‘The king’s majesty came to Perth, and was made burgess at the
mercat-cross. There was ane puncheon of wine set there, and all drucken
out. He receivit the banquet frae the town, and subscribit the guild
book with his awn hand--“JACOBUS REX: PARCERE SUBJECTIS, ET DEBELLARE
SUPERBOS.”’--_Chron. Perth_.
John Watt, Deacon of the deacons in Edinburgh, or he would have
latterly been called Convener of the Trades, was shot dead on the
Burgh-moor. This was the same gallant official who raised the trades
for the protection of the king at the celebrated tumult of the 17th
December 1596. One Alexander Slummon, a by-stander, was tried for the
murder, but found innocent. We are told by Calderwood that Watt, having
offered to invade the person of the minister, Robert Bruce, was well
liked by the king, who accordingly was _exact_ in regard to Slummon’s
trial. The historian also relates that ‘the judgment threatened against
this man by Mr Robert Bruce came to pass.’ Such threatenings or
prognostications of judgments are of course very likely to bring their
own fulfilment.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: APR. 24.]
‘Sundry Jesuits, seminary priests, and trafficking papists, enemies to
God’s truth and all Christian government,’ were stated to be at this
time ‘daily creeping within the country,’ with the design, ‘by their
godless practices, not only to disturb the estate of the true religion,
but also his hieness’ awn estate, and the common quietness of the
realm.’--_P. C. R._
William Barclay, a new-made advocate, brother of Sir Patrick Barclay of
Tollie, was tried in Edinburgh for the crime of being present at ‘twa
messes whilk were said by Mr Alex. M‘Whirrie, ane Jesuit priest, within
Andro Napier’s dwelling-house in Edinburgh,’ aggravated by perjury,
he having some time before sworn and subscribed before the presbytery
of Edinburgh, that he was of the religion presently professed within
the realm. The culprit was declared infamous, and banished from the
country, ‘never to return to the same, unless, by satisfaction of the
kirk, he obtain our special licence to that effect.’--_Pit._ _Cal._
A week later, Malcolm Laing and Henry Gibson, servants of the Marquis
of Huntly, confessing their having been present ‘at the late mass
within the burgh of Edinburgh,’ were adjudged by the Council to
banishment for life. At the same time, two female servants of the
marchioness having made similar confession, the Council, ‘seeing their
remaining with the said _marquesse_ may procure a forder sclander to
the kirk,’ ordained that her ladyship should remove them from her
company, and no more receive them, under pain of rebellion.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: APR. 27.]
[Sidenote: 1601.]
‘... Archibald Cornwall, town-officer, hangit at the Cross, and hung
on the gibbet twenty-four hours; and the cause wherefore he was
hangit--He being an unmerciful greedy creature, he poindit ane honest
man’s house, and among the rest, he poindit the king and queen’s
pictures; and when he came to the Cross to comprise the same, he
hung them up upon twa nails on the same gallows to be comprisit; and
they being seen, word gaed to the king and queen, whereupon he was
apprehendit and hangit.’--_Bir._
Cornwall sustained a regular trial before a jury, eight of whom were
tailors. The dittay bears that ‘in treasonable contempt and disdain of
his majesty, he stood up upon ane furm or buird, beside the gibbet, and
called [drove] ane nail therein, as heich as he could reach it, and
lifted up his hieness’ portraitor foresaid, and held the same upon the
gibbet, pressing to have hung the same thereon, and to have left it
there, as an ignominious spectacle to the haill world, gif he had not
been stayed by the just indignation of the haill people, menacing to
stane him dead, and pulling him perforce frae the gibbet.’
The punishment goes so monstrously beyond the apparent offence, that
one is led to suspect something which does not appear. The ‘honest
man’ whose goods were taken might be a known friend of the king, while
Cornwall was known to be the reverse. It was perhaps inferred that
the ‘unmerciful greedy creature’ was only too ready to embrace the
opportunity of holding up the king to contempt. These remarks are only
meant to suggest motives, not to justify the severity of the punishment.
The gibbet on which the portrait had been hung--as something rendered
horrible by that profanity--was ‘taken down and burnt with fire.’
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1601.]
[Sidenote: APR. 27.]
