The Privy Council took energetic measures against certain persons of
the south-western province, including Herbert Maxwell of Kirkconnel,
Charles Brown in New Abbey, Barbara Maxwell Lady Mabie, John
Little, master of household to the Earl of Nithsdale, John Allan in
Kirkgunzeon, John Williamson in Lochrutton, and many others, all
apparently people in respectable circumstances. It was found that
these individuals proudly and contemptuously disregarded both the
excommunication and the horning which they had brought upon themselves
by persisting in their ‘obdured and popish opinions and errors,’
haunted and frequented all public parts of the country, ‘as if they
were free and lawful subjects,’ and were ‘reset, supplied, and
furnished with all things necessar and comfortable unto them,’ a great
encouragement to them to continue in their erroneous opinions, ‘whereas
if this reset, supply, and comfort were refused unto them, they might
be reclaimed from their opinions, to the acknowledgment of their bypast
misdemeanours.’ As if to mark more effectually the infamy of these
recusants, a pair who had been excommunicated for adultery were classed
with them. A commission was issued for the apprehension and trial of
all persons ‘who are suspect guilty of the reset and supply of the said
excommunicat rebels.’
[Sidenote: 1628.]
Two of the commissioners--Sir William Grier of Lag and Sir John
Charteris of Amisfield--went very promptly to that peculiar nest of
papists, New Abbey, and there apprehended Charles and Gilbert Brown,
two of the ‘excommunicat rebels.’ Enraged by this act, the wife of
Charles Brown, and a number of other women, raised a mob against the
minister and schoolmaster of the parish, ‘whose wives and servants
they shamefully and mischantly abused, and pursued with rungs [sticks]
and casting of stones.’ This being held as a great insolency, and
likely to prove an evil example if unpunished, the Council ordered the
commissioners to hold a court at Dumfries for the trial and punishment
of the offenders.--_P. C. R._
A few weeks afterwards, one of the excommunicated ladies, Janet
Johnston, spouse of Brown of Lochhill, was taken into custody; but
being in a delicate state, she was allowed (June 26) to go home till
the time of her _accouchement_, on condition that she gave caution for
her living during the interval ‘without offence and scandal to the
kirk,’ and ‘conform with the ministry for giving unto them satisfaction
regarding her religion;’ failing which, immediately after her recovery,
‘she sall depairt furth of the kingdom, and not return again within
the same without his majesty’s licence, under pain of ane thousand
merks.’--_P. C. R._
These proceedings were followed up by some sharp handling of the
papists of Aberdeenshire and the priests trafficking there.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: APR. 2.]
[Sidenote: 1628.]
The clergy of the city of Edinburgh, eight in number, were now disposed
to sympathise in and support their flocks in the general repugnance
to the new arrangements at the celebration of the communion. They had
become sensible of the great inconvenience of dissent, and wished to
bring the people back to the churches. There was, however, but a faint
hope of prevailing with the king to sanction a return to the old simple
forms. At the approach of the Easter celebration of the communion,
‘there was in the Little East Kirk a private meeting of the ministers
of Edinburgh, and a certain number of the citizens of the said town,
to the end they might reconceil the hearts of the people to their
pastors, to the end, if it might be possible, they might have acquired
ane dispensation from the king to celebrate the sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper without kneeling, after the ancient form of the discipline of
the Kirk of Scotland.... The conveners, having met three or four times
thereupon, thought best to send Mr William Livingstone to the king’s
majesty to deal for obteining the said dispensation; but before he cam
to court, his majesty was informed of his message, and absolutely
refused the same until he were further advised.’--_Jo. H._ The king
afterwards sent an imperious order to the Archbishop of St Andrews,
desiring him to see to the condign punishment of the authors of this
movement. The people were silenced, but soured; and the course of
things that led to the Civil War went on.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: DEC. 2.]
George Lauder of the Bass, and his mother, ‘Dame Isobel Hepburn Lady
Bass,’ were at this time in embarrassed circumstances, ‘standing at the
horn at the instance of divers of their creditors.’ Nevertheless, as
was complained of them, ‘they peaceably bruik and enjoy some of their
rents, and remain within the craig of the Bass, presuming to keep and
maintein themselves, so to elude justice and execution of the law.’ A
Scotch laird and his mother holding out against creditors in a tower
on that inaccessible sea-rock, form rather a striking picture to the
imagination. But debt even then had its power of exorcising romance.
