Commenced ‘ane horrible tempest of snaw, whilk lay upon the ground till
the 14[th] of April thereafter.’--_Bir._
‘John Gilchrist, Henderson, and Hutton, all three [were] hangit for
making of false writs and pressing to verify the same. Jun. 11. Ane
callit Cuming the Monk [was] hangit for making of false writs.’--_Bir._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JULY.]
[Sidenote: JULY 12.]
Two gentlemen of Stirlingshire, one named Bruce, the other Forester,
happened to love one woman, about whom they and their respective
friends consequently quarrelled. At a meeting held by the parties with
a view to composing differences, Bruce was hurt. Then the ‘clannit men’
of the names of Livingstone and Bruce in the Carse of Falkirk banded
themselves together for revenge. A bailie of Stirling, named Forester,
who had had no concern in the dispute, was soon after about to journey
from Edinburgh to Stirling, when the friends of the deceased ‘belaid
all the hieways for his return.’ Before he had gone many miles, they
set upon him, and with sword and gun slew him. The most remarkable
part of the affair was what followed. Forester being a special servant
of the Earl of Mar, it was resolved that he should be buried with
solemnity in Stirling. The corpse was met at Linlithgow by the earl
and a large party of friends, with displayed banner, and in ‘effeir of
weir.’ On their journey to Stirling, they passed through the lands of
Livingstone and Bruce, exhibiting ‘a picture of the defunct on a fair
canvas, painted with the number of the shots and wounds, to appear
the more horrible to the behalders, and this way they completed his
burial.’[202]--_H. K. J._
Another curious circumstance followed. The parties involved in the
homicide had a _day of law_ appointed for them in Edinburgh, December
20th, and they, in customary style, summoned their respective friends
to be present. A great attendance was expected; but the Privy Council,
knowing there was deadly feid between a great number of them,
‘feirit that, upon the first occasion of their meeting, some great
inconvenients sall fall out, to the break of his hieness’ peace, and
troubling of the guid and quiet estate of the country[!], beside the
hindering of justice,’ forbade the coming of such persons to Edinburgh
under pain of ‘deid without favour.’--_P. C. R._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: AUG. 1.]
[Sidenote: 1595.]
Complaint was made to the Town Council of Edinburgh by the corporation
of surgeons, against M. Awin, a French surgeon, for practising his
art within the liberties of the city. He was ordered to desist, under
a penalty, except for certain branches of surgery--namely, cutting
for the stone, curing of ruptures, couching of cataracts, curing the
pestilence, and diseases of women consequent on childbirth.[203]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: SEP.]
[Sidenote: SEP. 13.]
The violences of the age extended even to school-boys. The ‘scholars
and gentlemen’s sons’ of the High School of Edinburgh had at this time
occasion to complain of some abridgment of their wonted period of
vacation, and when they applied to the Town Council for an extension of
what they called their ‘privilege,’ only three days in addition to the
restricted number of fourteen were granted. It appears that the master
was favourable to their suit, but he was ‘borne down and abused by the
Council, who never understood well what privilege belonged to that
charge. Some of the chief gentlemen’s sons resolved to make a mutiny,
and one day, the master being on necessary business a mile or two off
the town, they came in the evening with all necessary provision, and
entered the school, manned the same, took in with them some fencible
weapons, with powder and bullet, and renforcit the doors, refusing to
let [any] man come there, either master or magistrate, untill their
privilege were fairly granted.’--_Pa. And._
A night passed over. Next morning, ‘some men of the town came to
these scholars, desiring them to give over, and to come forth upon
composition; affirming that they should intercede to obtein them the
license of other eight days’ playing. But the scholars replied that
they were mocked of the first eight days’ privilege ... they wald
either have the residue of the days granted for their pastime, or
else they wald not give over. This answer was consulted upon by the
magistrates, and notified to the ministers; and the ministers gave
their counsel that they should be letten alone, and some men should be
depute to attend about the house to keep them from vivres, sae that
they should be compelled to render by extremity of hunger.’--_H. K. J._
[Sidenote: 1595.]
A day having passed in this manner, the Council lost patience, and
determined to use strong measures. Headed by Bailie John Macmoran, and
attended by a posse of officers, they came to the school, which was a
long, low building standing on the site of the ancient Blackfriars’
monastery. The bailie at first called on the boys in a peaceable
manner to open the doors. They refused, and asked for their master,
protesting they would acknowledge him at his return, but no other
person. ‘The bailies began to be angry, and called for a great jeist
to prize up the back-door. The scholars bade them beware, and wished
them to desist and leave off that violence, or else they vowed to God
they should put a pair of bullets through the best of their cheeks. The
bailies, believing they durst not shoot, continued still to prize the
door, boasting with many threatening words. The scholars perceiving
nothing but extremity, one Sinclair the chancellor of Caithness’ son,
presented a gun from a window, direct opposite to the bailies’ faces,
boasting them and calling them _buttery carles_. Off goeth the charged
gun. [The bullet] pierced John Macmoran through his head, and presently
killed him, so that he fell backward straight to the ground, without
speech at all.’[204]
‘When the scholars heard of this mischance, they were all moved to
clamour, and gave over. Certain of them escaped, and the rest were
carried to prison by the magistrates in great fury, and escaped weel
unslain at that instant. Upon the morn, the said Sinclair was brought
to the bar, and was there accused of that slaughter; but he denied
the same constantly. Divers honest friends convenit, and assisted
him.’[205] The relatives of Macmoran being rich, money-offers were
of no avail in the case: life for life was what they sought for.
