Chap. 2., pp.21-47.

[History of Glasgow, &c. Contents]

State of the country, and of the opinions of men

previous to, and at the Reformation

   1551 JAMES BEATON, of the house of Balfour in Fife, was preferred to the see of Glasgow. At this period, the church, if the reformed will allow it that name, was employed in controversies respecting the mode of address in prayer; the catholics insisted that our addresses should be to the saints, as secondary agents; the reformed were of opinion, that prayer should be addressed to God alone, saying, Our Father which art in heaven. 

   1556 The transactions of this year begin with the citation and condemnation of Mr. John Knox, who had gone to Geneva, being elected minister of the English church in that city. This year was remarkable for various prodigies, celestial and terrestrial. A comet shone with great lustre, during the months of November, December, and January; large rivers were dried up, in the midst of winter; and, in the summer, so overflowed their banks, as to drown several villages; and many cattle, feeding in the low grounds, were by the currents swept down to the ocean: large whales were embayed in the frith, and cast on the shores of the Forth. Hailstones, of the bigness of doves eggs, fell in many parts, and destroyed the corn. 

   These wonderful phenomena of nature, were followed by one more terrific; during many days and nights a terrible fiery dragon was seen fly low and near the earth, and, to appearance, vomited fire both day and night; the flames, emitted by this meteor, were so nigh the surface of the earth, and in contact with it, that the people found it necessary to watch their houses and corn-yards. The courtiers thought these signs prognosticated troubles from the match with France; the thinking part of the people conceived that it preceded some great change in the church and state; and, indeed, the estimation in which the clergy were held diminished daily. Impressed with this idea, numbers of them relinquished their order, made open profession of the doctrines of the reformed, and taught them in their sermons, from the pulpits of their own churches. This defection becoming general over the whole country, the friars, preachers, breaking loose from their cloisters, and, in their sermons, declaiming against the corruptions of the church, so alarmed the bishops, that they persuaded the good queen regent to cite these apostates before her council, for raising mutinies, and stirring up sedition. They obeyed, and were accompanied by such multitudes of their hearers, as to alarm the queen, who put off the trial to another time; and, in support of her authority, issued a proclamation, ordering all strangers, who had come to the city without licence, to repair to the borders in 15 days, and attend the lieutenant in the service against England. The west country gentlemen, who had come in a tumult to the palace, entered the queen’s privy chamber, and complained of the unreasonableness of these orders. One of them, in the language and manners of the times, said, We know, Madam, that this is the desire of the bishops, who stand by you; we vow to God, it shall not go so; they oppress us; and our poor tenants, for feeding their idle bellies; they trouble our preachers, and seek to undo them, and us; we will not suffer it any longer. At these words, every man laid his hand on his sword, and so frightened the queen, that she begged leave to assure them, the preachers had only been called on, that she might hear a controversy with them and the bishops. We have seen that the seeds of the reformation were planted by fire, and, in due time, that they grew in it, and that the tares were pruned by the sword. The burning of Walter Mill, an old decrepit priest, who was tried and condemned for not saying mass, was, it is said, the death of popery in Scotland. 

   So early as 1539, says Hume of Godscroft, the clergy appeared to dread a change in religion; for illustration of which, he introduces the following anecdote. 

   This year was remarkable for the death of some great and learned men, who were ornaments to their country, and the age in which they lived, viz. Messrs. John Major, Hector Boeth or Boece, men of good learning, and worthy to be remembered. – With them I shall join a character, possessed of no learning, nor any good qualities, but remarkable for many strange and remarkable things seen in him, which made him the wonder and talk of the time. – This man, named John Scott, having lost a lawsuit, and knowing himself unable to implement the decreet, took sanctuary in the Abbey of Holyroodhouse; where, out of deep displeasure at his ill fortune, he abstained from meat or drink for thirty or forty days together. Public report brought this to the king, who brought it to a proof, by causing Scott to be shut up in a private room in the castle of Edinburgh, whereto no person had access, and caused a little bread and water to be set by him, which he was found not to have tasted in the space of thirty-two days. – After this undoubted proof given of his abstinence, Scott was set at liberty; and coming out of his prison, half-naked, into the street, made a speech to the people that flocked about him, affirming, he did all this by the help of the blessed virgin, and that he could fast as long as he pleased. Many took it for a miracle, esteeming him a person of great sanctity; others thought he was frantic and mad; and, coming to be neglected, he left the country, went to Rome, when he gave a like satisfying proof of his fasting to pope Clement VII. 