The Lords of Council issued a proclamation, threatening George Lauder
and his mother with the highest pains if they did not submit to the
laws. A friend then came forward and represented to the lords ‘the hard
and desolate estate’ of the two rebels, and obtained a protection for
them, enabling them to come to Edinburgh to make arrangements for the
settlement of their affairs.--_P. C. R._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1628.]
Under encouragement, as was supposed, from the Duke of Buckingham, the
Scottish Catholics had for some time been raising their heads in a
manner not known for many years before. They began to indulge a hope
that possibly a certain degree of toleration might be extended to them.
Some impetuous spirits amongst them went so far in ‘insolency’ as to
write pasquinades upon the Bishop of Aberdeen, and post them upon
his own church doors. The Privy Council were too well aware of the
unpopularity of the king on account of the episcopal innovations which
he loved, to allow him to remain under any additional odium on account
of a faith about which he was, at the best, indifferent. Besides,
‘taking order’ with popery was always a cheap and ready means of making
political capital against Presbyterian opponents. We accordingly find
the Council at this date issuing orders regarding a number of persons
of consideration in the north, as well as the priests whom they
entertained, but particularly against the Marquis of Huntly, whose
protection they deemed to be the chief cause why popery was not better
repressed in that quarter.
There was first a recital regarding a host of men who acted as
officers, or lived as tenants, upon the extensive estates of the
marquis--‘Mr Robert Bisset of Lessendrum, bailie of Strabogie;
Alexander Gordon of Drumquhaill, chamberlain of Strabogie; Patrick
Gordon of Tilliesoul; John Gordon, in Little-mill; Adam Smith,
chamberlain of the Enzie; Robert Gordon, in Haddo; Barbara Law, spouse
to the said Adam Smith; Margaret Gordon, good wife of Cornmellat;
Malcolm Laing, in Gulburn; and Mr Adam Strachan, chamberlain to
the Earl of Aboyne.’ It was stated of them, that they had remained
indifferent under the ‘fearful sentence of excommunication,’ and the
consequent process of horning--that is, rebellion--frequenting all
parts of the country ‘as if they had been true and faithful subjects.’
They were alleged to be encouraged in their rebellious life by the
marquis, who was properly answerable for them; so he was charged to
present them on a certain day of February next, under pain of horning.
[Sidenote: 1628.]
There was next a recital regarding a number of persons, including,
besides several of the above, ‘Mr Alexander Irving, burgess of
Aberdeen; Thomas Menzies of Balgownie; Walter Leslie, in Aberdeen;
Robert Irwing, burgess there; John Gordon, appearand of Craig; James
Forbes of Blackton; Robert Gordon, in Cushnie; James Philip, in Easton;
James Con, in Knockie; John Gordon, in Bountie; Alexander Harvie, in
Inverury; John Gordon, in Troups-mill; John Spence, notar in Pewsmill;
Francis Leslie, brother to Capuchin Leslie; Alexander Leslie, brother
to the Laird of Pitcaple; Thomas Cheyne, in Ranniston; William Seton
of Blair; Thomas Laing, goldsmith, burgess of Aberdeen; Alexander
Gordon, in Tilliegreg; Alexander Gordon, in Convach; Agnes Gordon his
spouse; Margaret Gordon, spouse to Robert Innes, in Elgin;’ who had
all been excommunicated and denounced rebels for the same reason: also
seven men and two women, including, besides several of those formerly
cited, Alexander Gordon, in Badenoch; Angus M‘Ewen M‘William there;
and Alexander Gordon, ‘appearand’ of Cairnbarrow; and Helen Coutts his
spouse; who had been put to the horn for not coming to answer for their
‘not conforming themselves to the religion presently professed within
this kingdom, and for their scandalous behaviour otherwise, to the
offence of God, disgrace of the Gospel, and misregard of his majesty’s
authority.’ Having most ‘proudly and contemptuandly remained under
excommunication this long time bygane,’ they went about everywhere as
if they had been good subjects, ‘hunting and seeking all occasion where
they may have the exercise of their false religion; for which purpose
they are avowed resetters of Jesuits, seminary and mass priests,
accompanying them through the country, armed with unlawful weapons.’
The Marquis of Huntly, as sheriff-principal of Aberdeen, and Lord
Lovat, as ‘sheriff of Elgin and Forres,’ were charged to search for and
capture these persons, in order that they might be punished.
