RPCS: Second Series
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland
Second Series
Second Series Overview
The Second Series brings together Privy Council records and related papers for 1625–1660, from the opening of Charles I’s reign through the Restoration. Its eight volumes preserve evidence of government, religious affairs, landholding, public order, maritime enterprise and military service.
The Guthrie references include clergy, landholders, writers, skippers, cautioners and witnesses. Each appearance is considered in its own documentary setting, with personal identities and family relationships distinguished from similarities of name.
Volume 8 includes earlier material: its printed date range is 1544–1660. Those earlier papers are considered under their own dates within the volume, while the series retains its customary 1625–1660 heading.
Digitized Editions — Second Series
Consult the scanned editions alongside the entries below. References follow the books’ printed page numbers, which differ from a viewer’s image numbers. Individual volume sections provide links to the corresponding editions.
Volume 1
Volume 1 brings Bishop John Guthrie of Moray into the work of religious enforcement, the Convention of Estates and the negotiations surrounding Charles I’s Revocation. Other entries identify John Guthrie as a writer and witness, Henrie Guthrie as a Dundee skipper and cautioner, Richard Guthrie as a servitor and witness, and Mr James Guthrie as minister at Urquhart. Masson’s introduction also discusses the collegiate church of Guthrie and Alexander Guthrie’s grants to his sons Gabriel and Andrew.
Read Volume 1 Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume I, A.D. 1625–1627. Edited and abridged by David Masson, LL.D. Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899.
Volume 1 — Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| cxi–cxii | Historical context | Guthrie in Angus Editorial introduction | Listed among Scotland’s collegiate churches or provostries; an institutional reference to the place of Guthrie. |
| cxxxi | 1576; later succession undated | Gabriel Guthrie Editorial introduction | Identified as provost of Guthrie in 1576, followed later by Mr Patrick Lindsay. |
| cxxxii | Undated grants; powers under the 1567 Act | Alexander Guthrie of that Ilk; Gabriel and Andrew Guthrie Editorial introduction | Alexander conferred the provostry on his son Gabriel and a prebendry on his son Andrew. The passage does not date the grants. |
| cxli | After Douglas’s death in 1623 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Editorial introduction | Named as successor to Alexander Douglas, Bishop of Moray. This is a succession statement, not a dated appointment act. |
| clxxvi–clxxvii | Late 1626 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Editorial introduction | Named among the clergy’s deputies to the King concerning the Revocation; discussed with Patrick Lindsay, Walter Whiteford and William Struthers. |
| clxxxi–clxxxii | January–February 1627 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Editorial introduction | Included in Masson’s account of the new Commission on Surrenders and Teinds, whose proclamation appears at 509–516. |
| 136 | 27 September 1625 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Commission of justiciary | Commissioned with the bailie of Spynie and his deputies to enforce prohibitions on specified religious practices within the diocese; authority to last one year. |
| 141 | 27 September 1625 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Convention summons minute | Among recipients of missives calling the Convention of Estates appointed for Edinburgh on 27 October 1625. |
| 150–151 | 27 October 1625 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Convention attendance | Listed as “Murray” in the bishops’ group at the Convention of Estates, separately from the Earl of Murray. |
| 154 | 1 November 1625 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Convention attendance by reference | Included through the entry’s incorporation of the 27 October attendance list, with additional attendees named. |
| 274–275 | Bond: 5 and 6 April 1626 | John Guthrie, writer Bond witness | Witness to Patrik Fleming of Carbrain’s bond for Alexander Fleming of Mones. The preceding 4 April heading conflicts with the bond dates; registration date unresolved. |
| 422–423 n.2 | 11 July 1626 commission | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Editorial note | Named among bishops who could fill vacancies in the 1626 commission. This is distinct from membership of the new 1627 body. |
| 456–457 n.1 | Late 1626; letter dated 30 November | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Editorial note with Council letter | Masson identifies him in the clergy deputation. The note accompanies the Council’s letter of 30 November 1626; the letter itself does not name Guthrie. |
| 466 n.1 | Latter half of December 1626 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Editorial reconstruction | Discussed in Masson’s reconstruction of consultations over the Revocation. The note does not establish an exact audience date. |
| 500 | Registered 23 January 1627 | Henrie Guthrie, skipper and burgess of Dundee Cautioner | One of the sureties for Thomas Auchinlek, captain of The Goldin Lyoun of Dundie. Bond dated 18 and 20 January; letters of marque dated 16 January. |
| 509–516 | 3 February 1627 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Commission proclamation | Named as “John, Bishop of Murray” among the Commissioners for Surrenders and Teinds. Related Council minutes are at 507–508; the concluding editorial note extends to 517. |
| 611 | Bond: 23 May; registered under 24 May 1627 | Richard Guthrie Servitor and bond witness | Servitor to Mr John Schairp of Houstoun, advocate, and witness to Hew Tod’s bond for Margaret Porterfield. John Kincaid is identified as writer of the bond. |
| 690–691 | 11 June 1627 | M. James Guthre, minister at Urquhart Parish report subscriber | Subscribes Miscellaneous Paper 98, written at Germoik, reporting on persons proposed for removal and service in Germany. |
Finding-aid sources: Masson, Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I (1899), Guthrie index, pp.768–769, and Bishop of Moray index, p.815, checked against the introductory passages, records and editorial notes cited above. Original spellings are retained in the detailed source texts; the index’s “Henry” appears as “Henrie” in the bond at p.500.
Guthrie in Angus — A Collegiate Church
Second Series, Volume 1 • Introduction, pages cxi–cxii
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
In his discussion of lands belonging to the secular clergy, Masson surveys Scotland’s collegiate churches and provostries. Guthrie appears with Foulis among the institutions in Angus. The complete numbered subsection is reproduced below, including its continuation onto page cxii.
Printed Source Text — Complete Subsection
(3) Lands belonging to Collegiate Churches or Provostries.—There were about 40 such Collegiate Churches in all. Richest of them, and ranking in some respects by itself, was The Chapel-Royal of Stirling, the staff of which consisted of a Dean, a Sub-Dean, and about thirty other officers, priests, and choristers. Next in importance perhaps was St. Giles’s Church in Edinburgh, which had been erected into a Provostry in 1466, and of which Gavin Douglas was Provost before his promotion in 1516 to the Bishopric of Dunkeld. Two other Provostries in Edinburgh were those of Trinity Church and St. Mary’s in the Fields, the latter to be tragically famous afterwards as Kirk o’ Field. Collegiate Churches near Edinburgh were those of Corstorphine, Restalrig, Dalkeith, and Roslin; and among the most numerously composed of the others in different parts of Scotland were those of Peebles, Dunbar, Biggar, Carnwath, Seton, St. Salvator’s College and Kirkheugh in St. Andrews, St. Nicolas in Aberdeen, Our Lady College of Glasgow, and Lincluden in Galloway, which last had been originally, as records prove, a Nunnery, but had been transmuted into a Provostry before the end of the fourteenth century. To complete the tale of the Provostries or Collegiate Churches, however, add those of Bothwell and Hamilton in Clydesdale, Crail in Fife, Crichton in Midlothian, Dirleton, Dunglass, and Yester or Bothans in Haddingtonshire, Dumbarton, Foulis and Guthrie in Angus, Kilmun in Argyleshire, Abernethy, Methven, and Tullibardine in Perthshire, Kilmaurs and Minnibole in Ayrshire, Semple in Renfrewshire, Cullen in Banffshire, and Tain in Ross-shire. There might perhaps be some additions still to the list.
Modern English Rendering
(3) Lands belonging to collegiate churches or provostries. There were about forty such churches. The richest, and in some respects a category of its own, was the Chapel Royal of Stirling, whose staff included a dean, subdean and about thirty other officers, priests and choristers. St Giles’s in Edinburgh was perhaps next in importance. It became a provostry in 1466; Gavin Douglas was its provost before his promotion to the bishopric of Dunkeld, dated here to 1516. Edinburgh’s other provostries were Trinity Church and St Mary’s in the Fields, later known for the tragedy associated with Kirk o’ Field.
Near Edinburgh were Corstorphine, Restalrig, Dalkeith and Roslin. Among the collegiate churches elsewhere with larger memberships were Peebles, Dunbar, Biggar, Carnwath, Seton, St Salvator’s College and Kirkheugh in St Andrews, St Nicolas in Aberdeen, Our Lady College of Glasgow, and Lincluden in Galloway. Records show that Lincluden was originally a nunnery and became a provostry before the end of the fourteenth century.
The list also includes Bothwell and Hamilton in Clydesdale; Crail in Fife; Crichton in Midlothian; Dirleton, Dunglass and Yester or Bothans in Haddingtonshire; Dumbarton; Foulis and Guthrie in Angus; Kilmun in Argyleshire; Abernethy, Methven and Tullibardine in Perthshire; Kilmaurs and Minnibole in Ayrshire; Semple in Renfrewshire; Cullen in Banffshire; and Tain in Ross-shire. Masson allows that further institutions might be added.
This places the church of Guthrie within the wider system of collegiate churches whose offices and revenues recur in the Council’s business. It supplies the institutional setting for the following references to Gabriel Guthrie’s provostry and Andrew Guthrie’s prebendry.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Collegiate church — a church served by an organized body or college of clergy.
- Provostry — the provost’s office or the ecclesiastical institution and endowment associated with it.
- Secular clergy — clergy serving outside a monastic religious order; “secular” does not mean nonreligious here.
- Minnibole — the spelling printed in the source and retained in the rendering.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), Introduction, pp. cxi–cxii, subsection (3), “Lands belonging to Collegiate Churches or Provostries.” Digitized volume.
1576 — Gabriel Guthrie, Provost of Guthrie
Second Series, Volume 1 • Introduction, page cxxxi
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Masson’s account of collegiate institutions surviving towards 1587 closes with a list of eight provostries outside Edinburgh. Within that list he identifies Gabriel Guthrie specifically in 1576, then notes his later replacement by Patrick Lindsay. The complete list sentence is reproduced here; the following page discusses the family arrangement behind Gabriel’s appointment.
Printed Source Text — Complete Eight-Provostry List
Provostries then still surviving in other parts of the country were at least these eight: Biggar (William Fleming provost), Bothwell (John Hamilton), Dumbarton (Cuthbert Cunningham), Guthrie (Gabriel Guthrie in 1576, but succeeded after a while by Mr. Patrick Lindsay), Kilmun (a Campbell, of course), Lincluden in Galloway (Mr. Robert Douglas), Methven (Mr. James Heron), and St. Bothans or Yester (Mr. Walter Hay).
Modern English Rendering
At least eight provostries still survived elsewhere in Scotland: Biggar, with William Fleming as provost; Bothwell, with John Hamilton; Dumbarton, with Cuthbert Cunningham; Guthrie, with Gabriel Guthrie in 1576, followed some time later by Mr Patrick Lindsay; Kilmun, with a Campbell, whom Masson treats as the expected officeholder; Lincluden in Galloway, with Mr Robert Douglas; Methven, with Mr James Heron; and St Bothans or Yester, with Mr Walter Hay.
The explicit year gives a dated reference for Gabriel’s tenure as provost. Masson also supplies the name of his successor, preserving a short sequence of officeholders at Guthrie.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Provost — here, the holder of an ecclesiastical office associated with the collegiate church, rather than a burgh’s civic provost.
- Succession — replacement in an office; the statement does not establish a family relationship between Gabriel Guthrie and Patrick Lindsay.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I (1899), Introduction, p. cxxxi, complete sentence listing eight surviving provostries. See also the family-grant discussion on p. cxxxii. Digitized volume.
Alexander Guthrie — Grants to His Sons Gabriel and Andrew
Second Series, Volume 1 • Introduction, page cxxxii
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Alexander Guthrie used powers provided by the 1567 Act to confer church benefices on two sons for their education at St Andrews. Masson says the arrangement was challenged and upheld by the Privy Council. He then compares the Guthrie case with Methven and discusses lay possession of ecclesiastical benefices, particularly Lincluden.
The complete introductory paragraph is retained below. Its Methven and Lincluden material explains the comparison and keeps the separate people and dates visible.
Printed Source Text — Complete Introductory Paragraph
Two of the Provostries in this last list of eight, viz. that of Guthrie in Forfarshire and that of Methven in Perthshire, had been the subjects, one finds, of litigation before the Privy Council. The hereditary patron of the Kirk of Guthrie being the Laird of Guthrie, known as Alexander Guthrie of that Ilk, he had, in virtue of the powers conceded to him by the Act of Regent Moray’s Parliament of 1567, conferred the Provostry, when it became vacant, on his own son, Gabriel Guthrie, to serve as a bursary for that youth during his education at the University of St. Andrews, and one of the Prebendries at the same time on another of his sons, Andrew Guthrie, for the same purpose. This clever family arrangement had been contested, but had been upheld by the Council. Similarly, in the case of the Provostry of Methven, which had been bestowed by Lord Methven, as patron, on Mr. James Heron, together with the ministry of Methven parish, the Council had in 1576 ratified, against strong opposition, Mr. Heron’s claim to the full conjunct fruits of both benefices. It seems to have been an unpopular decision; and Mr. Heron is found in bad odour on account of it among his parishioners and neighbours, and also in the Church Courts, for a good many years afterwards.—The most interesting Provostry in the list, however, is that of Lincluden in Galloway. It had been held since 1547 by Mr. Robert Douglas, a natural son of Sir James Douglas of Drumlanrig. He had obtained letters of legitimation in 1559, and had since then been a very prominent man in public affairs. He had figured among the adherents of the Hamiltons in the Marian interest during the Regencies of Mar and Morton, and been in trouble in consequence; but since 1585 he had been one of the chiefs of the Council and Ministry of the Coalition Government of the Restored Lords, with high State-office, and with an assured career of further distinction. As he was a layman and a laird, he must have held his Provostry by a kind of tenure of lay-commendatorship; but, though conspicuous in this respect, he was not singular. Some of the other Provostries in the list were, indeed, as we have seen, held by clerics and parish-ministers; but not all. Several of them, besides Lincluden, were held by laics. Thus we are again reminded of the fact that, though the name “Commendators” was reserved distinctively for those high laics who had stepped before 1587 into the possession of the great monastic benefices, the Abbacies and Priories, of the pre-Reformation Church, it might have been applied with almost equal propriety to those other laics who had succeeded to the benefices of the old Secular Clergy. There had been attempts, as we have seen, to turn even some of the Bishoprics into mere lay-commendatorships; and there were many laics, some of them politicians and lawyers, in possession of the emoluments of old parochial livings, and styled “parsons” and “vicars,” though only commendator-parsons and commendator-vicars. So, as we now find, the Provostries of the old Collegiate Churches, though clerics might be preferred for them, might be held in lay-commendatorship. That the Provostry of Lincluden in particular, one of the most distinguished and valuable of all the Provostries, should have been held in this fashion was the more natural, perhaps, because it had originally been a Monastery and had been transformed into a Provostry. Mr. Robert Douglas, as Provost of Lincluden, was in his proper place among the Commendators.
Modern English Rendering
Two of the eight provostries just listed, Guthrie in Forfarshire and Methven in Perthshire, had been involved in litigation before the Privy Council. The hereditary patron of the church of Guthrie was its laird, Alexander Guthrie of that Ilk. Using powers granted by the Act of Regent Moray’s Parliament of 1567, he gave the vacant provostry to his son Gabriel Guthrie as financial support during his education at the University of St Andrews. At the same time, he gave one of the prebendries to another son, Andrew Guthrie, for the same purpose. This family arrangement, which Masson calls clever, was challenged but upheld by the Council.
Similarly, Lord Methven, as patron, had granted the provostry of Methven to Mr James Heron together with the ministry of the parish. In 1576 the Council confirmed Heron’s claim to the full combined revenues of both benefices, despite strong opposition. The decision appears to have been unpopular. For many years afterwards Heron was viewed unfavourably because of it by parishioners, neighbours and the Church courts.
Masson considers Lincluden in Galloway the most interesting provostry in the list. Mr Robert Douglas, a natural son of Sir James Douglas of Drumlanrig, had held it since 1547. He obtained letters of legitimation in 1559 and subsequently became prominent in public affairs. During the regencies of Mar and Morton he supported the Hamiltons and Mary’s cause, and encountered trouble as a result. From 1585, however, he was a leading figure in the Council and ministry of the coalition government of the Restored Lords, holding high state office with prospects of further distinction.
Because Douglas was a layman and a laird, Masson reasons that he must have held his provostry in a form comparable to a lay commendatorship. He was a prominent example, but not the only one. Some other provostries were held by clergy and parish ministers; several, like Lincluden, were held by laypeople. Although “commendators” was the distinctive title for powerful laymen who had obtained the great monastic benefices—abbacies and priories— before 1587, Masson argues that the term could almost equally describe lay holders of benefices formerly belonging to the secular clergy.
Attempts had even been made to turn some bishoprics into lay commendatorships. Many laymen, including politicians and lawyers, received the income of former parish benefices and were called “parsons” or “vicars,” although they held them as commendators. In the same way, the provostries of old collegiate churches could be held by laymen, even where clergy might be preferred. Masson suggests that this was particularly understandable at Lincluden, one of the most distinguished and valuable provostries, because it had originally been a monastery before becoming a provostry. He therefore regards Robert Douglas, Provost of Lincluden, as properly belonging among the commendators.
Masson expressly identifies Gabriel and Andrew as sons of Alexander Guthrie of that Ilk. His account also describes their father’s patronage rights and the intended educational use of the two benefices. It is a useful family statement and a specific lead to the earlier Council proceedings.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Of that Ilk — a territorial designation used where the family and estate share the same name; here, Guthrie of Guthrie.
- Hereditary patron — the person holding inherited rights of patronage over the church and its appointments.
- Bursary — financial support for education; here supplied through an ecclesiastical benefice.
- Prebendry — an endowed ecclesiastical position with an associated income.
- Conjunct fruits — the combined revenues of the two benefices in the Methven comparison.
- Lay commendatorship — possession or administration of an ecclesiastical benefice by a layperson; Masson uses the comparison to explain the arrangements described.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I (1899), Introduction, p. cxxxii, complete opening paragraph, beginning “Two of the Provostries” and ending “among the Commendators.” The separate discussion beginning “On the 19th of June 1587” follows this paragraph. Digitized volume.
John Guthrie — Succession to the Bishopric of Moray
Second Series, Volume 1 • Introduction, page cxli
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Masson lists successive holders of the Scottish bishoprics in his account of the episcopate under James VI. The Moray item identifies Alexander Douglas’s death in 1623 and names John Guthrie as his successor. The whole Moray item is reproduced below.
Printed Source Text — Complete Moray Item
Bishopric of Moray: Alexander Douglas till his death in 1623; then John Guthrie.
Modern English Rendering
Bishopric of Moray: Alexander Douglas held the bishopric until his death in 1623. John Guthrie succeeded him.
This identifies the bishop who appears in the volume’s later records under the territorial title Moray or Murray. It helps distinguish Bishop John Guthrie from the separately named Earl of Moray and from other men bearing the Guthrie surname.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bishopric — the bishop’s office and the diocese associated with it.
- Moray / Murray — spellings used for the same territorial designation in this material; the accompanying title distinguishes bishop from earl.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I (1899), Introduction, p. cxli, “Bishopric of Moray” item in the episcopal succession list. Digitized volume.
Late 1626 — Bishop John Guthrie and the Clergy’s Deputation
Second Series, Volume 1 • Introduction, pages clxxvi–clxxvii
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Masson resumes his history of Charles I’s Revocation with the postponement of the commissioners’ intended November meeting. He describes separate discussions among the nobles and lairds and among the bishops and leading ministers, followed by two deputations to London.
John Guthrie is named with Patrick Lindsay, Bishop of Ross, and the ministers Walter Whiteford and William Struthers. The two complete paragraphs below distinguish that clerical deputation from the nobles’ representatives and their petition.
Printed Source Text — Two Complete Editorial Paragraphs
We may now resume the story of Charles’s Revocation Edict at the point at which it was left off p. cvii ante, i.e. in September 1626, when it was proclaimed that certain Commissioners appointed by his Majesty for receiving surrenders of rights affected by his Edict would hold their first meeting on the first Wednesday of the following November.
When the first Wednesday of November came, there was no such meeting of the Commissioners; nor is anything further heard of them in that month or for a good while later. The delay was caused by efforts at one more remonstrance with his Majesty on the subject of his Edict even at this stage of its progress. See footnote at pp. 456-7 for an account of the meetings in Edinburgh during November of the Scottish nobles and lairds most aggrieved by the Edict, and of the meetings in Edinburgh in the same month of the Scottish bishops and other chiefs of the clergy, nominally for deliberation on measures for checking the growth of Popery, but really also for consultation on the Revocation Edict as it affected the Kirk. The result was the despatch to London of two deputations to his Majesty. That from the Clergy consisted of Patrick Lindsay, Bishop of Ross, John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, and Messrs. Walter Whiteford and William Struthers, ministers, and that from the Nobles and Lairds of the Earl of Rothes, the Earl of Linlithgow, and Lord Loudoun, these three selected, it would appear, as being about the youngest of the peers, and likely to be received more graciously on that account. What was the tenor of the instructions given to the deputation from the clergy can only be guessed, as that deputation does not come again into sight; but the three young deputies from the nobles and lairds carried with them a petition signed by the nobility generally, the purport of which was that the terms of his Majesty’s missives hitherto on the business of his Revocation, and especially the terms of his summons at law against those who should not surrender their infeftments, were too harsh, and required modification or abatement. One of those who signed the petition was the Earl of Melrose; it is possible even that he may have drafted it. “Old Melrose,” at all events, had been, as usual, the most active man in the conferences of the nobles, and their principal adviser. He had, however, an idea of his own for the crisis, which may not have been embodied in the petition, but which he communicated to his Majesty by private letter. It was that, all things considered, it would be best for his Majesty to call a Parliament immediately, and have its advice on the whole subject of his Revocation before proceeding further.
Modern English Rendering
Masson returns to the history of Charles’s Revocation Edict at the point reached earlier on page cvii: September 1626. A proclamation had then announced that commissioners appointed by the King to receive surrenders of rights affected by the Edict would meet for the first time on the first Wednesday of November.
That Wednesday arrived without the meeting taking place, and Masson finds no further activity by these commissioners during November or for some time afterwards. He attributes the delay to a renewed effort to make representations to the King about the Edict. His footnote on pages 456–457 describes November meetings in Edinburgh of the nobles and lairds most affected, and separate meetings of the bishops and leading clergy. The clergy’s stated purpose was to consider measures against the growth of Roman Catholicism; Masson argues that they were also discussing the Revocation’s effect on the Church.
Two deputations consequently went to the King in London. The clergy’s representatives were Patrick Lindsay, Bishop of Ross; John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray; and the ministers Walter Whiteford and William Struthers. The nobles and lairds sent the Earls of Rothes and Linlithgow and Lord Loudoun. Masson suggests that these three were chosen because they were among the younger peers and might therefore receive a more favourable welcome.
Masson says the substance of the clergy’s instructions can only be guessed, because their deputation does not reappear in his account. The nobles’ representatives, however, carried a petition signed broadly by the nobility. It argued that the King’s letters about the Revocation, particularly the legal summons against those refusing to surrender their rights in land, were too harsh and should be modified or moderated.
The Earl of Melrose signed the petition and may, Masson suggests, have drafted it. He had been especially active in the nobles’ discussions and was their principal adviser. In a private letter to the King he also proposed calling Parliament immediately and seeking its advice before proceeding further with the Revocation. That proposal may not have formed part of the petition itself.
Masson places Bishop John Guthrie among the clergy’s representatives during negotiations over the Revocation. The named colleagues and separate deputations provide a useful setting for his public role beyond the diocese of Moray.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Revocation — the Crown’s challenge to specified existing rights and grants, including interests in ecclesiastical lands and revenues.
- Deputation — representatives appointed to present a group’s concerns or requests.
- Remonstrance — a formal representation of objections or grievances.
- Infeftments — rights of possession in land established through formal investiture; the petition concerns their proposed surrender.
- Popery — the source’s polemical term for Roman Catholicism.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), Introduction, pp. clxxvi–clxxvii, two complete paragraphs beginning “We may now resume” and ending “before proceeding further.” Related editorial discussions appear at pp. 456–457 n.1 and 466 n.1. Digitized volume.
January–February 1627 — Bishop John Guthrie in the New Commission
Second Series, Volume 1 • Introduction, pages clxxxi–clxxxii
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Masson follows the Revocation negotiations with an account of the new commission’s passage through the Council and Great Seal. His membership summary names John Guthrie as Bishop of Moray and places him among the clerical representatives alongside members of the nobility, landed gentry and burghs.
The full publication paragraph and complete “Composition of the Commission” subsection follow. The next subsection, “Powers of the Commission,” is a separate discussion; the detailed contemporary powers belong with the proclamation at pages 509–516.
Printed Source Text — Publication and Complete Composition Subsection
The great “New Commission anent the Revocation” issued at Whitehall on the 17th of January 1627 was in the hands of the Privy Council at Edinburgh on the 30th of January (pp. 507-8 of Register). The order of the Council respecting it that day was that, as soon as it had passed the Great Seal, it should be universally published and circulated, and that, for this purpose, it should be embodied in a Proclamation, of which 1000 copies should be printed. There was some demur by Sir John Scot of Scotstarvet, as Director of the Chancery, to the passing of the Commission through the Great Seal until it should have been amended in one point of form in which it was defective; but, this demur having been overruled by the Council (p. 508), the document received the necessary authentication; and, on the 3rd of February 1627, it was duly proclaimed and published. A copy of it as so proclaimed, taken from one of the printed copies kept for the Council’s own use, will be found at pp. 509-516 of the Register. It is a longer and more prolix document than any of those that had preceded it in the same business; but all that is essential in it may be condensed thus:—
Composition of the Commission.—The New Commission (doubtless an enlargement of the previous Commission announced in July 1626, but now superseded) consisted of no fewer than 68 persons, as follows:—Conjunct Presidents of the Commission, Archbishop Spotswood and Lord Chancellor Sir George Hay. Twenty-four Representatives of the Nobility named in this order: the Earl of Mar, as Lord High Treasurer; the Marquises of Hamilton and Huntly; the Earls of Angus, Errol, Marischal, Menteith, Rothes, Morton, Eglinton, Moray, Nithsdale, Winton, Linlithgow, Wigton, Roxburgh, Melrose, and Annandale; Viscounts Stormont and Ayr; and Lords Yester, Loudoun, Colvill, and Burley. Nine Prelates in addition to Spotswood, viz.: Archbishop Law of Glasgow, and the Bishops of Dunkeld (Alexander Lindsay), Aberdeen (Patrick Forbes), Moray (John Guthrie), Ross (Patrick Lindsay), Galloway (Andrew Lamb), Dunblane (Adam Bellenden), Brechin (David Lindsay), and Caithness (John Abernethy). Twenty-three Representative Knights and Lairds, viz.: Secretary Sir William Alexander, Treasurer-Depute Sir Archibald Napier, Justice Clerk Sir George Elphinstone, King’s Advocate Sir William Oliphant, King’s Advocate Mr. Thomas Hope (these five officially), Sir James Skene, Sir William Livingston of Kilsyth, Sir Alexander Gibson of Durie, Sir George Auchinleck of Balmanno, Sir Archibald Acheson of Glencairn, Sir Andrew Fletcher of Innerpeffer (these last six all Judges of Session), Sir Robert Gordon of Lochinvar, Sir John Wemyss of that Ilk, Sir Alexander Gordon of Cluny (these three Nova Scotia Baronets), Sir John Stewart of Traquair, Sir James Learmonth of Balcomie, Sir John Hamilton of Lettrick, Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Inchmartin, Sir John Maxwell of Nether Pollock, Sir John Charteris of Amisfield, Sir James Baillie of Lochend, Mr. John Leslie of Newtoun, and Archibald Campbell (brother of the Laird of Lawers). Ten Representatives of Burghs, viz.: the Provost of Edinburgh, Mr. John Hay, Town Clerk of Edinburgh, the Provost or the Commissary Clerk of St. Andrews, Duncan Paterson in Stirling, Gabriel Cunningham, burgess of Glasgow, John Corsan, burgess of Dumfries, the Provost of Dundee, John Cowan, burgess of Stirling, Duncan Forbes, Provost of Inverness, and Robert Alexander, burgess of Anstruther.—The Commission, it will be seen, contained representatives, though in different proportions, of the various Estates of the kingdom. It was, in fact, to be a Convention of the Estates, but chiefly of the Nobility and the Gentry. The regulation as to a quorum was that it should consist of twelve of the members at least in addition to Archbishop Spotswood and Chancellor Hay as presiding; of which twelve three must be nobles, three bishops, three lesser barons, and three burgesses. It is to be noted that the Nobles and the Lairds, which were the Estates most largely represented in the general Commission, though not quite so in the quorum, were the Estates most interested in the business of the Revocation. Not a few of the nobles on the Commission were among the Lords of Erection whose titles were especially challenged, as will be seen on comparing the list with the list given at pp. cxliv-cxlvi ante of the Erections down to the year 1625. It is worth noting also that the Earls of Rothes and Linlithgow and Lord Loudoun, the deputies who had carried the recent remonstrance to London, were included in the Commission, as well as the Earl of Melrose.—The Clerks of the Commission were to be James Primrose, Clerk of the Council, and a Mr. James Law.
Modern English Rendering
The important new commission concerning the Revocation, dated by Masson to Whitehall on 17 January 1627, reached the Privy Council at Edinburgh by 30 January. The Council ordered that, once it had passed the Great Seal, it should be proclaimed and widely circulated, with one thousand printed copies. Sir John Scot of Scotstarvet, Director of Chancery, objected to passing it until a defect in its formal wording had been corrected. The Council overruled the objection. The document received the necessary authentication and was proclaimed and published on 3 February 1627. Masson prints its text on pages 509–516 from a printed copy retained for the Council’s use. He describes it as longer and more wordy than the preceding documents on this subject, and introduces a summary of its essential provisions.
Composition. Masson regards the new body as an enlargement of the commission announced in July 1626, which it now replaced. He gives a total of sixty-eight members, arranged in the following groups:
- Two joint presidents: Archbishop Spotswood and the Lord Chancellor, Sir George Hay.
- Twenty-four representatives of the nobility: the Earl of Mar as Lord High Treasurer; the Marquises of Hamilton and Huntly; the Earls of Angus, Errol, Marischal, Menteith, Rothes, Morton, Eglinton, Moray, Nithsdale, Winton, Linlithgow, Wigton, Roxburgh, Melrose and Annandale; the Viscounts Stormont and Ayr; and Lords Yester, Loudoun, Colvill and Burley.
- Nine prelates in addition to Spotswood: Archbishop Law of Glasgow; Alexander Lindsay, Bishop of Dunkeld; Patrick Forbes, Bishop of Aberdeen; John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray; Patrick Lindsay, Bishop of Ross; Andrew Lamb, Bishop of Galloway; Adam Bellenden, Bishop of Dunblane; David Lindsay, Bishop of Brechin; and John Abernethy, Bishop of Caithness.
- Twenty-three knights and lairds: Secretary Sir William Alexander, Treasurer-Depute Sir Archibald Napier, Justice Clerk Sir George Elphinstone, and the King’s Advocates Sir William Oliphant and Mr Thomas Hope, those five included by office; Sir James Skene, Sir William Livingston of Kilsyth, Sir Alexander Gibson of Durie, Sir George Auchinleck of Balmanno, Sir Archibald Acheson of Glencairn and Sir Andrew Fletcher of Innerpeffer, those six being judges of the Court of Session; Sir Robert Gordon of Lochinvar, Sir John Wemyss of that Ilk and Sir Alexander Gordon of Cluny, all three Nova Scotia baronets; Sir John Stewart of Traquair, Sir James Learmonth of Balcomie, Sir John Hamilton of Lettrick, Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Inchmartin, Sir John Maxwell of Nether Pollock, Sir John Charteris of Amisfield, Sir James Baillie of Lochend, Mr John Leslie of Newtoun, and Archibald Campbell, brother of the Laird of Lawers.
- Ten representatives of burghs: the Provost of Edinburgh; Mr John Hay, Edinburgh’s town clerk; either the Provost or the Commissary Clerk of St Andrews; Duncan Paterson in Stirling; Gabriel Cunningham, burgess of Glasgow; John Corsan, burgess of Dumfries; the Provost of Dundee; John Cowan, burgess of Stirling; Duncan Forbes, Provost of Inverness; and Robert Alexander, burgess of Anstruther.
Masson sees the commission as a Convention of Estates in substance, representing the kingdom’s different groups in unequal proportions and consisting chiefly of nobles and gentry. He describes its quorum as at least twelve members in addition to Archbishop Spotswood and Chancellor Hay presiding. Those twelve were to include three nobles, three bishops, three lesser barons and three burgesses.
The nobles and lairds formed the largest groups in the full commission, although their predominance was reduced in the quorum. They were also the groups most directly interested in the Revocation. Several noble commissioners were Lords of Erection whose titles were particularly challenged; Masson refers readers to his earlier list on pages cxliv–cxlvi. The Earls of Rothes and Linlithgow and Lord Loudoun, who had taken the recent remonstrance to London, were included, as was the Earl of Melrose. The commission’s clerks were to be James Primrose, Clerk of the Council, and a Mr James Law.
This explicitly names John Guthrie in the clerical membership of the new commission. It connects the Bishop of Moray’s title in the contemporary proclamation with his surname and explains the broader membership within which he was appointed to act.
The appointment belongs to the new 1627 body. It is distinct from the 1626 arrangement discussed at pages 422–423, where Moray appears among nominees who could fill vacancies.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Anent — concerning or relating to.
- Surrenders and teinds — the surrender or settlement of disputed rights, together with matters concerning tithes or church revenues.
- Conjunct presidents — joint presidents.
- Quorum — the number and composition of members required to transact business; this commission required representation from specified groups.
- Lords of Erection — holders of lordships created from former ecclesiastical property.
- Burgess — a person holding the recognized status of a member of a burgh.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I (1899), Introduction, pp. clxxxi–clxxxii: complete paragraph beginning “The great ‘New Commission anent the Revocation’” and complete “Composition of the Commission” subsection, ending with the appointment of James Primrose and Mr James Law. Compare the Council entries at pp. 507–508, the proclamation at pp. 509–516, its quorum clause at p. 511, and the editorial notes at pp. 509 and 516–517. Digitized volume.
27 September 1625 — Bishop John Guthrie’s Commission of Justiciary
Second Series, Volume 1 • Page 136 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The commission authorizes enforcement within the diocese of Moray of prohibitions on specified religious practices, including pilgrimages, bonfires and carol singing at churches. It appoints the bishop and Spynie’s bailie and deputies to exercise judicial powers for one year.
The governing Council session is dated Edinburgh, 27 September 1625, on page 135. The complete printed commission follows on page 136; Masson quotes parts of the wording and summarizes the remaining powers and concluding clauses.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
Whereas, “althoght the hanting, frequenting and useing of pilgrimages to chapellis, wellis, croceis, and such otheris monumentis of idolatrie, and setting furth of bonefyris, singing of carrellis within and about kirkis at certane seasonis of the yeir, be prohibite and forbiddin be the lawis of this kingdome, and speciallie be ane Act of Parliament maid in the moneth of October jm vjc [sic. l. vc] fourscore ane yeiris, under certane paneis mentionat and contenit thairintill, nevirtheles thair is sindrie personis within the boundis of the diocie of Murray who, to the dishonour of God, contempt of the true relligioun, and foistering of errouris amongis his Majesties goode subjectis, still useis the saidis supersticiall and Papisticall rites, takand the gritter bauldnes to continew in thair foolishe doingis be reasone of thair oversight and impunitie and that the said Act of Parliament hes not ressaved effect nor executioun”: Therefore, his Majesty, with advice of the Lords of Secreit Council, “hes maid and constitute, and be the tennour heirof makis and constitutes, the reverend father in God, Johnne, Bishop of Murray, and the baillie of the regalitie of Spynie and his deputtis, conjunctlie and severallie, his Majesties justiceis in that part for putting of the said Act of Parliament to dew and full executioun in all poyntis aganis all and sindrie personis contravenaris of the said Act within the boundis of the said diocie of Murray,” with power to the said justices to apprehend and imprison offenders, hold courts for their trial, appoint officers and summon juries for such courts, and inflict the statutory penalties on those found guilty. There is the usual charge to all the lieges to concur with the said justices; and the commission is to endure for one year from the present date.—Signed, Geo. Cancell., Mortoun, Ja. Glasgow, Wintoun, Kokburne.
Modern English Rendering
Although the laws of the kingdom, particularly an Act of Parliament of October 1581, prohibit pilgrimages to chapels, wells, crosses and other places described in the record as monuments of idolatry, as well as lighting bonfires and singing carols in and around churches at certain times of year, under specified penalties, various people in the diocese of Moray are said to continue these practices. The record characterizes them as superstitious and Catholic rites contrary to the established religion, and attributes their continuation to lack of enforcement and punishment.
Therefore the King, with the advice of the Privy Council, appoints John, Bishop of Moray, and the bailie of the regality of Spynie and his deputies, acting jointly or separately, as justices for enforcing the Act throughout the diocese. They may apprehend and imprison alleged offenders, hold trials, appoint officers, summon juries and impose the statutory penalties on those found guilty. The King’s subjects are required to assist them. The commission lasts for one year from 27 September 1625. Signed: George, Chancellor; Morton; James, Archbishop of Glasgow; Winton; and Kokburne.
The entry gives Bishop John Guthrie a defined judicial role within his diocese. It specifies the other officers empowered to act, the religious practices targeted and the commission’s duration. It therefore documents a concrete appointment beyond his ordinary identification as bishop.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Commission of justiciary — a grant of authority to exercise judicial powers for specified purposes.
- Bailie of a regality — an officer exercising judicial and administrative authority within a jurisdiction possessing regality rights.
- Conjunctlie and severallie — jointly and separately; the named justices could act together or individually within the commission.
- Lieges — the King’s subjects, here required to assist the justices.
- Fourscore ane — eighty-one; part of the date of the earlier statute.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), p. 136; governing session heading on p. 135. Register reference printed in the margin: Acta, March 1625–January 1628, fols. 54b–55a. Digitized volume.
27 September 1625 — Summons to the Convention of Estates
Second Series, Volume 1 • Page 141 • Convention appointed for Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Council approved the King’s letter concerning a Convention of Estates and fixed its meeting for 27 October. The minute then lists the nobles, bishops, shire representatives and burghs to which further letters were directed. The Bishop of Moray appears in the episcopal group.
Printed Source Text — Complete Minute
“Ane missive from his Majestie anent ane Conventioun of the Esteatis; wherunto the whole Counsell present gaif thair allowance and appointit the same to be at Edinburgh upoun the 27 of October nixt, and thay all promeist to keepe that dyet praecislie. And, fordere, missives wer directit to the Marques of Huntlie, the Earlis Mairshaell, Murray, Rothes, Montrois, Eglintoun, Cassillis, Menteith, Buchane, Kinghorne, Galloway, the Vicount of Stormonth, the Lordis Ogilvy, Elphinstoun, Boyd, Burley, Ross, Semple, Yestar, Gray, Balmerinocht, Torphichine, Colvill, Ramsay, Spynie, Lowdoun, Blantyre; bishopis of Murray, Brechin, Galloway, Caithnes, Abirdeene; to the shireffis and commissionaris for the small baronis of Edinburgh, Hadingtoun, Lynlythgw, Striviling, Air, Fyffe, Perthe, Forfar, Innernes, Peblis, Roxburgh, Lanerk, Abirdeene, Drumfreis, Kincairdine; and to the burrowis of Edinburgh, Perthe, Dundee, Abirdene, Striviling, Air, St Androis, Glasgw, Hadingtoun, Lynlythgw, Coupar, Culrois, Monrois, Irwing, Drumfreis, Bruntiland, Elgin, Brechine.”—See ante, p.135.
Modern English Rendering
A letter from the King concerning a Convention of Estates was approved by the whole Council present. They appointed the meeting for Edinburgh on 27 October next, and all promised to attend punctually. Further letters were sent to:
- The Marquis of Huntly; the Earls Marischal, Moray, Rothes, Montrose, Eglinton, Cassillis, Menteith, Buchan, Kinghorn and Galloway; the Viscount of Stormont; and Lords Ogilvy, Elphinstone, Boyd, Burley, Ross, Semple, Yester, Gray, Balmerino, Torphichen, Colville, Ramsay, Spynie, Loudoun and Blantyre.
- The Bishops of Moray, Brechin, Galloway, Caithness and Aberdeen.
- The sheriffs and commissioners for the lesser barons of Edinburgh, Haddington, Linlithgow, Stirling, Ayr, Fife, Perth, Forfar, Inverness, Peebles, Roxburgh, Lanark, Aberdeen, Dumfries and Kincardine.
- The burghs of Edinburgh, Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen, Stirling, Ayr, St Andrews, Glasgow, Haddington, Linlithgow, Cupar, Culross, Montrose, Irvine, Dumfries, Burntisland, Elgin and Brechin.
See also page 135.
The minute documents the formal communication directed to the Bishop of Moray before the Convention. Read alongside the October attendance list, it distinguishes the invitation stage from his recorded participation in the assembly.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Missive — a letter; here, official correspondence about the Convention.
- Anent — concerning.
- Dyett / dyet — an appointed meeting or occasion; “keepe that dyet” means attend at the appointed time.
- Small barons — lesser barons or landed proprietors represented through the shires.
- Convention of Estates — an assembly of representatives of the kingdom’s estates called to consider public business.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I (1899), p. 141, minute dated 27 September 1625. Register reference printed in the margin: Sederunts, 1625–29, fol. 5a. The entry ends before the separate Swyntoun and Home minute. Digitized volume.
27 October 1625 — Bishop John Guthrie at the Convention of Estates
Second Series, Volume 1 • Pages 150–151 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Convention’s attendance is listed by groups, including nobles, bishops, lords, officers, shire commissioners and burgh commissioners. “Murray” appears among the bishops, separately from the same territorial designation in the nobles’ group.
The full list is retained below. Paragraph breaks separate the printed categories for readability, and the burgh representatives continue onto page 151. The modern rendering translates the headings while retaining the names and territorial designations as printed.
Printed Source Text — Complete Attendance List
Conventioun:—Nobles—Chancellor; Treasurer; St Androis; Mairshaell; Rothes; Mortoun; Eglintoun; Cassillis; Buchane; Murray; Caithnes; Wyntoun; Linlithgow; Perthe; Wigtoun; Kinghorne; Roxburgh; Bugcleugh; Melros; Galloway; Lauderdaill; Vicount Stormont:
Bishoppis—Dunkeld; Abirdene; Murray; Galloway; Brechin; Dumblane; Caithnes:
Lordis—Gray; Yester; Semple; Elphinstoun; Ogilvie; Ros; Boyde; Torphichine; Lowdoun; Balmerinoch; Culrois; Blantyre; Burley; Cranstoun; Melvill; Coupar; Carnegye; Ramsay:
Officiaris—Privy Seal; Treasurer Depute; Advocate; Master of Requests:
Commissionaris for the Schirefdomes of: Edinburgh—Corstorphine, Sir James Dundas; Hadingtoun—Sir Johnne Seytoun, Gosfurde; Bervick—West Nisbet, Ryislaw; Roxburgh—McKairtoun, Morislaw; Peiblis—Tracquair, Blakbaronie; Lanerk—Letterik, Goslintoun; Drumfreis—Amisfeild, Lag; Linlithgow—Bonhard, Boghall; Striviling—Keir, Polmais; Air—Cairltoun, Enterkine; Fyffe—Balconie, Torrie; Perth—Weyme, Inchesture; Kincairdin—Morphie, Balmayne; Abirdene—Frendraught, Lesmoir younger; Innernes—Schireff of Cromartie:
Commissionaris for the Burrowis of: Edinburgh—Johnne McNaught, Thomas Weir; Perth—Andro Gray; Dundie—Thomas Haliburtoun; Abirdene—Paull Menyees; Striviling—Johnne Cowane; Linlithgow—James Glen; Air—Johnne Osburne; St Androis—Robert Taileour; Glasgow—Patrik Bell; Hadingtoun—Mr James Cokburne; Drumfreis—Francis Irwing; Monros—Robert Keyth; Coupar—David Andersoun; Culrois—George Bruce; Brechin—Johnne Udnie; Bruntiland—Williame Meklejohnne; Carraill—Johnne Mackiesoun; Innernes—Duncane Forbes; Forfar—Mr David Persoun; Anstruther Easter—Robert Alexander.
Modern English Rendering
Convention — group headed “Nobles”: Chancellor; Treasurer; St Androis; Mairshaell; Rothes; Mortoun; Eglintoun; Cassillis; Buchane; Murray; Caithnes; Wyntoun; Linlithgow; Perthe; Wigtoun; Kinghorne; Roxburgh; Bugcleugh; Melros; Galloway; Lauderdaill; Viscount Stormont.
Bishops: Dunkeld; Abirdene; Murray; Galloway; Brechin; Dumblane; Caithnes.
Lords: Gray; Yester; Semple; Elphinstoun; Ogilvie; Ros; Boyde; Torphichine; Lowdoun; Balmerinoch; Culrois; Blantyre; Burley; Cranstoun; Melvill; Coupar; Carnegye; Ramsay.
Officers: Privy Seal; Treasurer Depute; Advocate; Master of Requests.
Commissioners for the shires: Edinburgh—Corstorphine, Sir James Dundas; Hadingtoun—Sir Johnne Seytoun, Gosfurde; Bervick—West Nisbet, Ryislaw; Roxburgh—McKairtoun, Morislaw; Peiblis—Tracquair, Blakbaronie; Lanerk—Letterik, Goslintoun; Drumfreis—Amisfeild, Lag; Linlithgow—Bonhard, Boghall; Striviling—Keir, Polmais; Air—Cairltoun, Enterkine; Fyffe—Balconie, Torrie; Perth—Weyme, Inchesture; Kincairdin—Morphie, Balmayne; Abirdene—Frendraught, Lesmoir younger; Innernes—the Sheriff of Cromartie.
Commissioners for the burghs: Edinburgh—Johnne McNaught, Thomas Weir; Perth—Andro Gray; Dundie—Thomas Haliburtoun; Abirdene—Paull Menyees; Striviling—Johnne Cowane; Linlithgow—James Glen; Air—Johnne Osburne; St Androis—Robert Taileour; Glasgow—Patrik Bell; Hadingtoun—Mr James Cokburne; Drumfreis—Francis Irwing; Monros—Robert Keyth; Coupar—David Andersoun; Culrois—George Bruce; Brechin—Johnne Udnie; Bruntiland—Williame Meklejohnne; Carraill—Johnne Mackiesoun; Innernes—Duncane Forbes; Forfar—Mr David Persoun; Anstruther Easter—Robert Alexander.
The list supplies direct attendance evidence for the Bishop of Moray at the Convention on 27 October. It also provides the earlier list incorporated into the resumed Convention’s attendance entry on 1 November.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Commissioners — representatives acting for their shires or burghs in the assembly.
- Schirefdomes — sheriffdoms or shires.
- Burrowis — burghs.
- Territorial designation — identification by an estate or place, often used here instead of a full personal name.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I (1899), pp. 150–151, attendance of the Convention of Estates, Edinburgh, 27 October 1625. Register reference printed in the margin: Acta, March 1625–January 1628, fol. 58b. The list ends with Robert Alexander before “The Kingis Majesties Letter to the Estaitis.” Digitized volume.
1 November 1625 — Attendance at the Resumed Convention
Second Series, Volume 1 • Page 154 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The resumed Convention records those present as on 27 October, with four additions. Since the earlier list includes the Bishop of Moray, this reference includes him in the attendance for 1 November without repeating his title or name.
Printed Source Text — Complete Attendance Entry
Conventioun.—Sederunt ut in vigesimo septimo Octobris, una cum the Earlis of Nithisdaill and Annanderdaill, the Vicount of Air, and Justice Clerk.
Modern English Rendering
Convention.—Those present were as on the twenty-seventh of October, together with the Earls of Nithsdale and Annandale, the Viscount of Ayr, and the Justice Clerk.
This supplies a second dated attendance reference for Bishop John Guthrie at the Convention. It also illustrates why an entry must sometimes be read with the earlier record it incorporates.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Sederunt — an attendance record; literally, “they sat.”
- Ut in vigesimo septimo Octobris — as on the twenty-seventh of October.
- Una cum — together with.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I (1899), p. 154, Convention attendance under the marginal heading “Edinburgh, 1st November 1625”; incorporating the attendance at pp. 150–151. Digitized volume.
5–6 April 1626 — John Guthrie, Writer and Bond Witness
Second Series, Volume 1 • Pages 274–275 • Comernald and Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Patrik Fleming of Carbrain provides security for a possible payment by Alexander Fleming of Mones. The obligation concerns a £1,000 fine for harbouring members of Clan Gregor under a Council decree of 15 September 1613, together with 40 merks for Alexander’s escheat. Payment depends on the outcome of proceedings challenging enforcement of the decree.
John Guthrie appears among three witnesses described as writers. The complete printed entry begins on page 274 and concludes at the top of page 275, before a separate commission dated 13 April.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
Mr Alexander Skeene, advocate, as procurator for the cautioner, registers a bond of caution by Patrik Fleming of Carbrain, that, if it be found that Alexander Fleming of Mones is justly due to John Campbell of Kenloch, as assignee of Archibald Prymrois, writer, and Archibald Campbell of Glencarradaill, the sum of £1000, as the fine of the said Alexander for reset of the Clangregour, in terms of decree of the Lords dated 15th September 1613, after discussion of a suspension to be purchased by the said Alexander of letters of horning following on the said decree, then the said cautioner will pay the said sum, and also 40 merks for the said Alexander’s escheat: with clause of relief. The bond is dated at Comernald and Edinburgh 5th and 6th April 1626: witnesses, Alexander Livingstoun of Bamtoun, Patrik Fleming in Balloch, Robert Glasfurd, David Fleming, and Mr Harie Scott, servitors to the Earl of Wigtoun, and John Miller, John Guthrie, and John McCaulay, writers. Alexander Fleming, being unable to write, signs by two notaries, Robert Kirkwoode, and James Kirkwood, his servitor.
Modern English Rendering
Mr Alexander Skeene, advocate and representative of the surety, registers a bond given by Patrik Fleming of Carbrain. If, after the proceedings to suspend the letters of horning arising from the Council’s decree of 15 September 1613, Alexander Fleming of Mones is found liable to pay £1,000 to John Campbell of Kenloch, as assignee of Archibald Prymrois, writer, and Archibald Campbell of Glencarradaill, as Alexander’s fine for harbouring members of Clan Gregor, Patrik will pay that amount and a further 40 merks for Alexander’s escheat. The bond includes a clause allowing the surety to seek reimbursement.
It is dated at Comernald and Edinburgh on 5 and 6 April 1626. The witnesses are Alexander Livingstoun of Bamtoun, Patrik Fleming in Balloch, Robert Glasfurd, David Fleming and Mr Harie Scott, described in the list as servitors to the Earl of Wigtoun, and the writers John Miller, John Guthrie and John McCaulay. Alexander Fleming, who cannot write, signs through two notaries, Robert Kirkwoode and James Kirkwood (the latter described in the printed entry as “his servitor”).
The witness list supplies John Guthrie’s name, occupational description and association with a particular legal transaction. The named parties, fellow witnesses and execution places provide useful points for comparing him with other records of writers called John Guthrie.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Cautioner / bond of caution — a surety and the written obligation guaranteeing another person’s performance or payment.
- Procurator — an authorized representative; here Skeene acts for the cautioner.
- Reset — harbouring or sheltering; here the basis of the earlier fine concerning Clan Gregor.
- Letters of horning / suspension — formal orders requiring compliance, enforceable through denunciation as a rebel for disobedience; a suspension sought to halt their enforcement.
- Clause of relief — a provision allowing the surety to recover what he was required to pay.
- Escheat — forfeiture of property or rights; the bond separately specifies 40 merks for Alexander’s escheat.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), pp. 274–275. Register reference printed in the margin: Cautions, 1621–28, fol. 203a. Digitized volume.
11 July 1626 — Bishop of Moray Named to Fill Commission Vacancies
Second Series, Volume 1 • Pages 422–423, note 2 • Editorial account
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Masson supplies the composition of an earlier commission to receive voluntary surrenders of Crown rights and properties affected by Charles I’s Revocation. He explains that the Council register mentions the commission but does not expressly record it, and identifies its entry in the Register of the Great Seal.
The commission has six initial representatives in each of four groups: nobility, clergy, lesser barons and burghs. Separate lists provide replacements. The Bishop of Moray appears in the clergy replacement list, together with the Bishops of Whithorn, Brechin and Caithness. The complete note is retained below so that his position can be read within the commission’s full structure.
Printed Source Text — Complete Editorial Note 2
Of the very important Royal Commission referred to in this entry there is no express record in the Register of Council, though it is mentioned in a preceding Royal Letter of the 21st of July 1626 as then already in existence (see ante, p. 352). It is recorded, however, in the Register of the Great Seal (vol. viii., No. 969) as dated at Wanstead, 11th July 1626, and to endure at the pleasure of the King. The Commissioners so appointed to deal with those of his Majesty’s Scottish subjects that came within the compass of his Revocation Edict, and to receive voluntary surrenders from them of alienated Crown rights and properties, were these twenty-four, viz.:—For the Nobility, Sir George Hay of Kinfauns, Chancellor, John, Earl of Mar, John, Earl of Montrose, President of the Council, William, Earl of Menteith, George, Earl of Winton, and John, Earl of Annandale (any vacancies in this list by death or absence to be supplied by Alexander, Earl of Linlithgow, John, Earl of Wigtown, William, Viscount of Ayr, and John, Lord Yester); for the Clergy, John, Archbishop of St. Andrews, James, Archbishop of Glasgow, Patrick, Bishop of Ross, Alexander, Bishop of Dunkeld, Patrick, Bishop of Aberdeen, and Adam, Bishop of Dunblane (vacancies in this list to be supplied by the Bishops of Moray, Whithorn, Brechin, and Caithness); for the Lesser Barons, Sir William Alexander of Menstrie, Sir Archibald Napier of Merchiston, Treasurer Depute, Sir George Elphinstone of Blythswood, Justice Clerk, Sir James Skene, President of the Session, Sir George Auchinleck of Balmanno, one of the College of Justice, and Sir Robert Gordon, one of the gentlemen of the King’s Privy Chamber (vacancies in the list to be supplied by Sir Alexander Gordon of Cluny, Baronet, Sir John Maxwell of Nether Pollok, Sir John Charteris of Amisfield, and Sir James Baillie of Lochend, Treasurer of the Navy); and, for the Burghs, the Provost of Edinburgh for the time, Mr John Hay, Clerk of the said burgh, the Provost of St. Andrews, or John Arnot, Commissary Clerk of the said burgh, as the said burgh should see fit, Duncan Paterson, burgess of Stirling, Gabriel Cunningham, burgess of Glasgow, and John Corsan, burgess of Dumfries (vacant places in this list to be supplied by the Provost of Dundee for the time, John Cowan, burgess of Stirling, Duncan Forbes, Provost of Inverness, and Robert Alexander, burgess of Anstruther). The appointed quorum was to be any twelve of the foregoing, provided there were three present for the Nobility, three for the Clergy, three for the Minor Barons, and three for the Burghs.
Modern English Rendering
The important royal commission referred to in the entry is not expressly recorded in the Council register, although a royal letter of 21 July 1626 mentions it as already established (see page 352). It is recorded in the Register of the Great Seal, volume VIII, number 969, dated at Wanstead on 11 July 1626, and was to continue for as long as the King wished.
The following twenty-four commissioners were appointed to deal with the King’s Scottish subjects affected by his Revocation Edict and to receive their voluntary surrender of Crown rights and properties that had passed out of Crown possession:
- Nobility: Sir George Hay of Kinfauns, Chancellor; John, Earl of Mar; John, Earl of Montrose, President of the Council; William, Earl of Menteith; George, Earl of Winton; and John, Earl of Annandale. Vacancies caused by death or absence were to be filled by Alexander, Earl of Linlithgow; John, Earl of Wigtown; William, Viscount of Ayr; and John, Lord Yester.
- Clergy: John, Archbishop of St. Andrews; James, Archbishop of Glasgow; Patrick, Bishop of Ross; Alexander, Bishop of Dunkeld; Patrick, Bishop of Aberdeen; and Adam, Bishop of Dunblane. Vacancies were to be filled by the Bishops of Moray, Whithorn, Brechin and Caithness.
- Lesser barons: Sir William Alexander of Menstrie; Sir Archibald Napier of Merchiston, Treasurer Depute; Sir George Elphinstone of Blythswood, Justice Clerk; Sir James Skene, President of the Court of Session; Sir George Auchinleck of Balmanno, a member of the College of Justice; and Sir Robert Gordon, a gentleman of the King’s Privy Chamber. Vacancies were to be filled by Sir Alexander Gordon of Cluny, Baronet; Sir John Maxwell of Nether Pollok; Sir John Charteris of Amisfield; and Sir James Baillie of Lochend, Treasurer of the Navy.
- Burghs: The serving Provost of Edinburgh; Mr John Hay, Edinburgh’s clerk; the Provost of St. Andrews or John Arnot, its Commissary Clerk, as that burgh chose; Duncan Paterson, burgess of Stirling; Gabriel Cunningham, burgess of Glasgow; and John Corsan, burgess of Dumfries. Vacancies were to be filled by the serving Provost of Dundee; John Cowan, burgess of Stirling; Duncan Forbes, Provost of Inverness; and Robert Alexander, burgess of Anstruther.
A valid meeting required twelve of these representatives: three for the nobility, three for the clergy, three for the lesser barons and three for the burghs.
The note places Bishop John Guthrie among the prelates designated to fill vacancies in the 1626 commission. Preserving the initial membership and replacement lists makes the conditional nature of this nomination clear. It also supplies the commission’s purpose, date, duration and representation requirements.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Revocation Edict — the King’s measure challenging earlier grants of rights and property; this commission was to receive voluntary surrenders from those affected.
- Alienated Crown rights and properties — rights and property that had passed out of Crown possession.
- At the King’s pleasure — continuing for as long as the King chose, without a fixed end date stated here.
- Quorum — the number and composition required for the commission to act: twelve, with three from each of its four groups.
- Burgh / burgess — a town possessing chartered privileges, and a person admitted to its burgess status.
- For the time — the person holding the named office at the relevant time.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), pp. 422–423, complete editorial note 2. Masson cites the Register of the Great Seal, VIII, no. 969 (Wanstead, 11 July 1626), and refers to the royal letter of 21 July 1626 printed at p. 352. Digitized volume.
30 November 1626 — Council Letter and the Clergy Deputation
Second Series, Volume 1 • Pages 456–457 • Letter with editorial note 1
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Council recommends to Charles I the requests of bishops and principal ministers who have met in Edinburgh and resolved to send representatives to him. The letter presents their concerns as a response to the alleged growth of Catholic numbers and influence, and describes difficulties in enforcing measures against people designated as excommunicated rebels.
Masson’s attached note identifies the four clergy deputies as Patrick Lindsay, Bishop of Ross; John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray; Walter Whiteford; and William Struthers. He argues that the clergy’s meetings also concerned the effect of the King’s Revocation Edict on the Church and its ministers. His account distinguishes this mission from a separate deputation sent by the Scottish nobles.
Printed Source Text — Complete Council Letter, Page 456
Most Sacred Soverane.—The bishoppis and principall ministeris of all quarteris of this your Majesteis native kingdome, for preventing that danger whiche the evident increase of the nomber and power of Papistis may breede, haveing convenit in this toun, and resolved to send some of thair nomber to shawe youre Majestie the perrell, with thair opinioun of the most convenient remedies, haif required us, who haif the honour to be of your Counsell, to recommend thair desires in that purpois to your Majestie; whiche the visible perrell of religioun and state could not permitt us to refuse. For, altho we gaif thame assurance of the performance of all that law could warrand us to doe, by commanding shireffis to apprehend the excommunicat rebellis and tak thair houssis, and, whair thay exspected the shireffis ather to be of small power or not weele affected, we offered particulair commissionis to ony whome thay sould name as most able and willing to doe your Majestie that service, yit, understanding by thame that in some pairtis of the cuntrey the Papistis ar so strong in kinred, alliance, and freindship that nane of the boundis dar or can execute ony commissioun aganis thame, we could not of dewtie omit to recommend the remedie thereof, and all thair other petitionis tending to the securitie of Religioun and State aganis the plottis and power of Papistis, to your royall and most religious consideratioun and directioun; whiche we sall most humblie and hairtlie obey, and ever beseeke God lang to preserve and blisse your Majestie with all perfite happienes. We rest.—Halyrudhous the last of November 1626. St Androis, Wyntoun, Melros, Dunkeld, Abirdene, Dunblane, Lauderdaill, Lord Arskine, J. Hamiltoun, Ar. Naper.
Modern English Rendering — Council Letter
Most sacred Sovereign: Bishops and leading ministers from all parts of your native kingdom have assembled in this town to prevent the danger they believe may arise from the evident increase in the number and influence of Catholics. They have resolved to send some of their number to explain the danger to you and give their opinion of the most suitable remedies. They have asked us, who have the honour to serve on your Council, to recommend their requests to you. In view of the danger we perceive to religion and the state, we could not refuse.
We assured them that we would do everything the law authorized: order sheriffs to arrest the excommunicated rebels and seize their houses, and, where the clergy expected the sheriffs to lack sufficient power or willingness, offer special commissions to those whom they considered most able and willing to perform this service for you. Nevertheless, they tell us that in some parts of the country Catholics have such strong networks of kinship, alliance and friendship that nobody in those districts dares or is able to execute a commission against them.
We therefore consider it our duty to recommend a remedy for this situation, together with their other petitions for the security of religion and the state against what they describe as Catholic plots and power, to your royal and religious consideration and direction. We will obey your directions humbly and wholeheartedly, and continually ask God to preserve and bless you with every happiness. We remain.
Holyrood House, 30 November 1626. Signatories, as printed: St Androis, Wyntoun, Melros, Dunkeld, Abirdene, Dunblane, Lauderdaill, Lord Arskine, J. Hamiltoun, Ar. Naper.
Printed Source Text — Complete Editorial Note 1, Pages 456–457
As this letter purports, there had been a Convention in Edinburgh recently of “bishops and principal ministers” from all parts of the kingdom. Though nominally for the consideration of church-matters in general and the alarming increase of Popery in Scotland in particular, it had really also been for the consideration of the special interests of the Church and the Clergy as they might be affected by the enforcement of his Majesty’s Revocation Edict. The result had been the appointment of a deputation, consisting of Patrick Lindsay, Bishop of Ross, John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, and Messrs. Walter Whiteford and William Struthers, ministers, to proceed to Court and represent matters to his Majesty. The presence at Court of such a clerical deputation was all the more necessary because the Scottish nobles, after much deliberation over the interests of their own order as imperilled by the Revocation, had just appointed a similar deputation to his Majesty on that business, consisting of the Earl of Rothes, the Earl of Linlithgow, and Lord Loudoun, three of the youngest and most promising of the Scottish nobility. In Balfour’s Annales (ii. 152), where there is special mention of this deputation of the nobles as appointed “in the end of November,” there is also mention, in connection with it, of a letter of advice that had been written to his Majesty at the same time by the Earl of Melrose. “Olde Melros,” says Balfour, “wreatts to his Majestie and counsells him to call a Parliament, as the onlie way to give his Majesty content and to setle the feares and jelosies of his subjects,” viz., the fears and jealousies roused among all ranks by the Revocation Edict. Melrose, in fact, seems to have been the chief adviser of the nobles in this crisis, and had signed the petition which the three young nobles of the deputation were to present to the King. As described by Balfour, it was to “make reasonable offers anent his Summonds of Reductione one his Revocatione.”
Modern English Rendering — Editorial Note
As the letter indicates, bishops and leading ministers from across Scotland had recently met in Edinburgh. Masson explains that, although their stated purpose concerned Church affairs generally and the perceived increase of Catholicism especially, the meeting also considered how enforcement of the King’s Revocation Edict might affect the interests of the Church and its clergy.
The meeting resulted in the appointment of Patrick Lindsay, Bishop of Ross; John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray; and the ministers Walter Whiteford and William Struthers as a deputation to the royal Court. They were to represent these matters to the King. Masson considers their presence particularly necessary because the Scottish nobles, after extensive discussion of how the Revocation threatened their own interests, had appointed a similar deputation: the Earl of Rothes, the Earl of Linlithgow and Lord Loudoun, whom he describes as three of Scotland’s youngest and most promising nobles.
Balfour’s Annales, volume II, page 152, specifically places the appointment of the nobles’ deputation at the end of November. Balfour also mentions a letter of advice sent to the King at the same time by the Earl of Melrose. He reports that “Old Melrose” wrote advising the King to call a Parliament as the only way to satisfy the King and settle his subjects’ fears and suspicions—meaning the anxieties aroused throughout society by the Revocation Edict.
Melrose seems to have been the nobles’ principal adviser during this crisis. He had signed the petition that their three young deputies were to present to the King. According to Balfour’s description, its purpose was to make reasonable proposals concerning the King’s summons seeking reduction, or annulment, under his Revocation.
Masson expressly names Bishop John Guthrie as one of the four clergy representatives. Reading his note beside the complete Council letter preserves both the contemporary recommendation and the editor’s explanation of the broader dispute over the Revocation.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Deputation — a small group appointed to represent a larger body; here the clergy’s four representatives are distinct from the nobles’ three.
- Convention — an assembly; the note describes a meeting of bishops and ministers, not a full Convention of Estates.
- Papistis / Popery — hostile contemporary terms for Catholics and Catholicism, retained in the source text.
- Commission — delegated authority to carry out a specified task; in this letter, enforcement against named categories of offenders.
- Revocation / summons of reduction — the royal challenge to earlier grants and the related legal process seeking to annul them.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), p. 456, complete Council letter, and pp. 456–457, complete editorial note 1. Register reference printed in the margin: Royal Letters, 1623–32, fol. 91a–b. The note cites Balfour’s Annales, II, p. 152. Digitized volume.
Latter Half of December 1626 — Masson’s Reconstruction of Court Consultations
Second Series, Volume 1 • Page 466, note 1 • Editorial account
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Masson returns to the two Scottish deputations and the dispute over the Revocation Edict. Most of this note concerns the nobles’ difficulty in gaining access to Charles I and the King’s reaction to their petition. Masson then states that the clergy deputies, including Bishop Guthrie, were already at Court.
The editor concludes that “one has to imagine” consultations with the two deputations, separately or together, during the latter half of December. The complete note preserves that distinction between his account of the deputations and his reconstruction of their meetings with the King.
Printed Source Text — Complete Editorial Note 1
About this time the Earl of Rothes, the Earl of Linlithgow, and Lord Loudoun seem to have been at Court, beginning conferences with his Majesty in their capacity as deputies from the Scottish Nobility on the great business of the Revocation Edict and bearers of the petition which the nobles had addressed to his Majesty on that subject (ante, p. 457, footnote). Their access to his Majesty had not been easy. According to Balfour (Annales ii. 152 and 153) they had been “debarred approching to the Courte by Secretary Alexander at his Majesties command,” and stayed for a while at Stamford, only forwarding the petition. That in itself had given offence. “His Majestie,” says Balfour, “storm’d at ther petition, as of too heigh a straine for subjects and petitioners.” His Majesty meanwhile had been in correspondence with the Earl of Melrose respecting the Earl’s advice to him to call a Scottish Parliament as the only effective means of tiding through the crisis of his Revocation project (ante, p. 457, footnote), and, though declining that advice for the present (he had had enough recently of English Parliaments), and also intimating that he had not been pleased that the deputation of the nobles had set out from Scotland without his permission, had signified that on the whole “he liked well of their intentions” (see Sir William Fraser’s Memorials of the Earls of Haddington, vol. i. p. 170). Hence, after a little while, Rothes, Linlithgow, and Loudoun had been forgiven, and permitted to come to Court. As the deputation from the Scottish Bishops and Clergy, consisting of Bishop Lindsay of Ross, Bishop Guthrie of Moray, and Messrs. Whiteford and Struthers (ante, p. 457, footnote), were already there, one has to imagine his Majesty in consultation with the two deputations, separately or conjointly, through the latter half of December 1626. The result will appear ere long.
Modern English Rendering
Around this time, the Earl of Rothes, the Earl of Linlithgow and Lord Loudoun seem to have been at Court, beginning discussions with the King as representatives of the Scottish nobles concerning the Revocation Edict. They carried the nobles’ petition on the subject, described in the footnote at page 457.
Gaining access to the King had been difficult. According to Balfour’s Annales, volume II, pages 152–153, Secretary Alexander had barred them from approaching Court on the King’s orders. They stayed for a time at Stamford and sent only the petition onward. Even this caused offence: Balfour says the King reacted angrily because he considered its tone too lofty for subjects addressing him as petitioners.
Meanwhile, the King had corresponded with the Earl of Melrose about the Earl’s advice to summon a Scottish Parliament as the only effective way through the crisis over the Revocation (see the footnote at page 457). The King declined that advice for the present—Masson comments that he had recently had enough of English Parliaments—and expressed displeasure that the nobles’ deputation had left Scotland without his permission. Nevertheless, he indicated that he generally approved of their intentions. Masson cites Sir William Fraser’s Memorials of the Earls of Haddington, volume I, page 170, for this account.
After a short time, Rothes, Linlithgow and Loudoun were forgiven and allowed to come to Court. Masson states that the Scottish clergy deputation—Bishop Lindsay of Ross, Bishop Guthrie of Moray, and the ministers Whiteford and Struthers, previously named in the footnote at page 457—was already there. He therefore envisages the King consulting the two deputations, either separately or together, during the latter half of December 1626. He concludes that the outcome will become apparent shortly in his narrative.
This note follows the clergy deputation beyond its appointment by placing Bishop Guthrie and his colleagues at Court in Masson’s account. It connects their mission with the wider negotiations over the Revocation while preserving the editor’s uncertainty about the form and timing of the royal consultations.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Court — the royal Court surrounding the King, rather than a judicial court hearing a lawsuit.
- Conjointly — together; Masson leaves open whether the King consulted the deputations jointly or separately.
- Too heigh a straine — a tone considered too elevated or presumptuous for petitioners.
- Ante — earlier in the volume; the note repeatedly refers back to page 457.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), p. 466, complete editorial note 1. Masson cites Balfour’s Annales, II, pp. 152–153, and Sir William Fraser’s Memorials of the Earls of Haddington, I, p. 170. Digitized volume.
23 January 1627 — Henrie Guthrie, Surety for the Goldin Lyoun
Second Series, Volume 1 • Page 500 • Registration at Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Mr John Paip the younger registers two bonds securing the lawful use of maritime commissions granted on 16 January 1627. The first concerns William Forrester, captain of The James of Dundie. The second concerns Thomas Auchinlek, captain of The Goldin Lyoun of Dundie, and names Henrie Guthrie among its sureties.
Henrie is one of five cautioners described as skippers. The remaining three are a skinner and two maltmen; all eight are described as burgesses of Dundee. The complete registration is retained because the second bond uses “as above” and shares its opening registration statement with the first.
Printed Source Text — Complete Two-Bond Registration
Mr John Paip, younger, advocate, as procurator for principals and cautioners, registers (1) Bond of Caution by Mr Andro Fletcher, John Yeaman, James Forrester, Patrick Baxter, Gilbert Wentoun, James Simpsone, William Coppine, and William Alexander, merchants, and Alexander Gray, maltman, burgesses of Dundie, that William Forrester, captain of the ship called The James of Dundie, will use lawfully the commission dated 16th January instant granted to him against the common enemy [as in former cautions, ante, p.295]; with clause of relief. The bond is dated at Edinburgh and Dundie, 18th and 20th January 1627: witnesses, George Thomesoun, writer to the Signet, George Halyburtoun and John Lindsay, his servitors, and Charles Bultie, George Wentoun, and Thomas Kessane in Dundie.
(2) Bond of Caution by Patrick Kynnaird, William Coppine, Henrie Guthrie, Alexander Blair, and Patrick Stevinsoun, skippers, William Rodger, skinner, and James Ramsay and Thomas Broun, maltmen, burgesses of Dundie, that Thomas Auchinlek, captain of the ship called The Goldin Lyoun of Dundie, will make lawful use of the letters of marque granted to him, dated 16th January instant, as above; with clause of relief by the said captain, and by the cautioners proportionally. The bond is dated at Edinburgh and Dundie, 18th and 20th January 1627: witnesses, John Yeaman, merchant burgess of Dundee, the foresaid George Thomesone, and George Halyburtoun, his servitor, George Broun, merchant, and Charles Bultie, mariner, burgesses of Dundie, Thomas Kessan, notary, and Walter Rankein, skipper, burgess of Dundie.
Modern English Rendering
Mr John Paip the younger, advocate, acting for the principals and sureties, registers two bonds.
(1) Mr Andro Fletcher, John Yeaman, James Forrester, Patrick Baxter, Gilbert Wentoun, James Simpsone, William Coppine and William Alexander, merchants, and Alexander Gray, maltman, all burgesses of Dundee, guarantee that William Forrester, captain of The James of Dundee, will lawfully use the commission granted to him against the common enemy on 16 January, on the terms referred to in the earlier cautions at p.295. The bond includes a right of reimbursement.
It is dated at Edinburgh and Dundee on 18 and 20 January 1627. Witnesses: George Thomesoun, writer to the Signet; George Halyburtoun and John Lindsay, his servitors; Charles Bultie; George Wentoun; and Thomas Kessane in Dundee.
(2) Patrick Kynnaird, William Coppine, Henrie Guthrie, Alexander Blair and Patrick Stevinsoun, skippers, William Rodger, skinner, and James Ramsay and Thomas Broun, maltmen, all burgesses of Dundee, guarantee that Thomas Auchinlek, captain of The Goldin Lyoun of Dundee, will lawfully use the letters of marque granted to him on 16 January, on the terms already described. The captain must provide reimbursement, and the sureties share that obligation proportionally.
This bond is also dated at Edinburgh and Dundee on 18 and 20 January 1627. Witnesses: John Yeaman, merchant burgess of Dundee; the previously named George Thomesone; George Halyburtoun, his servitor; George Broun, merchant; Charles Bultie, mariner, both burgesses of Dundee; Thomas Kessan, notary; and Walter Rankein, skipper and burgess of Dundee.
The entry combines Henrie Guthrie’s name, occupation and civic status with a specific financial undertaking. It places him among Dundee skippers and tradesmen who supplied security for a captain’s lawful use of letters of marque. The named cautioners, captain and witnesses provide useful associations for comparison with other Dundee records.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Cautioner / bond of caution — a surety and the written obligation guaranteeing another person’s conduct or performance.
- Letters of marque — official authorization for maritime action against an enemy; these bonds secure the captains’ lawful use of that authority.
- Clause of relief — a provision for reimbursement if a surety is required to pay; the second bond specifies relief by the captain and proportionally among the cautioners.
- Skipper — a shipmaster; an occupational description that does not itself establish ownership of a vessel.
- Burgess — a person admitted to the civic status and privileges of a burgh.
- Instant / foresaid — of the current month / previously mentioned.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), p. 500, complete registration of two bonds under Edinburgh, 23 January 1627. Register references printed in the margin: Cautions, 1621–28, fol. 230b for the first bond and fol. 231b for the second. The first bond includes a printed cross-reference to p. 295. Digitized volume.
30 January 1627 — Receipt and Publication Orders for the Commission
Second Series, Volume 1 • Pages 507–508 • Commission context
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Council receives and approves the commission sent by Charles I concerning his Revocation. It delivers the document to Mr Johnne Oliphant, the King’s agent, to arrange its passage through Chancery and under the Great Seal. Publication is to follow sealing.
The minute sets out a route for circulating the commission through bishops to parish ministers, orders letters to the commissioners for attendance on 1 March, and directs the printing of 1,000 copies of the proclamation. It provides administrative context for the commission discussed in the volume’s introductory account.
Printed Source Text — Complete Receipt and Publication Minute
“The quhilk day the Commissioun send doun be his Majestie anent the Revocatioun [see ante, p. 485, footnote] wes produceit, red, and allowit in Counsell, and delyverit in presence of the Counsell to Mr Johnne Oliphant, his Majesteis agent, to the intent he may caus the same be exped the Chancellarie and the grite seale; and, howsoone it is sealled, ordanis that publicatioun salbe maid thairof at the mercat croceis and parroche kirkis of this kingdome, and that copyis be send thairof to the Bishoppis, to the intent thay may direct the same to the ministeris within thair dioceyis, to be publist be thame at thair parroche kirkis; and ordanis missives to be writtin to the whole Commissionaris to be heir upoun the first day of Marche nixttocome, to attend upoun the Commissioune; and ordanis a thousand copyis of the Proclamatioun to be prented.”
Modern English Rendering
That day the commission sent down by the King concerning the Revocation was produced, read and approved in Council. In the Council’s presence it was delivered to Mr John Oliphant, the King’s agent, so that he could have it passed through Chancery and under the Great Seal.
As soon as it was sealed, it was to be published at the kingdom’s market crosses and parish churches. Copies were to be sent to the bishops for distribution to ministers in their dioceses, who were to publish it at their parish churches. Letters were to be written to all the commissioners requiring them to be here on the coming 1 March to attend the commission. One thousand copies of the proclamation were to be printed.
The minute explains how the royal commission was to be formally passed, publicized and brought before its members. Its instructions to bishops and commissioners help establish the institutional setting of Bishop John Guthrie’s appointment in the proclamation that follows.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Exped the Chancellarie and the grite seale — have the document formally passed through Chancery and under the Great Seal.
- Mercat croceis — market crosses, places used for public proclamations.
- Parroche kirkis — parish churches.
- Missives — letters; here, notices requiring the commissioners to attend.
- Nixttocome — next ensuing; “the first day of Marche nixttocome” means the coming 1 March.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), pp. 507–508, complete receipt and publication minute of 30 January 1627. Register reference printed in the margin: Sederunts, 1625–29, fols. 36b–37a. The governing Holyrood House session begins on p. 506; the date is also printed beside the proceedings on p. 507. The square-bracketed reference to p. 485 belongs to the printed edition. Digitized volume.
1 February 1627 — Warrant to Pass the Commission under the Great Seal
Second Series, Volume 1 • Page 508 • Commission context
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The King’s signed commission lacks the clause normally stating that the signed commission supplies sufficient authority for passing it under the Great Seal without further precepts. The Director of Chancery therefore hesitates to proceed without the usual Signet and Privy Seal formalities.
The Council judges that waiting for those stages would prejudice the King’s intended business. It directs the Director of Chancery and Keeper of the Great Seal to proceed promptly, making this Council order their warrant. The entry follows the receipt and publication orders of 30 January.
Printed Source Text — Complete Warrant
“Forsameekle as the Commissioun signed be the Kings Majestie and presentit to the Lords of Secreit Counsell anent the componing and agreing with his Majesteis subjectis in the mater concerning the late Revocatioun [ante, p. 485, footnote] wants that claus which ordinarlie is insert in commissiouns of that kynde properlie concerning his Majestie,—to witt that the commissioun signed be his Majestie sould be a sufficient warrand to the great seale without anie farther precepts to be direct thairupon,—whairupon the Directour of the Chancellarie makes some scruple and doubt to exped that Commissioun unlesse it have the ordinar solemniteis and warrands of the Signet and Privie Seale; and seing the expeding of this Commissioun may not, without his Majesties great hurt and prejudice and disappointing of his Majesteis effaires intendit be this Commissioun, abyde so muche tyme and leasure whill it be past the Signet and Privie Seale: Thairfoir the Lords of Secreit Counsell ordanis and commands the said Directour of the Chancellarie, as also the Keepar of the Great Seale, to passe and exped the said Commissioun with diligence, notwithstanding it wants the solemnitie of the Signet and Privie Seale; whairanent these presents sall be thair warrand.”
Modern English Rendering
The commission signed by the King and presented to the Privy Council, concerning settlements with his subjects over the late Revocation, lacks the clause normally included in such commissions declaring that the King’s signed commission is sufficient authority for passing the Great Seal without further precepts. The Director of Chancery therefore hesitates to pass it without the ordinary formalities and warrants of the Signet and Privy Seal.
Because waiting for those stages would seriously prejudice the King’s intended business, the Privy Council orders the Director of Chancery and Keeper of the Great Seal to pass and expedite the commission promptly despite the absence of those formalities. This order is their warrant.
The warrant explains a procedural obstacle between the commission’s receipt and its proclamation. It records the Council’s authority for proceeding despite the omitted clause and clarifies why an additional order was needed after the approval on 30 January.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Componing and agreing — negotiating and reaching settlements.
- Precept — a formal written instruction or warrant authorizing an official step.
- Signet / Privy Seal / Great Seal — distinct royal seals and associated formal procedures; the warrant specifies which preliminary formalities may be dispensed with.
- With diligence — promptly, without delay.
- These presents — this written instrument; here the Council order itself supplies the officers’ authority.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), p. 508, complete warrant under the Holyrood House heading of 1 February 1627. Register reference printed in the margin: Acta, March 1625–January 1628, fol. 185a; the session list immediately above is cited to fol. 184b. The square-bracketed reference to p. 485 belongs to the printed edition. Digitized volume.
3 February 1627 — Bishop John Guthrie and the Commission on Surrenders and Teinds
Second Series, Volume 1 • Pages 509–516 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The proclamation establishes a broad commission to negotiate settlements over Crown and ecclesiastical property and revenues affected by Charles I’s Revocation. It names the commissioners, defines their powers and sets conditions protecting existing titles, compensation and voluntary agreement.
John, Bishop of Murray, appears in the appointment list among the bishops. The volume’s index and introduction identify him as John Guthrie. James, Earl of Murray, named earlier in the same list, is a different appointee. This direct appointment in 1627 is distinct from the bishop’s conditional nomination to fill a vacancy in the 1626 commission.
The preceding 30 January receipt and publication orders and 1 February Great Seal warrant explain the commission’s passage through the Council. The document below is the complete proclamation, from its opening royal address through its concluding date and printer’s imprint.
Printed Source Text — Complete Proclamation, Pages 509–516
Line breaks and line-end hyphens have been joined, and paragraph breaks added for readability. [blank] marks a gap left in the printed text; other square brackets reproduce the edition’s restorations and corrections. Source spellings are retained, including “out Commissioners” near the opening.
God Save the King.—CHARLES, by the grace of God, King of Great Britane, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc., to all and sindrie our lieges and subjects whom it effeirs to whose knowledge these our letters shall come, and to our loveds [blank], messengers, our shireffes in that part, conjunctlie and severallie, speciallie constitute, greeting.—
Forsamekle as we being of late humbly petitioned by a great number of our nobilitie and gentrie of this our ancient kingdome of Scotland desiring a competent number of Commissioners to bee appoynted to conveene and treate of all that may concerne our profite and patrimonie within our said kingdome, whereby such lawfull meanes may be advised as may give all reasonable satisfaction to our just desires and supplie to our patrimonie and affaires extraordinarlie important in these difficult times, as the said petition at more length proports: and wee being willing to take a faire course with all such of our loving subjects of our said kingdome as shall before the expiration of this our Commission (which wee do hereby speciallie appoynt to begin to sit upon the first daye of March next ensewing and so foorth to continue till the first day of August following, and so foorth during our pleasure) voluntarilie treate with out Commissioners after-mentioned concerning the erections and temporalities of benefices, superiorities, few dueties, or other certaine rent of silver or victuall of the said temporalities, teynds, and patronages of the said benefices, mortified landes and rents, heritable offices and regalities, changed tenours or holdings, and taxt wardes, propertie and casualities of our Crowne or Principalitie, unlawfullie acquired or possessed by any of them, and yet fitting to bee secured unto the present possessours thereof upon reasonable conditions, and concerning what compositions shall be given by the said possessours unto us for new rights of the said patrimonie or propertie:
Therefore Wee, for freeing of our said subjects from their preposterous feares causleslie conceived upon our late Revocation, and from the unnecessarie charges which they might perhaps sustaine either by repairing unto our person or by our persueing of our right and title to the premises by due course of law, Have nominat and appoynted, like as wee by the tennour heerof nominats, appoyntes, and constitutes, the persons after-mentioned:—viz. the right reverend father in God and our right trustie and well-beloved counsellour, John, Archbishop of S. Andrewes; our right trustie and well-beloved counsellour, Sir George Hay of Kilfawnes, knight, Lord High Chancelour of our kingdome of Scotland; our right truiste cousin and counsellour, John, Earle of Marre, Lord High Thesaurer of our said kingdome; the right reverend father in God and our right trustie and well-beloved counsellour, James, Archbishop of Glasgow; our right trustie cousin, James, Marquesse of Hamiltoun; our right trustie cousin and counsellour, George, Marquesse of Huntlie; our right trustie cousins, William, Earle of Angus, Francis, Earle of Erroll; our right trustie cousins and counsellours, William, Earle of Marshall, William, Earle of Menteith; our right trustie cousin, John, Earle of Rothesse; our right trustie cousin and counsellour, William, Earle of Mortoun; our right trustie cousin, Alexander, Earle of Eglintoun; our right trustie cousins and counsellours, James, Earle of Murray, Robert, Earle of Niddisdaile, George, Earle of Wintoun, Alexander, Earle of Linlithgow, John, Earle of Wigtoun, Robert, Earle of Roxburgh, Thomas, Earle of Melros, John, Earle of Annandale;
the reverend fathers in God and our well-beloved counsellours, Alexander, Bishop of Dunkell, Patrick, Bishop of Aberdene; the reverend father in God, John, Bishop of Murray; the reverend father in God and our well-beloved counsellour, Patrick, Bishop of Rosse; the reverend father in God, Andrew, Bishop of Galloway; the reverend father in God and our well-beloved counsellour, Adam, Bishop of Dumblane; the reverend fathers in God, David, Bishop of Brechin, and John, Bishop of Cathnesse;
our trustie cousins and counsellours, David, Vicount of Stormont, William, Vicount of Air; our trustie cousins, John, Lord Yester, John, Lord Lowdoun; our trustie cousin and counsellour, James, Lord Colvill; our trustie cousin, Robert, Lord Burly;
our trustie and well-beloved counsellours, Sir William Alexander, our Secretarie, Sir Archibald Neper of Marchinstoun, knight, our Deputie Thesaurer, Sir George Elphinstoun, Justice Clerke, Sir William Oliphant, our Advocate;
our trustie and well-beloveds Sir James Skene, President of our Session, Sir William Livingstoun of Kilsyth, knight, Sir Alexander Gibsoun of Durie, knight, Sir George Auchinleck of Balmanno, knight, Sir Archibald Achison of Clencarne, knight, Sir Andrew Fletsher of Innerpeffer, knight; Sir Robert Gordoun, knight-barronet, Sir John Weemes of that Ilk, knight-barronet, Sir Alexander Gordoun of Clunie, knight-barronet, Sir John Stewart of Troquhair, knight, John Leslie of Newtoun, Sir James Leirmonth of Balcomie, knight, Sir John Hammiltoun of Lettrick, knight; Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Inchmartin, knight, Sir John Maxwell of Nether Pollok, knight, Sir John Charterhouse of Aimsfield, knight, Sir James Baillie of Lochend, knight, Mr Thomas Hope, our Advocate, Archibald Campbell, brother to the Laird of Lawers,
the Provest of Edinburgh for the time, Mr John Hay, towne clerk there, the Provest of S. Andrewes or the Commisser Clerk as the Counsell of the towne shall appoynt, Duncane Patersone in Striviling, Gabriel Cunnynghame, burgesse of Glasgow, John Corsane, burgesse of Dumfreisse, the Provest of Dundie for the time, John Cowane, burgesse of Striviling, Duncane Forbes, Provest of Innernesse, and Robert Alexander, burgesse of Anstruther:—
with full power to them and to any such number of other persons as wee shall bee pleased to adjoyne to these persons above-named (not exceeding the number of five persons), or any twelve of them or either of them with the said right reverend father in God and our right trustie and well-beloved counsellour the Archbishop of S. Andrewes and our right trustie and well-beloved Counsellour the Lord Chancellour, or any one of these two, provyding that there bee three of the said number of twelve of the nobilitie, three of the bishops, three of the gentrie, and three of the burgesses, to treate, deale, compone, transact, and aggrie with such person or persons as shall at any time heereafter before the expiration of this our Commission bee contented to treate, aggrie, and modifie such reasonable satisfaction for the said erections and temporalities of benefices, few dueties, or other certaine rents of silver or victuall of the said temporalities, teynds, and patronages of the said benefices, mortified lands and rents, heritable offices and regalities, changed tennours or holdings and taxt ward, property and casualities of the Crowne or Principalitie, unlawfullie acquired or possessed by any of them, and yet fitting to be secured unto the present possessours of the said propertie upon reasonable conditions, as said is; and concerning what composition shall be given by the said proprietars and possessours unto us for securing their titles of such of the premisses as are fitte for them to hold in all time coming:
with power to them, or any twelve of them in manner particularly above written, to appoynt times and dayes of meeting, and to prorogate and continew the same as they shall thinke most expedient during the time limited unto them in manner above written:
with power also by commissions or other lawfull wayes or meanes to enquire of the just rentalles and valuation of the premisses, and to take true information of every parties rights and titles of the same, and of the sufficiencie or unsufficiencie thereof, that satisfaction may bee ordered and modified accordingly; and to treate, transact, and aggrie what should bee given to the said parties for their pretended rights to such of the premisses to any part or partes of the particulars above-mentioned as are fitt to bee disponed or resigned by them; and anent the most convenient and lawfull forme how the said parties may be fullie denuded, and how lawfull dispositions thereof may bee made unto others who are willing to buye their titles or premisses; and how the superiorities and few dueties and heretable offices may bee resigned unto us and restored to our Crowne againe, thairwith to remaine for ever: and that the [said sup]eriorities may bee resigned without any composition at all other then shall bee modified for the few dueties and certaine rents [depend]ing upon the said superiorities, and how the changed tennours or holdings and taxt wards may bee reduced to the same estate [wherei]n they were before the same were taxed and changed; or otherwayes how the same may be confirmed de novo for a reasonable increase of yeerely rent to our Crowne or compositions;
and with power to our saide Commissionars, or any twelve of them in manner above-written, to disjoyne or dissolve such united paroshins, and divide such spatious paroshins, as shall by them bee found needfull for the better ease and comfort of our subjects, and to provide for the sufficient building and reparing of the churches thereof, and to make sufficient provision for those churches whereof the teynds shall be resigned or disponed as aforesaid, if the saide churches bee not already sufficiently provided, and for provyding of their ministers with sufficient locall stipendes and fies, and to treat, conclude, and aggree upon such pious use, and for establishing of such schooles in the remote places of our said kingdome as shall bee by them or any twelve of them as aforesaid be thought expedient.
And also with power and authoritie to our saids Commissioners, or any twelve of them as said is, to call and convene before them the immediat heritours, tackesmen, and possessours of all such lands out of which the teynds so to bee treated for by the parties are led or otherwise payed, and to advise for them such new lawfull rights and securities of the said teynds as they shall thinke fit, and for such compositions and yeerely dueties to bee reserved to us as our said Commissioners, or any twelve of them as said is, and the said parties shall aggree upon, and in such maner as may stand with the lawes of our said kingdome.
For confirmation whereof and of the whole rights so to be made of the premisses, we, out of our royall and gratious intention, doe promise in verbo principis, and doe bind ourself and our successours, to ratifie and approve all such rights of the teynds, lands, and premisses as shall be made or advysed by our said Commissioners, or any twelve of them in manner foresaid, in the favoures of the saide parties, and that in our next Parliament to bee holdin within this our kingdome; and to doe all and whatsomever other things that shall bee found expedient by our said Commissioners, or any twelve of them in manner foresaid, for the better securing of the said parties of their rights of the said teynds, lands, and premisses which shall be thought fitt to our saids to bee secured or estated to remaine with the said parties:
And likewise we doe promise in verbo principis, and bind and obleish us and our successours, to give or cause bee given to the persons surrendering or disponing the said particulare, or any of them, such reasonable satisfaction as shall bee aggried upon by our said Commissioners, who are to consider both our clame and the enterest of the said parties titles; and their said satisfaction shall bee duely performed before the said parties interest shall denude themselves either of their right or possession of any of the premisses.
And, to the effect that all parties interest in any of the premisses may take notice of our gracious disposition and intention towards them, and that they may have due warning to prepare and provyde themselves for the better buying of their owne teynds and for settling of the securities of thair lands, Our Will is, and we charge you straitly and commands, that incontinent these our letters seene yee passe and in our name and authoritie make publicatioun and intimatioun hereof by open proclamation at the market crosses of the head burrowes of every shire within this our kingdome, and at the parish kirks of the same, that thereby notice may be given to all our said subjects who pretend any right to any of the particulares above-mentioned that wee have appointed the said Commissioners to treate and aggree with such and so many of them as during the sitting of our said Commission shall come to treate, transact, and aggree with them; with certification that, if any of the saide parties shall neglect and refuse to come in and aggree with our said Commissioners, they shall accept [? expect] no such condition nor aggreement hereafter, but shall be persewed by our Advocates in a legall course of justice for annulling their titles, either by decreet of Parliament or otherwise, as wee and our said Advocats shall thinke fit; and with further certification that, incace the proprietares or tacksmen or rentallers of lands [doe] not come in and aggree with our said Commissioners before the expiration of this our Commission for their owne teynds to bee secured unto them, that then and in that cace wee shall further secure the same unto the parties now having titles thereto for suche a reasonable yeerely rent to our crowne as our said Commissioners shall appoint or thinke expedient, according to the nature of their pretended rights; excepting alwayes the teynds of our Propertie and Principality fitte to be bought in, either by us or our vassalles and tennants of our said Property and Principalitie, at such rates as our said Commissioners shall appoint, according to the validitie of the parties titles thereunto;
and with further intimation that it is not our intention or pleasure to quarrell or annull any of the confirmed fewes or other lawfull rights of any of the lands of the temporalities of benefices formally set by the ancient titulars thereof without diminution of the rentalls or fewes granted by our dearest lord and father of worthie memorie unto any of the Lords of Erections before their erections without diminutioun of the rentall nor fewes formarly bona fide bought by any of the Lords of Erections or by any others from them before our late Revocation from any heritour thereof without diminution of the rentall, nor yet to quarrell or annull any of the fewes set by the said Lord[s] of Erections before the dait of our late Revocation, which was of the dait the [blank] day of [blank] the yeare of God a thousand sixe hundreth twentie [blank] yeares, unto any of their owne vassels without diminution of the rentall; provyding alwayes that the immediate superioritie and few dueties of the same may bee lawfully divolved and established upon us and our successors by resignation or otherwise as shall be thought most meet.
As also that it is our expres pleasure and intention that the mansion places, circuits, orchards, and gardens of all the said abbacies, priories, nunries, colledges, hospitalls, and etc. shall be fewed unto such of the Lords of Erection as now are in present and actuall possession thereof, without any other composition then a very small few duety, to be a testimony that the same are holden of us immediatly.
As also that such demesnes and other mens[al lan]ds or other parts of the said temporalities as were never heretofore set in few nor rentalled by the ancient titulars before the a[ct of erec]tion thereof, nor by our said dearest lord and father of blessed memorie since the said Act, and yet are presently possessed by any [of the s]aid Lords of Erections, may and shall be also fewed unto the said Lordes of Erections themselves, and to no other over their heads to their prejudice, and that for such reasonable few dueties as our said Commissioners in manner foresaid shall appoynt.
And also the said abacies, nunries, colledges, hospitalls, and other lands of the temporalities of benefices which are now erected may and shall bee fewed unto the present possessours thereof, and to none others, for such reasonable compositions and few dueties as our said Commissioners shall think fitt, according to the validitie or invaliditie of their present titles thereunto, which wee are gratiously pleased to amend unto them by all the lawfull wayes and meanes which can be devised by our said Commissioners.
And likewise that it is our expresse will and pleasure that the changed tenors or holdings and taxt wards may be reduced to their ancient estate and forme of holding as they were before the same were changed, or otherwise confirming them de novo for a reasonable increase of yeerly rent to our crowne or composition.
