It had been customary for the Scottish universities to receive
students who had, through misbehaviour, become fugitives from other
seats of learning; and now, as a natural consequence, it was found
that the native youth at the university of Edinburgh, presuming on
impunity for any improprieties they might commit, or a resource in
case of punishment being attempted, ‘has ta’en and takes the bauldness
to misknow the principal and regents, and to debord in all kind of
uncomely behaviour and insolencies, no wise seemly in the persons
of students and scholars.’ The Privy Council therefore issued a
strict order forbidding the reception of fugitive students into the
universities.--_P. C. R._
The Privy Council was at this time obliged to renew former acts against
_Night-walkers_ of the city of Edinburgh--namely, idle and debauched
persons who went about the streets during the night, in the indulgence
of wild humours, and sometimes committing heinous crimes. If it be
borne in mind that there was at that time no system of lighting for the
streets of the city, but that after twilight all was sunk in Cimmerian
darkness, saving for the occasional light of the moon and stars, the
reader will be the better able to appreciate the state of things
revealed by this public act.
Reference is made to ‘sundry idle and deboshit persons, partly
strangers, who, debording in all kind of excess, riot, and drunkenness
... commit sundry enormities upon his majesty’s peaceable and guid
subjects, not sparing the ordinar officers of the burgh, who are
appointit to watch the streets of the same--of whom lately some has
been cruelly and unmercifully slain, and others left for deid.’ The
Council ordered that no persons of any estate whatsoever presume
hereafter to remain on the streets ‘after the ringing of the ten-hour
bell at night.’ The magistrates were also ordained to appoint some
persons to guard the streets, and apprehend all whom they might find
there after the hour stated.--_P. C. R._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1612.]
In this year there happened a strife between the Earl of Caithness on
the one side, and Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonston and Donald Mackay on
the other, highly illustrative of a state of things when law had only
asserted a partial predominancy over barbarism.
[Sidenote: 1612.]
One Arthur Smith, a native of Banff, had been in trouble for coining so
long ago as 1599, when his man actually suffered death for that crime.
He himself contrived to escape justice, by making a lock of peculiarly
fine device, by which he gained favour with the king. Entering into the
service of the Earl of Caithness, he lived for seven or eight years,
working diligently, in a recess called the Gote, under Castle Sinclair,
on the rocky coast of that northern district. If we are to believe Sir
Robert Gordon, the enemy of the Earl of Caithness, there was a secret
passage from his lordship’s bedroom into the Gote, where Smith was
often heard working by night, and at last Caithness, Sutherland, and
Orkney were found full of false coin, both silver and gold. On Sir
Robert’s representation of the case, a commission was given to him by
the Privy Council to apprehend Smith and bring him to Edinburgh.
While the execution of this was pending, one William MacAngus MacRorie,
a noted freebooter, was committed to Castle Sinclair, and there bound
in fetters. Contriving to shift off his irons, William got to the
walls of the castle, and jumping from them down into the sea which
dashes on the rocks at a great depth below, swam safely ashore, and
escaped into Strathnaver. There an attempt was made by the Sinclairs
to seize him; but he eluded them, and they only could lay hold of one
Angus Herriach, whom they believed to have assisted the culprit in
making his escape. This man being taken to Castle Sinclair without
warrant, and there confined, Mackay was brought into the field to
rescue his man--for so Angus was--and Caithness was forced to give him
up.
[Sidenote: MAY.]
The coiner Smith was living quietly in the town of Thurso, under the
protection of the Earl of Caithness, when a party of Gordons and
Mackays came to execute the commission for apprehending him. They had
seized the fellow, with a quantity of false money he had about him,
and were making off, when a set of Sinclairs, headed by the earl’s
nephew, John Sinclair of Stirkoke, came to the rescue with a backing
of town’s-people, and a deadly conflict took place in the streets.
Stirkoke was slain, his brother severely wounded, and the rescuing
party beat back. During the tumult, Smith was coolly put to death, lest
he should by any chance escape. The invading party were then allowed
to retire without further molestation. ‘The Earl of Caithness was
exceedingly grieved for the slaughter of his nephew, and was _much more
vexed_ that such a disgraceful contempt, as he thought, should have
been offered to him in the heart of his own country, and in his chief
town; the like whereof had not been enterprised against him or his
predecessors.’