There was, finally, an order regarding the priests, who, it was said,
were not only corrupting the religion of the people, but perverting
their loyalty--‘namely, Mr Andrew Steven, callit _Father Steven_;
Mr John Ogilvie; Father Stitchill; Father Hegitts; Capuchin Leslie,
commonly callit _The Archangel_; Father Ogilvie; Mr William Leslie,
commonly callit _The Captain_; Mr Andrew Leslie; Mr John Leslie; ----
Christie, commonly callit _The Principal of Dowie_; with other twa
Christies; Father Brown, son to umwhile James Brown at the Nether
Bow of Edinburgh; Father Tyrie; three Robertsons, callit _Fathers_;
Father Robb; Father Paterson; Father Pittendreich; Father Dumbreck;
and Doctor William Leslie.’ The Marquis of Huntly, as the proper legal
authority for the purpose, ‘and the special man of power, friendship,
authority, and commandment in the north parts of the kingdom, and who
for many other respects is obleist to contribute his best means for the
furtherance and advancement of his majesty’s authority and service,’
was charged to hunt out and apprehend these pestilent men, that the
laws might be executed upon them.
To these measures was added a proclamation, chiefly to the people of
the northern districts, pointing out the priests by name, as the ‘most
pernicious pests in this commonweal,’ and commanding ‘that nane presume
nor take upon hand to reset, supply, nor furnish meat, drink, house,
nor harboury’ to them, ‘nor keep company with them, nor convoy them
through the country, nor to have no kind of dealing nor trafficking
with them,’ under the penalties laid down in the acts of parliament.
There was a like proclamation regarding the excommunicated laymen and
women above mentioned. At the same time, the bishop and magistrates of
Aberdeen were commissioned to go with armed bands, and endeavour to
apprehend both the priests and their resetters.
[Sidenote: 1628.]
While charging the Marquis of Huntly with some duty against the papists
on his own estates and those throughout his jurisdiction, the Council
were quite aware of their false position in regard to him, and they
deemed it proper (December 4) to send a letter to the king on that
special point. They expressed their belief that the chief cause of
the late increase of popery and insolency of the papists lay in the
fact, that the execution of the laws on these matters was in the
hands of notoriously avowed professors of the same faith--men of such
power, that inferior officers, however well affected to their duty,
were overawed. They in all grief and humility presented this case for
his majesty’s serious consideration, entreating that he would debar
from the Council and from public employments all who were suspected
of popery; manifestly pointing to the marquis. Meanwhile, they said,
we have directed warrants to the sheriffs and other authorities, ‘to
apprehend the delinquents _if they can or darr_.’
The Marquis of Huntly, who had been last converted from popery a dozen
years ago, and had since, as usual, relapsed, took little trouble
with a commission which he felt to be so disagreeable. When the 3d
of February arrived, his depute came before the Council, and made
some excuse for him, on the ground that execution of the warrants
had been delayed by the wintry weather until the delinquents had all
escaped; adding a petition that they would not press him to remove his
chamberlains till these men should have accounted to him for large sums
which they owed to him. Feeling that the marquis had wilfully failed in
his duty, they denounced him as a rebel.
[Sidenote: 1628.]
On the 18th of June 1629, the Council issued a charge against Sir John
Campbell of Caddell;[13] Mr Alexander Irving, burgess of Aberdeen;
Thomas Menzies of Balgownie; Mr Robert Bisset of Lessendrum; John
Gordon of Craig; James Forbes of Blackton; Thomas Cheyne of Ranniston;
William Seton of Blair; Alexander Gordon of Tilliegreg; Patrick
Gordon of Tilliesoul; and Margaret Gordon, goodwife of Cornmellat;
representing that, notwithstanding all that had been lately done, they
continue obdurate against kirk and law, going about as if nothing were
amiss, and enjoying possession of ‘their houses, goods, and geir,
whilk properly belongs to his majesty as escheat.’ Seeing that by the
latter circumstance they are ‘strengthened and fostered in their popish
courses,’ the Council ordained that officers-at-arms ‘pass, pursue,
and take the said rebels their houses, remove them and their families
furth thereof, and keep and detein the same in his majesty’s name;’
also to search out, poind, and uplift all ‘geir’ of theirs wherever to
be found, and bring it to the exchequer. All neighbours were commanded
to assist in enforcing these orders.
It was ascertained that the acts against resetting of priests had been
‘eluded by the wives of persons repute and esteemed to be sound in
religion, who, pretending misknowledge of the actions of their wives
in thir cases, thinks to liberate themselves of the danger of the
said resett, as if they were not to answer for their wives’ doings.’
Wherefore, the Council ordained that the husband shall be always, in
such cases, answerable for the wife.
