Died Jean Gordon, remarkable in our history as the lady whom James
Hepburn Earl of Bothwell divorced in 1567, in order to be enabled to
ally himself to Queen Mary. She survived that frightful time, in peace
and honour, for sixty-two years, exemplifying how durable are calmness
and prudence in comparison with passion and guilt. Since her separation
from Bothwell, she had been the wife of two other husbands--first,
Alexander Earl of Sutherland; and second, the Laird of Boyne. ‘A
virtuous and comely lady, judicious, of excellent memory, and of
great understanding above the capacity of her sex; in this much to be
commended, that, during the continual changes and particular factions
of the court in the reign of Queen Mary, and in the minority of King
James VI., (which were many,) she always managed her affairs with so
great prudence and foresight, that the enemies of her family could
never prevail against her, nor move those that were the chief rulers of
the state at the time, to do anything to her prejudice; a time indeed
both dangerous and deceitful. Amidst all these troublesome storms, and
variable courses of fortune, she still enjoyed the possession of her
jointure, which was assigned unto her out of the earldom of Bothwell,
and kept the same until her death, yea, though that earldom had fallen
twice into the king’s hands by forfeiture in her time.... By reason of
her husband Earl Alexander his sickly disposition, together with her
son’s minority at the time of his father’s death, she was in a manner
forced to take upon her the managing of all the affairs of that house a
good while, which she did perform with great care, to her own credit,
and the weal of that family.... She was the first that caused work the
_coal heugh_ beside the river of Brora, and was the first instrument of
making salt there. This coal [now interesting chiefly in a geological
point of view, as connected with the oolitic formation] was found
before by Earl John, father of Earl Alexander; but he, being taken away
by an untimely death, had no time to enterprise this work. This lady
built the house of Cracock, where she dwelt a long time.’--_G. H. S._
This character, though drawn by the partial hand of a son, may be
accepted as on the whole a true, as it is certainly a pleasing
description, of the _divorcée_ of Bothwell. The lady was buried in
Dornoch Cathedral
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JULY 18.]
[Sidenote: 1629.]
A service to property depending at this time before the Court of
Session between the Earl of Cassillis and the Earl of Wigton, these
nobles appeared in Edinburgh, each with a multitude of followers,
who paraded the streets in a tumultuous manner, and with such
demonstrations of animosity as must have recalled the days of James
VI. to many an anxious citizen. The Privy Council met in alarm, and
appointed a committee to go and admonish the two litigant nobles
about these unseemly appearances. It was enjoined that, while in town
waiting on the service, they should not appear on the streets with
more than twelve followers each, and that in peaceable manner, nor
come to the bar with more than six, dismissing all others who had not
known occasion to be present. At the same time, the noblemen who were
the friends of the several parties were ‘to forbear the backing of
them at this time,’ on pain of censure as ‘troublers of his majesty’s
peace.’--_P. C. R._
* * * * *
Throughout the whole time of the papist persecution, the Scottish
authorities found it necessary to give a good deal of attention to
matters of diablerie. Either witches and warlocks were particularly
rife at that time, or the same enlightened spirit which assailed the
papists was particularly keen-sighted and zealous in finding out
offenders connected with the other world.
On the 30th of October 1628, the Earl of Monteath, Lord Justice-general
of the kingdom, reported to the Privy Council the case of Janet Boyd,
spouse to Robert Neill, burgess of Dumbarton, who had freely confessed
that she had entered in covenant with the devil, had received his mark,
had renounced her baptism, and been much too intimate with the above
grisly personage, through whose power she had laid diseases upon sundry
persons. The Council approved of a commission for trying Janet and for
‘the punishing of so foul and detestable a crime.’--_P. C. R._
In the course of 1629, Isobel Young, spouse to George Smith, portioner
in East Barns in Haddingtonshire, was burnt for witchcraft. She had
been accused of both inflicting and curing diseases; and it appears
that she and her husband had sent to the Laird of Lee to borrow his
_curing-stone_ for their cattle, which had the ‘routing ill.’ This is
interesting as an early reference to the well-known _Lee Penny_, which
is yet preserved in the family of Lockhart of Lee, being an ancient
precious stone or amulet, set in a silver penny. It is related that
Lady Lee declined to lend the stone, but gave flagons of water in which
the penny had been steeped. This water, being drunk by the cattle, was
believed to have effected their cure.
[Sidenote: 1629.]
