The execution of the king, among its other bad effects, put enmity
between the ruling powers of Scotland and England. A set of Scottish
commissioners protested against it before the English parliament--were
slighted, and turned out of the country under a guard. The leaders at
Edinburgh, notwithstanding their condemnation of the late ‘Engagement,’
upheld monarchy in principle; and therefore, while England was
declaring itself a commonwealth or republic, Scotland proclaimed the
late king’s son--a youth of nineteen, living in exile--as Charles II.,
King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland. At the same time, the Scots
were determined not to receive the young king as their sovereign, or
to befriend him in any way, until he should have accepted that Solemn
League and Covenant, which proclaimed a crusade against all doctrine
inconsistent with pure Presbyterianism.
With this difference as to a principle, Scotland was, in 1649 and
the early part of 1650, as purely a republic as England. The state
authority rested, as it had practically done for years past, in a
standing Committee of Estates, in which the Marquis of Argyle, the
Chancellor Earl of Loudon, and Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston,
were the most prominent figures. Religion, however, being the chief
matter of concernment in those days, it naturally came about that a
similar standing committee, called the Commission of the Kirk, had a
great influence in public affairs. Under the excitement produced by the
struggle against the late king, these ruling parties, as well as the
people at large, had contracted an exclusive and overweening attachment
to Presbyterianism and its objects, as expressed in the Solemn League,
insomuch that no person could be allowed to remain at peace without
signing that document; while to give it adherence and support was to
manifest the highest of virtues, or rather, to do that which was held
as a summary of all virtue. The racking concentration of attention
on one subject during a long course of years, to the neglect of all
other healthy objects--the constant temptation to dissimulation under
a constraint which left no choice between avowed profession and moral
and legal outlawry--the effects of an ultra-austere code of morals,
which allowed no excuse for natural impulses--the confounding effect of
a system which subordinated all the really weighty matters of the law
to the mechanical fact of a signature--produced results on the general
surface of society of a kind by no means pleasant to contemplate.
There was throughout a sad want of the milder graces of Christianity.
The miraculous workings of divine vengeance against the opponents
of the children of Israel, and against apostates and idolaters
among themselves, were dwelt on in every pulpit and in numberless
publications, with constant application to those who went against the
Covenanted work. The breathings of divine love in the sermon on the
mount, and in the whole life of Jesus, were little, if ever, heard of.
One thing must clearly be admitted in regard to the conduct of the
Scots following upon the death of Charles I., that it was marked by
a consistency speaking much more of sincerity than of wisdom. Though
conscious that they could not command a sixth part of the force which
England could muster--though the _Engagement_ had shewn what it was
to meet the veterans of Edgehill and Naseby in the field--they did
not scruple to do that which was sure to incur a war with the young
republic, because so they wrought out the plan of the Covenant, to
which they had sworn, and so did they believe they would advance the
glory of God.
Commissioners sent to the young king at the Hague negotiated for his
coming to Scotland as their Covenanted monarch. He would fain have
evaded the condition; but on that point no concession could be made.
He, therefore, while the treaty was going on, was induced to sanction a
descent upon Scotland, which Montrose had planned, with a view to raise
the royalists. In the spring of 1650, the marquis, furnished with a
royal commission, landed in Orkney, with a handful of German soldiers
and some arms and ammunition. Advancing through Ross-shire with about
fifteen hundred men, he utterly failed to meet the support which he
expected. A body of troops sent against him under Colonel Strachan,
fell upon his little army in Strathoikel, and quickly routed it. The
unfortunate commander fled into Assynt--was given up by a treacherous
friend, and, being then brought to Edinburgh, was there hanged as ‘an
excommunicat traitor’ (May 21, 1650).
Seeing no better course now open to him for the recovery of his
kingdoms, Charles agreed that, on coming into Scotland, he should sign
the Covenant. The Scotch leaders, with their knowledge of his concern
in Montrose’s expedition, should have seen that he could be no sincere
adherent of that bond. They should have scrupled to accept such a
signature, or even to ask it. But it was just one of the unfortunate
consequences of the worship that had come to be paid to this document,
that adherences to it were demanded, nay, forced, without any regard to
conscientious objections, and accepted in the face of the most glaring
proofs that it was secretly protested against and hated, and would on
the first opportunity be thrown aside. Accordingly, a young prince,
wholly a man of pleasure, is now seen giving a false vow to a body of
earnest religious men, who had every reason to know what the votary
felt, meant, and Mould ultimately do in the case. Charles landed at
the mouth of the Spey, and was received with all outward appearances
of respect by the Scottish leaders and the chief divines, while they
trusted him with no real power. He visited Aberdeen, Perth, and
Stirling, everywhere a mere puppet, and much at a loss, it is said, to
endure the long sermons to which his situation compelled him to listen.
