Sir John Cochrane of Ochiltree, an associate in Argyle’s expedition,
and a forfaulted traitor, was taken in a relative’s house in
Renfrewshire at the end of June, and was on the 3d July, with his son
and another traitor, brought into Edinburgh, ‘bound and bareheaded,
by the hangman.’ On the day noted in the margin, the English packet
coming to Edinburgh was known to have been twice stopped and robbed
near Alnwick. It was conjectured at the time that this might be done
by some of Sir John Cochrane’s friends, ‘lest there should have been
any warrant from the king by these packets to have execute him; that
so the Earl of Arran might have leisure to inform the king what Sir
John could discover, and so obtain a countermand.’--_Foun._ There were
other conjectures on the subject; but no one could have surmised that
the robber of the packet was Sir John’s daughter Grizzel, disguised in
men’s clothes, as was long after ascertained to be the case. Sir John
obtained a pardon from the king, and lived to be Earl of Dundonald. The
heroine Grizzel was married to John Kerr of Morriston, in Berwickshire.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: AUG.]
‘Sir George Drummond, provost of Edinburgh, breaks and runs to the
Abbey for debt, the first provost that, during his office, has broke
in Edinburgh.’--_Foun._ A week or two after, in consequence of some
objectionable matters being thrown over the windows of Patrick
Graham, captain of the Town-guard, whereby some gentlemen’s clothes
were spoiled, a trivial riot took place at the guard-house. The Lord
Chancellor, Earl of Perth, who of course was bound to do what he could
for a Drummond, took advantage of this petty affair to get a protection
to the bankrupt provost, to enable him to appear and defend the town.
Thus he was ‘brought to the street again.’
* * * * *
[Sidenote: SEP.]
[Sidenote: 1685.]
George Scott of Pitlochie had some claims upon the public in
compensation for certain manuscripts originally belonging to his
father, Sir John Scott of Scotstarvet, which he had surrendered to the
Court of Session. Sir John had written a curious book, entitled an
_Account of the Staggering State of Scots Statesmen_, in which, with
irrepressible marks of gusto, he detailed the misfortunes which had
befallen the persons and families of most of those who had taken a lead
in public affairs or borne office during the preceding century. Now the
usual destiny had overtaken his own son, who was fallen into poverty,
and somewhat at a shift for a living. For some time, he besieged the
Privy Council for help or patronage, and was at length gratified with
a very peculiar gift. About two hundred westland peasants had been
taken up for various acts of recusancy, and, for safety on the approach
of Argyle, they were gathered out of the prisons, driven off like a
flock of sheep to the east side of the island, and huddled into a vault
of Dunnottar Castle, where they lived for a few weeks in circumstances
of privation, as to food, air, water, and general accommodation, truly
piteous. Hearing of their sad state, and relenting somewhat, the
Council caused these poor people to be brought to Leith. It was hoped,
perhaps, that they would now make such submissions as might warrant
their liberation; and some did thus work themselves free. But the
greater number positively refused to take the oath of allegiance, ‘as
embodied with the supremacy,’ as they would thus be rejecting Christ
from ‘the rule in his own house,’ as well as over their own consciences.
[Sidenote: SEP. 5.]
Pitlochie, who was himself a vexed Presbyterian, being now in
contemplation of a settlement in the colony of East Jersey, and in want
of labourers or bondsmen for the culture of his lands, petitioned the
Council for a consignment of these tender-conscienced men, and nearly a
hundred, who had been condemned to banishment, were at once ‘gifted’ to
him. He freighted a Newcastle ship to carry them, and the vessel sailed
from Leith roads, carrying with her a number of ‘dyvours and broken
men’ besides the Covenanters. It was a most disastrous voyage.
Partly perhaps because of the reduced and sickly state of many of
the prisoners at starting, but more through deficiency of healthful
food, and the want of air and comfort, a violent fever broke out in
the ship before she had cleared the Land’s End. It soon assumed a
malignant type, and scarcely any individual on board escaped. The whole
crew excepting the captain and boatswain died; Pitlochie himself and
his lady also sunk under the disease. Three or four dead were thrown
overboard every day. ‘Notwithstanding of this raging sickness, much
severity was used towards the prisoners at sea by the master of the
ship and others: those under deck were not allowed to go about worship
by themselves, and when they essayed it, the captain would throw down
great planks of timber upon them to disturb them, and sometimes to the
danger of their lives.’
[Sidenote: 1685.]