One Alexander Hamilton was apprehended as a notorious warlock, and put
into the Tolbooth of Edinburgh--where he would have for a companion in
captivity the Lady Abercorn, whose offence was not less metaphysical
than his own. He ‘delated’ four women of the burgh of Haddington, and
five other women of its neighbourhood, as guilty of witchcraft. The
Privy Council sent orders (November 1629) to have the whole Circean
nine apprehended; and as their poverty made it inconvenient to bring
them to Edinburgh, the presbytery of Haddington was enjoined to examine
them in their own district. What was done with them ultimately, we
are not informed. Another woman, named Katherine Oswald, residing at
Niddry near Edinburgh, was likewise accused by Hamilton, and taken into
custody. This seems to have been considered an unusually important
case, as four lawyers were appointed to act as assessors to the
justices on her trial.--_P. C. R._ It was alleged of Katherine that she
had that partial insensibility which was understood to be an undoubted
proof of the witch quality. Two witnesses stated that they ‘saw ane
preen put in to the heid, by Mr John Aird, minister, in the panel’s
shoulder, being the devil’s mark, and nae bluid following, nor she
naeways shrinking thereat.’[19]
Hamilton alleged that he had been with Katherine at a meeting of
witches between Niddry and Edmondstone, where they met with the devil.
It was also stated that she had been one of a witch-party who had met
at Prestonpans, and used charms, on the night of the great storm at the
end of March 1625. But the chief articles of her dittay bore reference
to cures which she had wrought by sorcery. Katherine was convicted and
burned.--_B. A._
[Sidenote: 1629.]
In November, the Privy Council issued a commission to the Bishop of
Dumblane for the examination of John Hog and Margaret Nicolson his
spouse, ‘upon their guiltiness of the crime of witchcraft, with power
to confront them with others who best can give evidence.’ This pair
were soon after brought to the Edinburgh prison, whence, however,
they were speedily released on caution for reappearance. The Lords,
on the same day, issued a charge against ‘Margaret Maxwell spouse to
Nicol Thomson, and Jean Thomson her daughter, spouse to umwhile Edward
Hamilton, in Dumfries,’ who, it was said, had procured the death of the
said Edward ‘by the devilish and detestable practice of witchcraft.’
Claud Hamilton of Mauchline-hole, brother of the deceased Edward, soon
after (December 22, 1629) presented a petition to the Privy Council,
claiming that they should order an examination of Geillie Duncan of
Dumfries, now in hands there on suspicion of a concern in the fact.
The Council accordingly commissioned the magistrates and ministers of
Dumfries to effect this examination.
The warlock Alexander Hamilton also accused the Lady Home of
Manderston, in Berwickshire, of having practised against the life of
her husband by witchcraft. Patrick Abernethy, notar in Dunse, and
William Mowat, a servant, were accordingly cited by the Council to come
and give information regarding the case. The presence of Sir George
himself was of course desirable; but Sir George, like many other good
Scotch lairds, of that day and of later days, was under some danger of
the law on account of his debts. It therefore became necessary to send
him a protection, in order that he might be enabled to appear in the
city. There does not seem to have been any other foundation for this
charge than the fact, that Sir George Home and his wife did not live on
amicable terms. Some months after (June 29, 1630), we find Sir George
giving caution that he will not molest his wife or any of her tenants,
‘in their bodies, lands, rooms, possessions, corns, cattle, guids or
geir, otherwise nor by order of law.’
Hamilton himself was tried (January 22, 1630), when it came out that
he had begun his wicked career in consequence of meeting the devil
in the form of a black man on Kingston Hills, in Haddingtonshire.
Being engaged to serve the fiend, he was instructed to raise him by
beating the ground thrice with a fir-stick, and crying: ‘Rise up, foul
thief!’ He had consequently had him up several times for consultations;
sometimes in the shape of a dog or cat, sometimes in that of a crow.
By diabolic aid, he had caused a mill full of corn, belonging to
Provost Cockburn, to be burned, merely by taking three stalks from
the provost’s stacks, and burning them on the Garleton Hills. He had
been at many witch-meetings where the enemy of man was present. This
wretched man was sentenced to be worried at a stake and burned.
[Sidenote: 1629.]