James Wood, _fiar_--that is, heir--of Bonnington, in Forfarshire, was
a Catholic, and received excommunication on that account a few years
before. He had at the same time had quarrels with his father regarding
questions of property. In March of the present year, he again drew
observation upon himself by coming to Edinburgh and attending the
mass in Andrew Napier’s house. It was further alleged of him that he
had harboured a seminary priest. On the 16th of March, accompanied
by his brother-in-law, William Wood of Latoun, by two blacksmiths
named Daw, and some other persons, he broke into his father’s house,
and took therefrom certain legal papers belonging to the Lady Usen,
besides a quantity of clothes, napery, and blankets. The circumstances
connected with this act, did we know them, would probably extenuate the
criminality. The father made no movement to prosecute his son. He was,
however, tried along with Wood of Latoun before an assize in Edinburgh;
when both were found guilty, and condemned to be hanged. Wood of Latoun
obtained a remission, and great interest was made for the principal
culprit by the Catholic nobles, Huntly, Errol, and Home. James might
have listened favourably, and been content, as in Kincaid’s case, with
a good fine payable ‘to us and our treasurer;’ but ‘the ministers were
instant with the king, to have a proof of his sincerity:’ so says
Calderwood, without telling us whether it was his sincerity against
papists or his sincerity against malefactors in general that was meant.
The young man regarded himself, by admission of the same author, as
suffering for the Catholic religion--though, perhaps, he only meant
that, but for his being a papist, his actual guilt would not have been
punished so severely. He was beheaded at the Cross at six o’clock in
the morning, ‘ever looking for pardon to the last gasp.’--_Pit._ _Cal._
_Bir._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MAY.]
The General Assembly arranged that certain ministers should go to the
Catholic nobles, Huntly, Errol, Angus, Home, and Herries, and plant
themselves in their families for the purpose of converting them from
their errors. These ministers were to labour at all times for this
object by preaching, reading, and expounding, and by purging the said
houses of profane and scandalous persons. They were also to catechise
their families twice a day, ‘till they attain some good reasonable
measure of knowledge.’--_Row._
It fully appears that this arrangement was carried into effect. We find
in 1604 that Lord Gordon, the eldest son of the Marquis of Huntly, and
the Master of Caithness, eldest son of the Earl of Caithness, were
being brought up together, under the care of two pedagogues, Thomas
Gordon and John Sinclair, who were compelled to declare themselves
adherents of the reformed faith, and examined as to the nature of the
religious instructions which they imparted. John Sinclair admitted
that, in France, he had gone to mass, but only for the purpose of
seeing the king there. The mass itself he professed to ‘abhor and
detest frae his heart.’ The two pedagogues stated that they instructed
the two young nobles in grammar and oratory, and on Sunday trained
them by a little catechism, besides reading and expounding of the New
Testament.--_A. P. R._
[Sidenote: 1601.]
In 1609, to insure that the sons of noblemen sent abroad under
preceptors, should not be liable to have their religious convictions
perverted, it was enacted by parliament that no preceptor could
lawfully undertake such a duty without a licence from the bishop of his
diocese.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JUNE.]
An effort was made at this time by the burghs to introduce a
cloth-manufacture into Scotland. Seven Flemings were engaged to settle
in the country, in order to set the work agoing, six of them being for
says, and the seventh for broadcloth. When the men came, expecting to
be immediately set to work in Edinburgh, a delay arose while it was
debated whether they should not be dispersed among the principal towns,
in order to diffuse their instructions as widely as possible. We find
the strangers on the 28th of July, complaining to the Privy Council
that they were neither entertained nor set to work, and that it was
proposed to sunder them, ‘whilk wald be a grit hinder to the perfection
of the wark.’
The Council decreed that ‘the haill strangers brought hame for this
errand sall be halden together within the burgh of Edinburgh, and put
to work conform to the conditions past betwix the said strangers and
the commissioners wha dealt with them.’ Meanwhile, till they should
begin their work, the Council ordained ‘the bailies of Edinburgh to
entertene them in meat and drink,’ though this should be paid back to
them by the other burghs, and the strangers were at the same time to be
allowed to undertake any other work for their own benefit.--_P. C. R._
On the 11th of September, the burghs had done nothing to ‘effectuat the
claith working,’ and the Council declared that unless they should have
made a beginning by Michaelmas, the royal privilege would be withdrawn.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: AUG.]
[Sidenote: 1601.]
The bare, half-moorish uplands of Buchan, in Aberdeenshire, are varied,
on the course of the river Ythan, by a deep woody dell, on the edge of
which is perched an ancient baronial castle, named Gight. Here dwelt
a branch of the noble house of Huntly--the GORDONS OF GIGHT--noted in
modern literary history by reason of the heiress, in whom the line
ended, having thrown herself and her family property into the arms
of a certain spendthrift named Byron, by whom she became the mother
of one who flourished as the most noted poet of his day.[270] The
old castellated house in which these lairds lived, and the moderate
estate which gave them subsistence, have for seventy years been part
of the possessions of the Earl of Aberdeen, for whose visitors the
ruined walls and the wildering dell are now merely matters of holiday
interest.[271] At the time of which we are speaking, the Laird of Gight
was a personage of some local importance, a baron of the house of
Gordon, a noted supporter of the marquis in all his enterprises; above
all, a man deeply offensive to the government of his day, on account of
his obstinate adherence to popery.
