Margaret Wallace, the wife of John Dinning, a clothier in Glasgow, was
tried before the Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh, for sundry acts
of witchcraft, and as a common practiser of that nefarious art. She
was reported to have been a friend and confederate of one Christian
Graham, a notorious witch of the same city, who was tried, condemned,
and burnt in the preceding year. There is something singular in Mrs
Dinning’s case, for some of the acts of criminality urged against
her were cures for which no other than a humane motive was or could
be imputed. The case is also curious on account of the remarkable
resemblance of some of the means or modes of cure to the proceedings of
the modern mesmeric hospital.
It was alleged of Margaret, that she had been a witch for eight or
nine years. It was evident that she looked up to Christian Graham as
her preceptress and superior. About four years before the time of her
trial, being in the house of one Vallance, in Glasgow, she had taken
a sudden fit of sickness, and sent for Graham, who came immediately
to her relief. Taking Margaret tenderly in her arms, and kissing her,
Graham said: ‘Nothing shall ail my dear bird;’ then led her down
stairs, and conducted her to her own house, where she completely
recovered. The two women coming back to Vallance’s house, found a
little child of his, named Margaret, at the bottom of the stair, and
it was alleged that they threw the sickness upon her. The child was
found by her mother crying dismally; and all that night she lay in
horrible pain, with pitiful screeches, shouts, and cries, apparently
deprived of the power of her body. Margaret Wallace, coming next day
to see the child, ‘declarit it was the sudden trance or disease that
she had ta’en the day before, and willed the bairn’s mother to send
for Christian Graham to cure her and relieve her thereof.’ The mother
‘having absolutely refused sae to do, saying she wald commit her bairn
to God, and not mell with the devil or ony of his instruments, Margaret
Wallace maist blasphemously answered again, that “Christian Graham
could do as mickle in curing of that disease, as gif God himself wald
come out of heaven and cure her--and, albeit the deid-strake were laid
on, she could tak it aff again--and without her help there could be
nae remeed to the bairn!” Thereafter, without the mother’s knowledge,
Christian Graham was brought in by Margaret Wallace to the bairn; at
whase coming, Margaret lifted up the bairn’s head, and Christian took
her by the shackle-bane [wrist], and brought the bairn forth of her bed
where she was lying in great pain before; and thereafter, setting her
down upon ane stool, with some crosses and signs made upon her, and by
uttering of divers words, restored her to her health.’
[Sidenote: 1622.]
It is quite evident here that Margaret was honourably candid, as
against herself, in the view she took of the cause of the child’s
ailment, and her subsequent conduct in trying to restore the child’s
health, was creditable to her feelings. In another point of her dittay,
however, feelings of a different kind came out.
It was alleged that Margaret had conceived a deadly hatred against
Cuthbert Greig, a cooper, because of certain opprobrious speeches he
had uttered against Christian Graham. ‘She avowed that she should make
Cuthbert, within few days thereafter, not of ability to work or win
himself ane cake of bread.’ According to this devilish threat, Cuthbert
was soon after ‘visit and troublit with ane strange, unnatural, and
unknawn disease,’ attended by continual sweating for fifteen days
together, till in the end he was reduced to the utmost degree of
weakness. It appeared that the man’s friends endeavoured to induce
Margaret to interfere for his recovery; but she long persisted in
refusing. At length, coming to his house, ‘she, to manifest her skill
for his help, took him by the shackle-bane with the ane hand, and laid
her other hand upon his breast, and, without ony word-speaking, save
only by moving of her lips, passed frae him at that instant.’ Returning
next morning, ‘she took him by the arm and bade him rise, wha at that
time and fifteen days before, was not able to lift his legs without
help.’ ‘She, having urged him to rise, and taking him by the hand,
brought him out of his bed, and led him butt the house’ [into the outer
apartment], where he ‘walkit up and down the floor, without help or
support of ony.’ From that time, it is stated, he quickly recovered
from his illness. Here, too, it must be owned, Margaret came ultimately
to act a humane part.
Another child having an uncouth sickness, Wallace associated with
Graham in a practice for her cure. They went under cloud of night ‘to
the yard of James Finlay, burgess of Glasgow, where they remained
the space of ane hour together practising sorcery and witchcraft,
for curing of the bairn by unlawful means,’ and ‘that same night the
sickness was ta’en aff the bairn and she convalesced thereof.’ For
this, the two practitioners got a goose and a pint of wine. On another
occasion, Wallace was alleged to have inflicted deadly sickness on a
child, and allowed her to die.