[Sidenote: 1612.]
The strife is now transferred in partially legal form to Edinburgh,
where the parties had counter-actions against each other before the
Privy Council. Why the word _partially_ is here used, will appear from
Sir Robert Gordon’s account of the procedure. ‘Both parties did come
to Edinburgh at the appointed day, where they did assemble all their
friends. There were with the Earl of Caithness and his son Berriedale,
the Lord Gray, the Laird of Roslin, the Laird of Cowdenknowes (the
earl’s sister’s son), the Lairds of Murkle and Greenland (the earl’s
two brethren); these were the chief men of their company. There were
with Sir Robert Gordon and Donald Mackay, the Earl of Winton and his
brother the Earl of Eglintoun, with all their followers; the Earl of
Linlithgow, with the Livingstones; the Lord Elphinstone, with his
friends; the Lord Forbes, with his friends; Sir John Stewart, captain
of Dumbarton (the Duke of Lennox’s bastard son); the Lord Balfour;
the Laird of Lairg Mackay in Galloway; the Laird of Foulis, with the
Monroes; the Laird of Duffus; divers of the surname of Gordon ...
with sundry other gentlemen of name too long to set down. The Earl
of Caithness was much grieved that neither the Earl of Sutherland in
person, nor Hutcheon Mackay, were present. It galled him to the heart
to be thus overmatched, as he said, by seconds and children; for so
it pleased him to call his adversaries. Thus, both parties went weel
accompanied to the council-house from their lodgings; but few were
suffered to go in when the parties were called before the Council.’
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JUNE.]
[Sidenote: 1612.]
All of these friends had, of course, come to see justice done to their
respective principals--that is, to outbrave each other in forcing
a favourable decision as far as possible. What followed is equally
characteristic. While the Council was endeavouring to exact security
from the several parties for their keeping the peace, both sent off
private friends to the king to give him a favourable impression of
their cases. ‘The king, in his wisdom, considering how much this
controversy might hinder and endamage the peace and quietness of his
realm in the parts where they did live, happening between persons
powerful in their own countries, and strong in parties and alliances,
did write thrice very effectually to the Privy Council, _to take up
this matter from the rigour of law and justice unto the decision and
mediation of friends_.’ The Council acted accordingly, but not without
great difficulty. While the matter was pending, Lord Gordon, son of
the Marquis of Huntly, happened to come to Edinburgh from court;
and his friends, having access to him, were believed by the Earl of
Caithness to have given him a favourable view of their case against
himself. ‘So, late in the evening, the Lord Gordon coming from his own
lodging, accompanied with Sir Alexander Gordon and sundry others of the
Sutherland men, met the Earl of Caithness and his company upon the High
Street, between the Cross and the Tron. At the first sight, they fell
to jostling and talking; then to drawing of swords. Friends assembled
speedily on all hands. Sir Robert Gordon and Mackay, with the rest of
the company, came presently to them; but the Earl of Caithness, after
some blows, given and received, perceiving that he could not make his
part good, left the street, and retired to his lodging; and if the
darkness of the night had not favoured him, he had not escaped so. The
Lord Gordon, taking this broil very highly, was not satisfied that the
Earl of Caithness had given him place, and departed; but, moreover, he,
with all his company, crossed thrice the Earl of Caithness his lodging,
thereby to provoke him to come forth; but perceiving no appearance
thereof, he retired himself to his own lodging. The next day, the Earl
of Caithness and the Lord Gordon were called before the Lords of the
Privy Council, and reconciled in their presence.’
It was not till several years later that these troubles came to an end.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MAR. 28.]
Proceeding upon the principle that the smallest trait of industrial
enterprise forms an interesting variety on the too ample details of
barbarism here calling to be recorded, I remark with pleasure a letter
of the king of this date, agreeing to the proposal lately brought
before him by a Fleming--namely, to set up a work for the making of
‘brinston, vitreall, and allome,’ in Scotland, on condition that he
received a privilege excluding rivalry for the space of thirteen years.