The kirk had levelled its artillery at George Gordon, the young laird,
for a long time in vain; he had always hitherto contrived to put them
off with fair promises. Now at length the presbytery of Aberdeen
met in a stern mood, and appeared as if it would be trifled with no
longer. Gordon, feeling that his means of resistance were failing,
wrote a pleading letter to the reverend court, telling how he was
deadly diseased, and unable to leave the country, but was willing, if
agreeable to them, to confine himself within a mile of his own house,
‘and receipt nane wha is excommunicat (my bedfellow excepted);’ or he
would go into confinement anywhere else, and confer with Protestant
clergymen as soon as his sickness would permit. ‘I persuade myself,’
he adds, ‘you will nocht be hasty in pronouncing the sentence of
excommunication against me, for I knaw undoubtedly that sentence will
prejudge my warldly estate, and will be ane great motive to you in
the kirk of Scotland to crave my blude.’ He concludes: ‘If it shall
please his majesty and your wisdoms of the Kirk of Scotland sae to
tak my blude for my profession, whilk is Catholic Roman, I will maist
willingly offer it; and, gif sae be, God grant me constancy to abide
the same.’ This letter proved unsatisfactory to the court, seeing it
‘made nae offer that micht move them to stay from the excommunication.’
Therefore, the court in one voice concluded that, unless Gordon came
forward in eight days with sufficient surety for either subscribing or
departing, he should be excommunicated without further delay.
[Sidenote: 1601.]
While thus appearing as willing to be martyrs for religious principle,
the Gight Gordons were no better in secular morality than many of the
Presbyterian leaders of the past age. Indeed, they appear to have been
men of fully as wild and passionate temper as their descendant, the
mother of the poet. Having, for some reason which does not appear, a
spite at Magnus Mowat of Balquhollie, the laird and two of his younger
sons had, in June this year, gone with a large armed and mounted
company to his lands, and destroyed all the growing crops. Following
upon this, they conceived mortal wrath against Alexander Copeland and
Ralph Ainslie, inhabitants of the village of Turriff, probably in
consequence of some circumstances in connection with the above outrage.
On the 18th of July, John Gordon, the second son, came to Turriff with
a friend and a servant, and, attacking these men with deadly weapons,
wounded the latter past hope of his life. The minister came out and
interfered in behalf of peace, promising that the whole inhabitants
should be answerable for any injury the men had done. But though
the Gordons left the village for the time, they returned in greater
strength at midnight--and on this occasion both the laird and his
eldest son were present--broke into the house of William Duffus, and
bringing him forth to the street ‘sark-allane,’ there had nearly taken
his life by firing at him a charge of small-shot.
Alexander Chalmer, messenger, went on the 27th of September to deliver
letters to the Laird of Gight and others, commanding them to appear
and answer for these frightful outrages. He was returning quietly from
the house, ‘lippening for nae harm or pursuit,’ when he found himself
followed by a number of armed servants, and was presently seized and
dragged before the laird. The ferocious baron clapped a pistol to
the man’s breast, and seemed of intent to shoot him, when some one
mercifully put aside the weapon. ‘He then harlit him within his hall,
took the copy of the said letters, whilk he supposed to have been the
principal letters, and cast them in a dish of broe [broth], and forcit
the officer to sup and swallow them,’ holding a dagger at the heart
all the time. Afterwards, the laird, being informed that the principal
letters were yet extant, ‘came to the officer in a new rage and fury,
rave the principal letters out of his sleeve, rave them in pieces, and
cast them in the fire.’
[Sidenote: 1601.]
When King James was at Brechin in the latter part of October, the Laird
of Gight failing to appear to answer for these outrages, a horning was
launched against him. At the same time, the young laird was accused of
having reset John Hamilton, a notorious trafficking Jesuit, and was
commanded to enter himself in ward in Montrose on that account. Surety
was given that he would do so. A few days later, the Privy Council took
into consideration the Turriff outrages, and commissioned the Earl of
Errol to raise a body of men in arms to proceed against the Gordons
and their abettors, but not till the 15th of November. How the matter
ended, does not appear; but for further matters concerning the Gight
Gordons, see under date 20th January 1607.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: SEP. or OCT.]