   From thence he set out for Venice, clad in the holy vestures which the priests wear when they say mass; and, carrying in his hand a certificate of his abstinence, sealed with the pope’s seal; there he gave the like proof of his abstinence, and was presented with five ducats, to bear his travelling expences to the holy sepulchre, which he pretended to visit. He performed the voyage, and returned with some palm-leaves, and a scrip full of stones, which he said were a part of the pillar to which our Saviour was tied, when he was scourged. Coming home, by way of London, he entered the pulpit in St. Paul’s church-yard, and, in a harangue to the people, railed against Henry VIII. for divorcing his queen Catharine, of Castile, and for his dissension from the Roman see. – For this he was imprisoned, where he performed a fast of fifty days, and was then dismissed as a madman. After his liberation, he made the best of his way to Scotland, and associated with one Thomas Doughty, lately returned from Loretta, who had built a chapel to the holy virgin with the money he had begged in his travels. This cheat, patronized by the clergy, abused the vulgar to his great profit, by his pretended miracles; but, refusing a fair division of the gains with Scott, our hero retired to the suburbs of the west-port of Edinburgh, where he erected a religious altar, and adorned it in the best manner he could. On it he placed his daughter, a maid of tolerable beauty, placing lights and torches round about her. The common people, for a long time, believed her to be the virgin Mary, and frequented the place in great numbers to do her worship; but the knavery coming to be detected, he forsook his altar; and, forgetting all his devotion, returned to his former trade and manner of life. Bishop Lesly, in writing this man’s story, (for he was a great champion for purgatory and pardons,) says, he prophesied many things concerning the downfal of the Romish religion, and the restitution of it in a short time. Of the downfal of it, says my author, he might speak; for, he saw it begun; but, for other things, he was a dreamer, rather than a prophet. 

   1559 Our limits will not admit of a detail of the combinations of the nobility, strengthened by the full force of the feudal system, and the aid they received from England, which enabled them to bid defiance to the will of their sovereign, and prescribe laws to the altar and the throne. The nobility, who joined in the reformation, and in opposition to the queen regent, (having left the convention at Perth, disconcerted by the queen’s manœuvres, which were greatly strengthened by the heads of the church, and come as far as Stirling;) finding themselves much at a loss what course to steer, were most seasonably animated by a sermon preached by Mr. John Knox, encouraging them to go on, in the work which they had begun, like sinking men taking hold of straw, when all hopes of the shore is lost. Inspired with new courage, they sent a deputation to queen Elisabeth, at all times wishing to support rebellion in Scotland, confident of instant supplies of men or money. The duke de Chattelherault, and a number of the nobility, with their followers, marched to Glasgow, caused all the images in the cathedral to be pulled down, and took possession of the palace. 