About the same time, one Archibald Campbell obtained a privilege to
induce him ‘to bring in strangers to make red herrings.’ In June 1613,
he petitioned that the king would grant him, by way of pension for
his further encouragement, the fourteen lasts of herrings yearly paid
to his majesty by the Earl of Argyle, ‘as the duty of the tack of the
assize of herrings of those parts set to him,’ being of the value of
£38 yearly.--_M. S. P._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MAR. 29.]
[Sidenote: 1612.]
Some of the principal Border gentlemen--Scott of Harden, Scott of
Tushielaw, Scott of Stirkfield, Gladstones of Cocklaw, Elliot of
Falnash, and others--had a meeting at Jedburgh, with a view to making a
final and decisive effort for stopping that system of blood and robbery
by which the land had been so long harassed, even to the causing of
several valuable lands to be left altogether desolate. They entered
into a sort of bond, declaring their abhorrence of all the ordinary
violences, and agreeing thenceforth to shew no countenance to any
lawless persons, but to stand firm with the government in putting them
down. Even where the culprits were their own dependents or tenants,
they were to take part in bringing them to justice, and, if they fled,
were to deprive them of their ‘tacks and steedings,’ and ‘put in other
persons to occupy the same.’ Should any fail to act in this way, or
to pursue culprits to justice, they agreed that a share of guilt
should lie with that person. This bond seems to have been executed
with the concurrence of the state-officers, and more especially under
encouragement from the king, who, they say, had shewn his anxiety
every way ‘for the suppressing of that infamous byke[342] of lawless
limmers.’[343]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MAR. APR.]
The Presbyterian historian of this period notes, that ‘in the months of
March and April fell forth prodigious works and rare accidents. A cow
brought forth fourteen great dog-whelps, instead of calves. Another,
after the calving, became stark mad, so that the owner was forced to
slay her. A dead bairn was found in her belly. A third brought forth a
calf with two heads. One of the Earl of Argyle’s servants being sick,
vomited two toads and a serpent, and so convalesced; but after[wards]
vomited a number of little toads. A man beside Glasgow murdered both
his father and mother. A young man going at the plough near Kirkliston,
killeth his own son accidentally with the throwing of a stone, goeth
home and hangeth himself. His wife, lately delivered of a child,
running out of the house to seek her husband, a sow had eaten her
child.’--_Cal._ It is curious thus to see what a former age was capable
of believing. The circumstances here related regarding the first
two cows are now known to be impossibilities; and no such relation,
accordingly, could move one step beyond the mouths of the vulgar with
whom it originated. Yet it found a place in the work of a learned
church historian of the seventeenth century.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JUNE.]
There was at this time an ‘extraordinary drowth, whilk is likely to
burn up and destroy the corns and fruits of the ground.’ On this
account, a fast was ordered at Aberdeen.--_A. K. S. R._ In September,
and for some months after, there are notices of ‘great dearth of
victual,’ doubtless the consequence of this drouth. ‘The victual at ten
pound the boll.’--_Chron. Perth._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JULY 28.]
[Sidenote: 1612.]
Gregor Beg Macgregor, and nine others of his unhappy clan, were
tried for sundry acts of robbery, oppression, and murder; and being
all found guilty, were sentenced to be hanged on the Burgh-moor of
Edinburgh.--_Pit._ The relics of the broken Clan Gregor lived at
this time a wild predaceous life on the borders of the lowlands of
Perthshire--a fearful problem to the authorities of the country, from
the king downward. One called Robin Abroch, from the nativity of his
father (Lochaber), stood prominently out as a clever chief of banditti,
being reported, says Sir Thomas Hamilton, king’s advocate, as ‘the
most bluidy murderer and oppressor of all that damned race, and most
terrible to all the honest men of the country.’[344] In a memoir of the
contemporary Earl of Perth occurs an anecdote of Robin, which, though
somewhat obscure, speaks precisely of the style of events which modern
times have seen in the Abruzzi and the fastnesses of the Apennines. The
incident seems to have occurred in 1611.