Cromwell, fresh from the reduction of Ireland, came into Scotland with
an army in July, to put down this movement. A large force was prepared
by the Scots, and placed in front of Edinburgh. It might have been
larger, if the leaders, in their extreme zeal for purity of religion,
had not deemed it proper to reject all who were yet unreconciled to
the church for their concern in the Engagement, as well as all pure
royalists. Cromwell, after all, found the campaign less simple than
he anticipated. Distressed by want of provisions and by sickness, he
was even inclined to withdraw along the east coast. But the Scottish
army posted on the Doon Hill, near Dunbar, made such a movement
impossible. In these circumstances, he must soon have been brought to
a capitulation. But the imprudence of the Scottish leaders, in forcing
General Leslie to attack the English, proved his salvation. He gained
a complete victory (September 3), killing three thousand, and taking
several thousand prisoners, many of whom were sent to the plantations
as slaves. Edinburgh and its Castle fell into his hands, along with
most of the southern provinces.
The Scottish government gathered the remains of its strength at
Stirling, and was soon able again to present a respectable front
to Cromwell, though only by admitting to its leaguer those troops,
Engagers and royalists, who had formerly been rejected. The
determination of the leaders was marked by a formal crowning of the
king at Scone (January 1, 1651), the Marquis of Argyle putting the
emblem of sovereignty on the royal head. By this time, the eyes of
many had been opened to the false position in which the country lay
with respect to their former associates of England, and some began to
fraternise with Cromwell. A division took place in the church regarding
the king, some adhering to certain _resolutions_ in his favour, others
protesting against them; hence respectively called _Resolutioners_
and _Protesters_. From this time, the latter party, called also
_Remonstrants_, embracing the great bulk of those who took the most
scrupulous views regarding the Covenanted work, proved a sore thorn in
the side of the more moderate party, who for the meantime had gained
an ascendency. After a long inactivity, Cromwell, in July 1651, made
a movement to Perth, so as to threaten the Scottish army in rear, but
left a way open into England. At the urgency of the king, who hoped
for assistance in the south, the Scots marched across the west border,
and advanced through Lancashire, hotly followed by Cromwell. In a
well-contested and bloody action at Worcester (September 3, 1651), the
Scottish army was utterly routed; and Charles with difficulty escaped
abroad, Scotland had now expended nearly the whole of her military
strength in a vain endeavour to support her ecclesiastical system, in
connection with a limited monarchy, against the English commonwealth.
Her towns and principal places of strength fell into the hands of the
English troops. The Committee of Estates were surprised and taken
prisoners at a place called Alyth, on the skirts of the Grampians.
The General Assembly was dispersed, and no church-courts above synods
were allowed to meet. Henceforth, the Resolutioners and Remonstrants,
the moderate majority and furious minority of the church, were allowed
to gnaw at and tear each other to pieces, with little result but
that of making many calm men despair of peace under such a mode of
church-government. With little ceremony, the country was declared to
be united with England. In 1653, the remnants of the party friendly
to royalty drew together in the Highlands under the Earl of Glencairn
and Lord Kenmure, and for upwards of a year, under these nobles, and
latterly under General Middleton, with the assistance of certain
clans, they were able to maintain their ground. At length, even this
guerrilla opposition ceased. Eight thousand English troops and four
forts--at Ayr, Leith, Perth, and Inverness--proved sufficient to keep
our ancient kingdom in subjection. The essentially aggressive spirit
of the Solemn League was revenged by nine years of humiliation, during
which all classes seem to have suffered, but especially the nobles, who
were ground to the dust by heavy fines. It is admitted, nevertheless,
that the country was benefited by the keeping down of the religious
factions, as well as by the impartiality of a corps of English judges,
who superseded the native bench.
During the greater part of this time, Cromwell was the undisputed ruler
of Scotland, as well as of England and Ireland. At length, after his
death in 1658, confusion and difficulty were renewed, and to these an
effectual stop was not put till, by the happy intervention of General
Monk, Charles II. was restored as king (May 1660).
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1649.]
[Sidenote: 1649.]