Margaret had good counsel at her trial, and a stout defence was made;
but all in vain. She was sentenced to be _worried at a stake and burnt_
on the Castle Hill.--_Pit._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MAY 22.]
[Sidenote: 1622.]
A Dunkirk ship, belonging to the king of Spain, came up to Leith
pursued by two Dutch waughters, but both were quickly driven out of
the Firth of Forth by a west wind. A few days thereafter, the same
vessels came back to Leith, ‘where they had ane great fecht, frae
twelve at night till four in the morning, and many men slain.’[403] The
magistrates of Edinburgh interfered to prevent further hostilities, and
the three vessels lay there inactive for half a year, the Dunkirker not
being able to get away for fear of the superior metal of her enemies.
At length, the king ordered that the Dunkirker should be allowed to go
out, without being followed by the waughters for a couple of tides.
On the 4th of May 1623, this vessel left the harbour accordingly,
but it ran upon the Mussel-scap, ‘within two pair of butt-lengths
to the Bulwark,’ and thus in due time became liable to the attack
of the waughters. While these were playing their guns upon her, the
authorities in the city, knowing well the king’s favour for Spain,
whose Infanta his son was at this time courting, mustered forces and
cannon, and came hastily to the rescue. Finding that the Dutch had
boarded her, and put up the Prince of Orange’s colours, they sent men
on board to put up the flag of the king of Great Britain. The people
shewed themselves ill affected to the object. ‘Some few went down, with
their swords, and their cloaks about them. The president, chiding the
provost and bailies, said: “I always said to his majesty that Edinburgh
was but a nest of traitors. I shall write to his majesty of this your
rebellion.” It was answered: ... “Edinburgh is not bound to serve in
such a service without their burgh roods.”’ An effort was made to
secure the vessel within the harbour--‘it was sport to see the lords
and their gentlemen hailing St Ambrose with a rope into the harbourie.
But they laboured in vain, for the water began to fall.’ The end of the
business was, that, one night, the Dutch, after respectfully removing
the guard and flag, set the vessel on fire, and having destroyed it,
set sail for their own seas.[404]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MAY 29.]
‘The Landgrave of Hesse’s eldest son, of the second marriage, came to
Edinburgh. His lodging and entertainment was not looked to with that
respect that became.’[405]--_Cal._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JUNE 3.]
‘... there was a fiery dragon, both great and long, appeared to come
from the south to the north, spouting fire from her, half an hour after
the going to of the sun.’--_Cal._
[Sidenote: 1622.]
This was a wretched summer. A fast was ordered at Aberdeen, July 21st,
on account of ‘the felt wrath of God by this present plague of dearth
and famine, and the continuance thereof threatened by thir tempestuous
storms and inundations of weets likely to rot the fruits on the
ground.’--_A. K. S. R._
The usual consequence is recorded: ‘About the harvest, and after, there
was such ane universal sickness in all the country as the like has not
been heard of--but specially in this burgh, that no family in all the
city was free of this visitation. There was also great mortality among
the poor.’--_Chron. Perth._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JULY.]
An act of Privy Council of this date aims at a restriction of the
importation of wine into the Western Islands--‘with the insatiable
desire whereof the said islanders are so far possest, that when there
arrives ony ship or other vessel there with wines, they spend both days
and nights in their excess of drinking, sae lang as there is any of the
wine left; sae that, being overcome with drink, there falls out mony
inconvenients amangs them, to the break of his majesty’s peace.’[406]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JULY 30.]
The Privy Council had the subject of that ‘infective weed callit
tobacco’ under their attention. The king had formerly, upon good
reasons of policy, forbidden its importation into the country; but
this decree had been sadly evaded, insomuch that ‘the country was ever
universally filled with tobacco, and public and common merchandise
made of the same.’ Then his majesty had tried the restraining effect
of a duty (20s. Scots, or 1s. 8d. English per pound); but the
tobacco-merchants had learned the trick of smuggling, and it was not
likely they would let it lie unfruitful when they could thereby save
the payment of a tax. It had now, accordingly, become necessary to
impose a new restraint; and the importation was again prohibited, under
pain of the goods being confiscated to his majesty’s use.--_P. C. R._
[Sidenote: 1622.]