And also that our said Commissioners may and shall duely consider of all such other things as do concerne either the ancient property or casualities of our Crowne and Principalitie mentioned in our said late Revocation or Summonds of Reduction and Improbation; and, if they shall find any such things either unduely acquired or unjustlie withholden from our said Crown or Principality, and yet fit to be secure to the present possessours to be holden of us, that our said Commissioners shall advertise us thereof, and of the meanes how the same may be best secured to the said possessours, and upon what conditions; because our gratious intention is to secure them all in a faire, beneficiall, and ample manner, and upon such reasonable conditions as our said Commissioners in manner foresaid shall thinke fitt.
And with further intimation that, how soone soever we shall bee agreed with all and fully satisfied with the whole premisses at the sight of our said Commissioners in maner as said is, that then and from thencefurth all actions upon our said Revocation shall be discontenued and made null, as our said Revocation had never bene made, and the present Action of Reduction and Improbation depending before the Lords of our Session concerning any of the premisses shall also after our receiving of the said full satisfaction be absolutly and simpliciter past from, with all that hath followed or may follow thereupon; and that we, having first receaved satisfaction as aforesaid, shall in our next Parliament to be holdin in this our kingdome secure, by delyverance, decreet, or confirmation in Parliament, all such infeftments and securities of any of the lands, teynds, and premisses as our said Commissioners shall aggrie upon and think fitte to be secured from us, our heirs and successours, and in such large and beneficiall manner as our said Commissioners in manner foresaid shall thinke fit or advise, aggreable with the lawes of this our kingdome.
And, lest the parties who are to receive their reasonable satisfaction for such teynds, few dueties, heritable offices, regalities, and such like, as they who are to resigne or dispone by vertew of the intention of this our present Commission should think themselves any wise prejudged by the long want or delay of their said satisfaction, at least the parties who are to pay the said satisfaction should too much linger, neglect, or delay the payment therof, it is our pleasure that, intimation being made that, if the said parties interest in the title of any of the lands, teinds, heritable offices, regalities, or premisses shall not after agrement be payed and receive their said reasonable satisfaction after such a time as our said Commissioners shall appoint, the said agrement and modification shall be null and of no availl, so that the said parties may and shall bee in that same case as formerly before the dait hereof, and shall no wayes be oblished and astricted to performe the said aggrement.
Moreover it is our expresse will and pleasure, like as wee by the tennour hereof gives full power and authority to our said Commissioners in manner as said is, to consult and aggree upon the establishing and annexing of a certaine Patrimonie to our Crowne, therewith to remaine in all time comming: as likewise to consult and advise such a solide course therein as no part of our said Patrimonie may hereafter be disponed from our Crowne, except in open Parliament and by expresse deliverance and decreet thereof, and for the sene well of this our kingdome, conforme to the laudable custome and intention of our noble progenitours.
And, in case that any objection should occurre which may effectuallie concerne the furthering of our gratious desires heerein, or the parties lawfull interest, the which by this our Commission is not mentioned nor fully cleared, wee doe hereby give full power and authoritie to our saide Commissioners in manner foresaid to compose, order, and aggrie the same as they shall think the same may bee best and most lawfully done; otherwise, if they doe finde a necessitie that wee should particularlie expresse our meaning therein, that then our said Commissioners certifie the said doubte or doubts unto us, whose answere to the same, beeing returned backe againe unto them, shall bee as sufficient as if the same were worde by worde contained in this our Commission.
Provyding alwise, like it is hereby speciallie provyded, that our said Commissioners, nor none of them, shall make any finall conclusioun in any of the premisses untill the time wee be first fully certified thereof and approve the same; and so much the rather because our subjects interest in the premisses have nor [not] submitted nor are not bund to submit themselves unto this our present Commission, nor are further bound thereby then upon their owne future voluntare aggrement or approbation of what shall be concluded or aggreed upon by our said Commissioners.—
And we doe hereby nominat, appoint, and constitute our loveds, James Prymrose, Clerke of our Privie Counsell, and M. James Law, to be the sole and only clerks to this our present Commission and untill the finall end and expiration thereof; which is to indure till the said first day of August next, and further during our pleasure.—
The which to doe wee commit to you, conjunctly and severally, our full power by these our letters, delivering the same by you duelie execute and indorsed againe to the bearer.—
Given under our Signet at Haly-Rood-House the third day of Februar and of our reigne the second yeere, 1627.—Per actum Dominorum Secreti Consilii. Edinburgh, printed by Thomas Finlason, his Majesties printer.
Modern English Rendering — Complete Proclamation
The rendering follows the King’s voice. Statements about unlawful possession and groundless fears remain the Crown’s claims. Royal and ecclesiastical forms of address are simplified; all appointees, offices and substantive provisions are retained.
God save the King. Charles, by God’s grace King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc., greets all our subjects concerned who learn of these letters, and our appointed messengers [name left blank], acting as sheriffs for this purpose jointly or separately.
Many nobles and gentry of our ancient kingdom of Scotland have lately petitioned us to appoint a suitable number of commissioners to meet and consider everything concerning our revenue and patrimony in the kingdom. They seek lawful means of reasonably satisfying our claims and supplying our patrimony and the exceptionally important affairs of these difficult times, as their petition explains more fully. We wish to deal fairly with those subjects who voluntarily negotiate with the commissioners named below before this commission expires. We appoint it to begin sitting on the coming 1 March, continue until 1 August, and thereafter for as long as we wish.
The negotiations concern erected lordships and the temporal property of ecclesiastical benefices; superiorities, feu duties and other fixed rents in money or produce arising from that property; teinds and patronage rights; lands and rents dedicated to religious or charitable purposes; hereditary offices and jurisdictions; altered tenures and taxed ward holdings; and property and incidental revenues of the Crown or Principality. These are rights which we describe as unlawfully acquired or possessed, but which may reasonably be secured to their current possessors on agreed conditions. The commissioners will also consider what payments those possessors should make to us for new titles to such property.
To relieve our subjects of fears about the Revocation which we regard as groundless and misconceived, and of unnecessary expense from travelling to us or from our pursuing our claims through the law, we nominate, appoint and constitute the following persons. The ecclesiastical and royal styles in the source accompany these appointments:
John, Archbishop of St Andrews, our trusted and well-beloved councillor; Sir George Hay of Kilfawnes, knight, Lord High Chancellor of Scotland, our trusted and well-beloved councillor; John, Earl of Mar, Lord High Treasurer, our trusted cousin and councillor; James, Archbishop of Glasgow, our trusted and well-beloved councillor; James, Marquis of Hamilton, our trusted cousin; George, Marquis of Huntly, our trusted cousin and councillor; William, Earl of Angus, and Francis, Earl of Erroll, our trusted cousins; William, Earl Marischal, and William, Earl of Menteith, our trusted cousins and councillors; John, Earl of Rothes, our trusted cousin; William, Earl of Morton, our trusted cousin and councillor; Alexander, Earl of Eglinton, our trusted cousin; and our trusted cousins and councillors James, Earl of Moray, Robert, Earl of Nithsdale, George, Earl of Winton, Alexander, Earl of Linlithgow, John, Earl of Wigtown, Robert, Earl of Roxburgh, Thomas, Earl of Melrose, and John, Earl of Annandale.
The bishops Alexander of Dunkeld and Patrick of Aberdeen, our well-beloved councillors; John, Bishop of Moray; Patrick, Bishop of Ross, our well-beloved councillor; Andrew, Bishop of Galloway; Adam, Bishop of Dunblane, our well-beloved councillor; and the bishops David of Brechin and John of Caithness. Also David, Viscount of Stormont, and William, Viscount of Ayr, our trusted cousins and councillors; John, Lord Yester, and John, Lord Loudoun, our trusted cousins; James, Lord Colvill, our trusted cousin and councillor; and Robert, Lord Burly, our trusted cousin.
Our trusted and well-beloved councillors Sir William Alexander, our Secretary; Sir Archibald Neper of Marchinstoun, knight, our Treasurer Depute; Sir George Elphinstoun, Justice Clerk; and Sir William Oliphant, our Advocate. Also our trusted and well-beloved Sir James Skene, President of the Court of Session; Sir William Livingstoun of Kilsyth, knight; Sir Alexander Gibsoun of Durie, knight; Sir George Auchinleck of Balmanno, knight; Sir Archibald Achison of Clencarne, knight; Sir Andrew Fletsher of Innerpeffer, knight; Sir Robert Gordoun, knight-baronet; Sir John Weemes of that Ilk, knight-baronet; Sir Alexander Gordoun of Clunie, knight-baronet; Sir John Stewart of Troquhair, knight; John Leslie of Newtoun; Sir James Leirmonth of Balcomie, knight; Sir John Hammiltoun of Lettrick, knight; Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Inchmartin, knight; Sir John Maxwell of Nether Pollok, knight; Sir John Charterhouse of Aimsfield, knight; Sir James Baillie of Lochend, knight; Mr Thomas Hope, our Advocate; and Archibald Campbell, brother of the Laird of Lawers.
The serving Provost of Edinburgh; Mr John Hay, its town clerk; the Provost of St Andrews or its Commissary Clerk, as the town council appoints; Duncane Patersone in Stirling; Gabriel Cunnynghame, burgess of Glasgow; John Corsane, burgess of Dumfries; the serving Provost of Dundee; John Cowane, burgess of Stirling; Duncane Forbes, Provost of Inverness; and Robert Alexander, burgess of Anstruther.
We grant full power to these appointees and to no more than five additional people whom we may appoint. The authority may be exercised through the specified group of twelve, with the Archbishop of St Andrews and Lord Chancellor, or either one of those two. The twelve must include three representatives of the nobility, three bishops, three members of the gentry and three burgesses. They may negotiate, settle and agree with anyone who, before the commission expires, is willing to negotiate reasonable payments concerning the erected lordships, temporal property of benefices, feu duties and fixed money or produce rents, teinds, patronage rights, dedicated lands and rents, hereditary offices and jurisdictions, altered tenures and taxed wards, and property and incidental revenues of the Crown or Principality described above. They may agree the payments to be made to us by proprietors and possessors for securing permanent titles to those rights which it is appropriate for them to retain.
The commissioners, or twelve acting under the stated conditions, may fix meeting dates and adjourn or continue their meetings as they think best within the commission’s allotted period. Through subordinate commissions or other lawful means they may investigate accurate rentals and valuations, each party’s rights and titles, and the adequacy or inadequacy of those titles, so that payments and compensation can be assessed accordingly. They may negotiate what should be paid to parties for claimed rights which should be transferred or surrendered, and determine the most convenient lawful way to divest them of those rights and convey them to willing purchasers.
They may arrange for superiorities, feu duties and hereditary offices to be surrendered to us and restored permanently to the Crown. The superiorities themselves are to be surrendered without compensation beyond the amount assessed for the feu duties and fixed rents attached to them. Altered tenures and taxed wards may be restored to their former condition, or confirmed anew in return for a reasonable increase in annual Crown rent or an agreed payment.
The commissioners, or twelve acting as specified, may separate united parishes or divide large ones where necessary for our subjects’ convenience and welfare. They may provide for adequate construction and repair of churches, make provision for churches whose teinds are surrendered or transferred if they are not already adequately provided for, and secure sufficient locally assigned stipends and fees for their ministers. They may agree arrangements for religious and charitable purposes and establish schools in remote parts of the kingdom where they consider it appropriate.
They may summon the immediate heritors, leaseholders and possessors of lands from which the teinds under negotiation are collected in kind or otherwise paid. They may devise suitable lawful titles and securities for those teinds, on agreed payments and annual duties reserved to us, consistently with the kingdom’s laws. On our royal word, binding ourselves and our successors, we promise to ratify and approve in our next Scottish Parliament the rights to teinds, lands and other property arranged or advised by the commissioners, or twelve acting under the stated conditions. We also promise to do whatever else they consider necessary to secure the parties’ rights to property that should remain with them.
Likewise, on our royal word and binding ourselves and our successors, we promise that those surrendering or transferring the specified rights will receive the reasonable compensation agreed by the commissioners. They must consider both our claim and the strength of the parties’ titles. Compensation must be provided before the affected parties relinquish either their rights or possession.
So that everyone concerned knows our intentions and can prepare to purchase the teinds of their own lands and secure their land titles, we command you, immediately on seeing these letters, to proclaim them openly in our name at the market crosses of the chief burghs of every shire and at parish churches. Give notice to everyone claiming any of these rights that our commissioners will negotiate with those who come forward while the commission is sitting.
Warn those who neglect or refuse to negotiate that they should not expect such terms afterwards. Our Advocates will pursue lawful proceedings to annul their titles, by parliamentary decree or otherwise as we and our Advocates consider appropriate. Further warn proprietors, leaseholders and rental tenants that, if they do not arrange to secure their own teinds before the commission expires, we will secure those teinds to their present titleholders for a reasonable annual Crown rent assessed according to the nature of their claimed rights. This is subject to an exception for teinds of our Property and Principality suitable for purchase by us or by our vassals and tenants there, at rates assessed according to the validity of the holders’ titles.
Also declare that we do not intend to challenge or annul confirmed feus or other lawful titles to the temporal lands of benefices granted by their former titulars without reducing the rental; feus granted by our late father to Lords of Erection before their erections without reducing the rental; or feus previously bought in good faith by Lords of Erection, or by others from them, before our Revocation, from a heritable owner without reducing the rental. Nor do we intend to challenge feus granted by Lords of Erection to their own vassals before the Revocation, without reducing the rental. The printed date of that Revocation leaves the day, month and final part of the year blank: [blank] day of [blank], sixteen hundred and twenty [blank]. These protections are subject to the immediate superiority and feu duties being lawfully transferred to us and our successors by surrender or another suitable means.
The residences, precincts, orchards and gardens of the abbeys, priories, nunneries, colleges, hospitals and other institutions are to be granted in feu to the Lords of Erection actually possessing them, for no payment beyond a very small feu duty acknowledging that they hold directly from us. Demesne and mensal lands, and other temporal property never previously granted in feu or rentalled by the former titulars before erection, or by our late father afterwards, but now possessed by Lords of Erection, are likewise to be granted in feu to those Lords themselves. They must not be granted to others over their heads to their disadvantage. The commissioners will assess reasonable feu duties.
The other erected abbey, nunnery, college, hospital and benefice lands are also to be granted in feu to their current possessors alone, for reasonable payments and feu duties. The commissioners will consider the validity or invalidity of existing titles, which we are willing to improve by whatever lawful means they can devise. Altered tenures and taxed wards may be restored to their former condition, or confirmed anew for a reasonable increase in annual Crown rent or an agreed payment.
The commissioners must also consider other ancient property or incidental revenues of the Crown and Principality mentioned in the Revocation or summons of reduction and improbation. If rights have been improperly acquired or unjustly withheld, but can appropriately be secured to their current possessors to hold from us, the commissioners must report the suitable means and conditions to us. Our intention is to secure them fairly, beneficially and fully on reasonable conditions.
Once agreement has been reached with everyone and we have received full satisfaction in all these matters under the commissioners’ supervision, proceedings based on the Revocation are to cease and become void as though it had never been made. After we receive full satisfaction, the pending action of reduction and improbation before the Court of Session is also to be abandoned completely, with all its existing or prospective consequences. Having first received that satisfaction, we will secure the agreed infeftments and titles to lands, teinds and other property at the next Scottish Parliament, by decision, decree or confirmation binding us, our heirs and successors, as fully and beneficially as the commissioners advise consistently with the law.
To prevent those surrendering teinds, feu duties, hereditary offices, jurisdictions and similar rights from suffering through delayed compensation, and to prevent those owing payment from delaying or neglecting it, give notice that failure to pay the agreed reasonable compensation within the time fixed by the commissioners will make the agreement and assessment ineffective. The affected parties will retain their former position and will no longer be obliged to perform the agreement.
We further authorize the commissioners, acting as specified, to agree the establishment and permanent annexation of a defined patrimony to the Crown. They are to devise safeguards so that no part can subsequently be alienated except in open Parliament, by its express decision and decree, and for the recognized good of the kingdom, following the commendable practice and intentions of our predecessors.
If an objection affecting these purposes or a party’s lawful interest arises which the commission does not mention or fully resolve, the commissioners may settle it in the best lawful manner. If they need us to clarify our meaning, they must report their doubts to us. Our answer, returned to them, will have the same authority as if included word for word in this commission.
It is expressly provided that neither the commissioners collectively nor any of them may reach a final conclusion until we have first been fully informed and approved it. This is particularly necessary because the affected subjects have not submitted, and are not obliged to submit, to this commission. They are bound only through their own future voluntary agreement or approval of what the commissioners conclude or agree.
We appoint James Prymrose, Clerk of the Privy Council, and M. James Law as the commission’s sole clerks until its conclusion. It is to last until the coming 1 August and thereafter for as long as we wish. We give you, jointly and separately, full authority to carry out these letters, returning them duly executed and endorsed to the bearer. Given under our Signet at Holyrood House on 3 February 1627, in the second year of our reign. By act of the Lords of the Privy Council. Edinburgh: printed by Thomas Finlason, His Majesty’s printer.
This is contemporary evidence naming Bishop John Guthrie as a commissioner. It defines the body’s extensive responsibilities for property settlements, teinds, church provision, parishes and schools, while showing the limits on its authority. Retaining the whole proclamation prevents the appointment from being detached from its safeguards and conditions.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Teinds — tithes; rights to a share of produce or its assessed equivalent.
- Erections / Lords of Erection — former ecclesiastical estates constituted as temporal lordships, and their holders.
- Temporalities — the lands, rents and other secular property attached to an ecclesiastical benefice.
- Superiority / feu duty — the superior’s rights over land held from that superior, and the payment due under the feu holding.
- Composition / satisfaction — an agreed payment or compensation settling the rights under negotiation.
- Mortified lands — property dedicated to religious, charitable or comparable endowed purposes.
- Reduction and improbation — legal proceedings challenging the validity of titles and their supporting documents.
- In verbo principis / de novo — on the ruler’s word / anew.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), pp. 509–516, complete proclamation; Bishop of Murray named on p. 510. Printed marginal source heading: Royal Proclamations. Masson’s note on p. 509 identifies the source as a printed copy among the Miscellaneous Council Papers. The imprint names Thomas Finlason, His Majesty’s printer. Editorial comparison and membership discussion continue in note 1 at pp. 516–517. Digitized volume.
Masson’s Editorial Note — Provenance of the Commission Proclamation
Second Series, Volume 1 • Page 509, note 1 • Editorial source context
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Masson explains why a printed proclamation appears among the chronological Council proceedings even though his text was taken from a surviving printed copy in the Miscellaneous Council Papers. He also gives his reasoning for the absence of a written copy from the regular manuscript register.
The receipt and publication orders of 30 January and Great Seal warrant of 1 February supply the preceding administrative context. The complete proclamation and modern rendering contain the actual appointment list and powers.
Printed Source Text — Complete Editorial Note 1, Page 509
The two printed columns are joined below; line-end hyphenation is removed. The wording, including the date “17th of January,” is retained.
This momentous document, the reproduction in due legal form for Scotland of the Royal mandate mentioned in the footnote at p. 485 ante as having been issued at Whitehall on the 17th of January preceding, is not taken, it ought to be explained, from the regular manuscript Register of the Council. Having just acknowledged receipt of the Royal mandate appointing the great Commission, having arranged most punctiliously for its passing the great seal, and having given orders for its proclamation at all the market crosses and its publication in all the parish-kirks in the kingdom, and also for the immediate printing of a thousand copies of it for circulation among the clergy and among all others interested, (ante, p. 507 and p. 508), the Council had done their duty by the document, and did not need to insert a written copy of it in their own minutes. All the same the document was properly and strictly a Council document, and of the thousand copies of it that had been ordered to be printed a number must have been kept in the Council Office and must have lain on the Council table for the use of the members of Council for months to come. One of these printed copies has been preserved among the Miscellaneous Council Papers of the period of the present volume; and it is from this copy that we have here taken the text of the document. It has been thought better to insert it here than to reserve it for a place of such less conspicuous publicity as it would occupy among the Miscellaneous Papers at the end of the volume, and this the rather because the insertion of it entire at this point is almost necessary in order to make subsequent entries in the Council Register sufficiently intelligible.
Modern English Rendering — Complete Editorial Note
This rendering follows Masson’s explanation and preserves his inferences as his own.
Masson explains that this important document gives the royal mandate its proper legal form for Scotland. The footnote on page 485 describes that mandate as having been issued at Whitehall on the preceding 17 January. The text printed here, however, was not taken from the Council’s regular manuscript register.
The Council had acknowledged receipt of the royal mandate appointing the commission, carefully arranged for it to pass under the Great Seal, and ordered its proclamation at all market crosses and publication in all parish churches throughout the kingdom. It had also ordered 1,000 copies to be printed immediately for circulation among the clergy and everyone else concerned, as recorded on pages 507 and 508. In Masson’s view, these steps fulfilled the Council’s responsibilities for the document, so it did not need to enter a written copy in its own minutes.
Nevertheless, he regards it as a Council document in the fullest sense. He reasons that some of the 1,000 copies ordered must have been retained in the Council Office and kept on the Council table for members to consult over the following months. One printed copy survives among the Miscellaneous Council Papers for the period covered by this volume. That is the copy from which he reproduces the text.
Masson considers it better to print the document here than to place it less prominently among the Miscellaneous Papers at the end of the volume. In particular, he judges that readers almost need the complete document at this point to understand the subsequent entries in the Council register.
The note identifies the surviving source behind the appointment of Bishop John Guthrie. It explains why the proclamation’s position in the printed volume does not mean that Masson transcribed it from the regular manuscript register. This is provenance for the same appointment document, not an additional Guthrie appointment.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Provenance — the source and transmission of the text reproduced in the edition.
- Royal mandate — the King’s instruction underlying the Scottish proclamation.
- Passing the Great Seal — the formal sealing process discussed in the preceding Council proceedings.
- Miscellaneous Council Papers — the collection in which Masson says the printed copy survived, distinguished here from the regular manuscript register.
- Ante — earlier in the volume.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), p. 509, note 1, complete. This is Masson’s editorial note to the proclamation at pp. 509–516. Digitized volume.
Masson’s Editorial Note — Text, Membership and Constitutional Interpretation
Second Series, Volume 1 • Pages 516–517, note 1 • Editorial commission context
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Masson compares the proclamation with Connell’s printed version of the royal mandate, then describes the commission’s composition and its relationship to a Convention of Estates. The note begins on page 516 and continues in the footnote columns on page 517.
Read this interpretation alongside the complete contemporary proclamation and the introductory account of the commission. The note’s January date and numerical breakdown are reproduced without silent correction.
Printed Source Text — Complete Editorial Note 1, Pages 516–517
Line, column and page breaks are joined; line-end hyphenation is removed. The note ends with “also members of the Council.”
On comparing this copy of the great Commission on Surrenders and Teinds as it came into operation in Scotland on the 3rd of February 1627 with the copy printed in Connell’s Treatise on Tithes of the original Royal mandate for the Commission as it had been given at Whitehall on the 7th of January preceding (ante, p. 485, footnote), it is found that the present copy incorporates that original mandate all but verbatim from the words “Forsamekle as we being of late humbly petitioned” to the words “which is to indure till the said first day of August next, and further during our pleasure,” the only exceptions being (1) the occasional conversion of the pronouns “wee” and “our” of the one text into the equivalent “his Majesty” and “his Majesty’s” in the other, (2) the correction in the present text of some verbal inaccuracies in Connell’s copy of the original mandate, due to the fact that Connell’s copy was not of contemporary date, but obtained from a Collection of Historical Manuscripts. The initial words of the present text, from “God save the King” to “greeting,” and the concluding words from “The which to doe” to the end, were formalities necessary in the Scottish Proclamation of the Commission.—It is especially important to note the composition of the Commission. It consisted now of 68 named persons, viz.:—Archbishop Spotswood of St. Andrews and Lord Chancellor Sir George Hay, named first with a kind of conjunct precedence, followed immediately by Lord Treasurer the Earl of Mar and Archbishop Law of Glasgow; after whom come 21 more of the Nobility (2 Marquises, 15 Earls, 2 Viscounts, and 2 Lords), and 8 more Prelates; then 23 Knights, Baronets, and others belonging to the order of Lairds or Lesser Barons, or, as we should now say, the Landed Gentry,—a considerable proportion of them law-officials; then 10 Burgesses or representatives of Burghs. In this intermixture in the Commission of representatives of all the various Estates of the kingdom, and the further regulation that to constitute a quorum of the Commission three of each of the Estates should always be present, we see, as has been remarked before (ante, p. 485, footnote), that the Commission was intended to be a real Convention of Estates, and was as good as any so-called Convention of Estates would have been, with the incalculable advantage over so-called Conventions of Estates of having powers to sit permanently for five months at least, and as much longer as his Majesty might please. Here, in fact, under the name of “The Commission on Surrenders and Teinds,” was a deliberative and executive body that was to sit thenceforth in Edinburgh, beside the Privy Council, for a special business, and with independent powers within the limits of that business. Twenty-seven of the Commissioners, it will be observed, were also members of the Council.
Modern English Rendering — Complete Editorial Note
The comparison, counts and constitutional assessment below are Masson’s. His printed figures are retained for comparison with the evidence discussion.
Masson compares this version of the Commission on Surrenders and Teinds, which he describes as coming into operation in Scotland on 3 February 1627, with the version of the original royal mandate printed in Connell’s Treatise on Tithes. Here he dates that mandate to Whitehall on the preceding 7 January and refers back to the footnote on page 485.
He finds that the Scottish version incorporates the original mandate almost word for word, from the passage beginning “Since we have recently been humbly petitioned” to the provision that the commission is to last until the following 1 August and thereafter at the King’s pleasure. He identifies only two kinds of difference: occasional changes between the royal pronouns “we” and “our” and the equivalent forms “his Majesty” and “his Majesty’s”; and corrections in the present text of some wording errors in Connell’s version. Masson attributes those errors to Connell’s use of a copy obtained from a collection of historical manuscripts rather than a contemporary copy.
The opening words, from “God save the King” to “greeting,” and the closing passage, from “To do this” to the end, supplied the formal wording required for proclaiming the commission in Scotland.
Masson particularly emphasizes the commission’s composition. He states that it now contained 68 named people. Archbishop Spotswood of St Andrews and Lord Chancellor Sir George Hay head the list with a kind of shared precedence. They are immediately followed by the Lord Treasurer, the Earl of Mar, and Archbishop Law of Glasgow. He then lists 21 further nobles—two marquises, fifteen earls, two viscounts and two lords—and eight further prelates; then 23 knights, baronets and others belonging to the lairds or lesser barons, whom he calls the landed gentry, many of them legal officials; and finally ten burgesses or representatives of burghs.
For Masson, this combination of representatives from the kingdom’s different Estates, together with the requirement that three members of each Estate be present to form a quorum, shows that the commission was intended to function as a real Convention of Estates. Referring again to the footnote on page 485, he considers it as effective as any body bearing that name, with the substantial advantage of authority to sit continuously for at least five months and for as much longer as the King wished.
He therefore interprets the Commission on Surrenders and Teinds as a body empowered both to deliberate and to act, intended to sit in Edinburgh alongside the Privy Council for a particular purpose, with independent powers within that purpose. He adds that 27 commissioners were also members of the Council.
The note places Guthrie’s appointment within a commission drawn from several ranks and offices. It also explains Masson’s comparison of two versions of the commission and his view of its institutional importance. Those observations help interpret the appointment while remaining distinct from evidence that Guthrie personally attended or acted.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Verbatim — word for word.
- Conjunct precedence — shared priority or standing at the head of the list.
- Prelates — the archbishops and bishops in this commission.
- Estates — the ranks or groups represented here by nobility, prelates, landed gentry and burgh representatives.
- Quorum — the required attendance and composition for the commission to exercise its powers.
- During our pleasure — for as long as the King chose to continue the authority.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), pp. 516–517, note 1, complete, beginning “On comparing this copy” and ending “also members of the Council.” The contemporary proclamation occupies pp. 509–516; the comparison with Connell and the references to p. 485 are Masson’s. Digitized volume.
23 May 1627 — Richard Guthrie, Servitor and Witness to a Bond
Second Series, Volume 1 • Page 611 • Registered 24 May 1627
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Robert Craig registers Hew Tod’s bond guaranteeing that Margaret Porterfield, widow of Mr George Tod, will not molest John Mayne or the family, tenants and others covered by the obligation. Richard Guthrie appears as a witness, identified through his service to the advocate Mr John Schairp of Houstoun.
The other witness, John Kincaid, is described as Hew Tod’s servitor and as the writer of the bond. Keeping these designations attached to the correct men preserves the entry’s value for identifying Richard and his associates.
Printed Source Text — Complete Bond Registration Entry
Robert Craig, advocate, as procurator for the cautioner, registers a bond of caution by Hew Tod, writer to the Signet, that Margaret Porterfield, relict of Mr George Tod, writer, will not molest John Mayne in Schyresmilne, nor his family, tenants, etc., under the penalty contained in the lawburrows direct thereupon. The bond is dated at Edinburgh 23rd May 1627: witnesses, Richard Guthrie, servitor to Mr John Schairp of Houstoun, advocate, and John Kincaid, servitor to the cautioner, and writer of the bond.
Modern English Rendering
Robert Craig, advocate and representative of the surety, registers a bond given by Hew Tod, writer to the Signet, guaranteeing that Margaret Porterfield, widow of Mr George Tod, writer, will not molest John Mayne in Schyresmilne or his family, tenants and others covered by the bond. The penalty is the one specified in the lawburrows issued in the matter.
The bond is dated at Edinburgh on 23 May 1627. Its witnesses are Richard Guthrie, servitor to Mr John Schairp of Houstoun, advocate, and John Kincaid, servitor to Hew Tod and writer of the bond.
The entry supplies Richard Guthrie’s name, service relationship, witness role and a dated legal transaction. Mr John Schairp’s territorial designation and profession provide useful points for comparing Richard with other records. The body adds the explicit description “advocate” that is absent from the shorter index entry.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Caution / cautioner — a guarantee / the person providing the guarantee.
- Procurator — a representative acting for another person; here, Robert Craig acts for the cautioner.
- Lawburrows — security against threatened harm or molestation, with a penalty for breach.
- Relict — widow.
- Servitor — a person in another’s service; the term alone does not specify Richard’s professional qualifications or exact duties.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), p. 611, complete registration of Hew Tod’s bond for Margaret Porterfield. Marginal register reference: Cautions, 1621–28, fol. 246a. The governing registration heading, Edinburgh, 24 May 1627, appears on p. 610; the bond itself is dated 23 May. Digitized volume.
11 June 1627 — Mr James Guthrie Signs the Urquhart Parish Report
Second Series, Volume 1 • Pages 690–691 • Miscellaneous Papers, no. 98
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The parish reporters describe meetings and consultations held in obedience to the King’s charge concerning people classified as “unprofitable and maisterles.” They name the people whom they considered should be removed and employed in royal service in Germany. Mr James Guthre subscribes as minister at Urquhart.
The report begins on page 690 and ends on page 691 with its endorsement. The complete text preserves the named people, additional names, subscribers and date. The following reports from Dunino and Jedburgh are separate documents.
Printed Source Text — Complete Urquhart Report, No. 98
Line and page breaks are joined, and paragraph breaks are added for readability. Source spellings are retained; the abbreviated first subscriber’s name continues across the page break as “Alexʳ. Innes.”
98. Unto the honorabill the lordis of his Majesteis Counsell, be it knawin that we, the Justices of Peace, elders, and minister of Urquhart undersubscryvand, efter our dyvers meiting amongs our selfs and adwys takin with the rest of the elders and honest men of the paroche for our obedience to his Majesteis charge concerning the leweing of unprofitable and maisterles personis, etc., fand and declairis thes personis quhais names is subjoinet to be suche as sould be remowit and imployet in his Majesteis service in Germanie: viz. James Adams, Alexander and James Cante his brother, Andro Hay in Stainewallis, and Andro Hay, his brother, alias Pikindailes, Alexander Culbock, Alexander Norie alias Wallace, Walter Kemp now in Waikmill, Jhone Merschell at the Milhilend, James Steinsone, courreour, James Udward, Jhone Symson alias Makschifte, Alexander Andersone, sone to Alexander Andersone alias Persie, Alexander Mitchell, son to umquhill Robert Mitchell.
Be this present also declairis Alexander Quhyte, tailyeour in Cottis. This present writtin and concludit at Germoik the 11 of Junij 1627. Jhone Merschell in Germoik also ordanet to be insert.
(Signed) Alexʳ. Innes, ane Justice off Peace, Johne Chalmer, ane elder, Robert Dunbar, ane of the elderis, Mark Miller, ane of the elderis, David Dunbar, elder, Michaell Stronoche, elder, Michaell Mawer, elder, James Andersone, elder, Johne Innes, M. James Guthre, minister at Urquhart.
[Indorsed] The diligence of the parochineris of Urquhart for finding out maisterles and insufficient persons, Junij 1627.
Modern English Rendering — Complete Report
Personal and place-name spellings are largely retained. The classifications belong to the report’s authors. “Courreour” is left unexpanded, and the two brothers printed as Andro Hay remain so.
98. To the honourable lords of His Majesty’s Council: be it known that we, the undersigned justices of the peace, elders and minister of Urquhart, after several meetings among ourselves and consultation with the other elders and reputable men of the parish, in obedience to His Majesty’s order concerning the levying of people described as unprofitable and masterless, etc., have found and declare the following named people to be such as should be removed and employed in His Majesty’s service in Germany: James Adams; Alexander and his brother James Cante; Andro Hay in Stainewallis and his brother, also printed as Andro Hay, alias Pikindailes; Alexander Culbock; Alexander Norie alias Wallace; Walter Kemp, now in Waikmill; Jhone Merschell at the Milhilend; James Steinsone, courreour; James Udward; Jhone Symson alias Makschifte; Alexander Andersone, son of Alexander Andersone alias Persie; and Alexander Mitchell, son of the late Robert Mitchell.
We also name Alexander Quhyte, tailor in Cottis. This report was written and concluded at Germoik on 11 June 1627. Jhone Merschell in Germoik was also ordered to be included.
Signed: Alexander Innes, a justice of the peace; Johne Chalmer, an elder; Robert Dunbar, one of the elders; Mark Miller, one of the elders; David Dunbar, elder; Michaell Stronoche, elder; Michaell Mawer, elder; James Andersone, elder; Johne Innes; and Mr James Guthrie, minister at Urquhart.
Endorsed: The action taken by the parishioners of Urquhart to identify masterless and insufficient persons, June 1627.
The report directly identifies James Guthre as minister at Urquhart and places him among those subscribing to a dated parish response to the Council. It records his public role and named associates without requiring the identification to rest solely on the volume’s index.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Undersubscryvand — subscribing or signing below.
- Leweing — levying or recruiting people for service.
- Maisterles — masterless; the administrative description used in this report.
- Umquhill — deceased or late.
- Tailyeour — tailor.
- Indorsed / diligence — an endorsement or note on the document / the action taken in carrying out the instruction.
- Courreour — the description attached to James Steinsone; retained pending a supported occupational reading.
Source: David Masson, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, I, A.D. 1625–1627 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1899), pp. 690–691, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 98, complete Urquhart report dated Germoik, 11 June 1627, including subscriptions and endorsement. The index regularizes “Guthre” to “Guthrie.” Digitized volume.
Volume I — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume I brings together ecclesiastical office, public administration, legal witnessing and maritime caution. Its references identify several Guthries in different roles. The evidence becomes most useful when each person, date and documentary capacity is kept distinct.
Masson’s introduction identifies the collegiate church of Guthrie and describes Alexander Guthrie of that Ilk’s provision for his sons Gabriel and Andrew through its benefices. Gabriel is expressly associated with the provostry in 1576. The year 1567 belongs to the enabling Act, not an established date for the grants or Council judgment. These are retrospective family and institutional statements requiring comparison with the earlier records.
The volume identifies the bishop behind the title Moray or Murray. Contemporary entries record his commission of justiciary, the direction of a Convention missive to him, attendance on 27 October 1625 and attendance by incorporation of that list on 1 November. Masson’s discussions of the clergy deputation are editorial evidence. The bishop’s conditional nomination to fill a vacancy in 1626 is distinct from his explicit appointment to the commission proclaimed on 3 February 1627.
References: cxli; 136; 141; 150–151; 154; 422–423 n.2; 456–457 n.1; 466 n.1; 509–516.
The Fleming bond names John among the writers in its witness list. Its execution dates are 5 and 6 April 1626; the printed registration chronology remains unresolved. The entry does not identify this John as the bishop, call him a notary or state that he drafted the bond.
Reference: 274–275.
Henrie is a cautioner for Thomas Auchinlek’s lawful use of letters of marque for The Goldin Lyoun. The letters date from 16 January 1627, the bonds from 18 and 20 January, and registration from 23 January. The entry does not make Henrie the ship’s captain or establish ownership or a voyage by him.
Reference: 500.
Richard witnesses the bond of 23 May 1627 as servitor to Mr John Schairp of Houstoun, advocate. This supplies an employment association and a dated appearance. The bond’s writer is John Kincaid; Richard’s precise duties and family connections are not supplied.
Reference: 611.
James subscribes the report concluded at Germoik on 11 June 1627. His ministerial designation is explicit. He belongs among the reporters, while the people proposed for service in Germany form a separate list. The document does not supply a family link to the bishop or identify James with another namesake.
Reference: 690–691, no. 98.
The 19 indexed page targets are covered through the 18 finding-aid rows, with the necessary continuations and supporting context. This was a targeted audit of those passages, not an exhaustive reading of every page in the volume. Several references discuss the same episode, and a continuous document may occupy several pages. Neither page totals nor repeated editorial discussions should be treated as counts of independent events.
The underlying Cautions entry could resolve the Fleming bond’s registration date. The original royal mandate and the version discussed by Masson could resolve the 7/17 January discrepancy. His commission breakdown totals 66 although he states 68; the full contemporary appointment list remains the stronger basis for membership. Earlier grants and Council proceedings could test the introduction’s account of Alexander, Gabriel and Andrew, while further records are needed to connect the writer, skipper, servitor and minister to documented families.
Appointment establishes authority; attendance lists establish attendance; witness and subscription lists establish the roles they name. None of these alone proves kinship, a personal decision, a completed settlement or the eventual outcome of an order.
Basis of synthesis: The linked record cards reproduce and discuss the relevant passages in Masson’s 1899 edition. The commission’s source history and editorial discrepancies are treated in the complete notes at 509 n.1 and 516–517 n.1. Further identification should be added only when supported by additional records.
Volume 2
Volume 2 places David Guthrie of that Ilk in coastal-defence planning and names both David and William Guthrie of Maines in an order enforcing the return of parish military surveys. James Guthrie’s premises appear in an Arbroath assault complaint, while James Guthrie, writer, appears as a creditor in an Edinburgh prisoner’s petition for liberty. Bishop John Guthrie of Moray continues in the business of the Commission for Surrenders and Teinds. Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, is identified as a military captain’s cautioner and is linked by the index to a later undertaking concerning the burghs and a saltpetre patent.
Read Volume 2 Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume II, A.D. 1627–1628. Edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown. Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1900.
Volume 2 — Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23–24 | 26 July 1627 | James Guthrie, in Arbroath Premises named in an assault complaint | His barn and barn-yard appear in the account of Johne Hamiltoun’s pursuit of William Buchan. Guthrie is not named as a litigant or witness. The first alleged assault was on 5 July. |
| 53 | 29 August 1627 | Laird of Guthrie, indexed as David Guthrie of that Ilk Coastal-fortification commission | Named without a forename among the lairds appointed to consider fortifications near Montrose. The local meeting was set for 13 September, with a report due to the Council on 18 September. |
| 70–71 | 13 September 1627 | D. Guthrie of that Ilk, indexed as David Report subscriber | Subscribes the Montrose commissioners’ report on inspected sites, proposed contributions and the need for further expert direction. Another version of this report appears at 556–557. |
| 169–171 | 20 December 1627 | David Guthrie of that Ilk Parish-survey enforcement order | Previously appointed for Guthrie, Kirkbuddo and Carmyllie; included among officers censured for neglecting their returns of fencible persons. Ordered to report within ten days after charge or appear on 31 January 1628 to show reasonable cause. |
| 169–171 | 20 December 1627 | Williame Guthrie of Maines Parish-survey enforcement order | Previously appointed for Tannadyis and subject to the same demand for a return or appearance. The record identifies his assignment but does not establish his relationship to David Guthrie. |
| 222–223 | 7 February 1628 | James Guthrie, writer Assignee creditor; consent to liberation | Appears in James Cuninghame’s petition for release from Edinburgh Tolbooth. Guthrie had taken assignation of a decree and consents to liberation without prejudice to his lawful debt action. |
| 255 | 5 March 1628 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Commissioners’ letter subscriber | Named as “Jo. B. of Murrey” in the subscription to a collective letter to the King concerning the proposed admission of Mr Alexander Hay as a third clerk to the Commission for Surrenders. |
| 330–331 | 10 June 1628 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Commission summons recipient | Included as “Murrey” among the prelates receiving a circular requesting attendance on 4 July. The Earl of Moray appears separately. The summons does not establish the bishop’s attendance. |
| 472 | 27 September 1628 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Cautioner for a military levy | Identified as Captain Donaldsoun’s cautioner for an obligation to levy and transport 300 men for Danish service. The Council’s letter is addressed to Sir William Alexander. |
| 537–538 | 18 December 1628 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Joint undertaking before the Council | Personally present with Johne McNaucht; both promise to notify the burghs and have them present on 8 January 1629, when consideration of the Earl of Linlithgow’s saltpetre patent is to resume. |
| 556–557 | 13 September 1627; separate foot date 18 September | D. Guthrie of that Ilk, indexed as David Miscellaneous Paper 14; report subscriber | Another version of the Montrose report at 70–71, preserving variant wording, an address, a date at foot and a description of Lord Carnegie’s seal. |
Finding-aid sources: P. Hume Brown, Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, II (1900), Guthrie index, p.692, and Bishop of Moray index, p.732, checked against the complete printed passages and their governing date headings. The review also searched the volume’s OCR for surname and title references; it was a targeted source review rather than a line-by-line reading of the entire volume. The detailed entries distinguish the edition’s abridgments and editorial notes from its quoted record texts.
26 July 1627 — James Guthrie’s Barn and Barn-Yard in Arbroath
Second Series, Volume 2 • Pages 23–24 • Complaint and Council disposition
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
William Buchan’s complaint describes repeated attacks and threats by Johne Hamiltoun, chamberlain of Arbroath. The first alleged pursuit began in the High Street and passed through James Guthrie’s barn and barn-yard. Further incidents are described at the shore, in Johne Wallace’s house and at Buchan’s booth.
After both parties appeared and evidence was heard, the Council found that Hamiltoun had carried pistols and chased and menaced Buchan. It imposed a fine, required security for Buchan’s protection, prohibited Hamiltoun from wearing firearms in future and ordered payments to the witnesses. James Guthrie’s name supplies a local premises reference within this case.
Printed Source Text — Complete Complaint and Disposition
The complete printed entry is reproduced below. Paragraph breaks have been added for readability; [blank] marks the unfilled day of the month in the edition.
Complaint by Sir William Oliphant of Newtoun, and Mr. Thomas Hoip of Craighall, his Majesty’s advocates, and William Buchan, burgess of Arbroth, as follows:—On 5th July instant “Johne Hamiltoun, Chamberlane of Arbroth, come to the said Williame Buchane when as he wes going doun the Hie Streit of Arbroth in a peaceable maner doing of his laughfull effaires and thair chaised the said Williame with a chairgit pistollett in his hand throw James Guthreis barn and barn-yaird of purpose to have shott and slaine him with the said pistollett, wer not be the providence of God he wes withholdin and stayed be some of the nighbours of the toun.
Thairafter the said compleaner haveing gone to the shoare for lossing of some geir, the said Johne upoun knowledge thairof followed him to the shore with the said pistolett, and thair of new presented the same unto him to have shott him thairwith, and so hardlie persewed him thairwith that he wes forced to flee aff the shoare to ane cockeboate and to goe to the sea till the said Johne went away; and the said Johne, maligning that he had mist the compleaner at that tyme, he cryed out and avowed with manie fearefull and execrable oaths that afoir he went hame to his awin hous he sould have the compleaneris lyffe altho all the Erles and Lords in Scotland would take his pairt.
And siclyke upoun the [blank] day of July instant the said compleaner haveing come in to the dwelling hous of Johne Wallace in Arbroth whair the said Johne without his knowledge happenned to be for the tyme and the said Johne, perceaveing him comming throw the rowme whair he wes, he or ever the compleaner wes awar of him or knew he wes thair, violentlie threw ane pynt stoup at him and almost feld him thairwith, thairafter pulled forth ane whingear and preassed to have stricken him thairwith wer not he wes withholdin and stayed. And not content heerewith he thairafter come to the compleaners buith and searched and sought him thair to have bereft him of his lyffe, swearing and avowing that he sould never ceasse, nor meate nor drinke sould never doe him good, till he had the compleaners lyffe, and he sould take him out of his awin hous aganis all that would take his pairt. Sua that the said compleaner wes forced to come away quyetlie in the night for meaning of himselffe to his Majesteis Counsell, and darre not as yitt returne hame for feare of his lyffe, to the great neglect and hinder of his effaires.”
Both parties compearing and evidence having been led, the Lords found “that the said Johne Hammiltoun boore and woore pistolets and chaist and minassed the said Williame Buchane in maner and at the tyme lybellit,” and ordain him to pay a fine of 40 merks to his Majesty’s Treasurer and Receivers of Rents, to find caution in 500 merks for the indemnity of the pursuer, and not to wear firearms in future, and to pay the witnesses in the cause, every horseman £4, and every footman 40s.
Modern English Rendering
Sir William Oliphant of Newtoun and Mr Thomas Hoip of Craighall, the King’s advocates, together with William Buchan, burgess of Arbroath, make the following complaint. On 5 July of the current month, Johne Hamiltoun, chamberlain of Arbroath, approached William Buchan while he was peacefully walking down Arbroath’s High Street about his lawful business. With a loaded pistol in his hand, Hamiltoun chased him through James Guthrie’s barn and barn-yard, intending to shoot and kill him. According to the complaint, only God’s providence and the intervention of some townspeople, who restrained and stopped Hamiltoun, prevented this.
Afterwards, when the complainant went to the shore to unload some goods, Hamiltoun learned of this and followed him there with the pistol. He again pointed it at him intending to shoot him, pursuing him so fiercely that Buchan had to flee from the shore into a small boat and go out to sea until Hamiltoun left. Angry that the complainant had escaped him, Hamiltoun shouted and swore many terrible oaths that he would take the complainant’s life before returning to his own house, even if all the earls and lords in Scotland supported Buchan.
Similarly, on the [blank] day of July, the complainant entered Johne Wallace’s house in Arbroath, unaware that Hamiltoun was there. Seeing him pass through the room, and before the complainant knew of his presence, Hamiltoun violently threw a pint jug at him and almost knocked him down. He then drew a dagger and tried to strike him with it, but was restrained and stopped.
Still not satisfied, Hamiltoun afterwards went to the complainant’s booth and searched for him, intending to kill him. He swore that he would never stop, and that neither food nor drink would do him any good until he had taken the complainant’s life. He also threatened to take him out of his own house despite anyone who might support him. The complainant therefore had to leave quietly at night to bring his complaint before the King’s Council. He still dared not return home for fear of his life, causing serious neglect and disruption of his affairs.
Both parties appeared and evidence was heard. The Lords found that Johne Hammiltoun had carried and worn pistols and had chased and menaced William Buchan in the manner and at the time alleged in the complaint. They ordered him to pay a fine of 40 merks to the King’s Treasurer and Receivers of Rents, provide security in 500 merks for the complainant’s protection, refrain from wearing firearms in future, and pay the witnesses in the case: £4 for each mounted witness and 40 shillings for each witness on foot.
This incidental reference associates a James Guthrie with a barn and barn-yard in Arbroath in July 1627. Such a location can help distinguish people with the same name when compared with burgh records, property descriptions and testaments. The entry also preserves the surrounding street, shore and household setting in which the premises were mentioned.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Chamberlane — chamberlain; an officer concerned with the administration of property or revenues. The title here belongs to Johne Hamiltoun.
- Compearing / evidence led — appearing before the Council / evidence presented and heard.
- Caution for indemnity — security intended here to protect the pursuer from further harm.
- Minassed / lybellit — menaced or threatened / alleged in the formal complaint.
- Lossing of geir — unloading goods; cockeboate — a small boat.
- Pynt stoup / whingear / buith — a pint jug or drinking vessel / a dagger / a booth or shop.
- Instant — the current month; merks — units of Scottish money of account.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, II, A.D. 1627–1628 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1900), pp.23–24, complaint by the King’s advocates and William Buchan against Johne Hamiltoun, under the Holyrood House session heading of 26 July 1627 at p.22. Register reference printed in the margin: Fines, 1614–31, fols.120a–b. Guthrie index reference: p.692. Digitized volume.
29 August 1627 — The Laird of Guthrie and Coastal Fortifications
Second Series, Volume 2 • Page 53 • Commission for Montrose, Burntisland and Inchgarvie
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Concerned about a threatened enemy landing, the Council appointed three local groups to consider forts at Montrose and Burntisland and a fortification at Inchgarvie. They were to examine suitable sites, arrangements for construction, costs, available assistance and the districts that should contribute, then report to the Council.
The Laird of Guthrie appears among the Montrose commissioners. Any four members of that group could act, provided either Lord Ogilvie or Lord Carnegie was one of them. All three groups were instructed to meet on 13 September and report by 18 September. These future dates are distinct from the commission’s Council date of 29 August 1627.
Printed Source Text — Complete Coastal-Fortification Commission
The complete body of the printed commission follows. Paragraph divisions have been added and words divided across printed lines rejoined. [blank] marks three unfilled spaces in the edition; the printed names and place-name forms are retained.
Forsameekle as the Lords of Secreit Counsell hes thought meete and expedient that now in thir dangerous tymes when the countrie is threatned with a commoun enemie that caire be taine for securing of the coast whair thair is probable appearance that the enemie may land; and considering that the ports and harboureis of Monrose and Bruntilland ar opin harbours whairin the enemie may thrust himself without danger, and that if some fortificatioun wer made at Inchgarvie it would prove a great suretie for all the shippes and vessells going up the water, Thairfoir the saids Lords hes givin and grantit and be the tennour heerof gives and grants full power and commissioun be thir presents to the persouns particularlie underwrittin to conveene and meete at the places following and to take ordour and give directioun anent the bigging of forts and fortificatiouns at the saids places in maner following, that is to say—
to Johne, Erle of Kinghorne; James, Lord Ogilvie of Airlie; David, Lord Carnegie; and to the Lairds of Din, Innerquharatie, Lawrestoun, Aldbar, Morphie, Bonytoun, Ethie, Balmaine, Leyes, Guthrie, and Newgrange, or anie foure of thame, the Lords Ogilvie and Carnegie or either of thame being ane of the foure, to conveene and meete at the burgh of Monrose upoun the threttein day of September nixt;
and to Johne, Erle of Rothesse; William, Erle of Mortoun; Robert, Lord Melville; Lord Ramsay of Dalhowsie; and to the Lairds of Weymes, Balmowto, Sir George Areskine of Innerteill, Mr. James Aittoun [blank], [blank] Boswald of Pittedie, Sir George Hammiltoun, with the bailleis of Dysert, Kirkaldie and Kinghorne or anie foure of thame, to conveene and meete at the burgh of Bruntilland upoun the said threttein day of September nixt;
and to [blank] Dundas of that Ilk; Colonell Harie Bruce, Mr. Alexander Hammiltoun, and Alexander Bruce, or anie three of thame to conveene and meete at Queensferrie the threttein day of the said moneth of September, and at thair said meetings within the pairts respective assignit unto thame as said is that thay within the severall bounds allowed unto thame try and informe thameselffes whair forts may be best and most commodiouslie built, viz. at the burrowes of Monrose and Bruntilland and how some fortificatioun may be made at Inchegarvie; and to consider and accordinglie to take some course and ordour how, be whom and by what meanes the saids forts and fortificatioun may be biggit, and what supplee may be had from the countrie people for the furtherance and advancement thairof, what charges the bigging of the same will necessarilie require, and what pairts and portiouns of the countrie sall be allowed for contributing thairunto, and to report thair proceedings and the course and ordour to be taine be thame heerin to the saids Lords upoun the eighteene day of September.
Modern English Rendering
Since the Lords of the Privy Council consider it appropriate and necessary, in these dangerous times when the country is threatened by a common enemy, to secure the coast wherever an enemy landing appears likely; and since Montrose and Burntisland have open harbours into which the enemy could enter without danger, while a fortification at Inchgarvie would provide considerable security for ships and vessels going up the water: the Lords have granted, and by this document grant, full authority and commission to the people named below to assemble at the specified places and make arrangements and give directions for building forts and fortifications, as follows.
John, Earl of Kinghorn; James, Lord Ogilvie of Airlie; David, Lord Carnegie; and the lairds of Din, Innerquharatie, Lawrestoun, Aldbar, Morphie, Bonytoun, Ethie, Balmaine, Leyes, Guthrie and Newgrange, or any four of them including either Lord Ogilvie or Lord Carnegie, are to meet at the burgh of Montrose on 13 September next.
John, Earl of Rothes; William, Earl of Morton; Robert, Lord Melville; Lord Ramsay of Dalhousie; the lairds of Weymes and Balmowto; Sir George Areskine of Innerteill; Mr James Aittoun [blank]; [blank] Boswald of Pittedie; Sir George Hammiltoun; and the bailies of Dysart, Kirkcaldy and Kinghorn, or any four of them, are to meet at the burgh of Burntisland on the same 13 September.
[Blank] Dundas of that Ilk, Colonel Harry Bruce, Mr Alexander Hammiltoun and Alexander Bruce, or any three of them, are to meet at Queensferry on 13 September.
At these meetings, each group is to investigate within its assigned district where forts could best and most conveniently be built at Montrose and Burntisland, and how a fortification could be made at Inchgarvie. They are to consider and arrange how, by whom and by what means the forts and fortification could be built; what assistance the country people could provide to advance the work; what expenses construction would necessarily involve; and which districts should be assigned to contribute. They are to report their proceedings and proposed arrangements to the Lords on 18 September.
This commission places the Laird of Guthrie within a named group of nobles and lairds entrusted with local defence responsibilities in 1627. It supplies a dated administrative association and a network of fellow commissioners that can be compared with the subsequent Montrose report at pp.70–71.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Laird / of that Ilk — a territorial designation / “of the same,” used where the surname and estate name coincide. These styles do not by themselves establish family relationships.
- Commission — authority granted to named people to carry out specified business.
- Quorum — the minimum number authorized to act, subject here to the additional Montrose membership requirement.
- Bigging / biggit — building / built.
- Try and informe thameselffes — investigate and obtain information.
- Supplee / charges — assistance or resources / expenses.
- Burgh / bailies — a town with burgh status / its municipal magistrates.
- Nixt — next; here September following the August Council session.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, II, A.D. 1627–1628 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1900), p.53, coastal-fortification commission, under the Holyrood House session heading of 29 August 1627 at p.50. Register reference printed in the margin: Acta, March 1625–January 1628, fols.238b–239a. Guthrie index reference: p.692; related entries at pp.70–71 and 169–171. Digitized volume.
13 September 1627 — D. Guthrie of that Ilk and the Montrose Fortification Report
Second Series, Volume 2 • Pages 70–71 • Report of the Montrose commissioners
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The earlier commission of 29 August directed a group of Angus and neighbouring landholders, including the Laird of Guthrie, to meet at Montrose on 13 September and investigate where coastal forts could most conveniently be built, how construction might be supported and what areas might contribute toward the expense.
This report records the Montrose group’s response. The commissioners state that the Council’s letters had been delivered to them the previous night and that they had convened at Montrose that day. They inspected the nearby bounds, discussed possible building arrangements and considered what assistance might be expected from the surrounding country.
Because Colonel Bruce and James Traill had previously inspected the proposed sites, the commissioners recommended that they be sent back to designate the locations and prescribe the form of the forts. They believed the building costs would need to be supplied through voluntary contributions from heritors and burgesses in the shires of Forfar and Kincardine.
The commissioners emphasized that the short time available prevented a more definite written answer. They therefore sent the Provost of Montrose with the report so that he could give the Council fuller information about their discussions. The report concludes with the names of its subscribers, including D. Guthrie of that Ilk.
Printed Source Text — Complete Montrose Report
The complete report printed across pp.70–71 follows. Printed line-end divisions have been rejoined; original spelling and name forms are retained.
My most honourable lords, According to the directioun conteaned in your lordships letters delyverit to us yesternight we have conveenned at Montrois this day, and conforme to the warrant of your lordships commissioun we have visite the bounds nixt adjacent to the toun of Montrois whair forts may be most commodiouslie built. We have conferrit upoun the meanes for building thairof and upoun the supplee that may be expectit from the countrie people.
As for the plaices whair the forts ar to be built, we understand that before thay wer visite be Colonell Bruce and James Traill; and thairfoir we thinke it verie necessar that your lordships sould direct thame to come over heere againe and designe the plaices and prescryve the forme of the forts.
As for the meanes for building thairof, in our judgement the same must be furnished be the voluntar contributioun of the heretours and burgesses within the shyres of Forfar and Kincairdin.
We ar so straited be the shortnesse of tyme that we ar not able to write so determinate ane answere to youre lordships as we wish, and thairfoir we have desired the Provest of Montrois to carie thir presents, and with all to informe your lordships at greater lenth of all things that occurred in our conference of this bussines.
So ceassing to interrupt your lordships most weightie effaires, we take our leave and rest. Montrois the 13 of September 1627. Sic subscribitur, Carnegie, Lyone, Areskine, Bonytoun, D. Gardyne, Grahame of Morphie, J. Carnegie of Athie, D. Guthrie of that Ilk, Francis Ogilvie.
Modern English Rendering
My most honourable lords: According to the directions contained in your Lordships’ letters delivered to us last night, we have assembled at Montrose today. In accordance with the authority of your Lordships’ commission, we have inspected the lands immediately surrounding the town of Montrose to determine where forts might most conveniently be built. We have discussed the means by which they could be constructed and the assistance that might be expected from the people of the surrounding country.
Regarding the places where the forts are to be built, we understand that they were previously inspected by Colonel Bruce and James Traill. We therefore think it very necessary that your Lordships direct them to come here again to designate the sites and prescribe the form the forts should take.
As for the means of building them, in our judgment the necessary resources must be provided through voluntary contributions from the heritors and burgesses within the shires of Forfar and Kincardine.
We are so constrained by the shortness of the time available that we are unable to give your Lordships as definite a written answer as we would wish. We have therefore asked the Provost of Montrose to carry this report and also to give your Lordships fuller information about everything that arose during our discussion of this business.
So, without further interrupting your Lordships’ weighty affairs, we take our leave. Montrose, 13 September 1627. Thus subscribed: Carnegie, Lyone, Areskine, Bonytoun, D. Gardyne, Grahame of Morphie, J. Carnegie of Athie, D. Guthrie of that Ilk, Francis Ogilvie.
The commission at p.53 established the Laird of Guthrie’s appointment to the Montrose defence group. This subsequent report supplies the next documentary stage: D. Guthrie of that Ilk appears among the subscribers to a report stating that the commissioners had convened at Montrose on 13 September, inspected the neighbouring bounds and considered the practical questions assigned to them.
The record therefore provides a closely dated instance of David Guthrie of that Ilk participating in regional public business alongside other Angus landholders during the reign of Charles I.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Of that Ilk — “of the same”; a territorial style used when a family surname and estate name coincide.
- Commission — formal authority granted to named persons to investigate or carry out specified public business.
- Bounds — the surrounding district or territorial area.
- Supplee — assistance, resources or material support.
- Heritors — landholders responsible for, or participating in, various local obligations and assessments.
- Burgesses — members of a burgh possessing the recognised civic status of burgess.
- Voluntar contributioun — a voluntary financial contribution rather than proof that a compulsory assessment had already been imposed or collected.
- Thir presents — this present document or letter.
- Sic subscribitur — “thus it is subscribed,” introducing the names attached to the report.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, II, A.D. 1627–1628 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1900), pp.70–71, Montrose report dated 13 September 1627. Register reference printed in the margin: Royal Letters, 1623–32, fols.118b–119a. Related coastal commission: p.53; Guthrie index: p.692; later full-name reference: pp.169–171; alternative printing of the same report: pp.556–557. Digitized volume.
20 December 1627 — David Guthrie of that Ilk, Williame Guthrie of Maines, and the Forfarshire Military Survey
Second Series, Volume 2 • Pages 169–171 • Enforcement of the inquiry into fencible persons
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council had earlier directed justices of peace in selected sheriffdoms to determine, with the advice of parish ministers, the number and qualities of all fencible persons in both burgh and countryside. The object was to provide the information needed to organize those men for military drilling, training and the handling of arms under appointed captains.
In Forfarshire, the justices had divided the work parish by parish among a large group of named landholders, civic officers and other local figures. David Guthrie of that Ilk had been assigned the parishes of Guthrie, Kirkbuddo and Carmyllie. Williame Guthrie of Maines had been assigned Tannadyis.
The entry of 20 December is not simply another appointment of these officers. The Council states that the people listed had performed no diligence at all in the duties committed to them and had slighted and neglected the charge to the hindrance of the King’s service.
The Council therefore ordered letters charging each officer to investigate the fencible population within his assigned bounds and submit a complete written report, signed by him, to the clerk of the Council within ten days after being formally charged. Alternatively, an officer could appear personally before the Lords on the last day of January and show reasonable cause why the work had not been done. Failure to do either exposed the officer to formal horning and escheat.
Printed Source Text — Complete Forfarshire Order
The complete separate order printed from the foot of p.169 through the top of p.171 follows. Printed line-end divisions have been rejoined; original spelling, personal names and place-name forms are retained.
Forsameekle as the Lords of Secreit Counsell haiving upoun verie considerable and good grounds recommendit to the justices of peace within some particular shirefdomes the taking of tryell with the advice of the ministers of eache parish of the nomber and qualiteis of all the fensible persounes als weill to burgh as to land within thair parish to the intent that accordinglie ordour might be taine for dreilling and training of thame in the use and handling of thair armes under suche captans as sould be appointit over thame, the justices of peace within the shirefdome of Forfar for testifeing thair dewtifull obedience to the directiouns of his Majesteis Counsell in this point tooke a verie good and solide course by appointing of the persouns following in eache parish for taking of the said tryell, to witt,
for the parishes of Marytoun, Logymontrose and Dun, Alexander Areskine of Dun; for the parishes of Stracathro and Pert, Patrik Livingstoun of Barowny; for the parishes of Inchebrayock, Kinnaird and Fernall, David, Maister of Carnegie; for the paroche of Ferne, Alexander Carnegie, his uncle; for the paroches of Edyell, Navar, Lethnock and Dillopie, David Lindsey of Edyell; for the parishes of Aberlemno and Eidwie, David Lindsey of Balgayes; for the paroche of Menmure, Johne Collace of Balnamone; for the parishes of St. Vigianes and Innerkeillour, Sir Johne Carnegie of Athie; for the toun and paroche of Brechin, the bishop and baillies thairof; for the parishes of Abirlot and Panbryd, Sir Harie Wood of Bonytoun; for the parishes of Guthrie, Kirkbuddo and Carmyllie, David Guthrie of that Ilk; for the parish of Kynnettills, Friderick Lyoun of Brigtoun; for the parishes of Mathie and Nevay, Johne Nevay of that Ilk; for the parish of Moniekie, James Durhame of Pitkerro; for the parishes of Murrayes and Inneraritie, Thomas Fothringhame of Powrie; for the parish of the Maynes of Erlestradightie, Johne Scrimgeour of Kirktoun; for the parish of Strickmartine, Sir Thomas Wentoun of Strickmartine; for the lands of the parish of Kirremure, David Grahame of Fyntrie and Sir Johne Ogilvie of Innerquharatie; for the parish of Teilling, Thomas Ogilvie of that Ilk; for the parishes of Liff and Innergowrie, Sir Williame Grahame of Claverhous; for the parish of Benvy and outland parish of Dundie, Sir Johne Scrimgeour of Duddop and James Scrimgeour, his sonne; for the parishes of Lundie and Foulles, Coline Campbell of Lundie; for the parish of Oughterhous, James Erle of Buchane; for the paroches of Keitnes and Newtyld, Williame Halyburtoun of Pitcur; for the parishes of Glames and Neather Airlie, Johne, Erle of Kinghorne; for the parish of Essie, George Lammy of Dwnkany; for the parish of Lownand, Mr. James Durhame of Kinnell; for the parishes of Kynnell, Glenylla and Over Airlie, James, Lord Ogilvie; for the parish of Kingowdrum, Francis Ogilvie of Newgrange; for the parishes of Clovay and Cortowhy, Sir David Ogilvie of Clovay, knight; for the parish of Dinnichtin and outland parish of Forfar, Robert Carnegie of Dinnichtin; for the burgh of Forfar, the proveist and baillies thairof; for the toun of Aberbrothocke, the baillies thairof; for the parishes of Othlo and Rescobie, Mr. David Lindsey of Pitskandlie, and for the parish of Tannadyis, Williame Guthrie of Maines;
Whilks persouns hes done no diligence at all in that charge committit unto thame bot hes slighted and neglectit the same to the great hinder and disappointing of his Majesteis service; Thairfoir the Lords of Secreit Counsell ordains letters to be direct chairging the persouns particularlie abonewrittin that thay and everie ane of thame within the bounds particularlie abonespecified assigned and allowed unto thame, try and informe thameselffes sufficientlie of the nomber and qualiteis of all the fensible persouns within the saids bounds, and that thay make a perfyte report thairof in writt under thair hands and send in the same to the clerk of his Majesteis Counsell within ten dayes nixt after the charge under the paine of rebellioun and putting of thame to the horne,
or ellis that thay compeir personallie before the saids Lords at Halyruidhous or whair it sall happen thame to be for the tyme upoun the last day of Januar nixt, and shaw a reasonable caus why the same sould not be done, with certificatioun to thame and thay failyie letters sall be direct simpliciter to putt thame to the horne and to escheate, etc.
Modern English Rendering
Since the Lords of the Privy Council, for very substantial and good reasons, had instructed the justices of peace in certain sheriffdoms to investigate, with the advice of the minister of each parish, the number and qualities of all persons capable of military service, both in the burghs and in the countryside of their parishes, so that arrangements could then be made for drilling and training them in the use and handling of arms under captains appointed over them, the justices of peace in the sheriffdom of Forfar — to demonstrate their dutiful obedience to the directions of the King’s Council — adopted what was regarded as a sound course by appointing the following people in each parish to conduct that inquiry:
for Marytoun, Logymontrose and Dun, Alexander Areskine of Dun; for Stracathro and Pert, Patrik Livingstoun of Barowny; for Inchebrayock, Kinnaird and Fernall, David, Master of Carnegie; for Ferne, Alexander Carnegie, his uncle; for Edyell, Navar, Lethnock and Dillopie, David Lindsey of Edyell; for Aberlemno and Eidwie, David Lindsey of Balgayes; for Menmure, Johne Collace of Balnamone; for St. Vigianes and Innerkeillour, Sir Johne Carnegie of Athie; for the town and parish of Brechin, its bishop and bailies; for Abirlot and Panbryd, Sir Harie Wood of Bonytoun; for Guthrie, Kirkbuddo and Carmyllie, David Guthrie of that Ilk; for Kynnettills, Friderick Lyoun of Brigtoun; for Mathie and Nevay, Johne Nevay of that Ilk; for Moniekie, James Durhame of Pitkerro; for Murrayes and Inneraritie, Thomas Fothringhame of Powrie; for the Maynes of Erlestradightie, Johne Scrimgeour of Kirktoun; for Strickmartine, Sir Thomas Wentoun of Strickmartine; for the lands of the parish of Kirremure, David Grahame of Fyntrie and Sir Johne Ogilvie of Innerquharatie; for Teilling, Thomas Ogilvie of that Ilk; for Liff and Innergowrie, Sir Williame Grahame of Claverhous; for Benvy and the outlying parish of Dundie, Sir Johne Scrimgeour of Duddop and James Scrimgeour, his son; for Lundie and Foulles, Coline Campbell of Lundie; for Oughterhous, James, Earl of Buchane; for Keitnes and Newtyld, Williame Halyburtoun of Pitcur; for Glames and Neather Airlie, Johne, Earl of Kinghorne; for Essie, George Lammy of Dwnkany; for Lownand, Mr James Durhame of Kinnell; for Kynnell, Glenylla and Over Airlie, James, Lord Ogilvie; for Kingowdrum, Francis Ogilvie of Newgrange; for Clovay and Cortowhy, Sir David Ogilvie of Clovay, knight; for Dinnichtin and the outlying parish of Forfar, Robert Carnegie of Dinnichtin; for the burgh of Forfar, its provost and bailies; for the town of Aberbrothocke, its bailies; for Othlo and Rescobie, Mr David Lindsey of Pitskandlie; and for Tannadyis, Williame Guthrie of Maines.
These people had performed no diligence at all in the duty committed to them, but had slighted and neglected it, greatly hindering and disappointing the King’s service. The Lords of the Privy Council therefore ordered letters to be issued charging every person named above, within the particular bounds assigned to him, to investigate fully and obtain sufficient information about the number and qualities of all people capable of military service within those bounds.
Each person was to prepare a complete written report, signed by him, and send it to the clerk of the King’s Council within ten days after receiving the formal charge, under pain of rebellion and being put to the horn. Alternatively, he was to appear personally before the Lords at Holyrood House, or wherever they might then be sitting, on the last day of January next and show reasonable cause why the required work had not been done.
They were warned that, if they failed to comply, letters would be issued absolutely to put them to the horn and subject their property to escheat.
This entry is especially valuable because it names David Guthrie of that Ilk in full. That identification corroborates the volume index and helps identify the “Laird of Guthrie” and “D. Guthrie of that Ilk” appearing in the earlier coastal-defence records at p.53 and pp.70–71.
It also documents a second Guthrie, Williame Guthrie of Maines, operating within the same county-wide administrative system. The record assigns David to Guthrie, Kirkbuddo and Carmyllie and William to Tannadyis, providing precise contemporary territorial associations for each man without stating a family relationship between them.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Fencible persons — people regarded as capable of bearing arms or performing military service.
- Tryell — inquiry, investigation or examination.
- Diligence — the carrying out of an assigned legal or administrative duty.
- Charge — formal legal command or service of an order requiring compliance.
- Under thair hands — authenticated by the writers’ own signatures.
- Compeir — appear formally before a court or governing body.
- Put to the horn — formally denounced as a rebel after failure to obey lawful letters or process.
- Escheat — forfeiture of property or goods resulting from legal consequences such as outlawry or rebellion.
- Simpliciter — absolutely or without further qualification; here, directing the threatened process to proceed if the officers failed to comply.
- Of that Ilk — “of the same,” a territorial style where the family surname and estate name coincide.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, II, A.D. 1627–1628 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1900), pp.169–171, Forfarshire enforcement order under the Holyrood House session of 20 December 1627. Register reference printed in the margin: Acta, March 1625–January 1628, fols.268a–269a. Related David Guthrie entries: p.53 and pp.70–71. Digitized volume.
7 February 1628 — James Guthrie, Writer, and a Petition for Release from the Tolbooth
Second Series, Volume 2 • Pages 222–223 • James Cuninghame’s petition for liberty
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
James Cuninghame, a tailor and burgess of Edinburgh, petitioned the Privy Council while imprisoned in the Edinburgh Tolbooth. His imprisonment was at the instance of James Guthrie, writer, who had taken assignation of a decree recovered against Cuninghame before the bailies of Leith.
The underlying case arose because Cuninghame had served as cautioner for George M‘Cubie to Mr George Simmer, minister of Kilspindie, for £24 and two merks of expenses.
In his petition, Cuninghame described himself as impoverished through cautionry, bad debtors and lawsuits. He stated that he had a large family, including four small children, and depended upon his manual labour to support them. His imprisonment, he argued, prevented him from earning that livelihood and threatened both him and his family with starvation.
Andrew Whyte, keeper of the Edinburgh Tolbooth, brought Cuninghame before the Lords. James Guthrie also appeared and consented to Cuninghame’s release, expressly preserving his right to pursue his lawful action against him. The Council then ordered Edinburgh’s provost and bailies to set Cuninghame at liberty.
Printed Source Text — Complete Petition and Order
The complete printed entry begins on p.222 and concludes in the opening lines of p.223. Printed line-end divisions have been rejoined; original spelling and wording are retained.
Complaint and petition by James Cuninghame, tailor, burgess of Edinburgh, as follows:—He is warded in the tolbooth of Edinburgh at the instance of James Guthrie, writer, who has taken assignation of a decree recovered against the complainer before the bailies of Leith in a case in which he was cautioner for George M‘Cubie to Mr. George Simmer, minister of Kilspindie, for £24 and 2 merks of expenses.
He is now like to starve through famine, “being a poore, decayed, distressed and wracked persoun by cautionrie and evill debtors and actiouns of law, haveing the burdein and charge of a great familie and foure small bairnes, and hes no meanes nor moyen to interteane thame with bot that whilk he can procure by his handis labour, whairof now he is prejudged by his detentioun in waird, sua that he and they will starve.”
Parties being cited, and the pursuer being brought before the Lords by Andrew Whyte, keeper of the tolbooth of Edinburgh, and the said James Guthrie also compearing and consenting to the liberation of the pursuer, without prejudice to his lawful action at law against the pursuer, the Lords ordain the provost and bailies of Edinburgh to set the said James Cuninghame at liberty.
Modern English Rendering
James Cuninghame, tailor and burgess of Edinburgh, submitted a complaint and petition stating that he was imprisoned in the Edinburgh Tolbooth at the instance of James Guthrie, writer. Guthrie had received by assignation a decree obtained against Cuninghame before the bailies of Leith. The original case concerned Cuninghame’s role as guarantor for George M‘Cubie to Mr George Simmer, minister of Kilspindie, for £24 together with two merks of expenses.
Cuninghame stated that he was now in danger of starving. He described himself as poor, financially ruined and distressed through acting as guarantor, bad debtors and legal actions. He said that he bore responsibility for a large family including four young children and had no means to maintain them except what he could earn by the labour of his own hands. Because his imprisonment prevented him from working, he claimed that both he and his family were in danger of starvation.
After the parties had been cited, Andrew Whyte, keeper of the Edinburgh Tolbooth, brought Cuninghame before the Lords. James Guthrie also appeared and consented to Cuninghame’s release, while expressly preserving his lawful right to continue his legal action against Cuninghame.
The Lords accordingly ordered the provost and bailies of Edinburgh to release James Cuninghame from imprisonment.
This record identifies a James Guthrie, writer active in an Edinburgh and Leith legal and financial setting in February 1628. He had acquired an existing decree by assignation and was exercising the creditor’s rights attached to it.
His personal appearance before the Privy Council is also significant: Guthrie consented to the debtor’s liberation while carefully preserving his underlying legal claim. The entry therefore documents both his occupation and his direct participation in contemporary debt procedure.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Writer — a person whose occupation involved professional writing or preparation of documents; the word alone does not establish a more specific legal office.
- Warded — imprisoned or held in custody.
- Tolbooth — a burgh building commonly serving civic, court and prison functions.
- Assignation — transfer of a legal right, claim or debt from one party to another.
- Decree — formal judgment or judicial order.
- Cautioner — a guarantor or surety who undertook responsibility for another person’s obligation.
- Complainer — the person making a complaint; here used for Cuninghame in describing the earlier proceeding.
- Pursuer — the party pursuing the present petition or legal proceeding; here James Cuninghame.
- Compearing — formally appearing before the court or Council.
- Moyen — means or resources.
- Without prejudice — preserving an existing legal right despite the immediate order or concession.
- Liberation — release from imprisonment or custody.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, II, A.D. 1627–1628 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1900), pp.222–223, under the Holyrood House session of 7 February 1628. Register reference printed in the margin: Decreta, November 1627–January 1630, fol.38b. Digitized volume.
5 March 1628 — John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, and the Commission for the Surrenders
Second Series, Volume 2 • Page 255 • Collective letter to Charles I
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Mr Alexander Hay, one of the clerks of Session, had obtained a royal signatour under the privy seal by which he sought admission as a third clerk of the Commission for the Surrenders.
The commissioners examined his grant and called both Hay and the commission’s two existing ordinary clerks before them. Those clerks opposed Hay’s admission, arguing that their possession of the office was supported first by the King’s commission under the Great Seal and then by a royal gift under the Privy Seal. Under both instruments, they said, they were constituted the sole clerks of the commission.
The two clerks nevertheless offered to relinquish their offices if the commissioners found that the workload was too great for two people or that they were unable to perform it satisfactorily. The commissioners reported that the clerks had served carefully for the preceding twelve months and were capable of carrying out the work themselves.
Rather than immediately admitting Mr Alexander Hay, the commissioners chose to lay the circumstances before the King. They warned that the proposed admission could derogate from the royal commission under which they acted and might introduce disorder and confusion into the service.
The letter was subscribed collectively by numerous commissioners. Among them appears “Jo. B. of Murrey” — John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
Printed Source Text — Complete Letter
The complete letter printed on p.255 follows. Printed line-end divisions have been rejoined; original spelling, titles and subscription forms are retained.
Most sacred Soverane, Thair wes a signatour under your Majesteis privie seale givin in be Mr. Alexander Hay, one of the clerks of the Sessioun, whairby he desired to be adjoynned as thrid clerk in this Commissioun for the Surrendars, and we, having read and considderit the tenour and nature of his gift, called upoun him and upoun the two ordinar clerks, who with most submissive and humble respect opposed aganis the said Mr. Alexander his admissioun be reasoun of thair provisioun to the said office cled with possessioun and warranted first be your Majesteis commissioun under the great seale which is the warrand of our sitting and proceedings and nixt by your Majesteis gift under the privie seal, in both which they ar made and constitute sole and onelie clerkes of this commissioun during the whole tyme thereof;
and notwithstanding thereof it wes offered be thame that if it wer found be the table that the service wes so great as it could not be overtaikin be thame twa or so difficill and hard as they were not able to discharge it they wer content for the weale of your Majesteis service and without anie privat respect to thameselffes to lay doun their charge and give way to anie whome your Majestie sall be pleased to prefer thairunto;
and we finding the objectioun made be the saids twa ordinar clerks to be foundit upoun the warrand of your Majesteis commissioun and that thir twa ar weele provydit to the said service, first by the commissioun foresaid anent the surrendars and nixt be your Majesteis gift under the privie seale, and in both are constitute sole and onelie clerks of the commissioun which excludes all others, and thay having carefullie and painfullie attendit thair service these twelffe moneths bygane and able eneugh to discharge the same be thameselffes we thought it more fitt to acquaint your Majestie with the caise of the bussines as it stands and to represent unto your Majestie the reasouns of our behaviour, then to proceid suddanelie to the said Mr. Alexander his admissioun which careis with it some derogatioun to your Majesteis commissioun which is the warrand of our procedingis, and may breed some disordour and confusioun in the progres of the service, to your Majesteis prejudice.
All whiche recommending to your royall and most judicious consideratioun we pray the almightie God to blesse your Majestie with a long and happie raigne, and we rest for ever. Halyruidhous the fyft of Marche 1628. Subscribitur, Mar, Monteith, Eglintoun, Nithisdaill, Lauderdaill, Pa. B. of Rosse, Jo. B. of Murrey, J. B. of Cathnes, Naper, A. Gibsone, Oliphant, A. Carre, D. Aikinheid, Mr. Thomas Hoip, Mr Johne Hay, Gabriell Cunninghame.
Modern English Rendering
Most sacred Sovereign: Mr Alexander Hay, one of the clerks of Session, presented a royal signatour under Your Majesty’s Privy Seal by which he sought to be added as a third clerk to this Commission for the Surrenders. After reading and considering the terms and nature of his grant, we summoned him together with the commission’s two ordinary clerks.
The two existing clerks respectfully opposed Mr Alexander Hay’s admission because their own appointments to the office, together with their possession of it, were supported first by Your Majesty’s commission under the Great Seal — the authority for our meetings and proceedings — and secondly by Your Majesty’s grant under the Privy Seal. Under both instruments they are constituted the sole clerks of this commission for its entire duration.
Nevertheless, they offered that, if the commission should find that the work was too great for the two of them to undertake, or so difficult that they could not discharge it, they were willing, for the good of Your Majesty’s service and without regard for their own private interests, to resign their offices and make way for anyone Your Majesty wished to appoint.
We find that the objection made by the two ordinary clerks is founded upon the authority of Your Majesty’s commission. They are properly provided to the service both by the commission concerning the surrenders and by Your Majesty’s grant under the Privy Seal, and under both they are constituted the sole clerks of the commission to the exclusion of others.
They have carefully and diligently attended to the service for the past twelve months and are sufficiently able to perform it themselves. We therefore thought it more appropriate to inform Your Majesty of the circumstances and explain the reasons for our conduct than to proceed immediately with Mr Alexander Hay’s admission.
His admission would involve some derogation from Your Majesty’s commission, which is the authority for our proceedings, and might cause disorder and confusion in the progress of the service, to Your Majesty’s prejudice.
We therefore submit all of this to Your Majesty’s royal and most judicious consideration and pray that Almighty God bless Your Majesty with a long and happy reign. Holyrood House, 5 March 1628.
Subscribed by Mar, Monteith, Eglintoun, Nithisdaill, Lauderdaill, the Bishop of Ross, the Bishop of Moray, the Bishop of Caithness, Naper, A. Gibsone, Oliphant, A. Carre, D. Aikinheid, Mr Thomas Hoip, Mr Johne Hay and Gabriell Cunninghame.
This entry adds another documented appearance of John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray in the work of a royal commission during the reign of Charles I. Unlike records that name him by surname, the printed subscription identifies him only by episcopal title: “Jo. B. of Murrey.”
Its recovery also demonstrates why title-based searches are necessary when mining the Privy Council volumes. A surname-only search for Guthrie would not discover this reference.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Signatour — a warrant or draft used in the process of obtaining a royal grant under one of the seals.
- Privy Seal — one of the royal seals used to authenticate grants and appointments.
- Great Seal — the principal royal seal used for major grants, commissions and other instruments of authority.
- Commission for the Surrenders — the royal commission referred to in this record, whose business required appointed commissioners and clerks.
- Ordinary clerks — the regular clerks formally appointed to conduct the written and administrative business of the commission.
- Provision to office — formal appointment or entitlement to an office.
- Cled with possessioun — accompanied or clothed with actual possession of the office.
- Warrand — legal authority or warrant supporting an act or proceeding.
- Derogatioun — impairment or diminution of the authority or effect of an existing grant or commission.
- Subscribitur — “it is subscribed,” introducing the names attached to the document.
- “Jo. B. of Murrey” — abbreviated subscription for John, Bishop of Moray; “Murrey” is the printed form of Moray used here.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, II, A.D. 1627–1628 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1900), p.255, commissioners’ letter dated at Holyrood House, 5 March 1628. Register reference printed in the margin: Royal Letters, 1623–32, fol.129a. The volume’s Bishop and Earl of Moray index appears at p.732. Digitized volume.
10 June 1628 — John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, Summoned to the Commission for Surrenders and Teinds
Second Series, Volume 2 • Pages 330–331 • Circular requiring attendance on 4 July
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Council reported that 4 June had been appointed as the next meeting of the Commission for the Surrenders and Teinds, but that meeting had been very poorly attended. According to the circular, “few or nane” of the commissioners had appeared, causing serious delay in the commission’s work.
Concerned that the delay would offend the King and that blame might fall upon those responsible for failing to prevent further obstruction, the Council fixed a new meeting for 4 July 1628.
Commissioners who were then at court were expected to have returned by that date, while those remaining in Scotland were written to individually and asked to attend precisely. The letter warned that, if the service were delayed again, the Council might have to inform the King whose absence had caused the obstruction.
Following the text of the circular, the register lists the people to whom missives in the same terms were sent. Within that list, “Murrey” appears among the ecclesiastical recipients after the Archbishop of Glasgow and Aberdeen. This is the title-based reference to John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
Printed Source Text — Complete Circular and Recipient List
The circular begins near the foot of p.330 and continues through the recipient list on p.331. Printed line-end divisions have been rejoined; original spelling and title forms are retained.
After our verie heartilie commendatiouns to your good lordship. Whairas at the last meeting and sessioun of the commissioun anent the surrendars and teinds the fourth of this instant wes appointed for the nixt meeting, quhilk dyet and meeting hes beene verie evill keeped in so farre as few or nane of the commissioners hes attended the same, quhairthrow thair hes beene a verie greate hinder and stay in the progresse of that commissioun whilk no doubt will be highlie to his Majesteis offence;
and least some imputatioun may be objected aganis us for not foreseing and preventing of all forder delayes in this bussines, we have therefore appointed a new meeting of the whole commissioners to be upoun the fourt of July now approacheing, agains whilk tyme we looke that these of the commissioun who ar at court will be returned, and we have writtin to the whole remanent that ar at hame to keepe that dyet preciselie,
of the quhilk number your lordship being one we will lykewayes requeist your good lordship to keepe the same dyet, so that your absence be no hinder nor stay to the service, for we will be constrained for our awin exoneratioun to lett his Majestie know fra whome and upoun whois default the stay (if anie sall happin to be) proceeds.
Bot looking that your lordship will be more respective to his Majesteis obedience and your awin dewtie in this point, we committ your lordship to God. Frome Halyruidhous the tent day of Junij 1628. Subscribitur, Mar, Hadinton, Lauderdaill, Dunkelden, Hamiltoun.
“Missives of the tennour foresaid directed to the Marqueisses of Hamiltoun and Huntlie, the Erles of Erroll, Eglintoun, Rothesse, Murrey, Wigtoun, Lauderdaill, Lords Stormont, Yester, Colvill, Carnegie, Lowdoun, Burlie, Weymes, Archbishop of Glasgow, Aberdein, Murrey, Dunkelken, Brechin, Dumblane, Caithnes, Sir Johne Hammiltoun of Lettrick, Inchemartine, Clunie Gordoun, Neather Pooke, Leslie of Newtoun, Lee, Amisfeild, proveist and commissar clerk of St. Andrewes, proveist of Dundie, provest of Innernes, Johne Cowane, Robert Alexander.”
Modern English Rendering
After our very hearty commendations to your Lordship: At the last meeting and session of the Commission concerning the Surrenders and Teinds, 4 June was appointed for the next meeting. That appointed meeting was very poorly attended, since few or none of the commissioners appeared. As a result, the progress of the commission has been seriously hindered and delayed, which will undoubtedly greatly offend His Majesty.
To prevent blame being placed upon us for failing to anticipate and prevent further delays in this business, we have therefore appointed a new meeting of the entire commission for 4 July.
By then we expect those commissioners who are presently at court to have returned, and we have written to all the others who are at home directing them to keep the appointed meeting precisely.
Since your Lordship is one of that number, we likewise request that you attend on that date so that your absence does not hinder or delay the service. If there is another delay, we will be compelled, in order to discharge our own responsibility, to inform His Majesty from whom and through whose failure that delay arose.
Trusting that your Lordship will show proper regard for His Majesty’s obedience and for your own duty in this matter, we commend your Lordship to God. Holyrood House, 10 June 1628. Subscribed by Mar, Hadinton, Lauderdaill, Dunkelden and Hamiltoun.
Missives in these same terms were directed to a long list of commissioners, including the Marquesses of Hamilton and Huntly; the Earls of Erroll, Eglinton, Rothes, Moray, Wigtoun and Lauderdale; various lords; and the ecclesiastical recipients listed as the Archbishop of Glasgow, Aberdeen, Moray, Dunkeld, Brechin, Dunblane and Caithness, followed by additional commissioners and officials.
This is another record in which John Guthrie’s surname does not appear. His presence is recoverable only by recognizing “Murrey” in the ecclesiastical portion of the recipient list as the Bishop of Moray.
Together with the 5 March letter at p.255, it places Bishop John within the continuing administrative work of the Commission for the Surrenders and Teinds during 1628. The March record documents him as a subscriber to a collective representation; this June record documents him instead as one of the commissioners summoned to the next meeting.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Missive — a formal letter or written communication.
- Dyet — an appointed day or sitting for a meeting or judicial proceeding.
- Surrenders and Teinds — the business handled by the royal commission concerning surrendered rights and teinds or ecclesiastical tithes.
- Stay — delay or obstruction.
- Exoneratioun — discharge or clearing of responsibility.
- Default — failure to perform an obligation or attend as required.
- Tennour foresaid — the same wording or terms as the letter just printed.
- Subscribitur — “it is subscribed,” introducing the people who signed the circular.
- Murrey — the printed form of Moray used in the recipient list; context is necessary to distinguish the Earl of Moray from the Bishop of Moray.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, II, A.D. 1627–1628 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1900), pp.330–331, circular dated at Holyrood House, 10 June 1628. Register reference printed in the margin: Royal Letters, 1623–32, fols.134b–135a. Related Bishop of Moray entry: p.255. Digitized volume.
27 September 1628 — Alexander Guthrie, Town Clerk of Edinburgh, as Captain Donaldsoun’s Cautioner
Second Series, Volume 2 • Page 472 • Military levy and transport securities
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
William Dick had been entrusted, by order from Burlimakie, with securing sums of money intended for the levy of 900 men under Colonel Sinclair for the service of the King of Denmark.
To demonstrate his diligence in carrying out that responsibility, Dick produced three bonds before the Council. The first was granted by Captain Hay with Lord Yester as his cautioner; the second by Captain Chirneside with the Laird of Lugtoun as cautioner; and the third by Captain Donaldsoun with Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, as his cautioner.
Each bond bound the relevant captain to levy and transport 300 men, together accounting for the intended force of 900.
Colonel Sinclair had also submitted accounts concerning the use of the King of Denmark’s money. The Council represented those accounts as showing that the funds had been properly disbursed by Sinclair and that failure to complete the service resulted from the captains failing in their undertakings. Sinclair was said to be pursuing them through legal process.
The Council asked Sir William Alexander to acquaint the King of Denmark’s ambassadors with the circumstances and report as favourably upon Sinclair’s conduct as the state of his accounts would permit. Alexander was also asked to inform Burlimakie that the securities taken by William Dick were good and that the cautioners were financially responsible.
Printed Source Text — Complete Letter
The complete letter printed in the middle of p.472 follows. Printed line-end divisions have been rejoined; original spelling and personal-name forms are retained.
Our verie honnourable good lord, Whairas Williame Dick by ordour frome Burlimakie wes intrusted with the securing of certane sowmes of money to have beene imployed towards the levey of nyne hundreth men under the regiment of Colonell Sinclair for the service of the King of Denmark, the said Williame Dick for testificatioun of his diligence and care in the charge concredite unto him, produced before us three bands,
one thairof granted be Captane Hay and the Lord Yester, cautioner for him, another by Captane Chirneside and the Laird of Lugtoun as cautioner, and the thrid be Captane Donaldsoun and Mr. Alexander Guthrie, toun clerk of Edinburgh, his cautioner, wherein everie ane of thame ar obliged to levey and transport three hundreth men;
lykeas the said Colonel Sinclair for cleering of his dewtie in the right imployment of the King of Denmarks moneyes towards the intendit use hes givin in his accompts the copie whairof your lordship sall heerewith ressave; whairby it will appeare that the whole moneyes ar trewlie disbursed be the Colonell and that the not performance of the service hes proceedit frome his captanis, who hes failyed in thair undertaikings and whom the Colonell is now persewing by ordour of law for not fulfilling of thair conditiouns, quhilk we sall further so farre as the course of justice will allow;
whairwith we desire yow to acquaint the King of Denmarkes ambassadours and to make als favourable a report of the Colonell his cariage in this service as the estait of his accompt will permitt, as alsua that your lordship will be pleased to signifie unto Burlimakie that the securitie tane be Williame Dick is good and the cautioners responsall;
and so committing your lordship to God we rest. Halyruidhous, 27 Septembris 1628. Subscribitur, Marr, Monteith, Hadintoun, Roxburgh, Areskine, Tracquair, Sr Ard Achesoun, Sr Thomas Hoip, Sr George Elphinstoun.
Modern English Rendering
Our very honourable good lord: William Dick, acting under an order from Burlimakie, was entrusted with securing certain sums of money intended to be used toward raising 900 men under Colonel Sinclair’s regiment for the service of the King of Denmark.
To demonstrate his diligence and care in carrying out the duty entrusted to him, William Dick produced three bonds before us. One was granted by Captain Hay with Lord Yester as his cautioner; another by Captain Chirneside with the Laird of Lugtoun as cautioner; and the third by Captain Donaldsoun with Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, as his cautioner.
Under each of these obligations, the respective captain was bound to levy and transport 300 men.
Colonel Sinclair, in order to account for his proper use of the King of Denmark’s money for its intended purpose, has submitted his accounts, a copy of which your Lordship will receive with this letter. According to those accounts, all of the money was properly disbursed by the Colonel, and the failure to complete the service resulted from his captains, who failed to fulfil their undertakings.
The Colonel is now pursuing those captains through legal process for failing to perform their obligations, and we will further that process as far as the course of justice permits.
We therefore ask you to inform the King of Denmark’s ambassadors of these circumstances and to make as favourable a report as the state of Colonel Sinclair’s accounts will allow concerning his conduct in this service.
We also ask your Lordship to inform Burlimakie that the security taken by William Dick is good and that the cautioners are responsible. We therefore commend your Lordship to God. Holyrood House, 27 September 1628.
Subscribed by Marr, Monteith, Hadintoun, Roxburgh, Areskine, Tracquair, Sir Archibald Achesoun, Sir Thomas Hoip and Sir George Elphinstoun.
The entry gives a precise contemporary professional designation for Mr Alexander Guthrie — “toun clerk of Edinburgh.” It also documents him acting as a cautioner in a substantial military-service obligation extending beyond Scotland.
His role is narrowly defined but significant: he stood as cautioner for Captain Donaldsoun’s obligation to levy and transport 300 men. This places Alexander Guthrie within the legal and administrative networks through which Scottish military recruitment and overseas service were financed and secured.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Town clerk — the principal clerical and record-keeping officer of a burgh; here the source explicitly styles Alexander Guthrie town clerk of Edinburgh.
- Cautioner — a surety or guarantor who became legally responsible for another person’s performance of an obligation.
- Band / bond — a formal written obligation.
- Levey — to raise or recruit men for military service.
- Transport — to convey the recruited men to their intended place of service.
- Accompts — accounts or financial statements.
- Undertaking — a binding promise or obligation.
- Persewing by ordour of law — pursuing a claim or remedy through legal process.
- Responsall — financially responsible or sufficient to answer for an obligation.
- Subscribitur — “it is subscribed,” introducing the names subscribing the letter.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, II, A.D. 1627–1628 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1900), p.472, letter to Sir William Alexander dated at Holyrood House, 27 September 1628. Register reference printed in the margin: Royal Letters, 1623–32, fols.145b–146a. Digitized volume.
18 December 1628 — Alexander Guthrie and the Saltpetre Patent
Second Series, Volume 2 • Pages 537–538 • Joint undertaking to warn the burghs
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council was considering the Earl of Linlithgow’s patent relating to powers concerning saltpetre, an important ingredient in the manufacture of gunpowder.
On 18 December 1628, the Lords continued further ordering of the patent until 8 January 1629. Notice of that continuation was given to Johne McNaucht and Mr Alexander Guthrie, both of whom were personally present.
The two men jointly promised and undertook to warn the burghs and to have them present before the Council on the appointed January date.
The wording is brief but precise. It records personal appearance, formal intimation of the continued proceeding, and a joint undertaking by McNaucht and Guthrie. It does not style either man a commissioner in this act.
Printed Source Text — Complete Act
This complete short act begins at the foot of p.537 and concludes in the opening lines of p.538. Original spelling is retained.
“The Lords continewes the ordouring of the Earle of Linlithgow, his patent tuicheing the power thairin conteanit for saltpeter untill the eight of Januar, whairof intimatioun wes made to Johne McNaucht and Mr. Alexander Guthrie, who wer personallie present and promeist and undertooke to wairne the burrowes and to have thame heere that day.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords continued consideration and ordering of the Earl of Linlithgow’s patent, concerning the powers contained in it relating to saltpetre, until 8 January 1629.
Notice of this was given to John McNaucht and Mr Alexander Guthrie, who were personally present. They promised and undertook to notify the burghs and to have their representatives present before the Council on that date.
The entry provides direct evidence that Mr Alexander Guthrie was personally before the Privy Council on 18 December 1628 and accepted an administrative responsibility jointly with John McNaucht.