At the same time, to gratify the desire of his Scottish Council, the
king sent an order that, for the detection of papists in high places,
the communion should be administered to all his councillors and judges,
all advocates, writers, and officers of the government, in his chapel
at Holyroodhouse, and this to be repeated at least once a year. At his
majesty’s command, a kind of convention of dignitaries of church and
state met at the same place to give the Council their assistance. The
result was a commission issued (July 25, 1629) to a great number of
nobles and gentlemen, in the several districts popishly affected, to
search for and bring to justice those ‘pernicious and wicked pests,’
‘avowed enemies to God’s truth and all Christian government,’ the
Jesuits, seminary and mass priests concealed throughout the country;
also to seize all persons of whatever rank, ‘whom they sall deprehend
going in pilgrimage to chapels and wells, or whom they sall know
themselves to be guilty of that crime,’ that they may be punished
according to act of parliament. Supposing the priests and other
delinquents should fly to fortified places, then the commissioners were
empowered and ordered to ‘follow, hunt, and pursue them with fire and
sword, assiege the said strengths and houses, raise fire, and use all
other force and warlike engine that can be had for winning and recovery
thereof, and apprehending of the said Jesuits and excommunicat papists
being therein.’ The commissioners at the same time received assurance
that no act of bloodshed on either side, or any destruction of property
occasioned in the execution of this order, should be imputed to them as
a fault.
[Sidenote: 1628.]
The dignitaries and ministers of the Established Church, without any
appearance of unwillingness, took part in this persecution. Many of
the bishops sat as members of the Privy Council, and we hear of the
‘dioceses and presbyteries’ helping the government to lists of avowed
and suspected papists, against whom proceedings might be taken. None
were more active than Spottiswoode, archbishop of St Andrews, and
Forbes, bishop of Aberdeen. It was no blank fusillade for mere terror.
A great number of the gentlemen and ladies aimed at in the fulminations
of the Council were really struck in their persons and estates. We
hear of many being thrown into prison, and kept there till they either
professed conformity or gave caution that they would depart from the
country. Their property was at the same time held as escheat to the
crown.
Agreeably to the royal order, the communion was administered in the
king’s chapel at Holyroodhouse in July, ‘by sound of trumpet,’ to all
such of his majesty’s councillors, members of the College of Justice,
and others, as were disposed thus to testify their worthiness of the
royal favour. On the 6th of November, the king wrote a letter to his
Scottish Council on this subject. ‘Understanding,’ he says, ‘that some
popishly affected have neglected this course, we, out of our care and
affection for the maintenance of the professed religion, are pleased to
will and require that you remove from our council-table all such who
are disobedient in that kind.’ This the Council (December 3) obediently
resolved to do.
[Sidenote: 1628.]
The Council was much importuned by the captive papists for relief; but
it was pithily ordained that none now or hereafter ‘sall be relieved
out of ward, but upon obedience and conformity to the true religion, or
else upon their _voluntary offer_ of banishment furth of his majesty’s
whole dominions.’
One remarkable captive was the Marchioness of Abercorn, whom we have
already seen manifesting some ultra-ardour on her own side. This lady
had lain for a long time in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh--a lodging which
was loathsome in the reign of George III., and may be presumed to have
been still worse in that of Charles I. The confinement had procured
her ladyship ‘many heavy diseases, so as this whole last winter she
was almost tied to her bed,’ and she now ‘found a daily decay and
weakness in her person.’ The severity of the fate of this, as of
some other persons, may be measured by the mercy extended to her. It
being represented to the king that her ladyship, being oppressed with
sickness and disease of body, required the benefit of a watering-place,
he, being inclined, on the one hand, to do nothing that would derogate
from the authority of the church, but, on the other, being unwilling
that the lady should be ‘brought to the extremity of losing her life
for want of ordinary remedies,’ ordered (July 9, 1629) that she should
have a licence to go to the baths of Bristol, but only on condition
that she should not attempt to appear at court, and after her recovery,
return and put herself again at the disposal of the Council.
Her ladyship, after all, did not go to the Bristol baths, but, after a
further restraint of six months in the Canongate [jail?], was permitted
to go to reside in the house of Duntarvie, on condition that ‘she
sall contain herself [therein] so warily and respectively as she sall
not fall under the break of any of his majesty’s laws;’ also that
she should, while living there, have conference with the ministry,
but allow none to Jesuits or mass priests. Her ladyship is found to
have ‘contained herself’ in Duntarvie for a considerable time, but to
have at length been under a necessity of resorting to Paisley for the
‘outred’ of some weighty affairs. In March 1631, when she had been
under restraint about three years, she was formally licensed to go to
Paisley, but only under condition that she should not, while there,
‘reset Thomas Algeo nor no Jesuits,’ and return by a certain day under
penalty of five thousand merks.
