The Earl of Errol wrote from Perth to the king, promising, in
compliance with a command just received, to be ‘careful to provide ane
tercel[311] to the hawk of Foulsheuch,’ and to be ‘answerable to your
majesty for the same, in case the auld tercel be dead.’ Foulsheuch is
a sea-cliff about four miles south of Stonehaven, 200 feet in height,
where so lately as 1808 a family of hawks, of uncommonly large size,
continued to build. James’s love of what old Gervase Markham calls the
‘most princely and serious delight’ of hawking, caused him to keep up
a constant correspondence with friends in Scotland for the supply of
the needful birds, and of this the earl’s letter is a specimen. His
lordship goes on with laudable particularity: ‘Your majesty’s mongrel
falcon, whilk I have, sould have been at your hieness lang or now
[ere now], but that as my falconer was ready to tak his journey, she
contracted ane disease, wherewith he durst not adventure to travel her,
in respect of the great frosts and storms. I will be answerable to your
majesty that she has been in nae ways stressed, but as weel treated
as any hawk could be. Naither shall your majesty suspect that I have
reteinit her for my awn plesure, whilk I sall never compare in the
greatest thing whatsoever with your majesty’s meanest contentment, nor
am I able as yet, even at this present, to travel upon the fields for
any game. Albeit, how soon it sall be possible that the hawk may in any
sort be travellit, she sall be at your majesty with all diligence. She
had the same sickness the last year, in this same season, and was not
free of it till near March.’[312]
So keenly interested was James respecting the tercel of Foulsheuch,
that he had written to the Earl of Mar regarding it; and this nobleman
replied on the same date with Lord Errol, assuring the king that he
will see after it carefully. ‘I cannot as yet,’ he says, ‘certify your
majesty whether he be alive or not, but, within few days, I think, I
sall go near to get the certainty that may be had of so oncertain a
matter.’
There is extant a characteristic letter written by James at Perth in
March 1597, to Fraser of Philorth, regarding a bird of sport. ‘Hearing
that ye have ane gyre-falcon, whilk is esteemed the best hawk in all
that country, and meetest for us that have sae guid liking of that
pastime, we have therefore taken occasion effectuously to requeest and
desire you, _seeing hawks are but gifting geir_, and nae otherwise to
be accounted betwix us and you, being sae well acquainted, that of
courtesy ye will bestow on us that goshawk, and send her here to us
with this bearer, our servant, whom we have on this errand directed to
bring and carry her tenderly. Wherein, as he sall report our hearty
and special thanks, sae sall ye find us ready to requite your courtesy
and good-will with nae less pleasure in any the like gates [ways] as
occasion sall present.’
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MAR. 29 and 30.]
[Sidenote: 1606.]
The equinoctial gale of this year is described by a contemporary
chronicler as of extreme violence. He says, with regard to the two
days marginally noted: ‘The wind was so extraordinary tempestuous and
violent, that it caused great shipwreck in Scotland, England, France,
and the Netherlands. It blew trees by the roots, ruined whole villages,
and caused the sea and many rivers so to overflow their wonted
limits and bounds, that many people and chattels were drowned and
perished.’--_Bal._
* * * * *
An outbreak of touchiness on heraldic matters, which recently took
place in Scotland, excited some surprise amongst English statesmen
and others. It is certain, however, that wherever two nations are
associated under one monarchy, the smaller usually manifests no
small amount of jealousy regarding its national flag and every other
thing which marks its distinction and may have been associated with
the national history. The government of Sweden is at this day under
constant anxiety regarding the rampant lion and battle-axe of the
Norwegian flag, lest on any occasion due honour should not be paid to
it, and feelings of international hostility be thereby engendered.
[Sidenote: APR. 12.]
When the Scottish king added England and Ireland to his dominions,
his native subjects manifested the utmost jealousy regarding their
heraldic ensigns; and some troubles in consequence arose between them
and their English neighbours, especially at sea. We find that at this
time, ‘for composing of some difference between his subjects of North
and South Britain travelling by seas, anent the bearing of their flags,
and for avoiding all such contentions hereafter,’ the king issued a
proclamation, ordaining ‘the ships of both nations to carry on their
main-tops the flags of St Andrew and St George interlaced, and those
of North Britain in their stern that of St Andrew, and those of South
Britain that of St George.’--_Bal._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MAY 17.]
[Sidenote: 1606.]
In an early and rude state of society, bankruptcy is always looked
on with harshness, and punished cruelly; and perhaps it is really
then less excusable than it becomes when commerce is more advanced,
and the returns of transactions can less certainly be calculated on.
Even Venice in old times had its stone of shame for bankrupts. Well,
then, might Edinburgh have one in 1606. At the date noted in the
margin, the Privy Council ordered the magistrates of that city to
erect ‘ane pillory of hewen stone near the Mercat Cross; upon the head
thereof ane seat to be made, whereupon in time coming sall be set all
_dyvours_,[313] wha sall sit thereon ane mercat-day, from ten hours
in the morning till ane hour after dinner.’[314] The unfortunates
were obliged to wear a yellow bonnet on these occasions, and for ever
after--the livery of slavery in the middle ages, and of which we have
a relic in the under-clothes of the Christ’s Hospital boys in London.
