In this month commenced a feud which for many years disturbed the
peace of the upper part of the valley of the Tweed. The fact in which
it took its rise was the slaughter of Patrick Veitch, son of William
Veitch of Dawick (now New Posso), by or through James Tweedie of
Drumelzier, Adam Tweedie of Dreva, William Tweedie of the Wrae, John
Crichton of Quarter, Andrew Crichton in Cardon, and Thomas Porteous of
Glenkirk. These persons were in prison in Edinburgh for the fact in
July of this year; but the case was deferred to the _aire_ of Peebles.
Meanwhile, on the 20th of the month just mentioned, two relatives of
the slain youth--James Veitch, younger, of North Synton, and Andrew
Veitch, brother of the Laird of Tourhope--set upon John Tweedie, tutor
of Drumelzier and burgess of Edinburgh, as he walked the streets of
the capital, and killed him. Thus were the alleged murderers punished
through a near relative, probably uncle, of the principal party.
Six days after, the two Veitches were delated for the fact, and we
find Veitch of Dawick taking their part in true Scottish style, by
joining in surety for their appearance at trial to the extent of ten
thousand merks. After some further procedure, the king was pleased to
interfere with an order for the liberation of the Veitches; whereupon
a Presbyterian historian cuttingly remarks: ‘He had soon forgot his
promises made in the Great Kirk.’[175]
It would appear that, within a short space of time, the Tweedies of
Drumelzier took revenge to a considerable extent on the Veitches: in
particular they effected the slaughter of James Geddes of Glenhegden,
who seems to have been brother-in-law to a principal gentleman of
that family. The recital of James Geddes’s death in the Privy Council
Record, affords by its minuteness a curious insight into the manner of
a daylight street-murder of that time. ‘James,’ it is stated, ‘being
in Edinburgh the space of aught days together, haunting and repairing
to and fra openly and publicly, met almaist daily with the Laird [of
Drumelzier] upon the Hie Street. The said laird, fearing to set upon
him, albeit James was ever single and alane, had espies and moyeners
[retainers] lying await for him about his lodging and other parts where
he repairit. Upon the 29th day of December [1592], James being in the
Cowgate, at David Lindsay’s buith, shoeing his horse, being altogether
careless of his awn surety, seeing there was naething intendit again
him by the said laird divers times of before when they met upon the
Hie Gait; the said laird, being advertised by his espies and moyeners,
divided his haill friends and servants in twa companies, and directit
John and Robert Tweedie, his brothers-german,[176] Patrick Porteous of
Hawkshaw, John Crichton of Quarter, Charles Tweedie, household servant
to the said James, and Hob Jardine, to Cow’s Close, being directly
opposite to David Lindsay’s buith, and he himself, being accompanied
with John and Adam Tweedie, sons to the Guidman of Dreva, passed to the
Kirk Wynd, a little bewest the said buith, to await that the said James
sould not have escaped; and baith the companies, being convenit at the
foot of the said close, finding the said James standing at the buith
door with his back to them, they rushit out of the said close, and with
shots of pistolets slew him behind his back.’
The guilty parties were summoned, and, not appearing, were denounced as
rebels.
In June 1593, we find James Tweedie of Drumelzier released from
Edinburgh Castle, under surety that he should presently enter himself
in ward in the sheriffdom of Fife. We next hear of the two belligerent
parties in January 1600, when they were commanded to come and subscribe
letters of assurance ‘for the feid and inimitie standing betwixt them.’
The king seems to have been content with the consideration that they
had now done pretty full justice upon each other, and it was therefore
unnecessary for him to trouble himself any further in the matter. It
was probably with some surprise that, many years after, while residing
in England, he heard that these two Tweeddale clans continued to keep
up their feud. (See under March 1611.)
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JULY 22.]
Two extraordinary trials took place, affording the most striking
illustrations of the vices and superstitions of the time.
The family of Monro of Foulis, in Ross-shire, which still flourishes,
was even then one of great antiquity, being represented by the
seventeenth baron in succession. Holding possessions on the borders of
the Highlands, it hovered between the characters of the Celtic chief
and the Lowland gentleman. Ross of Balnagowan was a rich neighbour
of similar character. The _Lady Foulis_ of the year 1576--to use her
common appellation--was Catherine Ross of the latter family, the second
wife of her husband. She had a son named George; but the succession
was barred to him by two sons of the previous marriage of her husband,
Robert and Hector.
[Sidenote: 1590.]