‘Friends threatened death to all the people of Edinburgh(!) if they did
the child any harm, saying they were not wise that meddled with the
scholars, especially the gentlemen’s sons. They should have committed
that charge to the master, who knew best the truest remedy without any
harm at all.’
[Sidenote: 1595.]
Lord Sinclair, as head of the family to which the young culprit
belonged, now came forward in his behalf, and, by his intercession,
the king wrote to the magistrates, desiring them to delay proceedings.
Afterwards, the process was transferred to the Privy Council.
Meanwhile, the other youths, seven in number, the chief of whom were a
son of Murray of Spainyiedale and a son of Pringle of Whitebank, were
kept in confinement upwards of two months, while a debate took place
between the magistrates and the friends of the culprits as to a fair
assize; it being alleged that one composed of citizens would be partial
against the boys. The king commanded that an assize of gentlemen
should be chosen, and, in the end, they, as well as Sinclair, got clear
off.
The culprit became Sir William Sinclair of Mey. He married Catherine
Ross of Balnagowan, whom we have seen unpleasantly mixed up in the
charges against Lady Foulis, under July 22, 1590.
[Illustration: Bailie Macmoran’s House.]
[Sidenote: 1595.]
‘Macmoran,’ says Calderwood, ‘was the richest merchant in his time, but
not gracious to the common people, because he carried victual to Spain,
notwithstanding he was often admonished by the ministers to refrain.’
It would appear that he had been a servant of the Regent Morton, and
afterwards was what is called a messenger, or sheriff’s officer.[206]
We have also seen that, after the fall of Morton, he was reported
to have been concerned in secreting the treasures which had been
accumulated by his former master.[207] His house, still standing in
Riddell’s Close in the Lawnmarket, Edinburgh, gives the idea that the
style of living of a rich Scottish merchant of that day was far from
being mean or despicable.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: SEP. 22.]
‘Among the constancies of the court this year, one was remarkable,
that at Glasgow, in September, the king received the Countess of
Bothwell into his favour, the 22d day, at night; and on the 3d of
December, again proscribed and exiled her, under the pain of death; yet
gave her a letter of protection, under his awn hand, within six days
thereafter.’--_Bal._
This inconstancy is partly explained away in the Privy Council Record,
where it is stated that the countess abused the privilege of the letter
granted to her by going about where she pleased and vaunting of her
credit with the king, while in reality it was designed only to serve
‘for remaining of herself and her bairns within the place of Mostour,
that her friends might sometime have resorted to her without danger to
his hieness’s laws.’
* * * * *
[Sidenote: OCT.]
James Lord Hay of Yester, brother and successor of the turbulent Master
of Yester already introduced to the reader, kept state in Neidpath
Castle, with his wife, but as yet unblessed with progeny.[208] His
presumptive heir was his second-cousin, Hay of Smithfield, ancestor of
the present Sir Adam Hay of Haystoun. In these circumstances, occasion
was given for a curious series of proceedings, involving the fighting
of a regular passage of arms on a neighbouring plain beside the
Tweed--a simple pastoral scene, where few could now dream that any such
incident had ever taken place.
[Sidenote: 1595.]
Lord Yester had for his page one George Hepburn, brother of the parson
of Oldhamstocks in East Lothian. His master-of-the-horse--for such
officers were then retained in houses of this rank--was John Brown of
Hartree. One day, Brown, in conversation with Hepburn, remarked: ‘Your
father had good knowledge of physic: I think you should have some
also.’ ‘What mean ye by that?’ said Hepburn. ‘You might have great
advantage by something,’ answered Brown. On being further questioned,
the latter stated that, seeing Lord Yester had no children, and Hay
of Smithfield came next in the entail, it was only necessary to give
the former a suitable dose in order to make the latter Lord Yester.
‘If you,’ continued Brown, ‘could give him some poison, you should be
nobly rewarded, you and yours.’ ‘Methinks that were no good physic,’
quoth Hepburn drily, and soon after revealed the project to his lord.
Brown, on being taxed with it, stood stoutly on his denial. Hepburn as
strongly insisted that the proposal had been made to him. For such a
case, there was no solution but the _duellium_.