In the early part of this year, the Scottish Estates are found engaged
in various objects of apparently a contradictory character. They were
eager, through their commissioners in London, to save the king’s life;
so much so that, on some one proposing that they should wait over three
or four days for a general fast, the idea was overruled in favour of
the immediate employment of worldly means. They were at the same time
bringing to punishment, or scarcely less penal repentance, thousands
of people who had taken arms for the king in the preceding year. After
Charles I. was no more, they sat on under the sanction of the name of
‘our sovereign lord Charles II.,’ and yet if that sovereign lord had
ventured to set his foot on Scottish soil, it is most probable that he
would have been immediately made a prisoner and treated as a dangerous
person. The truth is, the powers now in the ascendant were only
monarchists in subordination to a superior principle, which had in view
the establishment of a perfect Presbyterian church, as meditated in
the Solemn League and Covenant. While they so far favoured Charles I.,
then, as not to desire his death, they regarded as wholly mischievous
all who had befriended or proposed to befriend him or his son on other
terms than an adherence to the Covenant.
[Sidenote: 1649.]
The Highlanders were not sensible of these refining distinctions.
They rose in a considerable body in February under Thomas Mackenzie
of Pluscardine, a brother of the Earl of Seaforth; professing only a
desire to restore the king. This little band took Inverness, but was
soon put down. The only effect was, that the ruling powers now wreaked
vengeance on their old opponent, the Marquis of Huntly, who had been
a pining prisoner in Edinburgh Castle for sixteen months, and was not
likely to have long troubled them, since he was manifestly dying of a
dysentery. We have seen this noble entering life as Master of the king
of France’s Scottish guard. A great prince he was in the north. Through
the whole civil war, he had been constant to the king as simply the
king, but had not always acted with consummate prudence. Now comes at
length an evil day for the House of Gordon, when the wrath accumulated
against it for its seventy years’ opposition to a ‘truth’ which it
could never appreciate, must be discharged. It might have been expected
that the Marquis of Argyle, who was Huntly’s brother-in-law, and to
appearance all-powerful, would interfere to save him. To that end,
his sister, the Marchioness of Douglas, and his three daughters--the
Lady Drummond, the Lady Seton, and the Countess of Haddington, went
and threw themselves on their bended knees before Macaleinmore. He
declined to meddle with what the parliament had decreed, the truth
being, that no lay power was then able to stand against an object on
which the leading clergy had set their hearts. The poor ladies pleaded
even to have a respite of a few days, hoping that nature would save
their brother and parent a public and cruel death; but even this boon
could not be obtained. On the 22d of March, the marquis is brought down
from his airy prison, along the High Street of Edinburgh, clad in
the deepest mourning, very weak in body, we are told, but cheerful in
spirit, as not wishing to live after his master was gone, and placed on
a scaffold at the Cross, where the Maiden stands prepared to receive
him in her dismal embraces. He writes a few lines to his children, and
speaks a few sentences to the multitude. The gleaming axe descends, and
the noble of a score of illustrious titles is no more.[124]
After all, the Highlanders were not disposed to be at peace. One
Sunday in May, about fifteen hundred Mackenzies and Mackays came over
the Kessock Ferry to Inverness, while the people were at church,
and proceeded to great insolencies. ‘Instead of bells to ring in to
service,’ says a clergyman who was present, ‘I saw and heard no other
than the noise of pipes, drums, pots, pans, kettles, and spits in
the streets, to provide them with victuals in every house. In their
quarters the rude rascality would eat no meat at their tables, until
the landlord laid down a shilling Scots upon each trencher, terming
this _argiod cagainn_, or chewing money, which every soldier got, so
insolent were they.’ This doughty band was in a few days half cut
to pieces by two troops of horse under Colonels Strachan and Kerr,
and about a thousand of them came back as prisoners to Inverness,
where, ‘those men who, in their former march, would hardly eat their
meat without money, are now begging food, and, like dogs, lap the
water which was brought them in tubs and other vessels in the open
streets.’[125] Such are amongst the scenes proper to a time of civil
broil.
The clergy were sensible of the benighted state of the Highlands, and
longed to see the Gael brought to a sense of the beauty of a pure
faith. As one small effort towards the object, the General Assembly
ordained a collection to be made for the purpose of keeping forty
Highland boys at school. It appears, however, that very little was
efficiently done for the education of youth in the Highlands, till
fully a century later. Dr Shaw, in his _History of the Province of
Moray_, published in 1775, makes the remarkable declaration: ‘I well
remember when from Speymouth (through Strathspey, Badenoch, and
Lochaber) to Lorn _there was but one school_--viz., at Ruthven in
Badenoch; and it was much to find, in a parish, three persons that
could read and write.’
[Sidenote: 1649.]