Together with the September record at p.472, it provides two separate appearances of an Alexander Guthrie in Edinburgh public business during 1628. The volume’s index connects the references, allowing this Alexander to be identified editorially with the town clerk named explicitly in the earlier entry.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Patent — a formal grant of rights, privileges or authority issued under royal authority.
- Saltpetre — potassium nitrate, an essential component of gunpowder.
- Continewes — postpones or continues a matter to a later appointed date.
- Ordouring — determining or regulating how a matter should proceed.
- Intimatioun — formal notification or notice.
- Personally present — appearing in person before the Council rather than solely through an agent or written process.
- Promeist and undertooke — formally promised and accepted responsibility to perform the stated task.
- Wairne — warn or formally notify.
- Burrowes — burghs; incorporated towns whose representatives could be required to attend concerning matters affecting them.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, II, A.D. 1627–1628 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1900), pp.537–538, act under the Holyrood House session of 18 December 1628. Register reference printed in the margin: Acta, February 1628–July 1629, fol.78a. Related Alexander Guthrie entry: p.472. Digitized volume.
13 September 1627 — D. Guthrie of that Ilk in Miscellaneous Paper 14
Second Series, Volume 2 • Pages 556–557 • Alternate printing of the Montrose fortification report
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper 14 preserves another printing of the Montrose commissioners’ report previously printed in the Royal Letters section at pp.70–71.
The commissioners state that, following the Council’s directions, they convened at Montrose, inspected the adjacent bounds where forts might conveniently be built, and considered both the means of construction and the assistance that might be expected from local people.
Because Colonel Bruce and James Traill had previously inspected the proposed sites, the commissioners considered it necessary for them to return, designate the locations and prescribe the form of the forts. The commissioners judged that construction would have to be supported by voluntary contributions from the heritors and burgesses of Forfar and Kincardine.
They explained that the shortness of time prevented them from giving the Council as definite an answer as they wished and sent the Provost of Montrose to provide fuller information concerning their conference.
D. Guthrie of that Ilk appears in the subscription with the other commissioners.
Unlike the earlier printing, this version also reproduces the document’s address and gives an editorial description of a small seal belonging to David Lord Carnegie.
Printed Source Text — Miscellaneous Paper 14
The complete paper printed across pp.556–557 follows. Printed line-end divisions have been rejoined. Bracketed restorations are retained exactly as supplied by the printed edition.
My most honourable Lordis, According to the directioun conteyned in your Lordshipis letters delyverit to us yesternicht, we have conveinit at Montrois this day and conforme to the warrand of your Lordshipis commissioun we have visite the boundis nixt adjacent to the toune of Montrois whair fortis may be most commodiouslie built.
Wee have conferrit upoun the meanes for building thairof and upoun the supplie that may be expected from the cuntrey peopill. As for the places whair the fortis ar to be built we understand that befoir they wer visite be Colonell Bruce and James Traill, and thairfoir we think it very necessar that your lordshipis suld direct thame to cum owir heir againe and designe the places and prescryve the forme of the fortis.
As for the meanes for building thairof, in our judgment the same must be furnissit be the voluntar contributioun of the heretouris and burgessis within the shyres of Forfar and Kincardyn.
We ar so straited be the schortnes of tyme that we ar not abill to wryte so determinate ane to your lordshipis as we wish; and thairfoir we have desyred [the] Provest of Montrois to cary thir presentis and withall to [acquent] your lordshipis at greater lenth of all thingis that occurred in our con[fer]rence of this busines.
So ceissing to interrupt your lordshipis more weightie affairis, we take our leive, and rest, Your lordshipis most humble servandis, (Signed) Carnegy, Lyone, A. Erskine, Bonytoun, D. Gardyne, R. Graeme of Morphie, S. J. Carnegy, Athie, D. Guthrie of that Ilk, Fran. Ogilwye. Montrois the 13 September 1627. [At foot] 18 September 1627.
[Addressed] To the richt honourabill, oure most speciall good lords, the Lordis of his Majesties most honourabill Previe Counsell.
Sealed with a small seal of David Lord Carnegie—a shield bearing an eagle displayed and surmounted by the initials, D. L. C.
Modern English Rendering
My most honourable lords: According to the directions contained in your Lordships’ letters delivered to us last night, we assembled at Montrose today. In accordance with the authority of your Lordships’ commission, we inspected the lands immediately adjoining the town of Montrose to determine where forts could most conveniently be built.
We discussed the means by which they might be constructed and what assistance might be expected from the people of the surrounding country.
As to the places where the forts should be built, we understand that Colonel Bruce and James Traill had inspected them previously. We therefore consider it very necessary that your Lordships direct them to return here, designate the sites and prescribe the form of the forts.
Regarding the means of construction, in our judgment the work will have to be supported by voluntary contributions from the heritors and burgesses within the shires of Forfar and Kincardine.
We are so constrained by the shortness of the time available that we cannot give your Lordships as definite a written answer as we would wish. We have therefore asked the Provost of Montrose to carry this letter and also to give your Lordships fuller information about everything that occurred during our conference concerning this business.
Without further interrupting your Lordships’ more weighty affairs, we take our leave and remain your Lordships’ most humble servants.
Signed by Carnegy, Lyone, A. Erskine, Bonytoun, D. Gardyne, R. Graeme of Morphie, S. J. Carnegy, Athie, D. Guthrie of that Ilk, and Fran. Ogilwye. Montrose, 13 September 1627.
A separate notation at the foot reads 18 September 1627. The document is addressed to the Lords of His Majesty’s Privy Council.
Brown’s edition further describes a small seal belonging to David Lord Carnegie: a shield bearing a displayed eagle, surmounted by the initials D. L. C.
This second printing does not create another appearance of David Guthrie on a different occasion, but it strengthens the documentary record of the same 13 September 1627 Montrose report.
Its chief additional value lies in the details omitted or differently rendered in the Royal Letters printing: variant name forms, editorial restorations, the fuller closing, the address, the separate foot date and the description of Lord Carnegie’s seal.
For Guthrie research, it independently preserves the subscription “D. Guthrie of that Ilk” within this alternate textual witness to the report.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Miscellaneous Paper — a separately preserved document printed in the edition’s collection of miscellaneous Privy Council papers rather than in the main chronological register text.
- Heritors — landholders with local property interests and public obligations.
- Burgesses — persons possessing recognised civic status within a burgh.
- Voluntar contributioun — a proposed voluntary contribution; it does not show that the money was actually collected.
- Thir presentis — this present letter or document.
- At foot — written or noted at the bottom of the original document; the edition does not explain the function of the date appearing there.
- Addressed — the superscription or destination recorded on the document.
- Seal — an impressed or attached device used to authenticate a document; here described editorially as David Lord Carnegie’s.
- Displayed eagle — a heraldic eagle shown with wings spread.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, II, A.D. 1627–1628 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1900), pp.556–557, Miscellaneous Privy Council Papers, no.14. Main report dated Montrose, 13 September 1627; separate notation “[At foot] 18 September 1627.” Related commission: p.53; earlier printing of this same report: pp.70–71; full-name David Guthrie reference: pp.169–171. Digitized volume.
Volume II — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume II brings together landholding, coastal defence, military administration, episcopal commission work, Edinburgh legal practice and burgh business. Several Guthries appear in sharply different capacities, and the records are most useful when appointments, actual appearances, subscriptions, surety obligations and later enforcement proceedings are kept distinct.
Three stages of public activity can be followed during 1627. On 29 August the unnamed Laird of Guthrie was appointed to the Montrose coastal-fortification group. On 13 September D. Guthrie of that Ilk appears among the subscribers to that group’s report after the commissioners state that they had convened at Montrose and inspected the adjoining bounds. On 20 December the name appears in full as David Guthrie of that Ilk in an enforcement order concerning the survey of fencible persons in Guthrie, Kirkbuddo and Carmyllie.
The full-name December entry, together with the volume index, supports identifying the earlier Laird of Guthrie and “D. Guthrie” as David. The evidence does not require a forename to be inserted into either earlier source transcription.
The 20 December enforcement order names Williame Guthrie of Maines as the officer previously assigned to conduct the inquiry into fencible persons in the parish of Tannadyis. He appears within the same long list as David Guthrie of that Ilk but under a different territorial assignment.
The record does not state a relationship between William and David. Nor does the spelling Maines justify changing his designation to Memus or assigning him to a particular Guthrie branch. His appearance should remain a distinct research lead until additional evidence establishes his identity and family.
Reference: 169–171.
The July 1627 Arbroath complaint names James Guthrie in Arbroath only through the location of a barn and barn-yard in the narrative of an alleged assault. He is not presented there as complainant, defender or witness.
The February 1628 petition instead identifies James Guthrie, writer, as the assignee of a decree under which James Cuninghame had been imprisoned. Guthrie personally appeared before the Council and consented to Cuninghame’s liberation while reserving his lawful action.
Nothing in Volume II establishes that James Guthrie in Arbroath and James Guthrie, writer, were the same man. The occupational designation “writer” likewise should not be expanded into notary, advocate or Writer to the Signet without separate evidence.
Two references were recovered by searching episcopal titles rather than the surname Guthrie. On 5 March 1628 “Jo. B. of Murrey” subscribes the collective letter of the Commissioners for the Surrenders concerning the proposed admission of a third clerk. On 10 June “Murrey” appears among the prelates to whom circular missives were directed requiring attendance at the next meeting of the Commission for Surrenders and Teinds.
These are different documentary roles. The March record establishes participation as a subscriber to the commissioners’ representation. The June record establishes that a summons was directed to the Bishop of Moray; it does not establish his attendance on the future meeting date. In the June recipient list, the Earl of Moray appears separately among the earls and must not be confused with the bishop.
On 27 September 1628 the source explicitly styles Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh and identifies him as Captain Donaldsoun’s cautioner in a bond requiring the captain to levy and transport 300 men for Danish service. Guthrie was the surety, not the military commander, and the entry does not show that he personally recruited or transported soldiers.
On 18 December another short act names Mr Alexander Guthrie personally present with Johne McNaucht. Together they promised to warn the burghs and have them represented when consideration of the Earl of Linlithgow’s saltpetre patent resumed on 8 January 1629. The volume index links this Alexander with the town clerk named in September; the December act itself does not repeat the office.
The Montrose commissioners’ report appears first in the Royal Letters section at pp.70–71 and again as Miscellaneous Paper 14 at pp.556–557. Both concern the same meeting and report of 13 September 1627, and both include D. Guthrie of that Ilk among the subscribers.
The Miscellaneous Paper is nevertheless worth preserving separately because it contains variant spellings, editorial restorations, a fuller closing, the document’s address, the notation “[At foot] 18 September 1627”, and Brown’s description of a small seal belonging to David Lord Carnegie.
The 18 September notation has no explained function in the printed edition and should not be labelled a receipt, registration or approval date. Lord Carnegie’s seal is likewise not evidence of Guthrie heraldry.
The Volume II finding aid contains eleven rows because David and William Guthrie each receive a row within the same pp.169–171 enforcement order. Those rows lead to ten printed source units. Because the passages at pp.70–71 and pp.556–557 are two printed versions of the same Montrose report, the ten printed units represent nine underlying records.
The review checked the Guthrie index, the Bishop of Moray index, surname searches, title-based searches and the complete printed passages needed for each identified record. It was a targeted evidence audit rather than a claim that every page of Volume II was read line-by-line.
Further records are needed to identify Williame Guthrie of Maines genealogically and to test whether he had any relationship to David Guthrie of that Ilk. The spelling Maines should remain intact until evidence supports a different territorial identification.
The two James Guthrie references require independent identification. Volume II supplies no basis for merging James Guthrie in Arbroath with James Guthrie, writer. Likewise, Alexander Guthrie’s office as town clerk provides a strong professional identifier but not his parentage or connection to the Angus Guthrie families.
Bishop John Guthrie’s appearances show the continuing importance of searching by office and title as well as surname. Future volumes may refer to him simply as Moray, Murrey or Bishop of Moray and would be missed by a Guthrie-only search.
Several records also leave later outcomes unresolved. The December military-survey order does not show whether David or William submitted their returns; the June summons does not prove the bishop attended on 4 July; Alexander Guthrie’s military surety does not show that he was required to pay; and the December saltpetre undertaking does not establish that all burghs were successfully notified or represented.
Finally, examination of the original manuscript of Miscellaneous Paper 14 could clarify the physical placement and possible significance of the separate 18 September notation and permit comparison with Brown’s printed restorations, signatures and seal description.
Basis of synthesis: The linked record cards reproduce and discuss the complete relevant printed units in P. Hume Brown’s The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, II, A.D. 1627–1628 (1900), checked against the retained page facsimiles, the Guthrie index at p.692 and the Bishop of Moray index at p.732. Editorial identifications are kept separate from source wording, and repeated printings are not counted as independent historical events.
Volume 3
Volume 3 contains a particularly varied group of Guthrie references. Hercules Guthrie, chirurgeon and burgess of Aberdeen, appears through the proceedings arising from the Aberdeen pasquills, his subsequent horning and suspension, and a later complaint in which his house is named. Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald, appears repeatedly in the execution and later review of legal seizures, while Mr Alexander Guthrie, common clerk of Edinburgh, is found in burgh and Privy Council business.
The volume also identifies James Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh; Mr Patrick Guthrie, a pastor involved in an ecclesiastical absolution; and Patrick Guthrie of Achmuthie, commissioned as a local justice. A separate minister, Mr James Guthrie, appears in the dispute over presentation to Duffus.
References to John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray extend well beyond the surname index. Under the titles “Bishop of Murrey,” “Bishop of Murray,” or simply “Murrey,” he appears in Council and clergy proceedings concerning northern religious policy, the drafting of Lord Gordon’s commission, the case of Doctor Leslie, the Duffus presentation dispute and a later testimonial.
Read Volume 3 Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume III, A.D. 1629–1630. Edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown. Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901.
Volume 3 — Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 31–32 | 3 February 1629 | Hercules Guthrie, chirurgeon in Aberdeen Aberdeen pasquill proceedings | Named among those accused in connection with two defamatory pasquills. He did not appear and was ordered to be denounced rebel and put to the horn. Other appearing defenders denied the complaint and were absolved. |
| 33–34 | 3 February 1629 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Title-based reference to episcopal correspondence | A Council letter states that a letter from the Bishop of Murrey to the Earl of Monteith reported conditions involving Catholics in northern Scotland. The bishop’s own letter is referred to but is not reproduced here. |
| 52 | 17 February 1629 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Warned apud acta | The Council continues “the mater anent the tanning” until 4 March. Lord Areskine, John McNaucht and Mr Alexander Guthrie are formally warned in the acts. |
| 93 | 12 March 1629 | Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald Execution of horning and possession of houses | Marchmont Herald had charged named excommunicated persons and taken possession of houses following legal process. His role is that of herald executing Council authority. |
| 102–104 | 24 March 1629 | Hercules Guthrie, burgess of Aberdeen Rebel at the horn; apprehension ordered | The Council recites that Hercules had been denounced on 19 February for failing to appear in the pasquill proceedings and remained unrelaxed. He is included in the commission for apprehension of the named rebels. |
| 173–174 | 16 June 1629 | Hercules Guthrie, burgess of Aberdeen Pursuer seeking suspension of horning | Hercules states that he has given satisfaction to the ministry and magistrates of Aberdeen, reconciled himself to the kirk and provided information concerning the pasquills. The commissioners consent to suspension of the horning. |
| 190 | 3 June 1629 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Lodging named as location in a complaint | A complaint concerning John Maxwell recounts an alleged incident of 1 August 1626 in “Mr Alexander Guthreis lodging in Edinburgh.” Guthrie is not a pursuer, defender or witness in the proceeding. |
| 231–232 | 21 July 1629 | James Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh Co-pursuer in complaint | Appears with other pursuers in proceedings arising from armed resistance and alleged deforcement. His role should be kept distinct from the ministers named elsewhere in the volume. |
| 233 | 23 July 1629 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Council attendance and committee appointment | The Bishop of Murrey appears in the sederunt and is named among the bishops appointed to a committee to prepare proposals for further proceedings concerning Catholics and ecclesiastical discipline. |
| 234–235 | 23 July 1629 | Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald Petition concerning seizure and restoration | Named in proceedings concerning possession taken through heraldic execution of legal process. The detailed record distinguishes the herald’s official execution from the parties’ underlying dispute. |
| 246 | 25 July 1629 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Report to Council concerning religious supervision | The Bishop of Murrey gives up the Marquis of Huntly’s daughters among those whom the assembled authorities considered to require attention in the measures then being prepared. The classification reflects the Council and clergy proceedings of the period. |
| 249–252 | 28 July 1629 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Subscriber and participant in collective Council and clergy business | “Bishop of Murrey” appears among the subscribers to a collective missive concerning the measures recently agreed upon, and among the clergy and Council participants involved in their final consideration. The subscription records collective participation, not sole authorship by the bishop. |
| 262–263 | 30 July 1629 | Alexander Guthrie, herald Property-delivery proceeding | Appears in further Council proceedings concerning possession and delivery of property taken through execution of legal process. |
| 276–277 | 4 September 1629 | Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald; Mr Patrick Guthrie, pastor Heraldic seizure and ecclesiastical absolution | Alexander appears in the continuing question of a house seized through legal process and ordered restored. A separate part of the entry names Mr Patrick Guthrie, ordinary pastor, in connection with the absolution of Thomas Cheyne from excommunication. |
| 369 | 8 December 1629 | Hercules Guthrie, indweller in Aberdeen House named in complaint against Doctor Leslie | Hercules’s house is one of several places or houses which Doctor William Leslie was alleged to have frequented. The complaint broadly alleges Catholic religious activity at one or more of the listed places, but does not assign a specific mass to Hercules’s house. Leslie denied the complaint and was absolved. |
| 405–406 | 12–14 January 1630 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Drafting Lord Gordon’s northern commission | On 12 January the Council refers the proposed commission against Catholic recusants in the north to the Bishop of Murrey and the Aberdeen and Moray commissioners for consideration. On 14 January John, Bishop of Murrey, and those commissioners submit their proposed terms and names for inclusion. |
| 416 | 14 January 1630 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Notice in the Doctor Leslie proceedings | Doctor Leslie is ordered to attend on the following Tuesday, and notice is made to the Bishop of Murray and the commissioners involved in the northern proceedings. This is procedural notice, not a finding against the bishop. |
| 432–434 | 28 January 1630 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, common clerk of Edinburgh Burgh ratification and subscription | Edinburgh produces an act of its council under the hand and subscription of its common clerk, Mr Alexander Guthrie, ratifying offers concerning the burgh’s 1603 charter and privileges. |
| 500–501 | 25 March 1630 | Mr James Guthrie; John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Duffus presentation and admission dispute | William, Earl Marischal, had presented “Mr James Guthrie, ane qualified minister” to the parsonage and vicarage of Duffus. The Bishop of Moray had refused collation and admission. The Council orders the bishop to admit James within fifteen days after charge, under pain of horning. |
| 506–508 | 1 April 1630 | Maister Alexander Guthrie, clerk of Edinburgh Personally present in Edinburgh–Leith dispute | The bailies, dean of guild, treasurer and Mr Alexander Guthrie, their clerk, appear personally before the Council and submit Edinburgh’s written reasons for refusing to suspend execution of a decree concerning its Leith vassals. |
| 566 | 16 June 1630 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Subscriber to ecclesiastical testimonial | Alexander Gordon produces a testimonial subscribed by John, Bishop of Murrey, the moderator and members of the Presbytery of Inverness as evidence of his reconciliation with the kirk. The Council suspends the horning after hearing the parties. |
| 616 | 20 July 1630 | Patrick Guthrie of Achmuthie Commissioner and justice | Named with other commissioners, any two of whom are empowered as justices to hold courts and try Thomas Porter, described in the commission as a common and notorious thief then in custody. |
Finding-aid sources: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, III, A.D. 1629–1630 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901). The finding aid combines the printed Guthrie index with the Bishop of Moray index and the complete relevant passages. Surname and title references are treated separately where the printed record requires it.
3 February 1629 — Hercules Guthrie and the Aberdeen Pasquills
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 31–32 • Privy Council proceeding
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The proceeding concerns two anonymous or defamatory writings described by the Council as “infamous pasquills”. One had been directed to the provost of Aberdeen; the other had been affixed to the kirk door of Aberdeen and printed.
The Council alleged that the writings contained predictions of a change in the state and religion within two years, together with attacks upon the adherents of the established religion and the ministers of Aberdeen. Ten men, including Hercules Guthrie, chirurgeon in Aberdeen, were charged as persons alleged to have written or devised the pasquills, or at least to have participated in their writing, printing, affixing or delivery.
Four of the accused appeared before the Council and denied the charge under oath. They were absolved. Six others, including Hercules Guthrie, did not appear. The Council therefore ordered those non-appearing defenders to be denounced rebels, put to the horn and subjected to the ordinary consequence of escheat.
Complete Printed Source Text
“Anent our Soverane Lords letters direct makand mentioun, Forsameekill as there hes beene manie good Acts of Parliament made be his Majesteis noble and worthie progenitours aganis the authors and givers out of slaunders and untrew calumneis aganis his Majestie his Counsell and proceedings, to the dishonnour and prejudice of his Majestie his parents and progenitours, crowne and estait, and aganis the authors of slanderous speeches and writts whereby they ar ordained to be severelie punished in maner specified in the said Acts as the samine at lenth written beiris.
Notwithstanding whairof it is of truthe that of lait there hes beene two infamous pasquills writtin and directed the ane thairof to the provest of Aberdene, and the other affixt on the kirk doore of Aberdene and printed, both conteanning treasonable warnings and predictiouns of the change of state and religioun within twa yeeres, besides a nomber of invective and railing speeches aganis the professours of the trew religioun and ministers of the burgh of Aberdene, quhilks twa pasquills and infamous libellis hes beene writtin and devised by Mr Alexander Irwing, burges of Aberdene, Mr George Andersoun, advocat there, Mr George Paip, Mr Gilbert Paip, Mr Thomas Blakhall, sonne to Williame Blakhall of Ley, Thomas Meinzeis of Balgownie, Robert Irwing, burges of Aberdene, Alexander Leslie, brother to the Laird of Pitcaple, and Francis Leslie, brother to George Leslie, callit the Caputian, and Hercules Guthrie, chirurgiane in Aberdene, and they, at the least, ane or other of thame hes beene upoun the counsell of the wrytting, printing, affixing, and delyverie of the saids pasquills, for the whilk they aucht to be censured and punished, to the terrour of others to committ the lyke.
And anent the charge givin to the saids Mr Alexander Irwing, Mr George Andersoun, Mr George and Gilbert Paips, Mr Thomas Blakhall, Thomas Meinzeis, Robert Irwing, Alexander Leslie, Francis Leslie, and Hercules Guthrie to have compeired personallie before the Lords of Privie Counsell this present thrid day of Februarie instant to have answered to the premises and to have underlyin suche tryell and censure thereanent as the saids Lords sould thinke meete under the pane of rebellioun and putting of thame to the home, with certificatioun to thame and they failyied letters sould be direct simpliciter to putt thame thairto lykeas at mair lenth is conteanit in the saids letters, executiouns and indorsatiouns thairof.
Quhilks being callit and Sir Thomas Hoip of Craighall, knight baronnet, his Majesteis Advocat, compeirand personallie for his Majesteis interesse, and the saids Mr George Andersoun, Mr George Paip, Mr Gilbert Paip, Mr Thomas Blakhall being lykewayes personallie present and the remanent defenders foresaids being oft tymes callit and not compeirand, the reasouns and allegatiouns of the parties present being heard and considderit be the saids Lords and they rypelie advised thairwith, the Lords of Secreit Counsell assoilzeis simpliciter the saids Mr George Andersoun, Mr George and Gilbert Paip and Mr Thomas Blakhall fra this persute and complaint and fra the haill points, clauses and articles conteanit thairin and decernis thame quyte thairfra in all tyme comming;
Becaus the said persewer having instead of all other probatioun referred the said complaint simpliciter to the oath of veritie of the saids defenders compeirand and they being personallie present and deepelie sworne thairupoun, they denied the said complaint to be of veritie as wes cleerelie understand to the saids Lords. For the quhilk caus the saids Lords hes assoilyied and assoilyeis thame in maner foresaid.
And the saids Lords ordanis letters to be direct charging officiars of armes to pas and denunce the saids Mr Alexander Irwing, Thomas Meinzeis of Balgownie, Robert Irwing, Alexander Leslie, Hercules Guthrie and Francis Leslie rebellis and put thame to the home, and to escheit, etc.”
Modern English Rendering
The King’s letters stated that many Acts of Parliament had been made against those who circulated slanders and false accusations against the King, his Council and their proceedings, and against the authors of defamatory writings, with penalties prescribed by those Acts.
Recently, two defamatory pasquills had appeared. One was sent to the provost of Aberdeen, while the other was fixed to the door of the Aberdeen kirk and printed. The Council alleged that both contained warnings and predictions that the state and religion would change within two years, as well as numerous insulting statements against adherents of the established religion and against the ministers of Aberdeen.
The accusation named Mr Alexander Irving, Mr George Anderson, Mr George Paip, Mr Gilbert Paip, Mr Thomas Blackhall, Thomas Menzies of Balgownie, Robert Irving, Alexander Leslie, Francis Leslie and Hercules Guthrie, surgeon in Aberdeen. It alleged that all or some of them had been involved in writing, devising, printing, posting or delivering the pasquills and therefore ought to be censured and punished.
All ten were charged to appear personally before the Privy Council on 3 February to answer the accusation and undergo whatever trial and censure the Council considered appropriate. Failure to appear carried the penalty of rebellion and horning.
The King’s Advocate appeared for the Crown. Mr George Anderson, Mr George Paip, Mr Gilbert Paip and Mr Thomas Blackhall also appeared. The remaining defendants, including Hercules Guthrie, were repeatedly called but did not appear.
As to the four men who appeared, the pursuer relied upon their own sworn testimony instead of other proof. Each denied the accusation. The Council therefore fully absolved those four men from the complaint.
The Council then ordered officers of arms to denounce the six non-appearing defendants — Mr Alexander Irving, Thomas Menzies of Balgownie, Robert Irving, Alexander Leslie, Hercules Guthrie and Francis Leslie — as rebels, to put them to the horn and to proceed to escheat.
This is the opening document in a three-stage sequence concerning Hercules Guthrie during 1629. It identifies his occupation in Aberdeen, places him among the persons accused in the pasquill affair, and records the precise procedural reason that he was put to the horn: he did not appear when charged before the Council.
The later records at pages 102–104 and 173–174 show that the matter continued beyond this first order.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Pasquill: a defamatory, satirical or anonymous writing, often circulated publicly or posted in a conspicuous place.
- Chirurgiane: surgeon.
- Compear: to appear formally before a court or council.
- Assoilzie simpliciter: to absolve completely from the particular proceeding.
- Put to the horn: formal denunciation as a rebel following disobedience of lawful letters or process; it does not by itself prove the substantive accusation that prompted the summons.
- Escheat: forfeiture of movable property following denunciation as rebel, subject to the applicable Scots legal process.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp. 31–32; Acta, February 1629, fols. 84a–84b. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
3 February 1629 — The Bishop of Moray Reports Conditions in the North
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 33–34 • Council letter to Charles I
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 3 February 1629 the Privy Council wrote to Charles I concerning the execution of royal policy against Jesuits, seminary priests and persons who had been excommunicated or denounced for religious nonconformity in northern Scotland.
The Council had required the Marquis of Huntly to account for his execution of earlier warrants. His sheriff depute appeared instead. After considering that report together with information supplied by commissioners from the clergy of Aberdeen and Moray, the Council concluded that Huntly had failed to carry out the service required of him.
In explaining the seriousness with which it viewed the northern situation, the Council told the King that the accompanying grievances and a letter from the Bishop of Murrey to the Earl of Monteith would show the conditions being reported from the north.
Complete Printed Source Text
“Most sacred Soverane, By your Majesteis letter of the 23 of January last we have understood to our unspeekable comfort your Majesteis godlie zeale and constant resolutioun to mainteane in puritie the trew religioun and to punishe the contrarie professours, for which (as in dewtie boundin) we pray God to blesse your Majestie frome above and to prolong your dayes heere upoun earth for the confort of his Church and the quyet of the estait.
This day being appointed to the Marqueis of Huntlie to have givin ane accompt of his diligence in the executioun of these warrands grantit unto him as shireff, landslord, and maister, for apprehending of certane Jesuits, seminarie preists and excommunicat rebellis resorting in his bounds, dwelling upoun his lands and beiring publict charge and office under him, he compeired be Williame Gordoun, his shireff depute of Abirdein, whois sclender excuse and verball report being heard and considderit be the table, togidder with the informatioun of the commissioners frome the clergie of the dioceis of Aberdein and Murrey tuicheing the truthe of the Marqueis his cariage in that service, it wes foundin be the voices of the haill table that his behaviour and proceedings thairin wes altogidder elusorie and that he had done no kynde of diligence, nather wes thair anie probabilitie or likliehood that he would performe the same, for the which his contempt and carelesse neglecte of his dewtie in this so important a bussines he is ordained to be denunced your Majesteis rebell, and that no suspensioun be grantit thereof bot in presence of a full nomber of the Counsell.
By these new greevances heerewith sent up to your Majestie and by a letter direct frome the Bishop of Murrey to the Erie of Monteith, President of your Majesteis Counsell, your Majestie may perceave the insufferable insolencies of the papists in the north, to quhat a fearfull hight of arrogancie and pryde they ar now growin, and how and upoun quhat grounds thair confidence is upholdin, with the particulars quhairof being loath to trouble your Majestie we will remitt the relatioun thairof to suche of our nomber as ar now upoun thair addresse to your royall Court, who ar weill acquainted and wer present and assisted us in all our proceedings in that bussines.
The service is great and the reall executioun thairof will muche import the establishement of religioun and peace of the countrie; the Counsell can doe no more bot sentence the transgressours, the executioun of the law must be performed by your Majesteis shireffs and officers to whois charge it belonges; wherein, becaus we perceave a great defect ather of power or willingnesse in the most pairt of thame, we will humblie beseeke your Majestie (if so your Majestie sail be pleased to hearken to our former overture concerning a lieutennent) that your Majestie would make choise of some eminent persoun, sound in religioun and aganis whome thair is no suspicioun that for byrespects he may be misled to favour those aganis quhom he sail be armed with your Majesteis auctoritie.
Quhairanent attending the significatioun of your Majesteis royall pleasure, quhairunto we sail conforme our selffes with that faithfull and humble obedience which becometh, we rest, etc. Halyruidhous 3 February 1629. Subscribitur, Mar, Hadintoun, Mairshall, Wintoun, Galloway, Seafort, Ad. B. of Dumblane, Hamiltoun, S. G. Elphinstoun, Scottistarvett, James Baillie.”
Modern English Rendering
Most sacred Sovereign: From your Majesty’s letter of 23 January we understand, to our great satisfaction, your determination to maintain the established religion and proceed against those who oppose it. We pray for the prosperity of your reign and for the peace of the church and state.
This day had been appointed for the Marquis of Huntly to report what he had done under the warrants given to him as sheriff, landlord and superior for apprehending certain Jesuits, seminary priests and excommunicated rebels who resorted within his bounds, lived on his lands or held office under him. Instead, William Gordon, his sheriff depute of Aberdeen, appeared.
The Council considered the sheriff depute’s verbal report together with information from the clerical commissioners of the dioceses of Aberdeen and Moray. The Council concluded that Huntly’s conduct had been evasive, that he had carried out no effective diligence, and that there was little prospect that he would do so. For that neglect, the Council ordered him to be denounced as the King’s rebel, with any suspension to be considered only before a full Council.
The Council told the King that the grievances being sent with this letter, together with a letter from the Bishop of Moray to the Earl of Monteith, President of the Privy Council, would explain the conditions being reported concerning Catholics in northern Scotland. Rather than set out every particular in this letter, the Council left a fuller account to members who were travelling to the royal court and were familiar with the proceedings.
The Council added that it could pronounce sentences but depended upon sheriffs and other officers to enforce the law. Because it perceived that many such officers lacked either sufficient power or willingness, it renewed its suggestion that the King consider appointing a lieutenant of adequate authority who was trusted to execute the commission without private partiality.
The Council concluded by awaiting the King’s decision and promising to conform itself to his direction. The letter was dated at Holyrood House on 3 February 1629 and subscribed by the listed members of Council.
Although John Guthrie’s surname does not appear in the passage, the office identifies the contemporary Bishop of Moray. The entry documents him supplying information directly to William, Earl of Monteith, President of the Privy Council during a period of sustained Council attention to northern religious and administrative enforcement.
It also demonstrates why a surname-only search of Volume 3 would miss an important part of Bishop John Guthrie’s Privy Council record.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Murrey / Moray: variant forms used in the register for the bishopric and region.
- Missive / letter direct: official written communication.
- Sheriff depute: deputy exercising the sheriff’s judicial or administrative authority.
- Denounced rebel: formally placed under the legal process of rebellion or horning for disobedience.
- Overture: a proposal or suggested course of action.
- Lieutenant: in this context, a proposed royal officer furnished with authority to enforce measures in the northern districts.
- Byrespects: private interests, partiality or collateral considerations that might influence an officer’s conduct.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp. 33–34; Royal Letters, fols. 151b–152a. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
17 February 1629 — Mr Alexander Guthrie and “the Mater Anent the Tanning”
Second Series, Volume 3 • Page 52 • Procedural continuation and warning apud acta
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council continued an ongoing matter described only in this short entry as “the mater anent the tanning” until 4 March.
Lord Areskine, John McNaucht and Mr Alexander Guthrie were formally warned apud acta. The notice placed the continuation on the official record and served as formal notification of the new appointed date.
This particular passage does not explain the substantive tanning dispute or state the individual position taken by Alexander Guthrie.
Complete Printed Source Text
“The Lordis continewis the mater anent the tanning till the fourte of Marche. The Lord Arskene personalie, with John McNaucht, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, who ar warnit apud acta.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords continue the matter concerning the tanning until 4 March.
Lord Areskine personally, together with John McNaucht and Mr Alexander Guthrie, are formally notified of this in the Council acts.
Although brief, the entry places Mr Alexander Guthrie directly within continuing Privy Council business in February 1629. The volume index connects this occurrence with the Alexander Guthrie later explicitly identified as common clerk of Edinburgh.
It also provides an early point in the substantial Second Series record of Alexander Guthrie’s involvement in matters affecting Edinburgh and the burghs.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Anent: concerning or relating to.
- Continues the matter: postpones or carries the proceeding forward to another appointed date.
- Apud acta: literally “at the acts”; formal notice given and recorded during the proceeding itself.
- Warnit: formally warned or notified.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), p.52. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
12 March 1629 — Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald, and the Aberdeen Houses
Second Series, Volume 3 • Page 93 • Execution of horning and custody of surrendered houses
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Earlier legal process had proceeded against a group of people who had been excommunicated for failing to conform to the established religion and had subsequently been put to the horn.
Royal letters were issued requiring their dwelling houses, towers and fortalices to be surrendered. Acting under those letters, Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald, formally charged them to deliver the properties to him under pain of treason.
The act states that the houses were accordingly surrendered to Guthrie and were then in his “possessioun and keeping.” The Council recognized that it was unreasonable to leave a herald burdened indefinitely with their continued custody.
Patrick, Bishop of Aberdeen, was therefore authorized to appoint two people to keep each house in the King’s name during the owners’ rebellion. Each keeper was to receive ten shillings daily, paid from the readily available rents and income of the relevant rebel.
The bishop was also given authority to distrain goods for those payments and, if sufficient movable property could not be found, to pursue rents and duties owed by tenants and others.
Complete Printed Source Text
“Forsameekill as upoun ane horning used and execute aganis Mr Alexander Irwing, burges of Aberdene, Thomas Menzeis of Balgownie, James Forbes of Blacktoun, Johne Gordoun of Craig, Mr Robert Bissat of Lessindrum, Patrik Gordoun of Tillisoule, Margaret Gordoun, goodwyfie of Cormellat, Williame Seatoun of Blair, and Thomas Cheyne of Raynistoun, proceeding upoun ane excommunicatioun used and execute aganis thame for not conforming thame selffes to the trew religioun presentlie profest within this kingdome letters wer direct aganis thame,
be vertew whairof Alexander Guthrie, Marchemont Herauld, charged thame to rander and delyver thair dwelling houses, towres and fortalices, unto him within a certane space after the charge under the pane of treasoun, for obedience of the quhilk charge thair saids houses wer randered to the said Alexander Guthrie, herauld, and the same ar presentlie in his possessioun and keeping.
And whereas it is no wayes reasonable that the said Alexander sould be burdenned with the continuall keeping of the saids houses, bot that some speciall persouns be appointed to keepe the same upoun the expenses of the readiest of the saids rebellis thair rents and living during the tyme of thair rebellioun,
Thairfoir the Lords of Secreit Counsell gives and grants full power, warrand and commissioun be thir presents to Patrik, Bishop of Aberdene, to appoint and place twa persouns in everie ane of the saids rebells thair houses foresaids to be keepers thairof in his Majesteis name during the tyme of thair rebellioun, and for thair charges and expenses to modifie unto everie ane of the saids twa persouns ten shillings daylie to be payed out of the readiest of the saids rebellis thair rents and living;
for payment whairof to caus poynd and distreinzie the readiest goods and geir being in the possessioun of the saids excommunicat rebellis, and where goods poyndable in that sort failyeis, with power to him to call and conveene the saids excommunicat persouns and the tennents and possessours of thair lands and other persouns addebted in payment to thame of anie mailles, rents and dewteis whatsomever before the Shireff of Aberdene and his deputs for payment of the said daylie allowance in forme as effeirs.”
Modern English Rendering
Legal process of horning had been executed against Mr Alexander Irving, burgess of Aberdeen; Thomas Menzies of Balgownie; James Forbes of Blacktoun; John Gordon of Craig; Mr Robert Bisset of Lessindrum; Patrick Gordon of Tillisoule; Margaret Gordon, goodwife of Cormellat; William Seton of Blair; and Thomas Cheyne of Raynistoun.
That process followed their excommunication for failing to conform to the religion then established within the kingdom. Royal letters were therefore issued against them.
Under authority of those letters, Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald, charged them to surrender and deliver their dwelling houses, towers and fortified residences to him within the time specified in the charge, under pain of treason.
In obedience to that charge, their houses were surrendered to Alexander Guthrie, herald, and at the time of this act were in his possession and keeping.
Because it was not reasonable that Alexander should remain burdened with the continual custody of all those houses, the Council decided that specific persons should instead be appointed to keep them at the expense of the most readily available rents and income belonging to the rebels during their rebellion.
The Lords therefore granted Patrick, Bishop of Aberdeen, full authority to appoint two persons in each of the houses to keep them in the King’s name for the duration of the rebellion.
Each of those keepers was to receive ten shillings daily for charges and expenses, payable from the readily available rents and income of the relevant rebel.
To obtain payment, the bishop could cause readily available goods and property belonging to the excommunicated rebels to be distrained. If sufficient distrainable goods could not be found, he could call the rebels, their tenants and possessors of their lands, and anyone owing rents or other duties to them before the Sheriff of Aberdeen and his deputies in order to recover the keepers’ daily allowance.
This act provides unusually clear evidence of Alexander Guthrie’s practical work as Marchmont Herald. He was not merely named by office: the Council records that he had executed royal letters, demanded surrender of houses under threat of treason, received those houses and retained them temporarily in official custody.
It also begins a sequence that continues later in Volume III, when individual owners or occupiers petitioned concerning restoration of property after changes in their legal or ecclesiastical status.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Marchmont Herald: an officer of arms empowered to perform heraldic and formal legal duties, including execution of royal letters.
- Horning: formal process by which a person could be denounced rebel for failure to obey lawful authority.
- Rander: render or surrender.
- Fortalice: fortified residence or small stronghold.
- Under pain of treason: the stated legal consequence threatened for failure to surrender the property as commanded.
- Possessioun and keeping: custody or keeping; here an official custodial role rather than personal ownership.
- Living: income, estate or means of support.
- Modify: fix or determine the amount of an allowance.
- Poind and distrenzie: seize movable goods by legal diligence in order to satisfy an obligation.
- Maills: rents.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), p.93; Acta, February 1629, fol.100b. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
24 March 1629 — Hercules Guthrie at the Horn and the Aberdeen Apprehension Commission
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 102–104 • Commission to apprehend unrelaxt rebels
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This act gathers together several people who had previously been denounced and put to the horn in separate religious and ecclesiastical proceedings in and around Aberdeen.
Hercules Guthrie appears with a group of Aberdeen burgesses and others whose horning arose from their failure to appear before the Privy Council in connection with the two pasquills discussed in the 3 February proceeding.
The Council recites that Hercules and the others had been formally denounced on 19 February 1629 and remained unrelaxt. The act then authorizes a group of Aberdeen officials and commissioners to raise assistance, search for the named persons, apprehend them and imprison them in the Aberdeen tolbooth until further direction.
Complete Printed Source Text — Relevant Commission
“Forsameckle as upoun the twentie day of December last Robert Cowtes within the parish of Aboyne, Johne Gordoun of Kethnie, George Gordoun of Drumgesk, Alexander Gordoun, his brother, James Gordoun the Hilheid of Kincairne, Williame Fraser of Craigtoun, Patrik Carnegie in the Kirktoun of Aboyne, Elizabeth Gordoun, his spous, and Jeane Stevin, spous to the said Robert Cowtes, wer ordourlie denunced his Majesteis rebellis and putt to the home be vertew of letters direct to the Lords of Secreit Counsell at the instance of the Moderator and brethrein of the presbyterie of Kincairne for the saids persouns thair not compeirance before the High Commissioun of the Kirk at a certane day bygane to have answered to the complaint givin in aganis thame tuicheing thair ressetting of Jesuits, seminarie and messe preists, and hearing of messe said be George Leslie the Caputiane;
lykeas upoun the nyntene day of Februarie last Mr George Andersoun, wrytter, Mr George and Gilbert Paips, Mr Alexander Irwing, Robert Irwing and Hercules Guthrie, burgesses of Aberdene, Thomas Meinzeis of Balgownie, Alexander Leslie, brother to the Laird of Pitcaple, and Francis Leslie, brother to George Leslie, callit the Caputiane, wer lykewayes ordourlie denunced his Majesteis rebellis and putt to the home be vertew of letters direct be the saids Lords,
that is to say, the said Mr George Andersoun, Mr George and Gilbert Paips for not compeering personallie before the saids Lords at a certane day bygane to have answered upoun thair ressetting of Jesuits, seminarie and messe preists and hearing of messes in the hous of Mr Alexander Irwing, burges of Aberdene, and the remanent persouns foresaids, for not compeirance personallie before the saids Lords to have answered upoun thair wrytting, devysing and affixing of twa pasquills and infamous libellis conteaning treasounable warnings and predictiouns of the change of the estait and religioun and a nomber of invective and rayling speeches aganis the professours of the trew religioun and ministers of Aberdene
as the letters of horning dewlie execute, indorsat and registrat showin to the saids Lords of Privie Counsell at lenth, beiris, at the processe whairof the persouns particularlie abonewrittin hes most proudlie and contempnandlie remained his Majesteis rebellis since the day of thair denunciatiouns respective, as they doe yitt unrelaxt, takand no regaird to the said homings, bot haunts, frequents and repaires publictlie and avowedlie in all pairts of the countrie as if they wer his Majesteis answerable and obedient subjects, in high and proud contempt of his Majesteis auctoritie and lawes and encouragement of others to continew in the lyke rebellioun;
Thairfoir the Lords of Secreit Counsell hes givin and grantit, and be the tennour heerof gives and graunts full power, warrand and commissioun, expresse bidding and charge, to Patrik, Bishop of Aberdene, Sir Thomas Burnet of Leyes, the provest and bailleis of Aberdene for the tyme, Mr Alexander Jaffrey, lait baillie, and Mr Robert Ferquhair, lait deane of guild of the said burgh of Aberdene, conjunctlie and severallie, to convocat his Majesteis lieges in armes, and to pas, searche, seeke and take the persouns foresaids wherever they may be apprehendit and to committ thame to waird within the tolbuith of Aberdene and to deteane thame thairin upoun thair awin expenses ay and whill directioun and ordour be givin concerning thame as apperteannes;
with power to the saids commissioners for this effect to make opin doores and to use his Majesteis keyes and generallie to doe, use and performe everie uther thing whilk for executioun of thir presents ar requisite and necessar. Firme and stable halding and for to hald all and whatsomever thing sail be lawfullie done heerin, and that letters be direct charging all and sindrie his Majesteis lieges and subjects to reverence, acknowledge and obey, ryse, concurre, fortifie and assist the saids commissioners in all and everie thing tending to the executioun of this commissioun, and to doe nor attempt nothing to the hinder nor prejudice thairof as they and everie ane of thame will answere upoun the contrarie at thair perrell.”
Modern English Rendering
A number of persons in the Aberdeen region had previously been formally denounced as rebels and put to the horn for failing to answer proceedings concerning alleged support of Jesuits, seminary priests, attendance at mass and related ecclesiastical offences.
Likewise, on 19 February 1629, Mr George Anderson, Mr George and Gilbert Paip, Mr Alexander Irving, Robert Irving, Hercules Guthrie, burgess of Aberdeen, Thomas Menzies of Balgownie, Alexander Leslie and Francis Leslie were formally denounced rebels and put to the horn.
The act distinguishes the reasons. George Anderson and the Paips had failed to appear to answer allegations concerning the sheltering of priests and attendance at masses. Hercules Guthrie and the remaining members of the second group had failed to appear to answer allegations concerning the writing, devising and posting of the two defamatory pasquills directed against the established religion and Aberdeen ministers.
The Council states that these people remained unrelaxt after their denunciations and continued to move publicly about the country.
The Council therefore granted Patrick, Bishop of Aberdeen; Sir Thomas Burnet of Leyes; the provost and bailies of Aberdeen; Mr Alexander Jaffrey, former bailie; and Mr Robert Ferquhair, former dean of guild, authority jointly and separately to call the King’s subjects to arms, search for the named people, apprehend them wherever found and imprison them in the Aberdeen tolbooth.
They were to remain there at their own expense until the Council gave further orders. The commissioners were authorized to force open doors where necessary and use all lawful means required to execute the commission. The King’s subjects were commanded to assist them.
This is the second stage of the Hercules Guthrie pasquill sequence. The February record established that he failed to appear and was ordered denounced. This March act confirms that the denunciation had actually occurred on 19 February and that he still stood unrelaxt when a coercive apprehension commission was issued.
It also gives a new contemporary status description: Hercules Guthrie, burgess of Aberdeen.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Unrelaxt: not formally released from the legal consequences of horning.
- Commission: formal delegated authority to carry out the acts stated in the instrument.
- Convocate the lieges in arms: summon lawful assistance from the King’s subjects.
- Ward: imprisonment or legal custody.
- Tolbooth: burgh building commonly serving as courthouse, administrative centre and prison.
- Use his Majesty’s keys: authority to force or cause access where premises were closed against lawful process.
- Conjunctly and severally: empowering the named commissioners collectively or individually as the instrument allowed.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.102–104; Acta, February 1629, fols.102b–103b. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
16 June 1629 — Hercules Guthrie Obtains Suspension of the Horning
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 173–174 • Petition following reconciliation with the Aberdeen kirk
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
By June 1629 Hercules Guthrie sought relief from the legal consequences that had followed his failure to appear in the pasquill case.
His petition stated that he had now given full satisfaction to the ministry and magistrates of Aberdeen both concerning his religion and concerning the pasquills. The source says he had reconciled himself to the kirk and had “purged himselfe of the wrytting, indytting and making of these pasquills”.
It further states that he had made a full declaration of what he knew about the matter. A certificate supporting that position had been issued with the consent of the Bishop and brethren of the Synod of Aberdeen.
Mr Alexander Ross appeared for himself and Mr William Guild and expressly consented to suspension. After hearing the supporting synod letter, the Council suspended Hercules’s horning.
Complete Printed Source Text
Complaint by Hercules Guthrie, burgess of Aberdein, as follows:— He is informed that he has been put to the horn by Mr. William Guild and Mr. Alexander Ros, Commissioners for the ministry of the diocese of Aberdein, for not compearing to answer to a complaint of “affixing of some infamous pasquills upon the kirk doore and some of the bailleis doores of Aberdein.”
He has now given full satisfaction to the ministry and magistrates of Aberdein “both anent his religioun and anent the pasquills foresaids; he hes reconciled himselfe to the kirk and purged himselfe of the wrytting, indytting and making of these pasquills, and hes made ane ample confessioun unto thame of all that he knew in that mater,” as their certificate bears.
Parties being cited, and the pursuer compearing by Mr. Thomas Mercer, servitor to Sir William Scot, one of the Clerks of Session, his procurator, and Mr Alexander Ros compearing for himself and Mr. William Guild and consenting to the suspension of the horning, the Lords, after hearing Mr. Thomas Mercer read the letter under the hand of the Clerk of the Synod of Aberdein, and written with consent of the Bishop and brethren of that Synod, suspend the horning.
Modern English Rendering
Hercules Guthrie, burgess of Aberdeen, petitioned the Council. He stated that he understood himself to have been put to the horn at the instance of Mr William Guild and Mr Alexander Ross, commissioners for the ministry of the diocese of Aberdeen, because he had failed to appear to answer the complaint concerning defamatory pasquills posted on the kirk door and on the doors of some of Aberdeen’s bailies.
Hercules represented that he had now fully satisfied the ministry and magistrates of Aberdeen concerning both his religious position and the pasquill affair.
According to the certificate produced in support of his petition, he had reconciled himself with the kirk, cleared himself of writing, composing or making the pasquills, and had given them a full account of everything he knew about the matter.
Hercules appeared through his procurator, Mr Thomas Mercer. Mr Alexander Ross appeared for himself and for Mr William Guild and consented to suspension of the horning.
After hearing the letter issued under the hand of the Clerk of the Synod of Aberdeen with the consent of the bishop and the brethren of that synod, the Privy Council suspended the horning.
This act completes the principal 1629 sequence involving Hercules Guthrie and the Aberdeen pasquills. In February he failed to appear and was ordered denounced; in March the Council confirmed that he had been put to the horn and authorized his apprehension; by June he had secured ecclesiastical support for relief and the Council suspended the horning.
It is also the strongest record in the sequence for separating Hercules from direct authorship of the pasquills, because the certificate expressly states that he had purged himself of writing, composing and making them.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Purged himself: cleared himself of a particular accusation or suspicion before the competent authority.
- Indytting: composing or devising a written text.
- Ample confession: a full declaration or account; here, specifically, of what Hercules knew concerning the matter.
- Procurator: legal representative appearing for a party.
- Synod: regional ecclesiastical court or assembly.
- Suspend the horning: halt the operation or enforcement of the existing process of horning.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.173–174; Decreta, November 1627–January 1630, fols.212b–213a. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
3 June 1629 — An Incident in Mr Alexander Guthrie’s Edinburgh Lodging
Second Series, Volume 3 • Page 190 • Property dispute involving the Maxwell family
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The principal dispute was between members of the Maxwell family. John Maxwell of Stanelie and the other pursuers complained against his son, also John Maxwell, concerning estate writs and evidents allegedly taken from the elder Maxwell’s chamber.
The earlier incident was said to have occurred on 1 August 1626 in the elder Maxwell’s chamber within Mr Alexander Guthrie’s lodging in Edinburgh. The son was accused of opening the chamber and carrying away a box containing title papers relating to several Maxwell lands.
By the time the matter came before the Privy Council on 3 June 1629, the issue was complicated by an earlier judicial bond under which the elder Maxwell had undertaken not to pursue his son while released from ward.
The Council held that no process should proceed against the younger Maxwell while his father remained out of that ward.
Complete Printed Source Text
Complaint by John Maxwell of Stanelie, Janet Crawfurd, his spouse, Patrick Maxwell, his lawful son, and Robert Hamiltoun of Milburne for his interest, as follows:—John Maxwell “the unnaturall sonne of the said Laird of Stanelie,” being denounced at his said father’s instance for not compearing to answer to a charge of taking away the complainers’ evidents and writs and so disappointing them in respect of several agreements regarding their estate, on some frivolous pretexts purchased suspension of that horning, but he has refrained from discussing the same and intends still to refrain therefrom, to the eluding of justice and further injury of the complainers.
Charge having been given to the said John Maxwell, and pursuers and defender compearing the pursuers produced the horning obtained by them and the King’s Advocate against the defender, bearing their complaint against him as follows:
That on 1st August 1626 he came to his father’s chamber in Mr. Alexander Guthreis lodging in Edinburgh, and “by some sinister tricke or policie opened the locke of the chamber doore, and finding the box whairin his said fathers evidents and writts of his lands of Stanelie, Thomelie, Corsbar, Almochlie, Cunmon and Hiedykes wer, he cunninglie and mischantlie medled with the same and tooke all away with him to the disappointing of the agreement made by his said father for selling of ane pairt of his lands to outred his debt.”
This complaint being read in the hearing of the defender, he contended that no process should be granted to his father against him, because Sir Walter Stewart of Minto, knight, and Robert Hamiltoun of Milburne, became cautioners judicially acted before the Lords of Council and Session for the pursuer, that he, during his release from ward in the tolbooth of Paisley to which the defender and his procurators had consented, would not pursue him [the defender] before any judge within the kingdom upon any cause whatsoever depending between them;
and this the defender verified by producing a Decreet of the Lords of Council and Session containing the said Act of caution dated 18th February last.
The Lords, in respect of this Act, find that no process ought to be granted in this matter against the defender while the said John Maxwell, elder, remains forth of the said ward.
Modern English Rendering
John Maxwell of Stanelie, his wife Janet Crawford, their lawful son Patrick Maxwell and Robert Hamilton of Milburne brought a complaint against another John Maxwell, described in the record as the elder Maxwell’s son.
The younger John Maxwell had previously been denounced for failing to appear to answer an accusation that he had removed family title deeds and other writings. He had obtained suspension of that horning but had not proceeded to resolve the underlying case.
The pursuers produced the earlier horning and complaint. That complaint alleged that on 1 August 1626 the younger Maxwell went to his father’s chamber in Mr Alexander Guthrie’s lodging in Edinburgh, opened the chamber door by some device, found the box containing his father’s title deeds for the lands of Stanelie, Thomelie, Corsbar, Almochlie, Cunmon and Hiedykes, and carried the writings away.
The pursuers alleged that the removal of the deeds interfered with an agreement by which the elder Maxwell intended to sell part of his estate in order to pay his debts.
The younger Maxwell answered that his father should not be permitted to proceed against him because, when the elder Maxwell had been released from the Paisley tolbooth, Sir Walter Stewart of Minto and Robert Hamilton of Milburne had become judicial cautioners that he would not pursue his son while out of ward.
The younger Maxwell produced a decree of the Lords of Council and Session dated 18 February confirming that undertaking. Because of that act, the Privy Council held that no process should proceed against the son in this matter while the elder John Maxwell remained outside the ward.
The Guthrie reference is incidental but useful. It establishes an Edinburgh lodging associated with Mr Alexander Guthrie by August 1626 and shows that a chamber within that lodging was occupied by John Maxwell of Stanelie.
The volume index associates this occurrence with Mr Alexander Guthrie, common clerk of Edinburgh, adding a residential reference to the professional record developed elsewhere in the Second Series.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Lodging: a residence or set of rooms occupied by a person; not necessarily evidence of ownership.
- Evidents: title deeds and other writings proving property rights.
- Outred debt: discharge, clear or pay off debt.
- Cautioner: surety or guarantor for another person’s undertaking.
- Ward: imprisonment or legal custody.
- Suspension of horning: judicial suspension of the operation of an existing process of denunciation.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), p.190; Decreta, November 1627–January 1630, fols.218a–218b. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
21 July 1629 — James Guthrie, Writer in Edinburgh, and the Balnabreich Deforcement
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 231–232 • Complaint against John Ramsay of Balnabreich
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
James Guthrie had raised legal letters against John Ramsay of Balnabreich for payment of certain interests and sent George Andersoun, messenger, to execute those letters by poinding goods on the lands of Balnabreich.
According to the complaint, Ramsay assembled a large armed group on 17 June 1629 and positioned them around the houses containing the goods liable to poinding. The messenger and his witnesses were allegedly threatened and prevented from carrying out their office.
After hearing witnesses, the Council did not find the charge concerning prohibited hagbuts and pistols proven. It did, however, find that Ramsay and the others had assembled about eighty men armed with other weapons and had unlawfully obstructed the messenger.
Ramsay was fined 400 merks, one half for the King and one half for the injured party, ordered to pay the witnesses’ expenses and warded until payment. He was also required to find substantial caution for the future indemnity of James Guthrie, his men, tenants and servants.
Complete Printed Source Text
Complaint by Sir Thomas Hoip of Craighall, King’s Advocate, and James Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, as follows:— The wearing of hagbuts and pistols is strictly prohibited by law, yet when the complainer sent George Andersoun, messenger, to execute certain letters he had raised against John Ramsay of Balnabreich for payment of certain interests, and to poynd some goods for the same on the lands of Balnabreich, Ramsay, accompanied by Alexander and William Collace, his brothers-in-law, and others to the number of four score persons, all armed “with bandit staffes, pow axes, partisans, jackes, corsletts, steil bonnets” and other weapons, and the prohibited hagbuts and pistols, came on the 17th June last in warlike manner to the ground of the said lands,
“the said Johne Ramsay as captane of this convocatioun going before with ane buffill coate on him, twa dags at his belt, and ane commanders battoun in his hand, drew thame up in militarie forme and placed thame about the houses where the goods poyndable wer, and than lappe on horsebacke himselffe and come and mett the messinger and his witnesses, threatened to take the messingers blasoun and cast it in the fyre and to putt bullets in him and his witnesses if they preast to poynd his goods.”
When the messenger and his party essayed to perform their duty, the persons foresaid pursued them of their lives, “held the points of thair lances and speiris unto thame and bendit thair hacquebutts” intending to slay them, and so they deforced the said messenger.
Charge having been given to the said John Ramsay and Alexander Collace, and pursuers and defenders compearing and probation being referred to witnesses, the Lords assoilzie the defenders in reference to the wearing of hagbuts and pistols, but find that the defenders “convocat and assembled togidder the nomber of fourescore men armed with pow axes, Jedbrugh staffes and forkes, and that they having houssed the goods Balnabreich come himselfe upon horsebacke with ane blew bonnet, ane buffill coat and ane lang sword, accompanied with Alexander Collace and ane footman who caried ane lance and that they come to the messinger and inquired for his warrand, and bade the messinger goe his way and come not againe otherwayes he sould repent it;
and that the officiar having come to the hous where the goods wer the said Johne Ramsay and his complices held the points of thair halberts and speiris to him and his witnesses, saying to the officiar that if the goods wer upon the ley he durst not take thame, and if he or his witness come agane that earand some of thame sould ly behind.”
For this insolence the Lords fine John Ramsay 400 merks, of which 200 are to go to his Majesty and 200 to the party. Ramsay is also to pay the expenses of the witnesses, and to be warded in the tolbooth of Edinburgh till payment is made.
He is further to find caution in £500 acted in the books of Secret Council for the indemnity of James Guthrie, and his men, tenants and servants.
Modern English Rendering
Sir Thomas Hope of Craighall, the King’s Advocate, and James Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, complained that although the carrying of hagbuts and pistols was prohibited, a large armed group had obstructed execution of legal process on the lands of Balnabreich.
James Guthrie had raised letters against John Ramsay of Balnabreich for payment of certain sums or interests and sent George Anderson, messenger, to execute those letters by legally seizing goods.
The complaint alleged that on 17 June Ramsay, Alexander and William Collace and about eighty other men assembled in warlike fashion with staffs, axes, partisans, armour and other weapons. Ramsay was said to have led the gathering and stationed men around the houses where the goods liable to seizure had been placed.
Ramsay then met the messenger and his witnesses and allegedly threatened to seize and burn the messenger’s heraldic badge and shoot the party if they attempted to seize his goods.
When the messenger proceeded with his duty, the armed men were accused of threatening him and his witnesses with lances, spears and firearms and thereby preventing execution of the letters.
After hearing witnesses, the Council absolved the defenders of the specific accusation that they had worn hagbuts and pistols. The evidence did, however, satisfy the Council that about eighty armed men had been assembled and that Ramsay and his associates had threatened and obstructed the messenger.
John Ramsay was therefore fined 400 merks: 200 merks to the Crown and 200 merks to the injured party. He was also ordered to pay the expenses of the witnesses and remain in the Edinburgh tolbooth until payment.
In addition, Ramsay had to find £500 caution in the Privy Council books to protect James Guthrie and Guthrie’s men, tenants and servants from further harm.
The record gives a particularly clear professional identification: James Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh. It also demonstrates that he was not a peripheral name in the proceeding. The letters being resisted had been raised by him, his messenger had gone to Balnabreich to execute them, and the final security ordered by the Council specifically protected Guthrie and his household or dependants.
The occupational form closely parallels the James Guthrie, writer appearing in Volume II, although this record itself does not supply genealogy or expressly state that the two references are the same man.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Writer: a professional legal or clerical writer; the source does not further define James Guthrie’s professional status.
- Letters: formal legal writs authorizing execution of the claimed obligation.
- Poind: seize movable property through legal diligence to satisfy an obligation.
- Messenger: officer authorized to execute legal writs and other formal process.
- Blasoun: the messenger’s heraldic badge or official insignia.
- Convocation: an assembly of persons, especially one gathered in arms.
- Deforcement: forcible obstruction of an officer carrying out lawful process.
- Ward: imprisonment or legal custody.
- Caution: legally enforceable security for future conduct or performance.
- Indemnity: protection against injury, molestation or loss.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.231–232; Fines, 1614–31, fols.127a–128a. Council proceeding dated 21 July 1629; underlying incident dated 17 June 1629. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
23 July 1629 — John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, on the Committee for Northern Religious Policy
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 233–234 • Council and clergy meeting
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
A large meeting of nobles, Privy Councillors, bishops and commissioners from the presbyteries assembled at Holyrood on 23 July 1629 in response to royal directions concerning religious enforcement.
The Bishop of Murrey appears first in the sederunt, establishing his presence at the meeting.
The King’s letter explaining the reasons for the gathering was read, and commissioners from the various dioceses and presbyteries produced rolls naming excommunicated Catholics and others regarded by the authorities as religiously suspect.
A smaller committee was then selected to prepare “overtours for repressing of Poperie”. The Bishop of Murrey was one of four bishops named to that committee.
Complete Printed Source Text — Guthrie-Bearing Meeting Sequence
Sederunt — Treasurer; Bishop of St. Andrewes; Monteith, Præses; Privy Seal; Bishop of Glasgow; Mairshell; Linlithgow; Perth; Wigtoun; Lauderdaill; Bishop of Dunkeld; Bishop of Aberdein; Bishop of Murrey; Bishop of Galloway; Bishop of Rosse; Bishop of Dumblane; Bishop of Caithnes; Bishop of Orkney; Bishop of Yles; Bishop of Argyle; Lord Areskine; Lord Melvill; Lord Carnegie; Lord Jedburgh; Lord Tracquare; Master of Elphinstoun; Clerk Register; Advocate; Justice Clerk; Sir John Scot; togidder with ane nomber of the commissioners frome the severall presbytereis of this kingdome.
“The whilk day the Kings Majesteis missive letter directed to the Lords of his Majesteis Privie Counsell tuicheing the occasioun and caussis of this meeting wes presented to the nobilitie, clergie, counsellours and commissioners present, and read in thair audience. Quhilk letter is registrat upon the twentie three day of Junij last.”
“The whilk day the commissioners frome the severall dioceis and presbytereis of this kingdome being callit and compeirand they gave in the rollis of all excommunicat papists and others persouns suspect in thair religioun within thair bounds.”
“The quhilk day the nobilitie, clergie, counsellours and commissioners present gave ane committee [sic] to the Lords President and Privie Seale, the Erles of Lauderdaill and Wigtoun, the Lord Carnegie, the Archbishops of St Androwes and Glasgow, the Bishops of Aberdeene, Murrey, Rosse, and Dumblane, Sir Thomas Hope, his Majesteis Advocat, Mr Andrew Ramsay, Mr Williame Struthers, Mr Gawin Dumbar, Mr Alexander Rosse, Mr Theodore Hay, Mr Thomas Ramsay, and Mr Williame Annand to conveene and meit the morne at sax of the clocke in the morning in the laich counselhous of Edinburgh for setting doun of overtours for repressing of Poperie and to report thair proceedings to the great meeting upon Saturday the twentie fyve of this instant at aucht of the cloke in the morning.”
Modern English Rendering
The sederunt records the attendance of the Treasurer, senior councillors, a large group of bishops — including the Bishop of Moray — and commissioners from the presbyteries of Scotland.
The King’s letter explaining the causes and purpose of the meeting was read before the nobles, clergy, councillors and commissioners present.
The commissioners from the dioceses and presbyteries then produced lists of persons who had been excommunicated or were regarded by the ecclesiastical authorities as suspect in religion within their respective districts.
The meeting appointed a smaller committee including the President, Privy Seal, several earls and lords, the Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow, and the Bishops of Aberdeen, Moray, Ross and Dunblane, together with the King’s Advocate and named ministers.
That committee was to meet at six o’clock the following morning in the lower council house of Edinburgh to prepare proposals for further proceedings, and to report to the full meeting on Saturday, 25 July, at eight o’clock in the morning.
This entry establishes more than a title-only mention. John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, was present at the 23 July meeting and was selected for the smaller committee charged with developing the proposals to be considered by the larger body.
It forms the beginning of a short documentary sequence continuing into the following days, when the committee’s proposals were reported and translated into commissions and acts.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Sederunt: formal list of those present at a court or council sitting.
- Præses: president or presiding officer.
- Missive: official letter.
- Overtours: proposals or recommendations for action.
- Laich counselhous: lower council house or council chamber.
- Compeirand: appearing formally.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.233–234; Acta, July 1629–1630, fols.139a–139b. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
23 July 1629 — Alexander Guthrie, Herald, and the Restoration of Blair
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 234–235 • Petition by William Seatoun of Blair
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
William Seatoun of Blair had been excommunicated for religious nonconformity. In consequence, officers of arms had been ordered to take his house and uplift his goods for the Crown.
Alexander Guthrie, herald, and Robert Mercer, messenger, executed that process. They took possession of Blair, removed livestock and carried the animals to the market cross of Aberdeen, where they were appraised.
Patrick Leslie, bailie of Aberdeen, purchased the goods for 400 merks and £26 and issued a bond for the purchase money to Guthrie and Mercer.
Seatoun later petitioned the Council after the Bishop of Aberdeen certified his conformity with the established church. He asked that the keys of Blair and the purchase-money bond be returned so that he could recover his house and goods.
The Council granted the request after imposing continuing conditions and after Seatoun acknowledged the lawfulness of the officers’ earlier proceedings.
Complete Printed Source Text
Petition by William Seatoun of Blair as follows:—He has been excommunicated for nonconformity to the religion presently professed within this kingdom and their lordships have charged officers of arms to take the house of Blair and uplift his goods for his Majesty’s use, by virtue whereof Alexander Guthrie, herald, and Robert Mercer, messenger, came on to his lands and house of Blair, took his house, carried off a great number of his oxen, sheep and other bestial to the market cross of Aberdeen, and there apprised the same.
His goods were purchased by Patrick Leslie, bailie of Aberdein, for 400 merks and £26, and he has given bond for this money to the said herald and messenger.
“Seing now it hes pleased God to opin the compleaners eyes to see the errours of the superstitious professioun whairin he hes beene misled this whyle bygane,” and that he has given satisfaction to the Bishop of Aberdein, his ordinary, “by ane absolute conformitie to the religioun presentlie profest within this kingdome,” as the said Bishop and commissioners from Aberdein will testify, he craves their Lordship’s command to the said herald and “maisser” to deliver to him the keys of his said house and the bond foresaid, so that by redelivery of it he may obtain the restoration of his goods.
The Lords, after hearing a declaration by Patrick, Bishop of Aberdein, testifying to the petitioner’s conformity, grant the prayer of his petition; he having enacted himself to compear before the Lords whenever cited and answer to any charge which shall be made against him concerning his religion or resetting or haunting the company of Jesuits, priests or excommunicated Papists, and that he will not reset any such under the penalty of 500 merks toties quoties;
and having also acknowledged that the proceedings of the said officer were lawful and warranted, and that he has no action for that cause against him.
Modern English Rendering
William Seton of Blair petitioned the Council. He had previously been excommunicated for failing to conform to the religion then established in Scotland, and officers of arms had therefore been ordered to take his house and movable goods for the King’s use.
Acting under that authority, Alexander Guthrie, herald, and Robert Mercer, messenger, went to Seton’s lands and house of Blair, took possession of the house, removed a large number of oxen, sheep and other livestock and brought them to the market cross of Aberdeen for appraisal.
Patrick Leslie, bailie of Aberdeen, purchased those goods for 400 merks and £26 and gave the herald and messenger a bond for the purchase price.
Seton later represented that he had conformed to the established religion and had satisfied Patrick, Bishop of Aberdeen, his ecclesiastical ordinary. He therefore asked the Council to order the officers to return the keys of Blair and the purchase-money bond so that restoration of his property could proceed.
The Bishop of Aberdeen confirmed Seton’s conformity. The Council therefore granted the petition, but Seton formally undertook to appear whenever cited and answer any future complaint concerning his religion or association with Jesuits, priests or excommunicated Catholics.
He also undertook not to shelter such persons, under a penalty of 500 merks for every contravention, and acknowledged that the earlier proceedings of the officer had been lawful and properly authorized.
This entry provides a concrete example of Alexander Guthrie’s work as a herald in the field. It records him taking possession of a house, removing livestock, carrying the goods to the Aberdeen market cross for appraisal and receiving the purchaser’s bond.
It also shows the other side of the legal process documented at p.93: property taken under a lawful Council order could later be restored when the underlying circumstances changed and the Council authorized restitution.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Herald: officer of arms capable of executing formal royal and Council process.
- Messenger: officer authorized to serve and execute legal writs.
- Uplift: take or remove property under authority.
- Bestial: livestock.
- Apprise: value property formally, often as part of legal diligence or sale.
- Bond: written obligation acknowledging a debt or duty.
- Ordinary: ecclesiastical superior having jurisdiction in the relevant diocese.
- Reset: shelter, receive or harbour.
- Toties quoties: as often as the offence occurred; here the stated penalty applied to each future contravention.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.234–235; Decreta, November 1627–January 1630, fols.238a–238b. Related execution record: p.93. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
25 July 1629 — John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, Reports the Marquis of Huntly’s Daughters
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 246–247 • Religious education of noble families
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Among the measures considered at the July meeting was renewed enforcement of earlier parliamentary legislation concerning the religious upbringing of children whose parents or households were regarded by the authorities as religiously suspect.
Bishops and ministers were instructed to report the children of noblemen and barons whose parents were considered suspect or whose children were being raised in households regarded in the same way.
Several ecclesiastical representatives then supplied names. The Bishop of Moray reported the daughters of the Marquis of Huntly.
The source does not name those daughters individually in this entry, nor does it state that any immediate removal or placement followed solely from the bishop’s report.
Printed Source Text — Complete Reporting Sequence
“Forsameekle as there hes beene diverse Acts made in the tyme of our lait soverane lord of blessed memorie, one thairof in the Parliament haldin at Edinburgh in the moneth of October 1579 yeeres, and another in the Parliament haldin at Edinburgh in the moneth of Junij 1609 yeeres, anent the educatioun of noblemens childrein, quhilks Acts hes beene neglected and hes not receaved executioun thir diverse yeeres bygane, so as throw the neglect thairof diverse youthes, als weill the sonnes of noblemen as others, hes beene and ar verie farre corrupted in thair religioun;
Thairfoir the Lords of Secreit Counsell, clergie and others assisting at this meeting, ordains the saids Acts of Parliament to be putt to executioun in all points conforme to the tennour thairof, and they recommend to the bishops and ministers to make ane trew report to his Majesteis Counsell of the names of suche noblemen and barouns sonnes and daughters whois parents ar suspect in religioun or where they ar bred in suspect places.”
“The whilk day the Bishop of Aberdein gave up the Erie of Errolls twa daughters, the Laird of Dalgateis bairnes, and the bairnes of Alexander Gordoun of Dunkintie to be persouns under vehement suspicioun to be corrupted in thair religioun by remaining in thair fathers companies.”
“The whilk day the Bishop of Murrey gave up the Marqueis of Huntlie his daughters to be persouns under the same suspicioun.”
“The whilk day the Bishop of Rosse gave up the childrein of Donnald Neilsoun of Assynt to be under that same suspicioun.”
“The whilk day the Bishop of Dunkelden gave up the Lord Gray his sone, and Sir John Ogilvie his childrein, to be persouns under the lyke suspicioun.”
“The whilk day Mr Johne Hay, commissioner for the diocie of Glasgow, gave up the Countesse of Abercorne and the Lord Sempill thair childrein to be persons under the lyke suspicioun.”
Modern English Rendering
The Council and clergy noted that Acts of Parliament made in 1579 and 1609 concerning the religious education of noblemen’s children had not been effectively enforced for a number of years. They asserted that, as a result, some young people had been raised in religious environments contrary to those Acts.
They therefore ordered the earlier legislation to be put into effect and instructed bishops and ministers to report to the Privy Council the sons and daughters of noblemen and barons whose parents were regarded as suspect in religion or who were being brought up in households considered suspect.
The Bishop of Aberdeen reported the Earl of Erroll’s two daughters, the children of the Laird of Dalgatie and the children of Alexander Gordon of Dunkintie.
The Bishop of Moray reported the daughters of the Marquis of Huntly as being under the same suspicion.
The Bishop of Ross, the Bishop of Dunkeld and Mr John Hay for the diocese of Glasgow likewise supplied names of children or families falling within the same policy.
The entry places Bishop John Guthrie directly in the implementation of the policy discussed at the 23 July meeting. He was not merely present at the general consultation; he supplied a specific report under the resulting direction.
It also demonstrates the administrative reach of his episcopal office into matters involving one of the most prominent noble households in northern Scotland.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Give up: report, present or supply information or names to an authority.
- Bairnes: children.
- Suspect in religion: a governmental and ecclesiastical classification used in the contemporary enforcement system.
- Acts of Parliament: statutory authority cited as the basis for the proposed intervention in children’s religious upbringing.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.246–247; Acta, July 1629–1630, fols.144b–145a. Related committee appointment: pp.233–234. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
28 July 1629 — John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, Subscribes the Council and Clergy’s Report
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 249–252 • Collective letters following the July religious-policy meeting
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
After the meeting convened on 23 July and the committee work and acts completed over the following days, the Council and clergy sent a formal report to Charles I.
The letter summarized the measures they had adopted and requested continued royal support for their enforcement. It also discussed the Earl of Caithness, the education of Lord Gordon’s sons and the treatment of persons whose estates were affected by the measures.
The subscription includes the Bishop of Murrey, establishing Bishop John Guthrie as one of the collective subscribers.
A companion letter of the same date was addressed to the King’s Secretary asking him to present and support the measures at court. It concludes Subscribitur ut supra — “subscribed as above” — thereby incorporating the same subscription.
The subsequent session printed at p.252 again places the Bishop of Murrey in the sederunt when the commissions, acts and letters were formally read, allowed and subscribed.
Printed Source Text — Letter to Charles I
“The Lords ordains ane missive to be writtin unto his Majestie randering his Majestie most humble thankes for his most religious and singular care whiche his Majestie caryes towards the propagatioun and advancement of the trew religioun within this kingdome manifested by his letters writtin to his Counsell for that effect,
and humbelie intreatting his Majestie to give commissioun to the Erie of Seafort for persute of the Erie of Caithnes, who is ane excommunicat and rebellious Papist and contemnes all ordours and censures of the Kirk, and that his Majestie would deale with the Lord Gordoun that his sonnes be putt to some colledge for thair better breeding in the grounds of trew religioun;
as alsua that his Majestie be petitiouned not to dispense with the law in favours of excommunicat rebellis nor to grant unto thame anie forder allowance out of thair estats nor sail be modified unto thame be his Majesteis Counsell.
Followes the missive writtin to his Majestie:—Most sacred soverane. Your Majesteis godlie and zealous care of the maintenance and propagatioun of the trew religioun and suppressioun of Poperie within this kingdome whairof we have found the confortable effects by the lait meeting appointed by your Majestie for that effect, obliges us in the dew acknowledgement of so great ane blessing to powre out our most fervent prayers unto God for your Majesteis long and happie raigne.
The dyet indicted be your Majestie for that purpois wes solemnelie keeped by the clergie and the commissioners frome the dioceis, who, concurring with your Majesteis Counsell by thair best advice anent the ordour to be prosecute for reclaming of the tractable and repressing of the insolent and refractarie sort of Papists, have with unanime consent concludit and sett doun suche Acts and ordinances as we hope being carefullie executed will produce the intendit effect;
whairof we have sent up ane copie to your Majesteis Secretarie to be showin to your Majestie at your best opportunitie. And becaus it is probable that your Majestie will be muche importunned by the frequent sutes of incorrigible Papists who, refusing to give obedience to the ordours of the Churche, will crave ane mitigatioun of the Act of Parliament ordaining thair whole rents and living to be intrometted with and uplifted to your Majesteis use,
we will humbelie beseeche your Majestie not to hearken to anie suche propositioun bot to remitt to your Majesteis Counsell the modificatioun of the allowance to be givin for thair interteanement furth of thair estaits according to the merite of the caus, since we conceave the executioun of that law to be the most powerfull and conduceable meane for curbing of the insolent and reduceing of thame to the obedience of the law.
And in regaird there is no person of auctoritie nor power within the shirefdome of Caithnes to be imployed for apprehending the Erie of Caithnes, who is ane excommunicat rebell, it wes thought expedient at the meeting that your Majestie sould be supplicated to grant ane commissioun to the Erie of Seafort for prosecuting the lawes aganis him, that others, by his exemple being terrified may be the more readilie reclamed to your Majesteis obedience.
And forasmuche as it is feared that the childrein of the Lord Gordoun, who ar weill bred, being now under the commandement and in the hous of the Marqueis of Huntlie, thair grandfather, may in thair tender yeeres be corrupted in thair religioun by the travellis and insinuatioun of the Marqueis and others Popishlie affected resorting to that hous and frequenting thair company, we will earnestlie intreate your Majestie to give ordour to the Lord Gordoun that his sonnes may be placed in some one of the Colledges of St. Andrewes there to be educat as the Counsell sail direct.
We have receaved ane roll of the names of these that ar suspect of Poperie, excommunicat or denunced rebellis for the same, and upon your Majesteis perusall of the Acts and ordours sett doun concerning thame, and significatioun of your royall pleasure thereanent, we sail be carefull to caus prosecute the lawes aganis thame with that diligence and indifferencie whiche your Majesteis honnour, the good of the Churche and quyet of the estait in suche a caise doeth require.
And so praying God to blesse your Majestie with ane long and happie raigne, we rest, &c. Halyrudhous 28 July 1629. Subscribitur, St. Androwes, Mar, Monteith, Hadinton, Mairshell, Linlithgow, Bishops of Dunkelden, Aberdein, Murrey, Pa. B. of Rosse, Dumblane, Ge. Oread., Melvill, Carnegie, Jedburgh, Tracquair, Hamiltoun, Sr Thomas Hoip, Sr George Elphinston, Scottistarvet.”
Printed Source Text — Companion Letter to the King’s Secretary
“Followes another missive writtin to his Majesteis Secretarie:— Our verie honnourable good lord. At the lait meeting of the Counsell and clergie whiche wes keeped by his Majesteis appointment upon the twenty thrid of this instant for ordour taking with Papists and reclaming thame frome thair errours to his Majesteis obedience thair wes certane Acts concludit and sett doun whairof we have heerewith sent ane copie to your lordship to be showin to his Majestie at some fitt opportunitie;
and becaus the executioun of thame doeth muche import his Majesteis service and the good of religioun and that it is lyke eneugh that the adversareis of the truthe, apprehending thair awin danger, will use thair best credit and endeavoures to divert his Majestie frome allowing of the same, we will intreate your lordship to communicat these Acts to suche counsellours and noblemen there as you know to be best affected to the religioun and in the Counsellis name to intreate thair concurrence with yow to present the same to his Majestie and to sollicite the approbatioun and executioun thairof,
whiche we doubt not his Majestie will graciouslie vouchesafe, notwithstanding anie instance that may be made in the contrair. Quhereanent expecting the signification of his Majesteis pleasure we committ your lordship to God. From Halyruidhous the 28 day of July 1629. Subscribitur ut supra.”
Printed Source Text — Formal Approval and Subscription
Sederunt — Treasurer; St. Andrewes; Monteith, Præses; Hadinton, Privy Seal; Mairshell; Linlithgow; Bishop of Dunkeld; Bishop of Aberdein; Bishop of Rosse; Bishop of Murrey; Bishop of Dumblane; Bishop of the Isles; Bishop of Argyle; Bishop of Orkney; Lord Melvill; Lord Carnegie; Lord Tracquare; Lord Jedburgh; Secretary; Clerk Register; Advocate; Justice Clerk; Sir John Scot.
“The whilk day the Commissiouns, Acts and Letters, whilks wer concludit upon the twentie fyft day of this instant with the missive letters whilks wer ordained to be writtin to the King’s Majestie and his Secretarie wer presented to the nobilitie, clergie and Counsell present, read in thair audience, allowed and subscryved be thame.”
Modern English Rendering
The Council ordered a letter to be sent to Charles I thanking him for his support of the religious policies discussed at the recent meeting and asking for royal assistance with several measures arising from it.
The letter reported that the clergy and commissioners from the dioceses had met with the Privy Council and had unanimously agreed upon acts and ordinances which they hoped would achieve the intended policy.
They sent copies of those measures to the King’s Secretary and asked that requests for mitigation from persons affected by the legislation concerning confiscated rents be referred back to the Scottish Privy Council.
They also asked the King to authorize the Earl of Seaforth to proceed against the Earl of Caithness and requested intervention concerning the education of Lord Gordon’s sons, then living in the household of their grandfather, the Marquis of Huntly.
The letter was dated at Holyrood House on 28 July 1629. Among its collective subscribers was the Bishop of Moray.
A companion letter asked the King’s Secretary to present the acts to the King and seek their approval and execution. It was subscribed “as above,” incorporating the same signatories.
In the related formal approval, the Bishop of Moray is again listed among those present when the commissions, acts and letters concluded on 25 July were read, approved and subscribed.
This sequence provides direct evidence that Bishop John Guthrie’s involvement went beyond attendance at the initial 23 July meeting. He appears in the final subscription of the collective report and again among those present when the resulting instruments were formally approved.
Read together with pp.233–234 and pp.246–247, the records trace a progression from attendance and committee appointment to specific episcopal reporting and finally to collective approval and subscription.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Missive: official letter or written communication.
- Intromit with: take possession or control of property or revenues.
- Modify an allowance: determine or fix the amount to be allowed.
- Subscribe: sign or formally assent to a document.
- Subscribitur ut supra: “subscribed as above,” incorporating the preceding subscription.
- Sederunt: list of those attending the sitting.
- Allowed: formally approved or authorized.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.249–252; Acta, July 1629–1630, fols.146b–148b. Main and companion missives dated 28 July 1629. Related July meeting: pp.233–234; related episcopal report: pp.246–247. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
30 July 1629 — Alexander Guthrie, Herald, and the Gallowgate Tenement
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 262–263 • Restoration of a house formerly occupied by Thomas Meinzeis of Balgownie
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
John Leslie and Issobell Seatoun held liferent rights in a tenement in Aberdeen’s Gallowgate which they had leased to Thomas Meinzeis of Balgownie.
Meinzeis subsequently became involved in ecclesiastical process, was excommunicated and put to the horn. Legal charges then required delivery of the house to Alexander Guthrie, herald, who placed it in the keeping of Robert Mercer, messenger.
Leslie and Seatoun stated that, once they learned of Meinzeis’s excommunication, they had warned him before Whitsunday to leave the property and later obtained a decree of removal from the bailies of Aberdeen.
Because Meinzeis had now been legally removed, they argued that there was no longer any reason for the Crown’s officer to retain possession of their tenement.
The Council agreed, ordering the house restored to the liferenters while preserving the Crown’s claim to the former tenant’s movable goods remaining inside.
Complete Printed Source Text
Complaint by John Leslie and Issobell Seatoun, liferenters of a tenement of land in the Gallowgait of Aberdein, as follows:— They had leased their said tenement to Thomas Meinzeis of Balgownie, and after occupying the same for some time “he fell in processe with the kirk concerning his religioun,” and being excommunicated and put to the horn, charges of treason were issued against him for delivering up of the said house to Alexander Guthrie, herald, who has committed the keeping of it to Robert Mercer, messenger.
Now, as soon as the complainers knew of the excommunication of the said Thomas Meinzeis, “being loathe that anie excommunicat Papist sould possesse or inhabite anie hous of theirs,” they before Whitsunday last warned him to remove, and thereupon obtained a decree of removal against him before the bailies of Aberdein on 2nd instant, which they produce;
and seeing that the end of the law is accomplished by the removal of the said Thomas Meinzeis, equity and reason both demand that the said house be restored to the complainers.
Charge having been given to Patrick, Bishop of Aberdein, Mr William Guild, and Mr Alexander Ros, commissioners for the diocese of Aberdein, Alexander Guthrie and Robert Mercer; and the pursuers compearing by Mr Robert Petrie, their procurator, and the defenders not compearing, the Lords ordain the house to be delivered up to the complainers,
who, however, are to make a complete inventory of the whole goods belonging to the said rebel therein and deliver the said goods to the provost and bailies of Aberdein to be forthcoming to his Majesty.
Modern English Rendering
John Leslie and Isobel Seton, who held liferent rights in a tenement in Aberdeen’s Gallowgate, complained that they had leased the property to Thomas Menzies of Balgownie.
Menzies later became subject to church proceedings concerning religion, was excommunicated and put to the horn. As part of the resulting legal process, he was ordered to surrender the house to Alexander Guthrie, herald.
Guthrie received possession of the tenement and placed its day-to-day custody in the hands of Robert Mercer, messenger.
Leslie and Seton stated that after learning of Menzies’s excommunication they formally warned him to remove from the tenement and obtained a decree of removal from the Aberdeen bailies on the second day of that month.
Since the former tenant had now been legally removed, the pursuers argued that the object of the process had been satisfied and that their house should be restored.
The relevant Aberdeen ecclesiastical commissioners, Alexander Guthrie and Robert Mercer were charged to answer. The pursuers appeared through their procurator, but the defenders did not appear.
The Council ordered the house delivered back to Leslie and Seton. They were first to make a complete inventory of all goods belonging to Thomas Menzies still within the property and hand those goods to the provost and bailies of Aberdeen so that they would remain available for the King’s use.
This is another useful illustration of Alexander Guthrie’s practical duties as a herald. He had received possession of the tenement through formal legal process and delegated its physical keeping to a messenger.
The record also distinguishes the house itself from the movable goods of the former tenant. The house could be restored to its liferenters while the Crown retained its interest in the rebel tenant’s goods.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Liferenter: a person entitled to possess or receive the benefit of property for life without necessarily holding the fee or ultimate ownership.
- Tenement: a house or other heritable urban property.
- Decree of removal: judicial order requiring a tenant or occupier to leave property.
- Herald: officer of arms empowered to execute formal legal process.
- Messenger: officer authorized to serve or execute legal writs and process.
- Forthcoming: kept available for lawful claim or later disposal by the authority entitled to it.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.262–263; Decreta, November 1627–January 1630, fols.240a–240b. Related heraldic enforcement: p.93 and pp.234–235. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
4 September 1629 — Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald, and Mr Patrick Guthrie in the Raynistoun Restoration
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 276–277 • Property seizure, ecclesiastical absolution and petition for restoration
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Thomas Cheyne of Raynistoun had been excommunicated for religious nonconformity and, at the Council’s direction, put to the horn. Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald, and Robert Mercer, messenger, then seized Cheyne’s house, livestock and other goods.
The house was placed in the keeping of Alexander Leslie, Mercer’s son-in-law, under direction of the Bishop of Aberdeen. Cheyne complained that various horses, mares, young horses, cattle, sheep and grain had been valued at amounts far below what he considered their true worth, with some retained and others sold.
By September, however, Cheyne produced evidence that he had reconciled with the established church. The printed record states that he had publicly repented, subscribed the Confession of Faith and promised to remain constant in that profession.
Crucially for Guthrie research, the record identifies Mr Patrick Guthrie as Cheyne’s “ordinarie pastour” and states that Patrick formally absolved him from excommunication at the direction of the Presbytery of Ellon.
Cheyne therefore sought restoration of Raynistoun, his remaining goods, the proceeds of goods sold and the bonds supplied by his cautioners.
Complete Printed Source Text
Petition by Thomas Cheyne of Raynistoun as follows:—Having been excommunicated for nonconformity to “the trew religioun” he was at their Lordships’ direction put to the horn, and in virtue thereof Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald, and Robert Mercer, messenger, having seized upon his house, cattle and goods, gave his house in keeping, by direction of the Bishop of Aberdein, to Alexander Leslie, the said Mercer’s son-in-law, although the petitioner had procured the Lairds of Pitcaple and Arnage, and David Edie, burgess of Aberdein, as cautioners to them that the goods in his house and his growing corn would be forthcoming to his Majesty’s use.
Moreover, they have comprised four horses of his at 10 merks each, though each was worth 50, two mares at 10 merks each, though each was worth £20, two staigs worth £10 each at 5 merks each, six “quoyakes” each worth £5, at 40s. each, 24 hogs worth 30s. each at 10s. the piece, and 2 bolls of beir worth £10 the boll at [blank], some of which goods they keep for their own use, and the rest they have sold to others to the great prejudice of the petitioner.
“And whereas now it hes pleased God so to deale with the said supplicant that upon the acknowledgement of his erroneous professioun and publict repentance made for the same, and upon his subscriptioun of the Confessioun of Faith and promise to continue constantlie in the professioun of the trew religioun, he wes dewlie and ordourlie relaxt from the sentence of excommunicatioun pronunced aganis him be Mr Patrik Guthrie, his ordinarie pastour, at the command and directioun of the presbyterie of Ellone, as his said pastours testificat, togidder with the Bishop of Aberdein his letter shown to the Lords of Privie Counsell beiris;
and, seing the said supplicant perswades himselfe that the scope and ayme of the saids Lords thair legall and most equitable course used aganis him is onlie his conversioun and conformitie to the trew religioun, whilk he hes unfainedlie testified,” he craves command from their Lordships to the said Alexander Guthrie, Alexander Leslie and Robert Mercer, to restore to him his house of Raynistoun, with all the goods therein, and also the goods they comprised from him which are in their own possession, and the prices of such as they sold, and to deliver to his said cautioners the bonds they gave them as above mentioned.
The Lords having seen the act and report of the presbytery of Ellone, “bearing that upon the said Thomas Cheyne his repentance and acknowledgement of his former errours, and upon his oath given to stand constantlie to the trueth of religioun and trew worship as it is receaved within the kirk of Scotland, wes absolved fra the fearefull sentence of excommunicatioun,” and a missive from Patrick, Bishop of Aberdein, to the same effect, recommend and remit the ordering of this whole business to the said Bishop,
desiring him “to take suche ane equitable and good course therein as may incourage others to foregoe thair former errours and embrace the trew religioun presentlie profest within this kingdome”; also to take caution from the petitioner not to haunt nor converse with Jesuits and priests, and to compear before the Council when lawfully cited; and to see that the expenses of those who have kept the said house be paid and exoneration given them.
They also desire the Lords of Counsell and Session to grant to the petitioner relaxation from his said horning.
Modern English Rendering
Thomas Cheyne of Raynistoun petitioned the Privy Council after having been excommunicated for religious nonconformity and then put to the horn.
As a consequence, Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald, and Robert Mercer, messenger, seized Cheyne’s house, livestock and other goods. The house was placed in Alexander Leslie’s keeping under the Bishop of Aberdeen’s direction.
Cheyne complained that his animals and grain had been valued substantially below what he said they were worth. Some of the property, according to his petition, remained in the officers’ possession and some had been sold.
Cheyne had since publicly repented, subscribed the Confession of Faith and promised to continue in the religion established in Scotland.
He was then formally released from the sentence of excommunication by Mr Patrick Guthrie, his ordinary pastor, acting under the direction of the Presbytery of Ellon. Patrick Guthrie’s testimonial and a letter from the Bishop of Aberdeen were produced as evidence of that change in status.
Cheyne therefore asked the Council to order Alexander Guthrie, Alexander Leslie and Robert Mercer to restore the house of Raynistoun, return any goods still held, account for the price of goods sold, and return the cautionary bonds given on his behalf.
After considering the Presbytery of Ellon’s act and the Bishop of Aberdeen’s letter, the Council referred the entire matter to the bishop and asked him to arrange an equitable settlement.
Cheyne was to provide security that he would avoid the prohibited associations described in the act and appear before the Council whenever lawfully cited. The expenses of those who had kept the house were also to be paid.
Finally, the Privy Council requested that the Lords of Council and Session grant Cheyne relaxation from his existing horning.
This single proceeding documents two Guthries performing entirely different official functions.
Alexander Guthrie appears in his established capacity as Marchmont Herald, executing legal process against property following excommunication and horning.
Mr Patrick Guthrie appears as an ordinary parish pastor within the Presbytery of Ellon, formally absolving Thomas Cheyne from excommunication after the prescribed ecclesiastical process.
The entry is therefore especially valuable for keeping the two men—and their very different professional roles—clearly separated.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Ordinary pastor: the minister having ordinary pastoral charge over the person or parish concerned.
- Relaxed from excommunication: formally absolved and restored from an ecclesiastical sentence.
- Relaxed from horning: formally released from the civil legal consequences of denunciation as rebel.
- Comprised: valued or appraised under legal process, often preparatory to seizure or disposal.
- Staig: young horse.
- Quoyak: young cow or heifer.
- Hog: young sheep.
- Beir: barley.
- Caution: legally enforceable security for conduct, appearance or performance.
- Exoneration: discharge from liability after an obligation or custodial duty has been properly fulfilled.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.276–277; Decreta, November 1627–January 1630, fols.244b–245b. Council proceeding dated 4 September 1629. Related Marchmont Herald records: p.93, pp.234–235, and pp.262–263. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
8 December 1629 — Hercules Guthrie’s Aberdeen House Named in the Doctor Leslie Complaint
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 369–370 • Complaint concerning alleged religious activity
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The King’s Advocate and ecclesiastical commissioners from Aberdeen and Moray brought a complaint against Doctor William Leslie.
The complaint alleged that Leslie had attended Catholic religious observances at a number of named places and houses during 1627–1629 and had assisted Jesuits and priests in various ways.
Among the Aberdeen houses listed was that of Hercules Guthrie, indweller in Aberdeen.
The wording is important: Leslie was alleged to have resorted to the long list of places and houses “at least to one or other of the saids houses”. The complaint therefore does not assign a specific mass, meeting or date individually to Hercules Guthrie’s house.
Leslie appeared and the proof was referred to his oath. He denied the complaint and the Council absolved him.
Complete Printed Source Text
Complaint by Sir Thomas Hope of Craighall, King’s Advocate, and the commissioners of Aberdein and Murray, as follows:—Though “the hearing and saying of messe and ressetting of Jesuits, excommunicat and traffiquing Papists,” is strictly prohibited, Dr William Leslie, “ane profest and avowed traffiquing papist, upon the 27 day of Marche 1627 yeeres, being Pasche day, and upon the 25 day of December before, being Yuile day, and upon Witsonday, New Yeeres day, Sanctis day, and diverse other dayes therafter in the yeeres of God 1628 and 1629 publictlie and avowedlie resorted and repaired to the places of Strabogie, Bogiegeicht, Aboyne, Cannakyle, Gairtlie, Lessindrum, Craig of Auchindore, and to the houses of Williame Laing, Thomas Meinzeis, umquhill Mr Thomas Meinzeis, Alexander Andersoun, Walter Robertsoun, Mr Williame Lumsden, and Hercules Guthrie, indwellers in Aberdein, at least to one or other of the saids houses, where he heard diverse messes and other Popish exercises made by Jesuits, seminarie and messe preists;
lykeas he continuallie when occasioun offers assists the saids Jesuits, seminarie and messe preists in thair mariages, baptismes and others thair damnable exercises, convoyes thame athort the countrie frome place to place with forbiddin weapouns, furnishes thame with all sort of necessars confortable, and forders and promoves so farre as in him lyes thair damnable and pernicious practises.”