Due authority being obtained, a regular and public combat was arranged
to take place on Edston-haugh, near Neidpath. The two combatants were
to fight in their doublets, mounted, with spears and swords. Some of
the greatest men of the country took part in the affair, and honoured
it with their presence. The Laird of Buccleuch appeared as judge for
Brown; Hepburn had, on his part, the Laird of Cessford. The Lords
Yester and Newbottle were amongst those officiating. When all was
ready, the two combatants rode full tilt against each other with their
spears, when Brown missed Hepburn, and was thrown from his horse with
his adversary’s weapon through his body. Having grazed his thigh in
the charge, Hepburn did not immediately follow up his advantage, but
suffered Brown to lie unharmed on the ground. ‘Fy!’ cried one of the
judges, ‘alight and take amends of thy enemy!’ He then advanced on foot
with his sword in his hand to Brown, and commanded him to confess the
truth. ‘Stay,’ cried Brown, ‘till I draw the broken spear out of my
body.’ This being done, Brown suddenly drew his sword, and struck at
Hepburn, who for some time was content to ward off his strokes, but at
last dealt him a backward wipe across the face, when the wretched man,
blinded with blood, fell to the ground. The judges then interfered to
prevent him from being further punished by Hepburn; but he resolutely
refused to make any confession.[209]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1595.]
About this time and for some time onward, Scotland underwent the
pangs of a dearth of extraordinary severity, in consequence of the
destruction of the crops by heavy rains in autumn. Birrel speaks of
it as a famine, ‘the like whereof was never heard tell of in any age
before, nor ever read of since the world was made.’ ‘In this month of
October and November,’ he adds, ‘the wheat and malt at £10 the boll; in
March thereafter [1596], the ait meal £10 the boll, the humble corn £7
the boll. In the month of May, the ait meal £20 the boll in Galloway.
At this time there came victual out of other parts in sic abundance,
that, betwixt the 1st of July and the 10th of August, there came into
Leith three score and six ships laden with victual; nevertheless, the
rye gave £10, 10s. and £11 the boll. The 2 of September, the rye came
down and was sold for £7 the boll, and new ait meal for 7s. and 7s.
6d. the peck The 29 of October, the ait meal came up again at 10s. the
peck. The 15 of July, the ait meal at 13s. 4d. the peck; the pease meal
at 11s. the peck.
‘In this year, Clement Orr and Robert Lumsden, his grandson, bought
before hand from the Earl Marischal, the bear meal overhead for 33s.
4d. the boll.’ ‘The ministers pronounced the curse of God against
them, as grinders of the faces of the poor; which curse too manifestly
lighted on them before their deaths.’--_Bal._
As usual, the buying up and withholding of grain with the prospect of
increased prices, was viewed with indignation by all classes of people.
The king issued a proclamation in December 1595, attributing much of
the misery of his people to ‘the avaritious greediness of a great
number of persons that has bought and buys victual afore it come off
the grund, and that forestalls and keeps the same to a dearth,’ and
to ‘the shameless and indiscreet behaviour of the owners of the same
victual, wha refuses to thresh out and bring the same to open markets.’
He threatened to put the laws in force against these guilty persons,
and have the grain escheat to his majesty’s use.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: DEC. 23.]
[Sidenote: 1595.]
The king professed to be at this time scandalised at the state of the
commonweal, ‘altogether disorderit and shaken louss by reason of the
deidly feids and controversies standing amangs his subjects of all
degrees.’ Seeing how murder had consequently become a daily occurrence,
he resolved upon a new and vigorous effort to bring the hostile
parties to a reconciliation ‘by his awn pains and travel to that
effect,’ so that the country might be the better fitted to resist the
common enemy, now threatening invasion. The Privy Council, therefore,
ordained letters to be sent charging the various parties to make their
appearance before the king on certain days, wherever he might be for
the time, each accompanied by a certain number of friends who might
assist with their advice, but the whole party in each case ‘to keep
their lodgings after their coming, while [till] they be specially sent
for by his majesty.’
The groups of persons summoned were, Robert Master of Eglintoun, and
Patrick Houston of that Ilk; James Earl of Glencairn, and Cunningham of
Glengarnock; John Earl of Montrose, and French of Thorniedykes; Hugh
Campbell of Loudon, sheriff of Ayr, Sandielands of Calder, Sir James
Sandielands of Slamannan, Crawford of Kerse, and Spottiswoode of that
Ilk; David Earl of Crawford and Guthrie of that Ilk; Sir Thomas Lyon
of Auldbar, knight, and Garden of that Ilk; Alexander Lord Livingston,
Sir Alexander Bruce, elder, of Airth, and Archibald Colquhoun of Luss;
John Earl of Mar, Alexander Forester of Garden, and Andro M‘Farlane
of Arrochar; James Lord Borthwick, Preston of Craigmiller, Mr George
Lauder of Bass, and Charles Lauder son of umwhile Andro Lauder in
Wyndpark; Sir John Edmonston of that Ilk, Maister William Cranston,
younger, of that Ilk; George Earl Marischal and Seyton of Meldrum;
James Cheyne of Straloch and William King of Barrach; James Tweedie of
Drumelzier and Charles Geddes of Rachan. The nobles in every instance
were allowed to have sixty, and the commoners twenty-four persons to
accompany them to the place of agreement, and all, while attending,
to have protection from any process of horning or excommunication
which might have been previously passed upon them. Fire and sword was
threatened against all neglecting to comply with the summons.
Earnest as the king seems now to have been, and influential as a royal
tongue proverbially is, we know for certain that several of the parties
now summoned continued afterwards at enmity.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1595-6.