‘In the meantime, some dozen of the Clan Gregor came within the _laigh_
of the country--Robin Abroch, Patrick M‘Inchater, and Gregor Gair,
being chiefs. This Abroch sent to my chamberlain, David Drummond,
desiring to speak to him. After conference, Robin Abroch, for reasons
known to himself, alleging his comrades and followers were to betray
him, was contented to take the advantage, and let them fall into the
hands of justice. The plot was cunningly contrived, and six of that
number were killed on the ground where I, with certain friends, was
present; three were taken, and one escaped, by Robin and his man.
This execution raised great speeches in the country, and made many
acknowledge that these troubles were put to ane end, wherewith King
James himself was well pleased for the time.’[345] We nevertheless find
the king’s advocate soon after desiring of the king that, for the sake
of public peace, he would withdraw a certain measure of protection he
had extended to Robin, and replace him under the same restrictions as
had been prescribed to the rest of his clan.
* * * * *
In this year, a large body of troops was levied in Scotland in a
clandestine manner for the service of the king of Sweden, in his
unsuccessful war with Christian IV. of Denmark. As the king of Great
Britain was brother-in-law of the latter monarch, this illegal levying
of troops was an act of the greater presumption. The Privy Council
fulminated edicts against the proceedings as most obnoxious to the
king,[346] but without effect. One George Sinclair--a natural brother
of the Earl of Caithness, and who, if we are to believe Sir Robert
Gordon (an enemy), had stained himself by a participation in the
treacherous rendition of Lord Maxwell--sailed with nine hundred men,
whom he had raised in the extreme north.
[Sidenote: 1612.]
The successful course of the king of Denmark’s arms had at this time
closed up the ordinary and most ready access to Sweden at Gottenburg,
and along the adjacent coast. A Colonel Munckhaven, in bringing a large
levy of mercenaries from the Netherlands in the spring of 1612, had
consequently been obliged to take the riskful step of passing through
Norway, then a portion of the dominions of the Danish monarch. The
greater part of his soldiery entered the Trondiem Fiord, landed at
Stordalen, and proceeded through the mountainous regions of Jempteland
towards Stockholm, where they arrived in time to save it from the
threats of the Danish fleet.[347]
Colonel Sinclair resolved to take a similar course; but he was
less fortunate. Landing in Romsdalen, he was proceeding across
Gulbrandsdalen, and had entered a narrow pass at Kringelen, utterly
unsuspicious of the presence of an enemy, when he fell into a dire
ambuscade formed by the peasantry. Even when aware that a hostile
party had assembled, he was craftily beguiled on by the appearance of
a handful of rustic marksmen on the opposite side of the river, whose
irregular firing he despised, till his column had arrived at the most
difficult part of the pass. The boors then appeared amongst the rocks
above him, in front and in rear, closing up every channel of egress.
Sinclair fell early in the conflict. The most of his party were either
cut off by the marksmen, or dashed to pieces by huge rocks tumbled
down from above. Of the nine hundred, but sixty were spared. These
were taken as prisoners to the houses of various boors, who, however,
soon tired of keeping them. It is stated that the wretched Scots were
brought together one day in a large meadow, and there murdered in cold
blood. Only one escaped.
The Norwegians celebrated this affair in a vaunting ballad, and,
strange to say, still look back upon the destruction of Sinclair’s
party as a glorious achievement. In the pass of Kringelen, there is
a tablet bearing an inscription to the following purport: ‘Here lies
Colonel Sinclair, who, with nine hundred Scotsmen, was dashed to
pieces like clay-pots by three hundred boors of Lessöe, Vaage, and
Froen. Berdon Segelstadt of Ringeböe was the leader of the boors.’ In
a peasant’s house near by were shewn to me, in 1849, a few relics of
the poor Caithness-men--a matchlock or two, a broadsword, a couple of
powder-flasks, and the wooden part of a drum.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1613.]
After the treacherous slaughter of the Laird of Johnston in 1608,
Lord Maxwell was so hotly prosecuted by the state-officers, as to be
compelled to leave his country. His _Good-night_, a pathetic ballad, in
which he takes leave of his lady and friends, is printed in the _Border
Minstrelsy_: afterwards, he returned to Scotland, but could not shew
himself in public. A succession of skulking adventures ended in his
being treacherously given up to justice by his relative, the Earl of
Caithness; and he was, without loss of time, beheaded at the Cross of
Edinburgh--the sole noble victim to justice out of many of his order
who, during the preceding thirty years, had deserved such a fate.
