Mad Dogs and the Galloping Fever in Glasgow in 1712 #History #Scotland

•July 22, 2018 • Leave a Comment

Bite Him Peper

In 1712, the Reverend Robert Wodrow hanged his dog:

‘The week before [c.17 September, 1712], and the beginning of this [“greatest land flood”], before I went east, the doggs turned many of them mad. I hanged mine, and soe did severall others in this parish. I hear many horses are bitt by them in the neighbourhood. This, with the small-pox and measles, and a sore throat, with a feaver of three or four dayes, called the ” Galloping-feaver,” and by some ” the Dunkirk sickness,” was first in Edinburgh, and then at Glasgou, and all the West country. I hear last Sabbath, the third part of the people of Glasgou wer not in the Church, noe family almost escaping it. All thir seem to say, there is a malignancy in the air; and, if mercy prevent not, may forbode a pestilentiall distemper!’ (Wodrow, Analecta, II, 90-1.)

Advertisements

The Calm Before the Storm: Ayrshire in 1679 #History #Scotland

•July 21, 2018 • Leave a Comment

Ayr

In the weeks before the Presbyterian Rising of 1679, Captain James Murray of His Majesty’s Regiment of Dragoons was busy in Ayrshire pursuing those suspected of assisting the field preacher, John Welsh, to evade capture. Murray was responding to the general belief among the Army commanders, that Welsh would head the rebellion. He should have been looking elsewhere, as the Covenanters who did start the rebellion had just struck at Newmilns in Ayrshire …

The evidence of Murray’s activities comes in letter from him to the Earl of Linlithgow, the commander of the Scottish Army, of 21 April, 1679. The letter reveals how frustrated Murray was with the lack of judicial action against the followers of Welsh in Ayrshire.

‘Letter from Captain [James] Murray [of Philiphaugh] to the Earle of Linlithgow anent the killing & wounding of the Kings sojers at New Mills.

Aire, [Monday] Appril 21, 1679.

My Lord,
Yours [i.e., his letter] I receaved wpon firiday last [18 April] abowt 6 in ye afternoon, & wpon Saturndayse night [19 April] I sent three parties to ye cowntrie for apprehending thoise persones included in my order, as alsoe I mead a search for thoise qo were recidentors here in Town [of Ayr], bwt all I gote wes one William Thomsone tenent in Monibold [? probably Maybole], ane active man in all ye rebelliows meetings, & swbstantiows, & one John Mackerrall in Mackelstowne [i.e., Mackailston] tenent to ye Laird of Kirk[-]michell qo profferred 30 dollers to ye comander of ye partie to dispence with his escaipe.

And in ye Town [of Ayr] I gote none but one Andrew Makclellin, Merchand, & ye schoolmister Adamsone, all ye rest bying flede, w[hic]h maikes me verrie apprehensive of y[ou]r intelligence, thowgch I cane not divyne q[uha]t way,

this day [Monday 21 April] I have sent a partie to Wewing [i.e., Irvine] in disgwise, hoping to meet with some of thoise I cowld not find here, yr byng a great merket yr. My Lord it is thowght strainge yt in ye shyre of Aire & Wigtowne yr is not a mane intercommwned or declared fwgitive;

I have receaved no comands conserning thoise two indwlged ministers ye one intertaining [John] Welch [formerly of Irongray] in his howse, ye other in his pwlpite, yr is one Mr Yownge licensed by ye indwlged ministers contraire to lawe to preach at Cilmamoch [i.e., Kilmarnock] & ane other Mr [John] Gilchryst in ye Chwrch of Carsfarne [Carsphairn] which I jwdge a high contempt of Awthoritie,

lykwyse yt Thomas Cennitie [Kennedy] of Grange in Carrik hes been at severals conventikles & baptized childring yr, thowgch he gaive in bond to ye contraire to ye committie at Aire,’

Kennedy of Grange was later forfeited for marching with John Welsh’s Carrick men to the Bothwell Rising.

‘lykwyse yr is yt ladey Cornehill [i.e., Mary Stewart, Lady Corsehill] a great interteaner of Mr [John] Welch, & keeps a chapling, Mr William Wallis, qo hes extreamlye oftine been at those rebelliows meetings.