   They learned, however, in a few days after, that the archbishop, with a number of Frenchmen, the lords Sempill, Seton, and Ross, with their followers, were coming from Edinburgh; this intelligence put these invaders to fight before his grace, and his forces made their appearance. Finding that the reformers had destroyed every thing sacred that lay in their way, and presaging the same fate, was waiting for what they could not come at, he kept these troops about him in garrison, and summoned his numerous vassals, and tenants, and the citizens to guard the castle and cathedral from the depredations of these furious and interested reformers, until he had time to pack up, and send away to France, all the ornaments, plate and writings, of the church of Glasgow. Among other things, was a golden statue of our Saviour, and the twelve apostles in silver. This rich treasure of Roman grandeur, superstition, and credulity, he followed to Paris, where his name and religion procured him a civil reception and asylum from his namesake, the marquis de Rosney, great duke of Sully, prime minister to Henry the great. He lived in this exile above forty years, and during that period successively, and sometimes jointly, supported the character of ambassador of the unfortunate Mary, and her son James VI. of Scotland. The particular services rendered by him to this prince, at the court of Rome, in facilitating his accession to the throne of England, upon the demise of queen Elizabeth, have not yet been properly noticed by our historians. 

   1559-60 At this memorable æra, the reformers found the country over-run and impoverished, by a swarm of useless drones, so numerous, that a reader of the present day would scarcely believe. The following list of the religious houses in Scotland, will enable him to form some idea of the wealth of the church. 

The benedictines, or black monks 
The clugnicks 
The cistertians, a second refining of the drossy benedictines 14 
The monks in the valley of Reids, a branch of the refined cistertians 
The augustines 19 
The praemonastrants 
The tironeses; those were novices, or fresh water monks 
The carthusians 
In all 57 

nine of which were in the diocese of Glasgow. 

   The following statement of the revenue of Scotland, at the reformation, shews in what rank the church stood at this period. 

   There was imposed upon the kirkmen and boroughs, says Hume of Godscroft, £24,000 Scots, viz. £16,000 upon the clergy, and £8000 upon the boroughs. 

   “In this year,” says the same author, “began the uproar for religion. The clergy, perceiving the whole gentry and commons, bent to hear the word of God preached, were sore afraid, and held an assembly in the blackfriars of Edinburgh, to consult how to suppress the protestants. They made divers constitutions, as first, that no man should have a benefice of the kirk but priests. Secondly, That no kirkman should commit whoredom, or, if he did, for the first fault he should pay great sums of money, for the second he should lose his benefice. To this act opposed the bishop of Murray, a great fornicator, and adulterer, alledging it was as lawful to him to keep his whore, as to the bishop of St. Andrews. Thirdly, they made an act, that the book written by Sir David Lindsay knight of the Mount, lyon king at arms to James V. should be abolished and burnt.” 


   The monks were confined to their cloisters, but the friars were allowed to go and preach in the neighbouring parishes. By profession they were mendicants, and by their constitution were to hold no property. At the dissolution of their houses, however, it was found that they had totally forgot the rules of their order. The dominicans, or black-friars, had twenty-three convents; the franciscans, or grey-friars six; the friars, observant minorites, eight; the carmelite friars seven; the trinity friars had, together with three monasteries, one abbey, and six priories. The orders of the three last mentioned are not on record, the different orders of nuns, are in the same predicament; the number of the nunneries was twelve. 


   Besides the contents of regulars, there were fourteen colleges, and twelve provostries, (for secular priests) endowed with ample revenues. The following were in the diocese of Glasgow, viz. the college of Bothwel, and Lincluden, both founded by Archibald first earl of Douglas; Carnwath, by Thomas lord Sommerville; Kilmaurs, by the earl of Glencairn; Hamilton, by lord Hamilton; Dumbarton, by one of the countesses of Lennox. 

   The provostry of Miniboll [Maybole], by Sir Gilbert Kennedy, knight; Sempill, by lord Sempill. The church of St. Mary and St. Michael in Glasgow, had a provost and eight canons. 

   We shall conclude the detail of these religious orders with the 


   They had only one house in this country, called the hospital of St. Germain, in Lothian. It was dissolved in the year 1494, and king James IV. bestowed the revenues of it on the king’s college of Aberdeen, newly founded by him and bishop Elphinston, a citizen of Glasgow. 