[Sidenote: 1628.]
Some, while preparing to pass into exile, were naturally concerned
about the means of living abroad. These persons, therefore, petitioned
that some portion of their confiscated fortunes might be granted
to them for their subsistence. The king took these petitions into
consideration, and ‘out of his gracious bounty and clemency, in hope of
their timely reclaiming,’ ordained that the proceeds of their estates
should be divided into three parts, ‘whereof twa sall wholly belong to
his majesty, and the third part his majesty does freely bestow upon the
said persons;’ this, however, to be wholly forfeited, if the inventory
of their possessions rendered by them should prove to be untrue.
Even the princely Huntly was obliged to bow to the storm. Breaking
through an order of the Scottish Privy Council, he proceeded direct
to court, in the hope of gaining something from the royal favour.
Having resigned into the king’s hands his sheriffship of Aberdeen, and
made some excuses for his non-execution of the Council’s orders, he
obtained certain ‘instructions for the clergy of Scotland,’ ordering
them to use Huntly, Angus, Nithsdale, and Abercorn ‘with discretion,’
and not proceed further against them till he should be consulted; also
commanding that papist peeresses be not excommunicated, provided their
husbands be responsible for them, and that they reset no Jesuits.[14]
Huntly then came (November 3) in humble form before the Council, made
excuses for his non-execution of their orders, and besought them for
a gift of his own confiscated property in behalf of some person whom
he might nominate. Notwithstanding the king’s favourable letter, they
demurred to this petition, and put him off for some weeks, at the same
time taking caution that he should not pass north of the Tay. Coming
again before them on the 8th of December, he was told that he could
not be excused from ‘exhibiting’ the papists residing on his estates.
He was also commanded to return on a certain day, when he might
witness his daughters being ‘sequestrat for their better breeding and
instruction in the grounds of the true religion.’
Amongst the movements in this important cause was one regarding the
children of noted papists. It was feared that the ordinances for having
them brought up under Protestant tutors had been much disregarded.
The Earl of Angus had been ordered to place his eldest son, James
Douglas, under Principal Adamson of the Edinburgh University, to have
remained with him some certain space, in order to have his doubts in
religion resolved. The young man had given his tutor the slip. The
earl was therefore called before the Council. He explained that he had
no knowledge of what the youth had done till it was past, and he had
since sent him to the Duke of Lennox, that he might be introduced to
some English university. He was obliged to crave pardon of the Council
for what he had done. The representative of the great Douglases of the
fifteenth century compelled, in the seventeenth, to give up the right
to educate his own son, and confess himself a delinquent for even
attempting such a thing! ‘The Earl of Errol’s twa daughters, the Laird
of Dalgetty’s bairns, and the bairns of Alexander Gordon of Dunkinty,’
were said to be under ‘vehement suspicion of being corrupted in their
religion by remaining in their fathers’ company.’ So likewise were the
daughters of the Marquis of Huntly, the children of Lord Gray, and many
others. The Earl of Nithsdale was ordered to ‘exhibit’ his son, that
the Council might see if he was right in the faith. Even Lord Gordon,
who soon after undertook a commission for the government against the
northern papists, was commanded to send his sons to a tutor approven of
by the Archbishop of St Andrews.
[Sidenote: 1628.]
We get a glimpse of some of the proceedings in regard to the estates
of the Catholic gentlemen from a supplication presented to the
Privy Council on the 15th of December 1629 by the commissioners
of the diocese of Aberdeen. It proceeds to narrate that, it having
pleased the Lords, ‘to the glory of God and _comfort of all
weel-affected subjects_, for purging the land of popery, to grant
sundry letters against excommunicat rebels, their persons, houses,
and rents’--decreets, moreover, having been obtained in the Court of
Session for poinding and arrestment--the officers had consequently
dealt with certain friends of the victims, who had undertaken to labour
the lands for the crop 1629, and to account for the result according
to a valuation made ‘before the corns came to the hook;’ but there
had been some slackness in the working out of these arrangements, ‘to
the great hinder of his majesty’s service, and encouraging of these
excommunicat rebels to continue in their obstinacy and disobedience.’
It was therefore necessary to take sharper methods; and a strict
commission to the Bishop of Aberdeen was suggested. The Council
accordingly ordered the bishop to call the officers before him, and
have them ‘tried of their diligence’ and honest and dutiful carriage in
this matter, and to see that they were prompted where necessary.
For further proceedings regarding the ‘excommunicat papists and
rebels,’ see forward, under January 1630.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1629.