Among the many men of name pursuing lawless and violent courses, one of
the most noted was George Meldrum, younger, of Dumbreck. In 1599, he
set upon his brother Andrew at the Milltown of Dumbreck, and wounded
him grievously, after which he carried him away, and detained him as
a prisoner for several weeks. In the ensuing year, he had committed
a similar attack upon Andrew Meldrum of Auchquharties, conveying him
as a malefactor from Aberdeenshire to the house of one Fyfe, on the
Burgh-moor of Edinburgh, where he was kept several days, and till he
contrived to make his escape. Law and private vengeance were alike
devoid of terror to this young bravo, who seems never to have had any
difficulty in procuring associates to assist him in his outrageous
proceedings.
[Sidenote: 1601.]
About the time here noted, he entered upon an enterprise partaking
of the romantic, and which has actually been the subject of ballad
celebration, though under a mistake as to his name and condition in
life. Mr Alexander Gibson, one of the clerks of Session, and who
subsequently was eminent as a judge under the designation of Lord
Durie, was, for some reason which does not appear, honoured with the
malice of young Dumbreck. Possibly, there was some legal case pending
or concluded in which Gibson stood opposed to the interests of the
brigand. However it was, Gibson was living quietly at St Andrews--he
being a landed gentleman of Fife--when Meldrum, tracking him by a spy,
learned one day that he was riding with a friend and a servant on the
water-side opposite Dundee. Accompanied by a suitable party, consisting
of two Jardines, a Johnston--border thieves, probably--one called John
Kerr, son to the Tutor of Graden, and Alexander Bartilmo, with two
foot-boys, all armed with sword, hagbuts, and pistols, he set upon Mr
Gibson and his friend in a furious manner, compelling them to surrender
to him as prisoners; after which he robbed them of their purses,
containing about three hundred merks in gold and silver, and hurried
them southward to the ferry of Kinghorn. There, having liberated the
friend and servant, he conducted Mr Gibson across the Firth of Forth,
probably using some means, such as muffling of the face, to prevent
his prisoner from being recognised. At least, we can scarcely suppose
that, even in that turbulent age, it would have been possible otherwise
to conduct so important and well-known a man as an involuntary prisoner
to the house of William Kay in Leith, and thence past the palace
of Holyroodhouse through the whole county of Edinburgh, and thence
again to Melrose, for such was the course they took. Before entering
Melrose, Meldrum divided the money they had taken between himself and
his accomplices, each getting about twenty merks. He then conducted Mr
Gibson across the Border, landing him in the castle of Harbottle, which
appears to have then been the residence of one George Ratcliff; and
here the stolen lawyer was kept in strict durance for eight days.[272]
We may here adopt something of the traditionary story, as preserved
by Sir Walter Scott: ‘He was imprisoned and solitary; receiving his
food through an aperture in the wall, and never hearing the sound of a
human voice save when a shepherd called his dog by the name of _Batty_,
and when a female domestic called upon _Madge_, the cat. These, he
concluded, were invocations of spirits, for he held himself to be in
the dungeon of a sorcerer.’[273]
[Sidenote: 1601.]
How Mr Gibson was liberated, we do not learn. During his absence, his
wife and children mourned him as dead.[274] George Meldrum contrived,
in November 1603, to gain forcible possession of his brother Andrew’s
house of Dumbreck; and there he hoped to set law at defiance. The case,
however, was too clamant to allow of his escaping in this manner. A
party of his majesty’s guard being sent to Aberdeen for his capture,
the citizens added a force of sixteen men, with a commander, and then
a regular siege was established round the den of the outlaw. Being
compelled to submit, he was carried to Edinburgh; and subjected to a
trial, which ended in his having the head struck from his body at the
Cross, January 12, 1604.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: OCT.]
At this time, Aberdeen was visited by a company of players, who bore
the title of the ‘king’s servants,’ and had come ‘recommended by his
majesty’s special letter.’ They performed ‘comedies and stage-plays,’
according to the somewhat awkward report of the town-council record,
where it is stated that the provost, bailies, and council ordained a
present to them of thirty-two merks, equal to about 35s. 6d. sterling.
On the 22d of October, thirteen days after the ordinance for this
gift, the council conferred the freedom of the burgh--the highest
mark of honour they had it in their power to bestow--upon a batch of
strangers, among whom were Sir Francis Hospital, a French nobleman, and
several Scottish gentlemen of rank and importance; among whom, also,
was ‘Lawrence Fletcher, comedian to his majesty,’ being apparently the
chief of the histrionic company then performing in the city.
[Sidenote: 1601.