   My readers, who are acquainted with the topography of this country, and who have attended to the derivation of names, will find in every third parish of the low lands, a four-horse-gang of land or ploughgate, named the Temple; – partly inclosed with seal-dyke, in conformity to the laws of James I. These farms appear to have been donations of the pious, at different periods, for the support of this order, whose constitution seems to have taken its rise from the superstition and enthusiasm of Mahomet, who enforced the precepts of his religion by the sword. 


   The archbishoprick of St. Andrews comprehended the following sees, viz. Edinburgh, Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Murray, Brechin, Dumblain, Ross, and Caithness. 

   The archbishoprick of Glasgow, – Galloway, Argyle, and the bishoprick of the isles. 


   St. Andrews was founded by bishop Wardlaw, anno 1412; Glasgow by bishop Turnbull, anno 1453; Aberdeen by bishop Elphinston and James IV. anno 1494. Like Glasgow, the foundation and privileges are, in conformity to those of Paris and Bononia, without reference to those of Oxford and Cambridge, because of the wars between the two nations. 

   Besides the parish churches, which at that time amounted to about 1000, the religious establishment of Scotland stood as follows, viz. under the denomination of abbeys, monasteries, and convents, fifty-seven houses were filled with religious of the eight preceding descriptions; and of monks who were, by profession, confined to their cloisters, to eat the bread of idleness, and say their prayers at stated hours; sixty-one houses occupied by the six orders of friars abovementioned; twelve nunneries, besides fourteen colleges, twelve provostries, and three universities, two archiepiscopal cathedrals, and twelve cathedrals in their dioceses, making in all one hundred and seventy houses, whose inhabitants, said the reformers, eat up not only our sustenance, but also that of the gentry, and our tenants. – Such was the language of the nobles, when they laid hands on the spoils of the church immediately before this time. 

   1560 John Knox had formed a book of discipline for the reformed church, partly in imitation of the reformed churches of Germany, and partly of that which he had seen at Geneva, to which he craved the sanction of the estates. They declined entering upon a business by them not well understood; they, however, passed an act for the demolition of such cloisters, and abbey-churches, as were not yet pulled down. In consequence of this act, the face of the country, once highly ornamented with stately edifices, dedicated to religion, became the emblem of a desert, exhibiting the ruins of the work of ages. 

   1568 Queen Mary having come to Hamilton, after her escape from Loch-leven castle, regent Murray happened to be at Glasgow. Several of the nobility, and their followers, went over to the queen; those who remained advised a retreat to Stirling. A considerable number of the citizens, and others in the neighbourhood, having joined his standard, in a day or two his army amounted to about 4000 men. Meantime, the nobility, who had joined the queen at Hamilton, came to the resolution of lodging her majesty in the strong fortress of Dunbarton, till they should try the fortune of arms with the regent in the field. He had information of this by his spies, and drew up his army on the Gallow-muir, in order to dispute the passage; to avoid this, the royal army came down by Rutherglen, intending to cross the Clyde at Renfrew; but when he saw them, from the opposite side, he caused his cavalry ford the river, which left the bridge open to his infantry. The possession of Langside hill was to be of much importance to either side on the fate of a battle. The regent obtained it, in consequence of the queen’s army being suddenly stopt in their march by an accident. The earl of Argyle was seized with a fit of the epilepsy. After they had arranged matters for the fight, and had come to the foot of the hill, they found the regent’s army drawn up in two battalions on the south-west front of it. Upon this they retired to the Clincart brae, and drew up their forces in the same order; during this, the field-pieces of both armies were playing on each other. The regent’s artillery, having an advantageous situation, soon silenced that of the queen’s party. His cavalry gave ground to the queen’s; his archers, however, rained such a shower of arrows upon the queen’s infantry, that they could not hold up their faces, and so were driven back; the battle now became general; the spear-men, in thick ranks, striving to maintain their places; the conflict lasted about half an hour, during which time the fight continued doubtful; and so eager were both parties, that they threw their broken spears, daggers, and stones, in the faces of their adversaries. At this critical moment, the king’s second battalion joined the first, which instantly decided the day, and the fate of the unfortunate queen, who stood on a hill at some distance, and saw the battle. In memory of this engagement, some person attached to her cause, planted a thorn, which being cut down a few years ago, the proprietor caused one to be planted in its place. 