Her husband and his eldest son were dead when, at the above date, she
and Hector, then representative of the family, were tried separately
for sundry offences, Hector being, strange to say, the private pursuer
against his step-mother, although he had immediately after to take
his own place at the bar as a criminal. The dittay against the lady
set forth a series of attempts at serious crime, partly prosecuted by
natural means, and partly by superstitious practices. It appeared that
she desired to put her eldest step-son out of the way, not, as might
have been supposed, to favour the succession of her own offspring,
but that her brother, George Ross of Balnagowan, might be free to
marry Robert Monro’s wife; to which end she also took steps for the
removal of the wife of George Ross. It appears that she was not only
prompted to, but assisted in her attempts by George Ross himself,
although no judicial notice was taken of his criminality. Catherine
Ross, described as daughter of Sir David Ross of Balnagowan, was
also concerned. Having formed her design some time in the year 1576,
Lady Foulis opened negotiations with various wretched persons in her
neighbourhood, who practised witchcraft; and first with one named
William M‘Gillivray, whom she feed with a present of linen cloth, and
afterwards with sums of money. One Agnes Roy, a notorious witch, was
sent by her to secure the services of a particularly potent sorceress,
named Marion M‘Kean M’Alister, or more commonly _Lasky Loncart_, who
was brought to Foulis, and lodged with Christian Ross Malcomson, that
she might assist with her diabolic arts. Christian, too, was sent to
Dingwall, to bring John M‘Nillan, who appears to have been a wizard
of note. Another, named Thomas M‘Kean M‘Allan M‘Endrick, was taken
into counsel; besides whom there were a few subordinate instruments.
Some of the horrible crew being assembled at Canorth, images of the
young Laird of Foulis and the young Lady Balnagowan were formed of
butter, set up and shot at by Lasky Loncart with an _elf-arrow_; that
is, one of those flint arrow-heads which are occasionally found, and
believed by the ignorant to be fairy weapons, while in reality they
are relics of our savage ancestors. The shot was repeated eight times,
but without hitting the images; so this was regarded as a failure. On
another day, images of clay were set up, and shot at twelve times, yet
equally without effect. Linen cloth had been provided, wherewith to
have swathed the images in the event of their being hit; after which
they would have been interred under the bridge-end of the stank of
Foulis. The object of all these proceedings was of course to produce
the destruction of the persons represented by the images. This plan
being ineffectual, Lady Foulis and her brother are described as soon
after holding a meeting in a kiln at Drimnin, to arrange about further
procedure. The result was a resolution to try the more direct means
of poison with both the obnoxious persons. A stoup of poisoned ale
was prepared and set aside, but was nearly all lost by a leak in the
vessel. Lady Foulis then procured from Lasky Loncart a pipkin of ranker
poison, which she sent to young Monro by her nurse on purpose to have
destroyed him. It fell by the way and broke, when the nurse tasting
the liquor, was immediately killed by it. It was said that ‘the place
where the pig [pipkin] brake, the gerse that grew upon the samen was
so heich bye [beyond] the nature of other gerse, that neither cow
nor sheep ever previt [tasted] thereof yet; whilk is manifest and
notorious to the haill country of Ross.’ Lady Foulis is accused of
afterwards making renewed attempts, not merely to poison young Monro,
but many of his relations, particularly those who stood in the way
of her own son’s succession. There seems, however, to have been no
success in this quarter. Matters turned out better with the innocent
young Lady Balnagowan. Regarding her, Lady Foulis is represented as
thus expressing herself, that ‘she would do, by all kind of means,
wherever it might be had, of God in heaven or the devil in hell, for
the destruction and down-putting of Marjory Campbell.’ By corrupting a
cook, Lady Foulis contrived that some rat-poison should be administered
to her victim in a dish of kid’s kidneys. Catherine Niven, who had
brought this poison, ‘scunnerit [revolted] with it sae meikle, that
she said it was the sairest and maist cruel sight that ever she saw,
seeing the vomit and vexation that was on the young Lady Balnagowan and
her company.’ By vomiting, death seems to have been evaded, but the
lady contracted in consequence what is described at the trial as an
incurable illness.
[Sidenote: 1590.]
