In the parish of New Glenluce, Graham seized four countrymen for not hearing the incumbent, put them in jail, and sent soldiers to quarter on their families, and, in the language of the day, “eat them up.” After they had been kept in durance for twelve weeks, he ordered them to be tied two and two and set on bare-backed horses, and to be carried to Edinburgh; but after they had undergone the torture of a day’s ride, he sent after them, and allowed them to purchase their liberty, by giving him each a bond for a thousand merks.
Among his other extortions in Galloway, he had imprisoned and fined exorbitantly some of Sir John Dalrymple’s and his father’s tenants, of which Sir John complained to the privy council, alleging that he as heritable bailie of the regality had anticipated Captain Graham, and of course had a preferable right both to the casualties and emoluments of the fines. Claverhouse replied, by alleging that Sir John’s decreets were collusive, and the fines did not amount to one sixtieth part of what ought to have been legally exacted, and that he had weakened the government by interfering with and opposing the commission which the king’s council had given him, containing a power both civil, criminal, and military, of sheriffship and justiciary, for executing the church laws; and under pretence of his preferable jurisdiction, studied to stir up the people to a dislike of the king’s forces. Also, that he had defamed Claverhouse as one who had cheated the king’s treasury, in exacting the fines of heritors and not accounting for them, at least falsely giving in an account to the exchequer far below his intromissions, which he ought either to prove or else be punished as the author of an infamous libel. Sir John then asked that he might be allowed to produce what witnesses he had in town for proving his allegations. But this most reasonable, and one would have thought irrefusable, request was denied him upon a quibble, that it would compel him to raise a counter-action, instead of establishing his defence. Claverhouse’s witnesses were then allowed to be examined. The first called was Sir George Lockhart, the defendant’s own advocate, and the chancellor thought he might be ordained to depone. Sir George, however, himself insisted that it would be a most pernicious precedent to force advocates to disclose their client’s secrets; and after “much transport, flame, and humour,” he was passed over, not on account of any allowed impropriety, but because it was considered unnecessary. Sir John alleged the people in Galloway were turned orderly and regular. Claverhouse answered, there were as many elephants and crocodiles as there were either regular or loyal persons in the shire.
After the final hearing, February 12th, the council determined that Claverhouse had done nothing but what was legal and consonant to his commission and instructions, and the chancellor complimented him so far in their name:—that they wondered that he, not being a lawyer, had walked so warily in so irregular a country, and therefore they gave him their thanks for his encouragement; but they found that Sir John Dalrymple, though a lawyer and a bailie of regality, had exceeded his bounds, and had weakened the hands of his majesty’s authority by his interference, they therefore condemned him to lose his heritable bailery, to pay £500 sterling of fine, and to enter Edinburgh Castle and lie there during the council’s pleasure, “as an example to all others who should oppose their military commissions.” He was released on the 20th, upon paying his fine, acknowledging his rashness, and craving the council’s pardon.
Douglas of Bonjedburgh was fined by the Laird of Meldrum, as the council’s sheriff of Teviotdale, 27,500 merks for his own and his lady’s irregularities, in being absent from the church and private baptisms; and Sir William Scott of Harden, 46,000 pounds Scots for similar enormities. “The sum fined in,” Fountainhall remarks, “jumped with a gift the king’s advocate had new gotten, of £1500 sterling, from the king, out of the first and readiest of the fines, for his pains, expense, and journeys to London.” Nor though Scott had the matter fully argued before the king in council, and was strongly supported by the Marquis of Halifax, could he obtain any relief.
When men high in office and in rank were thus setting decency at defiance for gain, it could not be expected that men in lower life would remain inactive spectators. Nor did they. Fountainhall gives many examples. I select one. Menzies was brought before the criminal court, for collecting money for the rebels in the west and receiving letters from Balfour of Burleigh, one of Sharpe’s murderers. He was condemned to be hanged. But it appearing afterwards that the witnesses were infamous, and that they had sworn largely, i. e. falsely, and that he was delated by one who was owing him money, the privy council reprieved him. Early in the year, Mr John Philip, minister of Queensferry, having, “when in his cups,” called the Duke of York a bloody tyrant, was informed against by his compotators, and being brought before the privy council, March 15th, was fined £2000 sterling, and sent to the Bass, besides being declared infamous and incapable of ever preaching hereafter. At the same time, he was informed if the money was not paid within fourteen days, the council would order him to be criminally prosecuted; but to make assurance doubly sure, their cash-keeper was commanded to take possession of all his books and papers.
In pursuing the march of these despicable mercenaries, high and low, it is deserving of remark, that while they all joined in pursuit of the proscribed Presbyterians, they were equally ready to turn upon each other, whenever they thought they could gain any accession to their own estates from the spoil of those they had crouched before in the hour of their prosperity. Thus, even in this world, does God sometimes display his retributive justice, by permitting the wicked, in their nefarious dealings with one another, to avenge the cause of his own people. Lauderdale furnishes a striking exemplar. After having done every thing in his power to advance the interest of the Duke of York, by procuring his recall from the Continent and his appointment to the government of Scotland, the ungrateful York rewarded him by joining his enemies and aiding the fall of the power of the Maitlands.