Fifteen long weeks were spent by this pest-ship before she arrived at
her destination; and in that time seventy had perished! The remainder
were so reduced in strength as to be scarcely able to go ashore. The
people at the place where they landed, ‘not having the gospel among
them,’ were indifferent to the fate of the Scottish Presbyterians.
But at a place a few miles inland, where there was a minister and a
congregation, they were received with great kindness. They then became
the subject of a singular litigation, a Mr Johnston, the son-in-law
and heir of Pitlochie, suing them for their value as bond-servants. A
jury found that there was no indenture between Pitlochie and them, but
that they were shipped against their will; therefore Mr Johnston had
no control over them. A good many of them are said to have died within
a short space of time in the plantations; the rest returned to their
native country at the Revolution. Such was the sad story of Pitlochie’s
voyage.--_P. C. R._ _Wod._ _Foun._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: OCT.]
Robert Pringle of Clifton, a considerable gentleman of Roxburghshire,
was lately dead, leaving one child, Jonet Pringle, now about twenty
years of age, as heir to the bulk of his property, while his brother
Andrew succeeded as heir of provision. It was obviously desirable
for the general interest of the family, that the two branches should
be re-united, and when any interest of this sort existed, objections
of a natural and moral kind seldom stood long in the way. Andrew
Pringle’s eldest son was only thirteen; therefore, if suitable at all
as a match for his fair cousin, he was certainly not suitable _yet_.
But then there was a tribe of Murrays of Livingstone, the relations
of Jonet’s mother, who anxiously desired to have the disposal of her.
Already Lieutenant George Murray, of the King’s Guard, was alive to
his prospective interests in the matter. How to countermine him? The
young lady vanished from society; much reason to suppose it was by
the prompting and assistance of her uncle Andrew. Lieutenant Murray
obtained from the Privy Council an order against Andrew Pringle to
produce his niece; but he cleared himself by oath of the charge of
having been concerned in putting her away. Murray urged that she
should be exhibited--as her relation he had an interest in seeing
this done--and Andrew Pringle, who had not acted very well towards
his deceased brother, was ill fitted to take a charge of the niece.
Mr Pringle was ordered, on pain of a fine of ten thousand merks, to
bring forward his niece before the 5th of November, and, to make sure
of him, he was put into prison. It was, however, soon ascertained that
the young lady had gone over the Border with her boy-cousin, and been
married to him by a regular English clergyman!
[Sidenote: 1685.]
In these circumstances, it became needless for the lieutenant to go
forward with his case against Mr Pringle. A contract was made between
him and Pringle, whereby for seven thousand merks he agreed to withdraw
all opposition. All offence to the laws of the country by so improper a
marriage was soon after effaced by a fine of five hundred merks imposed
on the young couple.--_Foun._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: OCT. 20.]
At a meeting of the synod of Edinburgh, there was a report from the
presbytery of Haddington on the case of a poor man, the gardener of
Sir John Seton of Garmilton, who, having turned Catholic, had become
in their opinion liable to a sentence of excommunication. But such
processes had now become a matter of some delicacy, as the king might
thereby be offended. The bishop, in some terror, signed the warrant
for going on with the process against the gardener, and, lest the act
should appear a strong one, he tried to soften it by professing to
his clergy to have little fear of popery, as the king had promised
to protect the Protestant religion. A few weeks after, a letter came
down from the king, forbidding the church authorities to go on with
the excommunication of the gardener. With what grim smiles would the
westland Whigs hear of this transaction!--_Foun._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: DEC. 17.]
In the course of our perquisitions into domestic matters in Scotland,
the first trace that is found of any effort at a systematic education
of young ladies in elegant accomplishments, occurs in a petition of
Isobel Cumming to the Privy Council at this date. She was a widow
and a stranger, who had been invited some years before to come to
Edinburgh, ‘where she conceived the centre of virtue to be in this
kingdom,’ in order to instruct young gentlewomen ‘in all sorts of
needlework, playing, singing, and in several other excellent pieces
of work, becoming ladies of honour.’ In this useful course of life,
she had received much encouragement, and she was going on continually
‘improving herself for the advantage of young ladies of quality.’
Now, however, she was beset by a serious obstruction, in an order to
quarter a certain number of soldiers in her house. She petitioned for
an immunity from this branch of citizenly duty, and the lords--who,
as oftener than once remarked, seem never to have been deficient in
Christian-like feeling in matters apart from Christianity--immediately
granted her request.--_P. C. R._ [Sidenote: 1686.