself, so his wrath may be averted.’ Yet,
they go on to say, ‘because such things are more incident to burghs, by
reason of their joining houses to houses... especially being reared up of
timber, without so much as the window of stone,’ therefore the Council
think it well to enact that whenever any of the people are in a condition
to rebuild their houses, they shall rebuild them of stone.—M. of
G. On a petition from the magistrates, the Privy Council ordered a
charitable collection to be made throughout the country for the poor
starving people.
It does not appear that the engine
made in 1657 for quenching of fire was of any use on this occasion. It had
probably been allowed to fall out of order, as in December 1680, we find
an order from the Town Council to ‘see if it can be yet made use of in
case of need.’—M. of G. In 1725, another fire-engine was got from
London, at an expense of £50.—Stranq.
The late Laird of Ayton, in
Berwickshire, had left an only daughter, under age, in the care of the
Countess of Home. He had bequeathed to this young lady, Jean Home, his
whole estate, though it was more customary in such cases in Scotland to
destine land-property to the next heir-male. Home of Plendergast, who
stood in that relation, was of course disappointed, but he hoped that a
reparation might be made by the young lady marrying a member of his own
family. When, in December 1677, the time approached for her choosing her
curators—being then, we presume, twelve years of age—Plendergast presented
a petition to the Privy Council, desiring that she should be brought as
usual to their bar in order to pass through that ceremony in the presence
of her general kindred. This gentleman, however, appears to have been in
disfavour with the other gentlemen of his name in that province, as well
as with the Countess of Home and Charles Home, the brother of the earl,
with whom the young lady of Ayton at that time lived. On the evening of
the very day when the petition was presented to the Council, Charles Home,
accompanied by Alexander Home of Linthill, Sir Patrick Home of Polwarth,
John Home of Ninewells, Robert Home of Kimmerghame elder, and Joseph
Johnston of Hilton, proceeded to the residence of the young lady, and
carried her off across the Border. ‘There they, in a most undutiful and
unchristian manner, carried the poor young gentlewoman up and down like a
prisoner and malefactor, protracting time till they should know how to
make the best bargain in bestowing her, and who should offer most. They
did at last send John Home of Ninewells to Edinburgh, and take a poor
young boy, George Home, son to Kimmerghame, out of his bed and marry him
to the said Jean, the very day she should have been presented to the
Council.’ The ceremony was wholly irregular, and performed by an English
minister, ‘opening thereby a new way to slight the clergy of Scotland.’ At
the same time, the countess appeared before the Council, and apologised
for the absence of her ward, ‘as being sickly and tender, and not able to
travel, and not fit for marriage for many years to come.’
The Council took this matter up in
high style, and dealt with the offending parties in strict terms of the
statutes which they had broken. The young husband lost his interest
jure mariti; the young wife hers jure relictae. The former was
fined in £500 Scots, and the latter in a thousand merks, for their
clandestine marriage. Further, for contempt of the Council, the young wife
was fined in a thousand merks, to be paid to Home of Plendergast.
Ninewells and Hilton suffered amercement respectively in 1000 and 2000
marks, the former sum to be paid to Plendergast. The young couple were,
moreover, to suffer three months’ imprisonment in Edinburgh Castle.—P.
C. R.