An act of the Lords of Session in 1688 is more particular regarding the
indignities to be visited upon dyvours. It ‘ordains the magistrates of
the burgh (where the debtor is incarcerated), before his liberation
out of prison, to cause him take on, and wear upon his head, a bonnet,
partly of a brown, and partly of a yellow colour, with uppermost
hose, or stockings, on his legs, half-brown and half-yellow coloured,
conform to a pattern delivered to the magistrates of Edinburgh, to be
keeped in their Tolbooth; and that they cause take the dyvour to the
Mercat Cross, betwixt ten and eleven o’clock in the fore noon, with the
foresaid habit, where he is to sit upon the dyvour-stone, the space
of ane hour, and then to be dismissed; and ordains the dyvour to wear
the said habit in all time thereafter; and in case he be found either
wanting or disguising the samen, he shall lose the benefit of his
bonorum.’[315]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JULY 1.]
A parliament met at Perth, chiefly with a view to re-instating the
bishops in those revenues which alone could make them efficient in
their office. They themselves appeared for the first time during many
years in a style calculated to impress the senses of the people. The
king had taken care that they, as well as the nobility, should wear
ceremonial dresses.[316] In the ‘riding’ or equestrian procession to
the parliament house, they took their place immediately after the
earls, ‘all in silk and velvet footmantles, by pairs, two and two, and
St Andrews, the great Metropolitan, alone by himself, and ane of the
ministers of no small quality, named Arthur Futhie, with his cap at his
knee, walkit at his stirrup along the street.’ ‘This was called the
_Red Parliament_, whilk in old prophecies was talked many years ago
sould be keepit in St Johnston, because all the noblemen and officers
of estate came riding thereto and sat therein, with red gowns and
hoods, after the manner of England, for ane new solemnity; whilk many
did interpret a token of the red fire of God’s wrath to be kindled both
upon kirk and country.’--_Ja. Mel._
[Sidenote: 1606.]
At this parliament appeared two western nobles between whose families
there had long subsisted great enmity--namely, the Earls of Eglintoun
and Glencairn. Notwithstanding the known anxiety of the king for an
oblivion of all such ‘deidly feids,’ the two earls and their respective
attendants came to a collision on the street. ‘It lasted fra seven till
ten hours at night, with great skaith,’ one man of the Glencairn party
being slain outright. It was not without great exertion on the part of
the citizens that the tumult was quelled.
This feud, which was of early origin, acquired fresh stimulus from the
murder of the Earl of Eglintoun by Cunningham of Robertland in 1586,
the Earl of Glencairn, as head of the Cunninghams, being held as in
some degree answerable for, and bound to protect, the actual assassin.
The affair now involved the Lord Semple and other men of consequence in
the west, and it took no small pains on the part of the king and his
Scottish ministers to get it composed.
The reconciliation of the Earl of Glencairn with Lord Semple took place
in a formal and public manner, at the command of the Privy Council,
nearly three years afterwards (May 22, 1609). The scene of this
important transaction was the Green of Glasgow. On the occasion, ‘for
eschewing of all inconvenients of trouble whilk may happen (whilk God
forbid!),’ the town-council arranged that the provost with one of the
bailies and whole council should go to the place, attended by forty
citizens in arms, while the other two bailies, each attended by sixty
of the citizens with ‘lang weapons and swords,’ should ‘accompany and
convoy the said noblemen, with their friends, in and out, in making
their reconciliation.’--_M. of G._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JULY.]
Glasgow--now a city of 400,000 inhabitants, and the scene of a
marvellous concentration of the industrial energies of the nineteenth
century--how curious to look in upon it in 1606! when it was only a
small burgh and university town, containing perhaps 5000 inhabitants
at the utmost, some of them merchants (that is, shopkeepers), others
craftsmen--not such folk, however, as would now be found carrying
on trade and the useful arts in a burgh of the same size, but men
accustomed to the use of arms, and the exercise of the violent passions
which call arms into use--not inspired with the independent political
ideas of our time, but trained to look up to the great landlords of
their neighbourhood as leaders to be in all things followed: in short,
a small burgal community, retaining a strong tinge of the old feudal
system.
[Sidenote: JULY 5.]
[Sidenote: 1606.]
The city was at this time the scene of ‘a very great trouble and
commotion,’ arising from a change which had been made in the system of
municipal election. The change seems to have been effected in legal and
proper manner by Sir George Elphinstone, the provost; but it was odious
to a neighbouring knight, Sir Matthew Stewart of Minto, whose ancient
local influence it threatened to subvert. He accordingly wrought upon
the ‘crafts’ of the burgh, till he induced them to believe that the
new system was a gross tyranny to their order. They consequently held
a meeting in the house of a citizen--an act unlawful, without the
sanction of the magistrates--ostensibly to get up a petition, but in
reality armed for action with swords, targes, and other abulyiements.