Charge having been given to the said Dr Leslie, and the Advocate, with Mr William Guild and Mr William Davidsoun, commissioners for the diocese of Aberdein, and Mr Gawin Dunbar, commissioner for the diocese of Murray, compearing and also the defender, and the probation having been referred to the defender’s oath of verity, who denied the complaint, the Lords assoilzie him.
And in respect that he has no certain place of residence and that the Church is about to pursue him for Popery the Lords required the defender to name a domicile where charges might be executed against him, whereupon he named the Marquis of Huntly’s house in Elgin.
The Lords, allowing of this, ordain all charges to be execute against him there, and also at the market cross of the burgh of Elgin, a copy being delivered to the provost or one of the bailies in the defender’s name, but this without prejudice to the ordinary form of charge against the defender if he should happen to be personally apprehended.
Modern English Rendering
Sir Thomas Hope, the King’s Advocate, together with commissioners from the dioceses of Aberdeen and Moray, brought a complaint against Doctor William Leslie.
They alleged that Leslie had attended Catholic masses and other religious observances at a number of places in northern Scotland and at several houses belonging to Aberdeen residents during 1627, 1628 and 1629.
One of the houses named was that of Hercules Guthrie, resident in Aberdeen. However, the complaint expressly qualified its long list by saying that Leslie had attended at least one or another of the houses named.
The accusation also alleged that Leslie assisted Jesuits and priests in religious ceremonies, helped them travel through the country, supplied them with necessities and otherwise supported their activities.
Leslie appeared before the Council. The pursuers relied on his own sworn testimony as proof. He denied the complaint, and the Council therefore absolved him.
Because Leslie had no fixed residence and further ecclesiastical proceedings were expected, the Council required him to nominate a place where future legal charges could be served.
He selected the Marquis of Huntly’s house in Elgin. The Council authorized service there and at the Elgin market cross, while preserving the ordinary procedure should Leslie himself be personally found.
This record adds another civic description for Hercules Guthrie: by December 1629 he is styled an indweller in Aberdeen, complementing the descriptions “chirurgeon in Aberdeen” and “burgess of Aberdeen” found earlier in the volume.
It also provides evidence that a house associated with Hercules was known well enough to be named among locations cited in a substantial Council complaint.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Indweller: resident or inhabitant.
- Resett: receive, shelter or harbour.
- Pasche: Easter.
- Yule: Christmas.
- Oath of verity: sworn statement to which proof of an allegation could be referred.
- Assoilzie: absolve from the particular proceeding.
- Domicile for citation: designated place where legal process could validly be served.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.369–370; Decreta, November 1627–January 1630, fols.269b–270b. Related Hercules Guthrie records: pp.31–32, pp.102–104, and pp.173–174. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
12 January 1630 — The Bishop of Moray Asked to Shape Lord Gordon’s Northern Commission
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 404–405 • Preparatory stage of the Lord Gordon commission
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Charles I had received a request from Scottish church authorities for a stronger commission to proceed against persons in northern Scotland who had been excommunicated and stood in rebellion.
In a royal letter dated 10 December 1629, the King approved the proposal and suggested George, Lord Gordon as the person to receive the commission, subject to the approval of the Archbishop of St Andrews on behalf of the clergy.
The proposed powers were extensive. Lord Gordon was to be able to appoint deputies and officers, pursue persons named in the commission, and intromit with certain liferents and escheats. Limited periods of protected negotiation were also contemplated for persons who might be persuaded to conform.
The Archbishop of St Andrews approved the King’s choice. Lord Gordon then personally accepted the charge and promised faithful execution.
Rather than settle the exact commission immediately, the Council continued consideration until Thursday and specifically referred the drafting question to the Bishop of Moray and the commissioners for Aberdeen and Moray.
Complete Printed Source Text
“The whilk day the missive underwrittin signed be the Kings Majestie wes presented to the Lords of Secreit Counsell and read in thair audience, of the quhilk missive the tennour followes:— Charles R. Right trustie and right weilbelovit cousine and counsellour, right trusty and weilbelovit cousines and counsellours, and trustie and weilbelovit counsellours, we greete yow weill.
Whereas ane motioun hes beene made unto us in behalffe of the clergie of that our kingdome that for the suppressing of Poperie and taking order with suche excommunicat persouns as doe stand out in contempt of our lawes in the northerne parts thairof ane commissioun might be grantit to some fitt persoun for apprehending of suche Papists there as ar in rebellioun and excommunicated;
whairin, approving thair demand, and with all considering of the habiliteis and affectioun to our service of our right trustie and right weilbelovit cousine and counsellour, the Lord Gordoun, our pleasure is (if the Archbishop of St. Androwes in behalfe of the clergie sail thinke it expedient) that yow call him before yow and that yow grant him a full commissioun for that effect in all the northerne parts of our kingdome,
with power to him to substitute deputeis and officiars for the advancement of this service and also to intromett with the rebellis lyverents and escheits for his owin use, provyding yow tye him by suche wayes as yow thinke expedient, that the benefite of thair escheats and lyverents doe not turne to the profite and use of the rebellis thameselffes,
and that yow authorize the said Lord and his foresaids to intercommoun with thame for the easier bringing of thame in and for reclaming of thame, with advice of the minister of the parish where they dwell, to the Churche in a faire maner, some few dayes for treatie being granted for that effect, whairin they may not be troubled;
and also we require yow that the commissioun conteane suche power and suche others things requisite and suche tyme as yow and he sail best condescend upon for the furthering of that service; so we bid yow fareweill. Frome our Court at Whitehall the tent day of December 1629.
Quhilk missive being heard and considderit be the saids Lords and they having craved the opinioun of Johne, Archbishop of St. Androwes, anent the said missive, he in name of the clergie approved the choise made be his Majestie of the said Lord Gordoun for the service foresaid,
and the said Lord being callit upon and his Majesteis pleasure notified unto him, he with all humble and dewtifull respect acknowledged his Majesteis singular favour done unto him by entrusting him with suche ane weightie imployment, whilk he accepted upon him and promeist to execute the same faithfullie.
The Lords continewes the advysing upon the heads, power and tennour of the commissioun till Thurisday nixt and recommends to the Bishop of Murrey and the commissioners for the dioceis of Aberdein and Murrey to consider of the said commissioun and how and after what forme they would have the same to be drawin up.”
Modern English Rendering
A royal letter signed by Charles I was presented and read before the Privy Council.
The King stated that the Scottish clergy had requested a commission empowering a suitable person to proceed in northern Scotland against persons who were both excommunicated and in rebellion.
Charles approved the proposal and nominated George, Lord Gordon, provided the Archbishop of St Andrews, speaking for the clergy, also considered the choice suitable.
The proposed commission was to allow Lord Gordon to appoint deputies and officers and, under conditions to be settled by the Council, to deal with liferents and escheats belonging to the persons proceeded against.
The King also authorized the Council to permit limited communication and negotiation with those persons so that, with the advice of their parish ministers, attempts could be made to reconcile them with the established church.
The Archbishop of St Andrews approved Lord Gordon’s selection on behalf of the clergy. Lord Gordon was then informed of the King’s decision, accepted the commission and promised to execute it faithfully.
The Privy Council did not finalize the instrument that day. Instead it postponed consideration of its exact powers and terms until Thursday.
The Council specifically asked the Bishop of Moray and the commissioners for the dioceses of Aberdeen and Moray to consider the proposed commission and determine the form in which they wished it to be drafted.
This is direct evidence of Bishop John Guthrie participating in the design stage of a major northern commission. He was not simply listed in attendance or copied on correspondence.
The Council entrusted him and the diocesan commissioners with considering the commission’s heads, powers, terms and form before the final instrument was issued.
The next Council sitting records that John, Bishop of Moray, and those commissioners returned with their proposals.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Head of a commission: one of the principal provisions or subjects to be included in the instrument.
- Tenour: wording, contents or legal substance of an instrument.
- Deputy: person authorized to act in another officer’s place.
- Liferent: right to the income or use of property for life.
- Escheat: property interest forfeited to the Crown through legal process.
- Intromit with: take control, possession or administration of property.
- Intercommune: communicate or have dealings with a person otherwise subject to restrictions.
- Condescend upon: agree upon or settle the terms of something.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.404–405; Acta, July 1629–1630, fols.200b–201a. Royal letter dated Whitehall, 10 December 1629; Council consideration dated 12 January 1630. Final commission: 14 January 1630, pp.406–410. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
14 January 1630 — John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, Reports the Terms of Lord Gordon’s Northern Commission
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 406–410 • Final form of the northern commission
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Two days after the Council asked the Bishop of Moray and the commissioners for Aberdeen and Moray to consider the wording of Lord Gordon’s proposed northern commission, they returned with their recommendations.
The source now names “Johne, Bishop of Murrey” directly and states that he and the diocesan commissioners supplied both the proposed provisions and the names of persons to be inserted.
The resulting instrument gave Lord Gordon and his deputies wide powers to search for and apprehend the persons described in the commission, summon armed assistance, imprison or present detainees before the Council, pursue fugitives who resisted apprehension, and carry specified weapons while actually executing the commission.
It also contained an important alternative route: persons who conformed to the established church and produced a testimonial from the appropriate bishop or minister could satisfy the commissioners to that extent.
The commissioners could further grant a protected period of up to ten days for meetings intended to encourage conformity. During that limited period, earlier apprehension commissions were not to be executed against persons holding the appropriate written ticket.
Complete Printed Source Text
Sederunt — Chancellor; Treasurer; St. Androes; Præses; Privy Seal; Mairshell; Murrey; Wintoun; Linlithgow; Seafort; Air; Bishop of Dunkeld; Bishop of Dumblane; Lord Areskine; Lord Melvill; Advocate; Justice Clerk; Sir Johne Scot; Sir James Baillie.
“The whilk day Johne, Bishop of Murrey, and the commissioners for the dioceis of Aberdein and Murrey gave in thair overtures, whiche they craved to be inserted in the commissioun to be grantit to the Lord Gordoun, togidder with the names of excommunicat rebellis, Jesuits, seminarie and messe preists, to be insert in the said commissioun; whairupon ane commissioun wes past and exped as followes:—
Forsameckle as all Jesuits, seminarie and messe priests and excommunicat traffiquing papists ar found and declared by diverse acts of Parliament and Secreit Counsell to be most pernicious pests in this commoun weale and avowed enemeis to Gods truthe and to all Christiane governement, and that thairfoir they wer expresselie commanded to have departed furth of this kingdome within a certane space now of a long tyme bygane under the pane of death,
yitt partlie upon occasioun of the confort and countenance whilk they find amongs nombers of his Majesteis subjects, being popishlie affected, and partlie by the negligence and oversight of these to whois charge the execution of the saids acts and apprehension and punishing of the said Jesuits, seminarie and messe preists, apperteanned, they have tane the boldnesse fra tyme to tyme to repaire to this kingdome, and has ane speciall recept and residence within the north parts of the same,
where they bussie themeselffes to corrupt the simple and ignorant people both in thair religioun and alledgeance; lykeas thir Jesuits and messe preists hes so farre prevailed by thair craftie and politick insinuatiouns that nombers of his Majesteis subjects and in speciall the persouns underwrittin, they ar to say,
Mr Robert Bissat of Lessindrum, Jeane Gordoun, his spous, Johne Gordon, elder of Craig, Johne Gordoun, younger of Craig, Alexander Gordoun, appearand of Cameborrow, James Gordoun of Letterfoure, Margaret Gordoun, his spous, Patrick Gordoun some tyme in Terrisoule, Johne Gordoun at the Little Mylne of Rathven, Alexander Gordoun in Drumquhaill, Margaret Gordoun in Cormellat, Malcolme Laing in Gulburne, Mr Adame Strauchane in Aboyne, Alaster Gordoun in Badzenoch, Angus McEan McWilliame there, Johne Gordoun in Cohorrach, Hew Hill in Westseate, Johne Spence in Bruntstoun, Issobell Strauchane, his spous, Johne Gordoun in Troupesmylne, Issobell Gordoun, his spous, James Forbes of Blacktoun, Margaret Fraser, his spous, Margaret Gordoun, spous to Robert Inneis in Elgine, Sir Johne Campbell of Calder, Alexander Gordoun in Letterfoure, James Con in Knockiemylne, Alexander Leslie of Conrache, Thomas Meinzeis of Balgownie, Margaret Gordoun, his spous, Mr Alexander Irwing, burges of Aberdein, Marjorie Meinzeis, his spous, and Robert Irwing, his brother, ar corrupted in thair religioun and alledgeance be the saids Jesuits and messe preists.
Quhairupon, they being callit to thair answere, and great panes and travellis being taken for reduceing of thame frome thair erroneous opiniouns, they, notwithstanding, to the offence of God, contempt of his Majestie, and to the disdaine of the censures of the Kirk, continew obstinat and obdured in thair errours, for the whilk they ar not onelie excommunicat be the order and censures of the Kirk bot with that they ar denunced his Majesteis rebellis and putt to the home and contempnandlie remaines thereat, haunting and repairing publictlie and avowedlie athort the countrie at thair pleasure as if they wer free and lawfull subjects, to the disgrace of his Majesteis government;
and his Majestie understanding the good affectioun of his trust cousin and counsellour, George, Lord Gordoun, to doe his Majestie service, and how that he will endeavoure himselffe with his haill power, forces and freindship to execute all and whatsomever directiouns that his Majestie sail lay to his charge,
thairfoir the saids Lords, with his Majesteis speciall allowance and command, hes made and constitute, and be the tennour heirof makes and constituts the said Lord Gordoun, and James, Lord of Desfurde, Sir Alexander Gordoun of Cluny, knight baronnet, and Sir Robert Inneis of Balvenie (whilk three persouns the said Lord Gordoun hes nominat and givin up as deputeis for him to supplee his absence in the executioun of this commissioun, and for whome he hes undertane to be answerable), conjunctlie and severallie,
our soverane lords commissioners within the bounds of the shirefdomes of Aberdein, Banff, Elgine, Forres, Nairne, Innernes, Sutherland and Cromartie, to the effect underwrittin, givand, grantand and committand unto thame conjunctlie and severallie full power and commissioun, expresse bidding and charge to convocat his Majesteis lieges in armes and to pas, searche, seeke and take the Jesuits and messe preists particularlie underwrittin,
they ar to say, Mr Andro Stevin callit Father Stevin, Mr Johne Ogilvie, Father Stitchell, Father Hegits, Mr Williame Leslie callit the Caputiane, Mr Andrew Leslie and Mr Johne Leslie, Father Chrystie callit the principall of Dowie, wyth other twa Crysteis, Father Broun, sone to umquhill James Broun at the Neather Bow of Edinburgh, Father Tyrie and the three Robertsons callit Fathers, Father Rob, Father Patersone, Father Pittindreich, Father Dunbreck, Mr Alexander Falconer, sone to Ballandro, and Mr Normand Duncane, sone to umquhill Patrik Duncane,
and all others Jesuits, seminarie and messe preists, haunting and frequenting within the shirefdomes abonewrittin, where ever they may be apprehendit within any part of the same;
as alsua to pas, searche, seeke and take the excommunicat rebellis particularlie abonewrittin and all others excommunicat and rebellious papists aganis whome letters of horning sail be produced to the saids commissioners and whois names sail be given to thame or anie of thame in bill be the Bishop of the diocie, moderator of the presbyterie, or anie of the ministers of the presbyterie, where ever they may be apprehendit;
and to delyver the excommunicat weomen to the shireff of the shyre and provest and bailleis within burgh to be committed to waird in some sure jayle within the bounds abonewrittin there to remane till farder order be tane with thame, and to bring, present and exhibite the saids Jesuit, seminarie and messe preists and excommunicat rebellious Papists before his Majesteis Counsell to be tane order with and punished according to his Majesteis lawes.
And if it sail happin the saids Jesuits, seminarie and messe preists and excommunicat rebellious Papists or anie of thame for eshewing of apprehensioun to flee to strenths and houses, with power to the saids commissioners, conjunctlie and severalie, to doe thairin as is prescryved be his Majesteis lawes in caise of rebellioun.
And the saids Lords declares that if in the persute of the saids Jesuits, seminarie and messe preists and excommunicat rebellious Papists they, refusing to be taken and making resistance, there sail happin slauchter, mutilatioun or anie other inconvenient to follow, that the same sail not be impute as cryme nor offence to the saids commissioners nor persouns assisting thame in the executioun of this commissioun, exonering thame and everie one of thame thairof and of all pane and danger that may follow thairupon or may be impute to thame thairthrow for ever.
And for the better executioun of this commissioun, with power to the saids commissioners and persouns assisting thame in the executioun thairof to beare and weare hacquebuts and pistolets in the cleere and actuall executioun of the said commissioun allanerlie and no otherwayes; and with this speciall provisioun that they doe not beare, weare nor use the same aganis anie of his Majesteis good and lawfull subjects.
And if anie of the excommunicat rebellis foresaids being apprehendit sail be willing to conforme thameselffes to the trew religioun profest and be law established in this kingdome, and sail give satisfactioun to the Bishop of the diocie or minister of the parish anent thair conformitie and sail report their testimoniall thairupon to the saids commissioners or anie of thame,
the saids Lords declares that the conformitie of the saids persouns, testified be ane testimoniall frome the Bishop of the diocie or ministers of the parish, sail be ane sufficient exoneratioun to the saids commissioners in the report of thair diligence to his Majesteis Counsell pro tanto.
And if anie of the persouns particularlie abonewrittin aganis whome this commissioun is grantit sail in the meane tyme for eshewing of apprehensioun flee out of the countrie so as they cannot be apprehendit, the saids Lords declares that the medling with thair houses and rents sail be compted as sufficient diligence done be the commissioners.
And the saids Lords being willing that all faire and lawfull meanes be used for the easier imbringing of thir excommunicat rebellious Papists and reclaiming of thame with advice of the minister of the parish where they dwell frome thair errours to the Churche, the saids Lords for this effect gives power and commissioun to the saids commissioners, conjunctlie and severallie, to intercommoun with the saids excommunicat and rebellious Papists and to keepe trysts and meetings with thame,
during the quhilk tyme of thair intercommouning (quhilk the saids Lords declares sail not exceid the nomber of ten dayes) they discharge all others commissioners nominat in anie former commissiouns of all taking, apprehending, warding or troubling of anie persoun or persouns with whome the saids commissioners sail intercommoun, as said is,
the saids commissioners or anie of thame giving alwayes ane ticket under thair hands to the saids excommunicat rebellis for thair saulffe repaire and intercommoning during the said space of ten dayes, the productioun of whiche ticket the saids Lords declares sail be ane sufficient warrand to the parteis receavers for discharging the executioun of all commissions formerlie grantit aganis thame during the space abonewrittin.
And the saids Lords declares that this present commissioun sail be without prejudice to the former commissioun grantit be the saids Lords to ane nomber of noblemen, barouns and gentlemen within the severall shirefdomes of this kingdome and ratified and allowed be his Majestie for apprehending of Jesuits, seminarie and messe preists and excommunicat rebellious Papists, unto the quhilk former commissioun this present commissioun sail be no derogatioun in anie point.
And generallie with power to the saids commissioners, conjunctlie and severallie, to doe, exerce and use all and sindrie others things quhilks for apprehensioun of the saids Jesuits, seminarie and messe preists and excommunicat rebellious Papists may lawfullie be done; firme and stable halding and for to hald all and whatsomever things sail be lawfullie done heerin.
And the saids Lords ordanis this commissioun to stand in force untill the first day of May nixtocome, quhilk day the saids Lords hes assigned and assignes to the saids commissioners for giving ane accompt of thair faithfull and reall diligence in the executioun of the premisses.
And the saids Lords ordains letters to be direct to make publicatioun heirof at the mercat croces of the heid burrowes within the shirefdomes particularlie abonewrittin, and to command and charge all and sindrie his Majesteis lieges and subjects to reverence, acknowledge and obey, ryse, concurre, fortifie and assist the saids commissioners in all things tending to the executioun of this commissioun;
and for this effect to conveene and meit with thame at suche dayes, tymes and places as they sail be advertised by thair missive letters or utherwayes, and that effauldlie and trewlie they concurre and joyne with thame in the executioun of this commissioun and doe nor attempt nothing whilk may impede or hinder the same nor linger and delay the executioun thairof,
as they and everie ane of thame will testifie thair affectioun to the forderance and advancement of this his Majesteis service, and under the pane to be punished exemplarilie for thair dissobedience;
and sicklyke to command and charge the provest and bailleis of all burrowes to receave fra the saids commissioners and shireffs suche persouns as they sail present unto thame and to committ thame to warde and to deteane thame thairin till order and directioun be given for thair punishment as accords, as they will answere upon thair obedience at thair highest charge and perrell.”
Modern English Rendering
On 14 January 1630 John, Bishop of Moray, together with the commissioners for the dioceses of Aberdeen and Moray, submitted their proposed provisions for Lord Gordon’s commission. They also supplied the names of the excommunicated persons, Jesuits, seminary priests and mass priests whom they wished included.
The Privy Council then issued the commission.
Its preamble recited the existing parliamentary and Council legislation against Jesuits, seminary and mass priests and persons excommunicated under the contemporary religious laws. It asserted that such persons continued to reside particularly in northern Scotland and listed a substantial number of individuals who had already been subjected to ecclesiastical and civil process.
George, Lord Gordon, was constituted principal commissioner. James, Lord of Deskford, Sir Alexander Gordon of Cluny and Sir Robert Innes of Balvenie were named as his deputies, for whom Lord Gordon had undertaken responsibility.
Their authority extended through the sheriffdoms of Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin, Forres, Nairn, Inverness, Sutherland and Cromarty.
They were empowered to summon the King’s subjects in arms and search for the specifically named priests and for other persons falling within the commission who could lawfully be identified to them by the relevant bishop, presbytery moderator, minister or Privy Council.
Women apprehended under the commission were to be delivered to the sheriff or burgh magistrates and held securely until further order. Other persons apprehended were to be brought before the Privy Council for further proceedings.
If persons sought under the commission fled to fortified houses or otherwise resisted lawful apprehension, the commissioners received authority to proceed under the laws governing rebellion. The act further protected the commissioners from liability for injuries arising from resistance during lawful execution of the commission.
The commissioners and those assisting them were allowed to carry hagbuts and pistols while actually executing the commission, but not otherwise and not against lawful subjects outside its scope.
The instrument also provided a route by which a person apprehended under the religious provisions could conform to the established church. A testimonial from the bishop of the diocese or the parish minister certifying that conformity would count as sufficient diligence by the commissioners to that extent.
If a named person fled the country and could not be apprehended, dealing lawfully with that person’s house and rents could also count toward the commissioners’ required diligence.
The commissioners were authorized to hold meetings with persons named in the commission for the purpose of attempting reconciliation with the established church. Such negotiations could last no more than ten days.
During that period, a written ticket issued by the commissioners protected the person from execution of earlier apprehension commissions so that the meeting or negotiation could proceed. The new commission did not otherwise cancel the earlier general commissions already in force.
The commission was to remain effective until 1 May 1630, when Lord Gordon and his deputies were required to report what diligence they had actually carried out.
Publication was to be made at the market crosses of the head burghs in the affected sheriffdoms. The King’s subjects were ordered to assist the commissioners, and burgh magistrates were required to receive and hold persons lawfully presented to them.
This record completes the documentary sequence begun on 12 January. John Guthrie and the Aberdeen and Moray commissioners were asked to consider the proposed commission; two days later they returned with the terms and names they wished inserted.
It is unusually strong evidence of Bishop John Guthrie’s role in governmental and ecclesiastical administration because his participation is not merely inferred from attendance or title. The act explicitly identifies him as one of those who formulated and submitted the proposals from which the final commission was issued.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Overtures: proposals or recommended provisions.
- Past and exped: formally issued and completed as an official instrument.
- Conjunctly and severally: authority exercisable jointly or individually according to the terms of the commission.
- Convocate the lieges in arms: summon armed assistance from the King’s subjects.
- Ward: imprisonment or legal custody.
- Hagbut: early firearm or arquebus.
- Intercommune: communicate or hold dealings with a person otherwise subject to legal restrictions.
- Tryst: appointed meeting.
- Ticket: written warrant or protection for the limited purpose stated.
- Pro tanto: to that extent.
- Report of diligence: formal account of what had actually been done in execution of legal process.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.406–410; Acta, July 1629–1630, fols.201b–203a. Council proceeding dated 14 January 1630. Preparatory proceeding: pp.404–405. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
14 January 1630 — Notice to the Bishop of Moray in the Doctor Leslie Proceedings
Second Series, Volume 3 • Page 416 • Procedural notice concerning Doctor William Leslie
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Later in the same 14 January session, the Council addressed the continuing case of Doctor William Leslie.
Leslie was personally present and was ordered to attend again on the following Tuesday.
Notice of that requirement was formally given to the Bishop of Moray and the commissioners involved in the proceedings.
The short act does not accuse Bishop John Guthrie of any default. His role is procedural: he and the other commissioners were being notified of the next stage in Leslie’s case.
Complete Printed Source Text
“The Lordis ordains Doctor Leslie, who wes personalie present, to attend upoun Tuisday, quhairof intimatioun wes maid to the Bishop of Murray and commissionaris foirsaid.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords order Doctor Leslie, who was personally present, to attend again on Tuesday.
Formal notice of that order is given to the Bishop of Moray and the commissioners already involved in the case.
Although very brief, the act shows Bishop John Guthrie continuing to participate in the northern proceedings after the substantial commission completed earlier in the same session.
It also links forward from the 8 December 1629 Doctor Leslie complaint, in which commissioners for Aberdeen and Moray had already appeared as pursuers.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Intimation: formal notice or notification of a legal or administrative act.
- Attend upon Tuesday: appear or remain available before the Council on the appointed Tuesday.
- Commissioners foresaid: the commissioners previously identified in the connected proceedings.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), p.416; Sederunts, November 1629–January 1635, fol.9b. Council proceeding dated 14 January 1630. Earlier Doctor Leslie proceeding: pp.369–370. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
28 January 1630 — Mr Alexander Guthrie, Common Clerk of Edinburgh, Authenticates the Burgh’s Ratification
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 432–434 • Edinburgh’s 1603 charter, privileges and submission to the Crown
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Edinburgh’s magistrates appeared before the Privy Council and formally ratified a submission and series of offers previously made to Charles I by Mr John Hay, commissioner for the burgh.
The issue concerned Edinburgh’s important charter of 1603. The Crown questioned whether some clauses conveyed powers, lands or privileges that were inappropriate for a subject to possess.
Edinburgh therefore offered to renounce several disputed claims, including any right of regality conveyed by the charter, certain criminal and civil escheats, and any rights to the north and south Castle banks derived solely from that charter.
At the same time, the burgh carefully reserved its older rights, property, superiority, sheriffship, crownership, trade privileges, customs and other liberties which it claimed independently or wished the King to confirm.
The burgh council’s act embodying that ratification had been drawn and authenticated under the hand and subscription of Mr Alexander Guthrie, common clerk of Edinburgh. His formal Latin authentication and signature appear at the end of the inserted act.
Complete Printed Source Text
“The whilk day in presence of the Lords of Secreit Counsell compeired personallie David Aikinheid, provest, James Cochrane, Williame Kid, Androw Ainslie, and Edward Edgar, bailleis of the burgh of Edinburgh, and David McCall, thesaurar of the said burgh, for thameselffes and as procurators for the remanent counsell and deacons of craft of the said burgh,
and ratified, allowed and approved, and be the tennour of this present act, ratefeis, allowes and approves the submissioun and offers made be Mr Johne Hay, commissioner for the said burgh, to the King his most sacred Majestie concerning thair chartour grantit be our lait soverane Lord of eternal and blessed memorie to the said burgh in anno 1603 and tuicheing diverse others particulars at lenth specified in the saids offers.
Lykeas they gave in ane act of thair counsell under the hand and subscriptioun of Mr Alexander Guthrie, commoun clerk of the said burgh, conteaning the ratificatioun, approbatioun and allowance thairof made be the said burgh;
quhilk submissioun, and offers and ratificatioun thairof foresaid being read, heard and considderit be the saids Lords, and they being thairwith weill advised, the saids Lords hes ordained and ordains the said submissioun and offers and act conteaning the ratificatioun thairof to be insert and registrat in the bookes of Privie Counsell, of the whilk the tennour followes:—
“Vigesimo octavo die mensis Januarii anno Domini jm vjc trigesimo. The whilk day David Aikinheid, provest of the burgh of Edinburgh, James Cochrane, Williame Kid, Andro Ainslie and Edward Edgar, bailleis of the said burgh, Joseph Marjoribankes, deane of gild, David McCall, thesaurar, and remanent counsell and deacouns of crafts of the same being conveenned,
Mr Johne Hay, thair commissioner, having presented and produced before thame the offers underwrittin made be him in thair name to his Majestie, and the saids provest, bailleis, deane of gild, thesaurar, counsell and deacouns of crafts having read and considderit the same, they ordaine the same to be insert and registrat in thair bookes of counsell ad futuram rei memoriam, whairof the tennour followes:—
Offers made to his Majestie anent the chartour grantit to the good toun of Edinburgh anno 1603. Forsameekle as his Majestie is informed that there is conteanit in the said chartour manie strange clauses quhilks ar not competent to ane subject and manie lands annexed to the Crowne conveyed thairby frome the Crowne,
the good toun to approve thair loyaltie to his Majestie (without prejudice alwayes of the auld rights, chartours, infeftments, decreits, liberteis and priviledges thairin ratified, grantit to that good toun formerlie be his Majesteis predecessours before the dait of the said chartour,
and als without prejudice of the shirefship and crownership thairin conteanit within the bounds more particularlie specified and designed in the offer made be the good toun to the noblemen and gentlemen of West Lothiane, and als libertie of sole trade of merchandice apperteaning to ane free royal burgh within the whole bounds of West Lothiane as the same is designed in the said chartour,
without prejudice also to his Majestie to erect burghes, ather of regalitie or baronie in anie other pairt of West Lothiane without the bounds of thair said crownership and shirefship, touns and lands apperteaning to the good toun in propertie or superioritie,
and als of the customs, pittie customes, shoare, silver and uther dewteis, liberteis and priviledges mentionat in the said chartour, and upon the provisioun underwrittin) hes in all humilitie made voluntar offer to his Majestie to renunce in favours of his Majestie all right of regalitie dispouned to thame in the said chartour, if anie be thairin conteanit,
and also the right that the good toun hes thairby to escheits of criminal persouns convict before thame to death, and also of the escheits of all thair inhabitants denunced to the home for civill causes, or anie other strange libertie, if anie be thairin conteanit, whilk is not competent to ane subject nor is not nor hes not beene formerlie grantit to shireff, crowner or free burgh;
and als to renunce all right they have to the north or south Castell bankes be vertew thairof, without prejudice alwayes of anie former lawfull right whilk the good toun or anie thair burgessis hes to the same, and without innovatioun of the use of the south banke conforme as hes beene accustomed in all preceeding tymes past memorie of man;
with provisioun alwayes and with humble and tender sute to his Majestie that since that good toun is the cheefe and heid burgh of that kingdome and that the same wes erected, beautified and adorned with sindrie liberteis, priviledges and immuniteis be his Majesteis most noble progenitours frome tyme to tyme, and in speciall be his Majesteis father of happie memorie,
and that it hes pleased his royall Majestie out of his gracious favour to assure that good toun that he would protect thame in thair liberteis and priviledges and would not be wanting unto thame in expressing all testimoneis of his royall favour as occasioun sould offer, as the sword sent be his Majestie to thame to be used be thame for his Majestie and in defence of thair liberteis doeth sufficientlie witnes,
and that the good toun hes ever since his Majesteis entrie to the Crowne approvin thameselffes to be his Majesteis trew and loyall subjects; consideratioun also being had of the taxts payed be thame, being neere the thrid pairt of the taxts payed be the whole burrowes, of the burdeins they undergoe in all publict services, whilks tend ather to the honnour of his Majesteis Crowne or that his ancient kingdome,
and that the same is done be the free contributioun of thair loving citicens, thair commoun good being so meane as it is not able to support thair ordinar charges, it might please his Majestie to ratifie the said chartour in the remanent heids, articles and claussis thairof,
and in speciall thair haill auld infeftments therein conteanit, the free libertie of sole trade within the bounds of West Lothiane apperteaning to ane free burgh royall, the shirefship and crownership within the bounds designed as is abone-mentioned, customes, pittie customes, and others dewteis thairin exprest whairof the good toun is in possessioun, and of the remanent liberteis, priviledges and others thairin conteanit, conforme to the tennour thairof in all points,
and that the same be done in suche ane legall forme as sail be fittest for securing both his Majestie and the good toun.
And forder they ratifie and approve the same in the haill heids, articles and claussis thairof conforme to the tennour thairof; and gives power and commissioun to the provest, bailleis, deane of gild, thesaurar or anie ane of thame to compeir in thair names before the Lords of his Majesteis Secreit Counsell and in thair names de novo to ratifie and approve the same, conforme to the tennour thairof in all points, and ordains this act of counsell to be thair warrand.
Extractum de libro consilii burgi de Edinburgh per me Magistrum Alexandrum Guthrie communem clericum dicti burgi, testantibus his meis signo et subscriptione manualibus. (Signed) A. Guthrie.
And the saids Lords declaires that the registratioun of the said submissioun and offers and ratificatioun thairof sail not prejudge his Majestie nor nane of his officiars, the Estait nor nane of his Majesteis subjects, who sail find thameselffes hurt and greeved by the said submissioun and offers or be anie of the provisiouns, conditiouns and limitatiouns conteanit thairintill, to seeke reparatioun and redresse thairof be the ordinar course of law.”
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh’s provost, bailies and treasurer appeared personally before the Privy Council, acting both for themselves and for the remaining members of the town council and craft deacons.
They formally ratified and approved the submission and offers which Mr John Hay, the burgh’s commissioner, had made to Charles I concerning Edinburgh’s charter of 1603 and the other matters specified in those offers.
They also produced an act of Edinburgh’s own council, authenticated and subscribed by Mr Alexander Guthrie, common clerk of the burgh, recording the burgh’s formal ratification and approval.
The Privy Council ordered the submission, offers and ratifying act to be inserted in its own books.
The inserted Edinburgh act, dated 28 January 1630, records the provost, bailies, dean of guild, treasurer, council and craft deacons assembled to consider Mr John Hay’s offers. They ordered those offers entered in the burgh council books for permanent remembrance.
The Crown had questioned whether Edinburgh’s 1603 charter contained unusual provisions not properly belonging to a subject, including Crown lands and unusually extensive jurisdictional privileges.
Edinburgh therefore voluntarily offered to renounce any right of regality which depended upon that charter, any right to certain criminal and civil escheats which exceeded ordinary burgh authority, and any disputed claim to the north and south Castle banks deriving solely from the charter.
The burgh carefully reserved its older charters, infeftments, decrees, liberties and privileges; its sheriffship and crownership within the limits previously defined; its rights of trade in West Lothian; its property and superiority; and the customs, shore dues and other rights which it claimed lawfully.
Edinburgh then asked the King to ratify the remainder of the charter, emphasizing its status as the principal burgh of the kingdom, its long-standing privileges, its loyalty to the Crown, and the substantial share of national burgh taxation and public expense borne by its inhabitants.
The burgh council accordingly authorized its provost, bailies, dean of guild or treasurer to appear before the Privy Council and renew the ratification in Edinburgh’s name.
At the end of the act, Alexander Guthrie formally certified that the document was extracted from the council book of the burgh of Edinburgh and authenticated it with his usual sign and manual subscription. The printed record preserves his signature as “A. Guthrie.”
Finally, the Privy Council declared that registration of the submission would not prevent the King, Crown officers, the Estate or other subjects from seeking ordinary legal redress if they later considered themselves injured by any provision or limitation contained in it.
This is one of the clearest Volume III records identifying Mr Alexander Guthrie’s municipal office. The document does not rely upon the printed index to supply his position: it explicitly calls him common clerk of Edinburgh.
More significantly, his name appears in the authentication clause of an important burgh instrument and is followed by his abbreviated signature, “A. Guthrie.”
The record therefore documents him acting in the formal documentary machinery of Edinburgh government, authenticating an act concerning the burgh’s constitutional privileges and its relationship with the Crown.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Common clerk: principal municipal clerk responsible for the burgh’s official records and instruments.
- Submission: formal placing of a question or dispute before an authority for settlement.
- Regality: extensive delegated jurisdiction associated with a territorial grant.
- Escheat: property falling to a superior or the Crown through legal forfeiture.
- Crownership: jurisdiction or office associated with the crowner or coroner.
- Infeftment: formal heritable investiture in land or rights.
- Ad futuram rei memoriam: for the future remembrance of the matter.
- De novo: anew or afresh.
- Extract: officially certified copy taken from a register or record book.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.432–434; Acta, July 1629–1630, fols.208b–210a. Edinburgh council act dated 28 January 1630. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
25 March 1630 — Mr James Guthrie Presented to Duffus; Bishop John Guthrie Ordered to Admit Him
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 500–501 • Patronage, collation and admission to the ministry at Duffus
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The parsonage and vicarage of Duffus had become vacant through the death of the former parson. As patron of the kirk, William, Earl Marischal, presented Mr James Guthrie to the benefice.
The presentation was directed to John, Bishop of Moray, in whose diocese Duffus lay. The bishop refused to grant admission and collation.
The Earl then applied to the Archbishop of St Andrews, who also refused. The Earl consequently brought the matter before the Privy Council under the parliamentary act of 1612 governing presentation of qualified ministers to benefices.
The Bishop of Moray was personally present. An initial objection was raised that the question of the Earl’s patronage and James Guthrie’s admission was already pending before the Lords of Council and Session.
The Earl’s procurator then abandoned that Session action and elected instead to rely upon the statutory Privy Council remedy. With no further reason offered for the episcopal refusal, the Council ordered Bishop John to admit and collate James Guthrie within fifteen days after formal charge.
Complete Printed Source Text
Complaint by William, Earl Mairshell, patron of the kirk of Duffus, as follows:—By act of the Parliament held at Edinburgh in October 1612, it is ordained “that all presentatiouns to benefices be directed heereafter to the bishop or archbishop of the diocie where the same benefice lyes, provyding alwayes that incaise the archbishop or bishop sould refuise to admitt ane qualified minister accepting the presentatioun upoun him and who hes beene once receaved and admitted to the functioun of the ministrie, being than still undepryved, being presented unto thame be the patron, that in that caise the Lords of Privie Counsell sail direct letters charging the ordinar to doe his dewtie in receaving and admitting of suche a persoun as the patron hes presented, upoun the parteis complaint of the refuisall both of the bishop and archbishop, and no sufficient reasoun being givin for the same.”
The parsonage and vicarage of Duffus being now vacant in the said Earl’s hands as patron by the death of late parson of Duffus, the Earl presented “Mr James Guthrie, ane qualified minister” to John, Bishop of Murrey, within whose diocese the said parsonage lies, for his admission and collation thereto.
On his refusal the Earl applied to the Archbishop of St. Andrewes, who has likewise refused, and thus the said Earl’s right of patronage foresaid is brought in question.
The said Bishop of Murrey being summoned to show cause why letters of horning should not be issued against him to give effect to the patron’s choice, and the pursuer appearing by Robert Keith, W.S., his procurator, and the defender being personally present, it was stated that the question of the right of patronage of this kirk of Duffus and the admission of Mr. James Guthrie thereto was presently in dependence before the Lords of Council and Session;
whereupon the said Robert Keith replied for the Earl that he passed from the action before the Session and would take the benefit of the act of Parliament mentioned, wherein the Lords of Council are ordained to direct letters of horning upon a simple charge of fifteen days.
The said Bishop having no further reason to offer for his refusal, the Lords ordain him to grant collation and admission to the said Mr. James Guthrie as desired, within fifteen days after being charged thereto under pain of horning.
Modern English Rendering
William, Earl Marischal, patron of the kirk of Duffus, brought a complaint under the Act of Parliament of 1612 concerning presentation to church benefices.
That statute provided that presentations were to be directed to the bishop or archbishop of the diocese. If the bishop refused to admit a qualified minister who had already been admitted to the ministry, remained undeprived and had accepted the patron’s presentation, the patron could complain to the Privy Council. If no sufficient reason for refusal was shown, the Council could compel the ordinary to perform his duty.
The parsonage and vicarage of Duffus were vacant following the death of the former parson.
As patron, the Earl presented Mr James Guthrie, whom the record expressly describes as a qualified minister, to John, Bishop of Moray for admission and collation.
Bishop John refused. The Earl then applied to the Archbishop of St Andrews, who also refused.
The Bishop of Moray was summoned before the Privy Council to explain why coercive letters should not be issued requiring him to give effect to the patron’s presentation.
The Earl appeared through Robert Keith, his procurator, while the bishop appeared personally.
It was initially argued that the right of patronage of Duffus and James Guthrie’s admission were already the subject of a pending action before the Lords of Council and Session.
Robert Keith responded by formally abandoning that action on the Earl’s behalf and choosing instead to proceed under the parliamentary remedy allowing a fifteen-day charge.
Bishop John offered no further reason for refusing the presentation. The Privy Council therefore ordered him to grant collation and admission to Mr James Guthrie within fifteen days after formal charge, under pain of horning.
This is one of the most significant Guthrie records in Volume III because it places two Guthries in the same ecclesiastical proceeding and clearly identifies their separate roles.
Mr James Guthrie is directly described as “ane qualified minister” and as the Earl Marischal’s nominee for Duffus.
John Guthrie appears not merely by title but as “John, Bishop of Murrey”, personally present before the Council and ordered to carry out episcopal admission and collation.
The record also provides unusually clear evidence of the interaction between lay patronage, episcopal authority, the Court of Session and the Privy Council in filling a Scottish benefice after the 1612 settlement.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Patron: person holding the legal right to present a minister to a benefice.
- Presentation: formal nomination by a patron to a vacant church benefice.
- Benefice: ecclesiastical office carrying the revenues attached to it.
- Collation: formal episcopal conferral or confirmation of a benefice upon a presented minister.
- Admission: formal reception of the minister into the ecclesiastical office.
- Ordinary: bishop or other ecclesiastical authority exercising ordinary jurisdiction.
- In dependence: presently pending before a court.
- Pass from an action: abandon or withdraw the proceeding.
- Simple charge of fifteen days: formal command allowing fifteen days for obedience before further legal consequences.
- Horning: formal process of denunciation for failure to obey lawful authority.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.500–501; Decreta, January 1630–February 1631, fols.39a–39b. Council proceeding dated 25 March 1630. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
1 April 1630 — Mr Alexander Guthrie, Clerk of Edinburgh, Appears in the Edinburgh–Leith Grain Dispute
Second Series, Volume 3 • Pages 506–508 • Edinburgh’s reasons against suspension of its decree
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Edinburgh had obtained a decree before the Lords of Session restricting certain inhabitants of Leith from girnelling victual there.
The Privy Council asked Edinburgh’s magistrates to consider voluntarily suspending execution of that decree until 1 November.
The bailies, dean of guild, treasurer and Mr Alexander Guthrie, their clerk, appeared personally before the Council and submitted written reasons for refusing.
Edinburgh argued that no properly constituted complaining party had been identified, that its decree rested upon lawful rights and infeftments, that the Court of Session was the proper supreme tribunal for such matters, and that voluntarily suspending its own decree might imply weakness in Edinburgh’s title or error by the Session.
The Privy Council nevertheless treated the matter as one affecting the public interest. It concluded that preventing lawful grain storage in Leith could disrupt the movement of victual between the north and west and therefore ordered execution of Edinburgh’s decree stayed until further direction.
Complete Printed Source Text — Edinburgh’s Written Reasons
“The whilk day the provest and bailleis of Edinburgh being required be the Lords of Secreit Counsell to advise with thair toun Counsell if they would willinglie consent to forbeare the executioun of the decreit recovered be thame aganis certane of thair vassallis of Leith discharging thame of the girnelling of victuall within Leith untill the first day of November nixtocome,
and the bailleis of the said burgh with the deane of gild and thesaurar of the same burgh and Maister Alexander Guthrie, thair clerk, compeirand personallie before the saids Lords, they gave in thair reasouns in writt for thair refuisall to consent to the suspending of the said decreit, and thairupoun asked instruments, of the whilks reasouns the tennour followes:—
Answeres and reasouns givin in be the toun of Edinburgh why they can not goodlie consent to the suspending of the decreit obteanned be thame before the Lords of Sessioun aganis certane inhabitants in Leith.
First.—The provest, bailleis and counsell of the said toun of Edinburgh can not imagine who is thair partie in this complaint, for they ar assured it cannot be the Lords of his Majesteis Secreit Counsell, who daylie remitts maters of this kynd to the Lords of Sessioun, nather wer they ever in use to stay the executioun of anie of thair decreits;
and if thair partie be some particular noblemen or gentrie they aucht to give in thair supplicatioun and caus warne the provest and bailleis to answere thairto, and give thame ane authentick copie thairof that they may be acquaint with the grounds of thair greevances, whiche not being done the good toun is not haldin to answer to ane complaint without ane partie.
Secundlie.—The good toun cannot consent to the suspending of the said decreit, becaus the same is ane decreit founded upon thair rights and infeftments ratified in Parliament and recovered before the Lords of Sessioun, who are soverane and supreme judges in maters of that nature in foro contradictorio,
the mater being recommendit to the saids Lords be the Lords of Counsell, and the extracting of the said decreit being opposed be ane nomber of the nobilitie and gentrie, and warrand being givin to the said Lords of Sessioun to extract the said decreit notwithstanding of the said nobilitie and gentrie thair oppositioun;
whiche warrand is givin out under the hand of my Lord Chanceller being the head of the bodie of the Sessioun, so that thair consent to the suspending thairof wer ane expresse acknowledgement of the infirmitie of thair awin right or iniquitie done be the Lords of Sessioun;
nather could the present magistrats and counsell be ansuerable to thair successours if they sould in that kynde pas fra the benefite of thair right authorised be the sentence of the supreme judge.
Thirdlie.—The said sentence cannot properlie be craved to be suspendit, becaus the sentence is onelie aganis three persons, who hes found cautioun to obey the charge, and in respect of caution so found be thame the letters ar suspendit alreadie.
Fourthlie.—All that can follow upon this decreit is no summar executioun, bot onelie ane ordinar actioun of contraventioun, in whiche actioun so to be intented the Lords hes declared in thair foresaid decreit that they will reserve the interpretatioun and extent of the same deid of contraventioun to thameselffes so that no partie can compleane of anie prejudice they can susteane in the meane tyme.
Last.—To satisfie the Lords of his Majesteis most honnourable Privie Counsell, the provest, bailleis and counsell of Edinburgh hopes so to carie thameselffes in the haill sequele that may follow upon that decreit as they sail be answerable to his Majestie and his lawes for thair proceedings, and sail give als little just offence to the nobilitie and gentrie as they can.”
Printed Source Text — Privy Council’s Decision
“Forsameekle as the burgh of Edinburgh having laitlie recovered ane decreit before the Lords of Sessioun aganis some of thair vassallis, inhabitants of the toun of Leith, discharging thame of girnelling of victuall within the said toun, and a nomber of the nobilitie and gentrie frome the severall parts of this kingdome being heere for the tyme,
and upon informatioun givin to thame of the said decreit, apprehending thair awin prejudice thairin, seing however it seemes to reflect bot aganis few nomber of the vassallis of Leith, yitt the executioun thairof will in consequence reache to the publict of the Estait and draw the whole victuall of the kingdome, whilk formerlie wes coft be the inhabitants of Leith, in the hands of a few nomber of Edinburgh, to be bought and sauld be thame at thair appetite;
and this being represented to the Lords of Secreit Counsell and they having takin the same to thair consideratioun as a mater of Estait importing the publict of the kingdome, whiche they ar bound in dewtie and justice to preferre to all privat respects,
and having advisedlie examined and remarked what may be the event and consequence of the said decreit and how far it may reache and be extendit aganis the publict of the Estait if the executioun thairof be prosecute and followed out,
the saids Lords after long reasoning and mature and good advice and deliberatioun hes found and be the tennour heirof finds and declares that the stopping and debarring of the inhabitants of Leith frome girnelling of victuall according to the lawes would be verie prejudiciall to the noblemen and barouns both in the north and west countrie,
and will occasioun ane forbearance of buying of victuall frome these in the north and of selling of the same to these in the west at exorbitant rates, to the great hurt of the commoun weale:
And thairfoir the saids Lords hes found it meit and expedient, concludit and ordained, that the executioun of the said decreit sail be stayed for ane certane tyme till the saids Lords give forder order and directioun thereanent;
and ordains the maisser of Counsell to pas and make intimatioun heirof to the provest and bailleis of Edinburgh, and to command, charge and inhibite thame that they on no wayes presoome to putt the said decreit to executioun till the saids Lords give forder directioun thereanent, as they will answere upoun the contrarie at thair perrell and under all highest pane that by course of law can be inflicted upoun thame for thair disobedience.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council asked Edinburgh whether it would voluntarily refrain until 1 November from enforcing a Court of Session decree against certain Leith vassals concerning the storage of grain.
Edinburgh’s bailies, dean of guild, treasurer and Mr Alexander Guthrie, their clerk, appeared personally and presented written reasons refusing that request.
First, Edinburgh argued that no proper opposing party had been identified. If particular noblemen or gentlemen wished to complain, they should present a formal petition and provide the burgh with an authenticated copy so that it could answer the allegations.
Second, the burgh maintained that the decree rested upon rights and infeftments ratified by Parliament and had been pronounced by the Lords of Session, the supreme judges in such civil matters after adversarial proceedings.
Edinburgh argued that voluntarily agreeing to suspend that decree could imply either weakness in its own title or injustice in the Session’s judgment and could prejudice future Edinburgh magistrates.
Third, it maintained that the decree applied directly to only three persons, who had already found caution, with the result that the immediate letters against them were already suspended.
Fourth, Edinburgh argued that enforcement would proceed through an ordinary action of contravention rather than immediate summary execution, with interpretation of the decree remaining in the hands of the Lords of Session.
Finally, the burgh promised to conduct itself in any later proceedings in a manner answerable to the King and the law and with as little just offence to the nobility and gentry as possible.
The Privy Council nevertheless considered the dispute to have wider public consequences. It reasoned that excluding Leith inhabitants from lawful grain storage could interfere with buying grain from northern landholders and selling it into western Scotland, potentially concentrating trade and raising prices.
The Council therefore ordered the decree’s execution temporarily stayed until it gave further direction and instructed its officer to notify Edinburgh’s provost and bailies accordingly.
The entry adds another explicit identification of Mr Alexander Guthrie as Edinburgh’s clerk and records him personally appearing before the Privy Council with the city’s senior magistrates.
Unlike the 28 January charter record, where his principal documented role was authenticating the burgh council act, this entry places him physically among the municipal delegation presenting Edinburgh’s written legal position before the Council.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Girnelling: storing grain or victual in a granary or girnel, often as part of commercial buying and resale.
- Victual: grain or other staple food produce.
- Infeftment: formal heritable title or investiture.
- In foro contradictorio: in an adversarial judicial proceeding in which opposing parties have been heard.
- Extract a decree: issue the formal written decree from the court record.
- Caution: legally enforceable security or surety.
- Contravention: legal action alleging violation of a decree, obligation or prohibition.
- Stay execution: suspend enforcement without necessarily setting aside the underlying decree.
- Maisser of Council: officer charged with serving and executing Council process.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), pp.506–508; Acta, July 1629–1630, fols.221a–222a. Council sitting dated 1 April 1630. Related Alexander Guthrie record: pp.432–434. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
16 June 1630 — John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, Subscribes the Testimonial for Alexander Gordon
Second Series, Volume 3 • Page 566 • Reconciliation with the kirk and suspension of horning
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Alexander Gordon in Killihuntly had been put to the horn after failing to appear before the High Commission in proceedings concerning religious conformity.
He later petitioned for suspension, stating that the circumstances had changed because he had reconciled himself with the kirk, submitted to its discipline, attended preaching, communicated and sworn to the articles of faith.
In support, Gordon produced a testimonial subscribed by John, Bishop of Moray, together with the moderator and some of the brethren of the Presbytery of Inverness.
After hearing the petitioner and the representative of Mr Robert Craig, the Privy Council suspended the horning.
Complete Printed Source Text — Brown’s Edited/Abridged Entry
Complaint by Alexander Gordon in Killihuntlie, alias of Baldome, in the parish of Kingussie, as follows:—He is informed he has been put to the horn at the instance of Mr. Robert Craig, procurator for the Kirk, for failing to compear before the High Commission of the Kirk and answer for his wilfully absenting himself “frome hearing of the Word of God, participatioun of the sacraments, and for hearing of messe, resetting of preists, and presenting of his childrein to be baptized by suche as have receaved orders frome the Church of Rome.”
From this process of horning he ought now to be relaxed, because he has now reconciled himself to the Kirk, and submitted to the discipline thereof, “and that be daylie hearing of Gods Word, communicating and deepelie swearing to the articles of faith and to defend the trew religioun presentlie profest throughout this kingdome,”
thus fulfilling the tenor of the letters of horning in all points, as a testimonial subscribed by John, Bishop of Murrey, and the Moderator and some of the brethren of the Presbytery of Inverness, now produced, shows.
The pursuer compearing, and the said Mr. Robert Craig being represented by George Watsone, Writer to his Majesty’s Signet, the Lords, on hearing parties, suspend the horning.
Modern English Rendering
Alexander Gordon of Killihuntly, also described as of Baldome in the parish of Kingussie, petitioned the Privy Council for relief from an existing process of horning.
He stated that the horning had been obtained at the instance of Mr Robert Craig, procurator for the Kirk, because Gordon had failed to appear before the High Commission to answer allegations concerning absence from preaching and the sacraments, attendance at mass, sheltering priests and presenting children for baptism by clergy ordained in the Roman Church.
Gordon now argued that the reason for the horning had been removed because he had reconciled himself with the Kirk and submitted to its discipline.
He represented that he was attending the preaching of the Word, receiving communion and had sworn to the articles of faith and to defend the religion established in Scotland.
To prove this change in status he produced a testimonial subscribed by John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, together with the moderator and some members of the Presbytery of Inverness.
Gordon appeared before the Council. Mr Robert Craig was represented by George Watson, Writer to the Signet. After hearing the parties, the Lords suspended the horning.
The record supplies another explicit example of Bishop John Guthrie acting through documentary certification in the administration of the northern church.
His subscription formed part of the evidentiary basis by which Alexander Gordon demonstrated reconciliation with the kirk and obtained suspension of civil horning.
It therefore illustrates the close connection between ecclesiastical testimonial and civil legal relief in the Privy Council proceedings of the period.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- High Commission: ecclesiastical tribunal exercising authority in matters of church discipline and conformity.
- Procurator for the Kirk: legal representative acting for the ecclesiastical authority.
- Testimonial: formal certificate attesting a person’s status, conduct or compliance.
- Moderator: minister presiding over a presbytery or other church court.
- Relaxation: formal release from a legal or ecclesiastical disability.
- Suspend the horning: halt the operation of the existing process of rebellion or denunciation.
- Writer to the Signet: member of the Scottish legal profession authorized to prepare and subscribe documents passing under the royal signet.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), p.566; Decreta, January 1630–February 1631, fol.67a. Council proceeding dated 16 June 1630. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
20 July 1630 — Patrick Guthrie of Achmuthie Commissioned as a Justice
Second Series, Volume 3 • Page 616 • Commission for the trial of Thomas Porter
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 20 July 1630 the Privy Council issued a commission under the Signet authorizing a group of local men to proceed judicially against Thomas Porter.
Among the commissioners was Patrick Guthrie of Achmuthie. The commission was structured so that any two of the six named men could act as justices.
Porter had recently been apprehended in possession of a stolen mare and placed in ward at Newgrange. The printed account further states that he had confessed to stealing numerous horses in Lothian and Angus.
The commission empowered the named justices to hold courts and try Porter. The entry therefore documents Patrick Guthrie exercising—or at minimum being entrusted with—the local judicial authority associated with a specially delegated Privy Council commission.
Complete Printed Source Text — Brown’s Edited/Abridged Entry
Commission under the Signet to John Innes of Kinclune, John Udny of Keithick, Alexander Pearson of Balmadies, James Stirling of Brackie, Achterlay of Murres, and Patrick Guthrie of Achmuthie, or any two of them, as justices, to hold courts and try Thomas Porter, a common and notorious thief, who on July instant was apprehended with a stolen mare, and warded in the place of Newgrange.
He has since confessed the stealing of a great number of horses both in Lothian and Angus.
Signed by Geo. Cancell., Mortoun, Linlithgow, Gordoun, Areskine and Naper.
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council issued a commission under the royal Signet to John Innes of Kinclune, John Udny of Keithick, Alexander Pearson of Balmadies, James Stirling of Brackie, Achterlay of Murres and Patrick Guthrie of Achmuthie.
Any two of those men were authorized to act as justices, convene a court and try Thomas Porter.
Porter was described in the record as a common and notorious thief. He had recently been apprehended with a stolen mare and was being held at Newgrange.
The printed account further states that Porter had confessed to stealing a large number of horses in both Lothian and Angus.
The commission therefore authorized a local judicial proceeding rather than requiring that Porter first be transported to Edinburgh for trial.
This is the only indexed Volume III reference to Patrick Guthrie of Achmuthie and provides a strong territorial and public-role identification.
He is not merely named as a witness, neighbour or landholder. The Privy Council included him among a small group specifically empowered as justices to conduct a criminal trial.
For genealogy, the territorial designation “of Achmuthie” is particularly useful because it distinguishes this Patrick from Mr Patrick Guthrie, the ordinary pastor appearing at pp.276–277.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Commission under the Signet: delegated royal authority issued under the Signet for the particular purpose stated.
- Justice: here, a commissioner authorized to exercise judicial power for the designated criminal proceeding.
- Hold courts: convene the judicial sitting necessary to hear and determine the case.
- Ward: imprisonment or secure legal custody.
- “July instant”: during the current month of July; the printed abridgment does not supply a day for Porter’s apprehension.
- Any two of them: the commission did not require all six named commissioners to sit together; two constituted sufficient authority under the instrument.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901), p.616; Commissions, fol.227b. Commission under the Signet, 20 July 1630. Internet Archive — Volume 3.
Volume 3 — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Second Series Volume III is unusually rich in Guthrie material. Its references do not represent one family narrative or a single branch. Instead, they document several clearly distinguishable Guthries moving through very different parts of Scottish civic, ecclesiastical, legal and administrative life during 1629–1630.
The completed finding aid contains 22 detailed source entries. Several records contain more than one Guthrie, most notably the Raynistoun proceeding naming both Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald, and Mr Patrick Guthrie, pastor, and the Duffus patronage dispute naming both Mr James Guthrie and John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
Four records create a compact but unusually informative sequence for Hercules Guthrie.
On 3 February 1629 he was described as “chirurgiane in Aberdene” and named among those accused in connection with two defamatory pasquills. The act does not find that he wrote or posted them. His immediate legal problem arose because he failed to appear, and he was ordered to be denounced rebel and put to the horn.
The 24 March commission confirms that he had in fact been denounced on 19 February and remained unrelaxt, leading the Council to authorize his apprehension.
By 16 June, however, Hercules had reconciled himself with the Aberdeen kirk, satisfied its ministers and magistrates and, according to the certificate produced, “purged himselfe of the wrytting, indytting and making” of the pasquills. The commissioners consented to relief and the Council suspended the horning.
A final reference on 8 December 1629 styles him an indweller in Aberdeen and names his house among a long list of alleged locations in the Doctor Leslie complaint. Leslie denied that complaint and was absolved; the wording does not establish that a mass or other specific religious activity occurred in Hercules’s house.
References: pp.31–32; pp.102–104; pp.173–174; pp.369–370.
Four records identify a second recurring Guthrie through the strong occupational marker of Marchmont Herald.
On 12 March 1629 the Council records that Alexander Guthrie had executed royal letters requiring houses to be surrendered and that those houses were temporarily in his “possessioun and keeping.” That was official custody, not personal ownership.
Later proceedings show the practical mechanics of his work: possession of the house of Blair, removal and appraisal of livestock, receipt of a purchaser’s bond, transfer of custody of an Aberdeen Gallowgate tenement to a messenger, and participation in restoration proceedings when the legal circumstances changed.
The Raynistoun petition is particularly valuable because it gives the full form “Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald” while documenting seizure of a house and goods under lawful process.
These records show a herald functioning as an operational legal officer: serving charges, taking possession, supervising seized property and responding when the Council later ordered restoration.
References: p.93; pp.234–235; pp.262–263; pp.276–277.
A separate Alexander Guthrie appears in Edinburgh municipal government and must not be confused with Marchmont Herald.
The short 17 February 1629 act names Mr Alexander Guthrie among those formally warned apud acta concerning a continued matter described only as “the tanning.” The printed index links that reference with the common clerk, although the short act itself gives no office.
A 3 June proceeding concerning the Maxwell family records an earlier incident in “Mr Alexander Guthreis lodging in Edinburgh.” Guthrie himself was not a litigant or alleged participant.
His office becomes explicit in January 1630. An Edinburgh council act concerning the burgh’s 1603 charter was authenticated by “Mr Alexander Guthrie, commoun clerk”, with the printed volume preserving the subscription “A. Guthrie.”
On 1 April 1630 he then appeared personally before the Privy Council with Edinburgh’s magistrates to present the burgh’s written reasons in the Edinburgh–Leith grain dispute.
References: p.52; p.190; pp.432–434; pp.506–508.
Volume III demonstrates why a surname-only search is inadequate for Bishop John Guthrie. Many of his appearances are indexed or printed only under his ecclesiastical title: Bishop of Moray, Murrey or Murray.
The resulting sequence is substantial. It records correspondence from the bishop concerning conditions in northern Scotland; attendance at the July 1629 Council and clergy meeting; appointment to a committee developing policy; a specific report concerning the Marquis of Huntly’s daughters; and his subscription to the collective report sent to Charles I.
In January 1630 his role becomes still more specific. The Council instructed the Bishop of Moray and the Aberdeen and Moray commissioners to consider the heads, powers and form of Lord Gordon’s proposed northern commission. Two days later “Johne, Bishop of Murrey” and those commissioners returned with their proposed provisions and the names they wished incorporated into the final instrument.
He also received procedural notice in the continuing Doctor Leslie proceedings, appeared personally in the Duffus patronage dispute and was ordered to admit Mr James Guthrie, and later subscribed an ecclesiastical testimonial used to secure suspension of Alexander Gordon’s horning.
Together, these entries document Bishop John not merely as a church officeholder but as a recurring participant in the machinery of Privy Council government in northern Scotland.
References: pp.33–34; pp.233–234; pp.246–247; pp.249–252; pp.404–405; pp.406–410; p.416; pp.500–501; p.566.
Volume III contains two substantially different James Guthrie references.
On 21 July 1629, James Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, appears as co-pursuer in the Balnabreich deforcement proceeding. The letters being resisted had been raised by him, and the Council ultimately required substantial caution for the protection of Guthrie, his men, tenants and servants.
On 25 March 1630, Mr James Guthrie is described instead as “ane qualified minister” presented by the Earl Marischal to the parsonage and vicarage of Duffus.
Nothing in Volume III establishes that the Edinburgh writer and the minister presented to Duffus are the same person. Their occupational descriptions point in different directions, and the evidence should remain separated unless another source explicitly connects them.
The Volume III writer may also warrant comparison with the James Guthrie, writer, of Volume II, but shared name and occupation alone are not sufficient to merge the records without further evidence.
References: pp.231–232; pp.500–501.
Volume III also presents two Patrick Guthries whose identities should remain distinct.
In the 4 September 1629 Raynistoun proceeding, Mr Patrick Guthrie is explicitly described as Thomas Cheyne’s “ordinarie pastour.” At the direction of the Presbytery of Ellon, he formally absolved Cheyne from excommunication after Cheyne’s repentance and profession of conformity.
On 20 July 1630, Patrick Guthrie of Achmuthie appears with five other local men in a commission authorizing any two of them to act as justices in the trial of Thomas Porter.
The first man is identified by a ministerial function; the second by a territorial designation and judicial commission. Volume III gives no evidence that they are the same person or that they were related.
References: pp.276–277; p.616.
Volume III repeatedly demonstrates the importance of preserving occupational and institutional context when several contemporary Guthries share the same Christian name.
Marchmont Herald, common clerk of Edinburgh, Bishop of Moray, writer in Edinburgh, ordinary pastor and of Achmuthie are not decorative labels. They are essential evidence for distinguishing individuals.
They also provide more reliable identity markers than attempts to infer family relationships from geography, shared surname or contemporaneity alone.
Volume III contains numerous examples where a genealogical summary could become misleading if legal stages are collapsed together.
Hercules Guthrie’s accusation, non-appearance, denunciation, apprehension commission and later suspension are separate stages. Alexander Guthrie’s official custody of houses is not ownership. A commission authorizing Patrick Guthrie of Achmuthie to sit as a justice does not prove that he actually presided at Porter’s trial.
Likewise, the Council’s order that Bishop John admit Mr James Guthrie to Duffus does not by itself establish that the admission was subsequently completed.
Preserving those distinctions gives the records greater rather than lesser genealogical value because it makes clear exactly what each source proves.
Several identities and outcomes remain suitable targets for evidence outside this volume:
- Can James Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh in Volume III be securely identified with the writer appearing in Volume II?
- Who was the Mr James Guthrie presented to Duffus, and do surviving ecclesiastical records show whether Bishop John ultimately admitted and collated him?
- What parish did Mr Patrick Guthrie, ordinary pastor to Thomas Cheyne, actually serve at this date?
- Can contemporary evidence identify the ancestry or family branch of Patrick Guthrie of Achmuthie?
- Can the family origins of Hercules Guthrie of Aberdeen be established from burgh, medical, testamentary or property records?
- Can independent records further separate or identify Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald and Mr Alexander Guthrie, common clerk of Edinburgh?
- Do later Council or ecclesiastical records preserve the actual execution and outcome of Lord Gordon’s 1630 northern commission in which Bishop John Guthrie helped shape the terms?
Several Volume III items are printed by P. Hume Brown in edited and abridged form. Where Brown summarizes a manuscript while reproducing selected passages in quotation marks, the page has been identified accordingly rather than presenting the editor’s prose as though it were a complete manuscript transcription.
Likewise, printed representations such as “A. Guthrie” preserve what appears in the published edition. They do not constitute examination of the original autograph unless the underlying manuscript itself is separately inspected.
Volume source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. III, A.D. 1629–1630 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1901). Internet Archive — Volume 3.
Volume 4
Volume IV carries several Guthrie careers forward from the preceding volume while introducing an important new family record. On 10 August 1630, young Margaret Guthrie, not yet ten years old, petitioned against the threat of imprisonment for the debts of her deceased father, Hercules Guthrie, merchant burgess of Edinburgh. Her uncle Harie Guthrie, who had become her tutor at law, is also named directly.
Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk and common clerk of Edinburgh, appears repeatedly in the public business of the burghs. His records range across proposals for reform of foreign coin, the royal commission for surveying the laws of Scotland, navigation and proposed lights on the Isle of May, fishing policy, the Edinburgh–Leith grain dispute, and formal burgh acts authenticated by his hand and subscription.
A different Alexander Guthrie continues to appear in his office as Marchmont Herald. In February 1631 he is recorded executing legal process at Calder. By February 1632 he was dead, and Isobel Simson, his widow, appears in proceedings over delivery of his coat of arms to his successor as Marchmont Herald.
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, has an especially substantial presence in Volume IV. Because many entries identify him only as Bishop of Moray, Murrey or Murray, they are most clearly understood when the volume is read by office as well as by surname. His records concern Doctor William Leslie, relief for the displaced ministers of the Palatinate, the investigation of the burning of Frendraught, reports on ecclesiastical conformity, regulation of medical practice and the supervision of a minor’s education.
The Finding Aid below contains 26 record groups in printed page order. A surviving draft on p.621 repeats the Bishop of Moray’s report printed at p.230 and is treated with that record rather than as a second event.
Read Volume 4 Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume IV, A.D. 1630–1632. Edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown. Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902.
Source note: Brown’s edition combines full documentary text with editorially abridged entries. The detailed records below preserve that distinction. References to the Bishop of Moray are included where the volume identifies the office rather than printing the Guthrie surname.
Volume 4 — Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | 10 August 1630 | Margaret Guthrie; late Hercules Guthrie; Harie Guthrie Minor heiress, father and tutor-at-law | Margaret, not yet ten, seeks protection from personal imprisonment for the debts of her deceased father, Hercules Guthrie, merchant burgess of Edinburgh. Her uncle Harie Guthrie had become her tutor at law and served her heir to her father. |
| 63–64 | 18 November 1630 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Representative of the burghs • Coinage reform | A copy of John Acheson’s proposals concerning foreign dollars and reform of the currency is ordered to be given to Alexander Guthrie in name of the burghs, which are to report their advice and judgment to the Council. |
| 73 | 25 November 1630 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Recipient of information concerning Doctor Leslie | In a Council letter concerning Doctor William Leslie’s licensed return to Scotland, the Bishop of Aberdeen is asked to acquaint the Bishop of Moray with the terms and safeguards of the arrangement. The bishop is not the author of the letter. |
| 116 | 18 January 1631 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Palatinate relief delegation | Ordered with the Bishop of Dunblane and the King’s Advocate to approach Edinburgh’s town council, explain the distressed condition of the ministers of the Palatinate and seek an appropriate contribution for their relief. |
| 118 | 20 January 1631 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Palatinate contribution collection | Ordered with Mr William Struthers to prepare a contribution book and carry it to councillors, Lords of Session and others so that each could enter the amount of his charitable contribution. |
| 137–139 | 8 February 1631 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Royal commission for surveying the laws | Named among the commissioners empowered to examine Scotland’s printed and unprinted laws, statutes, customs and judicial practice and to advise what should be printed, retained, corrected or otherwise dealt with. |
| 143 | 10 February 1631 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Burgh representative • Isle of May navigation | Appears for Edinburgh and the other burghs with Nicol Uddart in proceedings concerning the expediency of erecting beacons or lights on the Isle of May. The matter is continued to 1 March. |
| 146–147 | 17 February 1631 | Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald; John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Religious process and custody of Calder | The Bishop of Moray and Mr Robert Craig had raised process against Sir John Campbell of Calder concerning religious conformity. Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald, later charged Campbell to surrender the house of Calder; its keys remained in the herald’s custody when the house was allegedly re-entered by others. |
| 149–150 | 22 February 1631 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Acceptance of law-survey commission | Alexander Guthrie and the other named commissioners formally accept the commission for surveying the laws and give their oath for faithful discharge of the work. The Council then appoints their first meeting. |
| 155–156 | 3 March 1631 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Coinage consultation | Personally present with Edinburgh provost David Aikinheid in the continuing consideration of foreign coin. The burgh representatives are directed to submit their reasons and proposals in writing. |
| 158–159 | 8 March 1631 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, common clerk of Edinburgh Burgh act and manual subscription | Authenticates the Edinburgh council act concerning the burghs’ response to the coinage proposals. The printed text preserves his formal clerical authentication and signature. |
| 196 | 31 March 1631 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Burgh representative • Fishing policy | Appears with Nicol Uddart for Edinburgh and the burghs in proceedings concerning fishing and the Firth. They take a later Council day to produce a more complete note of the burghs’ position. |
| 207 | 4 April 1631 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Commissioner to inspect Frendraught | Appointed with the Earl Marischal, Bishop of Aberdeen, Lord Ogilvie, Lord Carnegie and Colonel Henry Bruce to inspect the house of Frendraught and investigate how the fatal fire had begun, including whether it was accidental or deliberately raised. |
| 214 | Report signed 13 April; produced 20 April 1631 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Frendraught inspection report subscriber | The commissioners’ formal report of their inspection at Frendraught is dated 13 April. Bishop John is among its subscribers as “Jo. B. of Moray.” The report was presented to the Privy Council on 20 April. |
| 230 | 9 June 1631 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Ecclesiastical conformity report | Appears personally with Mr Thomas Mitchell and reports that Patrick Gordon of Kincragie, James Gordon of Letterfour and Alexander Irving had satisfied the Kirk in matters of religion and had been relaxed from excommunication. A surviving draft of this act is printed later at p.621. |
| 248–251 | 23 June 1631 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, common clerk of Edinburgh Edinburgh–Leith girnelling ratification | Edinburgh’s council ratifies its declaration concerning the storage of victual in Leith. The act is extracted from the burgh register by Alexander Guthrie as common clerk, with his sign and manual subscription printed at p.251. |
| 268 | 5 July 1631 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Ecclesiastical oversight of Alexander Gordon | In extending Alexander Gordon of Carneborrow’s time for religious conformity, the Council provides that failure to observe the conditions may be learned from the Bishop of Moray. The entry identifies an oversight and reporting role, not a recorded accusation by the bishop on that date. |
| 281 | 12 July 1631 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Coinage report • Summons to return | The Council orders Alexander Guthrie to be warned to attend the continuing consideration of the burghs’ report concerning foreign coin. |
| 284 | 14 July 1631 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Coinage report • Warned apud acta | Consideration of the burghs’ report is continued until Tuesday, and Alexander Guthrie receives formal notice apud acta. |
| 431 | 21 February 1632 | Late Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald; Isobel Simson, his widow Heraldic succession and coat of arms | Isobel Simson and Walter Robertson are charged at the instance of James Espline, the new Marchmont Herald, to produce the late Alexander Guthrie’s coat of arms for delivery to his successor. The proceeding directly identifies Isobel as Alexander’s widow and confirms his death by this date. |
| 510 | 17 July 1632 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Doctor Leslie and Robert Irving proceedings | Appears personally with Doctor William Leslie and Robert Irving in proceedings concerning their warrants to return to Scotland. The Council orders the bishop to produce the act concerning doctors of medicine at the next stage of the case. |
| 515 | 26 July 1632 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Produces regulation of medical practice | Appears personally and produces the Council act of 16 December 1616 requiring persons practising medicine to obtain an episcopal testimonial of religious conformity. This fulfills the earlier order recorded at p.510. |
| 570 | 20 November 1632 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Foreign-coin consultation | Participates with Edinburgh bailie William Gray and officers of the Mint in consideration of proposals concerning foreign coin. Edinburgh and the Mint are directed to prepare their response. |
| 578 | 29 November 1632 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Burgh response to coinage proposals | Appears with William Gray for Edinburgh and gives the burgh’s reasons why it cannot yet provide a final answer to the coinage proposals. The Council assigns a later date for definitive responses. |
| 617 | 3 February 1631 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Miscellaneous Privy Council Paper • Frendraught inquiry | In an endorsed Council act preserved among the Miscellaneous Papers, the Bishop of Moray is named to a committee appointed to confer with Lady Frendraught and Margaret Wood concerning their testimony. Appointment to the committee does not by itself prove that the scheduled conference occurred. |
| 671–672 | 2 August 1631 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Miscellaneous Privy Council Paper • Education of a minor | A petition concerning young James Gordon of Rothiemay recalls an earlier Council arrangement under which the Bishop of Moray was to choose the boy’s pedagogue. The petitioner seeks a revised arrangement involving the advice of both the Bishops of Aberdeen and Moray. |
Several recurring names must remain carefully separated. Mr Alexander Guthrie, town/common clerk of Edinburgh is distinct in office and documentary function from Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald.
Likewise, the deceased Hercules Guthrie, merchant burgess of Edinburgh named as Margaret Guthrie’s father on p.16 is not identified by this volume as the Hercules Guthrie who appeared in Aberdeen in Volume III. Shared name alone is insufficient to merge them.
References to John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray may appear only as “Bishop of Moray,” “Murrey” or “Murray.” The Earl of Moray is a separate person and is not included merely because the same territorial title appears.
The draft printed at p.621 is another surviving form of the Bishop of Moray’s 9 June 1631 report printed at p.230. It is documentary corroboration of that record rather than a second Council event, and will be discussed with the p.230 entry.
Throughout the volume, appointments, charges, warnings, scheduled meetings and authority to act are distinguished from evidence that the contemplated action was actually carried out.
10 August 1630 — Margaret Guthrie, a Child Heiress, Seeks Protection from Her Father’s Debts
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 16 • Hercules Guthrie, merchant burgess of Edinburgh, and Harie Guthrie, tutor at law
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This record provides one of the strongest direct kinship clusters in Second Series Volume IV.
Margaret Guthrie was the daughter of the late Hercules Guthrie, merchant burgess of Edinburgh. Her father had died heavily in debt.
Margaret’s uncle, Harie Guthrie, had become her tutor at law. According to Margaret’s petition, he caused her to be formally served heir to her father without first consulting her friends.
That service placed the child in danger from Hercules’s creditors. They had already obtained decrees, attached her father’s movable goods and raised captions against Margaret herself.
Because she was not yet ten years old, Margaret argued that she could not yet choose curators or independently undo the service as heir. The Council accepted the hardship of exposing such a young pupil to personal imprisonment for a parent’s debts and granted temporary protection.
Complete Printed Source Text — Brown’s Edited/Abridged Entry
Supplication by Margaret Guthrie, daughter to the deceased Hercules Guthrie, merchant burgess of Edinburgh, as follows:—Her said father died, “leaving nothing behind him bot ane great burdein of debts.”
Her uncle, Harie Guthrie, having become her tutor at law, he, without consulting her friends, served her heir to her father and has thus brought her under the danger of his whole debts.
His creditors have now obtained several decrees against the supplicant, “who is bot ane young pupill, not past ten yeers of age,” and have not only apprised her father’s movables, but have raised captions against her personally, so that she is like to be put in prison, “to her utter wracke and undoing, and to the disappointing and frustrating her of the benefite of vertuous educatioun in literature and others vertuous exercises quhilks are the onelie hopes left unto her whairupon to build her fortuns; and if she wer come to the age of twelffe yeeres whairthrow she might choose curatours, she would revoke the service foresaid and renunce all benefite she can clame to her said father as air to him.”
She accordingly craves their Lordships’ protection. The Lords, “finding it ane hard mater that pupills who ar altogidder ignorant of thair parents debts sail be troubled by captiouns,” etc., supersede all such processes against her person only for her father’s debts till she reach the age of twelve years.
Modern English Rendering
Margaret Guthrie, daughter of the late Hercules Guthrie, merchant burgess of Edinburgh, petitioned the Privy Council.
Her father had died leaving little or no property available to her but a substantial burden of debt.
Margaret’s uncle, Harie Guthrie, had become her legal tutor. Without consulting Margaret’s other friends, he caused her to be formally recognized as heir to Hercules. As a result, Margaret had been exposed to liability arising from her father’s debts.
Hercules’s creditors had obtained decrees, attached his movable property and raised legal process capable of resulting in Margaret’s own imprisonment.
Margaret was not yet ten years old. Her petition emphasized that imprisonment would ruin her and interfere with the education upon which her future depended.
She further maintained that, if she were already twelve and able to choose curators, she would seek to revoke the service by which she had been made heir and renounce the benefit she might claim from her father’s estate.
The Privy Council considered it unreasonable that children who knew nothing of their parents’ debts should be subjected to captions for those debts. It therefore suspended such process against Margaret personally until she reached twelve years of age.
Reaching twelve would not make Margaret a fully independent adult. Under the Scots law of minority applicable in this period, a girl ordinarily ceased to be a pupil at twelve and then entered the next stage of minority, during which she could choose curators to assist in managing and protecting her legal interests. Full majority came later. The significance of twelve in this petition is therefore that Margaret would acquire a greater legal capacity to challenge the service as heir, not that she would cease to be a minor.
The genealogical evidence is unusually direct. It explicitly identifies Margaret as the daughter of Hercules Guthrie, describes Hercules as a merchant burgess of Edinburgh, and identifies Harie Guthrie as Margaret’s uncle.
It also establishes that Hercules was dead by 10 August 1630 and that Margaret was then under ten years of age.
Harie’s status as her tutor at law gives an additional family and legal connection that may be useful when searching Edinburgh burgh records, services of heirs, testaments and other estate material.
The petition also preserves a particularly useful example of the legal transition from pupillarity to curatory. Margaret’s approaching twelfth birthday mattered because it would allow her to choose curators and take legal steps concerning the inheritance into which she had been served.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Pupil / pupillarity: the first stage of legal minority. In the Scots law applicable to this period, a female ordinarily remained a pupil until age twelve; a male remained a pupil until fourteen.
- Tutor at law: legally recognized guardian responsible for the affairs of a child during pupillarity.
- Curators: persons chosen or appointed to assist a young person after pupillarity had ended but before full legal majority. Margaret’s petition expressly says she would be able to choose curators at twelve.
- Minority after pupillarity: reaching twelve did not make a girl fully adult. She passed into a later protected stage of minority under curatorial assistance; full majority came at twenty-one.
- Service as heir: formal legal procedure by which a person was recognized as heir to a deceased individual.
- Apprise: attach, value or take property under legal process for satisfaction of debt.
- Caption: warrant or process for apprehending and imprisoning a debtor or other person who had failed to obey legal process.
- Supersede: suspend or postpone the operation of legal process.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. IV (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p.16; Decreta, January 1630–February 1631, fols.101b–102a. Council proceeding dated 10 August 1630. Internet Archive — Volume 4.
18 November 1630 — Mr Alexander Guthrie Receives the Burghs’ Copy of the Currency-Reform Proposals
Second Series, Volume 4 • Pages 63–64 • Foreign dollars and reform of the Scottish coinage
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council was considering what it regarded as serious problems in Scotland’s circulating currency, particularly the importation and valuation of numerous forms of foreign silver dollars.
John Acheson, General of the Mint, presented a written programme for reform. He argued that foreign money had been allowed to circulate by nominal piece value rather than being assessed according to its actual weight and fineness, while Scottish money was being transported out of the kingdom.
The Council ordered that a copy of Acheson’s articles be delivered to Mr Alexander Guthrie in name of the burghs. The burghs were not simply being informed of a concluded policy: they were expected to examine the proposals and return their own advice and judgment.
Acheson’s proposals included converting lower-grade dollars into small change, recoining rex dollars into Scottish money of equivalent weight and fineness, coordinating bullion standards with England and enforcing stricter penalties against improper manipulation or export of coin.
Complete Printed Source Text
“The whilk day Johne Achesone, generall of the Cunyiehous, gave in some overtures in writt for remedying the prejudice and abuse of the course in forrane dollours. The Lords ordains ane copie of the Articles to be givin to Mr Alexander Guthrie in name of the Burrowes and thame to report to the Counsell thair advice and judgement concerning the same upon the first Counsell day of Marche nixt. Followes the tennour of the overtures:—
Informatioun anent the present state of the money within the kingdome of Scotland by John Achesone, Generall of your Majesteis Cunyiehous.
It may please your Majestie understand that the onelie abuse and misgovernement of the estate of the money within Scotland wes bred by giving course to forraine moneyes by the peece abone the rait of your Hienes awne money, whilk aucht onelie to have course be the unce weight to be sett doun be your Majesteis Counsell according to the weight and fynnesse of the pryce of the unce, the deneir and the grane, whairby the lieges may not be deceaved,
whilk aucht to be sett furth in print upon ane table within the Cunziehous as wes done in your Hienes fathers tyme the nynt day of Marche, jm vjc and nynetene yeeres, and lykewayes by laike of punishement upon the transporters of your Majesteis awne moneyes and importing of infinite sorts of dollours, whairof the lieges nather knowes weight nor fynnesse nor the worth thairof, to thair great prejudice.
For remeid whairof may it please your Hienes to caus the basest sort of the dollours under the fynnesse of the rex dollour to be converted into small money to have course for exchange onelie within your kingdome of Scotland as the countreis of France, Flanders and Germanie does;
as lykewayes in the raigne of the Queene Regent and Queene Marie, your Majesteis grandmother, there wes coyned twelfepennie and saxpennie peeces, quhilks would now correspond to pennie and halfepenneis sterline, besides manie baser sorts of monie, whairby your Hienes may have some benefite and your lieges weill served;
and also to convert the rex dollours in your Majesteis awne coyne in the same weight and fynnesse they ar of for making commerce with the Easterne countreis, for performing whairof lett the fynes of the highters and transporters of your Hienes awne moneyes pay for the coynage.
Quhereanent if your Majestie will be pleased to give commissioun to ane or twa of your Hienes Counsell with my concurse to try the same I sail be readie to give my best advice and furtherance for that effect.
And concerning the billioun, lett the same have course with the standart of England conforme to the unioun of your Majesteis moneyes, to have course betuix England and Scotland, and for that effect to lett the Booke of Rates be doubled and to be payed in forraine silver plaitt or money of ellevin deneirs fyne at suche pryces as your Hienes Counsell sail appoint.
Bot lett never your Majestie thinke that your Hienes can keepe moneyes within Scotland without severe and strait punishement, as I have sett doun particularlie in ane Informatioun to your Majesteis Counsell.
For conclusioun, if this project be not found expedient, there is no other way to my knowledge bot onelie to conforme your Hienes awne moneyes to the rait of the gold now current, or ellis to diminishe the same ather in weight or in fynenesse, quhereanent your Hienes would doe weill to heare the advice of the cheefe officiars of your Majesteis Mynt in England,
and in the meane tyme to prohibite the highting of the forraine moneyes under the pane of treasoun, the rather in regarde they ar alreadie higher nor your Hienes awne coyne.”
Modern English Rendering
John Acheson, General of the Scottish Mint, submitted written proposals for correcting what he considered abuses arising from the circulation of foreign dollars.
The Privy Council ordered that a copy be delivered to Mr Alexander Guthrie on behalf of the royal burghs. The burghs were instructed to consider the proposals and report their advice and judgment to the Council at its first meeting in March.
Acheson argued that Scotland’s principal currency problem had arisen because foreign coins were being assigned a value by the piece above the corresponding value of the King’s own coin. In his view, foreign silver should instead be valued by its actual weight and fineness.
He proposed that the official values be printed and displayed at the Mint so that subjects would know what foreign coins were genuinely worth. He also complained that Scottish coin was being exported while many kinds of foreign dollars of uncertain quality were being imported.
As one remedy, he proposed converting the poorer kinds of dollar below the fineness of the rex dollar into small-denomination Scottish money for domestic exchange, comparing this with both continental practice and the small coins produced during the reigns of Mary of Guise and Mary, Queen of Scots.
Rex dollars, by contrast, could be recoined into the King’s own money at the same weight and fineness for use in commerce with eastern European countries. Acheson suggested that fines imposed upon those who unlawfully raised the value of money or exported Scottish coin could help pay the costs of minting.
He offered to cooperate with one or two members of the Privy Council in examining the proposal further.
For bullion, he proposed conformity with the English standard in accordance with the monetary union between England and Scotland, with foreign silver plate or coin of the specified fineness accepted at values fixed by the Council.
Acheson warned that Scottish money could not be kept within the kingdom without strict penalties. If his principal proposal was rejected, he believed the alternatives were either to adjust Scottish money to the prevailing rate of gold or reduce the weight or fineness of the coin.
He recommended consulting the principal officers of the English Mint and, meanwhile, prohibiting further artificial raising of foreign coin values under the severe penalty stated in the proposal.
This record begins a substantial Volume IV sequence showing Mr Alexander Guthrie acting in national economic business on behalf of Scotland’s royal burghs.
He is not merely copied into correspondence. The Council orders that the formal reform proposals be placed in his hands “in name of the Burrowes” so that the burghs can consider them and return their collective response.
The subject will recur several times through 1631 and again late in 1632, allowing Alexander’s participation in the coinage debate to be followed across multiple stages rather than treated as an isolated appearance.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Cunyiehous: the Mint or coinage house.
- General of the Mint: senior officer associated with administration and oversight of the coinage.
- Overtures: formal proposals or recommendations submitted for consideration.
- Foreign dollars: imported silver coins of several European types circulating within Scotland.
- Rex dollar: a recognized type or standard of silver dollar used here as a measure of comparative fineness.
- Fineness: proportion of precious metal in a coin or piece of bullion.
- Deneir and grane: units used in expressing the fineness or assay standard of precious metal.
- Bullion: uncoined precious metal or metal valued principally by weight and fineness.
- Highting money: artificially raising or assigning a higher monetary value to coin.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. IV (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), pp.63–64; Acta, July 1629–December 1630, fols.264b–266a. Council proceeding dated 18 November 1630. Internet Archive — Volume 4.
20 January 1631 — Bishop John Guthrie Helps Organize Contributions for the Palatinate Ministers
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 118 • National charitable collection
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Two days after Bishop John Guthrie was ordered to join a delegation approaching Edinburgh’s town council for assistance, the Privy Council expanded the relief effort into a kingdom-wide church collection.
Bishops were instructed to urge the ministers in their respective dioceses to organize timely charitable contributions for the displaced Protestant ministers of the Palatinate.
Money collected in each parish was to be delivered to the moderator of the appropriate presbytery and then sent to George Suttie and William Gray, Edinburgh merchants, whom the Council appointed to receive it.
Bishop John Guthrie and Mr William Struthers received an additional, more specific assignment: they were to cause a book to be prepared and carry it personally to councillors, Lords of Session and others so that each could record whatever contribution he wished to make.
Complete Printed Source Text
“The Lords of Secreit Counsell ordains missives to be writtin to the Bishops desyring thame to write and seriouslie to recommend to the ministers within thair severall dioceis a tymous and charitable contributioun to be collected for releefe of the distrest ministers of the Palatinat, whois deplorable estate may appeare be thair letters sent unto thame,
and that the moneyes to be collected in everie parish be delyvered to the moderator of the presbyterie to be sent be thame heere to George Suttie and Williame Gray, merchants in Edinburgh, or anie one of thame in absence of the other, receavers appointed be the Counsell for that purpose, betuix and the last day of Apryle nixt;
and ordains the Bishop of Murrey and Mr Williame Struthers to caus make a booke and to carie the same to everie Counseller and Sessioner and others of thair nomber to the intent they may insert thairin suche contributiouns as thay in thair charitie sail be pleased to vouchesafe.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council orders letters to be sent to Scotland’s bishops asking them to urge the ministers in their respective dioceses to organize a prompt and charitable collection for the relief of the distressed ministers of the Palatinate.
The ministers’ condition could be understood from the letters which had been received concerning them.
Money collected in each parish was to be delivered to the moderator of the presbytery. The moderators were then to send it to George Suttie and William Gray, merchants in Edinburgh, or to whichever of the two was available. The Council had appointed them as receivers of the fund.
The money was to be sent by the last day of April.
The Council additionally ordered the Bishop of Moray and Mr William Struthers to have a contribution book made and carry it to every member of the Privy Council, every Lord of Session and others of their number, so that each person could enter whatever charitable contribution he chose to give.
Bishop John Guthrie’s role here is more substantial than simply receiving a circular. He and William Struthers were specifically entrusted with the collection mechanism for contributions from Scotland’s senior governmental and judicial officers.
Read with the 18 January delegation, the entry shows Bishop John participating in two distinct levels of the same relief campaign: municipal solicitation in Edinburgh and direct collection among councillors and judges.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Missive: formal written communication.
- Diocese: ecclesiastical territory under a bishop’s jurisdiction.
- Presbytery: regional church court composed principally of ministers and elders.
- Moderator: presiding officer of the presbytery.
- Sessioner: here, a Lord of Session, or judge of Scotland’s supreme civil court.
- Receiver: person formally appointed to receive and account for money collected.
- Vouchsafe: grant or give.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. IV (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p.118; Acta, January 1631–May 1632, fol.37b. Council proceeding dated 20 January 1631. Related Palatinate-relief proceeding: p.116. Internet Archive — Volume 4.
8 February 1631 — Mr Alexander Guthrie Named to the Royal Commission for Surveying the Laws of Scotland
Second Series, Volume 4 • Pages 137–139 • Review of statutes, customs and judicial practice
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council received and registered a royal commission for a broad examination of the laws and legal customs of Scotland.
The instrument looked back to an earlier commission issued in July 1628. That project had not achieved the result Charles I had expected, and the Convention of Estates of July 1630 had asked that additional representatives from the several estates be added.
The renewed commission therefore named a large body drawn from government, the church, the courts, the nobility, landed society and the burghs. Among the municipal and legal representatives was Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh.
The commissioners were authorized to examine the whole body of printed and unprinted statutes and Acts of Parliament, established customs, civil and criminal court practice, judicial decrees and interlocutors, and the medieval legal compilation Regiam Majestatem.
Their task was not simply to copy existing material. They were to recommend which unprinted laws should be published, which obsolete or abrogated measures should be omitted, and which long-established customs should receive statutory confirmation.
Complete Printed Source Text
“The whilk day the commissioun underwrittin anent the surveying of the lawes wes presented to the Lords of Privie Counsell and read in thair audience, quhilk being read and considderit be thame they ordaine the same to be insert and registrat in the bookes of Privie Counsell, of the whilk the tennour followes:—
Charles R. Our Soverane Lord, considering that his Majestie out of his zeale and care to establishe ane certane and constant course in all the supreme courts and justice seates als weill civill as criminall within his ancient kingdome of Scotland did by his Majesteis letters patents under the great scale of the dait at Whitehall, the secund day of Julij 1628 yeeres, give and grant ane ample commissioun to certane of his Majesteis Counsell and others most expert in the lawes of the said kingdome for surveying, recognoscing and considering of the lawes, statuts and Acts of Parliament of the said kingdome, als weill printed as not printed,
with the customes and consuetudes of the same quhilks ar and hes beene observed as lawes within the said kingdome, and to report thair advice and opinioun thereanent to his Majestie to the effect his Majestie may thereafter with consent of his three estaits in Parliament establishe and inact the same in forme of lawes.
And albeit the said commissioun wes accepted with all humilitie be the commissioners thereanent, yitt in respect of sindrie interveening impediments the samine hes not takin the effect quhilk his Majestie wished.
And thairfoir his Majestie in the lait Conventioun of Estats haldin and begun upon the 28 day of July last caused the said commissioun with the utilitie and necessitie thairof to be propouned to the saids three Estats, who after dew consideratioun thairof with uniforme consent in all humilitie acknowledged his Majesteis fatherlie care and affectioun to the weale of the kingdome in granting the said commissioun and humbelie desyred some moe persouns out of ilke estait to be added to the former commissioners.
And his Majestie being most willing to satisfie the humble desyre of the saids Estats, thairfoir his Majestie out of his princelie zeale and affectioun to justice and true and fatherlie love to his people, ordains ane letter to be exped under his Majesteis great scale, giving, granting and committing, lykeas his Majestie gives and grants full power and commissioun to George, Vicount of Dupline, Lord Chanceller; Johne, Archbishop of St Andrewes; Williame, Erie of Mortoun, Lord Thesaurar; William, Erie of Monteth, Lord President of his Majesteis Privie Counsell; Thomas, Erie of Hadintoun, Lord Privie Seale; Johne, Erie of Mar; Alexander, Erie of Linlithgow; Robert, Erie of Roxburgh; Johne, Erie of Lauderdaill; Patrik, Bishop of Abirdeene; Patrik, Bishop of Rosse; Johne, Bishop of Caithnes; Adame, Bishop of Dumblane; Johne, Lord Lowdoun; David, Lord Carnegie; Archibald, Lord Naper; John, Lord Tracquair; Sir Williame Alexander, principall Secretarie;
Sir James Skeene of Currihill, knight, President of the Session; Sir Archibald Achesone of Glencarnie, Secretar; Sir Johne Hamiltoun of Magdalens, Clerk of Register; Sir Thomas Hope of Craighall, knight baronnet, his Majesteis Advocat; Sir George Elphinstoun of Blythswod, knight, Justice Clerk; Sir Johne Scot of Scottistarvet, Directour of the Chancellarie; Sir Alexander Gibsone of Durie; Sir Thomas Hendersone of Chesters; Sir Andro Fletcher of Innerpeffer; Sir James McGill of Cranston Riddell, knight baronnet; Sir James Oliphant of Newtoun, knight baronnet; Sir James Learmonth of Balcolmie; Sir George Afleck of Bedmanno; Sir Robert Spotswod of New Abbey; Mr George Halyburtoun of Foderance; Sir Robert Gordoun, knight baronet; Sir Alexander Strauchane of Thometoun, knight baronnet; Sir Patrik Hepburne of Wauchtoun; Sir William Cunninghame of Caprintoun; Sir James Foulles of Colinton; Sir Johne Scrimgeour of Duddop, Constable of Dundie; Alexander Areskine of Din; Sir Johne Hamiltoun of Lettrick; William Douglas of Cavers; Johne Boill of Kelburne; Sir James Lokhart of Lee; Areskine of Pittodrie; Thomas Crombie of Kemnay; Johne Gordoun of Buckie;
Mr Robert Learmonth, Mr Andro Aittoun, Mr Thomas Nicolsone and Mr Lewes Stewart, advocate; Alexander Clerk and Johne McNaucht, burgesses of Edinburgh; Mr James Cokburne, provest of Hadintoun; Mr Johne Hay and Mr Alexander Guthrie, toun clerkes of Edinburgh; John Cowane, burgess of Stirline; and Johne McKesone, clerke of Carraill:
or to anie sevin of thame with the said Chanceller, Thesaurar, President of the Counsell, and the said Lord Privie Seale, or anie one of thame, to meit and conveene at quhatsomever tymes and places convenient, and to read, recognosce and consider the saids haill lawes, statuts and Acts of Parliament of the said kingdome, als weill printed as unprinted,
togidder with the customes and consuetudes of the said kingdome quhilks ar and have beene observed as lawes within the samine, ather in the civill or criminall judicatoreis, and quhilks have beene receaved in practise by decreits of the Lords of Sessioun or Justice Generall;
and to that effect to caus be exhibite before thame be the Clerk of Register, Justice Clerk, and thair deputs, the haill registers and rollis conteaning the lawes and Acts of Parliament of the said kingdome, als weill unprinted as printed, with the registers of decreits and interlocutors of the saids Lords of Sessioun and Justice Generall, togidder with the booke intituled Regiam Majestatem, quhilk conteanes ane record of the ancient lawes and customes observed within the said kingdome,
and after dew consideratioun thairof to sett doun thair advice, opinioun and judgement under thair hands anent the printing of suche lawes and statuts as ar not yitt printed, and anent the ommissioun of suche acts and statuts as ar abrogat or become in desuetude and out of use.