My lord I cane name a great many gentlemen qo hes entertained Welch, if ye cownsell will say anay thing to yem, I wish with all my hart I had a generall order, for apprehending all thoise yt have receste Welch & others qo have been lived irregwlerly & freqwents feild meetings & entertaines vagrant preachers, yen I showld bee jealowse of none for intelligence, but blaime my owne condwct in caise of noe succeese, but Ill bege yowr lord[shi]p pardone for this, qo ame not in ye least to prescribe rwles to yowr lord[shi]p or his Maj[estie]s Cownsell qo wants not both airt & candore in all effaires.’

Murray men were busy pursuing the network of supporters of John Welsh in Ayrshire, but as his letter continues, he describes how they encountered something new in the fields, the militant Covenanters who followed Richard Cameron, Thomas Douglas and Robert Hamilton, when they attacked soldiers at Newmilns….

Return to Homepage

Additional Text © Copyright Dr Mark Jardine. All Rights Reserved. Please link to this post on Facebook or other social networks or retweet it, but do not reblog in FULL without the express permission of the author @drmarkjardine

The Witches of Balmaclellan in Galloway #History #Scotland

•July 17, 2018 • Leave a Comment

Hare 17th Century Witch

The field preacher and minister Thomas Warner gave Wodrow an account of his discovery of witches in his parish in Galloway in c.1690. At least one of them was executed:

‘He gave me a long accompt of Witches, in his parish of Balmaclellan. A litle after the Revolution, one of them, Elspay …. he gote discovered, and very clear probation of persons that sau her in the shape of a hare ; and when taken, she started up in her own shape of malum minatum and damnum secutum. That she was tryed at Kircudbright, and found guilty. That when before the Judge, he observed her inclinable to confesse, when of a suddain her eyes being fixed upon a particular part of the room, she sank doun in the place. He lift her up, and challanged her, whither her master had not appeared in that place, and terrifyed her, when inclining to be ingenouse? She ouned it was soe, and confessed all, and was execute.

She and the rest [of the witches] got po[w]ur over a mare of his; and she, though formerly peacable, yet would never lett any off her without the hazard of their life ; that still for a while he road on her, but had great difficulty to gett off without being brained. All this process is in the Records of the Presbytery, of which I am promised ane abstract.’ (Wodrow, Analecta, II, 86-7.)

 

The Trial of a Militant Covenanter & the Rye House Plots of 1683 #History #Scotland

•July 15, 2018 • Leave a Comment

Lainshaw

If an account in Wodrow’s Analecta is to be believed, then the 1683 trial in Kilmarnock of the militant Covenanter John Nisbet “in Glen” was, in part, a set up, to bring down moderate-presbyterian Ayrshire lairds who were set to be members of the jury. However, here we enter the labyrinth of Restoration politics and plots …

Was that later story a cover up? Was it a cover story for moderate presbyterian skullduggery in the Rye House Plots planning a rising against Charles II?

The Trial of John Nisbet
The key details in the story is the trial of John Nisbet in Glen in late March/very early April, 1683. Major Andrew White was granted justiciary power to try him on 22 March and Nisbet was executed on 4 April. As we know little of the trial of Nisbet, any fragment of information about it is valuable.

One mystery surrounding it, is why he was tried in Kilmarnock, rather than in Edinburgh? The charges Nisbet faced were common in treason trials at that time and there is no obvious local dimension to them. The story Wodrow tells may suggest that some in authority wanted the trial to be held in Ayrshire with the specific goal of testing the loyalties of local Presbytrian lairds in the expectation that they would profit from their downfall and forfeiture.

However, much of Wodrow’s account depends on an alleged conversation between James Crawford of Ardmillan and the nephew of David Montgomery of Lainshaw.

Was Ardmillan telling the truth? Or was it cunning ploy by him to put Lainshaw to flight?

Or was it a story put out by Lord Lisle, the son of David Montgomery of Lainshaw, to justify, or muddy the waters of, his father’s role in the Rye House Plots against Charles II?

All of the above could be true. Perhaps all of them tell different parts of the story.

The Lainshaw Story
In September, 1722, Wodrow reported that:

‘Mr Robert Millar tells rne, that he had this account from [Montgomery of] Langshau, nou Lord Lisle, who had it from his father [David Montgomery of Lainshaw], who was one of the gentlmen: That the occasion of the trouble the West country gentlmen met with, 1683, or therabout, viz. [Sir Hugh Campbell of] Cesnock, [Sir William Mure of] Rewallan, Langshau, &c,

after [George Gordon the earl of] Aberdeen was made Chancelor [in late 1682], he sent for John Boyle of Kelburn, and would have him to sup with him; and that night enquired very particularly at him anent all the gentlmen in the shire of Air who favoured the Presbyterians, and had good estates, and yet wer so regular and loyall, as they could not be reached by the then laues, and concerted and formed a designe with the said gentlmen to reach them.