An act of the Privy Council in the subsequent November explained that
the king did not mean by this restraint ‘to deprive his loving subjects
of the orderly sale and moderate use of tobacco,’ but only to prevent
the abuse or excessive use of the herb. It was no part of his design
to interfere with the patent which had been granted [November 7, 1616]
to the late Captain William Murray, giving him the sole privilege of
importing tobacco for the space of twenty-one years. He therefore now
ordered proclamations to be issued, to the effect that the prohibition
only held good against such as did not possess a licence under favour
of Murray’s patent.--_P. C. R._ In the ensuing March, it was arranged
that importers of tobacco should pay Murray’s representatives a duty of
twenty shillings Scots per pound.
In 1624, the widow and daughter of Captain Murray resigned their
relative’s patent into the hands of commissioners, for his majesty’s
use, on their becoming bound to pay twenty thousand pounds Scots
(£1666, 13s. 4d.) at three half-years terms.[407]
The prejudice of King James against tobacco was a strong feeling,
partaking much of the character of antipathy. He published anonymously,
and afterwards acknowledged the quaint pamphlet, _A Counterblast to
Tobacco_, in which he argues against the use of the herb as a physical
as well as moral corruption. Baker’s _Chronicle_ states that the
expedition of Sir Francis Drake, on its return in 1585[6], passed by
Virginia, ‘a colony which Sir Walter Raleigh had there planted;’ ‘from
whence Drake brings home with him Ralph Lane, who was the first that
brought tobacco into England, which the Indians take against crudities
of the stomach.’ This does not comport with the ordinary notion
entertained in England, which uniformly represents Raleigh as the
first introducer of the Nicotian herb. Lane became a despised man on
account of his pusillanimity in giving up the colony; and there seems
all reason to believe that to him King James alludes in the following
passage from the _Counterblast_: ‘It is not so long,’ says he, ‘since
the first entry of this abuse amongst us here, as this present age
cannot well remember both the first author and the form of the first
introduction of it amongst us. It was neither brought in by king, great
conqueror, nor learned doctor of physic. With the report of a great
discovery for a conquest, some two or three savage men were brought
in, together with a savage custom. But the pity is, the poor barbarous
men died, but that vile barbarous custom is yet alive, yea, in fresh
vigour; so as it seems a miracle to me how a custom, springing from so
vile a ground, and _brought in by a father so generally hated_, should
be welcomed upon so slender a warrant.’
[Sidenote: 1622.]
If a tradition existing in 1667 is to be believed, King James was fain
on one occasion to get over his antipathy to tobacco; but, to be sure,
the compelling cause was a powerful one. ‘The smoke of it’ [tobacco],
says a writer of that date, ‘is one of the wholesomest scents that is,
against all contagious airs, for it o’ermasters all other smells, as
King James, they say, found true, when being once hunting, _a shower of
rain drove him into a pigsty for shelter_, where he caused a pipefull
to be taken on purpose.’[408]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MAY 18.]
A trafficking Jesuit, named George Mortimer, had lately been detected
in the house of one Haddow, in Glasgow, and he and Haddow were both
taken into custody. The king lost no time in ordering a court of
justice to be held in Glasgow for the trying of Haddow and his wife
for the crime of resetting Jesuits, certifying that, if found guilty,
they should be banished the kingdom--as the impunity of the offence
‘might hearten that wicked and pernicious sort of people more bauldly
to go on in perverting good subjects in religion, and withdrawing them
from their dutiful obedience to us.’ He at the same time wrote to the
principal ecclesiastical authorities, desiring them to consult about
the best means of checking the present ‘new growth of popery,’ that
‘thereby the world may see that we strike with the sword of justice
equally against the papist and puritan, that thereby no just imputation
may be laid upon our proceedings as a cause of the increase of popery.’
In September, we learn that Mortimer lay a prisoner at Glasgow, ‘so
heavily diseased, as it is feared he shall hardly if ever escape.’
The king--‘because we do not desire the lives of ony of that sort of
people, if we may be secured from ony harm which they micht do by
the perversion of ony of our guid subjects in their duty to God and
us’--was now pleased to order that he should be committed to some ship
sailing to a foreign port, ‘with certification to him, that gif at ony
time hereafter he shall return, it will be capital unto him.’--_P. C.