   1570 Sir William Drury, at the head of an English army, came to Glasgow; and, being joined by some noblemen of the king’s party, after some stay marched to Hamilton, and laid siege to the castle of Draffin. The Governor, at sight of the cannon, surrendered it, on promise of their lives. Both the castle and the palace within the town, were set on fire, and pitifully defaced. 

   1581 The duke de Aubigne, predecessor of the family of Lenox, had it suggested to him, that the archbishoprick being now so long vacant, and likely to continue so during the life of archbishop Beaton, gave him an opportunity of making himself lord of the city of Glasgow. His agents, in this business, found one Montgomery, who was willing to accept of the archbishoprick for a thousand pounds Scots, with some horse-corn, and poultry yearly. And, in consideration of this preferment, he was to alienate to the duke, and his heirs for ever, all the remaining lands and revenues belonging to the see. The bargain came to the ears of the church, and, enquiry being made into the life and character of a man capable of such unheard-of simony, both were reported to be in conformity with the latter; in all of which, the assembly found him culpable. Montgomery, however, came to Glasgow with a number of gentlemen on a Sunday, brought the minister forcibly from the pulpit, and preached himself. For this the presbytery of Glasgow began a process against him, in which they were interrupted by Matthew Stewart of Minto, provost of the city; who presented a warrant from the king to stop all proceedings against the bishop. To this the moderator, Mr. John Howeson, of Cambuslang, was making a reply, intimating that they would proceed notwithstanding; whereupon the provost pulled him from the chair, and made him prisoner in the tolbooth. This outrage gave so much offence to the church, that for it and many other things, they kept a solemn fast. The insolence of Glasgow furnished matter of declamation to the preachers; they, afterwards, excommunicated Montgomery, and it was with difficulty the king got matters compromised with them, so as to stop their process, which was capital, against the lord provost. The Duke, who was the cause of all this, was very freely loaded with blame; and, the opposite faction, taking the king out of his hands at the rade of Ruthven, put it out of his power to renew his intentions. It was by this, however, that the duke’s heirs came to be lords of the archbishop’s castle, lately bestowed, by his majesty, on the Glasgow royal infirmary. 

   Among a list of grievances presented to the king, upon this occasion we find the magistrates complained on, for invading the college with a mob, (collected by ringing of bells, and beating of drums,) and shedding the blood of many of the students, who prevented them from burning the university. The destruction of this seminary would have added considerably to the duke’s revenue as lord of Glasgow. The bailies, named as the ringleaders of this mob, are Colin Campbell, William Heygate, and Archibald Heygate. 

   1595 About this time private war prevailed so much, that husbandry was neglected; which, with a windy harvest, brought on a famine. The feuds between the Johnstons of Annandale, and lord Maxwell, were carried to such a length this year, that a number of citizens went south with the gentry of the name of Maxwell in the neighbourhood, accompanied by their vassals, to assist their chief in a battle, which proved fatal to him and them. Few of the vassals and citizens returned. 

   1597 The transactions of this year are strongly marked with the ignorance of the times. Margaret Aiken, apprehended for a witch, confessed; and, to save her life, promised to discover all the witches in the kingdom, by a mark in their eyes, known only to the sisters. A royal commission being granted, à circuit court perambulated the country, during three or four months, and at last came to Glasgow, carrying the woman along with them. In the course of the proceedings, she accused several innocent women; who, through the credulity of Mr. John Cowper, minister of the city, were condemned and put to death. Too late she was found to be an impostor, for those she had condemned the one day, when brought to her the next, in different dresses, she acquitted. She was sent back to Fife from whence she came; and at her trial and execution, she affirmed, that all she had said concerning herself, and others, was false, which made those who acted as judges, in these tribunals, think seriously on what they had done, and operated upon the king to recal the commission. On the 25th of February, this year, there was a total eclipse of the sun: This was called the black Saturday

