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._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 1637.]
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._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 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 bailies 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._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 1637.]
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;[72] 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.
[Sidenote: 1637.]
‘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.[73]
[Sidenote: 1637.]
‘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._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 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.’[74]