[Sidenote: MAY 21.]
When informed by the magistrates of the city that they had got orders
for his execution, he professed submission to the will of God and the
king, but declined the attendance of any ministers, as he adhered to
the ancient religion. ‘It being foreseen by the bailies and others
that gif he sould at his death enter in any discourse of that subject
before the people, it might breed offence and sclander, he was desirit,
and yielded to bind himself by promise, to forbear at his death all
mention of his particular opinion of religion, except the profession
of Christianity; which he sinsyne repented, as he declared to the
bailies, when they were bringing him to the scaffold.’ On the scaffold,
the unfortunate noble expressed his hope that the king would restore
the family inheritance to his brother. He likewise ‘asked forgiveness
of the Laird of Johnston, his mother, grandmother, and friends,
acknowledging the wrong and harm done to them, with protestation that
it was without dishonour for the worldly part of it.... Then he retired
himself near the block, and made his prayers to God; which being ended,
he took leave of his friends and of the bailies of the town, and,
suffering his eyes to be covered with ane handkerchief, offered his
head to the axe.’[348]
Thus at length ended the feud between the Johnstons and Maxwells,
after, as has been remarked, causing the deaths of two chiefs of each
house.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: AUG.]
[Sidenote: 1613.]
Edward Lord Bruce of Kinloss lost his life in a duel fought near
Bergen-op-zoom with Sir Edward Sackville, afterwards Earl of Dorset.
They were gay young men, living a life of pleasure in London, and in
good friendship with each other, when some occurrence, arising out of
their pleasures, divided them in an irremediable quarrel. Clarendon
states that on Sackville’s part the cause was ‘unwarrantable.’ Lord
Kinloss, in his challenge, reveals to us that they had shaken hands
after the first offence, but with this remarkable expression on his
own part, that he reserved the heart for a truer reconciliation.
Afterwards, in France, Kinloss learned that Sackville spoke injuriously
of him, and immediately wrote to propose a hostile meeting. ‘Be
master,’ he said, ‘of your own weapons and time; the place wheresoever
I will wait on you. By doing this, you will shorten revenge, and clear
the idle opinion the world hath of both our worths.’
Sackville received this letter at his father-in-law’s house, in
Derbyshire, and he lost no time in establishing himself, with his
friend, Sir John Heidon, at Tergoso, in Zealand, where he wrote to Lord
Kinloss, that he would wait for his arrival. The other immediately
proceeded thither, accompanied by an English gentleman named Crawford,
who was to act as his second; also by a surgeon and a servant.
They met, accompanied by their respective friends, at a spot near
Bergen-op-Zoom, ‘where but a village divides the States’ territories
from the archduke’s ... to the end that, having ended, he that could,
might presently exempt himself from the justice of the country by
retiring into the dominion not offended.’
In the preliminary arrangements, some humane articles were agreed
upon, probably by the influence of the seconds; but, if we are to
believe Sir Edward Sackville, Lord Kinloss, in choosing his adversary’s
weapon, expressed some blood-thirsty sentiments, that gave him reason
to hope for little mercy if he should be the vanquished party. Being
on his part incensed by these unworthy expressions, he, though heavy
with a recent dinner, hurried on the combat. To follow his remarkable
narrative:[349]
[Sidenote: 1613.]