And siclyke to collect and sett doun the haill customes and generall consuetudes inviolablie observed in the said kingdome als weill in the civill as criminall judicatoreis, to the effect the samine may be authorized and confirmed be forme of law and statute,
without prejudice alwayes of the lawes, acts, statuts and practicks, decreits and interlocutors conceaved in favours of the Crowne;
and that they report thair overtures and judgment to his sacred Majestie heeranent betuix and the ellevint day of October nixtocome, or with convenient diligence, to the effect his Majestie with consent of the Estaits of his Parliament may see to the redresse thairof for the weele of the said kingdome.
Givin at his Majesteis honnour of Hamptoun Court the twelfe day of October, 1630.
And the saids Lords ordains the commissioners abonewrittin to be writtin for to this day fyftene dayes to accept the commissioun and to give thair oath and to appoint thair tymes and dyets of meeting.”
Modern English Rendering
On 8 February 1631 the royal commission for reviewing the laws of Scotland was presented to the Privy Council. The Council read it and ordered it entered in the Privy Council books.
The commission explained that Charles I had previously issued letters patent under the Great Seal on 2 July 1628 appointing councillors and legal experts to review the laws, statutes, parliamentary acts, customs and established legal usages of Scotland.
Their purpose had been to report recommendations to the King so that, with the consent of the three Estates in Parliament, the resulting material might receive formal statutory authority. Although the earlier commissioners had accepted that task, various intervening difficulties had prevented the project from reaching the result the King desired.
At the Convention of Estates beginning on 28 July 1630 the usefulness and necessity of the project had therefore been reconsidered. The Estates approved the object of the commission and asked that additional persons from each estate be added.
Charles I consequently issued a renewed and enlarged commission. It named a large body of senior officers, bishops, judges, lawyers, nobles, landowners and burgh representatives. Among those appointed was Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh.
The commission could act through any seven of its members sitting with the Chancellor, Treasurer, President of the Privy Council or Lord Privy Seal—or with any one of those principal officers.
The commissioners were authorized to meet when and where convenient and examine the entire body of Scottish legislation, whether printed or unprinted.
They were also to examine customs and legal usages which had acquired the force of law through practice in the civil and criminal courts, including matters established through decrees of the Court of Session or the Justice General.
The Clerk Register, Justice Clerk and their deputies could be required to place before the commissioners the relevant parliamentary registers, court decrees and interlocutors. The medieval compilation Regiam Majestatem was specifically included among the authorities to be examined.
After considering the material, the commissioners were to give written advice about which laws and statutes not yet in print should be published and which measures should be omitted because they had been repealed, had fallen into disuse or were otherwise obsolete.
They were also to collect the general customs and usages consistently observed in Scotland’s civil and criminal courts so that appropriate ones could be formally confirmed as law, without prejudicing legal rights and practices belonging to the Crown.
Their proposals and judgment were to be reported to Charles I by 11 October 1631, or as soon thereafter as practicable, so that the King and Parliament could consider the necessary reforms.
The royal commission itself had been issued at Hampton Court on 12 October 1630.
After registering it on 8 February 1631, the Privy Council ordered the named commissioners to be summoned within fifteen days to accept the commission, take their oath and set the schedule for their meetings.
This commission places Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, within an ambitious national project to examine and organize the law of Scotland.
His appointment is especially significant because the instrument itself supplies his office. There is no need to infer his identity merely from the name “Alexander Guthrie.”
The record also illustrates the breadth of his public work. Alongside his recurring representation of the burghs in economic matters, he was selected to participate with senior judges, lawyers, bishops, nobles and government officers in reviewing the statutory and customary foundations of the Scottish legal system.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Surveying the laws: systematic review, examination and organization of existing statutes, customs and legal practice.
- Recognosce: examine, review or take formal cognizance of.
- Consuetude: custom or established usage having legal significance.
- Interlocutor: judicial order or decision, especially an intermediate ruling in a cause.
- Regiam Majestatem: medieval Scottish legal compilation long treated as an important source of ancient law and custom.
- Desuetude: condition in which a law has fallen out of practical use.
- Overtures: formal proposals or recommendations.
- Great Seal: principal royal seal used for important grants, commissions and letters patent.
- Three Estates: the traditional estates represented in the Parliament of Scotland.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. IV (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), pp.137–139; Acta, January 1631–May 1632, fols.41b–43a. Royal commission dated Hampton Court, 12 October 1630; presented and registered before the Privy Council, 8 February 1631. Internet Archive — Volume 4.
10 February 1631 — Mr Alexander Guthrie Represents the Burghs in the Isle of May Beacon Debate
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 143 • Navigation safety and proposed beacons
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council was considering whether navigational beacons should be established on the Isle of May, an important landmark at the entrance to the Firth of Forth.
Mr Alexander Guthrie and Nicol Uddart appeared for Edinburgh and the other royal burghs in the proceeding.
The Council did not decide the matter on this date. Instead it continued consideration until 1 March and ordered shipmasters to be warned to attend, bringing maritime interests directly into the next stage of consultation.
Complete Printed Source Text
“The Lordis assignis the first of Marche to the Laird of Barnis and to NicoU Uddart and Mr Alexander Guthrie, who compeirit for the toun of Edinburgh and rest of the burrowis, toucheinge the expediencie of setting up of beaconis upon the iland of May; and ordanis the maisteris of shipps to be warnit to the said day.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council assigns 1 March as the next date for considering whether beacons should be established on the Isle of May.
The matter is continued for the Laird of Barns and for Nicol Uddart and Mr Alexander Guthrie, who had appeared on behalf of Edinburgh and the other burghs.
The Council also orders the masters of ships to be warned to attend on that date.
This short act gives direct evidence of Alexander Guthrie appearing personally as a representative of Edinburgh and the wider burgh interest.
It also broadens the range of public matters in which he appears. Alongside coinage and legal reform, he was involved in consultation over maritime infrastructure and navigational safety.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Compeared: appeared formally before a court or council.
- Burghs: here, Scotland’s royal burghs acting through representatives on matters affecting their collective interests.
- Beacon: navigational marker or signal intended to assist shipping and warn of hazards.
- Assign a day: appoint a later date for continuation of the proceeding.
- Warn: formally notify or summon to attend.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. IV (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p.143; Sederunts, November 1629–January 1635, fol.47a. Council proceeding dated 10 February 1631. Internet Archive — Volume 4.
17 February 1631 — Bishop John Guthrie and Marchmont Herald in the Calder Proceedings
Second Series, Volume 4 • Pages 146–147 • Religious conformity, horning and custody of Calder
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This record brings together two Guthries with entirely different official functions: John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, acting within ecclesiastical enforcement, and Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald, executing royal legal process.
The act recounts earlier proceedings against Sir John Campbell of Calder. He had been excommunicated and was required, through letters raised at the instance of the Bishop of Moray and Mr Robert Craig, to reconcile himself to the Kirk and submit to its discipline.
According to the act, his failure to obey resulted in his being denounced rebel and put to the horn on 13 March 1629.
Further letters were later served upon him by Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald, requiring surrender of the house and fortalice of Calder under pain of treason.
Sir John made a formal surrender by delivering the keys to the herald. The act expressly states that those keys remained in Alexander Guthrie’s keeping.
The Council was subsequently informed that William Campbell and others had entered the house, damaged its defensive access, installed new locks and fortified it. Those assertions form the basis of the new process ordered by the Council and should be read as allegations at this stage rather than as findings after trial.
Complete Printed Source Text
“Forsameckle as Sir Johne Campbell of Calder, knight, having made shamefull apostasie and defectioun from the trew religioun presentlie profest within this kingdome, and being for that cans and for not reconciling himselfe to the discipline of the Kirk orderlie and lawfullie excommunicat,
he wes thairupoun charged be vertew of letters raised at the instance of Johne, Bishop of Murrey, and Mr Robert Craig, procurator for the Kirk, to have reconciled himselfe to the Kirk and to have submitted himselfe to the discipline thairof within a certane space after the charge under the pane of horning;
lykeas for his proud and wilfull contempt and disobedience of that charge he wes upon the 13 of Marche, 1629, denunced rebell and putt to the horne, as the letters of horning indorsat and registrat aganis him bearis;
and becaus he remained most proudlie and contempnandlie at the said processe of horne and excommunicatioun, as he does yitt unrelaxt, and keeped his hous of Calder as ane starting hole and place of refuge for persons trewlie suspect in thair religioun, there wes thairfoir letters aganis him whairwith he wes chargit be Alexander Guthrie, Marchemont Herald, to rander and delyver his said place and fortalice of Calder to the said herauld under the pane of treasoun;
lykeas for a culloured show of obedience the said Sir Johne made a forme of randering of the said hous by delyverie of the keyes to the said herauld, who yitt hes the saids keyes in his keiping.
And it being expected that nane durst have presoomed to have medled with the said hous so long as the same wes keeped in his Majesteis name and the keyes thairof in the hands of his herauld;
notwithstanding it is of truthe that upon the [blank] day of [blank], Williame Campbell, etc., with others thair complices come to the said place and fortalice of Calder, brake up the drawbridge thairof, dang up the yetts and doores of the same, made new lockes and keyes thairto, hes possest thamselffes within the said place, hes fortified the same with men, victuall and armour, keepes the same as ane hous of warre,
ressetts Jesuits, seminarie and messe preists and others suspect persons within the same, who by the confort, ressett and supplee they find in that hous ar incouraged to continew in thair erroneous opinions to the high and proud contempt of his Majesteis auctoritie and lawes.
Thairfoir ordains letters to be direct charging the persouns foresaids to compeir personallie before the Lords of Secreit Counsell at ane certane day to answere to the premisses and to heare and see suche ordour tane thereanent as they may be punished in thair persons and goods for the proud contempt foresaid under the pane of rebellioun, etc., with certificatioun, etc.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council records that Sir John Campbell of Calder had been excommunicated in proceedings concerning his religious conformity.
Letters raised at the instance of John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, and Mr Robert Craig, procurator for the Kirk, required Campbell to reconcile himself with the Kirk and submit to its discipline within the prescribed period, under pain of horning.
According to the act, Campbell failed to obey. On 13 March 1629 he was therefore denounced rebel and put to the horn.
The Council further states that he remained unreleased from both the horning and the sentence of excommunication and continued to use Calder as a refuge for people regarded by the authorities as religiously suspect.
Further letters were accordingly issued requiring surrender of the house and fortalice of Calder. Those letters were served by Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald.
Sir John made a formal act of surrender by delivering the keys of the house to the herald. The record states that Alexander Guthrie still had those keys in his custody.
The Council then recounts allegations that William Campbell and others subsequently came to Calder, broke or forced the drawbridge, gates and doors, fitted new locks and keys, occupied and fortified the house with men, provisions and arms, and used it to shelter persons whom the authorities described as Jesuits, seminary or mass priests and other religiously suspect people.
Because of those allegations, the Council ordered formal letters charging the accused persons to appear personally before it, answer the accusations and submit to whatever lawful order might then be taken.
The act provides unusually clear evidence of two separate Guthries operating in different branches of royal and ecclesiastical administration.
Bishop John Guthrie is directly connected to the earlier legal process by the explicit phrase “at the instance of Johne, Bishop of Murrey.”
Alexander Guthrie is equally explicit in his official capacity as Marchmont Herald, and the physical custody of the keys to Calder gives a particularly concrete example of the herald’s role in enforcing Council process.
The passage also continues the official-custody theme already seen for Alexander in Volume III: property or keys held by a herald in execution of royal process were held in an official capacity, not as private ownership.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- At the instance of: legal process raised in the name or on the pursuit of the persons identified.
- Procurator for the Kirk: legal representative acting for the ecclesiastical authority.
- Horning: process leading to denunciation as a rebel for failure to obey lawful letters.
- Unrelaxed: not formally released from the legal status of rebellion created by horning.
- Marchmont Herald: royal officer of arms who could execute formal legal charges and other Crown process.
- Fortalice: fortified residence or stronghouse.
- Render: surrender or deliver into authorized custody.
- Yetts: gates, especially strong or defensive gates.
- Resett: receive, shelter or harbour.
- Under pain of treason: the stated penalty attached to failure to comply with the surrender charge; it does not itself prove that treason was thereafter adjudged.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. IV (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), pp.146–147; Acta, January 1631–May 1632, fols.44a–45b. Council proceeding dated 17 February 1631. Internet Archive — Volume 4.
22 February 1631 — Mr Alexander Guthrie Accepts the Commission for Surveying the Laws
Second Series, Volume 4 • Pages 149–150 • Formal acceptance and oath
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The royal commission for surveying Scotland’s laws had been registered before the Privy Council on 8 February. That earlier act ordered the commissioners to attend later, formally accept their appointment and take the required oath.
On 22 February 1631, a substantial group of the commissioners appeared and did exactly that.
Among them was Mr Alexander Guthrie, expressly styled town clerk of Edinburgh.
The Council then directed the commissioners to meet in the Exchequer House on the following Monday at eight in the morning and establish the schedule for carrying forward the work entrusted to them.
Complete Printed Source Text
“The whilk day, George, Vicount of Dupline, Lord High Chanceller of this kingdome; Alexander, Erie of Linlithgow; Adame, Bishop of Dumblane; David, Lord Carnegie; Sir James Skeene of Currihill, President of the Sessioun; Sir Archibald Achesone, Secretar; Sir Johne Hamiltoun, Clerk of Register; Sir Johne Scot of Scottistarvet, Directour of the Chancellarie; Sir Thomas Hendersone of Chesters, Sir Andro Fletcher of Inverpeffer, Sir James McGill of Cranstoun Riddill, Sir James Oliphant of Newtoun, Sir James Learmonth of Balcolmie, Sir George Afleck of Balmanno, Sir Robert Spotswood of New Abbey, Mr George Halyburtoun of Foderance, Sir Patrik Hepburne of Wauchtoun, Sir James Foullis of Colintoun, Sir Johne Scrimgeour of Duddop, Sir James Lokhart of Lee, John Boill of Kelburne,
Alexander Clerk, provest of Edinburgh; Johne Cowane, burges of Stirline; Johne McKesone, clerk of Carraill; Mr Robert Learmonth, Mr Lewes Steuart, Mr Andro Aittoun, advocats; Johne McNacht, burges of Edinburgh and Mr Alexander Guthrie, toun clerk there, accepted upon thame the commissioun for surveying the lawes and gaif thair oath for faithfull discharge of the same.”
“The Lords ordains the commissioners abonewrittin to meit in the Exchecker hous upon Mononday nixt at eight of the clocke and to appoint the tymes of thair meeting for ordering the maters committed to thair charge.”
Modern English Rendering
On 22 February 1631 a large group of the persons named in the royal commission for reviewing Scotland’s laws appeared before the Privy Council.
Among them was Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh.
The named commissioners formally accepted the commission and gave their oath that they would faithfully carry out the work.
The Council then ordered them to meet in the Exchequer House on the following Monday at eight o’clock and establish the dates and times of their meetings for handling the business committed to them.
The earlier commission at pp.137–139 established that Alexander Guthrie had been appointed. This record supplies the next and stronger stage of evidence: he accepted the appointment and took the oath.
It therefore moves Alexander from a name in a royal commission to a documented participant who formally undertook the responsibility placed upon him.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Accept upon them the commission: formally undertake the office and responsibilities created by the royal instrument.
- Give their oath: swear faithfully to perform the duties of the commission.
- Exchequer House: place associated with the Scottish Exchequer and here designated for the commissioners’ organizational meeting.
- Dyets / meetings: appointed sessions or dates for official business.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. IV (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), pp.149–150; Acta, January 1631–May 1632, fol.45b. Council proceeding dated 22 February 1631. Related commission: pp.137–139. Internet Archive — Volume 4.
3 March 1631 — Mr Alexander Guthrie Ordered to Put the Burghs’ Coinage Proposals in Writing
Second Series, Volume 4 • Pages 155–156 • Foreign dollars and Scottish currency
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This proceeding continues the coinage debate first encountered on 18 November 1630, when John Acheson’s proposals concerning foreign dollars were delivered to Alexander Guthrie on behalf of the burghs.
By 3 March 1631, the burgh representatives had considered the proposals. David Aikinheid, assisted by some of the commissioners for the burghs, appeared before the Council and explained their position.
They did not think that the circulation of dollars could safely be prohibited immediately because the kingdom was already heavily supplied with and dependent upon them. Instead, they proposed restricting further importation while improving the supply of the King’s own coin.
Mr Alexander Guthrie was personally present. The Council ordered him and Aikinheid to reduce the reasons and proposals advanced that day to writing for formal consideration.
Complete Printed Source Text
“The whilk day David Aikinheid, assisted with some of the commissioners for the Burrowes, compeirand before the Counsell, declared that he perused the overture givin in be the generall of the Cunyiehous for reforming the abuse of forrane coyne current within the kingdome,
and declared that in regarde the countrie is now fullie stored with dollours that it were not saulfe nor seasounable at this tyme ather to decry or discharge the course of dollours till the countrie were first suppleed with better money, whilk in likliehood may be hoped if the peace with Spaine be of anie continuance.
And in the meane tyme the Burrowes thinkes it fitt that ane course be takin for restraining the forder imbringing of dollours be sea or land, and that the coale and salt maisters be dischargit to receave anie dollours for thair coale and salt after the expyring of the tyme to be appointed to that effect,
and that the shireffs and justices of peace take speciall care to discover the imbringers of dollours, and a proportion of that whilk sail be deprehendit to be applyed to the use of the discoverer;
and declaires that for the better furnishing of the countrie with his Majesteis coyne it wer fitt that the bulyeoun sould be payed in forraine coyne and not by exchange and that no forebulyeoun be takin bot that the same sould be payed be the merchant himselfe to the maister of the Cunyiehous after his returne and not to be uplifted be the customers;
and speciallie that nane of his Majesteis coyne be brokin, melted nor made bulyeoun of.
Quhilk declaratioun made be the said David Aikinheid being heard and considderit be the Lords of Privie Counsell and they advised thairwith, the saids Lords continews this mater in the estait whairin it stands untill the Conventioun of the Burrowes, and ordains the Burrowes to report at that tyme what forder the burrowes sail resolve upon thairin.
And in the meane tyme ordains the said David Aikinheid and Mr Alexander Guthrie, who wes personallie present, to give in in writt to the Counsell the reasones and overtures propounded be thame this day to the intent the Counsell may consider thairof.”
Editorial note: “In the Sederunts this Act is also recorded, and there is added at the end ‘and acquent the officiaris of the Cunyeehous with the same.’”
Modern English Rendering
David Aikinheid, assisted by some commissioners representing the burghs, appeared before the Privy Council and reported that he had considered the proposals previously submitted by the head of the Mint concerning abuses arising from foreign currency.
The burghs’ position was that Scotland was already so heavily supplied with foreign dollars that it would not be safe or practical immediately to reduce their official value or prohibit their circulation before a better supply of money was available. They hoped improved supply might follow if peace with Spain continued.
In the meantime, they proposed restricting the further importation of dollars by sea or land.
They suggested that coal and salt merchants should, after a specified future date, be prohibited from accepting dollars in payment for those commodities.
Sheriffs and justices of the peace should also take particular care to discover persons importing dollars, with a share of seized money going to the informer or discoverer.
To improve the supply of royal coin, the burghs further proposed that bullion obligations be paid in foreign coin rather than settled by exchange; that the merchant himself should deliver the bullion to the master of the Mint after returning; and that customs officers should not collect it in advance.
They particularly urged that none of the King’s own coin should be broken, melted or converted into bullion.
After hearing Aikinheid’s report, the Privy Council continued the matter in its existing state until the Convention of Burghs, at which the burghs were to report what further course they had resolved upon.
In the meantime, David Aikinheid and Mr Alexander Guthrie, who was personally present, were ordered to submit in writing the reasons and proposals they had advanced that day so that the Privy Council could consider them.
Brown notes that the parallel version in the Sederunts adds that the officers of the Mint were also to be informed of the written proposals.
Alexander Guthrie’s role in the coinage question has now progressed beyond simply receiving John Acheson’s proposals for the burghs.
Here he is personally present when the burgh position is presented and is specifically ordered with Aikinheid to place their reasoning and proposals in writing.
The surviving sequence therefore documents a genuine continuing role for Alexander in the burghs’ response to national monetary policy.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Decry: officially reduce the rated or current value of a coin.
- Discharge the course: prohibit a coin from continuing to circulate as legal or accepted currency.
- Imbringing: importing or bringing into the kingdom.
- Bullion: precious metal or coin treated principally as metal for minting purposes.
- Forebullion: bullion or bullion duty taken or collected in advance.
- Customers: customs officers rather than retail purchasers in the modern sense.
- Overtures: proposals or recommendations.
- Convention of Burghs: representative assembly of Scotland’s royal burghs dealing with matters of common civic and commercial concern.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Vol. IV (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), pp.155–156; Acta, January 1631–May 1632, fol.47a; with Brown’s note to the parallel Sederunt version. Council proceeding dated 3 March 1631. Earlier coinage proposal: pp.63–64. Internet Archive — Volume 4.
8 March 1631 — Mr Alexander Guthrie Authenticates the Burghs’ Formal Coinage Report
Second Series, Volume 4 • Pages 158–159 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This is the formal written sequel to the Council proceeding of 3 March. David Aikinheid and Mr Alexander Guthrie now appeared personally before the Lords, assisted by commissioners for the burghs, and delivered the requested written reasons and proposals concerning the currency.
The document they produced was an extract from a particular Convention of Burghs held at Edinburgh on 5 March. The commissioners had considered proposals previously submitted by the General of the Mint House for dealing with the foreign dollars then circulating heavily within Scotland.
Their principal concern was timing. Because a large proportion of the kingdom’s available money consisted of these foreign dollars, the commissioners considered it dangerous to call them in or stop their circulation before the country had been supplied with other money. At the same time, they recommended steps to prevent still more dollars from entering Scotland.
The concluding formula is particularly useful for identifying Guthrie’s institutional role. He authenticates the extract as common clerk of Edinburgh and clerk to the burghs, followed in the printed volume by the subscription “A Guthrie.”
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
“The whilk day in presence of the Lords of Secreit Counsell compeired personallie David Aikinheid, lait provest of Edinburgh, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, toun clerk thairof, assisted with some commissioners for the Burrowes, and gave in thair overtures and reasouns underwrittin anent the mater of the coyne, of the quhilk the tennour followes:—
In particular Conventioun of Borrowes haldin at the burgh of Edinburgh the fyft day of Marche the yeere of God jmvjc and threttie ane yeeres be the Commissioners of the Burrowes there conveenned be vertew of ane missive letter direct to thame frome the said burgh of Edinburgh of the fourt day of Februarie last bypast, the whilk day the saids commissioners being conveenned—Whereas there being ane petitioun preferred to his Majestie be the general of the Mynthous of this kingdome conteaning certane overtures for reforming the present abuse of the coyne occasiouned through the course of dollours within this countrie, and the Lords of his Majesteis most honorable Privie Counsell having ordained his Majesteis free Burrowes to be acquainted thairwith and ane copie thairof be delyvered to thame that they might the first of Marche be heard heeranent, and there being ane few nomber of the commissioners of the saids borrowes conveenned, and they having perused the said petitioun and overtures thairin conteanit they did find there would be ane great danger to cry in or stoppe the present course of the saids dollours considering the masse of the haill present coyne of this kingdome did consist of these speces of dollours and that it sould prove verie prejudiciall to the haill lieges if order be takin thairwith before the countrie be sufficientlie provided with other money; and so muche the rather that probablie if the peace sould continew with Spaine the countrie might be disburdenned of the saids dollours and others moneyes brought in.
That therefore it would please the saids Lords not to take anie forder order with the saids dollours till more mature deliberatioun wer takin thereanent with advice of all suche as the said mater did concerne. And for preveening of forder incomming of the saids dollours that the saids Lords would be pleased to discharge all persons frome bringing in of dollours within this kingdome ather be sea or land and grant ane warrand to his Majesteis shireffs, Justices of Peace, and provests and bailleis within burgh, to searche, seeke, take and apprehend all suche persouns as brings anie of the saids dollours within the kingdome and to confiscat the same, the ane halfe to his Majesteis use and the other halfe to the apprehenders; as lykewayes to discharge the maisters of coaleheuches and saltpannes to receave anie speces of the saids dollours under suche hie panes as it sail please the saids Lords to appoint:
and for forder incomming of bulyeoun that the saids Lords would be pleased to discharge the customers frome receaving of bulyeoun, and that the whole bulyeoun be receaved be the maister of the Cunziehous frome the merchants after thair returne frome thair voyages allanerlie and that in forrane coyne and nane in English money, and that all persons be discharged frome melting anie of his Majesteis coyne old or new under suche panes as it sail please the saids Lords to injoyne. Whiche course being in tyme takin doubtlesse will prove profitable to the whole kingdome.
And in the meane tyme the present commissioners ordains the said mater to be recommendit to the commissioners to be conveenned at thair nixt generall Conventioun, and ilke burgh to be required to send thair commissioners sufficientlie instructed with thair best advices for reforming the present abuses of the coyne and farder imbringing of money within this kingdome; and this to be ane heid of the nixt missive. Extract furth of the register of the Acts of the Conventioun of Borrowes be me, Mr Alexander Guthrie, commoun clerk of Edinburgh and clerk also to the saids Borrowes, witnessing heirto this my signe and subscriptioun manuall. A Guthrie.”
Modern English Rendering
On 8 March 1631 David Aikinheid, former provost of Edinburgh, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, appeared personally before the Privy Council with some commissioners representing the royal burghs. They submitted the written proposals and reasons concerning the coinage that the Council had previously required from them.
The document was an extract from a particular Convention of Burghs held at Edinburgh on 5 March 1631. The commissioners had met under authority of a letter sent by Edinburgh on 4 February. They considered a petition submitted to the King by the General of the Mint House containing proposals for correcting problems in the currency caused by the circulation of foreign dollars. The Privy Council had already ordered that the royal burghs be shown those proposals and given a copy so that their views could be heard.
After examining the petition and its proposals, the burgh commissioners concluded that it would be dangerous immediately to call in or stop the circulation of the dollars. Much of the money then circulating in Scotland consisted of those coins, and removing them before the country had been adequately supplied with other money would seriously harm the King’s subjects. They also considered that, if peace with Spain continued, the country might in time be relieved of some of the dollars and other imported money without such an abrupt measure.
They therefore asked the Privy Council not to take further action against the circulating dollars until the matter had received fuller consideration with advice from everyone concerned. Meanwhile, to prevent additional dollars entering Scotland, they proposed prohibiting their importation by either sea or land. Sheriffs, justices of the peace, provosts and bailies should be empowered to search for, seize and confiscate illegally imported dollars, with one half of the confiscated money going to the Crown and the other half to those making the seizure.
They also proposed forbidding the operators of coal pits and salt pans from accepting such dollars, under whatever penalties the Council chose to impose. Concerning bullion, they proposed that customs officers be forbidden to receive it and that the bullion instead be received by the master of the Mint House from merchants after their return from voyages, in foreign coin rather than English money. They further proposed prohibiting the melting of any of the King’s coinage, old or new. They believed that such measures, if taken promptly, would benefit the kingdom.
The commissioners nevertheless referred the larger currency question to the next general Convention of Burghs. Every burgh was to send commissioners sufficiently instructed with its best advice on correcting the existing abuses of the coinage and bringing additional money into the kingdom. The matter was to be included as an item in the next circular letter convening the burghs.
The document concludes by stating that the act was extracted from the register of the Convention of Burghs by Mr Alexander Guthrie, common clerk of Edinburgh and clerk also to the burghs, who authenticated it with his sign and manual subscription. The printed Register represents the subscription as “A Guthrie.”
This entry completes the documentary sequence begun on 3 March. Guthrie was not merely named in a discussion of the currency: he appeared personally when the requested written report was submitted, and the report itself identifies him as the officer who extracted and authenticated the Convention of Burghs act.
It also gives unusually clear evidence of his dual clerical role. He describes himself as both common clerk of Edinburgh and clerk to the burghs, showing why he repeatedly appears in Privy Council proceedings involving national burgh business rather than only Edinburgh’s local administration.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Convention of Burghs — the representative assembly through which Scotland’s royal burghs considered matters of common economic and municipal interest.
- To cry in — here, to call circulating money in or withdraw it from circulation.
- Dollours — foreign dollar coins circulating in Scotland.
- Free Burrowes — the royal or free burghs whose commissioners participated in the Convention.
- Cunziehous / Mint House — the royal mint or coinage establishment.
- Customers — customs officers, not purchasers in the modern retail sense.
- Bulyeoun — bullion; precious metal intended for monetary use or coinage.
- Allanerlie — only or solely.
- Subscriptioun manuall — a manual subscription or signature used to authenticate a document.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), pp. 158–159. Register references printed in the margins: Acta, January 1631–May 1632, fols. 47b–48a. Digitized volume.
31 March 1631 — Mr Alexander Guthrie Appears for Edinburgh in the Fishing Consultation
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 196 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Commissioners of the Fishing sent a letter asking to be told specifically which firths, lochs and bays were sought as exceptions or reserves for domestic use. Edinburgh was formally warned in the matter and appeared before the Council through Nicol Uddart and Mr Alexander Guthrie.
The two representatives did not give a final answer at this sitting. Instead they took until the next Council day to provide a complete note and record. The entry is therefore a procedural stage in the wider fishing consultation rather than the resulting list of waters or a final Council determination.
Printed Source Text — Complete Minute
“Ane missive frome the Commissionaris of the fisheing desiring to be particularlie certifyed of the frethis, lochis and bayis craved to be exceptit and reserved for the use of the cuntrey, quhairanent the toun of Edinburgh being warnit, and thay compeirand be NicoU Uddart and Mr Alexander Guthrie, thay tooke the nixt Counsall day to reporte a perfyte not and record of the same.”
Modern English Rendering
A letter was received from the Commissioners of the Fishing asking to be informed precisely which firths, lochs and bays were being requested as exceptions or reserves for the use of the country. Edinburgh was formally notified of the matter and appeared through Nicol Uddart and Mr Alexander Guthrie. They took until the next meeting day of the Privy Council to report a complete note and record of the requested information.
The minute adds another example of Alexander Guthrie acting beyond the routine internal business of Edinburgh. Here he and Nicol Uddart represent the town in a Council consultation connected with the national fishing interest and the identification of waters to be reserved for domestic use.
Together with his appearances in the coinage, navigation and other burgh matters in this volume, the entry helps define the practical representative work attached to his position as Edinburgh’s town clerk and clerk to the burghs.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Missive — a formal letter or written communication.
- Commissionaris of the fisheing — commissioners charged with matters relating to the fishing interest.
- Frethis — firths; arms or inlets of the sea.
- Exceptit and reserved — sought to be excluded from a wider arrangement and retained for the stated domestic use.
- Warnit — formally notified or summoned in connection with the proceeding.
- Compeirand — appearing before the Council.
- Perfyte not and record — a complete or exact written note and record.
- Nixt Counsall day — the next sitting day of the Privy Council.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p. 196. Register reference printed in the margin: Sederunt, November 1629–January 1635, fol. 64a. Digitized volume.
4 April 1631 — Bishop John Guthrie Appointed to Inspect the House of Frendraught
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 207 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Burning of Frendraught had occurred during the night of 7–8 October 1630, when a fire in the tower house caused several deaths, including those of Lord Melgum and the young Laird of Rothiemay. By April 1631 the Privy Council investigation was still attempting to establish how the fire had originated.
On 4 April the Council appointed a six-man commission that included John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray. The commissioners were instructed to go to Frendraught, inspect the building itself, study its construction and consider the physical possibilities for the fire’s origin.
Their questions were deliberately specific: Was the fire accidental or deliberately set by a person? Could someone outside the house have started it? The commissioners were to put their conclusions formally into writing and report to the Council on 20 April.
Printed Source Text — Complete Commission
“The Lords of Secreit Counsell gives and grants warrand and commissioun to Williame, Erie Mairshell, Patrik, Bishop of Abirdeene, Johne, Bishop of Murrey, James, Lord Ogilvie, David, Lord Carnegie, and Colonell Harie Bruce, or anie three of thame conjunctlie, to make thair addresse to the place of Fendraucht with convenient diligence and at suche tyme as they sail appoint, and there to sight and view the hous of Fendraucht, and to consider the frame and structure thairof, and how and by what meanes the fire wes raised within the same, and if the fire wes accidentall or done of sett purpose by the hand of man, and if there be anie possibilitie or probabilitie that the fire could have been raised be anie persons without the hous; and that they report thair proceedings and what they sail find thairin formallie in writt under thair hands to the saids Lords upon the twentie day of this instant, for doing whairof the extract of these presents sail be unto the saids commissioners ane sufficient warrand.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords of the Privy Council grant authority and a commission to William, Earl Marischal; Patrick, Bishop of Aberdeen; John, Bishop of Moray; James, Lord Ogilvie; David, Lord Carnegie; and Colonel Harry Bruce. Any three of them acting jointly are to go to the house of Frendraught as soon as conveniently possible, at a time they themselves appoint.
At Frendraught they are to inspect and examine the house and consider its construction. They are to investigate how and by what means the fire began inside it, whether the fire was accidental or deliberately started by a person, and whether there was any possibility or probability that someone outside the house could have caused it.
They are to put their proceedings and findings formally into writing, subscribe the report with their own hands and present it to the Privy Council on 20 April. An extract of this Council act is to serve as sufficient authority for carrying out the commission.
This commission places Bishop John Guthrie directly within one of the most important Privy Council investigations of the period. His role was not merely advisory or ecclesiastical: he was authorized to participate in an on-site examination of the physical structure of Frendraught and to help assess competing explanations for the fire.
The commission is particularly valuable when read with the surviving report on page 214. That later document establishes that Guthrie did more than receive the appointment: he was among the commissioners who inspected the site and subscribed their written findings.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Warrand and commissioun — formal authority to carry out the specified investigation.
- Conjunctlie — jointly; here any three of the six commissioners could act together.
- Make thair addresse — proceed or travel to the specified place.
- Sight and view — inspect personally.
- Sett purpose — deliberate intention or design.
- Without the hous — outside the house.
- Under thair hands — authenticated by the commissioners’ subscriptions or signatures.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p. 207. Register reference printed in the margin: Acta, January 1631–May 1632, fols. 59a–59b. Digitized volume.
13–20 April 1631 — Bishop John Guthrie Signs the Frendraught Inspection Report
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 214 • Report dated at Frendraught 13 April; produced in Council 20 April
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The commission issued on 4 April required an on-site investigation of the house of Frendraught. Five of the six men named in that commission subsequently subscribed the surviving report: Patrick, Bishop of Aberdeen; John, Bishop of Moray; James, Lord Ogilvie; David, Lord Carnegie; and Henry Bruce.
Their report is dated at Frendraught on 13 April. The commissioners state collectively that, in obedience to the Council’s warrant, they went to the house, examined its structure and considered where and how the fire might have begun.
They identified a vault as the probable starting area and reported evidence of fire in three separate places within it. Significantly, however, they expressly declined to decide whether the fire had arisen accidentally or had been deliberately set.
They did reach a narrower conclusion. After considering the structure of the house and other circumstances, they thought it probable that no person outside the house could have caused the fire without assistance from within.
Printed Source Text — Complete Report and Council Action
“The whilk day the report underwrittin subscryved be the commissioners appointed for visitatioun of the hous of Fendraucht wes produced in Counsell, of the whiche the tennour followes:—
At Fendraucht the threttene day of Aprile, the yeere of God jmvjc and threttie ane yeeres, we undersubscryvers for obedience of ane ordinance and warrand givin be the Lords of his Majesteis most honourable Privie Counsell made our addresse to the hous of Fendraucht and considderit the frame and structure thairof for tryell how and be what meanes the fire wes raised within the same and whither the fire wes accidentall or done of sett purpose be the hand of man, and if there be anie possibilitie or probabilitie that the fire could have beene raised be anie persoun without the hous; and having sighted and examined the samine with one voice and consent resolves as followes:—
We finde be all likliehood that the fire whairby the hous wes brunt wes first raised in ane vault whairin we find evidenceis of fire in three sindrie parts, one at the farthest end thairof, another towards the middes, and the thrid on that gavell whiche is hard by the hole that is under the bed whiche wes in the chamber abone. Your good lordships will excuse us if we determine not concerning the fire whether it wes accidentall or of sett purpose by the hand of man, onelie this muche it seemeth probable unto us after consideratioun of the frame of the hous and uther circumstances that no hand without could have raised the fire without aide frome within.
In witnes whairof we have subscryved thir presents with our hands. Pa. Aberdene; Jo. B. of Moray; J. L. Ogilvy; Carnegy; Henry Brus. Quhiche report being read in the presence and hearing of his Majesteis Counsell, the Lords ordains the same to be registrat and ane extract thairof givin to the parteis whome it doeth concerne.”
Modern English Rendering
On 20 April the written report subscribed by the commissioners appointed to inspect the house of Frendraught was produced before the Privy Council. The report itself states that, at Frendraught on 13 April 1631, the undersigned commissioners, obeying the Council’s ordinance and warrant, went to the house of Frendraught and examined its construction.
Their purpose was to determine how and by what means the fire had begun inside the building, whether it had arisen accidentally or had been deliberately caused by a person, and whether there was any possibility or probability that someone outside the house could have started it.
After inspecting and examining the building, the commissioners unanimously concluded that the fire most probably first began in a vault. They found evidence of burning in three separate places: one at the far end of the vault, another toward its middle, and a third on the gable near a hole beneath the bed that had stood in the chamber above.
The commissioners expressly declined to determine whether the fire was accidental or deliberately started by a person. They did, however, consider it probable, after examining the structure of the house and the other circumstances, that no person outside the building could have started the fire without assistance from someone within it.
The report was subscribed by Patrick, Bishop of Aberdeen; John, Bishop of Moray; James, Lord Ogilvie; Carnegie; and Henry Bruce. After it was read before the Privy Council, the Lords ordered it to be registered and an extract supplied to the parties concerned.
The report provides substantially stronger evidence of Bishop John Guthrie’s involvement than the commission of 4 April alone. The commissioners state that “we undersubscryvers” went to Frendraught, inspected the house and reached their conclusions unanimously. Guthrie is then individually named among those subscribing the document as “Jo. B. of Moray.”
It therefore documents Bishop John’s actual participation in the inspection rather than merely his appointment to the commission. It also preserves one of the clearest contemporary physical assessments made during the prolonged investigation into the Burning of Frendraught.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Visitatioun — an official inspection or visitation.
- Undersubscryvers — the persons whose signatures or subscriptions appear beneath the document.
- Sighted — personally viewed or inspected.
- With one voice and consent — unanimously.
- Vault — a vaulted room or chamber within the building.
- Gavell — gable or end wall.
- Sett purpose — deliberate intention or design.
- No hand without — no person acting from outside the house.
- Registrat — entered formally into the record.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p. 214. Report dated Frendraught, 13 April 1631, and produced in Council 20 April 1631. Register reference printed in the margin: Acta, January 1631–May 1632, fols. 62b–63a. Digitized volume.
9 June 1631 — Bishop John Guthrie Reports Three Men Reconciled with the Church
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 230 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Bishop John Guthrie appeared personally before the Privy Council together with Mr Thomas Mitchell, who represented the ministers of the diocese of Aberdeen. Their report concerned three men who had previously been under ecclesiastical excommunication.
Guthrie and Mitchell reported that Patrick Gordon of Kincragie, James Gordon of Letterfourie and Alexander Irving had now satisfied the Church in matters concerning their religion and had been formally released from the sentences of excommunication imposed upon them.
This is a particularly clear attendance record for Bishop John: unlike entries that merely appoint him to a commission, the minute expressly says that he “compeired personallie” before the Council.
Printed Source Text — Complete Minute
“The whilk day in presence of the Lords of Secreit Counsell compeired personallie Johne, Bishop of Murrey, and Mr Thomas Mitchell, commissioner for the ministers within the diocie of Aberdein, and reported to the saids Lords that Patrik Gordoun of Kincragie, James Gordoun of Letterfoure, and Alexander Irwing had satisfied the Kirk in points concerning thair religioun, and that they wer relaxt fra the sentence of excommunicatioun used agains thame for that cans.”
Modern English Rendering
On this day John, Bishop of Moray, and Mr Thomas Mitchell, commissioner for the ministers within the diocese of Aberdeen, appeared personally before the Lords of the Privy Council.
They reported that Patrick Gordon of Kincragie, James Gordon of Letterfourie and Alexander Irving had given satisfaction to the Church concerning matters of religion and had therefore been released from the sentences of excommunication previously imposed upon them for that cause.
The minute gives direct evidence of Bishop John Guthrie performing an active reporting function before the Privy Council in connection with religious conformity in northern Scotland. His involvement is not inferred from his episcopal office: the record expressly names him as personally present and participating in the report.
It also shows the connection between ecclesiastical discipline and Privy Council administration. The Church had imposed the excommunications; Guthrie and Mitchell now certified to the secular Council that the three men had satisfied the Church and been released from those censures.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Compeired personallie — appeared personally before the Council.
- Diocie — diocese.
- Satisfied the Kirk — met the ecclesiastical requirements imposed in relation to the religious matter at issue.
- Relaxed from excommunication — formally released from the Church sentence of excommunication.
- Kirk — the Church of Scotland in the terminology of the record.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p. 230; Acta, January 1631–May 1632, fol. 65b. See also p. 621, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 40, described as the draft of the Act of Council concerning this report. Digitized volume.
23 June 1631 — Alexander Guthrie’s Authenticated Edinburgh Act in the Leith Girnelling Dispute
Second Series, Volume 4 • Pages 248–251 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The dispute concerned Edinburgh’s long-claimed privileges in Leith, particularly the storage or girnelling of victual. Edinburgh had obtained a decree before the Lords of Session against several inhabitants of Leith, but the Privy Council had intervened against execution of that decree in so far as it affected the storage of victual.
The King subsequently instructed the Council that, if Edinburgh formally ratified its declaration protecting the rights of nobles, gentlemen and other subjects to store their own victual at Leith, the Council should remove its remaining obstruction and allow Edinburgh’s decree to proceed unless lawfully reduced before the ordinary judge.
On 23 June Edinburgh’s provost, bailies and members of council appeared, as did the Leith defenders. Edinburgh produced an act dated 15 June and expressly described in the Privy Council record as being under the subscription of Mr Alexander Guthrie, clerk of the burgh.
That incorporated act ratified Edinburgh’s earlier declaration: the prohibition against girnelling was to operate against the inhabitants of Leith, but was not to prevent noblemen, barons, gentlemen and other royal subjects from bringing or sending their victual to Leith and storing it there. Nor was it to prevent inhabitants of Leith from letting cellars and lofts to such outside owners for that purpose.
Guthrie then authenticated the extract as “common clerk of Edinburgh”. His role is therefore documentary and official. The record does not say that he personally argued Edinburgh’s legal case at this Council sitting.
Printed Source Text — Complete Council Act, Incorporated Edinburgh Act, Protests and Royal Warrant
“Anent our soverane Lords letters raised at the instance of the provest, bailleis and counsell of Edinburgh, makand mentioun, that where they having upon the saxtene of this instant exhibite unto the Lords of Privie Counsell ane letter from his Majestie conteaning ane declaratioun of his Majesteis royall pleasure, that if the saids compleaners sail ratifie the declaratioun conteanit in ane decreit recovered be thame before the Lords of Counsell and Sessioun in favours of the nobilitie, gentrie and others exprest thairin anent the girnelling of victuall that than the saids Lords without anie forder delay sould annull the act made be thame aganis the said decreit of the Lords of Sessioun in so farre as concerned the girnelling of victuall, as his Majesteis letter foresaid beiris:
Quhilk being read and considderit be the saids Lords of Privie Counsell, it wes thair pleasure before they would give ane answere thairto to ordaine the saids compleaners to warne the partie to heare the contents of his Majesteis letter intimat unto thame, quhilk for obedience of the saids Lords they ar content to doe, with protestatioun that the citatioun and warning to be used aganis thame is not to call in question or bring in tryell the validitie of the said decreit bot to give notice unto thame of his Majesteis will.
And anent the charge givin to James Home, Alexander Hay and George Logane, the three persons aganis whome the compleaners have recovered the said decreit, to have compeired personallie before the Lords of Privie Counsell at ane certane day bygane to have heard and seene his Majesteis royall will and pleasure mentiouned in his said letter intimat and signified unto thame, that accordinglie the saids Lords may doe thairin as his Majestie hes directed, under protestatioun foresaid with intimation as effeires, lykeas at mair lenth is conteanit in the saids letters, executions and indorsations thairof,—
quhilks being callit and Alexander Clerk, provest, Nicol Udward, Andrew Simsone, Gilbert Achesone and Johne Rind, bailleis of the said burgh of Edinburgh, with some of the Counsell thairof, compeirand personallie and the saids defenders being lykewayes personallie present, the saids persewers produced before the saids Lords ane act under the subscriptioun of Mr Alexander Guthrie, clerk of the said burgh, of the dait the fyftene day of Junij instant, proporting that the provest, bailleis, counsell and deacons of crafts of the said burgh being conveened in thair counsell, ratified and approved the declaratioun made be thame before the Lords of Session aganis certane inhabitants of Leith upon the ellevint of Marche, 1630, by the whilk they declared that the chartour grantit to thair predecessours be umquhile Sir Robert Logane of Restalrig and confirmations of the same anent the prohibitioun of girnelling of victuall in Leith sail be onelie proper and extendit aganis the inhabitants of Leith and sail nowayes be prejudiciall to whatsomever noblemen, barons, gentlemen and others, his Majesteis subjects who brings or sends victuall to Leith to girnell the same there, as the said act of ratification beiris.
Quhilk act being read, heard and considderit be the saids Lords, and they having lykewayes read and intimat his Majesteis missive letter foresaid to the defenders abonewrittin, who humbelie acquiesced to his Majesteis royall will and pleasure exprest in the said letter; lykeas the said Alexander Hay for himself and in name of the remanent defenders foresaids consented to the rescinding of the said act in so farre as concernes the girnelling of victuall;
and the saids Lords being weill advised with the said act of ratification, his Majesteis missive letter foresaid and consent abonewrittin of the saids defenders to the rescinding of the said act, the saids Lords of Secreit Counsell, in respect of the act of ratification foresaid and his Majesteis missive letter abonewrittin, hes rescindit and annulled, and be the tennor heirof rescinds and annulls the act foresaid made be thame aganis the decreet foresaid of the Lords of Sessioun, but prejudice of anie mans right and possessioun as accords of the law, and ordains the said act to have no forder force, effect nor executioun heerafter.
Lykeas the saids Lords hes ordainned and ordains the said act of ratificatioun produced be the saids persewers to be insert and registrat in the bookes of Privie Counsell, and they have interponned and interpons thair auctoritie thairto, of the quhilk act the tennour followes;—
Apud Edinburgum, decimo quinto die mensis Junij anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo trigesimo primo.
The whilk day the provest, bailleis, counsell of the burgh of Edinburgh and deacons of crafts of the same, being conveened, and considdering of the declaratioun made be thame anent the girnelling of victuall in Leith and conteanit in the decreit obteanit be thame before the Lords of Sessioun aganis certane inhabitants of Leith of the dait at Edinburgh the ellevint day of Marche, the yeere of God jmvjc and threttie yeeres, whairby they declared that the chartour grantit to thair predecessours be umquhill Sir Robert Logane of Restalrig, dated the last of May 1398, and confirmatioun of the same be umquhill King James the Fourth of worthie memorie, with the confirmation past of the same in Parliament upon the day of 1621 yeeres anent the prohibitioun of girnelling of victuall within the toun of Leith and renunciation of the same, sail be onelie proper and extendit aganis the inhabitants of Leith and sail no wayes be prejudiciall to whatsomever noblemen, barons, gentlemen and others his Majesteis lieges who brings or sends victuall to Leith to sell to girnell the same there, nor to the saids inhabitants of Leith to sett thair sellers and lofts to thame to that effect, bot that it sail be lawfull to the saids noblemen, barons, gentlemen and others his Majesteis lieges to girnell thair victuall there conforme to use and wount, with provisioun alwayes that notwithstanding this declaratioun the said chartour grantit be the said umquhile Sir Robert Logane and confirmations of the same sail stand in force and effect aganis the saids inhabitants conforme to the tennour thairof.
Whiche declaratioun upon the provisioun thairin conteanit the saids provest, bailleis, counsell and deacons of crafts ratifies and approves, and be thir presents of new declaires, That the said prohibitioun of girnelling of victuall within the said toun of Leith and renunciatioun of the same sail be onelie proper and extendit aganis the saids inhabitants of Leith, and sail no wayes be prejudiciall to whatsomever noblemen, barons, gentlemen and others his Majesteis lieges who brings or sends victuall to Leith to sell to girnell the same there, nor to the saids inhabitants of Leith to sett thair sellers and lofts to thame to that effect, bot that it sail be lawfull to the saids noblemen, gentlemen and others his Majesteis lieges to girnell thair victuall thair conforme to use and wount, with provisioun alwayes notwithstanding of this declaratioun, the said chartour grantit be the said umquhill Sir Robert Logane and confirmations of the same sail stand in force and effect aganis the saids inhabitants of Leith conforme to the tennour thairof.
Lykeas the saids provest, bailleis, counsell and deacons of crafts ar content and consents that this thair ratification and declaratioun sail be insert and registrat in the bookes of Secreit Counsell ad futuram rei memoriam. Extract furth of the register of the Acts of Counsell of the burgh of Edinburgh be me Mr Alexander Guthre, common clerk of Edinburgh, witnessing heirto this my signe and subscriptioun manuall, A. Guthre.”
“The whilk day the said Alexander Hay, for himselfe and in name of the defenders foresaids, protested that the decreit recovered be the provest and bailleis of Edinburgh aganis the saids defenders sail be no farder extendit in favours of the saids provest and bailleis bot aganis thair awne vassallis in Leith and thair awne superioriteis there; and the saids provest and bailleis protested in the contrarie in respect of thair infeftment grantit be the umquhill Laird of Restalrig as being superiour of the haill toun of Leith for the tyme.
Followes his Majesteis missive for warrand of the act abonewrittin:— Charles R. Right trustie and right weilbelovit cousine and counsellour, right trustie and weilbelovit cousines and counsellours and trustie and weilbelovit counsellours, we greit yow weill. We perceave by your letter unto us that yow have rescindit your act made aganis the decree obteanned by our burgh of Edinburgh aganis some inhabitants of Leith, except in so farre as concerneth the girnelling of victuall, and as yow have desyred by your letter, having dewlie considderit the declaratioun made to our Sessioun insert in the said decreit that notwithstanding of the said decreit, it sould be lawfull to anie nobleman, gentleman or others our subjects to girnell victuall there, except the inhabitants of Leith, and that our said burgh doe not clame anie other priviledge than by the lawes of our kingdome is allowed and warranted by former decreits,
it is our pleasure that if our said burgh sail ratifie the said declaratioun conteanned in the said decreit made in favours of our nobilitie, gentrie and others expressed in the samine before yow that yow without anie further delay annull the said act in so farre as concerneth the girnelling of victuall also, and leave the free executioun of the said decreit to our said burgh ay and whill the samine be lawfullie reduced before the judge ordinar; and for your so doing these presents sail be unto yow a sufficient warrand. So we bid yow fareweill. Frome our mannour at Greenwiche, the second day of Junij 1631.”
Modern English Rendering
The proceeding arose from letters raised by Edinburgh’s provost, bailies and council. On 16 June they had presented the Privy Council with a royal letter declaring that, if Edinburgh formally ratified the qualification already contained in its Court of Session decree protecting the nobility, gentry and others in the matter of storing victual, the Privy Council was to annul without further delay its own act opposing that decree in so far as it concerned girnelling.
Before acting, the Privy Council required Edinburgh to notify the opposing parties so that the King’s instructions could be formally communicated to them. Edinburgh agreed, while expressly protesting that this citation was not intended to reopen or test the validity of its Session decree.
James Home, Alexander Hay and George Logan—the three persons against whom Edinburgh had obtained its decree—were accordingly summoned. At the Council hearing, Provost Alexander Clerk, Bailies Nicol Uddart, Andrew Simpson, Gilbert Acheson and John Rind, together with members of Edinburgh’s council, appeared personally. The defenders were also personally present.
Edinburgh then produced an act dated 15 June 1631 under the subscription of Mr Alexander Guthrie, clerk of the burgh. It stated that Edinburgh’s provost, bailies, council and craft deacons had formally ratified an earlier declaration made before the Lords of Session.
That declaration limited the operation of Edinburgh’s claimed prohibition on storing victual in Leith. The restriction was to apply to the inhabitants of Leith themselves, but it was not to prejudice noblemen, barons, gentlemen or other royal subjects who brought or sent their own victual to Leith for storage. Leith inhabitants were also permitted to let their cellars and lofts to those outside owners for that purpose.
After hearing the act and the King’s letter, the Leith defenders accepted the King’s expressed will. Alexander Hay, for himself and the other defenders, consented to the rescinding of the Privy Council’s former act in so far as it concerned the girnelling of victual.
The Privy Council, having considered Edinburgh’s ratification, the King’s letter and the defenders’ consent, rescinded and annulled its previous act against the Session decree. This was done without prejudice to any person’s lawful rights and possession. The Council also ordered Edinburgh’s ratification to be inserted and registered in the Privy Council books and interposed its authority to it.
The incorporated Edinburgh act then sets out the earlier title history on which the burgh relied, including a charter granted by Sir Robert Logan of Restalrig dated 31 May 1398, subsequent royal confirmation, and a parliamentary confirmation referred to as dating from 1621.
Edinburgh again declared that its prohibition against girnelling in Leith was directed against Leith’s inhabitants and was not to prevent nobles, barons, gentlemen or other subjects from storing their own victual there. The older charter and confirmations were nevertheless to remain effective against the inhabitants of Leith according to their terms.
Edinburgh’s provost, bailies, council and craft deacons consented to have this ratification and declaration registered in the Privy Council books for future record. The act concludes with the certification of Mr Alexander Guthrie, common clerk of Edinburgh, who states that he extracted it from the burgh council register and authenticated it with his sign and manual subscription, printed as “A. Guthre.”
Alexander Hay then entered a protest for himself and the other Leith defenders. He maintained that Edinburgh’s decree should extend no further than Edinburgh’s own vassals in Leith and its own superiorities there. Edinburgh’s provost and bailies entered the contrary protest, relying upon the infeftment granted by the former Laird of Restalrig, whom they described as superior of the whole town of Leith at the time.
Finally the record reproduces the King’s letter from Greenwich, dated 2 June 1631. Charles stated that he had considered Edinburgh’s declaration and instructed the Privy Council that, once the burgh ratified its protection of the rights of nobles, gentlemen and other subjects to store victual in Leith, the Council was to annul its remaining restriction and permit Edinburgh’s Session decree to be freely executed until and unless that decree was lawfully reduced before the ordinary judge.
This lengthy proceeding gives especially strong evidence for Alexander Guthrie’s role as Edinburgh’s record officer. The Privy Council specifically identifies the document produced before it as an act “under the subscriptioun of Mr Alexander Guthrie, clerk of the said burgh.”
The act is then reproduced in full and closes with Guthrie’s own formal clerical style: “Mr Alexander Guthre, common clerk of Edinburgh.” His authenticated extract became part of the documentary basis on which the Privy Council rescinded its earlier intervention in the Edinburgh–Leith dispute.
The entry also illustrates the importance of distinguishing documentary participation from advocacy. Guthrie authenticated the Edinburgh act, but the people expressly recorded as personally appearing for Edinburgh at the Privy Council hearing were the provost, bailies and other members of council.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Girnell / girnelling — to store grain or other victual in a girnel or granary; here a commercially and legally significant storage privilege.
- Victual — grain and other staple agricultural produce.
- Decreit — decree or judicial decision.
- Lords of Session — the judges of Scotland’s supreme civil court, the Court of Session.
- Ratification — formal confirmation or approval of an earlier declaration or act.
- Infeftment — formal feudal investiture or title to heritable property or superiority.
- Superioritie — feudal superiority or the rights held by a superior over vassal lands.
- Vassal — a person holding land under a feudal superior.
- Ad futuram rei memoriam — for the future remembrance or record of the matter.
- Subscriptioun manuall — manual subscription or signature authenticating the document.
- Ay and whill — until such time as.
- Judge ordinar — the ordinary court or judge having competent jurisdiction over the legal question.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), pp. 248–251; principal Privy Council record under Acta, January 1631–May 1632, fols. 68b–70a. The incorporated Edinburgh act is dated 15 June 1631; the royal missive reproduced with the proceeding is dated Greenwich, 2 June 1631. The Miscellaneous Papers also preserve an extract of the Edinburgh act and part of the draft Council act relating to this proceeding. Digitized volume.
5 July 1631 — Bishop John Guthrie Named in the Conditional Oversight of Alexander Gordon of Carnebarrow
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 268 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Alexander Gordon of Carnebarrow had previously become bound in the Privy Council books either to conform to the established religion or leave Scotland by 15 September. According to his supplication, he had intended to leave the country, but the illness of his aged father compelled him to remain in attendance upon him until his father’s death.
Gordon therefore asked the Council for another date by which he could determine his course. The Council allowed him until Martinmas, but imposed several conditions and required Robert Gordon of Garloche to become cautioner for his compliance.
Bishop John Guthrie enters the record at the enforcement stage. Gordon was required meanwhile not to receive Jesuits or priests, to admit religious conference and to attend church. If the Council learned from the Bishop of Moray that Gordon had been disobedient, the extended warrant was to be recalled and the Council would proceed against him rigorously.
Printed Source Text — Complete Printed Entry (Editorial Abridgment)
Supplication by Alexander Gordoun of Carnebarrow, as follows:—He came under caution in the books of Privy Council either to conform to the religion presently professed, or leave the country before 15th September last. He was fully resolved to adopt the latter alternative, but in the meantime it pleased God to visit his aged father with sickness, and “the dewties of nature and conscience” obliged him to remain in attendance upon his father until , when it pleased God to call him to his mercy. He craves that in the circumstances their Lordships would appoint him another day, by which time he may be able to determine his line of conduct.
The Lords assign to him the term of Martinmas next, Robert Gordoun of Garloche becoming cautioner for him that by that time he will either conform to the true religion or leave the country, under the penalty of £300; as also that he will pay the sum of £500 already incurred by him to his Majesty’s Treasurer, and compone for his escheat; and, further, that meanwhile he will not reset Jesuits and priests, and will admit and hear conference and resort to church; otherwise their Lordships, on learning from the Bishop of Murrey of his disobedience, will recall this warrant, and proceed against him with all rigour and severity.
Modern English Rendering
Alexander Gordon of Carnebarrow had previously given security before the Privy Council that he would either conform to the established religion or leave Scotland by 15 September. He said that he had intended to leave, but his elderly father became ill, and his obligations of family and conscience required him to remain with his father until the latter died.
Gordon therefore asked the Council to give him a new deadline. The Lords allowed him until Martinmas. Robert Gordon of Garloche became surety that by then Alexander would either conform or leave the country, under a penalty of £300.
Alexander Gordon was also required to pay the £500 already incurred to the King’s Treasurer and make composition for his forfeited movable goods. During the extended period he was not to shelter Jesuits or priests, was to permit religious conference with him, and was to attend church.
If the Privy Council learned from the Bishop of Moray that Gordon had disobeyed these conditions, the Council would revoke the extension and proceed against him with full severity.
The entry shows Bishop John Guthrie occupying a continuing ecclesiastical oversight role in the Council’s enforcement of religious conformity. The Council specifically identifies the Bishop of Moray as the person from whom it expected to receive information if Gordon failed to comply with the religious conditions imposed upon him.
This complements the more direct appearance evidence elsewhere in Volume IV. At page 230 Guthrie personally reported the religious status of three men before the Council; here, the Council itself anticipates relying upon information from him concerning another individual’s obedience.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Caution — security given for performance of an obligation, normally backed by a cautioner or surety.
- Cautioner — a person undertaking financial responsibility if another failed to fulfil the stated obligation.
- Martinmas — 11 November, one of the traditional Scottish term days.
- Compone — to make financial composition or settlement, here concerning the escheat.
- Escheat — forfeiture of movable property following legal denunciation or related process.
- Reset — to receive, harbour or shelter; here specifically Jesuits and priests.
- Conference — religious discussion or instruction intended here as part of the process toward conformity.
- Warrant — the Council’s authority permitting the extension granted to Gordon.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p. 268; Decreta, March 1631–April 1632, fol. 228b. Brown presents the proceeding in editorial abridgment with selected original wording. Digitized volume.
12 July 1631 — Mr Alexander Guthrie Ordered to Be Warned Concerning the Burghs’ Coinage Report
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 281 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Council returned in July to the burghs’ report concerning the coinage. On 12 July it issued a short procedural order directing that Mr Alexander Guthrie be warned to Thursday in connection with that report.
The minute belongs to the continuing currency sequence in which Guthrie had already appeared with David Aikinheid and the burgh commissioners. On 8 March the formal written recommendations of the Convention of Burghs had been submitted to the Privy Council, with Guthrie authenticating the extract in his clerical capacity.
This July entry is deliberately narrow. It records the order for warning but does not itself say that Guthrie had yet appeared, delivered a new report or received a substantive decision from the Council.
Printed Source Text — Complete Minute
“Ordains Mr Alexander Guthrie to be warned to Thurisday anent the Burrowes report concerning the coyne.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords order that Mr Alexander Guthrie be formally notified to attend on Thursday concerning the report of the burghs about the coinage.
Although only one sentence, the minute demonstrates that the burghs’ currency report remained active Council business months after its formal submission in March and that Alexander Guthrie continued to serve as the person through whom the Council dealt with the burghs in that documentary and representative process.
It also links directly forward to the later minute at page 284, where Guthrie is again involved in the coinage proceedings and is warned apud acta. Taken together, the entries document a continuing procedural sequence rather than isolated references to an unrelated coinage question.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Ordains — formally orders or directs.
- Warned — formally notified or summoned to attend.
- Thurisday — Thursday, the later day fixed for the matter.
- Anent — concerning or regarding.
- Burrowes — the royal burghs acting collectively through their representative institutions.
- Coyne — coin or coinage.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p. 281; Acta, January 1631–May 1632, fol. 77a. Digitized volume.
14 July 1631 — Mr Alexander Guthrie Warned Apud Acta in the Continuing Coinage Matter
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 284 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Two days after ordering that Mr Alexander Guthrie be warned concerning the burghs’ coinage report, the Privy Council again considered the matter. No substantive decision was yet reached. Instead, the Lords continued the report until the following Tuesday.
The minute adds that Guthrie was warned apud acta. This is a more definite procedural stage than the order of 12 July: notice was now recorded within the Council proceedings themselves.
The entry forms part of the same continuing currency sequence documented earlier at pp. 155–156, 158–159 and 281. The report remained that of the burghs collectively; Guthrie’s recurring role reflects his position as their clerk and representative officer.
Printed Source Text — Complete Minute
“The Lords continewes the report anent the coyne untill Tuisday nixt whairof Mr Alexander Guthrie wes warrand apud acta.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords continue consideration of the report concerning the coinage until the following Tuesday. Mr Alexander Guthrie was formally warned of that continuation in the Council proceedings.
This short minute supplies the procedural sequel to the order of 12 July. The earlier record directed that Guthrie be warned; this one records notice apud acta, showing that the coinage consultation remained active and that Guthrie continued to be the Council’s point of contact for the burghs’ report.
Read together with the March proceedings, it documents sustained involvement over several months rather than a single isolated appearance in the currency debate.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Continewes — postpones or carries the matter forward to another sitting.
- Anent — concerning.
- Coyne — coin or coinage.
- Apud acta — literally “among/in the acts”; notice formally given or recorded within the proceedings themselves.
- Tuisday nixt — the following Tuesday.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p. 284; Sederunts, November 1629–January 1635, fol. 61b. Digitized volume.
21 February 1632 — Isobel Simson, Widow of the Late Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 431 • Heraldic succession and custody of a coat of arms
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
By 21 February 1632 Alexander Guthrie, previously identified in Volume IV as Marchmont Herald, was dead. The proceeding supplies an important family fact absent from the earlier Calder record: his widow was Isobel Simson.
James Espline, who is described as the current Marchmont Herald, had raised letters against Isobel Simson and Walter Robertson, town clerk of Aberdeen. They were charged to appear before the Privy Council and produce a coat of arms of the late Alexander Guthrie said to be in their custody, so that it could be delivered to Espline.
Mr Robert Petrie appeared as procurator for Simson and Robertson and produced the letters raised against them. Because Espline himself failed to appear while they were ready to answer the proceeding, Petrie entered a protest that nothing further should happen until they were cited again and their expenses were fixed and paid. The Lords admitted that protest.
Printed Source Text — Complete Printed Entry (Editorial Abridgment)
The said day Mr. Robert Petrie as procurator for Isobel Simsoun, widow of Alexander Guthrie, Marchemont herald, and Walter Robertsoun, town clerk of Aberdein, produced letters raised against them at the instance of James Espline, now Marchemont herald, charging them to compear before their Lordships and produce the said Alexander’s coat of arms in their custody, so that it might be delivered up to the said James, and protested that as the said James has failed to appear, and they were ready to answer, nothing further should proceed in the case until they were cited anew and their expenses modified and paid to them. Which protest the Lords admitted.
Modern English Rendering
On the same day Mr Robert Petrie, acting as procurator for Isobel Simson, widow of the late Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald, and for Walter Robertson, town clerk of Aberdeen, produced the legal letters that James Espline, now Marchmont Herald, had raised against them.
Those letters required Simson and Robertson to appear before the Privy Council and produce a coat of arms belonging to or associated with the deceased Alexander Guthrie that was in their custody, so that it could be delivered to James Espline.
Petrie protested that Espline had failed to appear even though Simson and Robertson were ready to answer the case. He therefore asked that nothing further proceed until they had been cited again and their expenses had been assessed and paid. The Privy Council admitted the protest.
The entry establishes three important facts about the Marchmont Herald who appeared earlier in Volume IV. First, Alexander Guthrie was dead by 21 February 1632. Second, his widow was Isobel Simson. Third, James Espline had succeeded to the office of Marchmont Herald.
It also provides a rare material connection with Guthrie’s heraldic office: a “coat of arms” associated with the deceased herald was being sought from the custody of his widow and Walter Robertson for delivery to the succeeding Marchmont Herald.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Marchmont Herald — one of the royal heraldic officers of arms in Scotland.
- Procurator — a legal representative appearing and acting for a party.
- Letters — formal legal process issued to compel appearance or performance.
- Compear — to appear formally before a court or council.
- Protest — a formal declaration preserving a party’s procedural or legal position.
- Expenses modified — legal expenses assessed or fixed by authority.
- Coat of arms — in this proceeding, an heraldic object associated with the deceased Marchmont Herald; the printed record does not describe its physical form or armorial design.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p. 431; Decreta, March 1631–April 1632, fol. 331b. Brown presents the proceeding in editorial abridgment. Digitized volume.
17 July 1632 — Bishop John Guthrie Appears with Doctor William Leslie and Robert Irving
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 510 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Doctor William Leslie and Robert Irving, burgess of Aberdeen, had previously been removed from Scotland because of what the Council described as their obstinate refusal to conform to the religion established in the kingdom. They were under obligation not to return without royal licence.
The Council alleged that they had subsequently obtained warrants permitting their return but had not presented those warrants to the Council after coming back into Scotland. They had therefore been charged to appear and produce the authority under which they had returned.
When the matter was called, John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, appeared personally with Leslie and Irving. Both men maintained that they possessed royal warrants for their return.
The Council did not immediately reject that assertion. Instead, Robert Irving was given until 26 July to produce his warrant, while Doctor Leslie was assigned the following Thursday to produce his warrant and the Council act made upon it.
Bishop John was simultaneously ordered to produce the Act of Assembly concerning doctors of medicine. That instruction leads directly to the later proceeding of 26 July printed at pp. 515–516.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
“Anent our soverane lords letters direct makand mentioun, forsameekle as Doctour Williame Leslie and Robert Irwing, burges of Aberdein, being removed out of this kingdome for thair obstinat refuisall to conforme thameselffes to the religioun presentlie profest within the same, and they being under band not to have returned without his Majesteis licence they, upon some sinistrous informatioun, hes procured warrand and licence for thair returne; and now being returned they have never acknowledged his Majesteis Counsell nor produced and shawin thair warrands to thame, bot remaines publictlie and avowedlie in the countrie to the contempt and misregarde of the saids Lords:
And anent the charge givin to the said Doctour Leslie and Robert Irwing to have compeired personallie before the Lords of Privie Counsell this present twelfe day of Julij instant and to have brought and produced with thame thair saids warrands to have beene seene and considderit be the saids Lords and to have underlyne suche order as sould be tane thereanent, under the pane of rebellioun, etc., with certificatioun, etc., certifeing thame alsua if they compeired not the saids Lords would recall the saids licences, lykeas at mair lenth is conteanit in the saids letters, executiouns and indorsations thereof:
Quhilks being callit and Johne, Bishop of Murrey, compeirand personallie with the saids Doctour Leslie and Robert Irwing, who alledged that they had his Majesteis warrands for thair returne within this kingdome; quhilk alledgeance being heard and considderit be the saids Lords and they being therewith weill advised, the Lords of Secreit Counsell assignes to the said Robert Irwing the twentie sext of this instant for productioun of his warrand, and to Doctour Leslie, Thursday nixt for production of his warrand with the act of Counsell following thairupoun;
and ordains the Bishop of Murrey to produce that day the act of Assemblie tuicheing doctours of medicine; and allowes the said doctour to attend the Marqueis of Huntlie for ministring of physick unto him; and ordains him to carie himselfe modestlie without giving mater of offence or scandall and not to repaire in anie wayes publictlie in tyme of divine service under the pane of recalling of his warrand.”
Modern English Rendering
Doctor William Leslie and Robert Irving, burgess of Aberdeen, had been removed from Scotland because of their refusal to conform to the religion established there. They had been bound not to return without the King’s licence.
According to the Council proceeding, they later obtained warrants and licences allowing them to return, but after coming back they had not presented those warrants to the Privy Council. They were therefore charged to appear personally and produce the documents authorizing their return, so that the Council could consider them. Failure to appear could result in revocation of the licences.
When the case was called, John, Bishop of Moray, appeared personally with Doctor Leslie and Robert Irving. Leslie and Irving stated that they had royal warrants permitting their return to Scotland.
The Council assigned Robert Irving 26 July to produce his warrant. Doctor Leslie was given until the following Thursday to produce his own warrant together with the Council act made upon it.
The Bishop of Moray was ordered to produce on that day the Act of Assembly concerning doctors of medicine.
Meanwhile Doctor Leslie was permitted to attend the Marquis of Huntly as his physician. He was ordered to conduct himself modestly, avoid giving offence or religious scandal, and not appear publicly during divine service, under penalty of having his warrant recalled.
This is direct evidence of Bishop John Guthrie’s personal attendance before the Privy Council in July 1632. The wording is explicit: he “compeirand personallie” with Leslie and Irving.
The entry also assigns him a specific documentary responsibility. He was to bring forward the Act of Assembly concerning doctors of medicine, showing that his involvement in Leslie’s case extended beyond simply accompanying the two men before the Council.
The order provides the documentary bridge to the proceeding of 26 July, when Guthrie actually produced an earlier Council act regulating the practice of medicine.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Under band — formally bound by an obligation.
- Warrand — formal authority or authorization.
- Compeired personallie — appeared personally before the Council.
- Production — formal presentation of a document before the Council.
- Act of Assemblie — an act of the Church’s General Assembly.
- Doctours of medicine — physicians or persons practising medicine.
- Ministring of physick — practising medicine or giving medical treatment.
- Certificatioun — a warning of the legal consequence that would follow noncompliance.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p. 510, under the session heading Holyrood House, 17 July 1632. Digitized volume.
26 July 1632 — Bishop John Guthrie Produces the Medical-Practice Act
Second Series, Volume 4 • Pages 515–516 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This proceeding completes the documentary production ordered in the earlier July hearing. John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, again appeared personally and produced an earlier Council act governing the practice of medicine.
The act was dated 16 December 1616. It prohibited any person, regardless of rank or quality, from professing or practising medicine until first obtaining a testimonial from the bishop of the diocese where that person lived certifying conformity to the religion established by law. Violation carried a penalty of 500 merks.
Doctor William Leslie then personally produced the documents authorizing his return. Robert Irving appeared through his procurator, Mr Robert Petrie, who likewise produced Irving’s royal warrant.
After examining Leslie’s documents, the Council concluded that his licence had been granted specifically for the service of the Marquis of Huntly. Leslie was therefore prohibited from practising medicine for anyone except Huntly and Huntly’s family.
Irving’s royal licence was treated differently. The Council ordered an authenticated copy to be sent to the Bishop of Aberdeen so that the bishop could know the King’s will concerning it.
Printed Source Text — Complete Proceeding
“Anent the terme assigned to Doctour Williame Leslie and Robert Irwing for productioun before the Lords of Privie Counsell of the warrands grantit to thame for thair returne within this kingdome, as in the act made to this effect at lenth is conteanit; quhilk being callit and Johne, Bishop of Murrey, compeirand personallie, who produced and exhibite before the Lords of Privie Counsell ane act and warrand of Counsell of the dait the saxteenth day of December, 1616, conteaning ane prohibitioun and discharge to all persons of what ranke and qualitie so ever they be that nane of thame presoome nor take upon hand to professe or practise physick whill first they receave ane testimoniall of the Bishop of the diocie where they dwell of thair conformitie to the trew religioun presentlie profest and be law established within this kingdome under the pane of fyve hundreth merkes to be incurred be everie persoun contraveening thir presentis;
and the said Doctour Williame Leslie compeirand personallie, and the said Robert Irwing compeirand be Mr Robert Petrie, his procurator, who for obedience and satisfactioun of the act foresaid and terme assigned to thame for productioun of thair warrands produced and exhibite before the saids Lords thair warrands for thair returne within this kingdome, to witt,—the said Doctour Leslie produced his warrand and act of Counsell grantit to him for his returne within this kingdome and the said Mr Robert Petrie, in name of the said Robert Irwing, produced ane warrand grantit to the said Robert be the Kings Majestie for his returne within this kingdome and for his remaining therein during the space of sax moneths to order his effaires, as the said licence bearing dait at Greenewiche, the 25 day of May 1631, yeeres beiris.
Quhilks warrands being read, scene and considderit be the saids Lords and they weill advised therewith, the Lords of Secreit Counsell finds and declares that the licence grantit to the said Doctour Leslie wes onelie in favours and for the service of the Marqueis of Huntlie, and thairfoir discharges the said Doctour of all ministring of physick to anie others persons within this kingdome except to the said Marqueis of Huntlie and his familie allanerlie;
and commands the said Doctour, who wes personallie present, to carie himselfe soberlie without giving scandall or offence in maters of religioun or misbehaving himselfe towards the bishops or ministers under all highest censure that can be inflicted upon him. And the saids Lords ordains ane authentick copie of the licence grantit to the said Robert Irwing to be sent to the Bishop of Abirdein to the intent he may be advised therewith and know his Majesteis will and pleasure thereanent.
Followes the tennour of the licence:— Charles R. Whereas we have beene humbelie petitiouned in behalfe of Robert and Alexander Irwings and Thomas Meinzeis that they may have suche libertie to trade in that our kingdome as is grantit to anie stranger resorting thither and the rather that they out of ane humble and dew obedience to our lawes did abandoun our said kingdome and have settled thameselffes, wifes and famileis in Deepe in France, where they (being reduced to great povertie) can hardlie live (as we ar informed) without they be licenced to repaire to and frome that kingdome for dispatche of thair necessarie effaires in trade of merchandice,
and in some things concerning thair owne privat estaits wherewith they (in obedience to our saids lawes) could not have tyme to take order at thair departure thence; these consideratiouns joynned with that of thair losses susteanned (as we ar lykewayes informed) by thame, have moved in us our princelie compassioun so farre to give way to thair demand as may not anie wayes wrong or derogate frome the estait of the present religioun within the said kingdome. To whiche purpose we have signified our pleasure to our Counsell.
These ar thairfoir to licence the saids Robert and Alexander Irwings and Thomas Meinzeis during the space of sax moneths to order thair effaires within the said kingdome and to trade within the same frome tyme to tyme as occasioun sail require during the said space, they behaving thameselffes as aforesaid, inhibiting yow and everie of yow frome troubling or anie wayes molesting the saids persons or anie of thame at anie tyme as aforesaid or upon anie occasioun in despatching thair saids effaires as yow and everie of yow will answer us in the contrare at your perrills.
So we bid yow farewell. Givin at our mannour of Greenwiche, the 25 day of May, 1631. To all and sindrie our officers, servants and others, our subjects whatsoever, als weill ecclesiasticall as civill, of our kingdome of Scotland whome these presents doe or may concerne.”
Modern English Rendering
When the appointed time arrived for Doctor William Leslie and Robert Irving to produce the warrants authorizing their return to Scotland, John, Bishop of Moray, appeared personally before the Privy Council.
Bishop John produced a Council act and warrant dated 16 December 1616. That earlier act prohibited anyone, whatever his rank or status, from professing or practising medicine until he had first obtained a testimonial from the bishop of the diocese in which he lived certifying his conformity to the religion then established by law in Scotland. Anyone contravening the rule incurred a penalty of 500 merks.
Doctor Leslie also appeared personally. Robert Irving appeared through his procurator, Mr Robert Petrie. In compliance with the Council’s earlier order, both sides produced the documents relied upon as authority for their return to Scotland.
Leslie produced his warrant and the Council act permitting his return. Petrie, for Robert Irving, produced a royal warrant allowing Irving to return to Scotland and remain there for six months to arrange his affairs. Irving’s licence was dated at Greenwich on 25 May 1631.
After reading and considering the warrants, the Privy Council found that Leslie’s licence had been granted only for the benefit and service of the Marquis of Huntly. Leslie was therefore forbidden to practise medicine for anyone in Scotland other than the Marquis and members of his family.
Leslie, who was personally present, was also ordered to conduct himself soberly, give no religious scandal or offence, and not misbehave toward bishops or ministers, under the highest censure that could be imposed upon him.
The Council ordered an authenticated copy of Robert Irving’s licence to be sent to the Bishop of Aberdeen so that he could examine it and know the King’s will concerning Irving.
The record then reproduces the royal licence. Charles stated that Robert and Alexander Irving and Thomas Menzies had petitioned for liberty to trade in Scotland in the manner permitted to strangers. They had, according to the licence, obeyed the laws by leaving Scotland and settling with their wives and families at Dieppe in France, where they were said to have fallen into considerable poverty.
Because they needed access to Scotland to conduct necessary commercial business and settle private affairs that they had been unable to arrange before leaving, the King granted Robert and Alexander Irving and Thomas Menzies six months in which to come into Scotland, arrange their affairs and conduct trade, provided their conduct did not prejudice the established religion.
Royal officers and subjects, ecclesiastical and civil, were prohibited from troubling or molesting them while they exercised that limited licence. The warrant was issued at Greenwich on 25 May 1631.
The entry confirms that Bishop John Guthrie carried out the documentary task imposed upon him in the earlier July proceeding. He did not merely receive an order to produce the relevant act: the record expressly states that he appeared personally and produced it.
It also reveals an unusually concrete administrative connection between episcopal authority and medical practice. The 1616 act required a person wishing to practise medicine to obtain a testimonial from the bishop of the diocese certifying religious conformity.
For the Guthrie record, this places Bishop John within a Council proceeding that combined religious regulation, professional medical practice and royal licences for people previously removed from Scotland.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Physick — medicine; to “practise physick” was to practise as a physician.
- Testimoniall — a formal certificate or written attestation.
- Diocie — diocese.
- Procurator — legal representative appearing for another person.
- Allanerlie — only or solely.
- Authentick copie — an officially authenticated copy.
- Six moneths — the limited period granted in the royal licence for arranging affairs and trading.
- Dieppe — the French port written “Deepe” in the record.
- Inhibiting — formally prohibiting.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), pp. 515–516, under the session heading Holyrood House, 26 July 1632. The incorporated earlier Council act is dated 16 December 1616; the royal licence reproduced in the proceeding is dated Greenwich, 25 May 1631. Digitized volume.
20 November 1632 — Alexander Guthrie Heard in a Renewed Consultation on Foreign Coin
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 570 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council returned to the continuing problem of foreign currency late in 1632. Mr Alexander Guthrie again appears as Edinburgh’s town clerk in a consultation involving both the burgh and the officers of the royal Mint.
The Lords heard William Gray, bailie of Edinburgh, Alexander Guthrie, town clerk, and the general and officers of the Mint concerning a proposal made to the King for reforming abuses associated with foreign coin.
No final decision was taken at this sitting. Instead, Edinburgh and the Mint officers were ordered to consider the proposal carefully, assess its good and harmful consequences, and return their judgment and opinion to the Council on 29 November.
The entry resumes the currency work in which Guthrie had already participated during 1630–1631. It demonstrates that by November 1632 he remained directly involved when the Council sought the burgh’s institutional advice on monetary reform.
Printed Source Text — Complete Minute
“The whilk day the Lords of Secreit Counsell, having heard Williame Gray, baillie, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, toun clerk of Edinburgh, and the generall and officiars of the Cunziehous upon the propositioun made to his Majestie for reforming the abuse of forrane coyne, the saids Lords ordains the toun of Edinburgh and the officiars of the Cunziehous to consider advisedlie upon the said propositioun and of the good and evill thairof, and to report thair judgement and opinioun concerning the same to the saids Lords upon the twentie nynt day of November instant, unto the quhilk day the saids Lords continewes this mater.”
Modern English Rendering
On this day the Lords of the Privy Council heard William Gray, bailie of Edinburgh; Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh; and the general and officers of the Mint concerning a proposal made to the King for correcting abuses involving foreign coin.
The Lords ordered the town of Edinburgh and the Mint officers to examine the proposal carefully, consider both its advantages and disadvantages, and report their judgment and opinion to the Council on 29 November. Consideration of the matter was continued until that date.
The minute provides direct evidence that Guthrie was personally involved in the renewed 1632 coinage consultation. He is not merely named as a clerk receiving papers: the Council expressly records that it had “heard” him together with Edinburgh’s bailie and the officers of the Mint.
It also reinforces the institutional nature of his role. The judgment requested for 29 November was to come from the town of Edinburgh and the Mint officers. Guthrie participated as Edinburgh’s town clerk, not as an independent monetary policymaker.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Cunziehous — the royal Mint or Mint House.
- Generall — the General of the Mint.
- Forrane coyne — foreign coin circulating within Scotland.
- Consider advisedlie — consider carefully and deliberately.
- Good and evill thairof — the advantages and disadvantages or beneficial and harmful consequences of the proposal.
- Continewes — postpones further consideration until the stated date.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p. 570; Acta, June 1632–June 1634, fol. 165a. Digitized volume.
29 November 1632 — Alexander Guthrie and Edinburgh Request More Time on the Coinage Proposals
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 578 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The 20 November order had given Edinburgh and the officers of the Mint only nine days in which to study the royal proposal concerning foreign currency and return their judgment.
On 29 November William Gray and Mr Alexander Guthrie appeared before the Privy Council in the name of Edinburgh’s magistrates. Instead of presenting a final substantive position, they explained orally why the town could not responsibly answer the proposal on such short notice.
The Council accepted the need for further deliberation. Edinburgh was given until 10 January to submit its definitive answer, and the officers of the Mint were assigned the same date.
The Council’s accompanying correspondence explains why the delay was considered appropriate: the currency question was regarded as a matter of great and universal importance to the whole kingdom, requiring fuller consideration before conclusions were sent to the King.
Printed Source Text — Complete Guthrie Minute
“The whilk day Williame Gray, baillie, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, toun clerk of Edinburgh, compeirand in name of the magistrats of the said burgh before the Lords of Privie Counsell, they propouned certane reasouns by word whairfoir they could not upon so short advertisement ansuer the propositioun sent doun be his Majestie for remeiding the abuse of the course of dollers. In respect whairof the Lords assignes to the toun of Edinburgh the tent day of Januarie nixt to give in thair peremptorie ansuers to the said overtour; and siclyk assignes to the officiars of his Majesteis Cunziehous that same dyet for giving in thair ansuers to the said propositioun.”
Modern English Rendering
On this day William Gray, bailie, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, appeared before the Privy Council on behalf of the magistrates of Edinburgh.
They gave several reasons orally explaining why, with such short notice, the magistrates could not yet answer the proposal sent down by the King for correcting the abuses connected with the circulation of foreign dollars.
The Lords therefore assigned Edinburgh 10 January next to submit its definitive answer to the proposal. The officers of the royal Mint were given the same date for presenting their own answer.
This entry makes Alexander Guthrie’s representative role especially explicit. He and William Gray appeared “in name of the magistrats” of Edinburgh. Their intervention was therefore an institutional response by the burgh, not a private opinion offered by Guthrie.
The record also shows that Guthrie’s involvement in the currency issue continued through a new phase of royal monetary reform late in 1632. His appearances now extend from the foreign-dollar debates of 1630–1631 into the proposals being considered immediately before Nicholas Briot’s detailed declaration to the Council in December.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Compeirand — appearing formally before the Council.
- In name of the magistrats — acting on behalf of Edinburgh’s municipal magistrates.
- By word — orally rather than in a written submission.
- Advertisement — notice or advance warning.
- Dollers — foreign dollar coins circulating in Scotland.
- Peremptorie ansuers — definitive or final answers expected by the appointed deadline.
- Overtour — proposal or proposed course of action.
- Dyett — appointed date or hearing date.
- Cunziehous — the royal Mint or Mint House.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p. 578; Acta, June 1632–June 1634, fol. 168a. The related Council letter explaining the extension continues on p. 579. Digitized volume.
3 February 1631 — Bishop John Guthrie Appointed to Confer with Lady Frendraught and Margaret Wood
Second Series, Volume 4 • Page 617 • Miscellaneous Papers • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This document belongs to the intensely contested testimony surrounding the Burning of Frendraught. Margaret Wood had given statements implicating Lady Frendraught and others in inducing her to make false accusations concerning the people suspected in the burning.
Immediately before this paper in the volume appears a deposition taken from Margaret Wood under the torture of the boots. The present supplication was then submitted by Dame Elizabeth Gordon, Lady Frendraught, who denied Wood’s accusations and asked the Council to appoint ministers to deal with Wood further.
The Council responded by appointing a mixed group of councillors and ministers to confer with both Lady Frendraught and Margaret Wood. The Bishop of Moray was one of the councillors specifically named.
This paper therefore adds another documented Frendraught role for Bishop John Guthrie, distinct from his later April appointment to inspect the physical structure of the burned house.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
3rd February. 23. Supplication by Dame Elisabeth Gordoun, Lady Frendraught, as follows:—
“Margaret Wode after muche varying, contradicting and menswearing of hir selff anent the treuth of the whole pointis quhairupon sho wes examined, in end in hir accustomed leeing humour sho hes layed the burdyne and blame of hir seducement and brybing upoun me and otheris, and hes ratified hir depositioun thairanent in hir sufferance of the tortour. And quhairas God is my witnes and my conscience beareth me record of my innocencye of all that quhairwith sho hes charged me, and that I never delt with hir to depone falslie or gave hir goode deid for that effect, yitt in regaird of the prejudice whiche hir depositioun may work againe me in the opinioun of these who ar not acquented with the humour of the woman,”
she craves that their Lordships will appoint some of the ministry to deal with the said Margaret Wode, adding, “And I doubt not bot God in the power of his Spirite and by the ministerye of his servandis will work hir hart to a confessioun of the treuth and hairtie resipiscence for hir malicious lee.”
[On the back] “Apud Halyrudhouse tertio Februarij, 1631. The Lordis nominatis and appointis the Lord Previe Seale, Wyntoun, Linlithgow, Seafort, Galloway, Lauderdaill, Melvill, Bishop of Dumblane, the Bishop of Murray, Advocat and Justice Clerk or ony four or fyve of thome togither with Mr Andro Ramsay, Mr William Strutheris and Mr Harye Rolloke, to confer and deale both with the Lady Frendraught and Margaret Wode for drawing of thame to a confessioun of the treuth; and that they meete the morne in the laugh counsal house of Edinburgh at nyne of the cloke in the morning.”
(Signed) “Geo. Cancell’., Monteith, Morray, J. Erskyne, Traquaire, Arch. Acheson.”
Modern English Rendering
On 3 February 1631 Dame Elizabeth Gordon, Lady Frendraught, petitioned the Council concerning Margaret Wood. Lady Frendraught alleged that Wood had repeatedly varied and contradicted herself while being examined and had finally accused Lady Frendraught and others of inducing and bribing her to give false testimony.
Lady Frendraught denied those accusations. She stated that God and her conscience were witnesses to her innocence and maintained that she had never persuaded Wood to testify falsely or rewarded her for doing so. She argued that Wood’s deposition could damage her reputation among people unfamiliar with what Lady Frendraught characterized as Wood’s habitual conduct.
She therefore asked the Privy Council to appoint ministers to speak with Margaret Wood, expressing her belief that ministerial intervention would bring Wood to acknowledge the truth and repent what Lady Frendraught described as a malicious falsehood.
The Council then appointed the Lord Privy Seal, Winton, Linlithgow, Seaforth, Galloway, Lauderdale, Melvill, the Bishop of Dunblane, the Bishop of Moray, the King’s Advocate and the Justice Clerk—or any four or five of them— together with Mr Andrew Ramsay, Mr William Struthers and Mr Harry Rollock.
They were instructed to confer with both Lady Frendraught and Margaret Wood in an effort to draw them toward what the Council termed a confession of the truth. They were to meet at nine o’clock the following morning in the lower Council House of Edinburgh.
The paper documents Bishop John Guthrie’s involvement in the Frendraught inquiry several weeks before the April physical inspection of the burned house. Here his assigned function was not architectural investigation but participation in a Council group charged with dealing directly with two women whose accounts were sharply opposed.
It also adds an important distinction to the Frendraught evidence. Bishop John was appointed to this February committee, while the surviving paper does not itself record whether he attended the next morning’s conference or what he personally said or concluded there.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Menswearing — perjuring or falsely swearing oneself.
- Seducement — inducement or persuasion into wrongful conduct.
- Brybing — bribing.
- Depone — to give sworn testimony or a deposition.
- Resipiscence — repentance or return to a better state of mind or conduct.
- Laugh counsal house — the lower Council House.
- Apud Halyrudhouse tertio Februarij, 1631 — at Holyrood House, 3 February 1631.
- Any four or five — the Council authorized a smaller quorum of those named to act.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), p. 617, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 23, supplication of Dame Elizabeth Gordon, Lady Frendraught, with Council order on the back dated Holyrood House, 3 February 1631. Brown prints the petition partly in original wording and partly in editorial connective prose. Digitized volume.
2 August 1631 — Bishop John Guthrie Named in the Dispute over James Gordon of Rothiemay’s Education
Second Series, Volume 4 • Pages 671–672 • Miscellaneous Papers • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
James Gordon of Rothiemay was a child caught in the aftermath of violent family conflict surrounding Rothiemay and Frendraught. The Privy Council had already recognized John Gordon of Innermarkie as his lawful tutor and had made arrangements for the boy’s upbringing and education.
An earlier Council decision, printed at p. 282, directed that James be educated at the schools in Aberdeen under the advice of the Bishop of Aberdeen. It also contemplated that a pedagogue should be selected for him by the Bishop of Moray.
In this later Miscellaneous Paper dated 2 August, Innermarkie complained that Lady Rothiemay and her friends had selected a pedagogue without reference to Bishop John. He further argued that both the Bishops of Aberdeen and Moray could testify that the boy might be educated more effectively and at substantially lower expense somewhere other than Aberdeen.
Innermarkie therefore asked that he, as lawful tutor, be allowed to choose the pedagogue with the advice of the two bishops and that James be educated wherever those bishops judged most convenient and profitable.
The Council did not resolve those requests on the back of this petition. Its immediate order was simply that the parties be formally warned.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
207. Supplication by John Gordoun of Innermarkie, tutor of James Gordoun, now of Rothiemay, as follows:—
Their Lordships have decided that he is the legal tutor of the said James Gordoun and that he is to have the administration of him and his estate during his minority, but in respect of his distressed estate, he having nothing at present to maintain himself upon, Catharine Forbes, Lady of Rothiemay, his mother, offered to maintain him freely upon the large jointure which she has out of his living until he gets means of his own, provided she had the upbringing of him.
This their Lordships refused and ordered him to be educated at the schools in Aberdein by the advice of the Bishop of Aberdein, and that a pedagogue should be chosen for him by the Bishop of Murray, and he is informed that their Lordships have further decided that the said Lady Rothiemay is to have repayment of her charges for maintenance of the said James when he comes to means of his own.
Now this is contrary to her first offer and is no benefit at all. The supplicant as his lawful tutor is quite willing to do the same and has the right thereto, and unless his mother stands by her first offer she ought to have nothing to do with his maintenance.
As it is she and her friends have chosen the child’s pedagogue without reference to the Bishop of Murray; and as to his being brought up in Aberdein, the foresaid two bishops can testify to their Lordships that he may be brought up better where he was and upon half of the expense.
He therefore craves (1) that the said Catharine be ordained to maintain her son freely without repayment or else have no meddling therewith; (2) that he have the choice of his pedagogue by the advice of the said two bishops; and (3) that the said bairn be brought up at the schools where these bishops judge he may most conveniently and profitably be educated.
[On the back] “Apud Halyrudhouse, secundo Augusti, 1631. Ordanis the pairtyis to be warnit. Hadinton.”
Modern English Rendering
John Gordon of Innermarkie, lawful tutor of the minor James Gordon of Rothiemay, reminded the Council that it had already recognized his legal authority to administer both the boy and his estate during James’s minority.
Because the estate was then in difficult circumstances and apparently could not yet support the boy adequately, James’s mother, Katherine Forbes, Lady Rothiemay, had offered to maintain him from the substantial jointure she enjoyed from his estate, provided she was allowed to control his upbringing.
The Council had rejected that arrangement. Instead it had ordered that James be educated at the schools of Aberdeen with the advice of the Bishop of Aberdeen and that a private tutor or pedagogue be selected for him by the Bishop of Moray.
Innermarkie said he had now learned that the Council also intended Lady Rothiemay eventually to be reimbursed for the boy’s maintenance when James had sufficient resources of his own. Innermarkie objected that this was inconsistent with her original offer to support her son freely.
He further complained that Lady Rothiemay and her friends had already selected the child’s pedagogue without consulting the Bishop of Moray, contrary to the earlier arrangement.