   1614 About the end of this year, John Ogilvy, a jesuit from the college of Grats, was apprehended at Glasgow; there were found on him three little books, containing directions for receiving confessions, and a warrant to them that possessed church livings, to profess the Protestant religion. His majesty sent a commission to the secretary of state, lord Kilsyth, the treasurer depute, and the lord advocate, to proceed to Glasgow, and sit on the trial of this remarkable person, whose courage, bigotry, and firmness, far exceeded those of Clement or Ravelliac, the regicides of Henry III. and Henry IV. of France. Being impanelled, he was asked, when he came to Scotland? and what was his business? He answered, he came in June last, and that his errand was to save souls; that he would not utter any thing to the prejudice of others. The commissioners, to extort a confession, adjourned the court, and ordered him to be kept from sleep three days and three nights. He began to discover some particulars, after he had wanted rest so long; but, after he had been allowed some sleep, he denied all he had said. The commissioners transmitted an account of their sederunt to the king, who, being certified that without torture nothing could be drawn from him, was against such a mode of proceeding with priests; ordering him, if he was found to be a jesuit and had said mass, to be banished the country under pain of death. But should it appear, that he had been stirring up subjects to rebellion, or maintaining the pope’s transcendency over kings; and, if he refused to take the oath of allegiance, the commissioners were directed to leave him to the course of law and justice. Mean time, it was the king’s pleasure, that the following queries should be put to him, and his answers thereto required: 

   1. If the pope be judge, and hath power in spirituals over his majesty; – and if that power will reach to temporals, as affirmed by Bellarmine? 

   2. If the pope has power to excommunicate kings, (and such as are not of his church) as his majesty? 

   3. If the pope has power to depose kings by him excommunicated? 

   4. If it is no murther to kill his majesty, being so excommunicated? 

   5. If the pope has power to assoilzie subjects from their oath of their born and native allegiance to his majesty? 

   These questions came inclosed in a letter to the archbishop of Glasgow, who called the lord provost of the city the principal of the university, and one of the ministers to attend him, in order to hear them read, and to receive Mr. Ogilvy’s answers, which he gave, under his hand, as follows: 

   I acknowledge the pope of Rome, to be judge unto his majesty, and to have power over him in spirituals, and over all Christian kings; but where it is asked, whether he is possessed of that power in temporalities, I am not obliged to declare my opinion thereon, except to him who is judge of controversies of religion, viz. the pope, or one having authority under him

   For the 2d point, I think, that the pope has power to excommunicate the king; and where it is said the king is not of the pope’s church, I answer, that all who are baptized are in the pope’s power

   To the 3d, where it is asked, If the pope has power to depose the king, being excommunicate, I say, That I am not tied to declare my mind, except to him who is judge in controversies of religion

   To the 4th and 5th, I answer, UT SUPRA. 

   The archbishop and his assessors were at much pains to convince him of the dangerous situation into which these answers had thrown him. Of this, they gave him some days to bethink himself, begging him, for his own sake, in some way or other, to amend and soften them. His answer was, “That he would not change his mind for any danger that could befal him.” In speaking of the oath of allegiance, he said, “It was a damnable oath, and treason against God to swear it.” The answers, being signed, and certified by the archbishop and his assessors, were sent off to the king. The privy council were thereupon ordered to pass a commission to the lord provost and bailies of Glasgow, for putting him to trial. These commissioners were assisted by James marquis of Hamilton, Robert earl of Lothian, William lord Sanquhar, John lord Fleming, and Robert lord Boyd. Some days before his trial, Mr. Ogilvy was told, that if he would recal the answers made to the questions proposed, the trial should be suspended till his majesty were of new advertised. His reply was, He did so little mind to recal any thing he had said, as that when he should be brought to his answer, he should put a bonnet on it. His spirited defence, before such an august tribunal, would have done honour to a better cause. 