‘I being verily mad with anger [that] the Lord Bruce should thirst
after my life with a kind of assuredness, seeing I had come so far
and heedlessly to give him leave to regain his lost reputation, bade
him alight, which with all willingness he quickly granted; and there,
in a meadow ankle-deep in water at the least, bidding farewell to
our doublets, in our shirts began to charge each other; having afore
commanded our surgeons to withdraw themselves a pretty distance from
us, conjuring them besides, as they respected our favours or their own
safeties, not to stir, but suffer us to execute our pleasures; we being
fully resolved (God forgive us!) to despatch each other by what means
we could. I made a thrust at my enemy, but was short, and in drawing
back my arm, I received a great wound thereon, which I interpreted as
a reward for my short-shooting; but, in revenge, I pressed in to him,
though I then missed him also, and then received a wound in my right
pap, which passed level through my body, and almost to my back. And
there we wrestled for the two greatest and dearest prizes we could
ever expect trial for--honour and life; in which struggling, my hand,
having but an ordinary glove on it, lost one of her servants, though
the meanest, which hung by a skin.... At last, breathless, yet keeping
our holds, there passed on both sides propositions of quitting each
other’s swords; but when amity was dead, confidence could not live,
and who should quit first, was the question; which on neither part
either would perform, and restriving again afresh, with a kick and a
wrench together, I freed my long captivated weapon; which incontinently
levying at his throat, being master still of his, I demanded if he
would ask his life, or yield his sword; both which, though in that
imminent danger, he bravely denied to do. Myself being wounded, and
feeling loss of blood, having three conduits running on me, which
began to make me faint, and he courageously persisting not to accord
to either of my propositions, through remembrance of his former bloody
desire, and feeling of my present state, I struck at his heart, but
with his avoiding missed my aim, yet passed through the body, and
drawing out my sword, repassed it again through another place, when he
cried: “O, I am slain!” seconding his speech with all the force he had
to cast me; but being too weak, after I had defended his assault, I
easily became master of him, laying him on his back, when, being upon
him, I redemanded if he would request his life; but it seemed he prized
it not at so dear a rate to be beholden for it, bravely replying, “he
scorned it.” Which answer of his was so noble and worthy, as I protest
I could not find in my heart to offer him any more violence; only
keeping him down, until at length his surgeon, afar off, cried out, “he
would immediately die if his wounds were not stopped.” Whereupon, I
asked if he desired his surgeon should come, which he accepted of; and
so being drawn away, I never offered to take his sword, accounting it
inhuman to rob a dead man, for so I held him to be. This thus ended,
I retired to my surgeon, in whose arms, after I had remained a while
for want of blood, I lost my sight, and withal, as I then thought, my
life also. But strong water and his diligence quickly recovered me,
when I escaped a great danger. For my lord’s surgeon, when nobody
dreamt of it, came full at me with his lord’s sword; and had not mine,
with my sword, interposed himself, I had been slain by those base
hands; although my Lord Bruce, weltering in his blood, and past all
expectation of life, comformable to all his former carriage, which was
undoubtedly noble, cried out: “Rascal, hold thy hand!”’
Thus miserably, a victim of passion, died a young nobleman who might
otherwise have lived a long and useful life. Being childless, his title
and estates went to his next brother, Thomas. Through what means it
came about, we cannot tell, but possibly it might be in consequence
of some recollection of a well-known circumstance in the history of a
former great man of his family, King Robert Bruce, the heart of Edward
Lord Kinloss was enclosed in a silver case, brought to Scotland, and
deposited in the abbey-church of Culross, near the family seat. The
tale of the _Silver Heart_ had faded into a family tradition of a
very obscure character, when, in 1808, this sad relic was discovered,
bearing on the exterior the name of the unfortunate duellist, and
containing what was believed to be the remains of a human heart. It was
again deposited in its original place, with an inscription calculated
to make the matter clear to posterity. The Bruce motto, FUIMUS, is also
seen on the wall, conveying to the visitor an indescribable feeling of
melancholy, as he reflects on the stormy passion which once swelled the
organ now resting within, and the wild details of that deadly quarrel
of days long gone by.
[Illustration: Silver Heart in Culross Abbey-church.]
[Sidenote: 1613.]
‘The unfortunate Lord Bruce saw distinctly the figure or impression of
a mort-head, on the looking-glass in his chamber, that very morning he
set out for the fatal place of rendezvous, where he lost his life in a
duel; and asked of some that stood by him if they observed that strange
appearance: which they answered in the negative. His remains were
interred at Bergen-op-Zoom, over which a monument was erected, with the
emblem of a looking-glass impressed with a mort-head, to perpetuate
the surprising representation which seemed to indicate his approaching
untimely end. I had this narration from a field-officer, whose honour
and candour is beyond suspicion, as he had it from General Stuart in
the Dutch service. The monument stood entire for a long time, until it
was partly defaced when that strong place was reduced by the weakness
or treachery of Cronstrom, the governor.’--_Theophilus Insulanus’s
Treatise on the Second-Sight._ 1763.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: SEP. 11.]
