The years 1693, 1694, and 1695, formed the gloomiest period of that
troubled time which followed the Revolution of 1688. King William III.,
and Queen Mary, the latter of whom was to die before the last days of
1694 closed in, had, no doubt, firm possession of the throne, but, as
regarded a great portion of their subjects, it was but an armed
possession. Military force everywhere restrained the suppressed wrath of
the Jacobites, and even was of use to check the puritanical
dissatisfaction of those ultra Whigs who thought the Government had not
gone far enough in the cause of revolution. Soldiers, garrisons, and
forts full of troops so abounded throughout the length and breadth of
the land, that the new constitutional monarchy had curiously all the
aspect of a military despotism. Everywhere, too, King William’s forces
were then unpopular. The defeats of Cape St. Vincent, Landen, Marsaglia,
and Brest had lessened the public faith—even the faith of those who
supported the revolution—in the effective strength of the British
soldiers and sailors. Discontent prevailed much throughout England, and
plot upon plot was formed against the very life of the monarch. But if
this was the state of things in England, it was far worse in Scotland.
There the king’s troops were actually objects of extreme hate and
execration with the great mass of the populace. The foul massacre of
Glencoe, one of the worst of crimes for a Government to commit, had
enraged the people of Scotland, and had brought undue weight against the
reforming and would-be-salutary rule of King William. His troops,
wherever garrisoned in the Scottish territory, were constantly insulted,
and frequently violently assaulted. Conflicts of the most deadly kind
occurred between them, and the civilians, not only of the lower class,
but of better station and official position. The frequent fatal results
gave rise to many life-and-death criminal trials; and from these I take
the two following, which made a sensation at the time, and are recorded
by Arnot; they are peculiarly characteristic of the terrible discord
that existed.
The first of these trials, which occurred in December, 1694, was that of
John Gillespie, merchant in Glasgow; John Anderson of Dovehill; and
Robert Stevenson, glazier in Glasgow, for the murder of Major James
Menzies. The unfortunate major, the subject of the judicial
investigation, was clearly a person of importance, for, by the
prosecution, it appears that he was related to the eminent family of
Fletcher of Salton, in Haddingtonshire. The prisoners, in effect, were
proceeded against at the triple instance of William Fletcher (afterwards
himself of Salton), brother to the Laird of Salton (the celebrated
statesman and writer, Andrew Fletcher), nearest of kin to the deceased;
of Lieutenant-Colonel Hume, for the interest of his majesty’s forces,
and of his majesty’s Advocate. It was charged in the indictment, that
the prisoners having conceived mortal hatred at the deceased, did, on
the 19th of October preceding, enter a garden upon the lands of
Rainfield, where they understood the deceased was walking, and, upon
seeing him, they, or one or other of them, did discharge guns and
pistols at him, and also struck him a blow on the head, which fractured
his skull, of one or other of which wounds he instantly expired—or, at
least, they were guilty of art and part of this murder.
The defence stated for the prisoners was, that, in October last, in
absence of the colonel and lieutenant-colonel, Lord Lindesay’s regiment,
then quartered at Glasgow, was commanded by the deceased, Major Menzies;
that the major summarily apprehended several inhabitants, burgesses of
Glasgow, and kept them in custody of the military on pretence of their
being deserters, but who were really not such; that complaint having
been made to the magistrates by the persons confined, they desired the
major to bring those persons before them, that the complaint might be
tried conform to the act of Privy Council, 16th December, 1692, but the
major absolutely refused to comply with their desire. The magistrates
issued a formal edict, requiring him to produce the complainers; but
this also he treated with the most pointed contempt. Proceeding then
with utmost gentleness, they demanded a conference, to which the major
having consented, the provost, two of the baillies, and Mr. Robert Park,
town clerk, met with Major Menzies, and three captains of his regiment,
in the town clerk’s chamber. The conference began with the provost
desiring of the major that the prisoners might be brought before them,
and Mr. Park, the town clerk, in a very civil manner, joined in the
request. Upon this, an altercation between the major and town clerk took
place; the major gave him bad language, and struck him with a cane, he,
the town clerk, having no weapon in his hand. On this they wrestled, and
being separated by the company, and while the town clerk was held by
Captain Jarvais, of Lord Lindesay’s regiment, the major drew his sword,
and run the town clerk through the body, of which he died instantly. The
major marched off sword in hand, repaired to the guard-house, ordered
his men to charge their muskets, drew them up across the street, three
file deep, and set them to guard the passes in order to favour his
escape, mounted horse, and fled.
Upon this, Mr. Francis Montgomery, one of the lords of Privy Council,
ordered such of the inhabitants as could be soonest got ready to pursue
and apprehend the murderer. In obedience to this order, the three
prisoners went in pursuit of the major, came to a garden at Rainfield,
where they were informed he skulked. On coming up to him they charged
him with the murder of the town clerk, and desired him to yield himself
prisoner; but this he refused, and opposed them with a drawn sword, upon
which he was killed. Various arguments in point of law were also offered
for the prisoners, and much casuistry was likewise advanced for the
prosecutors. These debates occupy fifty pages folio of the original
criminal record.
The court sustained the indictment against the prisoners, as relevant to
infer the pain of death. But they also sustained this defence as
sufficient entirely to cast the indictment, viz., that they pursued the
major by order of a privy councillor, or of the magistrates of Glasgow,
proceeding upon the notoriety of the murder, unless the prosecutors
should prove that the major offered to surrender before attacked by the
prisoners. This again they sustained relevant to set aside the defence,
in respect to such of the prisoners only as did actually kill or give
command to kill the major, but by no means to infer art and part against
any of the other prisoners, they being _versantes in licito_.