Langshau was to be called to be one of the assize to sit of John Nisbet [in Glen], who was to be processed before Major [Andrew] White’s Court at Kilmarnock [in late March or early April, 1683]; which, if he refused, which they expected he would, the Major was to send a party of horse, and seize him; and paralel methods wer to be taken with other gentlmen, to ensnare them.’

It appears that Lainshaw was to sit on the jury at the trial of Nisbet in late March or early April, 1683, but, as we shall see, he fled Scotland before it took place. Presumably, Lainshaw was going to find it problematic to find Nisbet guilty. That was not because Nisbet was innocent of the charges that he faced, which he was almost certainly guilty of. It was probably due to one or two factors. First, Lainshaw probably doubted that some of the charges constituted treason at all. Second, Lainshaw was probably involved in treasonable negotiations at that time and may have feared that he would be captured.

Nisbet had allegedly been in the rebellion of 1679. When captured in 1683, he owned that the Bothwell Rising was legal and in self defence. Perhaps the moderate-presbyterian Lainshaw had few problems with Nisbet’s views on that. However, Nisbet had gone further under interrogation, as he disowned royal authority and owned the militant ministries of Richard Cameron and Donald Cargill who had treasonably forfeited and excommunicated the King. Usually moderates like Lainshaw had very few problems disavowing the supporters of that militant platform in 1683. But there was a third issue with Nisbet’s trial. Soon after it, Nisbet disputed that he was guilty of ‘self murder’, i.e., that he was martyring himself. In other words, the evidence of Nisbet’s alleged treason was only of his stated opinions, his failure to answer questions, rather than “hard facts” that he had actually committed any treasonable act. Lainshaw could have had a problem with that, as the same could be applied to him and his fellow moderate gentry. It appears that Lainshaw could have foreseen the potential bear trap that Nisbet’s trial had set for him and other moderate presbyterians on the jury.

Meanwhile in Edinburgh an enemy apparently warned him of the danger:

‘[James] Crauford of Ardmillan, and another who lived and made their fortunes by spo[o]king the shire of Air, fearing some concert ‘twixt Kelburn and the Chancelor, when so much and late together, that might interfer with their gain, resolved to wait his coming out from the Chancelour, and, if possible, to get the secret from him. Accordingly, they catched him, and plyed him hard that night with the bottle, till at length, (post vinum Veritas, ) he opened and told them the secret concert ‘twixt them, against the above-mentioned gentlmen and others.

Ardmillan, finding he was not to share the spoil, nixt morning met with John Caldwell of that Ilk on the street, nepheu to [David Montgomery of] Langshau, then at Edinburgh, and acquainted him with the concert and designe against his uncle as above, who immediately took his horses and rode west to Langshau [in Ayrshire], and acquainted his uncle; who, finding hou matters wer like to go, nixt day took his horse and rode for London, taking Rewallan and Cesnock in his way as he went; and to them he discovered the designe, who in a week or therby folloued him, seing there was noe safety at all to be had in Scotland, let them be never so regular or loyall.’

Events appear to have moved quickly. As soon as he nephew rode to Lainshaw, he fled the next day for London. On the way he warned Rowallen, Hugh Campbell, elder of Cessnock, and, probably, George Campbell, younger of Cessnock. It is remarkable that all of these gentlemen were prepared to fly at relatively short notice to evade entrapment at the trial of a militant presbyterian. Were they, too, aware of the bear trap? Or were they aware they were about to depart for London anyway to plot an insurrection of their own? Perhaps the earl of Aberdeen was right to try and flush them out.

‘When at London [in April, 1683], they fell in to the acquaintance and conversation with the Earl of Shaftsburry and others, who wer upon Monmouth’s party for the liberty of the subject, and against the Duke of York, and wer present at [a] meeting with them and others, for which they wer afterwards processed.

