Viscount Dundee

by Louis A. Barbé

Queensberry was as fully convinced as Claverhouse that there had been a plot, which the unforeseen delay in Edinburgh had alone prevented from being put to execution. Writing to the Chancellor a few days later, he said: ‘I doubt not but your Lordship has full account of Clavers’ re-encounter at the Bille. It was good he did not come a day sooner; for certainly their design was against him.’

In the course of the year 1682, the jealousy aroused by Claverhouse’s appointment as Sheriff-Principal of Wigtownshire, and by the special power bestowed upon him to hold criminal courts, culminated in an open quarrel between him and the family of Stair, of which the head was Sir James Dalrymple, who, but a short time previously, had fallen into disgrace, and had been virtually deposed from his office of President of the Court of Session, for not conforming with the Test Act. According to the summary given of the case by Fountainhall, who was one of the counsel for the Stair family, Captain Graham of Claverhouse having imprisoned some of the Dalrymples’ tenants in Galloway for absenting themselves from the parish church and attending conventicles, Sir John, the ex-president’s son, took up the matter, and presented a bill of suspension to the Privy Council, alleging that he, as heritable Bailie of the Regality of Glenluce, within which the peasants lived, had already taken cognizance of their case; and that Claverhouse, not being the first attacher, was precluded by the limitations and restrictions of his commission, from taking action in the matter, and had no claim to the ‘casualities and emoluments of the fine.’

Claverhouse replied that it was he who had first cited the offenders, and that Sir John’s action was collusive. When the matter was first brought before the Privy Council, it was ordained that the imprisoned tenants should be set at liberty, after consigning their fines, which Fountainhall denounces as ‘most exorbitant,’ into the hands of the clerk. The point of jurisdiction was reserved; but in the meantime, the Council administered a reprimand to the Dalrymples, and told them in very plain terms, that ‘heritable Bailies and Sheriffs who were negligent themselves in putting the laws in execution, should not offer to compete with the Sheriffs commissioned and put in by the Council, who executed vigorously the King’s law.’

But it was not Claverhouse’s intention that his opponent should escape so easily. He met the charges made against him with a bill of complaint, in which the gravest accusations followed each other in overwhelming array. The leading counts in the indictment bore that Sir John Dalrymple had weakened the hands of the Government in the county of Galloway, by traversing and opposing the commission which the King’s Council had given Claverhouse; that he had done his utmost to stir up the people to a dislike of the King’s forces there; that he kept disloyal and disaffected persons to be bailies and clerks in his regality, and had not administered the test to them till long after January 1682, contrary to the Act of Parliament; that he had imposed on delinquents mock fines, not the fiftieth or sixtieth part of what the law required, for the sole purpose of anticipating and forestalling Claverhouse; that he and his father had offered Claverhouse a bribe of £150 sterling, out of the fines, to connive at the irregularities of his mother, Lady Stair, of his sisters, and of others; that he had laughed insolently at the proclamation of a court, made by Claverhouse, and had ordered his tenants not to attend it; that he had traduced and defamed Claverhouse to the Privy Council; and that he had accused him of cheating the King’s Treasury, by exacting fines and not accounting for them.

When Sir John Dalrymple’s answers to these charges had been read, the Chancellor gave some indication of the temper and feeling of the Council by reproving him ‘for his tart reflections on Claverhouse’s ingenuity,’ and by denying his right to adduce witnesses, whilst, on the other side, Claverhouse was allowed to call whom he chose, in support of the charges brought by him against Sir John. Fountainhall states that ‘there was much transport, flame, and humour in this cause;’ and he mentions that, at one phase of the proceedings, when Dalrymple alleged that the people of Galloway had turned orderly and regular, Claverhouse, alluding to the latest Edinburgh novelty of the time, replied that there were as many elephants and crocodiles in Galloway as loyal subjects. According to Sir John himself, Claverhouse went much further than a direct denial of his opponents’ assertions, and, in the presence of the Committee of Council appointed to examine witnesses, threatened to give him a box in the ear.