In their proceedings this year, the justiciary court commenced by setting every principle of common justice at defiance, refusing to prisoners a list of the witnesses intended to be brought against them, thus depriving them of one grand means of defence, while they had them examined privately upon oath before themselves; and the reason assigned in the king’s letter, procured for this purpose, was worthy of the practice, “so that our advocate may be secure how to manage such processes.” The first person brought before them, a William Martin, younger of Dallarg, was dismissed simpliciter, upon surrendering all his lands and heritages to the Lord Treasurer in favour of the king’s most excellent majesty. The next was William Lawrie, tutor of Blackwood.[[153]] He was charged with conversing with rebels who had been at Bothwell; but although the persons he conversed with had never been pursued at law, much less convicted, and resided at the same time openly in the country; yet did the Lord Advocate contend that if they were in fact rebels, or were reputed or suspected such, that was enough to render it treason to have any intercourse with them; to which the lords agreeing, and several acts of converse being proved, he was condemned to lose his head, and his estate to be forfeited to the king; but being an old man, and professing great sorrow and submission, he was, after several respites, through the interest of the Marquis of Douglas, whose chamberlain he was, pardoned as to life, but his forfeiture was confirmed as a precedent for establishing a most indefinite but lucrative species of treason. This was announced by proclamation, April 13th, requiring judges and magistrates to execute the laws with rigour against all who should receive, harbour, or converse with notour forfeited traitors, or such as they suspected to have done so; to require them to clear themselves by oath, which, if they refused, to hold them as confessed, and punish them by banishment, fining, or other arbitrary punishment. To carry this object the better into execution, circuit-courts were appointed to be holden in the western and southern shires, at Glasgow, Ayr, and Dumfries. Adopting another practice of the inquisition, the emissaries of these courts were to procure all the information they could respecting noblemen, gentlemen, sheriff-principals, or provosts of burghs, of which they were to keep a private roll, and transmit it secretly to the council. The ministers were also ordered to give in lists of all heritors, withdrawers from the church, and all women who were delinquents—of all persons who had left their parishes and the reasons for it—of fugitives, their wives, and widows, and their resetters—and of chapmen and travellers.
[153]. He held the lands of Blackwood, as tutor to the sons of his wife Marion Weir, heiress of the estate.
About this time John Nisbet, younger, was tried at Kilmarnock by Major White, who had a justiciary power sent him for that purpose. As the persecutors were exceedingly anxious to catch John Nisbet of Hardhill, who was peculiarly obnoxious for his holy intrepidity, White pressed his prisoner to inform him respecting the retreat of his namesake; and when he positively refused to say any thing about him, the major told him, after threatening him violently, he would make him sit three hours in hell if he did not. The sufferer mildly replied—“that was not in his power.” He was then asked if he owned the king to be head of the church? He answered, I acknowledge none to be head of the church but Christ. No witnesses were examined, his own confession being deemed sufficient for his conviction. He was executed at Kilmarnock cross, April 14th. Contrary to custom, he was allowed to speak, and addressed the spectators at considerable length, exhorting them to personal godliness, and recommending religion to them from his own feeling and experience. “This,” said he, “is the first execution of this kind at this place, but I am of opinion it will not be the last; but, sirs, death is before you all, and if it were staring you in the face as nearly as it is me at present, I doubt not there would be many awakened consciences among you. As for myself, though death be naturally terrible, and a violent death still more terrible, yet the sting of it being taken away, I reckon every step of this ladder a step nearer heaven.” Here some confusion arising among the soldiers, he stopped, and drawing the napkin over his face, while in the act of commending his soul into his Father’s hands, was launched into eternity.
In May following, John Wilson, writer in Lanark, a pious, learned, and talented man, who had been condemned to die on the 7th, petitioned for a reprieve, as his wife was near her time, and was respited till she was delivered of the babe their cruelty was so soon to make fatherless. On the 17th he was executed along with David Macmillan. He departed rejoicing in God his Saviour, and in the firm belief that he would yet return to his church and people in Scotland, though he feared there would be sad judgments upon those who had forsaken his ways, and declared it as his firm conviction that God would remove that race of kings, root and branch, and make them like Zeba and Zalmunna for taking God’s house in possession. In the testimony which he left, he vindicated resistance to the government then existing, upon the grounds of the violation by them of the duty they owed to the people, although he thought that a rising could only be justified by its probability of success. “As to the denial of the king’s authority, he scunnered to own it, and such things had been done as in a well ordered commonwealth would annul his right; yet he thought authority should not be cast off without a probable power to support in this.” And he proved his positions by the Confession of Faith embodied in the test itself, as well as by the authority of their own leading bishop, Honyman, who in his answer to Naphtali granted “that a king might be lawfully resisted in case he should alienate the kingdom to strangers.” With regard to the bishop’s death, he would pronounce no opinion; he durst not call it murder, if the motives of the actors were pure; but if the actors were touched with anything of particular prejudice or by-ends, that Scripture of avenging the blood of Jezebel upon the house of Jehu would not suffer him to justify it. Along with him suffered David Macmillan, a plain countryman, who had gone with a party of horse to Bothwell. On their being dispersed, he dismounted and joined a body of foot which still maintained their ground, till they also were overpowered. When he asked for quarter, a soldier replied—“I’ll give you quarters,” and knocked him down. While lying bleeding, a Highlander fired at him and struck him, but the ball being perhaps spent, did him no hurt. He got home and remained undisturbed, although suspected, till now, when having retired to the kirk for the purpose of reading the Scriptures, he was discovered by Claverhouse in the very act; and being carried before the justiciary, he was very summarily sent to the gibbet. In his last testimony he “earnestly wished that love might continue among the godly, notwithstanding of differences in judgment, and desired every one to look on their own sins as the cause of the present undoing of religion, and still remember the church was purchased by Christ’s blood.” He blessed God who had honoured him with his cross, and that ever he had heard the gospel preached in the fields; and adds—“I could not argument for the truth as others, but I never had a look to go back, nor one hard thought of God.”