A perfect accord reigned between the clergy and the Estates, the
latter ratifying whatever the former required. A seasonable
testimony against the sins and dangers of the times being issued
by the church-commission, the Estates passed an act responding to
it, ‘heartily concurring in the grounds thereof against toleration
and the present proceedings of the Sectaries in England;’ declaring
for ‘one King, one Covenant, one Religion;’ promising all strenuous
endeavour for ‘the settling truth and peace in these kingdoms upon
the propositions so often agreed to’--that is, by the forcible
putting down of every profession in England and Ireland but that of
pure Presbyterianism. At the request of the church, lay patronages
were abolished, and acts were passed imposing capital punishment on
blasphemy, the worship of false gods, and incest. The church had
for some time been under great concern about ‘the growth of the
sins of witchcraft, charming, and consulting,’ and it now appointed
a conference of ministers, lawyers, and physicians, ‘to consider
seriously of that matter, and advise therein amongst themselves,’ and
afterwards report. The Estates, fully entering into these views, passed
an act not expressly against witchcraft, for that had been done, as we
have seen, so long ago as Queen Mary’s days, but to meet the fact that
there are people who consult devils and familiar spirits, thinking to
escape punishment because consulters of spirits are not mentioned in
the former act. For this reason, the parliament enacted the punishment
of death to ‘consulters,’ at the same time ratifying ‘all former acts
against witches, sorcerers, necromancers, and consulters with them, in
the whole heads, articles, and clauses thereof.’[126]
The perfect simplicity and earnestness of all this is, in the
conception of the author, as certain as its being obviously short of
the better wisdom and better temper of our own time. The evil effects
of the pursuit of rigorous extremes in state policy, in religious
doctrine, and in ecclesiastical systems, had not then been experienced.
No one yet dreamed of there being any harm in intolerance, but, on
the contrary, it seemed a sin and a scandal to omit any means which
promised to compel the wandering to come in. As to witchcraft and
consulting, which we have learned to regard as imaginary offences, it
was enough for the jurist of the seventeenth century that these _words_
were entered in the Levitical law as descriptive of crimes deserving
punishment.
[Sidenote: 1649.]
One direction in which the earnestness of the time more especially
projected itself, was towards an absolute exclusion of all shortcoming
in religion, or even in what might be called church politics. Not only
did an act of parliament thrust out of offices and places of trust all
who had been in the slightest degree concerned in the Engagement--who
must have been a large portion of the middle and upper classes of lay
society--but the church-courts were equally unsparing of any clergy
who had touched the unclean thing, or proved at all slack in faith
and zeal. As a specimen--In September, a ‘visitation’ sat at the
appointment of the General Assembly in the synodal province of Angus
and Mearns, under the moderatorship of Mr Andrew Cant. It called
several ministers of twenty years’ standing before it to preach, that
there might be trial of doctrine and efficiency. In all, eighteen
ministers were deposed, on the ground of insufficiency, ‘silence
during the time of the late Engagement,’ ‘famishing of congregations,’
and corruption of life or doctrine.--_Lam._ This was only one of
‘diverse commissions’ which had gone east, west, north, and south,
as Robert Baillie expresses it, and ‘deposed many ministers, to the
pity and grief of my heart; for sundry of them might have been, for
more advantage every way, with a rebuke, keeped in their places; _but
there was few durst profess so much_.’ In short, as invariably happens
in revolutions and times of danger, an institution professedly of a
popular cast was ruled by this Mr Cant and two or three of his fellows,
with as uncontrolled a power as usually belongs to institutions of an
avowedly despotic character; and, doubtless, unavoidably so. It is
at the same time evident that large numbers of individuals could not
thus be made to suffer for merely sentimental offences, without some
perilous consequences. It only afforded too good a precedent, as well
as excuse, for retributory acts of the same kind after a reaction had
set in. It is clear that the throwing of so many people out of their
ordinary means of livelihood must have added not a little to the
distresses of a time which, from natural as well as political causes,
was one of general suffering.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: FEB.]
[Sidenote: 1649.]
Among the persons of some figure who had taken part in the Engagement,
and were consequently liable to punishment at the hands of the now
triumphant Whiggamores, was Mr Robert Farquhar, a rich Aberdeen
merchant (provost of the city), who had at an earlier period been a
most serviceable friend to the Covenanting cause, in as far as he
helped it with large sums of money. In 1640 and 1641, he had advanced
to the leaders ‘far more than he was worth:’ they ordered him to
receive £4000 of the ‘brotherly assistance’ money paid by the English
parliament to the Scots at the close of the first troubles; and this
sum he brought down to Burntisland by sea, at great hazard from
pirates; when no sooner had he arrived, than the Covenanting leaders
forcibly borrowed the money again from him to supply the urgent
necessities of the state. At the end of the second troubles in 1647,
the debt of the state to Robert Farquhar was £133,132 Scots; and the
parliament passed an act appointing him to receive, as to account,
£5000 sterling of the second instalment of £200,000, then to be paid by
the English parliament to the kingdom of Scotland. Two years, however,
passed on, without anything being realised, and by accumulation of
interest, the debt had reached the enormous sum of £180,859 Scots, so
that Farquhar was much distressed in his affairs.