Innermarkie also asserted that the Bishops of Aberdeen and Moray could tell the Council that James could receive a better education where he had previously been living and at about half the expense of maintaining him in Aberdeen.
He therefore asked for three things: first, that Lady Rothiemay either maintain her son freely without reimbursement or cease interfering in his maintenance; second, that Innermarkie be allowed to choose the pedagogue with the advice of the Bishops of Aberdeen and Moray; and third, that James attend whichever schools those bishops considered most convenient and beneficial for his education.
The Council’s immediate response, written on the back of the petition on 2 August 1631, was to order that the parties be formally notified. No final decision on Innermarkie’s three requests is recorded in this paper.
The document places Bishop John Guthrie in an unusually specific guardianship and educational role. The earlier Council arrangement had entrusted the selection of the young James Gordon’s pedagogue to the Bishop of Moray, while the Bishop of Aberdeen was involved in supervising his schooling.
It also shows that this was not simply an honorary appointment. Innermarkie’s complaint specifically alleges that the boy’s mother and her friends had bypassed Bishop John when selecting a pedagogue, and his requested remedy again placed both bishops at the center of decisions about the child’s education.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Tutor — the legally recognized guardian responsible for a child during pupillarity and, in this case, administration connected with the minor’s estate.
- Minority — the period before full legal majority; a minor’s affairs could remain under forms of guardianship or curatory.
- Jointure — property or income settled for the support of a widow.
- Upbringing — care, maintenance and education of the child.
- Pedagogue — a personal tutor or instructor responsible for a child’s education and supervision.
- Bairn — child.
- Pairtyis to be warnit — the parties were to receive formal notice before the matter proceeded further.
- Apud Halyrudhouse, secundo Augusti, 1631 — at Holyrood House, 2 August 1631.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), pp. 671–672, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 207, supplication of John Gordon of Innermarkie, tutor of James Gordon of Rothiemay; Council notation dated Holyrood House, 2 August 1631. For the related main Register proceedings concerning James Gordon’s education and tutory, see p. 282. Digitized volume.
Volume IV — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume IV is unusually rich in evidence for several very different Guthries between 1630 and 1632. Its records follow John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray through religious, charitable, investigative and administrative duties; Mr Alexander Guthrie, Edinburgh town/common clerk through national burgh business; and a separate Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald through official heraldic service. The volume also preserves an important guardianship case involving young Margaret Guthrie and her deceased father, Hercules Guthrie.
The strongest conclusions come from preserving those identities and documentary roles exactly as the records give them. Appointment is not attendance; warning is not appearance; a collective report is not the clerk’s personal policy; custody is not ownership; and a surviving draft or duplicate documentary form is not a second historical event.
Bishop John appears across an unusually broad range of Council business. He is connected with the Palatinate relief collection, religious conformity proceedings, the Calder prosecution, the Frendraught investigation, regulation of medical practice and the education of a minor.
The evidentiary strength varies by entry. Some records merely direct action to him or appoint him to a commission. Others establish personal attendance. The Frendraught report goes further still: Bishop John is one of the commissioners who collectively state that they inspected the house, and his printed subscription appears on their report.
References: 73; 116; 118; 146–147; 207; 214; 230; 268; 510; 515–516; 617; 671–672.
Bishop John’s Frendraught involvement should be read as a sequence, not collapsed into a single role. On 3 February he was named among councillors and ministers authorized to confer with Lady Frendraught and Margaret Wood concerning their conflicting accounts.
On 4 April he was appointed to the separate commission instructed to inspect the physical structure of Frendraught. The commissioners’ report, dated 13 April and produced in Council on 20 April, shows actual participation and states that they could not determine whether the fire was accidental or deliberately set. Their narrower conclusion was that an outside person probably could not have raised the fire without assistance from within.
That conclusion does not identify a perpetrator or prove the guilt of any member of the household. The February allegations, the April physical inspection and the wider criminal investigation remain distinct evidentiary stages.
The recurring Mr Alexander Guthrie is repeatedly identified as Edinburgh’s town or common clerk and, in the Convention material, clerk also to the burghs. His activities extend far beyond routine municipal record-keeping.
He appears in the royal commission for surveying Scottish law, navigation and lighthouse consultations, fishing business, Edinburgh–Leith commercial litigation and repeated national currency discussions. Several records expressly establish personal appearance before the Privy Council.
His subscriptions at pp. 159 and 251 are especially useful evidence of his clerical function. They authenticate extracts that he produced in office; they do not establish that he personally originated every policy contained in those collective burgh documents.
References: 63–64; 137–139; 143; 149–150; 155–156; 158–159; 196; 248–251; 281; 284; 570; 578.
Volume IV allows Alexander Guthrie’s currency work to be followed across nearly the entire volume. In 1630 the burghs received the Mint proposals through him. In March 1631 he was personally present when the burgh representatives discussed the foreign-dollar problem and was ordered with David Aikinheid to put their reasons into writing.
The formal Convention report followed on 8 March, authenticated by Guthrie as common clerk of Edinburgh and clerk to the burghs. July entries show the report still before the Council. In November 1632 Guthrie and Edinburgh’s bailie were again heard with the Mint officers on a renewed royal proposal, and on 29 November they appeared in the name of Edinburgh’s magistrates to explain why more time was needed for a definitive answer.
These entries document sustained participation in monetary administration. They do not make Guthrie the sole author of the burghs’ economic policy or establish that every recommendation discussed ultimately became law.
Volume IV also contains a second Alexander Guthrie whose office is explicit: Marchmont Herald. In February 1631 he executed the surrender charge connected with Calder and held the keys of the house in his official custody.
By 21 February 1632 he was deceased. That later proceeding identifies Isobel Simson as his widow and James Espline as the current Marchmont Herald. Espline sought production of Alexander’s “coat of arms,” said to be in the custody of Simson and Walter Robertson, town clerk of Aberdeen.
The office, chronology and widow all distinguish this record set from that of Mr Alexander Guthrie, Edinburgh town clerk. Volume IV supplies no evidence that the two Alexanders were the same person and no kinship should be inferred between them.
The coat of arms likewise requires caution. In the context of succession to the office of Marchmont Herald, the record does not establish that the object represented Alexander Guthrie’s personal hereditary family arms.
The opening Guthrie record is one of the volume’s most valuable family relationships. Margaret Guthrie was the daughter of the deceased Hercules Guthrie, merchant burgess of Edinburgh, and Harie Guthrie was expressly her uncle and tutor at law.
Margaret was “not past ten yeers of age” when the consequences of having been served heir to her father exposed her personally to processes brought by his creditors. The Council protected her person from those processes until she reached twelve.
Age twelve was not full adulthood. Under Scots law a girl ordinarily passed at twelve from pupillarity and tutory into the later stage of minority, when curators could become involved and her legal capacity changed. Full majority came later, at twenty-one. The Council’s choice of age twelve therefore reflects a legal transition, not a conclusion that a twelve-year-old was fully adult.
Reference: 16.
The 1632 Doctor Leslie proceedings show Bishop John in another administrative setting. He appeared personally with Doctor William Leslie and Robert Irving and was ordered to produce the relevant ecclesiastical rule concerning doctors of medicine.
On 26 July he carried out that instruction by producing an earlier Council act dated 16 December 1616. As reproduced in Volume IV, that act required a person wishing to profess or practise medicine to have a testimonial from the bishop of the diocese certifying religious conformity.
Bishop John produced the earlier regulation; he did not author it in 1632. Doctor Leslie’s royal permission to return was also interpreted narrowly by the Council: his medical practice was restricted to the Marquis of Huntly and Huntly’s family.
The Miscellaneous Paper at pp. 671–672 shows Bishop John named in an earlier Council arrangement for the education of the minor James Gordon of Rothiemay. The Bishop of Moray was to choose the boy’s pedagogue, while the Bishop of Aberdeen was involved in his schooling.
John Gordon of Innermarkie later complained that Lady Rothiemay and her friends had selected a pedagogue without referring the choice to Bishop John. He asked that the two bishops advise both the selection of the pedagogue and the most suitable place for the boy’s education.
Those claims belong to Innermarkie’s petition. The Council’s immediate response on 2 August was only to order the parties warned; the paper does not record a final decision granting his requested changes.
Reference: 671–672.
Volume IV frequently preserves more than one documentary trace of the same business. Those forms must not be counted automatically as separate historical events.
Most importantly for the Guthrie evidence, Miscellaneous Paper no. 40 at p. 621 is the surviving draft of the 9 June 1631 Council act concerning the report of the Bishop of Moray and the commissioner for Aberdeen printed at p. 230. It corroborates the same event; it is not a second appearance by Bishop John.
The same principle applies to incorporated acts, royal letters, later-produced reports and alternative register forms throughout the volume. Documentary repetition may strengthen provenance or clarify a stage in the process without creating an additional event.
Mr Alexander Guthrie, Edinburgh town/common clerk and Alexander Guthrie, Marchmont Herald remain separate men unless independent evidence proves otherwise. The shared surname and given name are insufficient.
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray is frequently identified only by office in the register. Title-based searching is therefore essential; surname searching alone would miss a substantial portion of his activity.
The deceased Hercules Guthrie, merchant burgess of Edinburgh, father of Margaret at p. 16, should not be merged automatically with the Hercules Guthrie of Aberdeen appearing in Second Series Volume III. Different locality and occupational evidence must be respected unless another record connects them.
Printed subscriptions such as “A Guthrie,” “A. Guthre” and “Jo. B. of Moray” are evidence that the printed edition represents a subscription in its source. They are not a substitute for inspection of the original manuscript if handwriting, seal form or autograph comparison becomes important.
The finding aid now contains 26 Guthrie record groups in printed-page order, including main-register entries, title-only Bishop of Moray references and relevant Miscellaneous Papers. The review deliberately followed both surname references and the Moray / Murray episcopal title so that Bishop John’s title-only appearances were not lost.
Several cards contain more than one documentary stage or a source unit extending across several printed pages. The number of pages, names or documentary forms should therefore not be used as a count of separate Guthries or separate events.
The original heraldic process behind p. 431 may clarify the physical nature and official significance of the late Marchmont Herald’s “coat of arms.” Additional heraldic and office records may also establish more about Alexander Guthrie’s career, death and succession.
Further Edinburgh burgh records and Convention of Burghs material may expand the career of Mr Alexander Guthrie, especially his role in national burgh administration and the continuing currency negotiations after the close of Volume IV.
Additional family and testamentary evidence is still required before assigning either Alexander Guthrie, Hercules Guthrie or the other individuals in this volume to broader Guthrie pedigrees. Office, geography and surname remain clues for research rather than proof of kinship.
Basis of synthesis: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, IV, A.D. 1630–1632 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1902), using the detailed record cards linked above. The synthesis distinguishes Brown’s editorial abridgments from quoted register text, treats documentary drafts and alternate forms as such, and does not infer family relationships beyond those expressly supported by the records. Digitized volume.
Volume 5
Volume 5 greatly expands the documented public careers of two Guthries already prominent in the preceding volumes. John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, is formally admitted to the Privy Council, takes the councillor’s oath, receives commissions concerning sheriffs and the disorders in northern Scotland, is appointed among the Justices of the Peace, and appears in further administrative, investigative and arbitration business.
Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh and clerk to the burghs, continues to represent burgh interests in an unusually wide range of national affairs. His records concern the Firth of Forth survey, currency reform, the proposed coal export duty, revision of the laws, the muster-master general, Edinburgh’s jurisdiction, pearl fishing, the plaiding trade and the herring fishery.
The volume also introduces or further identifies a much wider group of Guthries: Thomas Gottray, constable of Boltoun; Hercules Guthrie and two of his children; Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum; Guthrie of Colliston; Mr James Guthrie, parson of Kinnell; Mr John Guthrie, parson of Duffus; Mr Patrick Guthrie, minister at Logybuchan; Bethia Guthrie, widow of Walter Murray; Henry Guthrie of Dundee; Walter Guthrie of Montrose; Adam and John Gottray of Prestwick; and Alexander Guthra, a servitor in Elgin.
The spellings Gottray and Guthra are retained where they occur in the printed records. The volume’s own index directs these forms to Guthrie, but that editorial grouping does not make the various people members of one proven family. Offices, localities and stated relationships remain the controlling evidence for identification.
Read Volume 5 Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume V, A.D. 1633–1635. Edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown. Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904.
Volume 5 — Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| v–vi | 1633–1635 context | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Editorial context | Brown discusses Charles I’s addition of the Bishop of Moray and the newly created Bishop of Edinburgh to the Privy Council as part of the Crown’s ecclesiastical policy. The formal contemporary admission appears at pp.156–157. |
| 33, 35–36 | 1633 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Sheriff-oath commission | Named among those authorized to receive the oath of Sir James Sinclair of Murkle as sheriff of Caithness and to make formal written report to the Council. |
| 86–88 | 15 May 1633 | Thomas Gottray Constable of Boltoun | Listed as parish constable of Boltoun in the arrangements for Charles I’s visit. Boltoun was required to furnish eight carts for conveying the royal baggage. |
| 124 | 1633 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh; John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Commission for Surrenders and Teinds | Alexander appears personally, accepts the renewed commission and takes the required oath. The Bishop of Moray is among the absent commissioners ordered to appear later to accept the commission and swear. |
| 132 | 26 September 1633 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Sheriff of Moray oath | The Earl of Moray and Bishop of Moray, or either of them, are empowered to receive Alexander Dunbar of Grange’s oath as sheriff of Moray and report it formally to the Council. |
| 133–134 | Survey 3–4 September 1633; produced later that month | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Firth of Forth survey report | Appears personally before the Council and submits the written survey of the Forth concerning depths, hazards, navigation and the disposal of ballast. |
| 156–157 | 3 December 1633 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Admission to the Privy Council | Personally present and formally admitted as a Privy Councillor under Charles I’s warrant. Guthrie kneels, places his hands upon the Gospels, and takes the oaths of allegiance and of a Privy Councillor. |
| 192 | 1 February 1634 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Coinage consultation | Required with William Gray to confer with the commissioners of the burghs concerning the current coinage, foreign dollars and related monetary reforms and to put their advice in writing. |
| 219 | 25 February 1634 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, for Edinburgh and the burghs Coal export impost | Alexander, William Dick and John Sinclair are assigned to present the burghs’ reasons against the proposed royal imposition on coal exported from Scotland. |
| 224 | 6 March 1634 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Council letter subscriber | Appears in the printed subscription as “B. Murrey” among the councillors subscribing the collective letter to Charles I concerning the proposed coal impost and associated grievances. |
| 227 | 1634 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Revision of the laws | Appears personally among the commissioners accepting the renewed commission for revision of the laws and swears to its faithful administration. |
| 230 | 1634 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Edinburgh ministers’ stipends | Personally present when the Council continues the date assigned to Edinburgh for answering the King’s letter concerning settlement of the city ministers’ stipends; notice of the continuation is made to him. |
| 237–238 | 1634 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Muster-master general consultation | Selected with other burgh representatives to attend the consultation concerning the newly created office of muster-master general. |
| 298–300 | 8 July 1634 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Edinburgh jurisdiction dispute | Appears personally with Edinburgh’s magistrates in the burgh’s jurisdictional dispute with the Earl of Errol in his capacity as Lord High Constable. |
| 302–303 | 10 July 1634 | Hercules Guthrie; his son; his daughter Infant-death prosecution | Hercules and his son are brought within proceedings arising from allegations concerning the death of an infant born to Hercules’s daughter. The accusations and procedural orders must be distinguished from proof or conviction. |
| 360 | 1634 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Sheriff-oath commission | Authorized to receive the oaths of Alexander McKenzie of Culcowy, sheriff principal of Inverness, and James Dunbar of Boigs, sheriff principal of Elgin, and report formally to the Council. |
| 372 | 1634 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, clerk to the burghs Cordwainer trade dispute | Appears in the burgh representation connected with a dispute concerning the cordwainer trade. |
| 385–388 | 18 September 1634 | Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum; Guthrie of Colliston; Mr James Guthrie, parson of Kinnell; Mr Patrick Guthrie at Logybuchan; Mr John Guthrie, parson of Duffus; John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Justices of the Peace | Named in the extensive county commissions for Justices of the Peace. The several Guthries occur in different jurisdictions: Forfar, Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin and Forres, Nairn and Inverness. Appointment does not by itself establish attendance at a later justice meeting. |
| 398–399 | 6 November 1634 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh and clerk to the burghs Pearl-fishing patent dispute | Appears for the free burghs in proceedings challenging Robert Buchan’s claimed exclusive privilege in Scottish pearl fishing. |
| 407 | November 1634 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Northern-disorders inquiry | Named among persons believed able to give information concerning depredations against Frendraught and the people alleged to have aided or encouraged the broken men; ordered to appear and depone. |
| 408 | 13 November 1634 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Moray disorders report | A missive is ordered to the Bishop directing him to convene the gentlemen of Moray and prepare a written report on the disorders in the North and the means of suppressing them. |
| 424–430 | Late 1634 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray; Mr James Guthrie, parson of Kinnell; Mr Patrick Guthrie at Logybuchan; Mr John Guthrie, parson of Duffus Renewed Justice of Peace commissions | The commissions for Justices of the Peace are renewed. Guthrie references recur in the county lists for Forfar, Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin and Forres, and Nairn. |
| 456–457 | 1635 | Bethia Guthrie, widow of Walter Murray Debt recovery / horning | Identified as widow of Walter Murray, overseer of His Majesty’s Works, and pursuer in proceedings arising from horning for a debt. |
| 466 | January 1635 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, for the burghs Plaiding investigation | Thomas Erskine of Pittodrie presents the barons’ report concerning plaiding brought to market in rolls. Consideration is continued, and Pittodrie for the barons and Guthrie for the burghs are warned apud acta. |
| 476 | 29 January 1635 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, for the burghs Plaiding proceeding continued | Further procedural stage in the investigation of the plaiding trade; Guthrie again represents the burgh interest and is warned apud acta. |
| 501 | 1635 | Henry Guthrie, merchant burgess of Dundee; Walter Guthrie, burgess of Montrose Tobacco-sale prosecution | Named among numerous defenders accused of contravening the Acts regulating unlicensed retail sale of tobacco. In their absence the Council decerns the stated penalties against the defenders. |
| 526 | March 1635 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, for the burghs Pearl-fishing case continued | Personally present when the pearl-fishing process is continued to the first Council day of June. Guthrie for the burghs and Robert Petrie for Robert Buchan are warned apud acta. |
| 530 | 26 March 1635 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray; Mr Alexander Guthrie Herring and white-fish patent | Bishop John is appointed to the committee considering Sir James Lockhart’s proposed commission concerning enforcement of the fishery laws. The patent is delivered to Alexander Guthrie, personally present, for consultation with the burgh commissioners; he is ordered to attend the committee. |
| 530 | 26 March 1635 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Examination commission | In a separate act on the same page, Bishop John is appointed with the Bishop of Ross, Clerk Register and Justice Clerk to examine Thomas Grant, prisoner in Edinburgh Tolbooth, and report his deposition to the Council. |
| 535 | 31 March 1635 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, for the burghs Herring patent continued | Personally present when consideration of Sir James Lockhart’s signature is continued. Guthrie and John Sinclair are instructed to notify the burghs and have their written reasons ready against the proposed grant. |
| 578–579 | Certificate 10 January 1634; summonses November 1633 | Adam Gottray and John Gottray, in Prestwick Assize summonses | Named among Prestwick men summoned to attend an assize in the adultery prosecution of George Cochrane. The evidence survives within the Miscellaneous Papers. |
| 621 | 23 June–9 July 1634 | Alexander Guthra, servitor to John Chalmer in Elgin Witness to executions of summons | Appears as a witness in executions forming part of a series of summonses concerning the Gordon of Dunkintie litigation. The source identifies him as a servitor, not as Edinburgh’s town clerk. |
| 657 | 6 August 1634 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Arbitration / settlement reference | A Miscellaneous Paper records referral to the Bishop of Moray of the satisfaction to be given by Donald Fraser in Killmyllies to Duncan Forbes, provost of Inverness, and settlement of the other disputes arising from the riot. |
Entries follow the volume’s printed source order. Main-register material therefore appears before the later Miscellaneous Papers even where those papers preserve earlier dates. A page range represents one source unit unless the page contains clearly separate Council acts, as at p.530.
The Bishop of Moray is often identified in the records only by his office as “Bishop of Murrey” or “Bishop of Murray.” John Guthrie’s identity is supplied by the volume’s index and the explicit admission record at pp.156–157. Title-only references have therefore been retained where the documentary role is substantive.
Gottray and Guthra are spellings placed under Guthrie by the printed index. They are retained as printed in the detailed records rather than silently modernized.
The Justice of the Peace material at pp.385–388 and pp.424–430 represents separate appointment and renewal proceedings. Being named as a Justice of the Peace establishes appointment, not attendance at a later sitting.
The royal warrant associated with Bishop John Guthrie’s admission to the Privy Council also survives later among the volume’s supporting papers. It corroborates the admission recorded at pp.156–157 rather than creating a second admission event.
Routine appearances of Bishop John in sederunt lists are not treated as separate finding-aid records unless the entry gives him a substantive role in the business being recorded.
Each record card begins with the Guthrie identity, documentary role and date. Select Open Record Details for the complete document summary, printed source text, modern English rendering, significance, evidence discussion, terminology and source citation.
Namesakes remain separate unless the source itself or independent evidence connects them. In particular, Alexander Guthra in Elgin is not identified as Mr Alexander Guthrie, Edinburgh town clerk, and the Hercules Guthrie of the 1634 infant-death proceeding is not automatically identified with other men of that name found elsewhere in the RPCS collection.
Finding-aid sources: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), including the Guthrie index, the Bishop of Moray index, cross-references under the spelling variants Gottray and Guthra, and the corresponding printed record passages. Editorial introduction material is identified separately from contemporary Council records.
Introduction — John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, Among the New Privy Councillors
Second Series, Volume 5 • Introduction, pp. v–vi • Editorial Context
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Brown opens Volume V by explaining that the period from January 1633 to March 1635 included Charles I’s long-anticipated visit to Scotland and several changes in Privy Council membership.
Looking back to the reconstruction of the Council in March 1631, Brown says that the Council remained substantially the same body during the period of Volume V, but notes a number of additions. Among them he expressly names John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
Brown then comments on the political significance he assigns to some of those additions. In particular, he views the inclusion of the Bishops of Moray and the newly created See of Edinburgh as further evidence of Charles I’s ecclesiastical policy.
Printed Editorial Text — Relevant Passage
“In the Introduction to the preceding volume of the Register an account was given of the reconstruction of the Council in March 1631. During the period covered by the present volume the Council remained substantially the same body as it was then reconstructed. Certain changes in its personnel have to be noted, however, which are directly connected with Charles’s policy both as regards Church and State. At different times the following persons were admitted into the Council:—
James, 4th Duke of Lennox,
William, 9th Earl of Errol,
Richard, Earl of Portland, Lord High Treasurer of England,
Thomas, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Lord Marshal of England,
Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, Lord Chamberlain of England,
William, Earl of Salisbury,
James, Earl of Carlisle,
Henry, Earl of Holland,
William Laud, Bishop of London,
Sir Harry Vane, Controller of His Majesty’s Household,
Sir John Cooke, Secretary of State for England,
Theophilus, Earl of Suffolk,
John, Earl of Kinghorn,
Thomas, Lord Binning,
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray,
John Maxwell, Bishop of Ross,
William Forbes, 1st Bishop of Edinburgh,
David Lindsay, 2nd Bishop of Edinburgh,
Sir John Carmichael of that Ilk,
William, Lord Alexander.
The nine Englishmen above named were all appointed Scottish Councillors during Charles’s visit. In the reconstructed Council of 1631 only the Earl of Carlisle (a Scot by extraction) had been admitted to the Council, but in adding to the number of English members Charles was only following the example of his father—an example which was also followed by Charles II.
The presence of Laud’s name is to be noted as bearing on Charles’s ecclesiastical policy and explaining Laud’s close conversance with Scottish affairs. The addition to the Council of two more Scottish bishops—the bishop of Moray and the bishop of the newly-created See of Edinburgh—may be regarded as further evidence of Charles’s policy with reference to the Church of Scotland.”
Modern English Rendering
Brown explains that the Privy Council created in 1631 remained largely unchanged during 1633–1635, although a number of people were added to it at different times. His list includes John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
Brown notes that several English office-holders were added during Charles I’s visit to Scotland. He also draws attention to the addition of Scottish bishops. In his interpretation, adding the Bishops of Moray and Edinburgh provides further evidence of the King’s policy of giving senior bishops an important place in the government of Scotland.
The introduction provides an editorial overview of an important transition in John Guthrie’s career. Previous volumes document him performing numerous Council-related duties as Bishop of Moray. Volume V now contains the formal record of his admission as an actual member of the Privy Council.
Brown’s introductory identification is also useful because many later entries call him simply the Bishop of Moray or Bishop of Murray without repeating the surname Guthrie.
Terms & Historical Context
- Privy Council — the principal royal administrative and executive council governing Scotland on the King’s behalf.
- Reconstruction of 1631 — Brown’s description of the substantial reorganization of Privy Council membership in March 1631.
- Editorial introduction — Brown’s later historical discussion of the records, distinct from the seventeenth-century register text printed in the body of the volume.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), Introduction, pp. v–vi. Brown’s discussion is editorial context; the contemporary record of Bishop John Guthrie’s admission appears at pp. 156–157. Digitized volume.
26–28 February 1633 — Bishop John Guthrie Commissioned to Receive the Caithness Sheriff’s Oath
Second Series, Volume 5 • Pages 33, 35–36 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The sequence begins on 26 February 1633. James Sinclair of Murkle, sheriff of Caithness, had died. The Council ordered a new commission of sheriffship to pass under the Great Seal to his son, Sir James Sinclair.
Because the new sheriff had to swear faithfully to administer his office, the Council authorized the Earl of Seaforth and the Bishops of Ross and Murray—or any one of them—to administer his oath.
Two days later, on 28 February, the Council issued a fuller act. By then Patrick, formerly Bishop of Ross, is styled Archbishop of Glasgow. The commissioners were Patrick, Archbishop of Glasgow; Colin, Earl of Seaforth; and John, Bishop of Moray. Any one of them could receive Sinclair’s oath and was then to send a formal written report to the Privy Council so that it could be entered in the Council books.
The Council’s accompanying letter to Sinclair explains the practical reason for delegating the oath: the Lords did not wish to require him to make an unnecessary journey and incur the expense of appearing personally before them. He was instead instructed to go to whichever of the authorized commissioners was nearest to him.
The same letter also directed Sinclair, once sworn, to convene the small barons and freeholders of Caithness so that they could elect two county commissioners for the forthcoming Parliament and other general conventions.
Printed Source Text — 26 February 1633 Council Act
“The Lords of Secreit Counsell in respect of the deceasse of James Sinclar of Murkill, lait shireff of Caithnes, ordains a new commissioun of shirefship to be past and exped under the great seale to Sir James Sinclare, his sonne: and that ane commissioun be givin to the Erie of Seafort, the Bishops of Ros and Murray, or anie of thame, to take his oath.”
Printed Source Text — 28 February 1633 Commission
“Forsameekle as Sir James Sinclar of Murkhill is nominat to be shireff principall of the shirefdome of Caithnes for the yeere to come, and whereas it is necessar that he give his oath for faithfull administratioun of that service; and the saids Lords being unwilling to draw the said Sir James to unnecessar travellis and charges in appearing before thame to give his said oath, thairfoir the saids Lords hes givin and grantit and be the tennour heirof gives and grants full power and commissioun to Patrik, now Archbishop of Glasgow, Coline, Erie of Seafort, and Johne, Bishop of Murrey, or anie one of thame, to take the said Sir James his oath for faithfull discharge of the office of shirefship within the bounds foresaids, and to make ane formall report theirof in writt to the saids Lords, to the effect the same may be recorded and registrat in the bookes of Privie Counsell, whereanent thir presents sail be to thame ane warrand.”
Printed Source Text — Council Letter to Sir James Sinclair, 28 February 1633
“After our verie heartilie commendatiouns. We have heerewith sent unto yow ane commissioun of shirefship within the bounds of the shirefdome of Caithnes not doubting bot yow will be carefull to approve yourselfe worthie of that trust concredite by us unto yow in the faithfull administratioun of that office.
And because yow must give your oath for faithfull executioun of that office, and we being unwilling to putt yow unto unnecessar travellis and charges in appearing before us for that purpose, we have thairfoir exped ane commissioun to the sometyme Bishop of Ros, now Archbishop of Glasgow, the Erie of Seafort and the Bishop of Murrey, or anie one of thame, to take your oath for the dewtifull discharging of that office, quhilk commissioun we have lykewayes heerewith sent unto yow.
And thairfoir these ar to requeist and desire yow to make your addresse heere to the saids commissioners or anie of thame ewest unto yow, and show thame the twa commissions foresaids and accordinglie give your oath unto thame or any of thame for the faithfull administratioun of the said office of shirefship, and immediatelie thereafter that yow caus conveene the small barons and freehalders within the said shirefdome to make choise of twa of the specialls of thair nomber to be commissioners for that shirefdome for the ensewing Parliament and all other generall conventiouns for this yeere,
and that yow report the commissioun of thair nominatioun and electioun subscryved and sealed conforme to the Act of Parliament to us with all convenient diligence, as yow respect the forderance and advancement of his Majesteis service. Quhilk looking assuredlie yow will doe, we committ yow to God. Frome Halyrudhous, the last day of Februar, 1633. Subscribitur, Stratheme, Wigtoun, Lauderdaill, Lorne, Areskine, Melvill, Arch. Achesoun.”
Modern English Rendering
26 February: Because James Sinclair of Murkle, the late sheriff of Caithness, had died, the Privy Council ordered a new commission of sheriffship under the Great Seal for his son, Sir James Sinclair. The Earl of Seaforth and the Bishops of Ross and Moray—or any one of them—were authorized to administer Sinclair’s oath of office.
28 February: The Council recorded a fuller commission. Sir James Sinclair had been nominated sheriff principal of Caithness for the coming year and was required to swear faithfully to administer the office. Rather than requiring him to travel to the Privy Council at unnecessary expense, the Lords empowered Patrick, Archbishop of Glasgow; Colin, Earl of Seaforth; and John, Bishop of Moray—or any one of them—to administer the oath.
Whoever administered it was to make a formal written report to the Privy Council so that the oath could be recorded in its books.
The Council then wrote directly to Sinclair. He was told to take the sheriffship commission and the separate oath commission to whichever of the authorized commissioners was nearest and swear before that person.
After taking office, Sinclair was to convene the small barons and freeholders of Caithness. They were to choose two of their number to represent the sheriffdom in the forthcoming Parliament and other general conventions during the year. The written commission recording their election was to be signed, sealed and returned promptly to the Council.
These entries document Bishop John Guthrie exercising delegated central-government authority well beyond strictly ecclesiastical affairs. He was one of the senior regional figures empowered to administer the oath of a sheriff principal and certify the result back to the Privy Council.
The records also show how the Council could conduct government at a distance. Rather than bringing Sir James Sinclair from Caithness to Edinburgh, it delegated the oath to prominent officials nearer to him and required a written report for registration.
The parliamentary instruction adds another administrative layer: once sworn, Sinclair was expected to organize the election of Caithness representatives for Parliament.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Shireff principall — sheriff principal, the chief royal sheriff of the sheriffdom.
- Great seale — the Great Seal of Scotland, under which the sheriffship commission was to pass.
- Exped — formally issued, completed or passed through the appropriate administrative process.
- Warrand — formal authority for an act to be performed.
- Concredite — entrusted.
- Ewest unto yow — nearest to you.
- Small barons and freehalders — the landed freeholders entitled to participate in the county election described here.
- Commissioners for the shirefdome — representatives chosen by the county for Parliament or another general convention.
- Subscribitur — “it is subscribed”; introducing the names subscribing the Council letter.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 33, Council act of 26 February 1633, Acta, June 1632–June 1634, fol. 188b; p. 35, fuller commission of 28 February 1633, Acta, June 1632–June 1634, fol. 190b; and p. 36, Council letter to Sir James Sinclair dated Holyrood House, 28 February 1633, Royal Letters, 1623–33, fol. 227b. Digitized volume.
15 May 1633 — Thomas Gottray, Constable of Boltoun, in the Royal Baggage Arrangements
Second Series, Volume 5 • Pages 86–88 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Charles I’s visit to Scotland required an extensive system for moving the royal baggage from one stopping place to another. Haddingtonshire was responsible for the stage from Dunglass to Seton.
The sheriff of Haddington and the convener of the county Justices of the Peace had surveyed what each parish could reasonably provide. Their resulting roll named the local constables and assigned numbers of carts and horses to each parish.
Thomas Gottray is named as constable of Boltoun, which was assigned eight carts.
The Council did not merely record the allocations. Anticipating that some inhabitants might avoid the service, it issued binding directions requiring the carts and horses to appear at Dunglass early on 13 June. A six-pound penalty attached to every horse absent or not appearing at the proper time, with distraint authorized for recovery.
Printed Source Text — Complete Haddingtonshire Transport Act
“Forsameekle as the shireff of Hadintoun and conveenner of the justices of peace within that shire, according to ane warrand and directioun sent unto thame be the Lords of Privie Counsell, hes tane particular notice of the nomber of hors for carrage and thair furniture that everie parish within the said shirefdome may convenientlie furnishe for lifting and carying of his Majesteis carrage fra Dunglas to Seatoun, and hes made and presented ane roll of the saids parishes conteaning the nomber of hors designed to everie parish, with the names of the persons that ar appointed to be constables in the parish, and to have the charge to caus the hors of the parish be in readines at the tymes and places to be appointed,
that is to say, for the parish of Elstanefurde, where Robert Baptie is constable, sax carts and 8 hors beside; for the parish of Prestonkirk, where Richard Ramsay is constable, 35 carts; for the parish of Baro, where John Geddes is constable, ten carts; for the parish of Bothans, where Johne Hay is constable, 17 carts; for the parish of Pencaitland, where George Rentoun is constable, 30 carts; for the parish of Ormestoun, where Johne Harlaw is constable, 8 carts; for the parish of Abirladie, where William Horsburgh is constable, 30 carts; for the parish of Aldhamstockes, where George Wat is constable, 14 carts; for the parish of Boltoun, where Thomas Gottray is constable, 8 carts;
for the parish of Quhittinghame, where James Dowglas is constable, 24 carts; for the parish of Hadintoun, where Robert Spence, James Home and James Veitch ar constables, 80 carts; for the parish of Morhame, where Johne Stevin is constable, 6 carts; for the parish of Quhytkirk, where Johne Bowie is constable, 12 carts; for the parish of Spott, where Johne Fortoun is constable, 12 carts; for the parish of North Bervick, where Richard Fergussoun is constable, 18 carts and 44 hors; for the parish of Garvall, where James Dicksoun is constable, 30 hors; for the parish of Innerweik, where William Clerksoun is constable, 18 carts and 52 single hors;
for the parish of Dirletoun, where James Caldcleuche is constable, 40 carts and 12 single hors; for the parish of Saltoun, where Alexander Wylie and Robert Marvingstoun are constables, 17 carts; for the parish of Humbie and Keith, where Williame Borthuick is constable, 10 carts; for the parish of Prestoun, where Walter Ros and Johne Browne ar constables, 30 carts; for the parish of Tyninghame, where George Shortous and Robert Ewat ar constables, 12 carts; for the parish of Stentoun, where Alexander Cromby is constable, ten carts; for the parish of Sowtray, where Borthuick is constable, 4 carts; for the parish of Dumbar, where George Kirkwod and Alexander Gulane ar constables, 80 carts; and for the parish of Tranent, where [blank] is constable, 60 carts.
And they have nominat Patrik Chrystesoun and Johne Thomesoun, messengers, to be generall constables for the said shirefdome, as the roll givin in heirupon beiris. And whereas the persons abonewrittin who ar givin up to furnishe the nomber of carts abonespecifeit ar bound in dewtie to have thair cairts and others necessar for carrage in readines at Dunglas upon the 13 day of Junij nixt, airlie in the morning, and there to lift his Majesteis carrage and carie the same therefra to Seatoun or otherwayes, as they sail be directed for that day be the maister of the carrage,
nevertheles the Lords of Secreit Counsell apprehends that some undewtifull persons will ly backe and shunne this service and nather bring nor send thair hors to Dunglas for that use, altho that nothing is to be craved of thame bot for readie and thankfull payment, so as it is like eneugh that a part of the carrage sail ly behind, to the discredite and shame of the natioun without remeid be provydit;
thairfoir the saids Lords ordains letters to be direct charging the parochiners of the haill parishes abonewrittin and constables appointed for eache parish and the generall constables of the shire, that they and everie ane of thame doe and performe that quhilk to thair charge and dewtie in the said service apperteanes, and for this effect that they direct and send and caus the nomber of carts abonespecifeit and hors with creills and hochams appointed and allowed for everie parish weill furnished with all things necessar for carriage, be at Dunglas upon the 13 day of Junij nixt before three of the clocke in the morning,
and there to lift his Majesteis carrage and carie the same therefra to Seatoun or otherwayes, as they sail be directed be the maister of the carrage, upon his Majesteis charges and expences, under the pane of sax punds for everie hors that sail be absent and sail not come in dew and lawfull tyme to lift his Majesteis carrage, as said is,
and to command and charge the generall constables of the said shire to poynd the readiest goods and geir of the persouns dissobeying for the said soume of sax punds for everie hors that sail be absent and sail not keepe the precise tyme and place of meeting at the sight and discretioun of the maister of the carrage, and to make the said soume furthcummand to these whome the saids Lords sail appoint in this earand,
and siclyke to command and charge the constables of the saids parishes to bring with thame and to delyver to the maister of his Majesteis carrage ane list and roll of the horses that sail come and attend the said service and a list and roll of the horses that sail be absent, to the intent that the awners of the absent horses may be punished for thair failyie and dissobedience by poynding for the saids sax punds, as said is,
certifeing the saids constables who sail not give up the said list and roll in maner foresaid that they and everie ane of thame sail incurre the said pane of sax punds for everie absent hors or not givin up be thame as absent and sail be punished for the same accordinglie.”
Modern English Rendering
The sheriff of Haddington and the convener of the county Justices of the Peace, acting on instructions from the Privy Council, determined how many horses, carts and necessary equipment each parish in Haddingtonshire could reasonably supply for carrying the King’s baggage from Dunglass to Seton. They submitted a roll naming the parish constables responsible for having the transport ready at the appointed place and time.
The allocations were: Elstaneford, Robert Baptie, six carts and eight additional horses; Prestonkirk, Richard Ramsay, thirty-five carts; Bara, John Geddes, ten carts; Bothans, John Hay, seventeen carts; Pencaitland, George Renton, thirty carts; Ormiston, John Harlaw, eight carts; Aberlady, William Horsburgh, thirty carts; Oldhamstocks, George Wat, fourteen carts; Bolton, Thomas Gottray, eight carts; Whittingehame, James Douglas, twenty-four carts; Haddington, Robert Spence, James Home and James Veitch, eighty carts; Morham, John Stevin, six carts; Whitekirk, John Bowie, twelve carts; and Spott, John Fortoun, twelve carts.
North Berwick, under Richard Fergusson, was to provide eighteen carts and forty-four horses; Garvald, under James Dickson, thirty horses; Innerwick, under William Clerkson, eighteen carts and fifty-two single horses; Dirleton, under James Caldcleuch, forty carts and twelve single horses; Saltoun, under Alexander Wylie and Robert Marvingston, seventeen carts; Humbie and Keith, under William Borthwick, ten carts; Preston, under Walter Ross and John Brown, thirty carts; Tyninghame, under George Shortous and Robert Ewat, twelve carts; Stenton, under Alexander Cromby, ten carts; Soutra, under Borthwick, four carts; Dunbar, under George Kirkwood and Alexander Gullane, eighty carts; and Tranent, whose constable’s name is blank in the printed text, sixty carts.
Patrick Chrystesoun and John Thomesoun, both messengers, were appointed general constables for the sheriffdom.
Everyone responsible for supplying the assigned carts was bound to have the carts, horses and necessary equipment ready at Dunglass early in the morning on 13 June. They were then to carry the King’s baggage to Seton, or wherever else the master of the royal carriage directed for that day.
The Privy Council anticipated that some people might try to avoid the duty even though payment was to be made for the service. The Lords therefore ordered formal letters charging the inhabitants, parish constables and general constables to perform their assigned duties.
The assigned carts and horses, equipped with creels, harness and everything else needed for transport, had to be at Dunglass before three o’clock in the morning on 13 June.
A penalty of six pounds applied for every horse that was absent or failed to appear at the proper time. The general constables were authorized to seize the most readily available goods of anyone who disobeyed in order to recover the penalty.
Each parish constable also had to deliver to the master of the King’s carriage a list of the horses that attended and a separate list of those that were absent. If a constable failed to report an absent horse, that constable could personally incur the same six-pound penalty for it.
The entry supplies a precise locality and public office for Thomas Gottray: he was constable of Boltoun in Haddingtonshire in May 1633.
Brown’s index explicitly places Gottray among the spelling forms of Guthrie and indexes Thomas as the constable of Bolton at p.87. The source spelling should nevertheless remain visible because it is the form actually printed in the Council record.
The full act also illustrates the practical responsibilities of parish constables. Thomas was part of a county-wide administrative system mobilized for the King’s progress, with responsibility for ensuring that the assigned transport from his parish was supplied.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Constable — local officer responsible here for organizing and reporting the parish’s assigned transport service.
- Carrage — baggage or goods being transported, especially the royal baggage train.
- Creills — carrying baskets or panniers used with pack animals.
- Hochams — harness equipment used for horses employed in carriage.
- Poynd — to distrain or seize goods in satisfaction of a penalty or debt.
- Goods and geir — movable goods and property.
- Failyie — failure or default.
- Furthcummand — made available or produced for payment to the person entitled to receive it.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), pp. 86–88; Acta, June 1632–June 1634, fols. 218b–219b. Session at Holyrood House, 15 May 1633. The Guthrie index lists “Gottray” among the surname variants and identifies Thomas at p.87. Digitized volume.
23 July 1633 — Alexander Guthrie Accepts the New Surrenders and Teinds Commission; Bishop John Is Summoned to Accept
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 124 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council constituted a new Commission for the Surrenders and Teinds in July 1633. A large group of commissioners appeared personally before the Lords, formally accepted the commission and swore to discharge it faithfully.
Mr Alexander Guthrie, expressly styled town clerk of Edinburgh, was among those present. The record therefore supplies direct evidence of both his appointment and his formal acceptance of the office.
John, Bishop of Moray, was also appointed to the new commission, but he belonged to the separate group who were absent from this sitting. The Council ordered missives to those absent commissioners requiring them to appear on 25 September to accept the commission and give their oath.
This distinction is important: the same act documents completed acceptance by Alexander and only appointment plus a future summons for Bishop John.
Printed Source Text — Complete Act
“The whilk day, in presence of the Lords of Secreit Counsell, compeired personallie the persouns underwrittin; they ar to say, George, Erie of Kinnoull, Lord High Chanceller of this kingdome; Thomas, Erie of Hadintoun, Lord Privie Seale; Patrik, Archbishop of Glasgow; George, Erie of Wintoun; Johne, Erie of Perth; Johne, Earl of Kingorne; Williame, Erie of Dumfreis; Johne, Erie of Tracquair; Johne, Erie of Wemes; Archibald, Lord Naper; George, Lord Corstorphine;
Johne, Bishop of Ros; Adame, Bishop of Dumblane; Androw, Bishop of Argile; George, Bishop of Orkney; Sir Johne Hay, Clerk Register; Sir Thomas Hope, Advocat; Sir James Galloway, Master of Requeists; Sir Robert Spotswod of Newabbey, Sir John Charters of Amisfeild, Sir Williame Douglas of Cavers; Johne McNacht, Archibald Tod, and Edward Edger, burgesses of Edinburgh; Mr Alexander Guthre, town clerk there, and accepted upon thame the new Commissioun for the Surrenders and Teinds and gave thair oath for faithfull discharge thairof.
And the said Lords ordains missives to be direct to the rest who wer absent, they ar to say, Williame, Erie of Mortoun, Lord High Thesaurar; Johne, Archbishop of St. Andrewes; Williame, Erle Mairshell; Williame, Erle of Stirline; David, Erle of Southesk; Alexander, Bishop of Dunkelden; Johne, Bishop of Murrey; David, Bishop of Brechin; Sir George Elphinstoun, Justice Clerk; Sir James Lokhart younger of Lee, Sir Robert Greir of Lag, Johne Boill of Kelburne, Sir Patrik Ogilvie of Inchemartine, Sir David Crichtoun of Lugtoun, Johne Sinclar, baillie of Edinburgh; Gabriel Cuninghame, burges of Glasgow; Robert Tailyeour, burges of St Andrewes; William Meklejohne, burges of Bruntilland; and Mr Robert Cuninghame, burges of Kingorne;
to compeir before the Counsell upon the xxv day of September nixt to accept the said commissioun upon thame and give thair oath.”
Modern English Rendering
On this day a large group of named commissioners appeared personally before the Privy Council. They included the Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Archbishop of Glasgow, several earls and bishops, senior legal officers, landed commissioners and representatives of the royal burghs.
Among those present was Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh. The assembled men formally accepted the new Commission for the Surrenders and Teinds and took the oath promising faithfully to discharge its duties.
The Lords then ordered formal letters to be sent to the appointed commissioners who had been absent. Those absent appointees included the Earl of Morton, Archbishop of St Andrews, several earls and bishops, the Justice Clerk, landed gentlemen and burgh representatives.
John, Bishop of Moray, was one of those absent commissioners. He and the others were ordered to appear before the Privy Council on 25 September next to accept the commission and take the required oath.
This single act places two important Guthries within the same major national commission while preserving a crucial difference in their procedural status.
For Alexander Guthrie, it is direct evidence of personal appearance, formal acceptance and oath-taking. His inclusion among senior state officers, bishops, nobles and burgh representatives reinforces how far his work as Edinburgh town clerk extended into national administration.
For Bishop John Guthrie, the act establishes appointment to the renewed commission but also expressly places him among those absent. He was required to come before the Council later to complete the formal acceptance and oath.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Surrenders and Teinds — the long-running royal commission dealing with the surrender, valuation and settlement of teinds and related church property interests.
- Compeired personallie — appeared personally before the Council.
- Accepted upon thame the commissioun — formally undertook the office or authority conferred by the commission.
- Gave thair oath — swore faithfully to execute the commission.
- Missives — formal letters sent under Council authority.
- To compeir — to appear formally before the Council.
- Teinds — Scottish tithes, traditionally one-tenth of agricultural produce or its monetary equivalent.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 124; Acta, June 1632–June 1634, fols. 240a–b. Session at Holyrood House, 23 July 1633. Digitized volume.
25 September 1633 — Bishop John Guthrie Authorized to Receive the New Sheriff of Moray’s Oath
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 132 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Several newly nominated sheriffs and another local officer were unable conveniently to appear before the Privy Council on 25 September to accept office and give their oaths.
Rather than require all of them to travel to the Council, the Lords delegated authority to senior regional figures to administer their respective oaths.
Alexander Dunbar of Grange had been nominated sheriff of Moray. The Council authorized James, Earl of Moray, and John, Bishop of Moray, or either of them, to receive Dunbar’s oath.
As in the earlier Caithness sheriffship proceeding, the person administering the oath was required to send a formal written report back to the Council for registration.
Printed Source Text — Complete Act
“The Lords of Secreit Counsell considdering the necessar absence of Sir William Cuningham of Caprintoun, who is now nominat to be Shireff of Air, Walter McAwlay of Ardincaple, who is nominat to be Shireff of Dumbartane, Alexander Dumbar of Grange, who is nominat to be Shireff of Murrey, and Mathow Wallace of Auchans, who is nominat to be Baillie of Kylestewart, for the yeere to come, and that they could not convenientlie compeir before the saids Lords this present day to accept the office upon thame and give thair oath,
thairfoir the saids Lords hes givin and grantit, and be the tennour heirof gives and grants full power to Patrik, Archbishop of Glasgow, to take the oaths of the said Sir Williame Cuninghame and Mathow Wallace, and to the said Archbishop or Archibald, Lord Lorne, to take the oath of the said laird of Ardincaple, and to James, Erie of Murrey, and Johne, Bishop of Murrey, or either of thame, to take the saids Laird† of Grange thair oaths for the faithfull discharge of the office of shirefship within the bounds respective foresaids,
and to make ane formall report thairof in writt to the saids Lords to the effect the same may be insert and registrat in the Bookes of Privie Counsell; whereanent the extract of this act sail be to thame ane warrand.”
† Brown notes that “Laird” is scored through in the source and “Shireffs” written above.
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council noted that four newly nominated officers could not conveniently attend that day to accept their offices and take their oaths: Sir William Cunningham of Caprington as sheriff of Ayr; Walter MacAulay of Ardincaple as sheriff of Dumbarton; Alexander Dunbar of Grange as sheriff of Moray; and Matthew Wallace of Auchans as bailie of Kyle Stewart.
The Lords therefore delegated authority to administer the oaths. The Archbishop of Glasgow was authorized to take the oaths of Cunningham and Wallace. The Archbishop or Lord Lorne could take Ardincaple’s oath.
James, Earl of Moray, and John, Bishop of Moray—or either one of them—were authorized to administer Alexander Dunbar of Grange’s oath for faithful discharge of the sheriffship of Moray.
The person administering each oath was then to send a formal written report to the Privy Council so that the oath could be entered and registered in the Council books. An extract of the act itself constituted authority to perform the task.
This is another clear example of Bishop John Guthrie being entrusted with civil administrative responsibility outside strictly ecclesiastical affairs.
The task also closely parallels the Caithness sheriffship commission earlier in the volume. In both cases the Council authorized Bishop John to administer a sheriff’s oath locally and required formal written certification back to Edinburgh.
Here the connection is geographically especially appropriate: Guthrie was Bishop of Moray and was one of the two people authorized to receive the oath of the newly nominated sheriff of Moray.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Shireff — sheriff, the principal royal judicial and administrative officer within a sheriffdom.
- Baillie of Kylestewart — bailie exercising local jurisdiction in Kyle Stewart.
- Compeir — to appear formally.
- Faithfull discharge — proper and faithful execution of the duties of office.
- Formal report in writt — written certification of the completed oath for official registration.
- Warrand — formal authority permitting the commissioners to act.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 132; Acta, June 1632–June 1634, fol. 245b. Session at Holyrood House, 25 September 1633. Digitized volume.
25 September 1633 — Alexander Guthrie Personally Produces the Firth of Forth Survey
Second Series, Volume 5 • Pages 133–134 • Survey made 3–4 September 1633 • Holyrood House
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Alexander Guthrie’s continuing involvement in the navigation of the Firth of Forth reaches a particularly concrete stage in this entry. On 25 September 1633 he appeared personally before the Privy Council and delivered a technical report based on a survey carried out on 3 and 4 September.
The actual survey had been performed by James Stevinsone of Pittenweem, Andrew Law of Anstruther and Alexander Ezat of Culross. They examined parts of the upper Forth during low water and different stages of the tide, recording depths and places where navigation was restricted.
A principal concern was the casting of ship ballast into the river. The surveyors concluded that ballast contributed to a substantial sandbank and described finding a Flemish vessel actually grounded upon the bank after having cast ballast at the same location.
Alexander Guthrie did not subscribe the technical survey as one of its three field surveyors. His documented role was to produce their report before the Council.
Printed Source Text — Complete Report
“The whilk day in presence of the Lords of Secreit Counsell compeired personally Mr Alexander Guthre, toun clerk of Edinburgh, and gave in the report underwrittin anent the surveying of the water of Forth, of the quhilk the tennour followes:—
The 3 and 4 of September, 1633, the water of Forth being surveyed be James Stevinsone in Pittinweme and Andrew Law in Anstruther and Alexander Ezat in Culros; to witt, the tryell of dangers and shalnesse of the water the last day and the first day of the streame and tenth and ellevint dayes of the moone being the deadest tyme of the streame at low water;
to witt, at the Powmouth of Alloway right over and over whill yee come to the Insche of Alloway is nyne foot or thereby and halfe ane cabill lenth of breadth neerest to the north side; and the south side of the channel will be about foure foote;
and at the Powis entrie there is chingill ballast ane penney stone cast and more lying there, and as for the ballast that is cassin wee see the parts where it hes been cassin bot sees none of it be reasoun the tyde careis it all into the river; there wes fyve Fleemings there, bot saw no part where thair ballast wes lying.
And betuix the Insche and Elphinston crooves there is bot foure foots deepe at low water and fyve foot deepe of water on the north side at low water; and a little beneath Elphinston crooves at ane houres floode sevin foots water and twa part to Johne Yairs nuike there is aucht foots, nyne foots, ten foots, ellevin foot, twelffe foot whill yee come to the nuike.
From Johne Yairs nuike to Hegenis nuike at twa houres flood in the channell there is nyne foots deepe and so narrow that there is no turning be reasoun there is ane banke of sand meekle of ane myle of lenth that is seene all up at laich water in ane streame tyde; and be our judgement it is the ballast casting in the river that hes the wyte of it.
As for exemple we coming doun at this tyme of the flood we fand ane Fleeming sticking fast upon the banke, and had beene casting her ballast at that same place, whois name of the skipper is Caismais of Roterdame.
And at Airth Powmouth there hes beene ballast cassin at the syde of the Pow, bot it is all washin away. Frome Heigins nuike to Kingorne at halfe flood there will be three faddom and a halfe and foure faddome.
Frome Kingorne at full sea there is sax faddom ay whill yee come foment the Inche Panis that wes of old and foure faddom and a halfe to the new pans and three faddom and a halfe at ane hours falling water; and frome the Woodnes to Blacknes all doun the channel at halfe eb there will be sax faddom sevin faddom aucht nyne ten and ellevin faddom;
and as for the ballast on the shoare we see no new ballast castin bot that hes beene castin of old tyme. Sic subscribitur, James Stevinsoun, Androw Law, Alexander Ezat.”
Modern English Rendering
On this day Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, appeared personally before the Privy Council and submitted the following report concerning a survey of the Firth of Forth.
On 3 and 4 September 1633 James Stevinsone of Pittenweem, Andrew Law of Anstruther and Alexander Ezat of Culross surveyed the Forth. Their purpose was to examine dangerous and shallow parts of the water at low tide and during the weakest stages of the tidal current.
At the mouth of the Pow of Alloa, across toward the Inch of Alloa, they found about nine feet of water over a channel roughly half a cable’s length wide nearest the north side. On the south side the channel was only about four feet deep.
At the entrance to the Pow they observed shingle ballast and other ballast lying there. In other places where ballast had previously been dumped they could see where it had been cast but little or none of the material itself, because the tide had carried it farther into the river. Five Flemish vessels were present, although the surveyors did not see where those vessels’ ballast had been deposited.
Between the Inch and the Elphinstone cruives they found only about four feet of water at low tide, with about five feet on the north side. A little below the cruives there were seven feet of water an hour into the flood tide. Toward John Yair’s point the depth increased successively through approximately eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve feet.
From John Yair’s point to Higgins’ point, two hours into the flood tide, the channel was about nine feet deep but so narrow that a vessel could not turn. A sandbank almost a mile long was fully visible at low water during a spring tide.
In the surveyors’ judgment, the dumping of ballast in the river was responsible for that bank. As an example, while coming downstream with the flood they encountered a Flemish vessel grounded fast upon it. The vessel had itself been dumping ballast at the same place, and its skipper is named as Caismais of Rotterdam.
Ballast had also been dumped beside the Pow at Airth, although it had been washed away. From Higgins’ point to Kinghorn there were roughly three and a half to four fathoms of water at half flood.
From Kinghorn at full tide the depth was about six fathoms until opposite the old Inch pans, then about four and a half fathoms toward the new pans and approximately three and a half fathoms an hour into the falling tide. From the Woodness to Blackness, halfway through the ebb, depths down the channel ranged from about six to eleven fathoms.
Finally, the surveyors reported seeing no newly dumped ballast on the shore there, only ballast that had been deposited in earlier times. The report was subscribed by James Stevinsoun, Andrew Law and Alexander Ezat.
This is unusually strong evidence for Alexander Guthrie’s active role in national burgh administration. The record does not merely name him as clerk: it expressly says that he appeared personally before the Privy Council and delivered the technical survey report.
It also continues a subject already associated with him in Volume IV, where navigation, beacons and the Firth of Forth repeatedly entered Council business. Here the work has developed into a detailed hydrographic survey supported by measured depths and first-hand observations.
The report is also a vivid piece of maritime evidence. It documents the concern that routine ballast dumping by shipping could alter channels, create or enlarge banks and obstruct navigation in the Forth.
Terms & Maritime Practice
- Shalnesse — shallowness.
- Streame tyde — a strong or spring tide.
- Deadest tyme of the streame — the weakest tidal-current conditions described by the surveyors.
- Pow / Powmouth — a small tidal channel, creek or watercourse and its mouth.
- Insche — inch or island.
- Cabill lenth — cable length, a nautical measure of distance.
- Chingill ballast — shingle or small-stone ballast carried by ships.
- Crooves — cruives, fixed structures associated with fishing in a river.
- Nuike — nook, point or projecting place.
- Laich water — low water.
- Wyte — blame or responsibility.
- Fleeming — Fleming; here referring to a Flemish vessel or ship.
- Faddom — fathom, a measure of water depth.
- Foment — opposite or abreast of.
- Halfe eb — halfway through the ebb tide.
- Sic subscribitur — “thus it is subscribed,” introducing the names attached to the report.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), pp. 133–134; Acta, June 1632–June 1634, fols. 246a–b. The survey itself is dated 3–4 September 1633; Alexander Guthrie produced it during the Council sitting at Holyrood House on 25 September 1633. Digitized volume.
3 December 1633 — John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, Formally Admitted to the Privy Council
Second Series, Volume 5 • Pages 156–157 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This is the formal contemporary record behind the change in Council membership discussed by P. Hume Brown in the introduction to Volume V.
Charles I had issued a warrant from Whitehall on 11 October 1633 directing the Scottish Privy Council to admit the Bishop of Moray as one of its members. The King’s letter cited the bishop’s abilities, sufficiency and affection for royal service.
On 3 December 1633 the royal warrant was presented and read before the Council. John Guthrie was then personally present, formally admitted, and completed the ceremonial oath-taking required for membership.
This entry therefore establishes much more than appointment: Guthrie’s personal attendance, admission and oath are all expressly recorded as completed acts.
Printed Source Text — Complete Act and Royal Warrant
“The Lords of Secreit Counsell, according to ane warrand and directioun in writt signed be the Kings Majestie and directed to the saids Lords, and this day presentit unto thame and read in thair audience, receaved and admitted Johne, Bishop of Murrey, to be one of the Privie Counsell of this kingdome and to bruike and injoy all honnours, digniteis, priviledges and immuniteis proper and dew to that place;
lykeas the said Bishop of Murrey being personallie present and acknowledging with all humble and dewtifull respect his Majesteis gracious favour shawin unto him in promoving him to that place of dignitie and honnour, he with all dew reverence on his knees, his hands lying upon the halie evangell, made and gave the oath of alledgeance and of a privie counseller.
Followes his Majesteis missive for warrand of the act abonewrittin:—
Charles R. — Right trustie and weilbelovit cousine and counseller, right trustie and weilbelovit cousines and counsellers, and right trustie and weilbelovit counsellers, we greit yow weill.
Understanding the abiliteis and sufficiencie of the reverend father in God, the Bishop of Murrey, and his affection to our service we are moved in regarde thairof and for his better encouragement and enabling to doe ws good service heerafter to promove and advance him to be one of our Privie Counsell of that our kingdome;
thairfoir we doe heereby will and require that, having caused administer unto him the oath accustomed in the like caises, yow admitt him to be a privie counseller, accepting him as one of your nomber, for whiche these presents sail be your warrand.
We bid yow farewell, from our Court at Whitehall, the 11th of October, 1633.”
Brown’s Editorial Identification
Brown adds a footnote identifying the bishop: “John Guthrie, after being successively minister at Perth and Edinburgh, had been promoted to the See of Moray in 1623. He was deprived by the Glasgow Assembly of 1638.”
Modern English Rendering
Acting under a written warrant signed by the King, which was presented and read before them that day, the Lords of the Privy Council received and admitted John, Bishop of Moray, as a member of the Privy Council of Scotland, with all honours, privileges and immunities belonging to that office.
The Bishop of Moray was personally present. He acknowledged the King’s favour in promoting him to this office, knelt reverently, placed his hands upon the Gospels, and took both the oath of allegiance and the oath required of a Privy Councillor.
The record then reproduces Charles I’s warrant. The King states that, because of the Bishop of Moray’s abilities, qualifications and devotion to royal service, he wished to encourage and enable him to perform further service by advancing him to membership of the Scottish Privy Council.
The King therefore ordered the Council to administer the customary oath and admit the bishop as one of its members. The royal letter was issued at Whitehall on 11 October 1633.
This is one of the clearest records of John Guthrie’s elevation in Scottish public life. Earlier volumes show him repeatedly carrying out commissions and appearing in Council business as Bishop of Moray. Here he formally becomes a Privy Councillor in his own right.
The evidentiary chain is unusually complete: a royal warrant orders the admission; the warrant is produced before the Council; Guthrie is personally present; the Council admits him; and he takes the prescribed oaths.
After this point, his appearance simply as “Bishop of Murrey” in a Council sederunt may reflect not merely his episcopal rank but his formal membership of the Privy Council.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Privie Counsell — the Privy Council, the principal royal executive council in Scotland.
- Bruike and injoy — possess and enjoy.
- Halie evangell — Holy Gospels, upon which the oath was sworn.
- Oath of alledgeance — formal oath of loyalty to the monarch.
- Oath of a privie counseller — oath required upon admission to the Privy Council.
- Missive — formal royal letter or communication.
- Warrand — authority for the Council to perform the admission.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), pp. 156–157. Council admission dated Edinburgh, 3 December 1633; incorporated royal warrant dated Whitehall, 11 October 1633. Brown’s footnote identifies the Bishop of Moray as John Guthrie and cites Keith’s Catalogue of Bishops. Digitized volume.
1 February 1634 — Alexander Guthrie Directed to Confer with the Burghs on Coinage Reform
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 192 • Holyrood House • Ante Meridiem
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The national currency question that occupied Alexander Guthrie repeatedly in Volume IV remained unresolved in early 1634.
On 1 February the Privy Council directed William Gray and Mr Alexander Guthrie to meet with the commissioners of the burghs and consider several related currency problems.
Their remit was broader than simply discussing foreign dollars. They were to consider how abuses in the circulation of dollars might best be remedied, how imported good money should be handled, and what reforms were sought in the payment of bullion, its coinage, and the wages due to the Mint officers.
Their advice was to be committed to writing and reported back to the Council the following Thursday. The officers of the Mint were separately ordered to attend that meeting.
Printed Source Text — Complete Minute
“The quhilk day the Lords of Secreit Counsell required Williame Gray and Mr Alexander Guthre to meit and conferre with the commissioners of the burrowes anent the estat of the coyne current in the kingdome and to sett doun in writt thair advice and opinion anent the course of dollers and how the abuse thairof may be most convenientlie remedied and good moneyes imported within the kingdome,
and what they crave to be reformed in the order of payment of the bulyeoun, coynage thairof and officers wages dew for the same, and to report thair opinions thereanent to the saids Lords upon Thursday nixt at nyne of the clocke in the forenoone in the laich counselhous of Edinburgh; and ordains the officers of the cunyiehous to be warned to that dyet.”
Modern English Rendering
On this day the Lords of the Privy Council required William Gray and Mr Alexander Guthrie to meet with the commissioners of the burghs and discuss the state of the currency then circulating in Scotland.
They were to prepare a written statement of their advice and opinion concerning the circulation of foreign dollars and the best way to remedy abuses connected with them.
They were also to consider good money brought into Scotland and explain what reforms they wished to see in the method of paying for bullion, the coining of that bullion, and the wages due to Mint officers for the work.
Their written opinions were to be reported to the Privy Council on the following Thursday at nine in the morning in Edinburgh’s lower Council House. The officers of the Mint were to be formally notified to attend the same meeting.
The entry continues Alexander Guthrie’s documented role in national monetary policy from Volume IV. He was again selected as one of the men through whom the Privy Council sought the organized opinion of the royal burghs.
The remit is particularly useful because it shows the range of issues under review: not merely exchange rates or foreign coin, but bullion payments, actual minting arrangements and compensation of Mint officers.
It also shows a structured administrative process: consultation with the burghs, preparation of written advice, attendance by the Mint officers, and return of the matter to the Privy Council on a fixed date.
Terms & Monetary Practice
- Burrowes — the royal burghs acting collectively through their commissioners.
- Coyne current — money then legally or practically circulating in the kingdom.
- Dollers — foreign dollar coins circulating in Scotland.
- Bulyeoun — bullion, precious metal supplied for coinage.
- Coynage — the process and charges associated with minting money.
- Cunyiehous — the royal Mint or Mint House.
- Laich counselhous — the lower Council House in Edinburgh.
- Dyett — the appointed meeting or hearing date.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 192; Council sitting at Holyrood House, 1 February 1634, ante meridiem. Digitized volume.
25 February 1634 — Alexander Guthrie Assigned to Present the Burghs’ Reasons Against the Coal Export Impost
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 219 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Charles I had directed that a new duty be imposed upon coal exported from Scotland. The proposal affected both the owners and operators of coal works and the royal burghs through which much of the trade passed.
On 25 February the Privy Council gave the affected interests a formal opportunity to state their objections.
The coalmasters were represented by a group including the Earl of Wemyss and Lord Sinclair. For Edinburgh and the burghs, the representatives named were William Dick, John Sinclair and Mr Alexander Guthrie.
Their task was not to decide the tax. They were given eight days to submit their reasons against the imposition commanded by the King.
Printed Source Text — Complete Minute
“The Lords assignis this day aucht dayes to the Erie of Weemes, Lord Sinclar, Tuliallan, Alexander Bruce and Mr Alexander Hamiltoun for thame selves and in name of the rest of the coale maisters, and to William Dick, John Sinclair and Mr Alexander Guthrie for the toun of Edinburgh and in name of the borrowes, to give in thair reasons aganis the impositioun commandit be his Majestie to be upliftit of the coale transported from this kingdome.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords give the Earl of Wemyss, Lord Sinclair, Tulliallan, Alexander Bruce and Mr Alexander Hamilton eight days to submit reasons on behalf of themselves and the other coalmasters against the proposed duty.
The same period is allowed to William Dick, John Sinclair and Mr Alexander Guthrie, acting for the town of Edinburgh and in the name of the burghs, to submit their reasons against the tax ordered by the King upon coal exported from Scotland.
The minute gives unusually explicit evidence for Alexander Guthrie’s representative capacity. He is not merely described as town clerk; he is named as one of three men acting “for the toun of Edinburgh and in name of the borrowes.”
The entry also extends the pattern already visible in the coinage records: Guthrie repeatedly served as one of the officials through whom organized burgh opinion was placed before the Privy Council on national economic questions.
Terms & Economic Practice
- Aucht dayes — eight days.
- Coale maisters — owners or principal operators of coal works.
- Borrowes — the royal burghs acting collectively.
- Impositioun — tax, duty or customs charge imposed by authority.
- Upliftit — levied or collected.
- Give in thair reasons — formally submit their written objections or arguments.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 219, Council minute dated 25 February 1634. The related royal direction concerning the coal impost is dated Whitehall, 17 February 1634. Digitized volume.
6 March 1634 — Bishop John Guthrie Subscribes the Council’s Letter on the Coal Export Impost
Second Series, Volume 5 • Pages 223–224 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The objection process authorized on 25 February had now advanced. By early March the coalmasters and burgh commissioners had submitted written grievances against the proposed export duty.
On 4 March the printed register records that the owners of the coal works and the burghs gave in their reasons against the imposition. Two days later, on 6 March, the Lord Advocate produced the formal signature embodying the proposed duty.
The Council ordered that signature to be docketed and sent to the King enclosed in a letter explaining what had happened. That collective letter is reproduced in full in the Register.
The Council told Charles I that it had obeyed his instruction to prepare the levy. It also reported that the coalmasters and burghs had submitted objections and asked that those grievances be recommended to the King.
The councillors stated that they had declined to intervene because they considered their duty to be execution of the royal command. They therefore left the objectors to solicit the King directly.
The letter closes with the printed subscriptions of the councillors, including “B. Murrey”, identifying Bishop John Guthrie of Moray as a participant in the collective representation.
Printed Source Text — Council Act and Letter
“The quhilk day Sir Thomas Hope of Craighall, his Majesteis Advocat, produced and exhibite before the Lords of Privie Counsell ane signature for his Majesteis hand toucheing ane impost of fiftie sevin schillings aucht pennies Scotish to be takin of the chalder of coale transported furth of this kingdome beyond sea,— whiche being read in audience of the saids Lords they ordained the same to be docquetted be his Majesteis said Advocat and sent up to his Majestie inclosed in a letter whiche wes this day subscryved be the saids Lords, of the whilk the tennour followes:—
Most sacred soverane, In humble obedience of your Majesteis royall command conteanit in your letter direct unto us of the 17 of Februar last tuicheing the imposition of sax shillings sterline upon everie chalder of coale answerable to the measure of Newcastell transported frome this kingdome beyond sea, we gave present order to your Majesteis Advocat to draw up ane signature of the same for your Majesteis hand, being ane impost of lvij s. viij d. Scotish money to be imposed upon ilke chalder of coale of Scotish measure whiche wes found to be proportionable to the direction conteanit in your Majesteis letter;
and he, having carefullie performed and exhibite the same unto us to be sent up to your Majestie, in the meane tyme some of the coalemaisters and commissioners of the burrowes getting notice of this imposition and apprehending their awne interesse and prejudice therein they offered unto us thair greevances and reasons in writt anent the said imposition earnestlie desyring us to recommend the same unto your Majesteis gracious consideration;
wherein we have forborne to meddle, finding it more agreable to our dewtie to satisfie your Majesteis command nor to hearken to thair petition whiche we had no warrand to receave, and we have left thame to thameselffes to sollicite your Majestie in what may concerne thair particular interesse or prejudice of the publict, being confident that your Majestie after hearing and consideration of thair demands will take suche course therein as to your royall wisdome sail appeare convenient.
We have heerwith sent up to your Majestie the signature docquetted with your Majesteis Advocats hand, and what forder your Majestie sail be pleased to recommend heerin sail be in all submissive dewtie obeyed. And so, with our earnest prayers to God for your Majesteis long and happy raigne, we rest, etc. Edinburgh, 6 Martij, 1634.
Sic subscribitur, G. Kinnoull, Morton, Hadinton, Kingorne, Annerdaill, Bining, Melvill, B. Murrey, B. Dumblane, S. Thomas Hope.”
Modern English Rendering
Sir Thomas Hope, the King’s Advocate, appeared before the Privy Council and produced a formal signature for the King’s approval. It proposed an export duty of fifty-seven shillings and eight pence Scots on each Scottish chalder of coal sent overseas.
The Council ordered the document to be formally docketed by the Advocate and sent to Charles I enclosed in a letter subscribed by the councillors.
In that letter, the Council explained that the King’s instruction of 17 February required a duty equivalent to six shillings sterling on every Newcastle chalder of coal exported from Scotland. The Scottish rate of fifty-seven shillings eight pence Scots per Scottish chalder had been calculated as the corresponding amount.
While the document was being prepared, the coalmasters and commissioners of the royal burghs learned of the proposal and, believing their interests would be harmed, submitted written grievances and arguments against it.
They asked the Privy Council to recommend those objections to the King. The Council declined to do so. It stated that its duty was to carry out the King’s direction and that it had no authority to receive the petition in a way that would interfere with that command.
The objectors were therefore left to petition Charles I directly. The Council expressed confidence that the King would hear and consider their arguments and decide what course was appropriate.
The proposed signature was sent to the King, and the councillors promised obedience to whatever further direction he gave. Among the printed subscribers was “B. Murrey,” John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
This entry links Bishop John Guthrie directly to the same economic issue in which Alexander Guthrie had just represented Edinburgh and the burghs.
Their roles were very different. Alexander belonged to the group objecting to the proposed tax on behalf of the burghs. Bishop John, now a Privy Councillor, subscribed the Council’s collective letter transmitting the proposed levy to the King and explaining that the objectors would have to pursue their case directly with him.
Volume V therefore gives a useful example of two Guthries appearing on different institutional sides of the same national policy process without implying any personal conflict or family relationship between them.
Terms & Economic Practice
- Signature — a formal draft or warrant prepared for royal signature and authorization.
- Docquetted — docketed or formally endorsed.
- Chalder — a Scottish measure of bulk quantity; the letter distinguishes the Scottish measure from the Newcastle chalder.
- Impost / imposition — customs duty or tax.
- Coalemasters — owners or principal operators of coal works.
- Burrowes — the royal burghs.
- Greevances and reasons — written objections and arguments against the proposed duty.
- Solicite — petition or seek a favourable decision from authority.
- Sic subscribitur — “thus it is subscribed,” introducing the printed names attached to the letter.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), pp. 223–224; Acta, June 1632–June 1634, fols. 264a–b. Council letter dated Edinburgh, 6 March 1634; royal direction referred to therein dated 17 February 1634. The Bishop of Moray appears in the printed subscription as “B. Murrey.” Digitized volume.
11 March 1634 — Alexander Guthrie Accepts the Commission for Revising the Laws
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 227 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Alexander Guthrie had already been involved in the national project for surveying and revising Scottish law in Volume IV. The work continued in 1634 under a renewed or continuing commission.
On 11 March a substantial body of commissioners appeared personally before the Privy Council. Among them was Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh. The commissioners formally accepted the commission and swore to administer it faithfully.
The Council then selected a smaller group from among the commissioners to meet and decide how the work itself should be organized. Alexander was included in that smaller body as well.
The Earl of Traquair and the Clerk Register were left to determine the time and place of the working group’s meeting, after which the group was to report its proceedings back to the Privy Council.
Printed Source Text — Acceptance of the Commission
“The whilk day George, Erie of Kinnoull, Lord High Chanceller of Scotland, William, Erie of Morton, Thesaurar, Patrik, Archbishop of Glasgow, Johne, Erie of Lauderdaill, Johne, Erie of Tracquair, Johne, Bishop of Ros, Adame, Bishop of Dumblane, Sir Robert Spotswod, President of the Sessioun, Sir John Hay, Clerk of Register, Sir Thomas Hope of Craighall, his Majesteis Advocat, Sir Alexander Gibsone of Durie, Sir Thomas Henderson of Chesters, Sir Andro Fletcher of Innerpeffer, Sir James Learmonth of Balcolmie, Mr George Halyburton of Foderance, Sir Lewes Steuart, Mr Andro Aittoun and Mr Thomas Nicolsone, elder, advocats, John Boill of Kelburne, Mr Alexander Guthre, toun clerk of Edinburgh, and Johne McKesone, clerk of Carraill,
compeirand personallie before the Lords of Privie Counsell, accepted upon thame the commissioun for surveying of the lawes and gave thair oath de fideli administratione.”
Printed Source Text — Procedural Working Commission
“The Lords of Secreit Counsell gives and grants commission be thir presents to Patrik, Archbishop of Glasgow, Johne, Erie of Tracquair, John, Bishop of Ros, Adame, Bishop of Dumblane, Sir Johne Hay, Clerk Register, Sir Thomas Hope, his Majesteis Advocate, Sir Alexander Gibson of Durie, Sir Andro Fletcher of Innerpeffer, Sir James Learmonth of Balcolmie, Mr George Halyburton of Foderance, Mr Andro Aittoun, Mr Alexander Guthre and Johne McKesone,
to conveene and meit togidder and to consult and advise anent the forme, maner and order of prosecutioun of the commissioun for surveying the lawes, remitting to the Erie of Tracquair and Clerk of Register the appointing of the tyme and place of thair meeting; and ordains the saids commissioners to report thair proceedings heerin to the Counsell upon the 29 or last of this instant.”
Modern English Rendering
On 11 March 1634 a large group of named commissioners appeared personally before the Privy Council. Among them was Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh.
The commissioners formally accepted responsibility for the commission charged with surveying or revising the laws and took an oath for faithful administration of that commission.
The Council then appointed a smaller group from among them, including Alexander Guthrie, to meet together and decide the practical form, method and procedure by which the law-revision commission should conduct its work.
The Earl of Traquair and the Clerk Register were authorized to appoint the time and place of this meeting. The smaller group was then to report its proceedings to the Privy Council on the twenty-ninth or last day of March.
This is strong evidence of Alexander Guthrie’s direct participation in a major national legal project. The source records not simply an appointment but personal appearance, formal acceptance and an oath of faithful administration.
His immediate inclusion in the smaller procedural committee is also significant. He was not merely one name in a large commission: he was among those asked to help determine how the revision of the laws should actually proceed.
The record also continues the law-revision work already documented for him in Volume IV, strengthening the evidence for sustained involvement rather than a single isolated appointment.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Surveying of the lawes — reviewing, examining or revising the laws.
- Compeirand personallie — appearing personally.
- Accepted upon thame — formally undertook the commission and its responsibilities.
- De fideli administratione — Latin: concerning faithful administration; the oath to discharge the office faithfully.
- Prosecutioun of the commissioun — carrying forward or executing the work entrusted to the commission.
- Clerk Register — the senior officer responsible for important royal and public registers.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 227; Acta, June 1632–June 1634, fols. 254b–255a. Council sitting at Edinburgh, 11 March 1634. Digitized volume.
11 March 1634 — Alexander Guthrie Personally Receives Notice in the Edinburgh Ministers’ Stipend Matter
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 230 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Edinburgh was then dealing with the financial arrangements for its ministers, including the settlement and payment of their stipends. The King had written concerning the matter, and the town had been assigned a date by which to answer.
On 11 March the Privy Council postponed that deadline until the following Thursday.
Mr Alexander Guthrie was personally present, and the continuation was formally intimated to him.
The entry is short, but it supplies direct evidence that Alexander was functioning as the point through whom the Council communicated this procedural development to Edinburgh.
Printed Source Text — Complete Minute
“The Lords continewes the dyet assigned to the toun of Edinburgh for ansuering his Majesteis letter anent the sattling of thair ministers stipends till Thursday nixt, quhairof intimatioun wes made to Mr Alexander Guthre, who wes personally present.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council postponed until the following Thursday the date previously assigned to the town of Edinburgh for answering the King’s letter concerning settlement of the stipends of the city’s ministers.
Notice of that postponement was formally given to Mr Alexander Guthrie, who was personally present.
The minute adds another example of Alexander Guthrie serving as a direct administrative link between Edinburgh’s municipal government and the Privy Council.
His personal presence is explicit. The Council did not merely order that Edinburgh be notified at some future time; it recorded that notice was made to Guthrie there and then.
The subject also differs from many of his economic and commercial appearances. Here his role concerns the civic administration of Edinburgh’s ministers and their stipends.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Continewes — postpones or continues consideration to a later date.
- Dyett — appointed date or procedural deadline.
- Ansuering — formally responding.
- Sattling — settling or establishing the financial arrangement.
- Stipends — the payments or income assigned for support of ministers.
- Intimatioun — formal notification.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 230; Sederunts, November 1629–January 1635, fol. 117b. Council sitting at Edinburgh, 11 March 1634. Digitized volume.
20 March 1634 — Alexander Guthrie Chosen for the Burghs in the Muster-Master General Consultation
Second Series, Volume 5 • Pages 237–238 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Charles I had granted Alexander Lindsay, Lord Spynie, letters patent under the Great Seal creating or conferring upon him the office of general muster-master of Scotland.
The practical operation of the new office remained to be settled. The Estates had referred to the Privy Council questions concerning both the manner in which the service should be carried out and the fees that should accompany the office.
The Council therefore instructed the representatives then present from each of the three Estates—nobility, small barons and royal burghs—to select four of their own number to participate in a conference with designated senior councillors.
The commissioners for the burghs chose William Dick, Mr Robert Farquhar, Mr James Cockburn and Mr Alexander Guthrie.
The selected representatives were authorized to consult separately with their respective Estates for further information before the committee reported back to the Council.
Printed Source Text — Complete Act
“Forsamekle as it hes pleased the King’s Majestie by his letters patent under the great seale to give and grant to the Lord of Spynie the office of generall mustormaister within this kingdome, the reigling and ordering of the whiche patent and prosecutioun of the service therein conteanit, with the modification of the fees answerable to the said charge and imployment, wes by reference frome the Estats committed to the saids Lords;
thairfoir the Lords of Secreit Counsell ordains the noblemen and commissioners for the small barons and burrowes that wer present to make choise of foure of thair nomber for everie ane of the saids three Estats to attend upon the Lord Privie Seale, the Archbishop of Glasgow, the Erles of Roxburgh and Tracquair, the Bishop of Dumblane, and Clerk of Register (without excluding anie other of the Counsell who sail be pleased to be present)
and to conveene with the saids Lords the morne at eight of the clocke in the morning in the laich counselhous of Edinburgh and to confer and reason anent the forme and order of prosecutioun of the said service and modification of the fees dew for the performance thairof; of the whiche dyet and assignement the Lord Spynie, being personallie present, wes warned apud acta.
In obedience of the quhilk act and ordinance the noblemen present made choise of the Erles of Rothes, Quenisberrie and Wemes and the Lord Lowdoun, the commissioners of the shires nominat and made choise of Sir Patrik Hamilton, the laird of Aldbar, Sir Patrik Murrey, and the laird of Pitmedden,
and the commissioners for the burrowes made choise of Williame Dick, Mr Robert Ferquhar, Mr James Cokburne, and Mr Alexander Guthre, whom the saids Lords allowes to conveene and meit with their severall Estate for thair better light and information anent the ordering of the particulars abonenamit, and ordains the committee to report thair proceedings to the Counsell upon Tuisday nixt.”
Modern English Rendering
The King had granted Lord Spynie letters patent under the Great Seal giving him the office of general muster-master for Scotland. Questions about how the patent should be administered, how the service should operate and what fees should be paid for the office had been referred by the Estates to the Privy Council.
The Council therefore ordered the noblemen and the commissioners representing the small barons and royal burghs who were then present to choose four representatives from each of the three Estates.
Those representatives were to meet with the Lord Privy Seal, Archbishop of Glasgow, Earls of Roxburgh and Traquair, Bishop of Dunblane and Clerk Register, together with any other councillors who wished to attend.
The meeting was appointed for eight o’clock the following morning in Edinburgh’s lower Council House. Its purpose was to discuss the practical form and procedure of the muster-master’s service and the amount of the fees payable for performing it.
Lord Spynie was personally present and was formally notified of the appointed meeting in the Council proceedings.
The nobles selected the Earls of Rothes, Queensberry and Wemyss and Lord Loudoun. The shire commissioners chose Sir Patrick Hamilton, the Laird of Aldbar, Sir Patrick Murray and the Laird of Pitmedden.
The commissioners representing the royal burghs chose William Dick, Mr Robert Farquhar, Mr James Cockburn and Mr Alexander Guthrie.
The selected men were allowed to meet with their respective Estates in order to obtain further information about the matters under consideration. The committee was then required to report its proceedings to the Privy Council on the following Tuesday.
This entry provides another particularly clear statement of Alexander Guthrie’s role as a representative of the royal burghs, rather than merely as Edinburgh’s municipal clerk.
His selection alongside William Dick, Robert Farquhar and James Cockburn placed him among the four burgh representatives chosen to participate in discussion of a newly created national military office.
The matter also demonstrates the breadth of Alexander’s public work. Volume V already places him in discussions concerning currency, taxation, law reform and civic administration; this record adds military organization and the financial terms of the muster-master’s office.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Muster-master general — officer responsible for inspection and regulation connected with military musters.
- Letters patent — open royal letters formally granting an office, right or authority.
- Great seale — the Great Seal of Scotland.
- Estats — the Estates of the realm; here the nobles, shire or small-barons representatives, and burgh representatives.
- Small barons — lesser landed barons represented through the shires.
- Burrowes — the royal burghs.
- Modification of the fees — determination or fixing of the fees payable for the office.
- Laich counselhous — the lower Council House in Edinburgh.
- Apud acta — formally notified within the recorded proceedings.
- Better light and information — fuller information or instruction from the constituencies represented.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), pp. 237–238; Acta, June 1632–June 1634, fols. 269a–b. Council sitting at Edinburgh, 20 March 1634. Digitized volume.
8 July 1634 — Alexander Guthrie Appears for Edinburgh in the Jurisdiction Dispute with the Earl of Errol
Second Series, Volume 5 • Pages 298–300 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The case arose from a long-running conflict between the magistrates of Edinburgh and the Earl of Errol in his hereditary office of Lord High Constable of Scotland.
Errol claimed jurisdiction over certain offences committed within four miles of the King, Parliament or Privy Council when he or his deputies were present. Edinburgh, by contrast, maintained that its own royal charters gave its provost and bailies extensive hereditary sheriff and justiciary authority inside the burgh and Leith.
The immediate controversy involved Mr John Keith, who had been dealt with by the Constable for wounding James Tenent. Edinburgh’s magistrates subsequently apprehended and warded Keith. Earlier decrees had found against the town, in part because its documentary rights had not then been produced.
Edinburgh now sought suspension of those decrees and produced the charters upon which it relied. The town also insisted that the validity and extent of its heritable rights should be decided by the Lords of Session rather than finally determined by the Privy Council.
Alexander Guthrie personally appeared with Edinburgh’s provost and bailies during this proceeding. This is direct evidence of his participation in the burgh’s defence of its jurisdictional rights.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by the provost and bailies of Edinburgh, as follows:— Their Lordships have recently given two sentences and decrees against them, one on 23rd July last at the instance of William, Earl of Erroll, Lord High Constable of this kingdom, finding that, in respect of the non-production of their rights, the complainers had done wrong in censuring one, Mr. John Keith, servitor to Mr. Thomas Nicolsone, younger, advocate, for the wounding of James Tenent, servitor to Sir James Nicolsone of Colbrandispeth, after he had been censured by the said Lord Constable;
and ordaining the complainers to desist and cease from all censuring of any matters of slaughter, blood or riot, within four miles of his Majesty’s person, Parliament or Council, where the said Earl is present by himself and his deputes; the other on 15th February last at the instance of the said Mr. John Keith, finding that the complainers had done wrong in apprehending and warding him, thus contravening the said first decreet.
These decrees were pronounced for “null defence” and non-production of their writs, with this reservation in clear and express terms that their Lordships so decerned for aught they had not yet seen.
The complainers are now ready for their Lordships’ satisfaction to produce their rights showing that from time immemorial they have been in possession of all the points in controversy between the Constable and them, with this protestation that their Lordships will then be pleased to remit the trial of the validity thereof to the Lords of Session as judges competent,
and that their production shall infer no acknowledgment against them that they submit the decision of their rights to any other judge than the Lords of Session, but only produce their rights for the respect and reverence they owe to their Lordships. They crave, therefore, that these two decrees be suspended.
Charge having been given to the Earl of Erroll, Lord Constable, Mr. Archibald Haldane, his depute, and the said Mr. John Keith; and Sir Alexander Clerke, provost, William Rid and Robert Fleeming, bailies, and Mr. Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, compearing personally with Mr. Thomas Nicolsone, elder, their procurator,
and the Earl of Erroll and Mr. John Keith being also present with Mr. Robert Learmonth and Mr. Rodger Mowat, their procurators, the said Earl and Mr. John Keith produced the two decrees foresaid, and the town of Edinburgh for instructing their right “in judging and censuring of all maters of slauchter, blood or ryot committed be anie person or persons within the liberteis of thair said burgh,”
produced a charter granted to them by King James the Third, ratified in Parliament in 1621, by which they are constituted heritable sheriffs within themselves, and another charter of the office of sheriffship within Leith with a gift of justiciary whereby they are made justices of peace within Edinburgh and Leith, both granted by his Majesty’s late royal father.
Thereupon Mr. Thomas Nicolsone craved that seeing this question was one which depended upon the town’s heritable rights and that it was the law and custom of this kingdom that all such matters should be decided by the Lords of Session, as also because his Majesty had by a letter to their Lordships (which was recorded in their books, and of which an extract was produced) indicated his royal will and pleasure that all actions which should be raised before their Lordships against the town of which the trial depended upon their infeftments should be remitted to the decision of the Lords of Session, their Lordships would now remit the matter to them.
It was answered on behalf of the Constable that the matter now in question did not concern the heritable rights and infeftments of the town but only the extent and exercise of the privileges due to the office of Constabularie, which had been cleared by the reports made thereof to his Majesty by the commissioners appointed to that effect and of which the said Constable was in possession by virtue of the two decrees foresaid.
Further, the said office is a prime office of the Crown, and so their Lordships are most proper judges as to the extent and privileges thereof.
As for the said letter it cannot be respected, being a private letter purchased by the town against their vassals of Leith, and of which there is no mention made in their summons.
To this it was replied for the town that the report referred to as made to his Majesty concerning the privileges of the office of Constabularie cannot be respected and cannot militate against them as they were never called in the matter; and though the said office of Constable be a prime office of the Crown, yet this action being grounded upon heritable rights is merely civil and so proper only to the Lords of Session.
The Lords, after advising, remit the whole matter as it now stands to the Lords of Council and Session as the competent judges therein, intreating them to grant speedy justice to the parties and to proceed therein according to the direction of his Majesty’s letter written to the Council hereanent, of which the tenor follows:—
“Charles R.—Right trustie and right weilbeloved cousin and counseller, right trustie and right weilbeloved cousins and counsellers and trustie and weilbeloved counsellers, wee greete yow weele.
Having considered of your letter and of the differences betuix our right trustie and right weilbeloved cousine and counseller, the Erle of Erroll, our Heich Constable of that our kingdome, and the citie of Edinburgh, and of the suspension raised by thame of the two decreits obteaned by the said Erle before yow,
and fynding that the question now doeth aryse whiche would be the convenient judicatorie before whome the caus sould be decydit, whither before yow or before our Session, in regarde of the nature of thair right they pretend to have, wee have thought fitt heirby to requyre yow that (if yow sall find your selves competent judges in this differance according to the lawes and customes of our said ancient kingdome) yow proceede thairin.
Bot if yow sall find that it properlie belongeth to our Session, remitte it unto thame; bot with all that no dilatories nor tedious formes of lawes be used; and that before whiche of yow this sall happen to be heard, wee command that yow deferre sentence untill yow acquaint us with the particulars of the proces.
Wee bid yow fairweele. From our Manor at Greenwich, the fourteenth day of May, 1634.”
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh’s provost and bailies asked the Privy Council to suspend two earlier decrees made against them in their dispute with William, Earl of Errol, Lord High Constable.
The first earlier decree arose after Mr John Keith wounded James Tenent. Keith had already been dealt with by the Lord Constable, but Edinburgh’s magistrates also exercised their own authority over him. Because the town had not then produced the documents proving its claimed rights, the Council had ruled against the magistrates and ordered them not to exercise jurisdiction over slaughter, blood or riot within four miles of the King, Parliament or Council while the Constable or his deputies were present.
A second decree followed after Edinburgh apprehended and imprisoned Keith. The town now argued that both decrees had been made without its relevant charters having been examined.
Edinburgh offered to produce those rights but formally protested that doing so should not be interpreted as accepting the Privy Council as the final judge of their validity. The town maintained that disputes concerning its hereditary rights belonged before the Court of Session.
Sir Alexander Clerk, William Reid, Robert Fleming and Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, appeared personally with their lawyer, Thomas Nicolsone. The Earl of Errol and John Keith were also personally represented.
Edinburgh produced a charter of James III, later ratified in Parliament, under which it claimed to be constituted a hereditary sheriff within itself. It also produced a charter concerning the sheriffship of Leith and a grant of justiciary authority in Edinburgh and Leith.
The town argued that these documents supported its claimed right to judge and punish offences of slaughter, blood and riot within its liberties and that questions concerning the validity and extent of those hereditary rights should be decided by the Lords of Session.
The Constable’s representatives answered that the real issue was not Edinburgh’s hereditary title but the extent and exercise of the privileges belonging to the office of Lord High Constable. Because that was a principal office of the Crown, they argued that the Privy Council was the proper tribunal.
Edinburgh replied that even if the Constableship was a principal Crown office, this particular action rested upon hereditary civil rights and therefore properly belonged to the Court of Session.
The Privy Council did not resolve the competing claims itself. After considering the arguments, it remitted the whole matter to the Lords of Council and Session as the competent judges and asked them to provide speedy justice.
The Council then inserted Charles I’s letter of 14 May 1634. The King acknowledged that the central problem was deciding which court—the Privy Council or the Session—was competent to hear the dispute. He instructed the Council to proceed if it found itself competent, but otherwise to remit the case to the Session. In either event he directed that unnecessary delay be avoided and that sentence be deferred until he had been informed of the particulars of the process.
This is one of the strongest Volume V examples of Alexander Guthrie personally participating in major legal business on behalf of Edinburgh. The record explicitly styles him town clerk and places him alongside the provost and bailies in person before the Privy Council.
The case concerned no minor municipal procedure. It involved a constitutional and jurisdictional conflict between the capital’s hereditary civic privileges and one of the great offices of the Scottish Crown.
Alexander’s presence therefore illustrates the legal and institutional responsibilities attached to his office as town clerk, while the surviving charters and arguments show the kind of documentary rights Edinburgh was required to defend.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Lord High Constable — a hereditary great office of the Scottish Crown carrying important ceremonial and jurisdictional privileges.
- Depute — deputy exercising authority on behalf of the office-holder.
- Null defence — absence or failure of an effective defence in the proceeding.
- Warding — imprisonment or placing a person in custody.
- Heritable sheriff — hereditary holder of sheriff jurisdiction rather than an annually appointed sheriff.
- Justiciary — criminal judicial authority.
- Infeftment — formal feudal investiture or the documentary title evidencing it.
- Procurator — legal representative acting for a party before a court or council.
- Lords of Council and Session — the supreme civil court, generally called the Court of Session.
- Competent judges — the tribunal legally entitled to determine the particular question.
- Remit — transfer a question or proceeding to another competent court or body for decision.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), pp. 298–300; Decreta, November 1633–April 1635, fols. 115a–116b. Council proceeding at Edinburgh, 8 July 1634. The incorporated royal letter is dated Greenwich, 14 May 1634. Digitized volume.
10 July 1634 — Hercules Guthrie Held for Trial in an Infant-Death Case; His Son Reported Fled
Second Series, Volume 5 • Pages 302–303 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
John, Lord Lindsay, hereditary bailie of the regality of St Andrews, appeared personally before the Privy Council and reported his execution of an earlier Council commission.
That commission had directed him to search for and apprehend Hercules Guthrie and Hercules’s unnamed son so that they could be brought before the Council and delivered to the King’s Justice to undergo trial in connection with the death of a young infant.
The infant is identified only through its parentage. The record states that the child had been conceived outside marriage between an unnamed daughter of Hercules Guthrie and a man named Kempe. The printed source leaves both the daughter’s given name and Kempe’s locality blank.
Lindsay reported that he had successfully apprehended Hercules and confined him in the tolbooth of St Andrews. Hercules’s son, however, had fled and left the country.
The Council approved Lindsay’s diligence and, because the alleged offence concerned people dwelling within the regality of St Andrews, returned the criminal process to him in his capacity as hereditary bailie. He or his deputies were to try Hercules and summon the absent son to appear for trial.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
“The whilk day in presence of the Lords of Secreit Counsell compeired personallie John, Lord Lyndsey, baillie of the regalitie of St. Andrewes, and reported to the saids Lords that in obedience and conforme to ane commissioun direct to him be the saids Lords for apprehending of Hercules Guthre in [blank], and [blank] Guthre, his sone, and exhibiting thame before the saids Lords to the effect they might be delyvered to his Majesteis Justice to underly the law for the cruell murder of ane young infant procreat in fornication betuix [blank] Guthre, daughter to the said Hercules, and Kempe in [blank],
he made searche and inquyrie for the saids Hercules Guthre and his said sone and had accordinglie tane and apprehendit the said Hercules, whome he hes committed to waird within the tolbuith of St. Andrewes, where he presentlie remaines, and that his said sonne wes fled and removed furth of the countrie.