Thus gentlmen wer first attacked, when living peacably at home, and threatned with ruin, and forced to fly the country, and then forfaulted for sham-plots. Langshau was a person to whom Shaftsburry used to give great incomiums for his great abilitys. He was forced to fly to Dublin, and live privately there for some years, till the Tolleration [in 1687]. (Wodrow, Analecta, II, 365-6.)

Whig Plots in London

The London element of the story is intriguing. Lainshaw had apparently been lauded by the earl of Shaftesbury. As the earl fled London for the United Provinces in late November, 1682, and died there in January, 1683, i.e., months before Lainshaw and the other gentlemen fled, it appears that Lainshaw had met Shaftesbury in London or the United Provinces before the latter’s death.

Lainshaw and some of the other named Ayrshire lairds who fled with him were involved in meetings with Monmouth’s party in April, 1683, i.e., immediately after they journeyed to London. Those meetings were part of the Rye House Plots about launching a joint Scottish and English insurrection against the King and raising money for the Earl of Argyll to do so in Scotland. (Greaves, Secrets of the Kingdom, 164-5.)

In May to June, 1685, Lainshaw and other gentlemen were forfeited in absentia by Parliament in Scotland for their part in those meetings in London.

Lainshaw was forfeited the following lands and his title:

‘the ten merk land of Lainshaw and teinds thereof, the ten merk land of Kirkbride, with the mill and pertinents, the five pound land of Milnton of Flett, the five merk land of Over and Nether Peacock lands, with the mill and pertinents, with the tower and fortalice called Castle Stewart [Lainshaw Castle?], and lands of Brokholmer, all lying within the bailiary of Cunninghame and sheriffdom of Ayr; and the lands of Over Castleton, extending to a three merk land, with the teinds and pertinents, lying within the said bailiary and sheriffdom, all formerly pertaining to the said David Montgomery, sometime of Lainshaw.’ (RPS, 1685/4/77.)

Somehow the trial of a militant Covenanter, John Nisbet in Glen, had led to the flight and later forfeiture of several high-profile and moderate-presbyterian Ayrshire lairds.

Return to Homepage

Text © Copyright Dr Mark Jardine. All Rights Reserved. Please link to this post on Facebook or other social networks or retweet it, but do not reblog in FULL without the express permission of the author @drmarkjardine

The Assassin Andrew Gullane is Executed in Edinburgh, 1683 #History #Scotland

•July 13, 2018 • Leave a Comment

One of the assassins of Archbishop Sharp was discovered in hiding near Edinburgh and executed.

On 14 June, 1683, he was warded into Edinburgh Tolbooth:
‘You are upon sight heirof to receive the body of Andrew gullian ane of the murthers of the late Archbishope of Stantandrosse (sic) [in 1679] and to keep him closse prissoner in the tolbuith of Edr in irons ffor doeing which this shall be yor warrand’ (Book of the Old Edinburgh Club, VIII, 152.)

A month later, under 13 July, 1683:
‘Androw Guillen execute at the [mercat] cross of Edr by sentence of the Lords of Justiciary as being accessory to the late Bishop of St andrews death’ (Book of the Old Edinburgh Club, VIII, 153.)

The Covenanters’ Minister Murder Plot of 1682 #History #Scotland

•June 30, 2018 • Leave a Comment

Killing Times

According to reports that Wodrow heard from presbyterian ministers decades later, the militant Covenanter John Nisbet of Hardhill was the chief mover behind a plot to ‘murder’ indulged presbyterian ministers in Ayrshire in a coordinated series of attacks in 1682. Wodrow had trouble in believing that the plot was real and instead weakly blamed Catholics ‘in disguise’ for encouraging the plan, which is, frankly, a ridiculous and despicable excuse, but was par for the course in those times.

According to Wodrow in 1712:
‘Mr [Andrew] Tate [minister at Carmunnock from 1692] informs me he had this account from Mr Antony Shau [induged at Loudoun parish], and others of the Indulged: That at some time, under the Indulgence, there was a meeting of some people, where they resolved in one night, which they sett to divide themselves in soe many, [to] goe to. evry house of the Indulged Ministers, and kill them; and all in one night. The thing took soe farr air, that it comes to the Earl of Loudon’s hands, who sent for all the Indulged Ministers near him, and keeped them that night in his house. Mr Shau and severall others came to the house of Loudon that night; and it was a matter generally then knouen. I find this account confirmed by Mr John Millar [minister of Neilston]; who tells me, he hath heard his mother [Grizel Cochrane] frequently tell of it, and that one of these High-flyers came about the house [in Ochiltree parish], and desired to speak with [her husband] Mr [Robert] Millar, but they wer in some terrour.’ (Wodrow, Analecta, II, 63-4.)