On the 3d of July 1630, the Council took order in the case of Alie
Nisbet, midwife, of Hilton (apparently in Berwickshire), and also in
that of John Neill, John Smith, and Katharine Wilson, ‘concerning their
practice of witchcraft.’ Nisbet was accused of curing a woman by taking
a pail with hot water and bathing the patient’s legs. This may appear
as a very natural and proper kind of treatment; but there was an
addition: she put her fingers into the water, and ran three times round
the bed _widdershins_, or contrary to the direction of the sun, crying:
‘The bones to the fire, and the soul to the devil!’ thereby putting the
disease upon another woman, who died in twenty-four hours. Nisbet also
had put some enchanted water under a threshold, for the injury of a
servant-girl against whom she had a spite, and who passing over it was
bewitched, and died instantly. She was ‘worried and burnt.’--_B. A._
In March 1631, occurred a case which throws some light upon the affair
in which Sir George Home of Manderston was the intended victim. John
Neill, in Tweedmouth, was then brought forward and tried for sorcery
and witchcraft. It was alleged of him that ‘he made a man’s wife
wash her husband’s shirt in a south running water, and then put it
on him; whereupon he recovered.’ He professed skill in both laying
on and taking off diseases. Amongst other things laid to his charge
was ‘meeting with the devil and other witches on Coldingham Law, and
consulting how Sir George Home of Manderston might be destroyed,
to that end getting ane enchanted dead foal, and putting it in Sir
George’s stable, under his horse’s manger, and putting a dead hand
enchanted by the devil in Sir George’s garden in Berwick; by which
enchantments Sir George contracted a grievous disease, of which he
could not be recovered till the said foal and hand were discovered and
burnt.’ He was found guilty.[20]--_B. A._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: NOV. 19.]
At this time, the country was overrun by a multitude of ‘strong and
sturdy Irish beggars,’ who went in troops, extorting alms where it was
not freely given them. ‘Where they perceive they can be masters, they
commit sundry insolencies upon his majesty’s good subjects, who are not
able to withstand them.’ Thus ‘the native poor are prejudged of their
almous by the scoffery and oppression of thir sturdy beggars, who are
an heavy and insupportable burden to the country.’ An order was issued
by the Privy Council for clearing the country of this nuisance.--_P. C.
R._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1629.]
Lady Jean Drummond, only daughter of the Earl of Perth, was married to
the Earl of Sutherland, with a portion of 5000 merks, ‘the greatest
portion that ever was given in Scotland before that time.’--_Hist.
House of Seytoun._
This notice may be held to imply that 5000 merks (£287, 17s. 4d.)
was an uncommonly liberal portion for a woman of family in that age;
but the writer is not correct in saying that it was unexampled till
1629. This will appear from the following notice, extracted from the
Caldwell Papers, in which there are instances of equal or larger
dowries before that time, as well as of some smaller: William Mure of
Glanderston, marrying Elizabeth Hamilton, aunt to Gavin Commendator
of Kilwinning, in 1559, received with her a dower of 400 merks, with
a beneficial interest in two farms. In 1583, Lady Anne Montgomery of
Eglintoun brought her husband, Lord Semple, 6000 merks. The dowry of
Jean Hamilton, the vicar of Dunlop’s daughter, in 1613, was 5000 merks;
that of Jean Knox of Ranfurly, 11,000 merks; Jean Mure of Glanderston,
in 1671, 8000 merks; Margaret Mowat of Ingliston, in 1682, 12,000 merks.
When we turn back to an earlier age, we find what appears much greater
simplicity on the point of tochering daughters. The Laird of Grant and
Margaret Ogilvie, daughter of James Ogilvie of Deskford, were married
in 1484. For a curious anecdote of their son, _Shemus nan Creagh_, see
under February 7, 1592. ‘Their marriage-contract yet extant [dated
1484] gives account of the tocher, jointure, and friendship between
these families. The tocher given by Sir James Ogilvie with his daughter
to the Laird of Grant was _three hundred merks_, paid at five terms or
years; that is, forty pounds Scots yearly; and the jointure given by
Sir John to his lady, together with the provision of their children,
was twenty merks’ worth of land yearly.’[21]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: DEC. 26.]
[Sidenote: 1629.]
In the fertile district between Falkirk and Stirling, there was a
large moss with a little loch in the middle of it, occupying a piece
of gradually rising ground; a highly cultivated district of wheat-land
lay below. There had been a series of heavy rains, and the moss became
overcharged with moisture. After some days, during which slight
movements were visible on this quagmire, the whole mass began one night
to leave its native situation, and slide gently down to the lower
grounds. The people who lived on these lands, receiving sufficient
warning, fled and saved their lives; but in the morning light they
beheld their little farms, sixteen in number covered six feet deep
with liquid moss, and hopelessly lost.[22]
The singular nature of this calamity, and the sad case of the poor
people who had by it lost their all, drew general attention. The Privy
Councillors sent commissioners to the place to ‘give order where and in
what places draughts sall be casten, levels and passages made, and what
else is fitting to be done, for securing the neighbouring lands from
inundation and skaith.’ There was also a general collection of money
throughout the kingdom for the relief of the sufferers.--_P. C. R._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1630.