Not long after these events, they became the subject of judicial
investigation, and Christian Ross and Thomas M‘Kean were apprehended,
brought to trial, convicted, and burnt, November 1577. It is alleged
that, a few days before they suffered, Lady Foulis came into their
presence, and referring to the common reports against her, accusing
her of sorcery and poisoning, declared herself ready to abide a trial;
when, there being no one present to accuse her, she asked instruments
to that effect; after which, mounting a horse which had been kept
ready, she rode away to Caithness, and remained there three-quarters
of a year. By the intercession of the Earl of Caithness, she was then
taken back by her husband; and there seems to have been no further
notice taken of her case for several years. At length, in 1589, her
husband being dead, his successor, Robert Monro, purchased a commission
for the trial of certain witches and sorcerers, aiming evidently at
retribution upon his wicked step-mother. According to the dittay:
‘Before any publication thereof, and ere he might have convenient time
to put the same in execution, in respect of the troubles that occurred
in the north, thou, knawing thyself guilty, and fearing to bide the
trial of ane assize, fand the moyen [found the means] to purchase
ane suspension of the said commission; and causit insert in the said
suspension, not only thy awn name, and sic others as was specified in
the said commission, but also certain others who were not spoken of ...
whilk, gif thou had been ane honest woman, and willing to abide trial,
thou wald never have causit suspension of ony sic commission, but
wald rather have fortherit the same.’ In the same year, Robert Monro
died, under what circumstances does not appear, leaving the succession
to his brother Hector, who now appeared as nominal prosecutor of his
mother-in-law.
In the circumstances under which the trial took place, the jury being a
packed one of humble dependents on the Foulis family, a conviction was
not to be expected. Lady Foulis was ‘pronounced to be innocent and quit
of the haill points of the dittay; whereupon she asked instruments.’
The dittay against Hector Monro of Foulis sets forth sundry affairs
of necromancy, in which he was alleged to have been concerned along
with reputed sorcerers. He had, in August 1588, communed with three
notorious witches for the recovery of his elder brother, the then young
laird. For this purpose, they ‘pollit the hair of Robert Monro, and
plet the nails of his fingers and taes;’ seeking by these devilish
means to have cured him of his sickness. Meeting no success, they told
him he had been too late in sending for them. He, for fear of his
father, conveyed them away under silence of night.
[Sidenote: 1590.]
Having himself taken sickness in the ensuing January, while lying
at a house in Alness, he had Marion M‘Ingarroch, a notorious witch,
brought to him for the purpose of obtaining the benefit of her skill.
‘She, after her coming to you,’ says the dittay, ‘gave you three
drinks of water forth of three stanes, whilk she had; and, after lang
consultation had with her, she declarit that there was nae remede for
you to recover your health, without the principal man of your blude
should suffer death for you.’ Having pitched upon his half-brother
George, he sent for him from the hunting, and, as a means of working
his destruction, gave his left hand into George’s right hand, taking
care at the same time not to be the first to speak. ‘That night, at ane
after midnight, the said witch, with certain of her complices, passed
forth of the house where ye lay, and took with them spades, and passed
to ane piece of earth, lying betwixt twa sundry superiors’ lands ...
and made ane grave of your length, and took up the ower [upper] part
thereof, and laid it aside; the said earth being near the sea-flood.
And, this being done, she came hame, and convenit certain of your
familiars, that knew thir secrets, and informit them what should be
every ane’s part, in taking of you forth to be eardit in the foresaid
grave, for your relief and to the death of your brother George.
Whase [that is, the accused’s] answer was, that gif George should
depart suddenly, the bruit [report] wald rise, and all thir lives wald
be in danger; and therefore willit her to delay the said George’s death
ane space; and she took in hand to warrant him unto the 17th day of
April next thereafter. And after thir plats, laid by the said witch,
she and certain of your servants ... pat you in ane pair of blankets,
and carried you forth to the said grave. And they were all commanded to
be dumb and never to speak ane word, unto the time that she and your
foster-mother should first speak with her master, the devil. And being
brought forth, [you] was laid in the said grave; and the green earth
which was cuttit, was laid aboon, and halden down with staves, the
said witch being beside you.... Christian Neill, your foster-mother,
was commanded to run the breadth of nine rigs, and in her hand Neill
younger, Hector Leith’s son. And, how soon Christian had run the
breadth of the nine rigs, she came again to the grave, and inquirit at
the said witch, “Whilk was her choice?” Wha answered and said, that Mr
Hector was her choice to live, and your brother George to die for you.
And this form was used thrice that night; and thereafter ye was carried
hame, all the company being dumb, and was put in your bed.’
Contrary to what one would expect of an invalid exposed in this manner
on a January night, Hector Monro recovered. His brother George took
ill in April 1590, and lingered to the beginning of July, when he
died. No doubt being entertained that his mortal illness was caused by
witchcraft, his mother, the subject of the preceding trial, appears to
have immediately commenced a prosecution against Hector, now laird;
and the result was a trial following immediately that in which he had
appeared as prosecutor against her. This trial had the same issue as
the other, the jury being composed in a similar manner.--_Pit._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1590.