Wodrow’s informant for the murder plot was Andrew Tait (d.1742), the minister of Carmunnock from 1692, who was married to a daughter of Andrew Morton (d.1691), an indulged minister who had been under the protection of John Maxwell of Pollock in 1679 and the minister of Carmunnock before Tait. (Fasti, III, 379.)

Tait’s source was Anthony Shaw (d.1687), who was the indulged minister at the heart of the action in Loudoun parish, Ayrshire. As Shaw was removed from his charge on 2 January, 1684, the alleged plot must have taken place before that date. Shaw must have passed his account of the plot on to Tait before he died in 1687. (Fasti, III, 120-1.)

Wodrow’s source that confirmed the story of the plot was Mr John Miller, the minister of Neilston, via the stories he had heard from his mother, Grizel Cochrane, a niece of earl of Dundonald. She had been married to Robert Miller (d.1685), the indulged minister of Ochiltree parish. (Fasti, III, 61.)

In 1681, when militants were deterring people from going to hear the indulged, one woman responded to Robert Miller ‘being spoken of as a great prayer’ with ‘so is a ——- great at the one end, small at the other.’ (Law, Memorialls, 203.)

Loudoun Palace

Loudoun Palace

Wodrow’s Second Version of the Plot
Tait had further information on the alleged murder plot a decade later in 1722:

‘Mr Andreu Tate, Minister at Carmunnock, tells me that he was fully informed and assured, that, in the late times, ther was a designe formed among some of the rigid and High-flying Cameronians, to assasinat the Indulged Ministers in the shire of Air, at their houses, in one night, by different partys. That this designe was so far gone into, that it was agreed to in a meeting of these wild people, where . . . Nisbit, father to Mrs Fairly, wife to Mr Ralph Fairly in Glasgou, was present. He used to meet with them formerly; but when he heard that proposall, his very hair stood, and he never more went to their meetings. That, as soon as possible, he got a hint of this conveyed to my Lord Loudon [i.e., the earl of Loudoun], then living at Mauchlin, (I suppose it might be 1682 or [168]3, ) and informed him of the time it was designed. My Lord sent expresses to Mr Robert Millar [the indulged minister] at Ochiltrea, Mr James Vetch [indulged] at Mauchlin, and others in the neighbourhood that wer Indulged, and called them to his house that night; and severall of them came. My informer [Andrew Tait] was then in my Lord Loudon’s family, and had the account from the above-said Mr Nisbit.’ (Wodrow, Analecta, II, 357.)

In Wodrow’s second record of the minister murder plot, one of the militant Society people named Nisbet betrayed the plot to the earl of Loudoun in advance of the date that it was due to be carried out. Loudoun then sent expresses to Robert Miller, the indulged minister of Ochiltree. Miller’s son had provided Wodrow with information in the first record of the plot.

One of the others that Loudoun sent an express to was James Veitch (d.1694), the indulged minster at Mauchline. Wodrow suggested date for the plot of 1682 or 1683 is plausible, as like Shaw, Veitch was deprived of his charge at the beginning of January, 1684.

Wodrow’s Third Version of the Plot
In 1731, Wodrow returned, again, to the Cameronian Society people’s plot to murder the indulged ministers. On that occasion Wodrow had a name for the chief plotter:

‘Mr Andreu Tait tells me, (perhaps it’s already set doun,) that, about the [16]78, or, may be, afterwards [i.e., probably in1682 or 1683], ther was a design laid, and a particular night fixed, by John Nisbit of Hardhill, who was said to [be] the principal promotter of it, and other violent Cameronians, as they wer called, to attack all the Indulged Ministers in the shire of Air their houses, and to murder them. That one privy to it [i.e., a different Nisbet in the United Societies from Hardhill] revealed it to the Earl of Loudon, the last Earle Hugh[‘s] father, a very litle before it was to be execute; and the Earl immediately wrote letters to them, and sent expresses with them, requiring them to come to his house at Loudon, wher they should be safe that night; and that, accordingly, eight or nine of them came, among whom Mr Heu Campbell of Muirkirk was one, who told the informer [Andrew Tait].’ (Wodrow, Analecta, IV, 302.)