R._
[Sidenote: 1622.]
This and some other instances of lenity towards Romish clergymen
were ill looked on by the zealous Presbyterians, and there arose a
_fama_ to the king’s prejudice. On the 30th of October, he wrote
from Hitchinbrooke to his Scottish councillors, in great indignation
at a report which had gone abroad, in consequence of some late
circumstances, to the effect that he intended to ‘_tolerate or grant
liberty of conscience_!’ ‘The foolish apprehension thereof’ had ‘given
occasion both to papist and puritan to tak heart and grow insolent,
the one vainly boasting of the said pretendit liberty, and the other
with a seeming fear thereof.’ ‘God knows,’ says the king solemnly,
‘that what proceedit in that course concerning the papists here
was without ony such intention.’ It was ‘groundit upon good reasons
of state, in the deep and mystery whereof every man is not to dive
nor wyde.’ His conscience and his works alike bore witness of his
constancy in the right course. So he ‘could not but marvel how ony
of our subjects can be possest with _so unjust ane opinion of us_.’
The Council was enjoined immediately to consult with the Archbishop
of St Andrews as to the best measures for the ‘curbing of insolent
papists and disconform preachers.’ In case any of the former had shewn
themselves in consequence of the pretended liberty, they were to be
severely punished, as an example and terror to others. The Council,
acknowledging his majesty’s ‘most religious and upright disposition
towards the suppression of popery,’ communicated accordingly with
the archbishop, requesting him to have a care to give his majesty
satisfaction.--_P. C. R._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: OCT.]
George Earl Marischal, a noble of great wealth and influence, who has
already been under our notice,[409] was now approaching the end of his
earthly pilgrimage. After his death, his countess, who had hastily
re-married, was accused of having been concerned, along with the
gentleman whom she took for her second husband--Sir Alexander Strachan
of Thornton, knight--in stealing forth of his lordship’s house of
Benholm a green coffer belonging to him, containing money and other
valuables, besides the furniture of the house, and a bag containing
evidents of property. James Keith of Benholm was accused of having a
share in the same crime.
[Sidenote: 1622.]
The case is worthy of notice, chiefly on account of the list of
articles contained in the coffer--evidencing as they do a degree of
wealth which few will be prepared to find belonging to a Scottish
nobleman of that age. There were--‘of Portugal ducats and other
species of foreign gold to the avail of twenty thousand pounds or
thereby; thretty-sax dozen of gold buttons; ane rich jewel all set
with diamonts, whilk the earl resavit as ane gift given to him the
time he was ambassador in Denmark, worth sax thousand merks; the Queen
of Denmark’s picture in gold, set about with rich diamonts, estimat
to five thousand merks; ane jasp stane for steming of bluid,[410]
estimat to five hundred French crowns; ane chenyie of equal pearl,
wherein was four hundred pearls great and small; twa chenyies of
gold, of twenty-four unce wecht; ane other jewel of diamonts set in
gold worth three thousand merks; ane great pair of bracelets, all set
with diamonts, price thereof five hundred crowns; the other pair of
gold bracelets, at sax hundred pounds the pair; ane turcas ring worth
ten French crowns; ane diamont set in ane ring, price twenty-eight
French crowns; with ane number of other small rings set with diamonts
and other rich stanes in gold, worth three hundred French crowns;
mair sixteen thousand merks of silver and gold ready-cunyit, whilk
was within the said green coffer; together with the haill tapestry,
silver-work, bedding, and other guids, geir, and plenishing, being
within the said place.’--_Pit._
The king, in a letter to the Chancellor Hay, dated 22d August 1624,
alludes to a recommendation he had formerly sent, that this injury to
his esteemed councillor the Earl Marischal should be inquired into,
and adds: ‘Whereas we are informed that, in a later letter under our
hand, we have shewn to you that it was not our pleasure nor meaning
in ony former letters to hurt the said Lady Marischal or ony other
person, these are now expressly to mak it known to you, that we nather
gave direction to insert any sic clause in our letters, nather, at the
putting of our hand to the samen, did tak heed thereto, nor never meant
ony sic favour to her who hath so ill deserved of one for whose sake we
were only to respect her.’ And then he added a command to proceed with
the case against the peccant lady.--_An. Scot._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1623.