[Sidenote: 1649.]
We can readily imagine the feelings of a government creditor to so
large an amount, who had done something that usually provoked _fines_
on the part of that government, on his receiving a summons to come
to Edinburgh. He prepared to obey with fear and trembling; but the
extraordinary sagacity attributed to the citizens of Aberdeen did not
desert him. Near by, lived Mr Andrew Cant, the minister of his native
city, whom he knew to be influential with the Committees ruling in
Edinburgh. On the Sunday evening preceding the Monday morning on which
he was to take horse for the south, he caused his wife to prepare a
good supper, to which he proceeded to invite Mr Cant, for, as has
been already intimated, Sunday-evening entertainments were among the
domestic institutions of the age. The remainder of the story may be
given in the words of the contemporary narrator. Mr Andrew, he says,
‘refuses to come once, twice; at last Mr Robert resolves with himself
to have him at any rate, and forthwith goes to his house himself and
very earnestly, in submissive and humble terms, entreats him to let
him be honoured with his company at supper. The minister refuses, in
respect of the coldness of the night. He still urges him to go, and he
should find ane sure antidote for any cold. At last, being overcome by
Mr Robert’s importunity, he goes home with him--all this time it is
observable how he called him no other but still Mr Robert--and being
set by the fire, and made very welcome, Mr Robert goes to his closet,
and brings to the hall a gown of black velvet, lined with martricks,
and would have Mr Andrew put it on, which, with small entreaty, he
did. (Thereafter, in all his discourses, he calls him either provost
or commissary, and not Mr Robert.) So, having supped, and made a
plentiful meal, and being again set by the fire, Mr Robert asks the
minister if he had any service to command to Edinburgh, for he was
cited to appear there, before the parliament, to make his accounts, and
therefore besought Mr Andrew that he would recommend him to some of
his most confident friends; which he promised to do. At last, bedtime
drawing near, Mr Andrew rises to begone, and would have casten off the
gown; but Mr Robert entreated him not to do so, nor wrong him that far,
in respect he had brought him from his own warm house, in so cold and
rigid a night, to partake of so homely fare, for no other end but to
bestow that chamber-gown upon him, as befitting his age and gravity....
Such as it was, he humbly entreated him to accept of it, as an
assurance and token of his love and affection to him; which Mr Andrew
did without more ceremonies. So Mr Robert did accompany him home, with
his gown on his shoulders, and at parting Mr Andrew told him “he should
not do weel to go without his letters.” He said he would not. To-morrow
he gets his letters, one to Argyle, another to Loudon, and the third
to the Register Warriston, with two to some ministers, which made him
welcome to Edinburgh, and afterwards to dance about that fire which,
as he feared, should, if not burned him, at least scalded him very
sore.’[127]
On the 1st of August, the Estates passed an act acknowledging
Farquhar’s enormous debt, and arranging for its reduction by the
payment to him of the third of all the fines imposed on delinquents
north of the Tay; so that, instead of having his own feathers plucked,
he was invested with a power of plucking others. In the subsequent
year, he received the honour of knighthood from Charles II.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1649.]
It is worthy of notice that a few wealthy merchants like this Mr Robert
Farquhar (another of great note was Sir William Dick of Edinburgh,
afterwards to be noticed) had proved the principal means of fitting
out the Covenanting troops on several occasions. The register of
parliament is swelled at this time with their claims, and the efforts
of the government to give them satisfaction. The meagre Excise revenue,
which never perhaps reached thirty thousand pounds, was pledged and
forestalled to the teeth. One other resource much looked to was that
of the fines imposed on gentlemen who had shewn disinclination to the
good cause. It must be observed, that to have failed to subscribe any
sort of declaration of opinion that was required, to have, above all,
refused a signature to the Covenant, even to dally under a summons to
appear before one of the revolutionary committees, inferred a severe
pecuniary exaction. Thus the war was made in some degree to support
itself, but not the less of course to the general impoverishment of the
country.
[Sidenote: JULY 18.]