Whiche report being heard and considerit be the saids Lords, they allowed of the said Lord Lyndsey his diligence and cariage in the said bussines; and seing the said cruell and barbarous fact wes committed be the saids persons dwelling within the regalitie of St. Andrewes, whairof the said noble lord is heretable baillie, thairfoir the saids Lords hes recommendit to the said Lord Lyndsey to proceed be himselfe or his deputs in the tryell and sentencing of the said Hercules for the murther foresaid according to the lawes of the kingdome and merite of the fact,
and to caus summond the said [blank] Guthre to compeir before him and his deputs to underly the law for the said cryme, and in caise of his compeirance to proceed accordinglie aganis him and if he be absent and compeir not, to declare him fugitive according to the custom and order of court observed in the like caises.”
Modern English Rendering
John, Lord Lindsay, hereditary bailie of the regality of St Andrews, appeared personally before the Privy Council and reported what he had done under a commission previously issued to him.
He had been ordered to search for and apprehend Hercules Guthrie and Hercules’s unnamed son and bring them before the Council so that they could be delivered to the King’s criminal justice and tried in connection with the alleged murder of a young infant.
The infant was said to have been born from a relationship outside marriage between an unnamed daughter of Hercules Guthrie and a man named Kempe. The record does not supply the daughter’s given name, the son’s given name, or the residence attached to either Hercules or Kempe.
Lindsay reported that he searched for Hercules and his son and succeeded in apprehending Hercules. Hercules was being held in the tolbooth of St Andrews. His son had fled and left the country.
The Privy Council approved Lindsay’s execution of the commission. Because the people concerned lived within the regality of St Andrews, of which Lindsay was hereditary bailie, the Council instructed him or his deputies to proceed with Hercules’s trial according to the laws of the kingdom.
Lindsay was also instructed to summon Hercules’s son to appear before the regality court and undergo trial for the same alleged crime. If the son appeared, proceedings were to continue against him. If he remained absent, the court was to declare him a fugitive according to the customary procedure used in such cases.
Despite the grim subject, this entry contains unusually explicit genealogical evidence. It establishes that Hercules Guthrie had at least one son and one daughter.
The daughter is further identified as the mother of the infant at the centre of the proceeding, and the child’s father is named only as Kempe.
The document also places Hercules within the jurisdiction of the regality of St Andrews, although unfortunately the spaces where his more precise residence and several given names should appear are blank in the printed source.
Those omissions are important. The record cannot presently be used to assign this Hercules Guthrie securely to another Guthrie family solely on the basis of his name or broad St Andrews association.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Regality — a territorial jurisdiction in which a lord or other holder possessed extensive judicial authority delegated by the Crown.
- Heretable baillie — hereditary bailie holding judicial authority within a regality.
- Underly the law — undergo criminal trial.
- Waird — custody or imprisonment.
- Tolbuith — town jail and civic court building.
- Deputs — deputies authorized to exercise the bailie’s jurisdiction.
- Summond — formally summon or cite to appear before a court.
- Fugitive — a person formally treated as absent from and avoiding criminal process after failure to appear.
- Procreat in fornication — contemporary wording indicating a child conceived or born to parents who were not married to one another.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), pp. 302–303; Acta, June 1634–April 1635, fols. 5a–b. Council sitting at Edinburgh, 10 July 1634. The printed entry leaves Hercules’s residence, the son’s given name, the daughter’s given name and Kempe’s residence blank. Digitized volume.
22 August 1634 — Bishop John Guthrie Authorized to Receive the Oaths of the Sheriffs of Inverness and Elgin
Second Series, Volume 5 • Pages 359–360 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Charles I had appointed a new group of sheriffs and other principal local officers for the coming year. Ordinarily those officers were required to appear before the Privy Council and swear faithfully to discharge their offices.
The Council explained, however, that the shortness of time and the needs of royal service made it impractical to bring all of the sheriffs to Edinburgh for that purpose.
It therefore delegated authority to senior councillors, bishops and nobles in different parts of Scotland to administer the oaths locally.
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, was specifically authorized to take the oaths of Alexander McKenzie of Culcowy, sheriff principal of Inverness, and James Dunbar of Boigs, sheriff principal of Elgin.
The arrangement followed the same administrative pattern already seen earlier in Volume V: the oath could be administered outside Edinburgh, but its completion had to be formally reported back for registration in the Council books.
Printed Source Text — Complete Act
“Forsamekle as the Kings Majestie hes made choise of the persons particularlie underwrittin to be shireffs of the shirefdomes after specefeit for the yeere to come, and the Lords of Secreit Counsell considdering that in regarde of the shortnes of tyme and necessitie of his Majesteis service the said shireffs cannot be brought heir to give thair oathes before his Majesteis Counsell,
thairfoir the Lords of Privie Counsell hes givin and grantit and be the tennour heirof gives and grants full power, auctoritie and commissioun, expresse bidding and charge to the noblemen, counsellers and others persons aftermentiouned to take the oaths of the shireffs particularlie after specefeit for the faithfull discharge of the office of shireffship within thair severall bounds and jurisdictions;
that is to say, George, Erie of Kinnoull, Lord High Chancellor of this kingdome, to take the oath of Sir Williame Stewart of Garnetullie, shireff principall of Perth;
to Thomas, Erie of Hadintoun, Lord Privie Seale, to take the oathes of Sir Johne Dalmahoy, shireff principall of Edinburgh, Walter Cornwall of Bonhard, shireff principall of Linlithgow; Sir Patrik Murrey of Elibanke, shireff principall of Hadintoun, Sir William Scot of Harden, shireff principall of Selkirk, and Sir Robert Greirsone of Lag, Stewart principall of Annerdaill;
and to Patrik, bishop of Glasgow, to take the oathes of Walter McAwlay of Ardincaple, shireff principall of Dumbartane, Sir James Hamiltoun of Broomehill, shireff principall of Lanerk, James Chalmers of Gatgirth, shireff principall of Air, and Sir Williame Cunninghame of Cunninghamheid, baillie principall of Kylestewart;
and to David, Erie of Southesk, to take the oath of Sir Johne Carnegie of Ethie, shireff principall of Forfar;
and to Patrik, bishop of Aberdein, to take the oathes of Thomas Crombie of Kemnay, shireff principall of Aberdein, and George Baird of Auchmedden, shireff principall of Bamff;
and to Johne, bishop of Murrey, to take the oathes of Alexander McKeinzie of Culcowy, shireff principall of Invernes, and James Dumbar of Boigs, shireff principall of Elgine;
and to Sir Johne Charters of Amisfeild or Sir Robert Greirsone of Lag to take the oath of Johne Dalyell, sone to the Lord Dalyell, shireff principall of Dumfreis;
and that the saids commissioners make and send in to the Clerk of Counsell ane formall report in writt of the shireffs respective abonewrittin thair oathes to the effect the same may be insert and registrat in the bookes of Privie Counsell.
And the saids Lords ordains the saids shireffs to make their addresse with all convenient diligence to the commissioners particularlie abonewrittin to give thair saids oathes for the faithfull discharge of thair offices.”
Modern English Rendering
The King had selected a number of men to serve as sheriffs of specified sheriffdoms during the coming year. Normally they would appear before the Privy Council and take an oath promising faithfully to discharge their offices.
Because there was not enough time, and because royal service required the matter to be completed promptly, the Council decided not to require every sheriff to travel to Edinburgh.
Instead, it delegated authority to selected councillors, nobles and bishops to administer the oaths locally.
The Chancellor was authorized to receive the oath of the sheriff of Perth. The Lord Privy Seal was assigned several sheriffs in the south and southeast. The Bishop of Glasgow was assigned officers in Dumbarton, Lanark, Ayr and Kyle Stewart. The Earl of Southesk was to receive the oath of the sheriff of Forfar, while the Bishop of Aberdeen was to receive those of the sheriffs of Aberdeen and Banff.
John, Bishop of Moray, was authorized to administer the oaths of Alexander McKenzie of Culcowy, sheriff principal of Inverness, and James Dunbar of Boigs, sheriff principal of Elgin.
After administering the oaths, each commissioner was required to send a formal written report to the Clerk of Council. The report would allow the completed oath to be entered and registered in the Privy Council books.
The newly appointed sheriffs themselves were ordered to approach their assigned commissioners without unnecessary delay and take the required oath for faithful performance of their offices.
The act provides another clear example of Bishop John Guthrie being used as a regional agent of central government in northern Scotland. His responsibility extended beyond church affairs into the formal constitution of royal civil offices.
It is particularly useful because it identifies two specific sheriff jurisdictions entrusted to him: Inverness and Elgin.
The record also reinforces a pattern seen earlier in Volume V. Bishop John was repeatedly selected to receive sheriff oaths because the Privy Council could delegate the ceremonial and administrative act locally while preserving central control through mandatory written certification.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Shireff principall — sheriff principal, the chief royal sheriff exercising jurisdiction within a sheriffdom.
- Stewart principall — principal steward of a stewartry, performing a role analogous to a sheriff within that jurisdiction.
- Baillie principall — chief bailie of a territorial jurisdiction.
- Faithfull discharge — faithful execution of the duties of office.
- Make their addresse — present themselves to or approach the designated commissioner.
- Formal report in writt — written certification sufficient for official registration.
- Insert and registrat — enter formally in the Privy Council record books.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), pp. 359–360; Acta, June 1634–April 1635, fols. 22b–23a. Council sitting at Edinburgh, 22 August 1634. Digitized volume.
17 September 1634 — Alexander Guthrie Appears for Edinburgh in a Cordwainer Trade-Privilege Dispute
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 372 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The dispute concerned the regulated privileges of Edinburgh’s cordwainer craft and the extent to which city craftsmen could seize shoes made by someone who was not a freeman of the burgh.
Mungo Wright, a cordwainer serving the Earl of Roxburgh and then living in Leith, had agreed with Thomas Davidson, servant to the Master of Forbes, to make six pairs of high-quality shoes at twenty shillings per pair.
According to Wright’s complaint, after he had made the shoes and brought them into Edinburgh for delivery, James Brown, an Edinburgh cordwainer and burgess, entered the cellar where Wright was present, took all six pairs and retained them for approximately ten weeks.
Wright maintained that Brown had no lawful reason to take them because Wright owed him nothing, had infringed no privilege, and had made the bargain for the shoes within the Earl of Roxburgh’s jurisdiction.
Brown appeared to answer the complaint. With him was Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, acting for the interest of the city’s provost, bailies and council. The burgh’s position was that Brown’s seizure was authorized by the privileges of Edinburgh’s cordwainer craft.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by Mungo Wright, cordiner, servitor to the Earl of Roxburgh, now indweller in Leith, as follows:—In July last he agreed with Thomas Davidsone, servitor to the Master of Forbes, to make their servants six pair of shoes of the best sort at 20s. per pair, or £6 in all,
and having made the shoes, he brought them up to be delivered to the said Thomas Davidsone, when James Broun, cordiner, burgess of Edinburgh, came to him within the cellar of Thomas Martin in Edinburgh, and reft from him and took away the whole six pairs of shoes, and has kept them from him for the past ten weeks,
though the pursuer is no way in debt to him, has never wronged him, nor usurped any privilege, seeing the said shoes were bought and sold within the Earl of Roxburgh’s bounds. He is greatly injured thereby, being but a poor tradesman living by his craft.
Charge having been given to the said James Broun, and the pursuer compearing, also the defender, along with Mr. Alexander Guthrie, town-clerk of Edinburgh, in behalf of the provost, bailies and council of the said burgh for their interest,
who pleaded that the defender had done no wrong in seizing the said shoes as the deacon and brethren of the cordiners of this burgh are warranted by their seal of cause granted to them by the provost, bailies and council of this burgh, and confirmed by the late King James, to seize and confiscate all unfreemen’s work brought within this burgh to be sold
“aff the monendayes mercat and outwith the said mercat, and whiche hes beene thair customable practise past memorie of man”;
and Mr. Alexander Guthrie desiring that the trial of this matter might be remitted to the Lords of Session, the Lords, after hearing parties, remit the case to the Lords of Session as judges competent thereto.
Modern English Rendering
Mungo Wright, a shoemaker serving the Earl of Roxburgh and then living in Leith, complained that in July he had contracted with Thomas Davidson, servant to the Master of Forbes, to make six pairs of good-quality shoes for a total price of £6.
After Wright completed the shoes and brought them into Edinburgh for delivery, James Brown, an Edinburgh shoemaker and burgess, allegedly came to the cellar of Thomas Martin, took all six pairs from Wright and kept them for about ten weeks.
Wright argued that Brown had no legal justification for taking them. He said that he owed Brown nothing, had committed no wrong, and had not infringed Edinburgh’s privileges because the bargain for the shoes had been made within the Earl of Roxburgh’s bounds.
Brown appeared to defend the action. Mr Alexander Guthrie, Edinburgh’s town clerk, also appeared on behalf of the city’s provost, bailies and council because the burgh claimed an institutional interest in the dispute.
Edinburgh’s argument was that Brown had acted lawfully because the deacon and members of the city’s cordwainer craft possessed a seal of cause granted by the municipal authorities and confirmed by King James. The burgh said that this authorized them to seize and confiscate work made by unfreemen when such work was brought into Edinburgh for sale outside the permitted Monday market.
The city further claimed that this had been its customary practice beyond living memory.
Alexander Guthrie asked that the validity of the dispute be determined by the Lords of Session. After hearing both sides, the Privy Council agreed and transferred the case to the Court of Session as the competent tribunal.
This entry gives another unusually specific example of Alexander Guthrie acting as Edinburgh’s institutional representative before the Privy Council.
He is explicitly identified as town clerk and as appearing for the interest of the provost, bailies and council. His role therefore went beyond routine clerical recordkeeping.
The case also illustrates one aspect of seventeenth-century burgh economic regulation: incorporated crafts claimed exclusive privileges over particular trades and could assert rights against work produced or sold by people outside the privileged craft and burgess structure.
Alexander’s request that the controversy be remitted to the Lords of Session is particularly useful evidence of his legal role. He was helping protect the burgh’s claimed chartered and corporate rights by directing the jurisdictional question to the civil court regarded as competent to determine it.
Terms & Burgh Trade Practice
- Cordiner — cordwainer or shoemaker, especially one working in new leather.
- Burgess — person formally admitted to the privileges and obligations of a royal burgh.
- Deacon — elected head of an incorporated craft.
- Brethren of the cordiners — members of the incorporated cordwainer craft.
- Seal of cause — municipal charter or grant defining the privileges, rules and authority of an incorporated craft.
- Unfreemen — people not possessing the burgh or craft freedom required to exercise certain trades under municipal regulation.
- Reft — forcibly took or seized.
- Customable practise past memorie of man — claimed customary practice said to extend beyond living memory.
- Lords of Session — the judges of Scotland’s supreme civil court, the Court of Session.
- Judges competent — the court legally entitled to determine the dispute.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 372; Decreta, November 1633–April 1635, fols. 152a–b. Council proceeding at Edinburgh, 17 September 1634. Brown’s printed presentation is an editorial abridgment containing selected original wording from the underlying process. Digitized volume.
18 September 1634 — Multiple Guthries Appointed Justices of Peace Across Scotland
Second Series, Volume 5 • Pages 385–388 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
In September 1634 the Privy Council issued a new kingdom-wide commission of Justices of Peace. The resulting lists occupy many pages of the printed volume and are arranged by sheriffdom or other territorial jurisdiction.
The commission is particularly valuable for Guthrie research because it places several different Guthries in identifiable localities and offices at the same moment.
Three appear in the Forfarshire commission: Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum, the unnamed Guthrie of Colliston, and Mr James Guthrie, parson of Kinnell.
In the northeast, Mr Patrick Guthrie, minister at Logybuchan, appears in the Aberdeenshire list, while Mr John Guthrie, parson of Duffus, appears in the Elgin and Forres commission.
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, appears repeatedly because his episcopal and governmental position extended across several northern jurisdictions. He is named among the Justices of Peace for Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin and Forres, Nairn and Inverness.
Printed Source Text — Guthrie-Bearing County Sections
FORFAR.—The Lord Chanceller, the Archbishop of St. Andrewes, the Lord Thesaurar, the Lord Privie Seale, the Lords of Counsell and Sessioun, the Bishop of Brechin, the Lord Ogilvie, the Lord Gray, the Lord Spynie, the Lord Cowper, Sir Johne Scrimgeour of Duddope, Sir Johne Carnegie of Ethie, John Areskine of Dun, Sir Alexander Carnegie of Bonimun, James Scrimgeour appearand of Duddope, David Grahame of Fintrie,
Thomas Ogilvie of that like, Sir Harie Wod of Bonytoun, Sir William Grahame of Claverhous, Thomas Fothringhame of Powrie, James Lyoun of Aldbar, Lindsey, fear of Edyell, Friderick Lyoun of Brigtoun, Sir Thomas Wentoun of Strickmartine, William Durhame of Grange, Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum, Sir Johne Ogilvie of Innerquarritie, Francis Ogilvie of Newgrange, James Crichtoun of Rathven, Mr George Grahame of Goterstoun, James Durhame of Pityarrow, Mr James Durhame of Kinnell, George Halyburtoun of Killour, Johne Nevay of that Ilke, Robert Arbuthnet of Findowrie, Patrik Livingstoun of Barounie, David Lindsey of Pitscandlie, Johne Scrimgeour of Kirktoun, Alexander Lindsey of Pitterlie, Henrie Mauld of Dumbarrow, Guthrie of Collestoun, Mr James Guthrie, parson of Kinnell, Mr Silvester Lammy, minister at Glams, Mr William Malcolme, minister at [blank]: the said Thomas Fothringhame of Powrie, conveenner.
ABERDEIN.—The Lord Chanceller, the Archbishop of St. Andrewes, the Lord Thesaurar, the Lord Privie Seale, the Lords of Counsell and Sessioun, the Marqueis of Huntlie, the Erie of Dunfermline, the Bishop of Aberdein, the Bishop of Murrey, the Lord Forbes, the Lord Pitsligo, the Lord Fraser, the Maister of Forbes, Sir Alexander Irwing of Drum, Sir Alexander Gordoun of Cluny, Sir William Forbes of Monymusk, Thomas Crombie of Kemnay, Thomas Areskine of Balhaggartie, Mr Robert Gordoun of Straloch, Sir George Johnestoun of that Ilke, Johne Leslie of Boquhen, Johne Leslie, yonger of Pitcaple, Johne Forbes of Leslie, Alexander Seatoun of Pitmedden, James Crichtoun of Fendraucht, Williame Seatoun of Meldrum, Mr Patrik Maitlane of Achincreiff, Johne Gordoun, yonger of Buckie, Alexander Udnie of Ochterellon, Turing of Foverne, Johne Seatoun of Mynnes, Williame Forbes of Tolquhen, Walter Forbes of Thainstoun, George Gordoun, yonger of Geicht, Sir Williame Keith of Ludquharne, Johne Keith of Clakriache, Alexander Fraser, yonger of Phillorth, Thomas Fraser, yonger of Streachin, Johne Hay of Cremondmogat, Robert Irwing of Fedderat, Alexander Keith of Balmure, Mr James Buchan of Auchmacoy, Donald Ferquharson of Monaltrie, Robert Ferquharson of Finzeane, Williame Coutts, younger of Auchtertoull, Alexander Skeene of that Ilke, George Gordoun, younger of Tillichowdie, Alexander Abircromby of Pitmedden, Patrik Leith of Quhythauche, Magnus Mowat of Boquhallie, Walter Barclay of Towie, George Baird of Auchmedden, Sir Alexander Hay of Delgatie, Sir James Gordoun, elder of Lesmoir, Sir William Forbes of Craigiewar, James Cheyne of Arnage, Williame Seatoun of Scheathin, Alexander Strauchane of Glenkindie, Johne Gordoun of Innermerkie, George Gordoun of Coclarachie, Patrik Urquhart of Lethintie, Williame Seatoun of Udnie, Mr Robert Bissat of Lessindrum, Meldrum of Hiltoun, Alexander Lyoun of Muresk, Mr David Lindsey, minister at Belhelvie, Mr Johne Ros, minister at Birs, Mr Adame Barclay, minister at Aufurd, Mr Williame Strauchane, minister at Daviot, Mr Thomas Mitchell, minister at Tureff, Mr Thomas Rerers, minister at Lowmay, Mr Patrik Guthre, minister at Logybuchan, Mr Robert Hamilton, parson of Botarie, Mr William Milne, parson of Glas, Mr William Douglas, minister at Forge: the said Laird of Drum, conveenner.
BAMFF.—The Lord Chanceller, the Archbishop of St. Andrewes, the Lord Thesaurar, the Lord Privie Seale, the Lords of Counsell and Sessioun, George, Marques of Huntlie, James, Lord Ogilvie, James, Lord Desfurde, Patrik, Bishop of Aberdein, the Bishop of Murrey, Johne Gordoun, elder and yonger of Bucky, George Hay of Rannas, James Hay of Maldovat, Alexander Abircrombie of Birkinboig, Harie Gordoun of Glassauche, George Ogilvie of Halyairds, Thomas Abercromby of Skeith, Mr George Leslie in Cullen, Sir George Ogilvie of Bamff, Robert Wilsoun of Brakanhillis, George Mortimer of Achenbadie, James Crichtoun of Fendracht, Berold Inneis of Knokreith, Sir George Ogilvie of Carnowseis, Walter Halket at the milne of Rothemay, Alexander Ogilvie of Kempcarne, Alexander Adamsoun of Brakie, Thomas Inneis of Pethnick, George Baird of Auchmedden, Patrik Gibsoun of Kilminitie, Johne Ogilvie of Milnetoun of Keith, Alexander Ogilvie of Knock of Strathyla, Robert Spence of Tulloch, George Gordoun, elder and younger of Baldomie, Alexander Gordoun of Birkinburne, Sir Robert Inneis of Balvenie, Adame Duff of Drummure, John Stewart of Ardbrack, Johne Gordoun of Innermerkie, Patrik Stewart of Kinmauchline, Sir James Gordoun of Lesmore, Brandane Baird of Northfeild, Walter Grant of Findoun, [blank] of Auchintoull, Mr Johne Logie, minister at Ruthven, Mr William Forbes, minister at Mortlack, Mr Johne Stewart, parson of Abirlour, Mr Joseph Brodie, parson of Keith: the Laird of Birkinboig, conveenner.
ELGINE AND FORRES.—The Lord Chanceller, the Archbishop of St. Andrewes, the Lord Thesaurar, the Lord Privie Seale, the Lords of Counsell and Sessioun, the Erie of Seafort, the Bishop of Murrey, the Lord Lovat, the Laird of Inneis, Mr Johne Inneis of Cokstoun, Alexander Inneis of Coittis, Johne Inneis of Leuchars, Robert Leslie of Finrassie, James Sutherland, tutor of Duffus, Thomas McKeinzie of Pluscardin, Patrik Dumbar of Westertoun, Mr Johne Hay, commissar of Murrey, James Spence of Kirktoun of Alves, Mr Gavin Dumbar, chanter of Murrey, Patrik Grant of Elcheis, Mr William Cumine of Earneside, James Dumbar of Boigs, Alexander Dumbar of Grange, Robert Dumbar of Burgie, Niniane Dunbar of Grangehill, Alexander Brodie of Eastgrange, [blank] Tulloch of Tannachie, Mr Samwell Falconer of Kincorth, [blank] Dumbar of Dumphaill, Robert Dumbar of Easterburne, Hucheoun Ros of Killraack, William Ros, his brother, David Hay of Park, Patrik Grant of Ballindallach, Johne Grant, fear thairof, Mr John Guthre, parson of Duffus, Mr Johne Brodie, deane of Murrey: the said Robert Leslie of Finrassie, conveenner.
NAIRNE.—The Lord Chanceller, the Archbishop of St Andrewes, the Lord Thesaurar, the Lord Privie Seale, the Lords of Counsell and Sessioun, the Bishop of Murrey, Johne Campbell, fear of Calder, Hucheoun Ross of Kilraack, Alexander Dumbar of Westgrange, David Hay of Lochloir, Johne Sutherland of Kinstarie, William Ros of Clava, [blank] Hay of Kinwiddie, Colin Campbell of Clunes, [blank] Dollas of Cantra: the Baron of Kilraack, conveenner.
INVERNES.—The Lord Chanceller, the Archbishop of St Andrewes, the Lord Thesaurar, the Lord Privie Seale, the Lords of Counsell and Sessioun, the Marques of Huntlie, the Erie of Seafort, the Bishop of Murrey, the Bishop of Ros, the Lord Lovat, Sir John Grant of Frewchie, Hucheoun Ros of Kilraack, Patrik Grant of Ballindallach, Johne Grant, appearand thairof, McIntoshe of Borlum, Lauchlane McIntoshe of Callachie, Alexander McIntoshe of Aldgowrie, Alexander Baillie of Duneane, Thomas Fraser of Streachin, Hew Fraser of Culbokie, Thomas Fraser of Strow, Hew Fraser of Balladrum, Alexander McKeinyie of Garloch, Alexander McKeinyie of Coull, Sir Johne McKeinyie of Tarbet, Rorie McKeinyie of Ridcastell, John McKeinyie of Fairbarne, Sir Johne Gordoun of Embo, David Ros of Pitcalnie, Walter Ros of Innercharron, Sir Donnald McDonnald of Slait, Johne McCloud of Dynvegane, Mr Angus McIntoshe, parson of Kingussie, Mr William Clogie, minister at Innernes, Mr Patrik Durhame, deane of Ros, Mr George Monro, chanceller of Ros, Mr David Monro, minister at Killerne, Mr Murdo McKeinyie, minister at Dingwell, Mr Ferquhar McGie, minister at Kintaill, Mr Donald Clerk, minister at Lochchals: the Laird of Streachin, conveenner.
Modern English Rendering
The national commission appointed groups of Justices of Peace for individual sheriffdoms and other jurisdictions and named a local convener for each group.
In Forfarshire, the commission included Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum, Guthrie of Colliston, and Mr James Guthrie, parson of Kinnell. Thomas Fothringhame of Powrie was named convener.
In Aberdeenshire, the commission included John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, among the senior office-holders at the head of the list, and Mr Patrick Guthrie, minister at Logybuchan, among the ministers and other local commissioners. The Laird of Drum was named convener.
In Banffshire, the Bishop of Moray was again included among the Justices of Peace. The Laird of Birkenbog was named convener.
In Elgin and Forres, the commission included both the Bishop of Moray and Mr John Guthrie, parson of Duffus. Robert Leslie of Finrassie was named convener.
In Nairn, the Bishop of Moray was again one of the appointed Justices, with the Baron of Kilravock serving as convener.
Finally, the Inverness commission also included the Bishop of Moray, together with the Bishop of Ross, Lord Lovat and a large body of Highland landowners and ministers. The Laird of Strichen was named convener.
The result is a geographically broad record of Guthrie public service: three separate Guthrie landholders or clergy in Forfarshire, ministers in Aberdeenshire and Moray, and Bishop John Guthrie serving across several northern jurisdictions.
This commission is one of the most genealogically useful Guthrie records in Volume V because several otherwise distinct Guthrie identities appear together with precise territorial or clerical descriptions.
Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum and Guthrie of Colliston are identifiable landed men in Forfarshire, while James Guthrie of Kinnell, Patrick Guthrie of Logybuchan and John Guthrie of Duffus are identified by their church offices.
The repeated appearance of Bishop John Guthrie of Moray across Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin and Forres, Nairn and Inverness demonstrates the broad regional reach of his public responsibilities after his admission to the Privy Council.
The printed page also resolves an important reading point: Mr James Guthrie is explicitly printed as “parson of Kinnell.” The OCR rendering “Bannell” is an error and has not been carried into the transcription above.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Justice of Peace — local officer appointed to help preserve public order and implement the statutory system of peace administration.
- Conveenner — the person designated to convene or call together the Justices of Peace within the jurisdiction.
- Fear — fiar; the person holding the fee or heritable interest, often the heir in possession of the estate subject to a liferent.
- Appearand — apparent heir.
- Parson — holder of a parochial benefice or rectorial office.
- Commissar — officer of a commissary court, particularly associated with ecclesiastical and testamentary jurisdiction.
- Chanter — precentor, a senior cathedral office.
- Deane — dean, a senior ecclesiastical office.
- Lord Chanceller / Thesaurar / Privie Seale — senior officers of the Scottish Crown routinely placed at the head of many county commissions.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), national Justice of Peace commission dated 18 September 1634, especially pp. 385–388, fols. 53b–56b. The complete national commission extends across pp. 378–389. The sections above reproduce the complete county lists in which Guthries occur. Digitized volume.
6 November 1634 — Alexander Guthrie Appears for the Burghs in the Pearl-Fishing Patent Dispute
Second Series, Volume 5 • Pages 398–399 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The commissioners of Scotland’s royal burghs had repeatedly petitioned the King concerning the right to fish for pearls in the rivers of Scotland.
Their complaint was directed against the concentration of that privilege in a single private person. They maintained that pearl fishing should instead be available generally to the King’s subjects and especially to merchants of the free royal burghs.
According to the process, Charles I had indicated that exclusive patents or acts engrossing the privilege in one person should be discharged and that wider liberty should be granted.
The burgh commissioners identified Robert Buchan, burgess of Aberdeen, as the holder of the disputed privilege and alleged that he had obtained it upon “sinister information.”
Buchan was therefore charged to appear before the Privy Council on 6 November and produce his patent or other warrants concerning the taking and selling of pearls so that the Council could examine them.
When the matter was called, the burgh commissioners appeared through several named representatives, including Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh and clerk to the burghs. Buchan appeared through his procurator, Mr Roger Mouat.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
“Anent our soverane lords letters raised at the instance of the commissioners for the burrowes of this kingdome, makand mention that where they, having diverse tymes and last at the late Parliament petitiouned the Kings Majestie anent the prejudice and harm susteanned by the burrowes by conferring the power and priviledge of fishing and taking of pearle within the rivers of this kingdome in the person of one privat person whiche sould be communicat and be commoun to all, especiallie to the merchants of the free royall burrowes,
his Majestie, after dew consideration of the compleaners petition and of the equitie and justice thairof, wes gratiouslie pleased to give signification to the Lords of Privie Counsell of his Majesteis royall will and pleasure that all patents or acts made for the ingrossing of the said privilege in the person of one sail be discharged and libertie granted to all his Majesteis subjects, speciallie the free burrowes, to fish pearle in all the rivers of this kingdome at thair pleasure.
And whereas Robert Buchan, burges of Aberdein, is the person who upon sinister information hes ingrossed the sole and full libertie of taking of pearle to himselfe, necessar it is for the better formalitie and order of proceeding that he be warned before his Majesteis Counsell to heare and see his Majesteis royall will and pleasure intimat unto him.
And anent the charge givin to the said Robert Buchan to have compeired personallie before the Lords of Privie Counsell this present saxt day of November instant to have brought, presentit and exhibite with him the patent or quhatsomever acts, warrands or priviledges grantit to him anent the taking and selling of pearle to have beene scene and considderit be the saids Lords
and to have heard and scene the same discharged and libertie grantit to all his Majesteis subjects, especiallie the free burrowes, to fishe and take pearle in all the rivers of the kingdome at thair pleasure, or ellis to have shawin a reasonable caus why the same sould not be done, with certification to him and he failyied the saids Lords would discharge and grant libertie in maner foresaid, lykeas at mair lenth is conteanit in the saids letters, executions and indorsations thairof;
quhilks being callit, and the said persewers compeirand be Johne Sinclar, merchant burges of Edinburgh, Robert Tailyeour, burgess of St. Andrewes, Johne Sempill, provest of Dumbartane, and [blank] Lumsden, baillie of Aberdein, with Mr Alexander Guthre, toun clerk of Edinburgh and clerk to the burrowes, and the said defender compeirand be Mr Roger Mouat, his procurator,
the reasons and allegations of the parteis present being heard and considderit be the saids Lords and they advised therewith, the Lords of Secreit Counsell continewes the advising and discussing of this mater untill the first counsell day of Marche nixtocome, quhairof the parteis present ar warned apud acta.”
Modern English Rendering
The commissioners representing Scotland’s royal burghs had repeatedly petitioned the King, most recently during the previous Parliament, concerning the harm they said resulted from granting one private person the exclusive right to fish for and take pearls from the rivers of Scotland.
Their position was that this privilege should be shared generally, especially with the merchants of the free royal burghs.
The process states that, after considering their petition, Charles I had signified to the Privy Council that patents or acts granting the entire privilege to one person should be discharged and that liberty should instead be given to the King’s subjects, particularly the burghs, to fish for pearls in Scotland’s rivers.
The burgh commissioners identified Robert Buchan, burgess of Aberdeen, as the person then possessing the sole privilege. They alleged that he had obtained it upon misleading or improper information.
Buchan had therefore been formally charged to appear before the Privy Council on 6 November 1634 and bring with him the patent, acts, warrants or other privileges under which he claimed the right to take and sell pearls.
The Council was to inspect those documents and determine whether the exclusive privilege should be discharged and wider liberty granted, unless Buchan could show a reasonable cause why that should not be done.
When the case was called, the burghs appeared through John Sinclair of Edinburgh, Robert Tailyeour of St Andrews, John Sempill, provost of Dumbarton, an unnamed Lumsden who was bailie of Aberdeen, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh and clerk to the burghs.
Robert Buchan appeared through his lawyer, Mr Roger Mouat. The Council heard and considered the arguments of the parties but did not then decide the dispute.
Instead, consideration and discussion of the matter was continued until the first Council day of March 1635. Those parties who were present were formally notified of that continued date within the proceedings.
This entry provides one of the clearest statements in Volume V of Alexander Guthrie’s office beyond Edinburgh itself: he is expressly styled “clerk to the burrowes.”
He appears alongside municipal representatives from Edinburgh, St Andrews, Dumbarton and Aberdeen in a dispute concerning a kingdom-wide commercial privilege. The matter was therefore not simply an Edinburgh municipal issue.
The record strengthens the evidence that Alexander served as an administrative and legal representative of Scotland’s royal burghs in national economic and commercial matters, complementing his documented work concerning coinage, coal exports and other burgh interests.
Terms & Commercial Practice
- Burrowes — Scotland’s royal burghs acting collectively through their commissioners.
- Clerk to the burrowes — clerk serving the collective institutions and proceedings of the royal burghs.
- Ingrossing — concentrating or monopolizing a right or privilege in one person.
- Sinister information — allegedly misleading, improper or prejudicial information supplied in obtaining a grant.
- Patent — formal royal grant of a right, office or exclusive privilege.
- Warrand — formal authority or authorization.
- Procurator — lawyer or formal representative acting for a party.
- Continewes — postpones further consideration to a later date.
- Apud acta — formally notified within the recorded proceedings.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), pp. 398–399; Acta, June 1634–April 1635, fols. 28a–b. Council proceeding at Edinburgh, 6 November 1634. Digitized volume.
13 November 1634 — Bishop John Guthrie Ordered to Give Evidence on the Northern Disorders
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 407 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
By November 1634 the Privy Council was intensifying its efforts to identify the people responsible for the continuing violence in the north associated with the attacks upon the lands, tenants and servants of the Laird of Fendraught.
On 13 November the Council identified a lengthy group of people who it believed could supply useful information. At the head of that list was John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
The information sought concerned not only the immediate perpetrators of the raids and depredations but also their “authors, abbaters and hounders out of brokin men”— those alleged to have supported, encouraged or incited the raiders.
The Council ordered formal letters requiring all of the named people to appear personally and give evidence concerning what they knew. The record does not state in this entry what Bishop John knew, what evidence he later supplied, or whether he appeared in response to this particular charge.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
“Forsamekle as the Lords of Secreit Counsell ar informed that Johne, Bishop of Murrey, Mr Williame Douglas, minister at Forgue, Normand Leslie of Tulloche, Walter Halket at the milne of Rothemay, Mr Alexander Inneis, parson of Rothemay, Mr Andro Massie, minister at Drumblet, Mr Johne Reidfurd, minister at Kinbettock, James Hamilton of Cors of Kinmore, Johne Hamilton, his sone, Mr Johne Annand, parson of Kinmore, Johne Tarrell in Rothemay, [blank] Adamsons, elder and younger of Braco, Mr Alexander Douglas, doctor of medicine in Bamf, Sir Alexander Hay of Delgatie, Mr Robert Blair, minister at Forglen, Mr Thomas Mitchel, parson of Tureff, Walter Urquhart of Crombie, Johne Gordoun of Carnefeild, Thomas Dorwart in Achannachie, Henrie in Quhytlumes, Mr Alexander Forbes in Tureff, Walter Barclay at the kirk of Keith, Johne Gordoun, younger of Achannachie, Johne Reidfurd in Meyen, Johne Stevinsone there, Patrik and George Murreyes in Auchinnoull, Sir James Gordoun of Lesmore, Johne Gordoun of Buckie, Mr Richard Maitlane, minister at Abirchirdour, and Mr Johne Logie, minister at Rathven,
can give information anent the heirships and depredations latelie committed upon the Laird of Fendraucht and of the authors, abbaters and hounders out of brokin men to the committing of the same;
and the saids Lords being carefull to use all lawfull wayes and meanes for discoverie of this mater to the effect that the offenders in this kynde may be knowne and punished and convenient remedeis sett doun for preventing the like disorders in tyme comming,
thairfoir ordains letters to be direct charging the persons abonewrittin to compeir personallie before the saids Lords at ane certane day, to depone what they know or sail be speirit at thame in the mater foresaid under the pane of rebellion, etc., with certification, etc.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council had been informed that John, Bishop of Moray, together with the other named ministers, landholders and local residents, could provide information concerning the raids and depredations recently committed against the Laird of Fendraught.
The Council also wished to discover who had organized or supported the attacks and who had encouraged the broken men to carry them out.
Because the Lords wished to use every lawful means of discovering the facts, identifying and punishing the offenders, and devising measures to prevent similar disorders in future, they ordered formal letters to be issued against all of the named people.
Those persons were required to appear personally before the Privy Council on an appointed day and give sworn evidence concerning whatever they knew or were questioned about in connection with the attacks.
Failure to obey the summons exposed them to the legal consequences attached to a charge issued under pain of rebellion.
The entry places Bishop John Guthrie close to the Council’s investigation of one of the major public-order crises in northern Scotland during this period.
More specifically, the Council considered him sufficiently informed about events in the region to require his personal testimony on the attacks upon Fendraught and the people believed to be behind them.
This fits the broader pattern already visible in Volume V: Bishop John was not functioning solely as an ecclesiastical figure. He was repeatedly drawn into the Crown’s civil and administrative response to northern disorder.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Heirships — armed raids or plundering expeditions involving the carrying off of goods or livestock.
- Depredations — plundering, raiding or destructive taking of property.
- Abbaters — abettors; people alleged to aid or support offenders.
- Hounders out — persons who incited, encouraged or set others upon a violent course.
- Brokin men — lawless or disorderly men operating outside ordinary control, often associated with raiding groups or clans.
- Compeir personallie — appear personally before the court or Council.
- Depone — give sworn testimony or deposition.
- Speirit at thame — asked or questioned of them.
- Pane of rebellion — penalty attached to failure to obey a formal royal or Council charge, potentially leading to denunciation as a rebel.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 407; Acta, June 1634–April 1635, fols. 31a–b. Council sitting at Edinburgh, 13 November 1634. Digitized volume.
13 November 1634 — Bishop John Guthrie Directed to Convene the Gentlemen of Moray and Report on the Northern Disorders
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 408 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This short entry follows directly upon the Council’s investigation into the raids, depredations and wider disorder affecting Fendraught and the northern counties.
On the same date that Bishop John Guthrie was named among those believed able to give information concerning the recent attacks, the Council gave him a broader regional assignment.
A formal missive was to be sent to the Bishop of Moray instructing him to gather the gentlemen of Moray and have them consider both the extent of the northern disorder and practical measures for suppressing it.
Their conclusions were to be reduced to a written report, making Bishop John an important intermediary between local northern landholders and the central government.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
“A missive to the Bishop of Murrey for conveening the gentlemen in Murrey to sett doun a report in writt of the disorders in the north and meanes for repressing the same.”
Modern English Rendering
A letter was to be sent to John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, instructing him to convene the gentlemen of Moray and have them prepare a written report concerning the disorders in northern Scotland and the means by which those disorders might be suppressed.
This entry shows Bishop John Guthrie acting in a more active governmental capacity than the preceding summons for information.
He was not merely one possible witness among many. The Council selected him to assemble local gentlemen, coordinate their assessment and transmit a written report on a major regional security problem.
It therefore provides strong evidence of the confidence placed in him as both a Privy Councillor and a senior northern office-holder capable of organizing local participation in Crown policy.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Missive — an official letter or written communication.
- Conveening — summoning or bringing together for consultation.
- Gentlemen — here, principally local landed men and other persons of standing within Moray.
- Sett doun — formulate, record or put into written form.
- Report in writt — formal written report submitted for governmental consideration.
- Repressing — suppressing or bringing disorder under control.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 408; Council business dated 13 November 1634. Digitized volume.
25 November 1634 — Guthries Retained in the Renewed Justice of Peace Commissions
Second Series, Volume 5 • Pages 424–430 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The large Justice of Peace commission issued in September 1634 was revisited only two months later.
On 25 November 1634 the Privy Council formally recorded that the commissions had been “renewed” and that a new selection of persons had been made for the various sheriffdoms, stewartries and bailiaries.
The renewed rolls are generally shorter than the September lists and frequently identify ministers and landholders by office or estate rather than by full personal name.
Three Guthrie clergymen can nevertheless be identified securely by comparison with the explicit September commission: James Guthrie of Kinnell, Patrick Guthrie of Logybuchan, and John Guthrie of Duffus.
Bishop John Guthrie of Moray is directly named by episcopal title in the renewed Banff and combined Elgin–Forres–Nairn rolls.
Printed Source Text — Opening of the Renewal
“The whilk day the commissiouns for the Justices of peace wer renewed and choise wes made of the persons particularlie underwrittin to be Justices of peace within the severall shirefdomes, stewartreis and baillereis afterspecifeit, that is to say:—”
Printed Source Text — Guthrie-Bearing Renewed County Rolls
FORFAR.—The Lord Chanceller, the Lord Thesaurar, the Lord Privie Seale, the Lords of Counsell and Sessioun, the Bishop of Brechin, the Lord Ogilvie, the Lord Spynie, the Lord Cowper, the Constable of Dundie, the Laird of Ethie, the Laird of Din, the Laird of Bonymoone, the Laird of Fintrie, the Laird of Bonytoun, the Laird of Powrie Fothringhame, the Laird of Aldbar, the Laird of Edyell, younger, the Laird of Strickmartine, the Laird of Innerquharitie, Durhame of Pityarrow, Halyburton of Killour, Harie Mauld of Dumbarro, the Laird of Panmure, the person of Kinnell, the minister at Glams, and Mr William Malcolme, minister at [blank]: the Constable of Dundie, conveenner.
ABERDEIN.—The Lord Chanceller, the Lord Thesaurar, the Lord Privie Seale, the Lords of Counsell and Sessioun, the Erie of Buchan, the Erie of Dumfermeline, the Bishop of Aberdein, the Lord and Maister of Forbes, the Lord Pitsligo, the Laird of Drum, the Laird of Monymusk, the Laird of Clony, the Laird of Caskiben, the Laird of Kemnay, the Laird of Pitmedden, the Laird of Fendracht, the Laird of Tolquhoun, the Laird of Ludquharne, the Laird of Phillorth, younger, the Laird of Cremondmogat, Donnald Ferquharson of Monaltrie, the Laird of Streachin, younger, the Laird of Skeene, the Laird of Towybarclay, the Laird of Auchmedden, the Laird of Lesmoir, Johne Udnie of Newburgh, the Laird of Foverne, Thomas Forbes of Watertoun, the Laird of Pitfoddellis, the goodman of Buckie, younger, the Laird of Geicht, younger, the Laird of Haddo, the Laird of Lethintie, Patrik Maitlane of Achincreiff, the Laird of Balhaggartie, the Laird of Leslie Forbes, the Laird of Newtoun, the Laird of Birkinbog, the Laird of Meldrum, the Laird of Hauchtoun, Walter Forbes of Thainstoun, the Laird of Cragiewar, [blank] Irwing, elder, of Ardtamfoord, the Laird of Glenkindie, Alexander Forbes of New, George Leslie of Kincragie, younger, Williame Gordoun of Terpersie, Johne Ferquharson, elder, of Invercald, Robert Ferquharson of Finzeane, the minister at Bathelvie, the minister at Birs, the minister at Aufurd, the minister at Daviott, the minister at Turreff, the minister at Lonmay, the minister at Logybuchan, the minister at Forge, the minister at Kinbettock, the minister at Kemnay: the Laird of Kemnay, conveenner.
BAMFF.—The Lord Chanceller, the Lord Thesaurar, the Lord Privie Seale, the Lords of Counsell and Sessioun, the Erie of Buchan, the Bishops of Aberdein and Murrey, the Lord Desfurde, George Hay of Rannas, the Laird of Birkinboig, the Laird of Bamff, the Laird of Fendracht, the Laird of Carnowssie, the Laird of Auchmedden, Patrik Stewart of Kinmauchline, the goodman of Ballindallach, Walter Grant of Findoune, Alexander Adamesoun of Brakie, Mr George Leslie in Cullen, Mr John Logie, minister at Ruthven, the minister at Mortlack, the parson of Aberlour, the person of Keith: the Laird of Balvenie, conveenner.
ELGINE, FORRES, AND NARNE.—The Lord Chanceller, the Lord Thesaurar, the Lord Privie Seale, the Lords of Counsell and Sessioun, the Earle of Murrey, the Earle of Seafort, the Earle of Elgine, the Bishop of Murrey, the Lord Lovat, the Laird of Inneis, Johne Inneis of Leuchars, Robert Leslie of Finrassie, the Tutor of Duffus, Thomas McKeinyie of Pluscardin, James Spence of Kirktoun of Alves, the Deane of Murrey, the Chantour of Murrey, Mr William Cumine of Carneside, James Dumbar of Boigs, Robert Dumbar of Burgie, Alexander Dumbar of Grange, Niniane Dumbar of Grangehill, Alexander Brodie of Lethin, Mr Samwell Falconner of Kincorth, Hucheoun Ros of Kilraack, William Ros of [blank], David Hay of Park, Johne Hay of Knockowdie, the commissar of Murrey, the person of Duffus, James Dumbar of Dumphaill: the Laird of Finrassie, conveenner.
Modern English Rendering
On 25 November 1634 the Privy Council renewed the Justice of Peace commissions and selected revised groups of commissioners for the various sheriffdoms, stewartries and bailiaries of Scotland.
In Forfarshire, the renewed list includes the parson of Kinnell. The earlier September roll names this office-holder explicitly as Mr James Guthrie.
In Aberdeenshire, the renewed commission includes the minister at Logybuchan. The September roll identifies him explicitly as Mr Patrick Guthrie.
In Banffshire, the commission includes the Bishops of Aberdeen and Moray. The latter is John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
In the newly combined roll for Elgin, Forres and Nairn, Bishop John appears again. The same commission also includes the parson of Duffus, whom the September roll identifies explicitly as Mr John Guthrie.
These revised lists therefore continued several of the Guthrie appointments made in September, but the composition of the commissions had changed and the later clerical entries were often expressed only by office rather than by personal name.
This renewal is valuable because it shows that several Guthrie appointments in the September Justice of Peace commission were not merely transient entries on a single roll.
James Guthrie of Kinnell, Patrick Guthrie of Logybuchan, John Guthrie of Duffus and Bishop John Guthrie of Moray remained represented when the Council revised the commissions in November.
It also demonstrates the importance of comparing successive rolls. The November document often suppresses personal names in favour of descriptions such as “the person of Kinnell” or “the minister at Logybuchan.” Without the explicit September list, those Guthrie identities would be much less obvious.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Renewed — formally reissued or reconstituted rather than merely copied forward.
- Choise — selection of the persons to serve on the revised commissions.
- Person of Kinnell — parson or beneficed clergyman of Kinnell; here identifiable as Mr James Guthrie.
- Minister at Logybuchan — the parish minister, identified from the earlier roll as Mr Patrick Guthrie.
- Person of Duffus — parson of Duffus, identified from the earlier roll as Mr John Guthrie.
- Conveenner — officer appointed to call together and coordinate the local Justices of Peace.
- Shirefdome — sheriffdom or county jurisdiction.
- Stewartrie — territorial jurisdiction administered by a steward.
- Baillerie — jurisdiction administered by a bailie.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), pp. 424–430; renewed Justice of Peace commissions dated 25 November 1634, especially the Forfar, Aberdeen, Banff, and Elgin–Forres–Nairn rolls at pp. 428–429. Identification of the title-only Guthrie ministers is supported by the explicit September commission at pp. 386–388. Digitized volume.
8 January 1635 — Bethia Guthrie Seeks Caption Against William Ker of Yair for a 400-Merk Debt
Second Series, Volume 5 • Pages 456–457 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Bethia Guthrie appears in this record as the widow of Walter Murray, who had served as overseer of the King’s Works.
Her complaint concerned 400 merks owed by William Ker, fiar of Yair, in connection with the nonentry of the lands of Sunderlands.
Bethia had already pursued legal enforcement. On 10 December 1634 Ker had been put to the horn at her instance because he had not paid the money.
Horning had not produced compliance, however. Bethia therefore returned to the Privy Council seeking the stronger remedy of caption—authority for Ker’s apprehension.
Bethia did not appear personally in the recorded proceeding. John Dunlop, advocate, appeared as her procurator. Ker failed to appear.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by Bethia Guthrie, widow of Walter Murray, overseer of Majesty’s Works, as follows:—On 10th December instant, William Ker, fiar of Yair, was put to the horn at her instance for not paying to her 400 merks for the nonentry of the lands of Sunderlands, but he pays no heed thereto, and she now craves caption against him.
The pursuer compearing by her procurator, John Dunlop, advocate, but the defender not compearing, the Lords ordain the sheriff of the shire wherein he dwells to apprehend him and to take possession of his house and goods.
Modern English Rendering
Bethia Guthrie, widow of Walter Murray, formerly overseer of the King’s Works, complained that William Ker, fiar of Yair, owed her 400 merks in connection with the nonentry of the lands of Sunderlands.
On 10 December 1634 Ker had already been formally denounced and put to the horn at Bethia’s instance because he had failed to make payment.
Ker nevertheless continued to disregard the legal process, so Bethia now asked the Privy Council to issue caption against him—that is, authority for his arrest.
Bethia appeared through her lawyer, John Dunlop. Ker did not appear.
The Council therefore ordered the sheriff of the county in which Ker lived to apprehend him and take possession of his house and goods.
This is an unusually useful genealogical entry because it gives a direct marital identification: Bethia Guthrie was the widow of Walter Murray.
It also supplies Walter Murray’s occupational connection to the Crown by identifying him as overseer of His Majesty’s Works.
Bethia is not merely mentioned as someone’s widow. She is the pursuer of the action, enforcing a substantial financial claim in her own name through legal counsel.
The record therefore preserves evidence both of her marriage and of her independent participation in post-widowhood property and debt enforcement.
Terms & Scottish Legal Practice
- Fiar — person holding the fee or heritable interest in an estate, often distinguished from someone holding a liferent.
- Nonentry — a feudal casualty arising while lands remained without a formally entered heir or vassal after the previous holder’s death.
- Put to the horn — formally denounced as a rebel for failure to obey letters issued in the King’s name.
- Horning — the legal process leading to such denunciation after disobedience of a formal charge.
- Caption — warrant or process authorizing apprehension of a person who had failed to obey legal diligence.
- Procurator — legal representative appearing for a party.
- Compearing — appearing before the court or Council.
- Merk — Scottish unit of account worth 13 shillings 4 pence Scots.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), pp. 456–457; Decreta, November 1633–April 1635, fol. 188a. Council sitting at Edinburgh, 8 January 1635. Brown’s printed presentation is an editorial abridgment rather than a verbatim transcription of the complete manuscript process. Digitized volume.
15 January 1635 — Alexander Guthrie Formally Warned in the Continuing Plaiding Investigation
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 466 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council had been investigating complaints about the way plaiding was brought to market, particularly the practice of presenting the cloth in rolls rather than in a form that allowed buyers to inspect it fully.
Representatives of the landed barons and the royal burghs had both become involved in the inquiry. Earlier proceedings had already considered the report and postponed further discussion.
On 15 January 1635, Thomas Erskine of Pittodrie formally produced to the Council the report of the investigation conducted by the commissioners representing the barons.
The Council did not yet reach a substantive decision. Instead, it postponed consideration for another eight days and formally notified both Pittodrie for the barons and Mr Alexander Guthrie for the burghs within the proceedings.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
“The quhilk day Thomas Areskine of Pittodrie exhibite to the Counsell the report of the tryell takin by the commissioneris for the barons anent the presenting of plaiding to mercat in rolls; the advising quhairof continewed to this day aucht days, quherof Pittodrie for the barons and Mr Alexander Guthre for the burrowes ar warned apud acta.”
Modern English Rendering
On this day Thomas Erskine of Pittodrie presented to the Privy Council the report of the investigation carried out by the commissioners representing the barons concerning the practice of bringing plaiding to market in rolls.
The Council postponed consideration of that report for another eight days.
Pittodrie, representing the barons, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, representing the burghs, were formally notified within the proceedings of the continued date.
This brief entry adds another clear example of Alexander Guthrie acting for Scotland’s royal burghs in a kingdom-wide commercial matter.
The issue concerned the regulation of an important textile commodity and the competing interests of producers, landed commissioners, merchants and the burghs.
Alexander’s continuing involvement shows that his role was not confined to the initial stages of such proceedings. He remained the identified burgh representative as reports were produced and the Council moved toward considering a regulatory response.
Terms & Trade Practice
- Plaiding — coarse woollen cloth or blanket-type fabric, an important Scottish textile commodity.
- Mercat — market.
- In rolls — cloth presented rolled up rather than opened for complete inspection.
- Tryell — inquiry, examination or investigation.
- Barons — here, the landed interest represented by its commissioners.
- Burrowes — the royal burghs acting collectively through their representatives.
- Advising — judicial or administrative consideration of a report or case before reaching a decision.
- Continewed — postponed or carried forward to another date.
- Apud acta — formally notified in the recorded proceedings.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 466; Council proceeding at Edinburgh, 15 January 1635. The immediately preceding stage of the plaiding proceeding on 8 January 1635 had likewise continued consideration of the report. Digitized volume.
29 January 1635 — Alexander Guthrie Again Formally Warned in the Continuing Plaiding Matter
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 476 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council’s inquiry into the sale of plaiding had already passed through several stages by late January 1635.
Earlier, commissioners had investigated complaints that plaiding was being brought to market in hard or rolled form, making it difficult for buyers to inspect the cloth properly.
On 15 January, Thomas Erskine of Pittodrie produced the barons’ report and both Pittodrie and Mr Alexander Guthrie, acting for the burghs, were formally notified of the continuation.
On 29 January the Council still did not resolve the substantive question. It simply continued the matter again until the following Tuesday and once more formally notified the two representatives.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
“The Lords continewes the mater anent the plaiding till Tuisday nixt, quherof Pittodre for the barons and Mr Alexander Guthrie for the burrowes ar warned apud acta.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council postponed the matter concerning the plaiding until the following Tuesday.
Thomas Erskine of Pittodrie, representing the barons, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, representing the royal burghs, were formally notified of the new date within the proceedings.
Although brief, this entry confirms that Alexander Guthrie remained the identified representative of the burgh interest through another stage of the plaiding dispute.
His repeated appearance in these commercial proceedings reinforces the broader picture of his work as an administrative and legal representative of Scotland’s royal burghs in national economic matters.
Terms & Trade Practice
- Plaiding — coarse woollen cloth or blanket-type fabric.
- Barons — here, the landed interest represented by its commissioners.
- Burrowes — the royal burghs acting collectively through their representatives.
- Continewes — postpones or carries the matter forward to another date.
- Tuisday nixt — the following Tuesday.
- Apud acta — formally notified within the recorded proceedings.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 476. Council proceeding at Edinburgh, 29 January 1635. Digitized volume.
3 March 1635 — Henry Guthrie of Dundee and Walter Guthrie of Montrose Fined in the Tobacco-Licensing Prosecution
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 501 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
By 1635 the Crown had established a regulated system for the retail sale of tobacco. Sir James Leslie and Thomas Dalmahoy were serving as royal commissioners for the sale of tobacco in small quantities, while the King’s Advocate pursued violations before the Privy Council.
The present action referred specifically to new regulations issued on 4 November and 27 November 1634. Among their provisions, householders could be made responsible for sales by their children and servants, and taking any form of payment or compensation for tobacco was to be treated as a sale.
A long list of alleged offenders was brought before the Council. Among the Dundee group appears Henry Guthrie, expressly included among the merchants and burgesses of that burgh.
Among the burgesses of Montrose appears Walter Guthrie.
Neither Guthrie, nor any of the other defenders in this particular prosecution, appeared when the case was called. The Council nevertheless declared each to have incurred the statutory 100-merk penalty and authorized legal diligence for its recovery.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by Sir Thomas Hope of Craighall, King’s Advocate, and Sir James Leslie and Thomas Dalmahoy, his Majesty’s commissioners for the sale of tobacco in small quantities (as ante, p. 462), narrating the promulgation of a new Act dated 4th November last and another of 27th November ordaining that all masters of families should be answerable for their children and servants in this matter, “and that all recompence taken for tobacco shall be repute and punished as vendition”;
and that nevertheless Patrick Weimes in Wester Weimes, Andrew Bruce, George Smart, John Gemlo, Charles Goldman, Patrick Lindsay, John Swan, James Annand, James Stanners, and Henry Guthrie, all merchants, burgesses of Dundie,
Andrew Nicoll, Thomas Fleeming, James Petrie, David Wandles, Gilbert Nicoll, Thomas Bower, Walter Smith, Alexander McKene, Henry Broun, Robert Constable, younger, James Broune, Gilbert Auchinlek, Henry Davidsone, William Hill, Robert Gray, and Katherine Downey, all burgesses of Dundie,
James Ronald, William Jamie, Andrew Jamie, Andrew Dairsie, Walter Jamesone, Walter Guthrie, John Traill, John Rainie, Alexander Strachane, James Murray, David Baxter, George Milne and John Harper, burgesses of Montrose,
and Thomas Scot, Christian Cargill, James Watsone, John Winrhame, John Gairdiner, John Scot and James Mitchell, indwellers in Brechin, have all violated the said Acts and should be decerned to have incurred the penalty thereof.
Charge having been given to the said persons to compear and give their oath of verity upon the said complaint, and Sir Thomas Hope compearing with Mr William Wallace, as procurator for the other pursuers, but none of the defenders being present, the Lords ordain the latter each to have incurred the penalty of 100 merks, and letters to be issued for its recovery, one half of the said penalty to go to the informer and the other half to the commissioners foresaid.
Modern English Rendering
Sir Thomas Hope of Craighall, the King’s Advocate, together with Sir James Leslie and Thomas Dalmahoy, the royal commissioners regulating the retail tobacco trade, brought a complaint concerning violations of the tobacco laws.
The complaint referred to acts issued on 4 and 27 November 1634. These regulations provided, among other things, that heads of households could be held responsible for the conduct of their children and servants and that receiving any payment or other compensation for tobacco would count legally as selling it.
A large number of people were accused of violating those regulations. Among those from Dundee was Henry Guthrie, a merchant and burgess of Dundee.
Among the Montrose defendants was Walter Guthrie, burgess of Montrose.
The accused persons had been formally charged to appear and give their oath concerning the truth of the complaint.
Sir Thomas Hope appeared for the Crown. Mr William Wallace represented the other pursuers. None of the defendants appeared.
The Privy Council therefore declared each absent defendant to have incurred the prescribed penalty of 100 merks and ordered legal letters to be issued for recovery of the money.
Half of each penalty was to go to the informer and the other half to the royal tobacco commissioners.
This entry provides two clearly localized Guthrie identities in the east-coast burgh economy: Henry Guthrie, merchant burgess of Dundee, and Walter Guthrie, burgess of Montrose.
Henry’s description is particularly useful because the source identifies him not merely as a resident but as part of Dundee’s merchant burgess community.
Walter’s designation securely places him among the burgesses of Montrose, although this entry does not describe his occupation.
The two men appear in the same national enforcement action, but nothing in the record states or implies that they were related to one another.
Terms & Scottish Legal Practice
- Burgess — a person formally admitted to the privileges and obligations of a burgh.
- Merchant burgess — burgess admitted to participate in the burgh’s merchant trade.
- Vendition — sale.
- Recompence — payment, consideration or other compensation received in return for goods.
- Oath of verity — sworn statement concerning the truth of a factual allegation.
- Compear — appear before a court or council.
- Decerned — judicially found or decreed.
- Letters — formal legal writs issued to enforce the Council’s decree.
- Merk — Scottish unit of account equal to 13 shillings 4 pence Scots.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 501; Decreta, November 1633–April 1635, fols. 201a–202a. Council proceeding at Edinburgh, 3 March 1635. Brown’s printed presentation is an editorial abridgment of the underlying process. Digitized volume.
24 March 1635 — Alexander Guthrie Personally Present for the Burghs as the Pearl-Fishing Case Is Continued
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 526 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This entry continues the pearl-fishing dispute first recorded in detail on 6 November 1634, when the commissioners of the royal burghs challenged the exclusive privilege claimed by Robert Buchan of Aberdeen.
At the November hearing, Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh and clerk to the burghs, had appeared with the burgh representatives. The Council postponed determination of the issue.
On 24 March 1635 the matter was again before the Council. This time the minute expressly records Alexander Guthrie as personally present for the burghs.
Robert Buchan’s interest was represented by Mr Robert Petre, who was also personally present. The Council still did not determine the merits of the dispute, instead continuing the process until the first Council day of June.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
“The Lords of Secreit Counsell continewes the processe anent the pearle till the first Counsell day of Junij nixt, quhairof Mr Alexander Guthre for the burrowes, being personallie present, and Mr Robert Petre for Robert Buchan, being also personallie present, ar warned apud acta.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council postponed further proceedings concerning the pearl-fishing dispute until the first Council day of June 1635.
Mr Alexander Guthrie, representing the royal burghs, was personally present. Mr Robert Petre, representing Robert Buchan, was also personally present.
Both representatives were formally notified within the Council proceedings of the new date.
Unlike several procedural entries in which Alexander is merely named as the representative of the burghs, this minute explicitly confirms his personal presence.
It also demonstrates his continued involvement in the pearl-fishing controversy over a period of several months, from the detailed November 1634 hearing into the spring of 1635.
Together with his appearances in matters involving coinage, coal, plaiding and other commercial issues, the entry adds to the evidence for Alexander’s sustained role in representing the collective interests of Scotland’s royal burghs before the Privy Council.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Processe — the ongoing legal proceeding or action.
- Burrowes — Scotland’s royal burghs acting collectively.
- Personallie present — physically appearing before the Council in the recorded proceeding.
- Continewes — postpones further consideration to a later date.
- First Counsell day — the next scheduled Council sitting within the stated period.
- Apud acta — formally notified within the recorded proceedings.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 526; Acta, June 1634–April 1635, fol. 68b. Council sitting at Edinburgh, 24 March 1635. Digitized volume.
26 March 1635 — Bishop John Guthrie Named to Review the Herring Patent; Alexander Guthrie Receives It for the Burghs
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 530 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Council was presented with a royal signature containing a proposed commission to Sir James Lockhart, younger of Lee, and his assignees.
Its purpose was to place in execution existing Acts of Parliament directed against persons who killed or transported herring and white fish contrary to the statutory regulations.
Rather than immediately approving the measure, the Privy Council appointed a committee to hear both Lockhart and representatives of the royal burghs concerning arguments for and against the patent and its practical suitability.
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, was one of the eight councillors named to this committee.
The patent itself was delivered to Mr Alexander Guthrie, who was personally present, so that he could show it to the commissioners for the burghs and consult their assessors. Alexander was also expressly ordered to attend the committee meeting.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
“The whilk day ane signature under his Majesteis hand conteaning a commissioun to Sir James Lokhart, younger of Lee, and his assignejes to putt in execution the acts of parliament made aganis slayers and transporters of herring and white fishe contrare to the tennor thairof, being produced and read in Counsell,
the Lords of Secreit Counsell nominats and appoints John, Erie of Tracquair; Johne, Bishop of Murrey; Thomas, bishop of Brechin; Archibald, Lord Naper; Sir Robert Spotswod of Donypace, president of the Sessioun; Sir Johne Hay, Clerk Register; Sir Thomas Hope of Craighall, his Majesteis Advocat; and Sir Alexander Strauchane of Thornetoun, or anie fyve of thame,
to conveene upon Saturday nixt at eight of the clocke in the morning and to heare the said Sir James Lokhart and the burrowes present in toun what can be alledged for or aganis the patent and tuicheing the conveniencie of the same, and to report to the Counsell upon Tuisday nixt.
Lykeas the patent wes delyvered to Mr Alexander Guthre who wes personallie present to the effect he may impart the same to the commissioners for the burrowes and be consulted thereanent with thair assessours; and ordains the said Mr Alexander to attend the committee the day and time foresaid.”
Modern English Rendering
On this day a document signed by the King was produced and read before the Privy Council. It contained a commission in favour of Sir James Lockhart, younger of Lee, and his assignees, authorizing them to enforce the Acts of Parliament directed against people who killed or transported herring and white fish contrary to those statutes.
The Council appointed John, Earl of Traquair; John, Bishop of Moray; Thomas, Bishop of Brechin; Lord Napier; Sir Robert Spottiswood of Dunipace, President of the Court of Session; Sir John Hay, Clerk Register; Sir Thomas Hope, the King’s Advocate; and Sir Alexander Strachan of Thornton—or any five of them—to form a committee.
They were to meet on the following Saturday at eight in the morning and hear what Sir James Lockhart and the representatives of the burghs then in Edinburgh could say for or against the patent and concerning whether it was expedient.
The committee was then to report its conclusions to the Privy Council on the following Tuesday.
The patent was delivered to Mr Alexander Guthrie, who was personally present, so that he could communicate it to the commissioners representing the royal burghs and consult with their advisers concerning it.
Alexander was expressly ordered to attend the committee at the appointed time.
This entry is especially valuable because it places two Guthries on different but connected sides of the same governmental review process.
Bishop John Guthrie was selected as one of the councillors charged with evaluating the proposed fishing commission, while Alexander Guthrie was entrusted with the patent itself for consultation among the royal burghs.
Alexander’s role is unusually concrete. The record does more than identify him as representing the burghs: the Council physically delivered the patent to him, directed him to circulate it for consultation, and ordered him to attend the reviewing committee.
The entry therefore adds substantial evidence to Alexander’s role as an intermediary between the Privy Council and the collective commercial interests of Scotland’s royal burghs.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Signature — a document or warrant signed by the King and used in the process of authorizing a royal grant or commission.
- Patent — formal royal grant of an office, authority or privilege.
- Assignees — persons to whom rights or powers granted to another might be transferred.
- Slayers — here, persons unlawfully taking or killing fish contrary to the statutory regulations.
- Transporters — persons carrying or exporting fish contrary to the terms of the Acts of Parliament.
- Conveniencie — suitability, expediency or practical desirability.
- Burrowes — Scotland’s royal burghs acting collectively through commissioners.
- Assessours — advisers assisting the burgh commissioners in considering the proposal.
- Conveene — meet formally for the assigned business.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 530; Acta, June 1634–April 1635, fols. 70b–71a. Council sitting at Edinburgh, 26 March 1635. Digitized volume.
26 March 1635 — Bishop John Guthrie Appointed to Examine Thomas Grant in the Edinburgh Tolbooth
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 530 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
In a separate act entered immediately after the herring and white-fish patent business, the Privy Council appointed John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, and three other senior officers to examine a prisoner named Thomas Grant.
Grant was then confined in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh. The commissioners were to question him upon written interrogatories to be submitted against him and then report his depositions back to the Council.
The act itself does not state the subject of those interrogatories or summarize the accusations or information concerning Grant.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
“The Lords of Secreit Counsell nominats and appoints Johne, Bishop of Murrey; Johne, Bishop of Ros; Sir Johne Hay, Clerk of Register; and Sir James Carmichell, Justice Clerk; to examine Thomas Grant, prisonner in the tolbuith of Edinburgh, upon suche interrogators as sail be givin in aganis him and to report his depositions to the saids Lords upon Tuisday nixt.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council appointed John, Bishop of Moray; John, Bishop of Ross; Sir John Hay, Clerk Register; and Sir James Carmichael, Justice Clerk, to examine Thomas Grant, who was being held in the Edinburgh Tolbooth.
They were to question him upon whatever formal interrogatories were submitted against him and then report his sworn statements or depositions to the Privy Council on the following Tuesday.
This entry provides another example of Bishop John Guthrie being entrusted with investigative work on behalf of the Privy Council.
His role went beyond merely sitting as a councillor. He was specifically selected, with the Bishop of Ross and two senior legal officers, to participate in the questioning of a prisoner and report the resulting evidence.
Combined with his other assignments concerning northern disorders, witness examinations and regional administration, the record helps illustrate the breadth of his governmental responsibilities during his service on the Council.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Tolbooth — municipal building commonly serving as court house, council chamber and prison.
- Interrogators — formal written questions or interrogatories put to a person under examination.
- Deposition — formal statement or testimony given under examination.
- Clerk Register — senior Crown officer responsible for major public records and registers.
- Justice Clerk — senior judicial officer associated with the administration of criminal justice.
- Report — return the result of the examination to the Privy Council for its consideration.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 530; Acta, June 1634–April 1635, fol. 71a. Council sitting at Edinburgh, 26 March 1635. Digitized volume.
31 March 1635 — Alexander Guthrie Ordered to Notify the Burghs and Prepare Written Reasons Against the Herring Patent
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 535 • Edinburgh
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Five days earlier, on 26 March 1635, the Council had appointed a committee to examine Sir James Lockhart’s proposed patent for enforcing the parliamentary laws concerning herring and white fish.
At that earlier stage, Alexander Guthrie had personally received the patent so that he could communicate it to the commissioners for the royal burghs and consult with their advisers.
On 31 March the Council still did not pass the proposed signature. Instead, it postponed the matter until the first Council day of June.
Alexander Guthrie and John Sinclair, both personally present for the burgh interest, were given a more specific assignment: they were to notify the burghs and prepare their objections in writing.
The Council also made clear that failure to supply those written reasons would not hold up the proceedings indefinitely.
Printed Source Text — Complete Entry
“The Lords of Secreit Counsell continewes the passing of Sir James Lokhart his signature till the first Counsell day of Junij nixt, of the quhilk continuatioun the said Sir James Lokhart, Johne Sinclar and Mr Alexander Guthre for the burrowes, being personallie present, ar warned apud acta.
And the saids Lords requires the saids Johne Sinclar and Mr Alexander Guthre to advertise the burrowes of this mater and to have thair reasons readie in writt aganis the passing of the said signature the day foresaid, with certificatioun to thame, if they failyie, the saids Lords will proceed without respect to the burrowes interesse.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council postponed approval of Sir James Lockhart’s proposed royal commission until the first Council sitting in June 1635.
Sir James Lockhart, John Sinclair and Mr Alexander Guthrie, representing the royal burghs, were personally present and were formally notified of the continued date.
The Council required John Sinclair and Alexander Guthrie to inform the burghs about the matter and to have their written reasons against approval of the proposed commission ready for the June hearing.
If they failed to provide those reasons, the Council warned that it would proceed with the matter without taking further account of the burghs’ interest.
This is one of the strongest Volume V entries for defining Alexander Guthrie’s practical role as representative of the royal burghs.
He was not merely present or listed among commissioners. The Council specifically required him, with John Sinclair, to communicate the proposal to the burghs and organize a written statement of their objections.
The sequence from 26 to 31 March shows Alexander functioning as an intermediary between central government and the collective burgh interest: first receiving the patent for consultation, then being charged with gathering and presenting the burghs’ formal response.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Signature — royal warrant or document used in the process of authorizing a grant or commission.
- Passing — formal approval or completion of the grant through the governmental process.
- Advertise — notify or inform.
- Burrowes — the royal burghs acting collectively through their commissioners.
- Reasons in writt — written arguments or objections submitted for official consideration.
- Interesse — legal or institutional interest in the matter.
- Certificatioun — formal warning of the consequence that would follow failure to comply.
- Apud acta — formally notified within the recorded proceedings.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 535; Acta, June 1634–April 1635, fols. 71b–72a. Council sitting at Edinburgh, 31 March 1635. Digitized volume.
13 January 1634 — Adam and John Gottray of Prestwick Named in a Certificate Concerning an Assize Summons
Second Series, Volume 5 • Pages 578–579 • Monkton / Prestwick, Ayrshire
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This record comes from a certificate written by Mr Robert Hamilton, minister of Monkton and Prestwick, concerning men who had been summoned to Edinburgh for jury service before the Privy Council.
One group from Monkton had been summoned by John Cruix of Kilmarnock. A second group from Prestwick and Newton was summoned by John Houstoun, messenger in Ayr.
Among the Prestwick men were Adam and John Gottray. Brown’s index expressly treats Gottray as a spelling associated with the Guthrie surname.
They had been summoned to appear on 7 November 1633 to serve on the assize of George Cochrane of Newton, who faced an allegation of adultery with Janet Watson, wife of William Rodger in Ayr.
Hamilton’s certificate further alleged that the messengers later abandoned the summonses and accepted payments or compositions from the men who had been summoned.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Testificate by Robert Hamilton, minister of God’s Word at the kirks of Moonktoun and Prestuike in Kyle Stewart within the presbytery of Ayr, that William Dooke in Moonktoun, Hew Houstoun there, John Smith there, John Clarke there, John Dalrymple there, Adam Rae there, John Dooke there, Cuthbert Hunter there and William Cargill there,
were all summoned by John Cruixe in Kilmarnock, messenger, upon 3rd November last, “being the Sabbathe day, after daylicht going,” to compear before the Lords of Council on Thursday, the 7th day of the said month;
as also that William Fergushill in Prestuike, Adam and John Gottray there, John Neill, elder and younger there, Allan Duncan there, John Blair there, John Mowat in Newtoun, Alexander Broun there, William Wallace there, John Hendirson there, William Wause there, and James Quentane there,
were all summoned by John Houstoun, messenger in Ayr, to appear before the Lords of Council on 7th November last, to pass upon the assise of George Cochrane, burgess of Neutoun, for his alleged adultery with Janet Watson, the wife of William Rodger in Ayr,
and that by letters at the instance of Lord Traquhair, Treasurer Depute, and Sir Thomas Hope, his Majesty’s Advocate;
and further that the said two messengers, by advice of James Stewart, apparent of Halrig, passed from the summons and took composition therefor from each of the persons above named, some less, some more.
This the said minister testifies to be of verity and writes the same with his own hand at Moonktoun kirk, 13th January, 1634. (Signed) Mr Rot Hammiltoun, minisr at Moonktoun and Prestuike.
Modern English Rendering
Robert Hamilton, minister of Monkton and Prestwick in the Presbytery of Ayr, certified that a group of men in Monkton had been summoned by messenger John Cruix on 3 November 1633 to appear before the Privy Council on 7 November.
He further certified that a second group, including William Fergushill and Adam and John Gottray of Prestwick, together with several other men from Prestwick and Newton, had been summoned by John Houstoun, messenger in Ayr, to appear on the same date.
Their purpose was to serve on the jury or assize appointed for the case of George Cochrane, burgess of Newton, who was accused of adultery with Janet Watson, wife of William Rodger of Ayr.
The summonses had been issued at the instance of Lord Traquair, Treasurer Depute, and Sir Thomas Hope, the King’s Advocate.
Hamilton then certified that the two messengers, acting on the advice of James Stewart, apparent heir of Halrig, had abandoned the summonses and accepted payments from the people who had been summoned, with the amounts varying from person to person.
Hamilton stated that this information was true and wrote and signed the certificate himself at Monkton kirk on 13 January 1634.
This entry supplies two otherwise modest but firmly localized Guthrie references: Adam and John Gottray of Prestwick.
Brown’s own index groups Gottray under Guthrie, making the spelling variation important for surname research.
The document also places both men within the pool from which local inhabitants could be summoned for assize service before the Privy Council, providing evidence of residence in Prestwick by late 1633.
Terms & Scottish Legal Practice
- Testificate — written certificate or attestation.
- Assise — jury summoned to hear and determine a criminal proceeding.
- Pass upon the assise — serve as a member of the jury.
- Compear — appear before a court or council.
- Messenger — officer authorized to serve legal letters, summonses and charges.
- Composition — payment accepted in settlement or discharge of an obligation or penalty.
- Passed from the summons — ceased to insist upon or enforce the summons.
- Apparent of Halrig — apparent heir of Halrig.
- Of verity — certified as true.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), pp. 578–579, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 73. Brown’s marginal heading dates the item 10 January 1634, while the certificate itself states that Robert Hamilton wrote it at Monkton kirk on 13 January 1634. Brown’s printed presentation is an editorial abstract rather than a verbatim transcription of the full original certificate. Digitized volume.
23 June 1634 — Alexander Guthra, Servant to John Chalmer of Elgin, Witnesses Two Executions of Summonses
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 621 • Elgin / Gilmoirsyid
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This record concerns five separate executions of summonses carried out by Walter Smyth, messenger, between 23 June and 9 July 1634.
The summonses were issued at the instance of the King’s Advocate, together with Margaret Grant, widow of Alexander Gordon of Dunkintie, and her then husband, Mr William Falconer.
Alexander Guthra appears in two of the executions dated 23 June. In both instances he served as a witness to the messenger’s formal act.
The first describes him very specifically as servant to John Chalmer, skinner and burgess in Elgin. That occupational and local identification is important because it distinguishes this Alexander from Mr Alexander Guthrie, the Edinburgh town clerk who appears repeatedly elsewhere in Volume V.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
“181. Note of five executions by Walter Smyth, messenger, of summonses at the instance of Sir Thomas Hoip of Craighall, King’s Advocate, and Margaret Grant, widow of Alexander Gordon of Dunkintie, and Mr William Falconer, now her spouse;
(1) on 23d June, 1634, against [Adam] Gordoun in Ordiquhish; witnesses, James Lorimar, tailor in Elgin, Alexander Guthra, servitor to John Chalmer, skinner, burgess in Elgein, and Alexander Auldcorne, the messenger’s servitor;
(2) on the same day, against James Ross in Gillmoirsyid and William Nairne, servitour to Alexander Gordon, now of Dunkintie; witnesses, James Hay in Kirkhill, Paul Hay, burgess of Edinburgh, and Patrick Chalmeir, burgess of Elgein;
(3) on the same day, at the dwelling house of Alexander Gordon, now of Dunkintie, being for the time at Gilmoirsyid, against Lachlan McQuein, servitor to James Gordoun of Lettirfurie, who remains there for the present; witnesses, George [Stronoche], servitor to James Ross in Gilmoirsyid and the foresaid Alexander Guthra and Alexander Auldcorne;
(4) on 27th June, 1634, at the market cross of Elgein, against Adam Gordoun and Lachlan McQuein foresaid; witnesses, George Brodie, and William Robertsoun, younger, burgesses of Elgein, and Alexander Dunbar, lawful son to Robert Dunbar, burgess there;
and (5) on 9th July, 1634, against James Fynla, servitor to James Hay in Kirkhill, George Stronoche, servitor to [James] Ross in Gilmoirsyid, John Geddas in Barmowkattie, Thomas Cromy there, and James Gordoun, portioner of Urquhart; witnesses, William Ross in Kirkhill, Fy . . . . (torn) . . . . to the said Mr William Falconer, and the foresaid Alexander Auldcorne.
All are summoned to appear before the Council on 22nd July, 1634. [The document is much wasted.]”
Modern English Rendering
Walter Smyth, a royal messenger, executed five summonses on behalf of Sir Thomas Hope, the King’s Advocate, Margaret Grant, widow of Alexander Gordon of Dunkintie, and her current husband, Mr William Falconer.
On 23 June 1634, Smyth served a summons upon Adam Gordon in Ordiquhish. Among the witnesses was Alexander Guthra, servant to John Chalmer, a skinner and burgess of Elgin.
Later the same day, at the dwelling house of Alexander Gordon of Dunkintie at Gilmoirsyid, Smyth executed another summons against Lachlan McQuein, servant to James Gordon of Letterfourie. Alexander Guthra again witnessed that execution.
Additional summonses were executed on 23 June, 27 June and 9 July against other named individuals. All those summoned were ordered to appear before the Privy Council on 22 July 1634.
The surviving document was badly damaged, which accounts for missing and uncertain wording in Brown’s printed abstract.
This is an important identity-separation record. Alexander Guthra of Elgin is not the same man as Mr Alexander Guthrie, Edinburgh’s town clerk.
The source gives Alexander Guthra a precise employment context: he was servitor to John Chalmer, skinner and burgess of Elgin.
It also places him physically within the Elgin area in June 1634 and shows him serving twice as a witness to official executions of legal summonses.
Brown’s index deliberately includes the spelling Guthra among Guthrie surname variants, making this a useful example of the surname’s contemporary orthographic range.
Terms & Scottish Legal Practice
- Execution of a summons — formal service or carrying out of the summons by an authorized messenger.
- Messenger — officer authorized to execute royal and judicial letters and summonses.
- Servitor — servant, employee or attendant.
- Skinner — tradesman dealing in hides, skins or leather preparation.
- Burgess — person formally admitted to the rights and obligations of a burgh.
- Portioner — person holding a fractional share of lands or an estate.
- Market cross — public place where proclamations and legal acts were commonly executed.
- Much wasted — badly damaged or deteriorated, resulting in missing text.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 621, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 181. The Guthrie-bearing executions are dated 23 June 1634; the five executions extend through 9 July, and all persons summoned were cited to appear on 22 July 1634. Brown notes that the original document was “much wasted.” Digitized volume.
6 August 1634 — Bishop John Guthrie Chosen to Settle the Dispute Between Donald Fraser and Duncan Forbes of Inverness
Second Series, Volume 5 • Page 657 • Inverness Dispute / Edinburgh Council Proceedings
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This Miscellaneous Paper preserves another stage in a dispute involving Donald Fraser in Killmyllies and Duncan Forbes, provost of Inverness.
The conflict had arisen from a disturbance in which Forbes and the municipal authorities of Inverness complained of Fraser’s conduct. Earlier depositions in the volume concern the removal of an arrested horse and alleged threats against the provost.
By 6 August 1634, the parties had moved toward a negotiated settlement. The nature of the satisfaction Fraser was to make to Forbes, together with the adjustment of the other disputes arising from the affair, was referred to John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
The paper also provided a means of enforcement. If any person involved refused to cooperate, that resistance was to be reported so that formal legal letters could be raised before 15 September.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
“300. Paper narrating the reference of the nature of the satisfaction to be given by Donald Fraser in Killmyllies to Duncan Forbes, provost of Inverness, and the settlement of all other disputes arising from the riot complained of, to John, Bishop of Murray, and report being made of any person concerned being refractory, letters are to be raised against them before 15th September next.”
Modern English Rendering
A paper recorded that the question of what further satisfaction Donald Fraser of Killmyllies should give to Duncan Forbes, provost of Inverness, together with the settlement of the remaining disputes arising from the complained-of disturbance, had been referred to John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
If anyone involved refused to cooperate with the settlement, that resistance was to be reported and formal legal process could then be raised against the person before 15 September 1634.
Related Council Proceeding
The fuller proceeding printed earlier in Volume V gives additional context. On 6 August, in the presence of Archbishop Patrick of Glasgow and Sir Robert Gordon, Duncan Forbes appeared for himself and the burgh of Inverness, while Donald Fraser appeared on the other side.
They submitted the question of Fraser’s further satisfaction to John, Bishop of Moray, in addition to the imprisonment Fraser had already undergone in the Edinburgh Tolbooth from 31 July.
In that fuller entry the Council ordered Bishop John to report his procedure on the first Council day of November next.
This record shows Bishop John Guthrie acting as a trusted mediator or arbiter in a civic dispute involving the provost and burgh of Inverness.
His task was not simply to hear testimony. The parties entrusted to him the practical question of what satisfaction should be made and how the remaining disputes arising from the affair should be resolved.
The appointment fits the broader pattern emerging throughout Volume V: Bishop John was repeatedly used by the Privy Council in northern administration, investigation, oath-taking, public-order matters and dispute resolution.
Terms & Scottish Legal Practice
- Satisfaction — reparation, compensation or other settlement required to resolve an injury or dispute.
- Reference — submission of a dispute or question to another person for decision or settlement.
- Refractory — refusing to comply, cooperate or submit to the agreed or ordered procedure.
- Letters — formal legal writs used to compel obedience or enforce an order.
- Provost — chief magistrate of a Scottish burgh.
- Tolbooth — municipal building commonly serving as court house, council chamber and prison.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904), p. 657, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 300, 6 August 1634. For the fuller Council proceeding referring the satisfaction to John, Bishop of Moray, see also Volume V, p. 352. Digitized volume.
Volume V — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume V, covering 1633–1635, contains an unusually broad range of Guthrie evidence. The records move from central government and national economic policy to local office-holding, litigation, trade, criminal procedure and legal witnessing. The strongest pattern is the parallel public service of John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh and clerk to the royal burghs, while several other Guthries appear in distinctly local and personal contexts.
Volume V documents Bishop John’s transition into a substantial civil governmental role. He was commissioned to receive sheriffs’ oaths, formally admitted to the Privy Council on 3 December 1633, signed Council correspondence, served on Justice of Peace commissions and was repeatedly entrusted with northern administrative business.
His later assignments included gathering information on the attacks upon Fendraught, convening the gentlemen of Moray to recommend means of repressing disorder, reviewing the proposed herring-fishery patent, examining a prisoner in the Edinburgh Tolbooth and assisting in the settlement of the dispute between Donald Fraser and the magistrates of Inverness.
References: 33, 35–36; 124; 132; 156–157; 224; 359–360; 385–388; 407; 408; 424–430; 530; 530; and 657.
Alexander’s records reveal sustained participation in public, commercial and legal administration. He accepted the commission for Surrenders and Teinds, produced the survey of the Firth of Forth, participated in consultations over coinage and the coal impost, accepted the law-revision commission and represented the burgh interest in the muster-master discussions.
He also appears repeatedly in contested economic matters: Edinburgh’s jurisdictional dispute with the Earl of Erroll, the cordwainer privileges case, the pearl-fishing controversy, the plaiding inquiry and Sir James Lockhart’s proposed herring and white-fish patent. Several records explicitly confirm his personal presence, while others identify him simply as acting “for the burrowes.”
Particularly strong evidence of his intermediary role occurs in the herring-patent proceedings: the Council delivered the patent to him for consultation with the burgh commissioners and later ordered him and John Sinclair to notify the burghs and prepare their objections in writing.
References: 124; 133–134; 192; 219; 227; 230; 237–238; 298–300; 372; 398–399; 466; 476; 526; 530; and 535.
The September commission identifies Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum, the unnamed Guthrie of Colliston, Mr James Guthrie, parson of Kinnell, Mr Patrick Guthrie, minister at Logybuchan, and Mr John Guthrie, parson of Duffus.
The revised November commissions retain several of the clerical appointments, though some are then identified by office rather than personal name. Comparison of the two rolls allows the parson of Kinnell, minister of Logybuchan and parson of Duffus to be identified without supplying names from outside evidence.
The rolls establish appointment, not attendance at a later Justice of Peace meeting or performance of a particular judicial act.
The volume preserves several Guthries outside the principal Bishop John and Alexander Guthrie clusters. These include Thomas Gottray, constable of Boltoun; Hercules Guthrie and his unnamed son in the infant-death prosecution; Bethia Guthrie, widow of Walter Murray and pursuer of a 400-merk debt; Henry Guthrie, merchant burgess of Dundee; and Walter Guthrie, burgess of Montrose, both named in the tobacco prosecution.
The Miscellaneous Papers add Adam and John Gottray of Prestwick, summoned for assize service, and Alexander Guthra of Elgin, servant to John Chalmer, skinner and burgess, who witnessed two executions of summonses.
Brown’s index gathers several spelling forms under the Guthrie surname, including Gottray, Guthra and Guthre. Those forms are genealogically useful and have therefore been preserved in the transcriptions.
The variant spelling does not erase individual identity. In particular, Alexander Guthra, servant to John Chalmer in Elgin, is a separate man from Mr Alexander Guthrie, Edinburgh town clerk. Occupation, locality and documentary role provide the necessary distinction.
Volume V repeatedly demonstrates why procedural language must be read precisely. A commission authorizes action but does not prove that it occurred. A summons establishes a requirement to appear but not attendance. A continuation records postponement rather than judgment. A person named for an assize is not thereby proved to have served on it.
Similar care is required with contested allegations. Hercules Guthrie’s prosecution is not a conviction; the tobacco defenders were penalized in their absence rather than confessing; the burghs’ accusation that Robert Buchan obtained the pearl privilege upon “sinister information” remains their pleaded position; and the northern-disorders records distinguish witnesses and investigators from the people suspected of committing or encouraging violence.
The volume provides unusually strong evidence for the public careers of two men: John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, operating at Privy Council and northern-administrative level, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, operating at the intersection of Edinburgh government, national burgh representation and commercial policy.
Around them are several distinct Guthries whose records supply residence, occupation, widowhood, burgess status, clerical office, landed designation or participation in legal process. These identities should remain separate unless additional evidence establishes family relationships.
Bishop John’s commissions often record authority or an instruction to report; the resulting report is not always preserved in the same entry. Alexander Guthrie’s representation of the burghs is unusually well documented, but representation does not make him the sole author of collective burgh arguments or written submissions.
Brown’s edition alternates between full printed register text, abbreviated entries and editorial summaries. Where Brown supplies an editorial abridgment, it remains distinct from a verbatim transcription of the underlying manuscript record.
Two apparent page references in the OCR index require care: the Bishop of Moray’s arbitration reference printed as 352 is easily misread by OCR as 362, and the renewed Justice of Peace references at 429 can likewise appear as 420. The linked records above follow the printed source context rather than those OCR misreadings.
Basis of synthesis: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, V, A.D. 1633–1635 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1904). The linked record cards preserve the relevant printed entries, source spellings and documentary limits. Digitized volume.
Volume 6
Volume 6 covers the period from 1 April 1635 to 21 December 1637. P. Hume Brown’s Introduction places these records at the beginning of the national upheaval surrounding Charles I’s ecclesiastical policy: the Book of Canons, the attempted introduction of the Service-book, the disturbances in Edinburgh in July 1637, the ensuing petitions and the removal of meetings of the Privy Council from Edinburgh later that year.
The Guthrie evidence is unusually varied. John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, appears not only among the Council’s members but in commissions concerning counterfeit coin, disorders in the north, criminal investigations, Aberdeen University and the affairs of Leith Hospital. Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, repeatedly represents the royal burghs in administrative business involving the Forth ferries, the Isle of May, Edinburgh’s proposed Council-house, coinage and the developing Service-book crisis.
Other records identify Patrick Guthrie of Auchmuchthie, John Guthrie of Collestoun, Guthrie younger of Collestoun, Alexander and William Guthrie of the Kincaldrum family, Aberdeen surgeons Hercules, James and Gilbert Guthrie, writers, officers, witnesses, litigants and J. Guthrie, minister at Stirling. These appearances are preserved according to the wording and limits of the individual records; shared surname, occupation or location is not treated as proof of family relationship.
Read Volume 6 Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VI, A.D. 1635–1637. Edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown, M.A., LL.D. Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905.
Page references in the Finding Aid follow the printed page numbers of the volume. Viewer image numbers may differ.
Volume 6 — Guthrie Finding Aid
Guthrie references in this volume are indexed in more than one place. In addition to the principal Guthrie surname entry, John Guthrie’s substantive Council work is indexed separately under Moray (Murray), Bishop of. Both have therefore been incorporated here.
Routine appearances of the Bishop of Moray in Council sederunts are not given separate record cards merely because his title occurs in an attendance list. The Finding Aid does include identifiable commissions, appointments, reports, documentary exchanges, subscriptions and other substantive proceedings. Brown’s approximate attendance total in the Introduction is retained separately as useful editorial context.
Records are arranged by printed page order, not by reconstructed chronological sequence. The later “Miscellaneous Papers” portion of the volume consequently contains documents dated earlier than some records printed before it.