Robert Philip, a priest, returned from Rome in the summer of this
year, and performed mass in sundry places in a clandestine manner, but
with the proper dresses, utensils, and observances. One James Stewart,
living at the Nether Bow Port in Edinburgh, commonly called _James
of Jerusalem_--a noted papist and resetter of seminary priests--was
accustomed to have this condemned ceremonial performed in his house,
in presence of a small company. Both men were now tried for these
offences; and two days after, a third, John Logan, portioner of
Restalrig, was also put to an assize, for being one of the audience at
Stewart’s house. One cannot, in these days of tolerance, read without
a strange sense of uncouthness, the solemn expressions of horror
employed in the dittays of the king’s advocate against the offenders,
being precisely the same expressions which were used against heinous
offences of a more tangible nature. Philip and Stewart were condemned
to banishment,[350] and Logan, in as far as he expressed penitence and
shewed that he had since conformed to the kirk, and even borne office
in the session, was let off with a fine of one thousand pounds!
* * * * *
[Sidenote: DEC. 1.]
[Sidenote: 1613.]
Robert Erskine, brother of the lately deceased Laird of Dun, in
Forfarshire, was put upon trial for an offence that recalls the
tale of the Babes in the Wood. To open the succession to himself,
he formed the resolution to put away his two nephews, John and
Alexander Erskine, minors, and for this purpose consulted with his
three sisters, Isobel, Annas, and Helen. These women, readily entering
into his views, attempted to bribe a servant to engage a witch for
the purpose of destroying the two boys; but the man’s virtue was
proof to the temptation. Annas and Helen then made a journey across
the Cairn-a-mount to a place called the Muir-alehouse, where dwelt
a noted witch called Janet Irving. From her they came back, bearing
certain deadly herbs fitted for their purpose, and gave these to their
brother. He, doubtful of the efficacy of the herbs, went himself to
the witch, to get full assurance on that point; and, finding reason to
believe that they could destroy the two boys, lost no time in making an
infusion of them in ale, which he administered to his victims in the
house of their mother at Montrose. The effect was not immediate; but it
inflicted the most horrible torments upon the poor youths, one of whom,
after _dwining_ for three years, died, uttering, just before death,
these affecting words: ‘Wo is me! that ever I had right of succession
to ony lands or living, for, gif I had been born some poor cotter’s
son, I had not been sae demeaned [treated], nor sic wicked practices
had been plotted against me for my lands!’ The other remained without
hope of recovery at the time of the trial.
Robert Erskine was found guilty and condemned to be beheaded. His
sisters were tried June 22, 1614, for their share of the guilt, and
also condemned to death, which two of them suffered. Helen alone, as
being less guilty and more penitent than the rest, had her sentence
commuted to banishment. The case must have been felt as deeply
afflicting by the friends of the Presbyterian cause, as these wretched
victims of the mean passion of avarice were the great-grandchildren of
the venerated reformer, John Erskine of Dun.--_Pit._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1613(?)]
One John Stercovius, a Pole, had come into Scotland in the dress of
his country, which exciting much vulgar attention, he was hooted at on
the streets, and treated altogether so ill, that he was forced to make
an abrupt retreat. The poor man, returning full of wounded feelings
to his own country, published a _Legend of Reproaches_ against the
Scottish nation--‘ane infamous book against all estates of persons
in this kingdom.’--_P. C. R._ It will now be scarcely believed, in
Scotland or elsewhere, that King James, hearing of this libel, employed
Patrick Gordon, a foreign agent--himself a man of letters--to raise a
prosecution against Stercovius in his own country, and had the power
to cause the unhappy libeller to be beheaded for his offence! The
affair cost six thousand merles, and a convention of burghs was called
(December 3, 1613), to consider means of raising this sum by taxation.
This mode of raising the money having failed, the king made an effort
to obtain aid for the payment of the money from the English resident in
the town of Danzig--with what result does not appear. It is a notable
circumstance, that while James was on the whole a mild administrator
of justice, he was unrelenting towards satirists, and the grossest
judicial cruelties of his reign are against men who had been in one way
or another contumelious towards himself.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1613.