Climbing up to the platform of the Market Cross, they proclaimed
their remonstrance against the new arrangements, in the sight of the
magistrates, who sat in their council-house close by. It was believed
that the object of the insurgents was to provoke the magistrates
to come out and interfere with their proceedings; which might have
been made a pretence for involving them in a murderous quarrel. But
‘God furnished the magistrates with patience to abide all their
indignities.’ They even so far deferred to the popular party, as to
appoint a day when they might meet and argue out their differences.
[Sidenote: 1606.]
According to the provost and magistrates, in a complaint which they
sent to the Privy Council, this peaceful measure did not suit the views
of Sir Matthew Stewart and his friends. Accordingly, ‘knawing that,
upon the twenty-three day of the month, whilk was the day preceding
the appointit time of meeting, Sir George was to go to the archery,
they made choice of that time and occasion, to work their turn.’ Sir
Walter Stewart, son of Sir Matthew, with John and Alexander Stewarts,
‘lay in wait for him and his company, wha were but five in number,
without ony kind of armour, saufing their bows; and perceiving them,
about seven hours at even, come up the Dry-gate, of purpose to have
passed to the _Castle butts_, and there to have endit their game, and
James Forrat, ane of Sir George’s company, going to his awn house with
his bow disbendit in his hand, to have fetchit some Bute arrows; Sir
Walter thought meet to mak the first onset upon him, and thereby to
draw Sir George back.’ The assault upon Forrat having caused a great
cry to arise, Sir George returned through the Castle port to learn
what was the matter, when, meeting young Minto in the act of pursuing
the unarmed man, he remonstrated first in gentle words, and then in
language more emphatic, finally commanding him in the king’s name to
desist and go home. Hereupon a party of forty, all armed with steel
bonnets, secrets, plait sleeves, ‘lang staffs,’ and other weapons,
issued from the wynd-head, where they had been concealed, and, joining
with young Minto, drove Sir George and his small party of friends back
to the Castle port, where they were happily relieved from present
danger. Being thus disappointed of their purpose, the rioters retired
to the wynd-head, and presently sent off one of their number down the
High Gait to rouse the other citizens. This man, James Braidwood, ran
along crying, ‘Arm you! arm you! They are yokit!’ whereupon a great
number of the seditious faction, including Sir Matthew Stewart of
Minto himself, assembled in arms, and joining the other party at the
wynd-head, came in full force, and in the most furious manner to the
Castle, where, but for the interposition of the Earl of Wigton and two
other privy-councillors, who were present, they would certainly have
slain their provost. ‘Seeing they could not win towards Sir George
with lang staffs and weapons, they despitefully cast stanes at him.’
Then, refusing to obey the commands of the privy-councillors to go
peaceably home, ‘they past tumultuously down the gait to the Barras
Yett, far beneath the Cross, and come up the gait again with three
hundred persons, with drawn swords in their hands, some of the rascal
multitude crying: “I sall have this buith, and thou sall have that
buith!” and of new assailit the Castle port, with full purpose by
force to have enterit within the same.’ It was alleged that, but for
the courageous resistance of the three noble privy-councillors, they
would have accomplished the destruction of Sir George Elphinstone on
this occasion. As it was, they laid violent hands on three several
magistrates who came to his help, altogether ‘committing manifest
insolency and insurrection within the said city, to the great trouble
and inquietation thereof, and ane evil example to others to do the like
hereafter.’
[Sidenote: 1606.]
Such was the Elphinstone story regarding this tumult. It was, however,
met by a counter-complaint from young Minto, to the following effect.
He was, he said, ‘coming down the Rotton Raw, in peaceable and quiet
maner to his awn lodging, accompanit only with twa servants,’ when
‘he perceivit Sir George Elphinstone with nine or ten persons in his
company, coming up the Dry Gait.’ Although he was in the straight way
for his lodging, ‘yet in respect of some dryness between Sir George
and him, he left that gait, and past ane other way, of purpose to have
eschewit all occasion of trouble and unquietness betwixt them.’ Here,
however, ‘James Forrat, ane of Sir George’s company, cast him directly
in the complainer’s way, and pressit to have stayit his passage.’
When young Minto ‘soberly found fault with him,’ Forrat ‘immediately
bendit his bow, and had not failed to have shot and slain him, were not
ane in company with the complainer cuttit the bow-string.’ Whereupon,
according to the recital, Sir George Elphinstone and his servants fell
upon young Minto and his servants in the most violent manner with their
swords, and would certainly have slain them, if they had not by God’s
providence escaped.--_P. C. R._
We learn from another source, that, after all, ‘the skaith was not
great; only ane man callit Thomas Cloggy died, without ony wound, and
sundry hurt with staves.’[317]
The government authorities must have felt puzzled by this local
squabble, and hardly known how to apportion punishment amongst the
parties. The Minto knights were ordered into ward in Dumbarton Castle,
and Sir George Elphinstone in the castle of Glasgow, till his majesty’s
pleasure should be known. The Privy Council afterwards absolved young
Minto from the charge of being the aggressor in the conflict of the 23d
July; but the two knights and their principal supporters were confined
for some time in Linlithgow, on account of the general ‘insolency’ of
which they had been guilty.
[Sidenote: 1606.