As an illustrative case--exhibiting this oppressive mulcting system,
and that general interference with personal liberty which the
revolutionary government (by the unavoidable necessity, we may admit,
of its position) was accustomed to visit upon its subjects, when these
were in any degree slack of obedience--we may mention the case of
James Farquharson of Inverey, in Aberdeenshire; premising that the
statement is his own in a petition to the Estates. Having been summoned
by the Committee of Estates in May 1647, but not duly receiving the
notice, he failed of course to attend, and was consequently punished
with a fine of £4000 [Scots?]. The exaction of this fine was assigned
to Forbes, Laird of Leslie, probably in recompense of services or
repayment of public debt; and Forbes immediately became the prosecutor
of Farquharson at law. It was in vain that Farquharson, when apprised
of his liability, offered to stand a trial for any offence laid to his
charge. In the spring of 1649, he, being a man of seventy-three years
of age, was dragged from his house, his wife and young children, to
Edinburgh, where probably this Deeside baron had never been in his
life. There he was clapped up in the Tolbooth, and kept for twelve
weeks, till, afraid to perish in so horrible a den, and sensible of
the hard condition of his family at home, he at length succeeded in
attracting some charitable attention from the Estates. It was only,
after all, on his agreeing with the Laird of Leslie for a composition
of his fine, that this gentleman, who boldly challenged any trial, but
was never tried, could obtain his liberty.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JUNE.]
[Sidenote: 1649.]
One Alexander Stewart, calling himself professor of physic,[128]
travelled about the country, picking up a scanty livelihood by the
exercise of his art, but also beholden in part for his subsistence
to the kindness of friends. He had lived in this way twenty years,
without any fixed habitation of his own, and it chanced in the summer
of this year that he had to travel from the house of his brother,
the minister of Rothesay, to St Johnston, ‘hoping to have had some
residence there in the exercise of his calling,’ when he was seized
as ‘an intelligencer and seminary priest,’ carried to Edinburgh, and
imprisoned in the Tolbooth. He was under the necessity of petitioning
the Estates, setting forth his innocency of all offence against kirk
or state, and shewing that he had already cleared himself before the
presbytery of St Johnston, ‘who could find nothing of that kind against
him;’ yet he was suffered to lie ‘miserably in prison, destitute of all
help.’ The Estates, having apparently ascertained that a mistake had
been made in the seizure of this poor mediciner, ordered his liberation.
* * * * *
This was a year of extreme dearth. Wheat was at seventeen pounds Scots
per boll; oats, twelve pounds; and other grains in proportion. Owing,
also, to the coldness and dryness of the spring, the herbage and hay
proved deficient, and cheese and butter consequently attained high
prices--the former three, and the latter six pounds per stone. ‘In
the beginning of June, the parliament licensed Englishmen to buy and
transport oxen, kine, sheep of all sorts, likewise horses and colts;
which was one of the most hurtful acts could be made to ruin Scotland,
and advance the designs of the enemies thereof; bestial of all sorts
being at so high a rate these four years past in this country, and
flesh in the common markets scarce buyable but at very exorbitant
rates; the like has not been seen in this kingdom heretofore since it
was a nation.’--_Bal._
The luxuries of life were correspondingly dear at this time: the best
ale, 3s. 4d. (3-1/3d. sterling); sack wine, 36s.; and French wine, 16s.
per pint.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: AUG.]
‘About Lammas and afterwards, in many parts of this kingdom, both among
bear and oats, there were seen a great number of creeping things--which
was not ordinar--which remained in the head of the stalk of corn, at
the root of the pickle.’--_Lam._
* * * * *
‘About Lammas ... there was a star seen by many people of Edinburgh,
betwixt twelve and two hours of the day, even when the sun shined most
bright; which was taken for a comet, and a forerunner of the troubles
that followed.’--_C. P. H._
[Sidenote: 1649.]
No such comet is noted by astronomers, the only two in the first
half of the seventeenth century being in 1607 and 1618. It was
probably a star of high magnitude, or planet rendered visible by some
extraordinary state of the atmosphere.
* * * * *
The anxiety about witchcraft manifested by the General Assembly and
parliament this year, was not allowed to expend itself in empty words.
‘This summer,’ says Lamont in his _Diary_, ‘there was very many witches
taken and brunt in several parts of this kingdom, as in Lothian and
Fife.’ The register of the Committee of Estates shews no fewer than
five several commissions issued on the 4th, and two on the 6th of
December, for the trial of witches in various parts of the country.
The procedure, as far as revealed to us, seems to have been this: The
suspected were first taken in hand by the minister and his session
or consistory, with a view to obtain proof or extort confession.
Generally, the poor wretches--moved partly by their own religious
feelings--confessed; then a commission was sought for and granted to
certain gentlemen of the district, for the trial of the accused. The
trial seems to have been little more than a form, for condemnation and
execution almost invariably followed.