As might have been foreseen from the tone and tenor of the whole proceedings, the judgment of the Council, pronounced on the 12th of February 1683, was a complete triumph for Claverhouse. Not only was it found that he had done nothing but what was legal and consonant with his commission and instructions; but, in addition to that, the Chancellor complimented him, and, expressing wonder that he, not being a lawyer, had walked so warily in so irregular a country, conveyed to him the Council’s thanks, as an encouragement. With regard to Sir John Dalrymple, on the other hand, the finding of the Council, set forth under five specific heads, was, generally, to the effect that he had exceeded his commission, weakened the authority of the King and of the Council, and interfered with the due administration of the law. In punishment of his conduct, he was deprived of his jurisdiction and office, as bailie of the regality of Glenluce, and fined in the sum of £500 sterling. Further, it was ordered that he should be submitted prisoner in the Castle of Edinburgh, and detained there, not merely till the money was paid, but during the Council’s pleasure. His incarceration was not, however, of long duration. He was liberated on the 20th of the same month, after paying the fine, acknowledging his rashness, and craving the Council’s pardon.

Whilst the matter between Claverhouse and Dalrymple was still pending, neither the Duke of York nor the King appears to have felt conscious of any impropriety in giving expression to his personal sentiments and sympathy. The former, writing to Queensberry at the beginning of December, said: ‘I am absolutely of your mind as to Claverhouse; and think his presence more necessary in Galloway than anywhere else; for he need not fear anything Stairs can say of him, his Majesty being so well satisfied with him.’ On the 25th of the same month, Charles, to show his appreciation of Claverhouse’s ‘loyalty, courage, and good conduct,’ appointed him to be Colonel of a regiment of horse, which was formed for his special benefit, and also gave him the captaincy of a troop in the same regiment.

Shortly after his promotion Claverhouse undertook a journey to the English court, partly on public business, as the bearer of despatches from the Council, and partly as a private suitor, not only on his own behalf but also in the interest of others who had not been slow to recognise the favour in which he stood, and were anxious to avail themselves of his influence. At this time, the Committee which, in June 1682, had been appointed to investigate the charges of peculation and malversation brought against Charles Maitland of Hatton, younger brother and heir presumptive to the Duke of Lauderdale, whom the family influence had raised to the responsible position of General of the Scottish mint, had not yet presented its report; but there existed no doubt that the decision would prove adverse to Hatton, who had, in the meantime, become Earl of Lauderdale, and greedy suitors were already preparing to put forward their claims to a share of the spoils which the ruin of the family would place at the King’s disposal. Amongst these were Queensberry who, though but lately raised to a marquisate, already aspired to a dukedom, and Gordon of Haddo, who was anxious to obtain a grant of money, either a thousand pounds sterling a year, or twenty thousand pounds sterling, which were thought to be the equivalent, to enable him to maintain the double dignity of High Chancellor and of Earl of Aberdeen recently conferred upon him.

Claverhouse, too, meant to avail himself of the opportunity thus offered him, for the purpose of adding to his own estates in Forfarshire the neighbouring lands of Dudhope, and of obtaining the constabulary of Dundee. The main object of his visit to England was to look after these several interests; and the letters written by him from Newmarket, where the King and the Duke of York were staying at the time, give his correspondents in Scotland a full and detailed account of the manner in which he discharged his commission, in the intervals of ‘cock-fighting and courses.’

When he returned to Scotland, about the middle of May 1683, he was able to convey to those concerned satisfactory assurances, which the sequel justified, as to the success of the extensive job which they had planned between them. He had been preceded by a royal letter in which Charles informed his ‘right trusty and right well-beloved cousins and counsellors’ of his desire that Colonel John Graham of Claverhouse, in consideration of his loyalty, abilities, and eminent services, should be received and admitted a Privy Councillor. Claverhouse was accordingly sworn in, on the 22nd of the month, and at once took an important part in carrying out the further punitive measures which had been determined upon during his stay at the English Court, and of which he was, in all probability, the instigator.