John Nisbet of Hardhill (d.1685) was a notorious fugitive Covenanter from Loudoun parish.

In this third version of the plot, Wodrow’s identification of the earl of Loudoun, as ‘the last Earle Hugh[‘s] father’ narrows down the potential time frame for the plot. James Campbell, the father of Hugh, was earl of Loudoun until his death in 1684, however, he fled to the United Provinces prior to the revelation of the Rye House Plots in June, 1683. The alleged plot must date to 1682 or early 1683. It is possible that the plot was earlier, as Wodrow suggests in this third version. However it could not have been as early as 1678, as Wodrow suggests. It is clear from Wodrow’s description of the alleged plotters as ‘violent’, ‘rigid’ and ‘High-flying Cameronians’ that the alleged plot plainly post dates June 1680 and was probably after 1681.

Wodrow also named a fourth indulged minister as a potential target in Muirkirk parish, Hugh Campbell (d.1714). (Fasti, III, 59.)

The parishes of Muirkirk, Loudoun, Ochiltree and Mauchline where places where the militant Society people were active.

Was the Plot Real?
In the end, it comes down to how much you trust the later moderate presbyterian accounts and their interrelation with other. Tait, who was said to have been part of the earl of Loudoun’s household (presumably before the end of 1687), was informed by two ministers, Anthony Shaw of Loudoun parish who died in 1687 and Hugh Campbell of Muirkirk parish who died in 1714. Wodrow was informed by Tait, but also by the minister of Neilston, whose mother and father (d.1685) were involved in the events.

In the end, Wodrow settled on the ridiculous and conforting idea that Catholic incendiaries were behind a false alarm, even tough all his sources were moderate presbyterians:

‘This information seems to be very indubitable; and yet it’s strange that, these forty years, I have met with no hint of this but this one. One would not wish to belive such a horrid thing in people who have the name of Christians! I knou sad lenths wer run to by some at this time, and the coal was blouen by Papists in disguise; but one would willingly belive that this may have been a false alarum, really given to the good Earle, by one who was ane enemie to the sufferers, with a designe to leave a blott upon them. Houever, I have set [it] doun as I have it.’ (Wodrow, Analecta, IV, 302-3.)

For more on John Nisbet of Hardhill, see here.

 

John Welsh’s Secret Meeting in Edinburgh in 1679 #History #Scotland

•June 27, 2018 • Leave a Comment

Nor Loch Edinburgh 1690

Alexander Hamilton of Kinkell was a intimate of John Welsh, the former minister of Irongray who was one of the main leaders of Presbyterian Rising in 1679. Kinkell was imprisoned between July, 1679, and the end of February, 1680, on suspicion of his role in the Presbyterian Rising. During his imprisonment, he is said to have secretly met with the fugitive Welsh in Edinburgh at the end of 1679.

What makes his connection to Welsh interesting, is that his servant, John Henderson. was connected to the militant Donald Cargill. Henderson was described by one presbyterian opponent as ‘an ignorant, proud, presumptuous, crack-brained sectary’ and Cargill’s ‘armour-bearer’. He was also sent to a meeting at his master’s commission that planned an attack on the sheriff of Fife which led to the assassination of Archbishop Sharp on 3 May, 1679. Some of the assassins may have been hidden in Kinkell Cave after the deed. At some point in that process, Kinkell rejected Henderson.

Wodrow:
‘I am well informed, by one present, that Mr John Welsh was at Edinburgh in the end of the 1679, or therabout. Ther had been a great intimacy between him and Mr [Alexander] Hamiltoun of Kinkell. He was at that time in prison at Edinburgh. Mr Hamiltoun was suffered to go out sometimes with a keeper with him in the day time, and came still at night back. One day, finding Mr Welsh in town, and desirouse to meet with him, he got rid of his keeper for a little money, and came wher Mr Welsh was. When they wer together, his wife brought the allarum that ther was a search, and that it was already in the same land [i.e., set of buildings in Edinburgh] they wer [in]. Mr Welsh paused for a little, and at lenth he said to Miss [Mistress] Hamiltoun, “Be not affrayed, I am assured the searchers shall not once come near us !” and so it was, they did not enter that house. This was the last time Mr Welsh was at Edinburgh, before he went to London and dyed. (Wodrow, Analecta, III, 12.)