Margaret Henderson, ‘Lady Pittathrow,’ described as sister to the Laird
of Fordel, and residing in Inverkeithing, was delated by sundry persons
who had lately suffered for witchcraft, ‘to be ane witch, and that she
has keepit several meetings and abominable society with the devil.’ So
says a grave petition of the General Assembly to parliament (July 19).
Fearing punishment, she withdrew to the city of Edinburgh, and there
lurked ‘till it pleasit the Almighty God to dispose in His providence
that she is now apprehendit and put in firmance in the Tolbooth.’ The
Assembly now craving her trial, so that ‘this land and city may be free
of her, and justice done upon her,’ the Estates were pleased to issue a
command to Mr Thomas Nicholson, his majesty’s advocate, to proceed with
her arraignment before the justice-general; and if she be guilty of the
said crime, ‘to convict and condemn her, pronounce sentence of death
against, cause strangle her, and burn her body, and do every requisite
in sic cases.’ The diarist Lamont gives us the conclusion of the case.
‘After remaining in prison for a time, [she] being in health at night,
was upon the morning found dead. It was thought and spoken by many that
she wronged herself, either by strangling or poison; but we leave that
to the judgment of the great day.’
[Sidenote: 1649.]
There was a kind of infection in witchcraft, for one unhappy victim
was sure to accuse others, albeit with no more justice than what there
was in the charge against herself. It was probably in consequence
of such ‘delations’ on the part of Lady Pittathrow that we find the
presbytery of Dunfermline and minister of Inverkeithing giving in a
supplication to parliament (July 31, 1649), shewing that there had been
‘declarations of witchcraft against the wives of the magistrates and
other persons of the burgh of Inverkeithing, whom the said magistrates
refused to apprehend.’ The presbytery had visited the burgh, and
‘dealt with the magistrates and town-council to give the full power
and commission to certain honest men of the town, to apprehend, put
in firmance, and tak trial of such persons as they should allow and
judge worthy to be apprehendit and tried, as said is.’ The surprise
of these worthy bailies on being told that the wives of their own
bosoms were witches, would have been not a little amusing to a man
of the nineteenth century, could he have been present to witness it.
We are told that they at first seemed to see the reasonableness of
deputing their ordinary power to a set of ‘honest men’ for the trial
of their suspected helpmates; but when their ghostly visitors had
left them, they were brought to view things in a different light. The
magistrates now ‘slights that work, and refuses to give the power in
manner foresaid.’ For this reason it had become necessary to apply
to parliament for a commission to the ‘honest men’ to do the duty
of the magistrates, and this was readily granted. What came of the
magistrates’ wives under this perilous accusation, does not appear.[129]
[Sidenote: 1649.]
In August, a poor woman, named Bessie Graham, living in Kilwinning,
was apprehended and thrown into prison, for some threatening words she
had used in drink against a neighbour woman who had since died. During
a confinement of thirteen weeks, she was visited by the minister, Mr
James Fergusson, who, it was thought, might ascertain whether she was a
witch or not. He found her obdurate in non-confession, and was greatly
inclined to think her innocent. One Alexander Bogue, ‘skilled in
searching the mark,’ came to examine her person, and finding a spot in
the middle of her back, thrust in a pin, which neither inflicted pain
nor drew blood. Still the minister hesitated to believe her guilty. He
entered on a course of prayers for divine direction. Soon after, going
one evening to the prison with his bedral, Alexander Simpson, he made
a strenuous attempt to induce Bessie to confess, but without effect.
To pursue his own narrative: ‘When I came to the stair-head, I resolved
to halt a little to hear what she would say. Within a very short space,
she begins to discourse, as if it had been to somebody with her. Her
voice was so low, that I could not understand what she said, except
one sentence, whereby I perceived she was speaking of somewhat I had
been challenging her of and she had denied.... After a little while, I
heard another voice speaking and whispering as it were conferring with
her, which presently I apprehended to be the foul fiend’s voice....
She, having kept silence a time, began to speak again; and before she
had well ended, the other voice speaketh as it were a long sentence,
which, though I understood not what it was, yet it was so low and
ghostly, that I was certainly persuaded that it was another voice than
hers. Besides, her accent and manner of speaking was as if she had
been speaking to some other; and that other voice, to the best of my
remembrance, did begin before she had ended, so that two voices were to
be heard at once.
‘By this time fear took hold on Alexander Simpson, being hindmost in
the stair, and thereby he cries out. I did exhort him with a loud voice
not to fear; and we came all of us down the stair, blessing God that
had given me such a clearance in the business.’