   Being again impannelled, and the indictment read, which was founded on our acts of parliament since the reformation, and the answers to the five queries subscribed by himself; and being desired to plead guilty or not guilty, he answered with much heat in the following words:- 

   “Under protestation that I do not acknowledge this judgement, nor receive you that are named in the commission for my judges, I deny any point laid against me to be treason; for if it were treason, it would be such in all places and kingdoms, which you know not to be so. As to your acts of parliament, they were made by a number of partial men, and of matters not subject to their forum, or judicatory, for which I will not give a rotten fig. And, where I am said to be an enemy to the king’s authority, I know no authority he has, but what he received from his predecessors, who acknowledged the pope’s jurisdiction. If the king will be to me as his predecessors were to mine, I will obey and acknowledge him for my king, but if he do otherwise, and play the runagate from God, as he and you all do, I will not acknowledge him more than this old hat.” – Upon this he pulled off his hat, and twirled it in the air. At these words, being interrupted and commanded to speak more reverently of his majesty, he said, he should take the advertisement, and not offend, but the judgement he would not acknowledge, – “and for the reverence I do you,” said he, “to stand uncovered, I let you know it is ad redemptionem vexationis [to redeem the harassment], not ad agnitionem judicii [to the acknowledgement of justice].” 

   The jury being called over, he was desired to except against any of them, if he saw cause. He said, he had one objection against them all, which was “That they were either enemies, or friends to his cause. If enemies, they could not sit on his trial; if friends, they should assist him at the bar. Only he would wish the gentlemen to consider well what they did, and that he could not be judged by them; that whatever he suffered was by way of injury, not of judgement; and that he was accused of treason, but he had committed no offence, nor could he beg mercy.” Proceeding in this strain, “I am,” said he, “a subject as free as the king is a king. I came by the command of my superior into this kingdom, and if I were even now forth of it, I would return; neither do I repent any thing, but that I have not been so busy as I should, in that which you call perverting of subjects. 

   “I am accused for declining the king’s authority, and will do it still, in matters of religion, for with such matters he has nothing to do; and this which I say, is what is maintained by the best of your ministers, who, if they be wise, will continue of the same mind. Some questions moved to me, I refused to answer, because the proposers were not judges in controversies of religion; and therefore I trust you cannot find any thing against me.” But I hope, said the archbishop, you will not make this a controversy of religion, Whether the king, being deposed by the pope, may be lawfully killed? To this he replied, “It is a question among the doctors of the church; many hold the affirmative, not improbably, but as that point is not yet determined, if it shall be so concluded, I will give my life in defence of it; and to call it unlawful I will not, though I should save my life by saying it.” 

   The great indulgence given to him by the court, increased his arrogance, insomuch, that the jurors were desired to withdraw, who, returning immediately, declared, by the mouth of their chancellor, Sir George Elphinston, the pannel guilty of ALL the treasonable crimes contained in the indictment. Whereupon doom was pronounced; and the same day, he was hanged in the public street of Glasgow. 

   During the interval between his condemnation and execution, Mr. Ogilvie said to one he took for his friend, That nothing grieved him so much, as that he had been apprehended in that time, for if he had lived at liberty till Whitsunday, he should have done that which all the bishops and ministers in Scotland and England, should never have helped; and to have done it, he would willingly have been drawn to pieces by horses and cared not what torments he had endured. The person with whom Mr. Ogilvy held this conversation did not mention it till after his death. 

   This trial is equally remarkable, whether we consider the fortitude and enthusiasm of the pannel, or the conduct of the king, whose expiscatory questions, afford an honourable testimony of his judgement. 

Leave a Reply