This poor woman, on a subsequent conference with Mr Fergusson,
confessed all she was accused of, except the imputed witchcraft. She
said: ‘She knew she would die, and desired not to live; and she thought
we would be free before God of her blood, because that, however she was
free, yet there were so many things deponed against her, that it was
hard for us to think otherwise of her than we did; yet she knew well
enough her own innocence.’ Bessie was soon after tried, condemned, and
executed, denying her guilt to the last.[130]
[Sidenote: 1649.]
In the ensuing month, Agnes Gourlay was examined by the kirk-session
of Humbie, concerning some practices of hers for charming the milk of
kine. It was alleged that Anna Simpson, servant to Robert Hepburn of
Keith, having found fault with the milk she drew from her master’s
cows, Agnes told her of a way to remedy the evil, and soon after came
and put it in practice. Throwing a small quantity of the milk into the
_grupe_ or sewer of the cow-house, she called out: ‘God betak us to!
May be, they are under the earth that have as much need of it, as they
that are above the earth!’ after which she put wheat bread and salt
into the cows’ ears. Agnes by and by confessed that she had so done,
and was ordained to make public repentance in sackcloth.[131]
* * * * *
Lord Linton, son of the Earl of Traquair, married Henrietta Gordon,
daughter of the lately executed Marquis of Huntly, and relict of George
Lord Seton; she being an excommunicated papist. ‘The minister of
Dawick, being an old man, did marry thir foresaid persons privately,
without proclamation of their banns, according to the custom; for
which, shortly after, he was excommunicate, his church declared vacant,
and he by the state banished.’--_Lam._ Lord Linton was fined in £5000
Scots, and likewise excommunicated and imprisoned.--_Nic._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: DEC. 18.]
[Sidenote: 1649.]
The reader will remember the strenuous opposition of John Mean,
merchant in Edinburgh, to the Episcopal innovations, and his sufferings
in that cause; likewise the strong suspicion entertained that it
was his wife who discharged her stool at the bishop’s head when the
Service-book was introduced into St Giles’s in July 1637. It was
natural that John, who was a man of good account in the world, as
well as a most earnest Presbyterian, should have flourished under the
present order of things. We therefore hear without surprise that the
Post in Edinburgh--the germ of a most important institution--was now
under the care of John Mean. It seems to have been confined as yet to
the transmission of letters between London and Edinburgh. At the date
noted, he addressed a petition to the Committee of Estates, regarding
‘his great charges and expenses in attending the Letter-office in
this city, and his allowance therefor.’ He states that ‘the benefit
arising by the letters sent from this to London and coming from thence
hither, by the ordinary post, will amount to four hundred pounds
sterling yearly or thereby, all charges being deduced for payment of
the postmaster from Newcastle to Edinburgh inclusive, and no proportion
thereof laid upon the Berwick pacquet.’ In consideration of his
charges, John was allowed to retain for himself the eighth penny upon
all the letters sent from Edinburgh to London, and the fourth penny
upon all those coming from London to Edinburgh.--_R. C. E._
* * * * *
In the year 1649, as is believed, a cateran named Mac-Allister, with
a band of followers, kept a large portion of Caithness in terror.
The people of Thurso having somehow given him offence, he determined
to revenge himself by suddenly coming down upon them on a Sunday and
burning them in church. He and his men had provided themselves with
withes of twigs to fasten the doors, in order to keep the people in,
while fire should be set to the building. Some one remonstrating with
him for contemplating such an unholy design on the Sabbath-day, he
avowed that, in spite of God and the Sabbath both, he would shed blood.
Fortunately, some humane person became aware of the design, and set
off at speed to give the alarm. This had scarcely been done, when the
caterans, twenty in number, arrived. There were seven doors to the
church, as may be verified by an inspection of the ruins at this day.
An old woman dexterously thrust her stool into one near which she sat,
so as to prevent it from being closed; the people were eager to defend
the rest as far as they could. Mac-Allister himself came to the door
of a gallery at the south-west angle of the building, accessible by
an outer stair. Here sat Sir James Sinclair of Murkle, an able and
determined man, who made a practice of coming to church armed. Meeting
the robber in the doorway, he thrust his sword through him, but with
no apparent effect. His servant, however, superstitiously fearing
that Mac-Allister was impervious to cold steel, cut a triangular
silver button from Sir James’s coat, and with that shot the fellow in
the head. He tumbled over the stair, saying in Gaelic: ‘Hoot-toot,
the bodach has deafened me!’ It was a mortal wound in the ear. The
rest of the party were then set upon by the congregation, and after
a hard contest, overpowered, many of them, like their master, being
killed.[132]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1650.