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| viii | Volume-wide context, 1635–1637 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Editorial introduction / attendance summary | Brown lists Bishop Guthrie among the members of the Privy Council and assigns him approximately 28 days of attendance. The figure is an editorial summary, not a single contemporary act. |
| 2 | 1 Apr 1635 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Commission | Named to a commission directed against persons suspected of forging or circulating false coin. |
| 3–4 | 1 Apr 1635 | Margaret Guthrie; Robert Guthrie, cook in Edinburgh Debt proceeding | Named among the persons to whom charge had been given in the proceeding concerning Captain James Donaldson’s creditors. |
| 15 | 2 Jun 1635 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Burgh representation | Appears in connection with meetings and business of the Commissioners for the Royal Burghs. |
| 57 | 21 Jul 1635 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Report exhibited | Personally produces, in the name of the royal burghs, the report of the commissioners who had visited the waters of the Forth. |
| 60–61 | 21 Jul 1635 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Peace commission | Commissioned with other northern office-holders to intervene in the dispute between the Brodies and Dunbars and to take security for keeping the peace. |
| 61 | 21 Jul 1635 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Curatory appointment | Appointed as one of the curators to Alexander Innes of Cokstoun; the act also assigns the Bishop a role in administering the Commissary’s oath. |
| 109 | 22 Sep 1635 | Patrick Guthrie of Auchmuchthie Horning / warding proceeding | Defender in proceedings arising from his remaining at the horn in connection with his escheat goods; further enforcement is ordered. |
| 120 | Sep 1635; commission dated 15 Sep | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Northern disorders commission | Named to a Council commission dealing with disorders and public peace in the north. |
| 138 | 19 Nov 1635 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Ferry papers | Receives Council papers concerning the Forth ferries for communication to the Commissioners for the Burghs. |
| 139 | 24 Nov 1635 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Ferry proceedings | Given time, in the burghs’ name, to provide written answers concerning the ferry proposals and suggested remedies. |
| 140 | Nov 1635 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Salt / burgh commission | Appears in the name of the burghs in proceedings concerning salt and is ordered with the saltmasters to meet and nominate commissioners. |
| 147 | 1 Dec 1635 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Ferry report | Exhibits the burghs’ written report concerning the Forth ferries. |
| 155 | Dec 1635 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Isle of May lights | Receives formal intimation in the name of the burghs concerning their opportunity to state objections in the Isle of May light proceedings. |
| 165 | 12 Jan 1636 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Civic appearance | Appears personally with Bailie George Suttie concerning Edinburgh’s intention to build a new Council-house. |
| 176 | 26 Jan 1636 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Formal notice | Warned apud acta, as representative of the burghs, in the continuing proceedings concerning the Isle of May lights. |
| 188 | 9 Feb 1636 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Judicial commission | Named to a commission concerning the trial and censure of an alleged assault, with the Bishop required as part of the commissioners’ quorum. |
| 192 | Feb 1636 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Charge to commissioner | Among the commissioners for surrenders and teinds charged to attend the commission during the appointed sittings. The charge records a requirement to attend, not proof of attendance on each date. |
| 199 | Feb 1636 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Commission / remit | One of the commissioners to whom related Inverness-area complaints involving assault and unlawful convocation were remitted for examination. |
| 220 | 31 Mar 1636 | William Guthrie, brother of Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum Bond witness | William witnesses a bond of caution and is expressly identified in the document as brother of Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum. |
| 268 | 16 Jun 1636 | John Guthrie of Collestoun Debt / horning action | Pursuer against Laurence Mercer of Aldie for payment of principal, interest and expenses after earlier horning. |
| 275 | 30 Jun 1636 | Unnamed Guthrie, mother of Bessie Stirling Appearance for daughter | Appears in the proceeding on behalf of her daughter Bessie Stirling. The printed entry does not supply the mother’s given name. |
| 276 | 30 Jun 1636 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Examination commission | Appointed with other officials to examine Gilleroy concerning persons alleged to have reset or encouraged offenders. |
| 311–312 | Sep 1636 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray University commission | Named to a Council commission concerning the privileges, governance and reported abuses of Aberdeen University. |
| 347 | Dec 1636 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Prisoner examination commission | Named to examine prisoners in an inquiry concerning false dollars and associated suspects; the commission defines the powers available to the examiners. |
| 371–372 | 26 Jan 1637 | James Guthrie, writer Subscription witness | Witness to the subscription of a document recorded in the proceeding. |
| 373–374 | 2 Feb 1637 | Hercules Guthrie; James Guthrie, surgeons and burgesses of Aberdeen Medical certificate | Named among the Aberdeen surgeons signing a certificate concerning the dangerous condition of an injured man. |
| 412 | 14 Mar 1637 | Hercules Guthrie; Gilbert Guthrie, surgeons and burgesses of Aberdeen Medical certificate | Sign a later certificate reporting the injured man’s improving condition. |
| 414 | 16 Mar 1637 | Richard Guthrie, W.S. Procurator | Appears as procurator for the pursuers in a horning proceeding. This Richard Guthrie is not identified as the Haddington officer appearing later at p. 618. |
| 415–416 | 17 Mar 1637 | Guthrie, younger of Collestoun Witness | Named as a witness in proceedings arising from an Ogilvie dispute. The printed entry does not establish his given name. |
| 435 | 6 Jun 1637 | Jean Guthrie, widow of Robert Stirling of Letter Debt / horning action | Pursuer against John Hamilton of Blair for payment of principal, interest and expenses; her son Alexander Stirling appears on her behalf. |
| 465–466 | 26 Jun 1637 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Coinage consultation | Appears with Edinburgh merchants before a Council committee and participates in the burgh representation concerning the scarcity of money and possible remedies. |
| 479–480 | Jul 1637 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray College visitation commission | Named to the commission for visitation of King’s College, Aberdeen, with authority to examine its condition, records and reported abuses and to report to the Council. |
| 484 | Jul 1637 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Delivery of papers | Council papers or bonds concerning the Brodie–Dunbar dispute are ordered to be delivered to the Bishop. |
| 486 | 26 Jul 1637 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Service-book proceedings | Appears in the Council’s immediate response to the disturbances surrounding the attempted introduction of the Service-book in Edinburgh. |
| 486–487 | 27 Jul 1637 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Service-book security arrangements | Involved with Edinburgh’s civic representatives in the Council’s arrangements for security and the proposed peaceful reading of the Service-book. |
| 507 | 2 Aug 1637 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Mint / coinage proceedings | Directed with other civic and Mint representatives to prepare written conditions and objections concerning the Master of the Mint and Nicolas Briot. |
| 509 | 3 Aug 1637 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Mint report | Appears with the Edinburgh representatives and exhibits written information concerning the Mint and the obligations of its master. |
| 513–515 | 9 Aug 1637 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh Service-book proceedings | One continuous source unit concerning readers for the Service-book and Edinburgh’s proposed security or indemnity for bishops, ministers and readers; Guthrie appears personally with the city bailies and participates in the required written undertaking. |
| 586 | 16 Jun 1636 summons; later hearing note damaged | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Witness examination | The printed index identifies the Bishop among those appointed to examine witnesses in the Maxwell of Knock matter. The surviving note is damaged, so its later hearing date should not be supplied more precisely than the source allows. |
| 604 | 28 Jul 1636 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Council endorsement / subscription | The Bishop subscribes the Council authorization endorsed on the supplication involving William Keith and Bessie Stirling. Subscription is evidence of his official participation, not sole authorship of the Council determination. |
| 618 | 4 Sep 1636 | Richard Guthrie, officer in Haddington Execution witness | One of the Haddington town officers witnessing execution of a summons upon John Cockburn, provost of Haddington. |
| 641–642 | 22 & 29 Nov 1636 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Leith Hospital proceedings | Named in continuation proceedings concerning the visitation and administration of the hospital at Leith. |
| 648–649 | 10 Nov 1636 supplication; execution 14–15 Nov | Unnamed Guthrie Execution witness | A damaged note of execution names “. . . Guthrie” among witnesses to the personal apprehension or charging of parties required to appear before the Council. The given name is not preserved. |
| 652–653 | 29 Nov 1636 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Leith Hospital committee | Appointed with other Council members to examine and address the affairs of Leith Hospital. |
| 654 | 9 Dec 1636 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Leith Hospital proceeding | Present with the appointed committee when the Leith Hospital matter is continued to a later sitting. |
| 692–693 | 18 Jul 1637 | Guthrie, younger of Collestoun Lawburrows / peace proceeding | Required in lawburrows proceedings to give security for keeping the peace. The source does not supply his given name. |
| 715–716 | 1637; petition undated | J. Guthrie, minister at Stirling Service-book petition | Named among the ministers subscribing a petition against the Service-book. The printed source gives only the initial “J.”; no forename is supplied here. |
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Privy Council Membership and Approximate Attendance
Second Series, Volume 6 • Introduction, p. viii • Editorial attendance summary
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Brown introduces his list of Privy Councillors while describing the political tension of 1637. He states that the national excitement of the period produced unusually assiduous attendance by Council members. Until 18 October the Council continued to meet in Edinburgh, generally at Holyrood and occasionally in the Low Council House.
According to Brown, the continued gathering of excited crowds in Edinburgh led Charles I to conclude that the Council could not freely carry out royal commands there. The Council therefore met at Linlithgow from 14 November until 7 December and subsequently at Dalkeith, where it received the general Supplication of the four Tables.
Brown then lists the men who participated in Council business during the period and places an approximate attendance figure after each name. In that list appears “John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray (28).”
Printed Source Text — Editorial Context and Guthrie Entry
Brown’s relevant editorial passage is reproduced below. The long intervening membership list is not repeated in full; Bishop Guthrie’s entry and Brown’s explanatory footnote are preserved exactly in substance and placement.
As we should expect from the national excitement of the time, the attendance of the Councillors was much more assiduous than at any previous period of the reign. Till the 18th October, 1637, the Council continued to sit in Edinburgh—usually at Holyrood, but occasionally in the Low Council House. The continuous flocking of excited crowds to the capital, however, at length convinced Charles that, if the Council were to carry out his commands, it must meet where it would be less exposed to popular constraint. On the 14th of November, therefore, we find it meeting in Linlithgow (pp. 547-548), where it continued to sit till December 7th, and subsequently at Dalkeith, where, as has already been noted, it received the general “Supplication” of all the four Tables. The members of Council who at one time or another took part in its business were as follow:—
[Brown’s list of Council members includes:]
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray (28).
1 The numerals attached to each name indicate approximately the number of days on which each member attended the Council. The total number of sederunts was about 200. Frequently there was both a morning and an evening sederunt.
Modern English Rendering
Brown explains that the political and religious crisis of 1637 caused Privy Councillors to attend Council business more regularly than earlier in Charles I’s reign. The Council continued meeting in Edinburgh until 18 October 1637, usually at Holyrood and sometimes in the Low Council House.
As increasingly agitated crowds gathered in the capital, Charles I concluded that the Council needed to meet somewhere less subject to popular pressure if it was to carry out his instructions. The Council therefore met at Linlithgow beginning on 14 November, remained there until 7 December, and later sat at Dalkeith, where it received the general Supplication associated with the four Tables.
Brown follows this discussion with a list of the people who took part in Privy Council business during the period. He records John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, with the number 28.
Brown expressly explains that these numbers are approximate counts of days on which each councillor attended. They are not counts of individual meetings. He estimates that there were about 200 sederunts in total and notes that on some days the Council held both a morning and an evening sitting.
This editorial summary gives a useful measure of Bishop John Guthrie’s participation in central government during the final years before the National Covenant. Brown’s approximate 28 attendance days show that Guthrie was more than a nominal Privy Councillor during the period represented by this volume.
The figure is especially useful when read with the substantive records that follow. Volume VI separately names the Bishop in commissions concerning false coin, northern disorders, criminal investigation, Aberdeen University, witness examinations and Leith Hospital. Those individual acts establish what authority or work was assigned to him; the Introduction supplies the broader attendance context.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Privy Council — the royal governing council responsible for a wide range of executive, judicial and administrative business in Scotland.
- Sederunt — a formal sitting or meeting of a court, council or other official body. Brown notes that the Privy Council sometimes held both morning and evening sederunts on the same day.
- Holyrood — the royal palace at Edinburgh, commonly used for Privy Council meetings during this period.
- Low Council House — another Edinburgh venue in which the Privy Council occasionally met.
- Four Tables — the representative bodies formed during the 1637 opposition to the ecclesiastical innovations; Brown refers here to the general Supplication presented while the Council was sitting at Dalkeith.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), Introduction, pp. vii–ix; John Guthrie entry and explanatory footnote on p. viii. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Commission Against Counterfeit Dollars in the North
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 2 • 1 April 1635
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council reported that counterfeit dollars were being manufactured and circulated in the north. According to the act, ordinary people who did not know the true value or fineness of the coins were accepting them as genuine money, causing injury to the King’s subjects and threatening to fill the country with what the record calls “foule and filthie drosse.”
The Council therefore granted a commission directly to John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray. Unusually, the act also allowed Guthrie himself to nominate and appoint additional persons to assist in executing the commission.
The commissioners were authorised to search for the people making and circulating the false dollars, seize them, secure the boxes and chests containing the counterfeit money and its manufacturing equipment, and produce the accused persons and seized material before the Privy Council.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Entry
“Foisamekle as the Lords of Secreit Counsell ar informed that there is some wicked and malicious persons in the north who this time bygane hes beene bussie in forging, venting, counterfootting and outputting in amongs his Majesteis subjects of false dollers, and the simple people, being ignorant of the trew worth and fynnes of the same, receaves thame as good coyne, whereas indeid they ar bot base, counterfoote and false, quherethrow not onelie ar his Majesteis subjects mightilie abused and wronged, bot in short time this countrie will be filled with this foule and filthie drosse if some present course be not tane to prevent and stay the forder progresse of this evill; thairfoir the Lords of Secreit Counsell hes givin and grantit and be the tennour heirof gives and grants full power and commissioun to the reverend father in God, Johne, bishop of Murrey, and to suche others as he sail nominat and appoint, to pas, searche and seeke all and sindrie persons, forgers, strikers and printers of thir false and counterfoote dollers and to seaze upon thair persons and upon thair trunkes, coffers and kists wherein the saids false dollers and the yrnes ar keeped and to bring and exhibite thame before his Majesteis Counsell; and for the better executioun of this commissioun with power to thame to make opin doores and use his Majesteis keyes, and to doe and performe all and everie other thing quhilk for executioun of the said commissioun is requisite and necessar; firme and stable halding and for to hald all and quhatsomever things sail be lawfullie done heerin.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords of the Privy Council have been informed that certain wicked and malicious people in the north have for some time been actively forging, circulating, counterfeiting and putting false dollars into circulation among the King’s subjects.
Ordinary people, not knowing the true value and fineness of these coins, are accepting them as good money even though they are in fact base and counterfeit. As a result, the King’s subjects are being seriously deceived and injured, and unless immediate action is taken to stop the practice the country will soon be filled with this worthless counterfeit money.
The Privy Council therefore grants full power and commission to John, Bishop of Moray, together with any other persons whom he chooses to nominate and appoint, to go out and search for all persons who forge, strike or print these false and counterfeit dollars.
They may seize the suspected persons and also seize their trunks, coffers and chests in which the counterfeit dollars and the irons or tools used in making them are kept. They are to bring and present the accused persons and the seized material before the King’s Privy Council.
To enable them to execute the commission effectively, they are authorised to force open doors and to use the King’s authority for entry, and generally to do everything lawfully necessary for carrying out the commission. The Council undertakes to uphold as valid whatever is lawfully done under that authority.
This is strong evidence of Bishop John Guthrie’s civil as well as ecclesiastical authority. The Privy Council did not merely name him as one member of a large committee: it placed the commission directly in his hands and authorised him to choose additional commissioners himself.
The powers entrusted to him were substantial. They included search, seizure of suspects and physical evidence, forced entry and the production of prisoners and seized materials before the central Council. The act therefore places Bishop Guthrie directly within royal law-enforcement activity in northern Scotland at the opening of Volume VI.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Doller / dollar — a large silver coin or coin type circulating in Scotland; the act concerns counterfeit or base imitations being passed as genuine money.
- Venting / outputting — putting the counterfeit money into circulation or passing it to others.
- Fynnes — fineness; the proportion or quality of precious metal in the coin.
- Forgers, strikers and printers — persons involved in producing counterfeit coin, including those forming, striking or impressing the false pieces.
- Trunkes, coffers and kists — trunks, boxes and chests in which money, tools or other articles might be stored.
- Yrnes — irons or metal implements associated with producing the counterfeit coins, such as dies or related tools.
- Make opin doores — authority to force or open doors when necessary in executing the commission.
- Use his Majesteis keyes — exercise royal authority to obtain entry where ordinary access was refused.
- Firme and stable halding — the Council’s formal undertaking to recognise and uphold acts lawfully performed under the commission.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 2, under the sederunt of 1 April 1635, complete commission; Acta, June 1634–April 1635, fol. 73b. Digitized volume .
Margaret Guthrie and Robert Guthrie — Patrick Vaus of Barnbarroch’s Creditors
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 3–4 • 1 April 1635
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Patrick Vaus, fiar of Barnbarroch, petitioned the Privy Council after having been imprisoned for a considerable time in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh at the instance of creditors. He argued that his imprisonment harmed both himself and those seeking payment, because his lands were being left unmanaged while he and his family had been reduced to what the printed entry calls “extreme great miserie.”
Vaus offered to satisfy his creditors through the sale of his lands. He proposed empowering several named friends to dispose of the property and further offered to bind himself to return to ward and relinquish his lands to those friends if the creditors had not been satisfied within a year and a day after his release.
Among the numerous persons formally charged concerning the application were Margaret Guthrie, identified as the spouse of Captain James Donaldson and acting for him, and Robert Guthrie, identified occupationally as a cook in Edinburgh.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Brown’s printed entry combines editorial summary with a small amount of quoted register wording. Original spellings and forms appearing in the printed text are retained below.
Supplication by Patrick Vaus, fiar of Barnbarroch, as follows:— He has been long detained in ward in the tolbooth of Edinburgh at the instance of some creditors, both to his and their prejudice, as his lands are thus left waste, and he and his family are reduced to “extreme great miserie.” He is most willing to satisfy his creditors by selling his lands if he were at liberty to go about the same; and would empower Alexander, Earl of Galloway, James, Lord Jonstoun, Sir John McDougall of Garthland, William Murray of Natoune, and Patrick Vaus of Lyrbrach, to dispose of them for payment of his debts. Further, he is ready to enact himself to re-enter his said ward, and also to renounce his said lands and living to his friends that they may dispose thereof for satisfaction of his creditors if within a year and day after his release they are not satisfied.
Charge having been given to John Peter, writer; James Lands, merchant; Margaret Guthrie, spouse to Captain James Donaldsone, and as acting for him; Mr John Bay, heir of Arthur Bay; David Aikinhead, provost of Edinburgh; Mr Thomas Lamb in Prestoune; Sir Alexander Carnegie, brother to the Earl of Southesk; Andrew and Mr William Cowper, sons of the deceased William, Bishop of Galloway, and [blank], their mother; James and Sarah Lamb, children of the deceased Andrew, Bishop of Galloway; Robert Broune in Newbotle; Robert Guthrie, cook in Edinburgh; Archibald Dumbar of Baldoune; James Ballantyne in Leith; Nicholas McMathe, widow of Mr Patrick Ballantyne, clerk of Dunce; Janet Kennedie, one of the heirs portioners of the deceased Hew Kennedie of Garriehorne, and Mr James Bower, minister, her spouse; Mr Robert Glendinning, minister, and Robert, his son; John, Viscount of Kenmuire, and Dame [blank] Campbell, his mother; William McKie, son of [blank]; Mr Andrew Anderson, minister at Kirkinner; Alexander McDouell of Logane; and Thomas Hay of Park;
and the pursuer compearing personally and producing a consent in writing under the hand of the said James Bannatyne for himself and in name of the remanent executors of the said deceased Mr Patrick, his father, bearing his consent to the pursuer obtaining his liberty, and Mr Andrew Henderson also compearing and consenting thereto, but none of the others attending, the Lords, upon the pursuer’s enacting of himself in terms of his offer as aforesaid, ordain the provost and bailies of Edinburgh to put him to liberty.
Modern English Rendering
Patrick Vaus, fiar of Barnbarroch, petitioned the Privy Council because he had been imprisoned for a long time in the Edinburgh Tolbooth at the instance of some of his creditors. He argued that keeping him imprisoned was damaging both him and his creditors: his lands were being neglected, while he and his family had fallen into severe hardship.
Vaus said that he was willing to pay his creditors by selling his lands, but needed his freedom in order to make the necessary arrangements. He proposed giving Alexander, Earl of Galloway; James, Lord Johnston; Sir John McDougall of Garthland; William Murray of Natoune; and Patrick Vaus of Lyrbrach authority to dispose of the lands and use the proceeds to pay his debts.
He further offered to enter into a formal obligation to return to prison and to surrender control of his lands to those friends if his creditors had not been satisfied within a year and a day after his release.
Formal notice of the application had been given to a lengthy list of interested persons. Among them were Margaret Guthrie, wife of Captain James Donaldson, acting on her husband’s behalf, and Robert Guthrie, a cook in Edinburgh.
Vaus appeared personally before the Council. He produced the written consent of James Bannatyne, acting both for himself and for the remaining executors of his deceased father, Mr Patrick. Mr Andrew Henderson also appeared and consented. None of the other persons who had been formally notified attended.
After Vaus formally bound himself to the terms he had offered, the Lords of the Privy Council ordered the provost and bailies of Edinburgh to release him from the Tolbooth.
The entry supplies two useful and distinct Guthrie identifications. Margaret Guthrie is explicitly identified as the wife of Captain James Donaldson and is recorded as acting on his behalf. This is direct evidence of the marital relationship and of Margaret’s participation in a legal proceeding representing her husband’s interest.
Robert Guthrie is independently identified by occupation and place as a cook in Edinburgh. Occupational descriptions of this kind are particularly useful for distinguishing people of the same surname who otherwise lack a landed designation or family relationship in the record.
The entry also places both Guthries within the circle of persons formally notified when Patrick Vaus sought release in order to settle his debts, providing evidence of their connection to this financial proceeding without implying a relationship between Margaret and Robert themselves.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Fiar — the person holding the fee or heritable interest in an estate, commonly distinguished from a liferenter.
- Ward — legal confinement or custody; here Vaus was imprisoned in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh.
- Tolbooth — a burgh building serving civic, judicial and prison functions.
- Enact himself — formally bind or oblige himself before the Council to perform specified conditions.
- Year and day — a traditional legal period of one year plus one day.
- Charge having been given — formal legal notice had been served requiring or enabling the named persons to appear in relation to the proceeding.
- Compearing — appearing formally before the Council.
- Heir portioner — one of two or more heirs sharing an inheritance rather than succeeding to it alone.
- Remanent executors — the remaining executors of an estate.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 3–4, under the proceedings of 1 April 1635; Decreta, November 1633–April 1635, fols. 222a–222b. Complete printed entry, editorially abridged. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — Written Burgh Objections to Sir James Lockhart’s Signature
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 15 • 2 June 1635
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
At the Council sitting of 2 June 1635, Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, was present with a number of the Commissioners for the Burghs in proceedings concerning a proposed “signature” for Sir James Lockhart.
The Lords postponed further consideration of Lockhart’s matter until 16 June. Guthrie was formally notified of that continuation within the proceedings. He also produced written reasons opposing the passing of the signature.
The Council ordered those written reasons to be delivered to Sir James Lockhart so that he could consider them before the matter returned to the Council.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Entry
“The Lords of Secreit Counsell continewes the mater anent Sir James Lokharts signature till the saxteene of this instant, quhairof Mr Alexander Guthre, toun clerk of Edinburgh, assisted with a nomber of the commissioners for the burrowes being personallie present, is warned apud acta. Lykeas the said Mr Alexander exhibite certane reasons in writt aganis the passing of the said signature whiche wer ordained to be givin up to the said Sir James to be advised therewith.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords of the Privy Council continued the matter concerning Sir James Lockhart’s signature until the sixteenth day of the current month.
Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, who was personally present with the assistance of a number of the Commissioners for the Burghs, was formally notified of that continuation in the course of the proceedings.
Mr Alexander also presented written reasons opposing the passing of the signature. The Council ordered that these reasons be given to Sir James Lockhart so that he could consider them.
This act provides particularly clear evidence of Alexander Guthrie’s active role in representing burgh interests before the Privy Council. He was not simply named in an attendance list: he was personally present with burgh commissioners and formally presented written objections to the proposal under consideration.
The record also shows the procedural role he could play as Edinburgh’s town clerk and an intermediary for the royal burghs. The objections were sufficiently substantive that the Council ordered them delivered to Sir James Lockhart for review before further consideration of the matter.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Signature — in Scottish administrative practice, a formal warrant or written instrument intended to proceed through further stages of royal or governmental authorization; here the short act does not specify the full terms of Lockhart’s proposed signature.
- Burrowes — burghs; here the royal burghs represented by their commissioners.
- Exhibite — formally presented or produced before the Council.
- Reasons in writt — written arguments or objections submitted for consideration.
- Apud acta — literally “among the acts”; formal notice given and recorded within the proceedings themselves.
- Continewes the mater — postpones or adjourns further consideration of the matter to a later date.
- To be advised therewith — to receive and consider the written reasons before the matter proceeds.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 15, Edinburgh, 2 June 1635; Acta, June 1634–April 1636, fol. 76a. Complete printed act. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — The Royal Burghs’ Survey of the Firth of Forth
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 57–58 • 21 July 1635
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, appeared personally before the Privy Council as representative of the free royal burghs and produced a written report on the condition of the Firth of Forth.
The survey had been undertaken by commissioners for Burntisland, Kirkcaldy and Dysart. Their task was to inspect the river and estuary following the previous General Convention of Burghs and determine whether ballast dumping, sandbanks and shoaling were affecting navigation.
The commissioners reported some stretches as essentially unchanged, but identified several places where the water had become dangerously shallow or where discarded stone, chalk and ballast interfered with formerly safe anchorage. The document is both an administrative report and a detailed contemporary description of the upper Forth.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Source Unit
“The whilk day in the presence of the Lords of Secreit Counsell compeired personallie Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, in the name of the free royall burrowes of this kingdome and produced and exhibite before the saids Lords ane report of the visitation of the water of Forth made be some of the commissioners of the burrowes, of the quhilk the tennor followes:—
The diligence of the burrowes of Bruntilland, Kirkaidie and Dysert to be givin in to the burrowes conveenned at the generall Convention haldin at Perth, in the moneth of July, jm vjc threttie fyve yeeres, tuicheing the visiting and surveying of the water of Forth since the last generall Conventioun haldin at Edinburgh, July, jm vjc threttie foure yeeres.
First, the bailleis of the saids burrowes of Bruntilland, Kirkaidie and Dysert caused thair commissioners, being men of skill and experience, to visie and survey the said water of Forth frome the Quenisferrie on both the sides thairof till they came up to Blacknes and frome Blacknes to Little Carren, whilk is callit Johne Edyis pannis, who fand little or no fault over and over frome the ane side to the other, bot fand that the water remained still according to the old forme, bot within Craiginoir they fand manie flint and whinne stones, calke and other ballast cassin out of shipps, sua that, whereas before shippes and barkes might have lyin there saifelie, now they cannot come in nor have anie saifetie thairintill nor ly without danger.
Item, the saids commissioners visied and surveyed frome Johne Edyes panns to Cowdounhill and fand that it lyes verie schald aff at low water a great way aff, and frome Cowdounhill to Barrestoun and fand that it is verie shald at least three quarters of ane myle aff, and that there is bot ane faddome deip at low water, where in former times shippes and vessellis wer wont to have good raid; and frome Barrestoun till they be halfe ane myle above it on that selfe same side they fand that it is also verie schalde bot the shaldnes thairof does not ly aff so farre as the other.
Item, that they visied and surveyed frome that till they came up to Fordell Nesse, quhilk lyes upon the north side of Forth, and fand no difference there bot according to the old forme; and betwix Fordell Nesse and the pannis, quhilks ar callit the New pannis, where they fand ane banke of grosse sand quhilk is dry at the low watter and whilk lyeth ane great part of the channell aff frome the north side and at twa part of the south side.
Item, frome George Bruce new pannis till the pannis of Kincarne and frome the pannis of Kincarne to Tulliallane they fand no difference bot after the old forme on both the sides.
Item, frome Tullyallane croce over to Heggings pow or a little above it whilk is on the south side they fand no difference, bot frome the point above Heggings pow begins a banke quhilk reaches over to Johne Yairds nuke. They say frome the said point croce over to Johne Yairds nuik sua that at low water there is no appearance of ane channell bot a dry banke at low water the space of ane myle in lenth.
Item, frome Johne Yairds nuik, till they come to Clakmannan pow they fand it a little shalder nor it wes in former times bot yitt little or no great difference.
Item, frome Clakmannan pow and Alloway pow narrest to Clakmannan pow they fand ane banke in the middle part of the river that wes dry at the low water and at a spring stream tyde.
This is a trew report of the diligence used be the bailleis of Bruntilland, Kirkaldie and Dysert tuicheing the surveying and visiting of the Water of Forth, be thir presents subscryved be Alexander Simsone and David Simsone of Monturpie, bailleis of Dysert Sic subscribitur, Alexr Symsone, baillie, D. Symsone, baillie, Robert Symsone.”
Modern English Rendering
On this day, Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, appeared personally before the Lords of the Privy Council on behalf of the free royal burghs of Scotland. He formally produced a report made by commissioners of the burghs after their inspection of the Firth of Forth.
The document was the report of the burghs of Burntisland, Kirkcaldy and Dysart, intended for the General Convention of Burghs meeting at Perth in July 1635. It recorded their inspection of the Forth since the previous General Convention held at Edinburgh in July 1634.
First, the bailies of Burntisland, Kirkcaldy and Dysart sent commissioners described as men of skill and experience to survey both sides of the Forth from Queensferry to Blackness and from Blackness to Little Carron, called John Edy’s Pans. They found little or nothing wrong across most of this stretch and judged that the water remained much as it had formerly been.
At Craiginoir, however, they found large quantities of flint and whinstone, chalk and other ballast that had been thrown out of ships. Ships and smaller vessels had formerly been able to lie there safely, but the accumulation now prevented them from entering or lying there without danger.
From John Edy’s Pans to Cowdounhill they found the water extended very shallowly for a considerable distance at low tide. From Cowdounhill to Barrestoun it was shallow for at least three quarters of a mile, with only about one fathom of water at low tide in an area where ships and vessels had formerly enjoyed good anchorage. For about half a mile beyond Barrestoun on the same side they again found shallow water, though the shallows did not extend as far outward as the previous ones.
Continuing to Fordell Ness on the north side of the Forth, they found no significant change from the former condition. Between Fordell Ness and the place called the New Pans, however, they found a bank of coarse sand that became dry at low water and occupied a substantial part of the channel.
From George Bruce’s New Pans to the Pans of Kincarne, and from Kincarne to Tulliallane, they found no material difference from the old condition on either side.
From Tulliallane across toward Heggings Pow, or slightly above it on the south side, they likewise found no difference. But above Heggings Pow a bank began that extended toward John Yaird’s Nook. At low water the channel was no longer visible across this stretch; instead there was a dry bank extending for about a mile.
Between John Yaird’s Nook and Clackmannan Pow, the commissioners found the water somewhat shallower than in former times, though they did not consider the change great.
Finally, near Clackmannan Pow and Alloway Pow they found a bank in the middle of the river that was dry at low water, including at a spring tide.
The report concludes by certifying this as a true account of the work performed by the bailies of Burntisland, Kirkcaldy and Dysart in surveying the Forth. The printed document records the subscriptions of Alexander Simpson and David Simpson of Monturpie, bailies of Dysart, together with Robert Simpson.
This is unusually strong evidence for Alexander Guthrie’s administrative role on behalf of the royal burghs. The act explicitly says that he appeared personally, represented the free royal burghs of the kingdom and formally produced their written survey before the Privy Council.
The report also continues a subject already documented in the preceding volume: official concern about the navigability of the Forth and the effects of ballast disposal. Volume VI therefore shows Alexander carrying an ongoing body of burgh business from the Convention of Burghs into central government.
Beyond the Guthrie evidence, the document is a detailed seventeenth-century navigational survey. It identifies particular anchorages, sandbanks, shallows, pans and river features and records how experienced local commissioners assessed changes in the waterway between 1634 and 1635.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Free royal burghs — royal burghs possessing privileges directly under the Crown and represented collectively in the Convention of Royal Burghs.
- General Convention — the national meeting of commissioners from the royal burghs to conduct their collective business.
- Visie / visitation — inspect or make an official inspection.
- Schald / shald — shallow.
- Faddome — fathom, a measure of water depth.
- Raid — roadstead or anchorage where vessels could lie.
- Ballast — heavy material carried in a vessel for stability and sometimes discharged at port or anchorage.
- Whinne stone — whinstone, a hard dark rock.
- Pow — a pool, creek, channel or slow-moving watercourse; its precise local meaning varies by place.
- Spring stream tide — a spring tide, when the difference between high and low water is especially great.
- Sic subscribitur — “thus it is subscribed”; formula introducing the names or signatures attached to the document.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 57–58, Edinburgh, 21 July 1635; Acta, June 1634–April 1636, fols. 89a–89b. Complete printed Council introduction and complete enclosed report. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Commission in the Brodie–Dunbar Dispute
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 60–61 • 21 July 1635
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council recorded reports of serious disorder between members of the Brodie and Dunbar families. Alexander Brodie of Letham, his brother Francis and William Brodie in Clune were named on one side; Alexander Dunbar of Grange, his brother Thomas, John Dunbar of Moynes and others were named on the other.
The act states that Alexander and Francis Brodie had been violently pursued, hurt and wounded to the shedding of their blood and danger of their lives. Because the Council feared that further trouble might follow and disturb the peace of the country, it appointed three senior northern figures to intervene: James, Earl of Moray; John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray; and John Maxwell, Bishop of Ross.
The commission was especially flexible. It could be exercised by any one of the three men. The acting commissioner could summon the named parties and anyone believed to have taken part in the disorder, require them to find security for keeping the peace and appearing before the Privy Council, and imprison anyone who refused to provide that security.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Entry
“Forsamekle as it is understand to the Lords of Secreit Counsell that of lait there hes fallin out ane verie great insolence and disordour betuix Alexander Brodie of Letham, Francis Brodie, his brother, and Williame Brodie in Clune, on the ane part, and Alexander Dumbar of Grange, Thomas Dumbar, his brother, Johne Dumbar of Moynes and others, thair complices, on the other part, and the said Alexander and Francis Brodeis hes beene cruellie invadit and persewed of thair lyffes and hurt and woundit to the effusion of thair blood and perrell of thair lyffes, whereupon forder inconveniences ar like to fall out to the breake of his Majesteis peace and disquyetting of the countrie without tymous remeid be provydit; thairfoir the saids Lords hes given and grantit and be the tennor heirof gives and grants full power and commissioun, expresse bidding and charge to James, Earle of Murrey, Johne, Bishop of Murrey, and Johne, Bishop of Ros, or anie one of thame to call and conveene before thame the persons particularlie abonewrittin and all others suche persons as hes committed the insolence foresaid or that hes beene or ar suspect to be accessorie to the same, and to putt thame under good cautioun for keeping of his Majesteis peace and for thair compeirance before his Majesteis Counsell at suche a day as the saids commissioners sail appoint or upon a lawfull citatioun, and incaise of thair refusall to find the said caution to apprehend thair persons and to committ thame to waird, therein to remaine upon thair awne expenses ay and whill they find the said cautioun, and all things necessar for this effect to doe and use quhilks for execution of this commission ar necessar: firme and stable halding and for to hald all and whatsomever things sail be lawfullie done heerin.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords of the Privy Council understand that serious disorder has recently arisen between Alexander Brodie of Letham, his brother Francis Brodie and William Brodie in Clune on one side, and Alexander Dunbar of Grange, his brother Thomas Dunbar, John Dunbar of Moynes and their associates on the other.
The Council states that Alexander and Francis Brodie have been violently attacked and pursued with danger to their lives and have been injured and wounded to the shedding of their blood. Because still greater trouble is likely to follow, threatening the King’s peace and disturbing the country unless a timely remedy is provided, the Council grants a commission to James, Earl of Moray; John, Bishop of Moray; and John, Bishop of Ross.
Any one of these commissioners may summon before him the people named in the act, together with anyone else who committed the reported disorder or who has been or is suspected of being involved in it.
The commissioner may require those people to provide sufficient security that they will keep the King’s peace and that they will appear before the Privy Council on a date appointed by the commissioner or whenever they are lawfully cited.
If any person refuses to provide that security, the commissioner may apprehend and imprison him. He is to remain in ward at his own expense until he finds the required caution. The commission also authorises everything else lawfully necessary for carrying out these powers, and the Council undertakes to uphold whatever is lawfully done under the commission.
This act gives Bishop John Guthrie substantial independent peacekeeping authority in the north. He was not merely one member of a committee that required collective action: the commission expressly provides that the Earl of Moray, Bishop Guthrie or the Bishop of Ross could act individually.
The powers extended beyond informal mediation. Guthrie could convene the named parties and other suspected participants, require legally enforceable security for their future conduct and appearance before the central Council, and order imprisonment when a person refused to provide the required caution.
Read with the counterfeit-coin commission at page 2, this entry further demonstrates the Privy Council’s use of Bishop Guthrie as a royal administrator and law-enforcement figure in northern Scotland during 1635.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Insolence and disordour — serious disorderly or violent conduct threatening public peace.
- Invadit and persewed of thair lyffes — violently attacked or pursued in a manner alleged to endanger their lives.
- Effusion of thair blood — shedding of blood; formula indicating physical wounding.
- Complices — accomplices or associates alleged to have participated in the disturbance.
- Accessorie — involved in or connected with the alleged conduct.
- Caution — legally enforceable security, usually backed by a cautioner or financial penalty, guaranteeing future conduct or appearance.
- Keeping his Majesteis peace — refraining from violence, feud or other conduct disturbing public order.
- Compeirance — formal appearance before the Privy Council when required.
- Ward — legal custody or imprisonment.
- Ay and whill — until such time as; here the imprisonment was to continue until the required caution was found.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 60–61, Edinburgh, 21 July 1635; Acta, June 1634–April 1636, fols. 90b–91a. Complete printed commission. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Appointed Curator to Alexander Innes of Cokstoun
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 61 • 21 July 1635
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council reconsidered the curatory of Alexander Innes of Cokstoun, who was still under age. His previous curators—Sir Robert Innes of Balvenie, Mr Gavin Dunbar, Chanter of Moray, and John Innes of Leuchars—had petitioned to be released from that responsibility.
The Council agreed that they should be discharged and appointed a new group of curators. Among them was John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, together with Sir Robert Innes of that Ilk, Mr John Hay, Commissar of Moray, Walter Kinnaird of Cowbine and Robert Gordon of Mayne.
The act placed Bishop Guthrie in a particularly important position within the new curatory. Three curators were sufficient to act, but the Bishop was ordinarily required to be one of them. The act also assigned him responsibility for taking the Commissar of Moray’s oath after the other curators had been admitted.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Entry
“The Lords of Secreit Counsell, having seene the lists of the persons givin in be Sir Robert Inneis of Balvenie and Mr Gawin Dumbar, chantour of Murrey, on the ane part, and Johne Inneis of Leuchars, on the other part, to be curatours to Alexander Inneis of Cokstoun during his minoritie, seing the saids laird of Balvenie, chantour of Murrey and Johne Inneis of Leuchars, who formerlie wer his curators, desired be diverse thair petitions to be fred and exonered of that burdein, and it wes found expedient be the saids Lords for diverse good respects that the saids persons sould be releeved of that burdein; thairfoir the saids Lords hes made choise of the persons following to be curators to the said Alexander during his minoritie, to witt, Johne, Bishop of Murrey, Sir Robert Inneis of that like, Mr Johne Hay, Commissar of Murrey, Walter Kinnaird of Cowbine, and Robert Gordoun of Mayne, or anie three of thame, the said Bishop of Murrey being alwayes one, and incaise of his refuisall the said Commissar being alwayes one, and, incaise of the said Commissar his refuisall, the said Laird of Cowbine to be alwayes one, ordaining heirby the said Commissar of Murrey to admitt the persons foresaids to be curatours to the said Alexander Inneis of Cokstoun and to take thair oath conforme to the order; and ordains the Bishop of Murrey to take the said Commissar his oath, whereanent the extract of this act sail be to thame ane warrand.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords of the Privy Council had considered the lists of people proposed to serve as curators for Alexander Innes of Cokstoun while he remained under age.
Sir Robert Innes of Balvenie, Mr Gavin Dunbar, Chanter of Moray, and John Innes of Leuchars, who had previously served as Alexander’s curators, had submitted various petitions asking to be released from that responsibility. The Council considered it appropriate for good reasons to discharge them from the burden.
The Council therefore selected the following people to act as Alexander’s new curators during his minority: John, Bishop of Moray; Sir Robert Innes of that Ilk; Mr John Hay, Commissar of Moray; Walter Kinnaird of Cowbine; and Robert Gordon of Mayne.
Any three of these men could act, but the Bishop of Moray was ordinarily required to be one of the three. If he refused to serve, the Commissar of Moray was to be one of the required three; if the Commissar also refused, the Laird of Cowbine was to be included.
The Council ordered the Commissar of Moray to admit the named men as curators and administer their oaths according to the prescribed procedure. Because the Commissar himself was among the appointees, the Council separately ordered the Bishop of Moray to administer the Commissar’s oath. An extract of the Council act was to serve as their authority for carrying out these steps.
This record adds a different dimension to Bishop John Guthrie’s civil responsibilities. Here he was not acting in criminal investigation or public-order enforcement, but in the legal protection and administration of a minor’s interests.
His position within the curatory was stronger than simple inclusion in a list. The act made him the preferred mandatory member of the three-person acting quorum, with named substitutes only if he declined to serve. The Council also trusted him to administer the Commissar of Moray’s oath.
The entry therefore provides another example of the Privy Council relying upon Bishop Guthrie for secular administrative work within the north of Scotland in 1635.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Curator — a legally appointed person responsible for assisting in the management and protection of the affairs of a minor who had passed pupillarity but had not yet reached full legal majority.
- Minoritie — legal minority; the act does not state Alexander Innes’s exact age.
- Burdein — burden or responsibility; here the duties of serving as curator.
- Fred and exonered — freed and formally discharged from an obligation.
- Commissar of Moray — an official of the commissary court jurisdiction of Moray.
- Any three of thame — a quorum of three of the named curators was sufficient, subject to the priority rules specified in the act.
- Admitt — formally install or recognise in the office.
- Take thair oath — administer the formal oath required before the curators assumed their duties.
- Extract of this act — an officially certified copy or extract of the Council’s decision, serving as authority for its execution.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 61, under the Council proceedings of 21 July 1635; Acta, June 1634–April 1636, fol. 91a. Complete printed act. Digitized volume .
Patrick Guthrie of Auchmuchthie — Horning and Order to Enter Blackness Castle
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 109 • 22 September 1635
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
John Hamilton, Chamberlain of Arbroath, complained to the Privy Council that Patrick Guthrie of Auchmuchthie had already been put to the horn on 27 July for failing to satisfy him concerning Guthrie’s escheat goods.
According to the printed entry, Guthrie remained unrelaxed and continued “proudly at the horn,” language indicating continued defiance of the legal denunciation.
Hamilton appeared before the Council, but Guthrie did not. The Lords consequently ordered a further charge requiring Guthrie to surrender his houses of Achmuthtie and to enter ward in Blackness Castle until the earlier letters of horning had been satisfied.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by John Hamilton, Chamberlain of Arbroth, as follows:—On 27th July last Patrick Guthrie of Auchmuchthie was put to the horn for not paying to the complainer his escheat goods and he remains proudly at the horn in contempt of the law. The pursuer compearing but not the defender, the Lords ordain the latter to be charged to render his houses of Achmuthtie and to enter ward in Blackness Castle until he have satisfied the letters of horning.
Modern English Rendering
John Hamilton, Chamberlain of Arbroath, complained that on 27 July 1635 Patrick Guthrie of Auchmuchthie had been formally denounced and put to the horn because he had failed to satisfy Hamilton concerning Guthrie’s escheat goods.
Guthrie had still not obtained release from the horning and, according to the complaint, continued in defiance of the legal process.
Hamilton appeared before the Privy Council, but Guthrie did not. The Lords therefore ordered that Guthrie be formally charged to surrender his houses of Achmuthtie and enter custody in Blackness Castle. He was to remain there until he had complied with and satisfied the earlier letters of horning.
The entry directly identifies Patrick Guthrie of Auchmuchthie and connects him with the houses or estate at Achmuthtie in 1635. It also records a sequence of escalating legal enforcement: an earlier horning, continued noncompliance, failure to appear before the Council, and a subsequent order involving both his houses and personal confinement in Blackness Castle.
The record is particularly useful because it supplies both the date of the earlier horning—27 July 1635—and the Council’s later response on 22 September 1635.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Put to the horn — formally denounced as a rebel after failing to obey letters of horning or another lawful charge.
- Unrelaxed / remains at the horn — the person had not yet obtained formal release from the denunciation.
- Escheat goods — movable goods or rights falling under escheat as a consequence of legal denunciation; the precise basis of Hamilton’s interest is not detailed in this entry.
- Render his houses — surrender or give up the houses in obedience to the Council’s charge.
- Ward — legal custody or imprisonment.
- Blackness Castle — royal fortress on the Firth of Forth frequently used for detention.
- Satisfy the letters of horning — comply with the obligation for which the earlier legal denunciation had been issued.
- Compearing — appearing formally before the Council.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 109, Edinburgh, 22 September 1635. Complete printed entry — editorial abridgment. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Royal Commission for the Disorders in the North
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 120 • Council entry 30 September 1635 • Commission dated 15 September 1635
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 30 September 1635, John Spottiswoode, Archbishop of St Andrews and Lord High Chancellor of Scotland, formally produced before the Privy Council a royal commission issued under the Great Seal.
The commission itself was dated 15 September 1635 and had been granted by Charles I for the purpose of trying the disorders in the north.
The commissioners included leading officers of state, noblemen and bishops. Among them was John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
The act then records that certain commissioners who were personally present accepted the commission upon themselves. Bishop Guthrie is not included in that expressly named subset of commissioners present at this particular Council sitting.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Entry
“The quhilk day Johne, Archbishop of St Andrewes, Lord High Chanceller of Scotland, produced and exhibite before the saids Lords ane commissioun under the great seale of the dait at the fyftene day of September instant for trying the disorders in the north, made and grantit be his Majestie to the saids Lord Chanceller, Williame, Erie of Morton, Thesaurar; Thomas, Erie of Hadintoun, Lord Privie Seale; Johne, Erie of Mar, Robert, Erie of Roxburghe, William, Erie of Dumfreis, Johne, Erie of Tracquair, Williame, Lord Alexander, David, Bishop of Edinburgh, Johne, Bishop of Murrey, and Johne, Bishop of Ros, Sir Johne Hay, Clerk Register, Sir Thomas Hope, his Majesteis Advocat, and Sir James Carmichell, Justice Clerk; lykeas the saids Lords Chancellor and Privie Seale, the Erie of Tracquair, the Bishop of Edinburgh, Clerk Register, Advocat and Justice Clerk being personallie present accepted the commissioun upon thame.”
Modern English Rendering
On this day, John, Archbishop of St Andrews and Lord High Chancellor of Scotland, produced before the Privy Council a commission issued under the Great Seal.
The commission was dated 15 September 1635 and had been granted by the King for investigating the disorders in northern Scotland.
The people named as commissioners were the Lord Chancellor; William, Earl of Morton, Treasurer; Thomas, Earl of Haddington, Lord Privy Seal; John, Earl of Mar; Robert, Earl of Roxburghe; William, Earl of Dumfries; John, Earl of Traquair; William, Lord Alexander; David, Bishop of Edinburgh; John, Bishop of Moray; John, Bishop of Ross; Sir John Hay, Clerk Register; Sir Thomas Hope, King’s Advocate; and Sir James Carmichael, Justice Clerk.
The act further records that the Lord Chancellor, Lord Privy Seal, the Earl of Traquair, the Bishop of Edinburgh, the Clerk Register, the Advocate and the Justice Clerk were personally present and formally accepted the commission.
This act places Bishop John Guthrie among the senior royal commissioners charged with investigating one of the major public-order problems facing the government in 1635.
Brown’s Introduction describes the northern disorders as having developed out of long-running feuds, the aftermath of the Burning of Frendraught and the activities of outlawed groups. The royal response therefore went well beyond a local dispute: this was a formal Great Seal commission staffed by senior members of the Privy Council and central government.
For Guthrie research, the record adds another substantial secular governmental appointment to Bishop John’s documented career and complements his earlier commissions concerning counterfeit coin and regional peacekeeping.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Great Seal — the principal royal seal used to authenticate important grants and commissions issued in the King’s name.
- Commission — formal authority granted to named individuals to investigate, administer or determine specified business.
- Trying the disorders — investigating and examining the disturbances and those alleged to be involved; the phrase does not itself mean that all named or questioned persons had been convicted.
- Produced and exhibite — formally presented and shown before the Privy Council.
- Accepted the commissioun upon thame — formally undertook the authority and responsibility of the commission.
- Personallie present — explicitly recorded as attending the Council sitting in person.
- Lord High Chancellor — the senior officer of state presiding over major governmental and judicial business.
- Clerk Register — senior officer responsible for royal and public records.
- Advocate — here the King’s Advocate, the chief Crown legal officer.
- Justice Clerk — senior judicial office in Scottish criminal administration.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 120, Edinburgh, 30 September 1635; royal commission under the Great Seal dated 15 September 1635; Acta, June 1634–April 1636, fol. 105b. Complete printed Council act. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — Papers Concerning Reform of Abuses at the Ferries
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 138 • 19 November 1635
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Council was considering proposals for correcting abuses at Scotland’s ferries. At the sitting recorded on page 138, Mr Melvill produced an act of court concerning reform of those abuses.
That act, together with the King’s letter and articles and a copy of the Privy Council’s answer to the King, was delivered to Mr Alexander Guthrie.
Guthrie was ordered to communicate the material to the rest of the commissioners and return with a report on the following Tuesday. The entry therefore records a documentary and coordinating role rather than merely his name in an attendance list.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Entry
“Mr Melvill produced ane act of court anent reforming the abuses of the ferryis, whiche with his Majesties letter and articles and the copy of the Consells ansuer to his Majestie wer delyvered to Mr Alexander Guthre, whome the Lords ordanis to communicat the same to the rest of the commissioners and to report upon Tuisday.”
Modern English Rendering
Mr Melvill produced an act of court concerning the reform of abuses at the ferries.
That document, together with the King’s letter and articles and a copy of the Privy Council’s answer to the King, was delivered to Mr Alexander Guthrie.
The Lords ordered Guthrie to communicate those papers to the other commissioners and to report back to the Council on Tuesday.
This small act gives unusually clear evidence of Alexander Guthrie’s intermediary role in public business. Important papers moving between the Crown, Privy Council and the commissioners were placed in his hands for circulation and subsequent reporting.
The entry also begins a closely connected sequence of ferry proceedings. On 24 November the Council gave Guthrie a deadline for written answers to proposed remedies, and on 1 December he returned with a written report. Together, these acts document the progression from receipt and circulation of papers to written response and formal reporting.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Anent — concerning or relating to.
- Act of court — a formal act or determination produced from the relevant proceedings.
- Articles — written propositions, points or instructions accompanying the royal communication.
- Consells ansuer — the Privy Council’s written response to the King.
- Communicat — transmit or make the papers known to the other commissioners for their consideration.
- Report — return to the Council with the result of the commissioners’ consideration or action.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 138, Edinburgh, 19 November 1635. Complete printed act. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — Written Answers Concerning the Ferries
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 139 • 24 November 1635
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Five days after papers concerning reform of abuses at the ferries had been delivered to Mr Alexander Guthrie, the Privy Council returned to the matter.
On 24 November 1635, the Lords assigned Guthrie eight days to provide written answers to the “overtures and remedeis” concerning the ferries. The short act therefore records the next procedural stage in the same body of business: receipt and circulation of the relevant papers was followed by preparation of a formal written response.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Entry
“The Lords assignee to Mr Alexander Guthre this day aucht dayes for giving in his ansuers in writt to the overtures and remedeis anent the ferryes.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords of the Privy Council gave Mr Alexander Guthrie eight days to submit his written answers to the proposals and remedies concerning the ferries.
Although brief, this entry documents Alexander Guthrie’s continuing responsibility in the ferry proceedings. He was not merely handed documents for passive custody: the Council now required a written response within a specified period.
Together with the acts on pages 138 and 147, the record preserves a clear administrative sequence: documents delivered → written answers required → report formally presented. This provides unusually good evidence of Guthrie’s working role as an intermediary in collective burgh business before the Privy Council.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Assignee — assigns or allows a specified time for completing a procedural step.
- This day aucht dayes — eight days from the present day.
- Giving in — formally submitting or presenting a document to the Council.
- Ansuers in writt — written responses or arguments.
- Overtures — proposals or suggested measures.
- Remedeis — remedies or proposed corrective measures.
- Anent — concerning or relating to.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 139, Edinburgh, 24 November 1635. Complete printed act. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — The Burghs and the Proposed Increase of Royal Revenue from Salt
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 139–140 • 26 November 1635 • Royal letter dated 6 November 1635
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
At the Privy Council sitting of 26 November 1635, a royal letter from Charles I was read concerning a proposal to increase the King’s revenue from salt made in Scotland.
The King instructed the Council not to conclude the matter before allowing the Scottish saltmasters to be heard. They were to choose one or two men from among themselves and give those representatives authority to travel to Court and negotiate what should be done.
A number of saltmasters accordingly appeared personally before the Council. Mr Alexander Guthrie also appeared, expressly “in name of the burrowes.” After hearing the parties, the Council ordered the saltmasters and Guthrie to meet the next day and nominate two commissioners.
Those commissioners were then to consult the Earl of Traquair, who had already been informed of the King’s intentions, and negotiate with the English commissioners concerning the proposed increase in Crown revenue from salt.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Source Unit
“The whilk day the missive letter underwrittin, signed be the Kings Majestie and directed to the Lords of Privie Counsell, wes presented to the saids Lords and read in thair audience, of the quhilk the tennor followes:—
Charles R.—Right reverend father in God, right trustie and weilbelovit cousines and counsellers, right trustie and trustie and beloved counsellers, we greit yow weill. Whereas a proposition hath beene made unto us at this time tuicheing the increasse of our rent upon salt made within this our kingdome, and being willing before anie course be concluded therein that the saltmaisters of our kingdome of Scotland be heard for thair interest, it is our pleasure that yow conveene thame before yow requiring thame to make choice of suche one or two persons of thair owne nomber as they sail thinke fitt to repaire to our Court with full power frome the rest to treate and conclude what sail be found necessarie tuicheing that purpose, wherein we, having at lenth imparted our minde to our right trustie and weilbelovit cousine and counseller, the Earle of Tracquaire, they may frome him know our further pleasure and proceed accordinglie. We bid yow farewell. From our honnour at Hampton Court, 6 November, 1635.
Quhereanent a nomber of the saltmaisters of this kingdome being warned to appeare before the saids Lords to heare his Majesteis will and pleasure intimat to thame and they compeirand this day personallie before the saids Lords, togidder with Mr Alexander Guthre in name of the burrowes, and being at lenth heard heereanent, the Lords of Secreit Counsell ordains the saids saltmaisters and Mr Alexander Guthre to conveene and meit the morne and to nominat and appoint twa commissioners to repaire to court and to treate and conclude with the English commissioners what sail be found fitting anent the proposition made to his Majestie tuicheing the increasse of his rent upon the salt, as said is; and the commissioners being chosin ordains thame to addresse thameselffes to the Erie of Tracquaire frome whome they will understand what his Majestie hes recommendit to thame in the bussines; and that they report to the Counsell upon Tuisday nixt the names of the commissioners.”
Modern English Rendering
On this day a letter signed by the King and addressed to the Privy Council was presented and read aloud before the Lords.
Charles I informed the Council that a proposal had been made for increasing the Crown’s revenue from salt produced in Scotland. Before any arrangement was concluded, however, he wanted the Scottish saltmasters to be heard concerning their interests.
The Council was therefore to summon the saltmasters and require them to choose one or two representatives from among themselves. These representatives were to receive full authority from the others and travel to the royal Court to negotiate and conclude whatever should be considered necessary concerning the proposal.
The King explained that he had already fully communicated his intentions to the Earl of Traquair, from whom the Scottish representatives could learn his further wishes. The royal letter was dated at Hampton Court on 6 November 1635.
In response, a number of Scottish saltmasters who had been summoned appeared personally before the Privy Council. Mr Alexander Guthrie also appeared on behalf of the burghs.
After hearing them at length, the Council ordered the saltmasters and Guthrie to meet the following day and nominate two commissioners to travel to Court. Those commissioners were to negotiate with the English commissioners concerning the proposal to increase the King’s revenue from salt.
Once chosen, the commissioners were to approach the Earl of Traquair to learn what the King had instructed him concerning the matter. Their names were then to be reported to the Privy Council on the following Tuesday.
This act adds another substantial example of Alexander Guthrie representing Scotland’s royal burghs in national economic policy. He appeared personally alongside the saltmasters and participated in the arrangements for sending commissioners to the royal Court.
The issue was not merely local salt regulation. The proposal concerned an increase in Crown revenue and required negotiations involving Scottish interests, English commissioners, the Earl of Traquair and ultimately Charles I. Guthrie’s inclusion demonstrates the trusted intermediary role he held in the burghs’ dealings with central government.
The record also provides useful continuity with Alexander’s many appearances in Volumes V and VI on questions of trade, taxation, coinage, maritime administration and other matters affecting the collective interests of the burghs.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Saltmaisters — proprietors or operators concerned with the manufacture of salt, an important Scottish commercial industry.
- Rent upon salt — Crown revenue or fiscal return derived from salt; here the King was considering a proposal for increasing it.
- Burrowes — the royal burghs, whose collective commercial interests Guthrie represented.
- Missive letter — formal royal correspondence conveying the King’s instructions to the Council.
- Full power — sufficient delegated authority to negotiate and reach conclusions on behalf of those represented.
- Treate and conclude — negotiate and arrive at an agreed settlement or arrangement.
- Repaire to Court — travel to the royal Court to conduct the required business.
- Intimat — formally communicated or made known.
- The morne — the following day.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 139–140, Edinburgh, 26 November 1635; royal missive dated Hampton Court, 6 November 1635; Acta, June 1634–April 1636, fols. 113b–114a. Complete printed source unit. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — Written Report on the State of the Ferries
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 147 • 1 December 1635
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 1 December 1635, Mr Alexander Guthrie returned to the Privy Council with a written report concerning the condition of the ferries.
This is the next identifiable stage in the ferry proceedings recorded earlier in the volume. On page 138, papers concerning reform of ferry abuses had been delivered to Guthrie for communication to the commissioners. On page 139, he was given eight days to submit written answers to the proposed measures and remedies.
The present entry records the production of the resulting written report. The Council then delivered it to the King’s Advocate so that he could consider its contents.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Entry
“The quhilk day Mr Alexander Guthre exhibite in writt a report of the estait of the Ferryes, quhilk wes givin up to the Advocat to be advised therewith.”
Modern English Rendering
On this day Mr Alexander Guthrie formally presented a written report concerning the state of the ferries.
The report was then delivered to the King’s Advocate so that he could examine and consider it.
This entry completes a clearly documented administrative sequence involving Alexander Guthrie. He first received the relevant papers for communication to the commissioners, was then assigned a period in which to provide written answers, and now formally exhibits a written report before the Council.
The sequence offers unusually concrete evidence of the practical work Guthrie performed in public administration: receiving official papers, coordinating consultation, submitting written material and moving that material onward for legal consideration.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Exhibite — formally produced or presented before the Council.
- In writt — in written form.
- Estait of the Ferryes — the state, condition or administrative situation of the ferries.
- Advocat — the King’s Advocate, the Crown’s senior legal officer in Scotland.
- To be advised therewith — to examine, deliberate upon or consider the document before further action.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 147, Edinburgh, 1 December 1635. Complete printed act. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — The Burghs and the Proposed Light on the Isle of May
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 154–155 • 15 December 1635 • Royal letter dated 6 November 1635
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Charles I had previously directed the Privy Council to investigate whether navigational lights should be erected on the Isle of May. Commissioners had already examined witnesses, including seafaring men and others with an interest in the question.
The King now pressed for the matter to be settled. On 15 December 1635, the Council appointed a new committee to examine the depositions already taken and report its opinion.
At the same time, the Council protected the procedural interests of the royal burghs by assigning them 20 January 1636 to present their lawful reasons and objections against the investigation, the erection of the lights and the resulting report.
Formal notice of that deadline was given to John Sinclair and Mr Alexander Guthrie on behalf of the burghs. The notice carried an express warning: if they neglected the appointed date and failed to appear, the burghs would not later be heard to object to the inquiry.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Source Unit
“Forsamekle as the Kings Majestie, having formerlie recommendit to the Lords of Secreit Counsell the taking of tryell anent the expediencie of erecting of lights on the May, and some commissioners being nominat be his Majesteis Counsell to that effect and they having tane some panes therein and examined a nomber of persons thereanent, his Majestie hes beene of new pleased to recommend the sattling of this bussines to the saids Lords. For the better furthering whairof and satisfeing his Majesteis royall direction, the saids Lords hes nominat and be the tennor heirof nominate Johne, Earle of Wigton, William, Erie of Dumfreis, Johne, Earle of Tracquair, Johne, Bishop of Ros, Archibald, Lord of Lorne, Thomas Lord Binning, Williame, Lord Alexander, or anie three of thame (the Erie of Tracquair or Lord of Lorne being one) to whome the Lords gives power to conveene the committee and to consider the depositions takin in this mater and to report thair opinion thereanent to the saids Lords at thair best conveniencie.
Lykeas the saids Lords assignes to the burrowes the xx day of Januar nixtocome to propone thair lawfull reasons and defences aganis the said tryell and erecting of the saids lights and report, whairof intimation wes made to Johne Sinclar and Mr Alexander Guthre in name of the burrowes, with this certificatioun, that if they neglect that dyet and compeir not that they sail not be heard to object aganis the said tryell heerafter.
Followes his Majesteis missive for warrand of the act abonewrittin:—
Charles R.—Right reverend father in God, right trustie and weilbelovit cousins and counsellers, right trustie and trustie and beloved counsellers, we greit yow weill. Whereas we understand that upon our letter directed to yow in June last tuicheing the erecting of a light upon the yle of May yow did select some of your owne nomber for trying the conveniencie thairof, whereupon an examinatioun and authentick report hath beene since takin and made upon the depositions of seafaring men and others interessed who for the cheefest part (speciallie suche whome the use thairof doeth most concerne) have acknowledged the conveniencie and necessitie of that light, to the end that without further delay the bussines may be settled according as it hes beene found requisite for the safetie of the lyves of our subjects; whiche having beene seene and considderit be us we see no reason why the same sould not according to the intent of our former letters be putt to due execution. Whiche recommending to your speciall care we bid yow farewell. From our honnor of Hampton Court, 6th November, 1635.”
Modern English Rendering
The King had previously instructed the Privy Council to investigate whether it was advisable to erect navigational lights on the Isle of May. The Council had appointed commissioners for that purpose, and those commissioners had carried out part of the inquiry and examined a number of people.
The King had now again directed the Council to bring the matter to a settlement. To advance the business and comply with the royal instruction, the Council appointed John, Earl of Wigtown; William, Earl of Dumfries; John, Earl of Traquair; John, Bishop of Ross; Archibald, Lord Lorne; Thomas, Lord Binning; and William, Lord Alexander.
Any three of these men could act, provided either the Earl of Traquair or Lord Lorne was one of them. They were empowered to convene the committee, consider the depositions already taken and report their opinion to the Privy Council when convenient.
The Council also gave the royal burghs until 20 January 1636 to present any lawful arguments or defences they wished to make against the inquiry, the proposed erection of the lights and the report.
Notice of this deadline was formally given to John Sinclair and Mr Alexander Guthrie on behalf of the burghs. They were warned that, if the burghs neglected the appointed date and failed to appear, they would not afterwards be permitted to object to the inquiry.
The King’s accompanying letter explained that his earlier instructions of June had led the Council to appoint investigators. An examination and formal report had since been made from the depositions of seafaring men and other interested persons.
According to the King, most of those examined—especially those most directly concerned with the use of the proposed light—had acknowledged its convenience and necessity. Charles therefore considered that the measure should proceed without further delay for the safety of his subjects and directed the Council to give the matter special attention.
This entry places Alexander Guthrie directly within the formal consultation process surrounding one of the important maritime-safety proposals of the period. He and John Sinclair were the named recipients of the Council’s notice to the royal burghs.
The act is also significant because the burgh interest was not simply ignored while the Crown pressed for the light. The Council provided a specific date on which the burghs could present lawful objections and defences, and Guthrie was one of the men through whom that opportunity was formally communicated.
This becomes important for interpreting Guthrie’s later appearance in the same proceedings. The present act gives the burghs their opportunity to object; subsequent entries document the continuing process rather than a new and unrelated dispute.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Taking of tryell — conducting an official inquiry or investigation.
- Expediencie — suitability, usefulness or advisability.
- Depositions — sworn statements or testimony taken from witnesses.
- Burrowes — the royal burghs acting through their representatives.
- Propone — formally put forward or present.
- Reasons and defences — legal or factual objections presented against a proposed course of action.
- Intimation — formal notice.
- Dyet — an appointed date for a hearing, appearance or procedural step.
- Certification — formal warning of the legal consequence that would follow failure to comply.
- Missive — formal royal letter conveying the King’s instructions.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 154–155, Edinburgh, 15 December 1635; royal missive dated Hampton Court, 6 November 1635; Acta, June 1634–April 1636, fol. 120a. Complete printed Council act and accompanying royal missive. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — Edinburgh’s Proposed New Council-house
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 165 • 12 January 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 12 January 1636, George Suttie, bailie of Edinburgh, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk, appeared personally before the Privy Council.
They acted both for themselves and on behalf of the provost, bailies and council of Edinburgh. They informed the Lords that the town intended to build a Council-house for royal service and asked the Privy Council to appoint some of its members to inspect possible locations and determine the most convenient place for the building.
The Council responded by appointing the Earl of Traquair, the Bishop of Edinburgh, the Bishop of Ross, Sir John Hay, Clerk Register, and Sir Thomas Hope, King’s Advocate. Any three could act, provided the Earl of Traquair was one of them. They were to meet with Edinburgh’s representatives and advise upon the most suitable site.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Entry
“The whilk day in presence of the Lords of Secreit Counsell compeired personallie George Suttie, ane of the bailleis of Edinburgh, and Mr Alexander Guthre, toun clerk thairof, for thameselffes and in name and behalfe of the provest, bailleis and counsell of the said burgh, and declared that thair toun wes of intention to build ane Counselhous for his Majesteis service and desired the saids Lords to appoint some of thair nomber to visite and consider of the most convenient place where the same sail be built.
For quhilk purpose the Lords nominats and appoints Johne, Erie of Tracquaire, David, Bishop of Edinburgh, Johne, Bishop of Ros, Sir Johne Hay, Clerk of Register, and Sir Thomas Hope, his Majesteis Advocat, or anie three of thame, the Earle of Tracquair being one, to meit with the toun of Edinburgh and to consider and advise of the most fitting place for building of the said Counselhous.”
Modern English Rendering
On this day George Suttie, one of the bailies of Edinburgh, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, the town clerk, appeared personally before the Lords of the Privy Council.
They appeared for themselves and on behalf of Edinburgh’s provost, bailies and town council. They declared that the town intended to construct a Council-house for the King’s service and asked the Lords to appoint some members of the Privy Council to inspect and consider the most convenient location for the proposed building.
For that purpose, the Lords appointed John, Earl of Traquair; David, Bishop of Edinburgh; John, Bishop of Ross; Sir John Hay, Clerk Register; and Sir Thomas Hope, the King’s Advocate.
Any three of those commissioners could act, provided the Earl of Traquair was one of them. They were to meet with the town of Edinburgh and consider and advise upon the most suitable place for construction of the proposed Council-house.
This act explicitly documents Alexander Guthrie’s personal appearance as Edinburgh town clerk and spokesman for the municipal government. Together with Bailie George Suttie, he formally communicated the town council’s building proposal to the Privy Council.
The entry also shows Guthrie operating at the point where municipal administration and royal government intersected. Edinburgh did not simply announce the project internally: its representatives asked senior members of the Privy Council to participate in selecting an appropriate site for a building intended for royal service.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bailie — a senior municipal magistrate of a Scottish burgh.
- Toun clerk — town clerk, responsible for important civic records, legal documentation and administrative business.
- Provest — provost, the chief municipal magistrate of a royal burgh.
- Counsell of the burgh — the municipal town council.
- Counselhous — Council-house; here the building proposed by Edinburgh for governmental use.
- Visite — inspect or examine officially.
- Nominate and appoint — formally designate persons to perform the specified commission.
- Any three of thame — three of the five named commissioners constituted a sufficient acting group, provided the Earl of Traquair was one of them.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 165, Edinburgh, 12 January 1636; Acta, June 1634–April 1636, fols. 122a–122b. Complete printed act. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — Formal Notice in the Isle of May Light Proceedings
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 176 • 26 January 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council continued its consideration of the proposed lights on the Isle of May. Rather than deciding the matter at this sitting, the Lords postponed it until two o’clock on the following afternoon.
The act records that the Laird of Barns and Mr Alexander Guthrie, acting for the burghs, were formally notified of the continuation within the proceedings themselves.
This is a procedural continuation of the same Isle of May dispute documented on pages 154–155, where John Sinclair and Alexander Guthrie had been given formal notice of the burghs’ opportunity to present reasons and defences against the proposed light and the related report.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Entry
“The Lords continewes the mater anent the lights till the morne at twa of the clocke in the afternoone, quhereof the Laird of Barns and Mr Alexander Guthre for the burrowes ar warned apud acta.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords of the Privy Council postponed the matter concerning the lights until two o’clock on the following afternoon.
The Laird of Barns and Mr Alexander Guthrie, representing the burghs, were formally notified of that continuation in the course of the proceedings.
This brief act confirms that Alexander Guthrie remained directly involved in the Isle of May light proceedings into January 1636, specifically as representative of the burghs.
It also shows that the dispute had not ended with the December 1635 act. The Council was still hearing and continuing the matter, with both the Laird of Barns and Guthrie formally kept within the procedural process.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Continewes the mater — postpones or adjourns further consideration of the business.
- The morne — the following day.
- Burrowes — the royal burghs acting collectively through their representatives.
- Warned — formally notified of the next procedural step or hearing.
- Apud acta — “among the acts”; notice given and recorded formally within the proceedings themselves.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 176, Edinburgh, 26 January 1636. Complete printed act. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Commission to Try an Inverness Assault Complaint
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 187–188 • 9 February 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council heard a complaint arising from two alleged assaults at Inverness. The first concerned Alexander Paterson, a boy of twelve, who was said to have encountered Mr Alexander Clogie in the fields and to have criticised him for carrying unlawful weapons.
According to the complaint, Clogie then struck the boy on the face and head, causing substantial bleeding. A second confrontation allegedly occurred when Alexander’s mother, Janet Rose, later reproved Clogie for the violence done to her son.
Janet alleged that Clogie, his mother Margaret Rawson and Donald Scoller then assaulted her so severely that she was knocked to the ground and remained bedridden for eight days.
The defenders did not appear before the Council. Rather than determine the case immediately in Edinburgh, the Lords remitted the trial and censuring of the complaint to four senior northern commissioners. One of them was John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by Janet Rose, widow of Paterson, burgess of Inverness, and Mr Walter Ross, now her spouse, for his interest, and Alexander Paterson, son of the said Janet, as follows:—On ___ December last, Mr Alexander Clogie, son of Mr William Clogie, minister at Inverness, meeting the said Alexander Paterson, a young boy of twelve years, upon the fields, because the latter “modestlie fund fault with him for beiring of unlawfull wapons,” ran upon the young boy and struck him on the face and head with his “faldit neiffes” to the great effusion of his blood and peril of his life.
Further, when the said Janet “in faire termes” at her next meeting with the said Mr Alexander Clogie “reprovit him for the violence offerit to her sone,” he and Margaret Rawson, his mother, and Donald Scoler, alias Fraser, “invadit and persewed her of her lyffe, gave her a nomber of straiks on the backe and bellie with thair hands and feit; and the gentlewoman, preassing to have eshewed thair furie by flieing into the next yet, the said Mr Alexander shamefullie strake her to the ground, trode on her with his hands and feit and left her lying for dead, so as she lay bedfast for eicht dayes thairafter in great paine and dollour to the hazard of her lyffe.”
Charge having been given to the said Mr Alexander Clogie, Margaret Rawson and Donald Scoller, and the said Mr Walter Ross appearing for the pursuers, but the defenders not compearing, the Lords, having heard the complaint, remit the trial and censuring thereof to James, Earl of Murray, George, Earl of Seafort, John, Bishop of Murray, and John, Bishop of Ros, or any two of them, the Bishop of Murray being one, who are to report their proceedings before 30th April next.
Modern English Rendering
Janet Rose, widow of Paterson, burgess of Inverness, together with her present husband, Mr Walter Ross, and her son Alexander Paterson, complained to the Privy Council.
They alleged that during the preceding December Mr Alexander Clogie, son of Mr William Clogie, minister at Inverness, met twelve-year-old Alexander Paterson in the fields. The boy mildly criticised Clogie for carrying unlawful weapons. Clogie was then said to have attacked him and struck him on the face and head with his closed fists, causing heavy bleeding and placing his life in danger.
At Janet Rose’s next meeting with Clogie, she peacefully reproached him for the violence done to her son. According to the complaint, Clogie, his mother Margaret Rawson and Donald Scoller, alias Fraser, then attacked Janet herself.
They were alleged to have struck her repeatedly on the back and abdomen with their hands and feet. When she attempted to escape through a nearby gate, Clogie allegedly knocked her to the ground, trampled upon her and left her lying as though dead. She was said to have remained bedridden for eight days afterwards in severe pain and in danger of her life.
The defenders were formally charged but did not appear. Mr Walter Ross appeared on behalf of the pursuers.
After hearing the complaint, the Privy Council transferred the trial and determination of punishment to James, Earl of Moray; George, Earl of Seaforth; John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray; and John, Bishop of Ross. Any two of the four could act, but Bishop Guthrie had to be one of the two. They were ordered to report their proceedings before 30 April 1636.
This entry gives Bishop John Guthrie a mandatory role in the delegated adjudication. The Council did not simply include him among several interchangeable commissioners: although any two could act, one of those two had to be the Bishop of Moray.
The authority extended to both the trial and censuring of the complaint. That placed Guthrie within a delegated judicial process concerning alleged interpersonal violence in the Inverness area and required the commissioners to report their proceedings back to the Privy Council.
The act therefore adds another example of the Council relying upon Bishop Guthrie for substantial secular administration within northern Scotland, alongside his earlier peacekeeping and investigative commissions.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Beiring of unlawfull wapons — carrying weapons alleged to be unlawful.
- Faldit neiffes — closed or clenched fists.
- Effusion of blood — shedding of blood; conventional language indicating physical injury.
- Invadit and persewed her of her lyffe — attacked and pursued her in a manner alleged to threaten her life.
- Yet — gate.
- Bedfast — confined to bed through illness or injury.
- Remit — transfer a matter to other appointed persons for investigation or determination.
- Trial and censuring — examination of the case and determination of any appropriate censure or punishment.
- Any two of them, the Bishop of Murray being one — a two-person quorum in which Bishop John Guthrie was a mandatory participant.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 187–188, Edinburgh, 9 February 1636. Complete printed editorial abridgment of the complaint and Council disposition. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Ordered to Attend the Commission for Surrenders and Teinds
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 192 • 18 February 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council addressed continuing problems with attendance at the royal Commission for Surrenders and Teinds. A substantial group of commissioners had been appointed to attend during January, February and March 1636, among them John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
According to the act, the work of the commission had repeatedly been delayed because commissioners had not attended with sufficient regularity. Hearings at which parties and witnesses had been summoned were consequently being lost, causing expense and inconvenience to the lieges and hindering the commission’s work.
The Council therefore issued a direct order requiring all the named commissioners to come to Edinburgh promptly and attend the commission throughout the remainder of February and during March. Continued neglect could result in denunciation as rebels, horning and financial penalties.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Entry
“Forsamekle as the persons underwrittin, they ar to say, Patrik, Archbishop of Glasgow, George, Earle of Winton, Johne, Earle of Kingorne, David, Earle of Southesk, Thomas, Bishop of Galloway, Johne, Bishop of Murrey, Johne, Bishop of Ros, George, Lord Forrester, Sir Johne Charteris of Amisfield, Sir Robert Greir of Lag, Sir James Lokhart appearand of Lee, with the President of the Sessioun or Sir James Lokhart of Balcolmie, and the commissioners for the burgh of Edinburgh and citeis of St. Andrewes and Glasgow, with the officers of estait, being nominat and appointed to have attended the commission for the surrenders and teinds for the moneth of Januar last, Februar instant, and Marche nixtocome, for the better forderance and advancement of the said commissioun, whilk hes had so manie delayes and impediments by the negligent attendance of the commissioners, and it being hoped that thir commissioners sould have carefully and diligentlie attended the said service according to the trust reposed in thame, yitt it is of truthe that the service hes beene verie farre neglected and slighted be thame and manie peremptour dyets, quherunto parteis and witnesses were warned and wer attending, hes beene disappointed, to the great hurt of the lieges and hinder of the progresse of this commissioun, highlie to his Majesteis offence and contempt;
thairfoir the saids Lords ordains letters to be direct charging the persons particularlie abonewrittin to make thair addresse to the burgh of Edinburgh with all possible diligence and there to attend the said commission for the said moneth of Februar instant and Marche nixtocome, under the pane of rebellion, etc., with certification to thame that dissobeyes and slights and neglects this so important a service and throw whois default the progresse of the said commission sail happin to be disappointed that not onelie sail the blame of the hinder and neglect of that service be layed to thair charge, bot with that they sail be denunced rebells and putt to the horne, and suche pecuniall fynes imposed upon thame as the saids Lords sail thinke meit.”
Modern English Rendering
The persons named in the act—including John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray—had been appointed to attend the Commission for Surrenders and Teinds during the previous month of January, the current month of February and the following month of March.
Their attendance was intended to advance the commission’s work. Instead, the Council stated that the commission had experienced many delays and obstructions because of negligent attendance by its commissioners.
The Council said that the commissioners had been expected to attend carefully and diligently in accordance with the trust placed in them, but that the work had been seriously neglected. Several fixed hearing dates, for which parties and witnesses had been summoned and were actually attending, had consequently failed to proceed. This had injured the King’s subjects, obstructed the progress of the commission and offended royal authority.
The Privy Council therefore ordered letters to be issued requiring all the named commissioners to come to Edinburgh with all possible diligence and attend the commission throughout the remainder of February and during March.
Anyone who disobeyed, neglected the service or caused the commission’s progress to fail through his default was warned that responsibility would be laid upon him. He could be denounced as a rebel, put to the horn and subjected to whatever financial fine the Council considered appropriate.
This entry documents Bishop John Guthrie’s appointment to a significant central-government commission dealing with surrenders and teinds. His role therefore extended beyond the northern peacekeeping and judicial commissions seen elsewhere in this volume.
It is also unusually revealing about the practical operation of seventeenth-century commissions. The Council was prepared to compel even bishops, noblemen and senior officeholders to attend when failure to assemble sufficient commissioners disrupted hearings and inconvenienced parties and witnesses.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Surrenders — formal resignations or relinquishments of rights or lands, often connected with Crown or feudal arrangements.
- Teinds — Scottish tithes, historically a tenth portion associated with church revenues and increasingly subject to complex legal and proprietary arrangements after the Reformation.
- Peremptour dyets — fixed or definitive dates appointed for hearings or procedural appearances.
- Lieges — the King’s subjects.
- Make thair addresse — proceed or present themselves at the place specified.
- Pane of rebellion — warning that disobedience could lead to formal denunciation as a rebel.
- Put to the horne — formally denounced for failure to obey lawful authority.
- Pecuniall fynes — monetary penalties.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 192, Edinburgh, 18 February 1636; Acta, June 1634–April 1636, fols. 129b–130a. Complete printed act. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Related Inverness Complaint Remitted to the Northern Commission
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 199 • 23 February 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This entry continues the Inverness dispute recorded on pages 187–188. There, the Privy Council had remitted the complaint concerning the alleged assaults upon Janet Ross and her twelve-year-old son to northern commissioners including John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
The present supplication came from David Ross of Holme, Margaret Ross, and Margaret’s sons John and Donald Ross. They stated that in the previous December they had been summoned to visit their sister Janet Ross, who was bedridden and seriously ill following the alleged assault.
They said they had come peacefully to Janet’s house and remained only one night. Nevertheless, Mr Alexander Clogie and his father, Mr William Clogie, had caused proceedings to be raised against them for armed convocation, carrying hagbuts and pistols, and threatening behaviour at Inverness and the kirk of Petty.
Because the complaint over Janet’s injuries had already been delegated to the Earls of Moray and Seaforth and the Bishops of Moray and Ross, the supplicants asked that this connected complaint be sent to the same commissioners. The Privy Council agreed.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Supplication by David Ross of Holme, Margaret Ross, widow, and John and Donald Ross, her sons, as follows:—On ___ December last they were advertised to go and visit “Jonet Ros, thair sister, lying bedfast and heavilie deseased throw the shamefull and cruell straiks given to her upon the back and bellie be Mr Allexander Clogie, indweller at Innernes, Margaret Rausone, his mother, and Donald Fraser, his fathers servant”; and they came in peaceable manner to the house of Janet Ross, and “stayed with her in absence of her husband bot one night.”
Hereupon the said Mr Alexander Clogie and Mr William Clogie, his father, simply because they were in the town of Inverness together, has raised action against them at the instance of his Majesty’s Advocate, for convocation of the lieges, bearing hagbuts and pistols, and threatening them in the burgh of Inverness and kirk of Pettie, and this for the sole purpose of drawing them to expense.
Their Lordships have been pleased to remit the trial of the wrong done to Janet Ross to the Earls of Murray and Seafort and the Bishops of Murray and Ross, and the supplicants crave that this complaint against them be remitted to them also. This the Lords do, and direct the supplicants to make intimation hereof to Mr William and Alexander Clogie.
Modern English Rendering
David Ross of Holme, Margaret Ross, a widow, and her sons John and Donald Ross petitioned the Privy Council.
They said that during the previous December they had been told to go and visit their sister, Janet Ross, who was confined to bed and seriously ill because of the severe blows allegedly inflicted upon her back and abdomen by Mr Alexander Clogie of Inverness, his mother Margaret Rawson and Donald Fraser, servant to Clogie’s father.
The supplicants maintained that they went peacefully to Janet’s house and stayed only one night while her husband was absent.
They further stated that Mr Alexander Clogie and his father, Mr William Clogie, had nevertheless caused legal proceedings to be raised against them at the instance of the King’s Advocate. The accusation was that they had unlawfully assembled armed men, carried hagbuts and pistols, and threatened the Clogies at Inverness and at the kirk of Petty.
The supplicants characterised that prosecution as an attempt to put them to needless expense.
Since the Privy Council had already transferred the complaint concerning the wrong allegedly done to Janet Ross to the Earls of Moray and Seaforth and the Bishops of Moray and Ross, they asked that this connected action against themselves be transferred to those same commissioners.
The Council granted the request and ordered the supplicants to give notice of the decision to Mr William and Mr Alexander Clogie.
This entry shows that the northern commission in which Bishop John Guthrie held a required role was given responsibility not only for the original assault complaint but also for a closely connected counter-proceeding arising from the same dispute.
The Council’s decision kept the related allegations together under one regional body rather than allowing parallel proceedings to develop independently in Edinburgh.
For Bishop Guthrie’s administrative record, the act therefore expands the scope of the February 1636 remit: the commissioners were expected to deal with the wider conflict surrounding the alleged violence at Inverness, not merely the first complaint in isolation.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Supplication — formal petition requesting action or relief from the Privy Council.
- Advertised — informed or notified.
- Bedfast — confined to bed through illness or injury.
- Convocation of the lieges — unlawful gathering or assembling of the King’s subjects, particularly in an armed or disorderly manner.
- Hagbut — an early firearm or arquebus.
- At the instance of his Majesty’s Advocate — prosecution or legal proceedings brought in the name of the Crown through the King’s Advocate.
- Remit — transfer a matter to specified judges or commissioners for hearing and determination.
- Intimation — formal notification of a legal act or decision.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 199, Edinburgh, 23 February 1636. Complete printed editorial abridgment of the supplication and Council decision; compare pp. 187–188 for the named commission. Digitized volume .
William Guthrie — Brother of Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum and Witness to a Bond of Caution
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 220 • 31 March 1636 • Bond dated 16 September 1635
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 31 March 1636, Mr John Paip, younger, advocate, registered a bond of caution involving David Lindsay of Edzell.
David had been charged to appear before the Privy Council on 22 September 1635. The bond secured his observance of the Acts of Parliament concerning landlords and responsibility for their dependants.
David’s cautioners were his son Alexander Lindsay, fiar of Edzell, Sir John Blair of Balgillo and John Symmer of Brathinsche. David and his son also undertook to relieve the other cautioners from liability.
The bond itself had been written by Thomas Ramsay, notary and servant to David Lindsay, and dated 16 September 1635. Among its witnesses was William Guthrie, brother of Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abstract
Registration by Mr John Paip, younger, advocate, of a bond of caution by David Lindsay of Edyell as principal (who has been charged to compear before the Lords of Council on the 22nd of this instant September for the purpose), and Alexander Lindsey, fiar of Edyell, his son, Sir John Blair of Balgillo, knight, and John Symmer of Brathinsche, as cautioners for him, that he will observe the Acts of Parliament anent landlords [ante, p. 26].
The said David Lindsey and his son promise to relieve the other cautioners; and there is a clause of registration in the books of Privy Council.
The bond, which was written by Thomas Ramsay, notary, servitor to the said David Lindsey, is dated at Edyell, Brathinsche and the 16th and of September 1635; witnesses, William Guthrie, brother of Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum, William Kynneir, servitor to Alexander Lindsey, fiar of Edyell, Walter Lindsey, servitor to David Lindsey of Edyell, and the said Thomas Ramsay.
Modern English Rendering
Mr John Paip, younger, advocate, registered a bond of caution given by David Lindsay of Edzell as principal. David had been required to appear before the Privy Council on 22 September.
His cautioners were his son Alexander Lindsay, fiar of Edzell; Sir John Blair of Balgillo; and John Symmer of Brathinsche. They guaranteed that David would obey the Acts of Parliament governing landlords and their responsibility for their dependants.
David Lindsay and his son Alexander also promised to reimburse or relieve the other cautioners from any liability arising from the bond. The document contained a clause allowing it to be formally registered in the Privy Council books.
The bond had been written by Thomas Ramsay, notary and servant to David Lindsay, and was dated at Edzell and Brathinsche on 16 September 1635.
One of the witnesses was William Guthrie, explicitly identified as the brother of Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum. The other witnesses were William Kynneir, servant to Alexander Lindsay, fiar of Edzell; Walter Lindsay, servant to David Lindsay of Edzell; and Thomas Ramsay.
The genealogical value of this record lies in its direct statement of sibling relationship: William Guthrie is not merely associated with Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum; he is expressly described as Alexander’s brother.
The record therefore supplies firm contemporary evidence linking the two men, while also placing William within the local documentary network surrounding Edzell and Brathinsche in September 1635.
The entry also confirms Alexander’s territorial designation as “of Kincaldrum” without requiring any inference from later genealogical sources.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bond of caution — a formal security arrangement by which cautioners guaranteed another person’s compliance with an obligation.
- Principal — the person whose conduct or obligation was secured by the bond.
- Cautioner — a surety who became liable if the principal failed to fulfil the obligation.
- Fiar — the person holding the fee or heritable right to an estate, often used of an heir who already possessed the legal fee while another retained a life interest.
- Relieve the cautioners — reimburse or protect the sureties against liability incurred under the bond.
- Servitor — servant, assistant or person in the service of another.
- Clause of registration — provision authorising formal registration of the bond in an official court or Council register so that it could be enforced.
- Anent landlords — concerning statutory obligations imposed upon landlords for those under their authority or dependence.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 220, Edinburgh, 31 March 1636; bond dated 16 September 1635; Acta penes Macarium, etc., 1587–1636, fol. 53a. Complete printed editorial abstract of the registered bond. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie of Collestoun — Debt Action Against Laurence Mercer of Aldie
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 268 • 16 June 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
John Guthrie of Collestoun pursued Laurence Mercer of Aldie for a substantial unpaid debt. Mercer had already been formally put to the horn on 24 May 1636 at Guthrie’s instance for failure to pay 2,000 merks principal, interest and £200 in expenses.
By 16 June Mercer remained unrelaxed from the horning. Guthrie did not appear personally at this stage; he was represented before the Privy Council by James Ramsay, writer, his procurator. Mercer failed to appear.
The Council escalated enforcement by ordering Mercer to surrender his house of Aldie and enter ward in Blackness Castle within six days. Failure to obey carried the stated penalty of treason.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by John Guthrie of Collestoun, as follows:—On 24th May last Laurence Mercer of Aldie was put to the horn at the complainer’s instance for non-payment of 2000 merks of principal, interest due thereupon, and £200 of expenses; and at the horn he proudly remains as if he were a free and obedient subject.
The pursuer appearing by James Ramsay, writer, his procurator, but not the defender, the Lords ordain the latter to be charged to render his house of Aldie and to enter himself in ward within the castle of Blacknes within six days on pain of treason.
Modern English Rendering
John Guthrie of Collestoun complained that on 24 May 1636 Laurence Mercer of Aldie had been formally denounced and put to the horn at Guthrie’s instance because he had failed to pay a debt of 2,000 merks, together with the interest due and £200 in legal expenses.
Mercer remained under the horning and had not obtained formal release from it.
Guthrie appeared through his legal representative, James Ramsay, writer. Mercer did not appear.
The Privy Council therefore ordered that Mercer be charged to surrender his house of Aldie and enter custody in Blackness Castle within six days. Failure to obey the order would expose him to proceedings for treason.
This entry directly identifies John Guthrie of Collestoun in 1636 and documents him as the pursuer in a significant debt-enforcement action.
The sum involved—2,000 merks plus interest and £200 in expenses—was substantial enough that the legal process had progressed from ordinary debt enforcement to horning and then to an order requiring surrender of Mercer’s house and imprisonment in Blackness Castle.
For the Collestoun line, the territorial designation is explicit and contemporary. This John Guthrie should remain distinct from the later source references to the unnamed “Guthrie, younger of Collestoun” unless another record establishes their relationship or identities more fully.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Put to the horn — formally denounced as a rebel after failure to obey a lawful charge.
- Unrelaxed / remains at the horn — still subject to the denunciation and not formally restored or released from it.
- At the complainer’s instance — proceedings initiated at the request of the pursuer, here John Guthrie.
- Procurator — legal representative appearing on behalf of a party.
- Writer — a professional legal or documentary writer; here James Ramsay acted as Guthrie’s procurator.
- Render his house — surrender the house in obedience to legal process.
- Ward — legal custody or imprisonment.
- Blackness Castle — royal fortress frequently used for confinement.
- On pain of treason — warning that failure to obey the order could trigger the more severe legal process associated with treasonous disobedience.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 268, Edinburgh, 16 June 1636. Complete printed editorial abridgment. Digitized volume .
Unnamed Guthrie — Appears for Her Daughter Bessie Stirling in a Marriage-Contract Action
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 275 • 30 June 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Bessie Stirling, wife of William Keith of Logyruith, and her husband were pursuing enforcement of obligations connected with their marriage contract.
Alexander Keith of Balmure had been put to the horn on 4 May 1635 for failure to fulfil the conditions of that contract. On the same day Sir William Keith of Ludquharne had also been put to the horn for failing to infeft the pursuers in a one-third share of the lands of Logyruith and its moss.
When the matter came before the Privy Council again in June 1636, Bessie did not appear personally. Instead, the printed record states that she appeared “by Guthrie, her mother”.
Both defenders appeared. Sir William Keith produced a royal protection under the Great Seal shielding his person from personal execution for the duration of the protection. The Council accepted his argument that, because surrender of his house was intended merely to facilitate apprehension of his person, he could not be compelled to surrender it while that personal protection remained in force.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by Bessie Stirline, spouse of William Keith of Logyruith, and the said William for his interest, as follows:— On 4th May 1635, Alexander Keith of Balmure was put to the horn at the complainer’s instance for not fulfilling the conditions of a contract of marriage; and on the same day Sir William Keith of Ludquharne was also put to the horn for not infefting the complainers in the third part of the lands of Logyruiff and moss thereof. They still remain at the horn contemptuously.
Charge having been given to the said Alexander Keith and Sir William Keith, and the cause having been called at several diets and now again this day, there compeared Bessie Stirline by Guthrie, her mother, as pursuer, and also the defenders.
For the latter was produced a protection granted under the great seal by his Majesty to the said Sir William, whereby his person was protected during the period thereof from all personal execution, and plea was entered by him accordingly that he could not be imprisoned.
The Lords, after hearing parties, find that the said Laird of Ludquharne is protected personally by his Majesty’s patent under the great seal, “and, since the delyverie of the hous is onelie to make a more easie way to the apprehension of his person, that therfore he can not be urged to delyver his hous to his Majesties officers.” They therefore assoilzie him.
Modern English Rendering
Bessie Stirling, wife of William Keith of Logyruith, together with her husband for his legal interest, complained concerning obligations arising from their marriage contract.
On 4 May 1635 Alexander Keith of Balmure had been formally put to the horn for failing to fulfil the terms of that marriage contract. On the same day Sir William Keith of Ludquharne had likewise been put to the horn for failing to give Bessie and her husband legal infeftment in one-third of the lands of Logyruith and its moss.
Both men remained under the horning. After they had been charged and the case had been called on several appointed dates, it came before the Council again.
On this occasion Bessie Stirling appeared through her mother, whose surname is recorded only as Guthrie. The defenders also appeared.
Sir William Keith produced a royal protection issued under the Great Seal. It protected his person from personal legal enforcement during its term. He therefore argued that he could not be imprisoned.
The Council accepted that Sir William’s person was protected. Because surrender of his house was sought only as a means of making his apprehension easier, the Lords held that he could not be compelled to surrender the house to the King’s officers while the protection prevented execution against his person.
The Lords therefore absolved Sir William Keith of Ludquharne on that point.
For Guthrie genealogy, the significant evidence is the direct statement that Bessie Stirling’s mother was a woman named Guthrie. The source does not merely place the two women together: it expressly defines their relationship as mother and daughter.
The record also shows the mother acting in a practical legal capacity by appearing before the Privy Council on her daughter’s behalf during litigation involving Bessie’s marriage contract and property rights.
At the same time, the omission of the mother’s forename is important. The evidence supplies her surname and maternal relationship, but not enough information in this entry alone to identify her securely with any particular Guthrie family.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Contract of marriage — formal agreement governing financial, property and succession arrangements associated with a marriage.
- Infeft / infefting — formally vesting a person in heritable possession of land through the appropriate feudal legal process.
- Third part — one-third share; here the portion of the lands and moss in which the pursuers claimed infeftment.
- Put to the horn — formally denounced as a rebel for failure to obey legal process.
- Diet — an appointed date for a hearing or other procedural appearance.
- Protection — royal legal protection temporarily shielding a person from specified forms of enforcement.
- Personal execution — enforcement directed against the person, including apprehension or imprisonment.
- Assoilzie — absolve or dismiss the proceeding against a defender on the point determined.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 275, Edinburgh, 30 June 1636. Complete printed editorial abridgment of the proceeding. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Commission to Examine Gilleroy
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 276 • 30 June 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council had already been pursuing Gilleroy and his associates in connection with serious disorder. Earlier proceedings in the volume record his capture, actions against people accused of harbouring him and the postponement of his own criminal trial while other matters were investigated.
On 30 June 1636, the Council appointed a small commission to examine Gilleroy directly. The commissioners were John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, the Clerk Register, the King’s Advocate, the Justice Depute and Sir Robert Gordon.
Any two of them could act. They were to convene Gilleroy before them the following day and question him specifically about those who had harboured, supported or instigated him.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Entry
“A commissioun to the Bishop of Murrey, the Clerk Register, Advocat, Justice Deput, Sir Robert Gordoun, or anie twa of thame, to conveene Gilroy before thame the morne and to examine him anent his ressetters and hounders out.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council granted a commission to John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, the Clerk Register, the King’s Advocate, the Justice Depute and Sir Robert Gordon.
Any two of these commissioners were authorised to bring Gilleroy before them on the following day and examine him concerning the people who had harboured or supported him and those who had instigated or encouraged his actions.
This entry places Bishop John Guthrie directly within the investigative process surrounding Gilleroy and the wider network of people believed to have supported armed disorder in the Highlands and North.
The commission was not merely administrative. Its purpose was the direct examination of a detained man in order to identify or obtain evidence concerning his alleged supporters and instigators.
It therefore adds to the pattern already visible in Volume VI of the Privy Council using Bishop Guthrie for secular investigative, peacekeeping and judicial work in addition to his ecclesiastical office.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Commission — formal authority granted by the Privy Council to named persons to carry out a specified task.
- Conveene — bring or summon a person before the commissioners.
- The morne — the following day.
- Examine — formally question a person for information or evidence.
- Resetters — people accused of harbouring, receiving, sheltering or assisting rebels, fugitives or other proscribed persons.
- Hounders out — persons alleged to have instigated, encouraged or sent others to commit unlawful acts.
- Any twa of thame — any two of the five named commissioners constituted a sufficient acting group.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 276, Edinburgh, 30 June 1636. Complete printed act. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Commission Concerning the University of Old Aberdeen
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 311–312 • 6 September 1636 • Royal commission dated 30 September 1634
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Charles I had been informed that ancient privileges, jurisdictional rights, immunities and exemptions belonging to the University of Old Aberdeen had been infringed, to the detriment of the University and its members.
The King had therefore issued a commission under his royal hand and signet to the Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow and the Bishops of Aberdeen, Moray and Ross. Any two were authorised to examine the University’s ancient documents and records, seek legal advice from the King’s Advocate and determine what privileges ought to be restored or newly confirmed.
The commissioners were also expected, with the advice and concurrence of the Bishop of Aberdeen as Chancellor of the University, to visit the institution itself, repress abuses and establish lawful good order.
By September 1636, however, the commission—originally dated 30 September 1634—had still not been carried out. The Privy Council therefore ordered the commissioners to accept the charge and proceed with it, including a written report of their actions.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Source Unit
“Forsamekle as the King’s Majestie, being crediblie informed that diverse orders, priviledges of jurisdiction, immuniteis and exemptions wer institute and grantit to the Universitie of Old Aberdein by his Majesteis royall progenitor, King James the Fourth, founder thairof, and since ratified and enlarged by diverse others his Majesteis royall progenitors, quhilks ar now infringed, to the great hurt of that Universitie and members thairof in the exercise of thair studeis and severall faculteis, to the great discouragement of ane universitie, and his Majestie being carefull that these priviledges and others foresaids be re-established according to the laudable intention of the founder and that suche forder orders, priviledges and immuniteis may be added of new thereunto as ar injoyed by other famous universiteis quherunto thair ancient records have relation and as may best conduce to the good of that universitie and stand with the estait of this kingdome,
his Majestie to this end was graciouslie pleased by his commission under his royall hand and signet to give order and direction to the reverend fathers in God and his Majesteis trustie and weilbelovit counselors, the Archbishops of St. Andrewes and Glasgow and the Bishops of Aberdene, Murrey and Ros, or anie twa of thame, and to authorize thame to peruse the ancient writts and records of the said Universitie and to call before thame his Majesteis Advocat that, having by his advice in point of law dewlie considderit thairof and of what other testimonie can be found to give forder light tuicheing the saids orders and priviledges, that with all convenient diligence they sould certifie his Majestie what they sould find therein with thair opinion under thair hands what is fitt to be done by his Majestie tuicheing the same, that ane chartour and new gift may be thereupon exped unto thame under his Majesteis great seale;
and in the meanetime that by the advice and concurrence of the said reverend father in God the Bishop of Aberdein, chanceller of the said universitie, they sould visite the same and represse suche abuses and sattle suche good order therein as they can lawfullie and warrantablie doe, as his Majesteis commission foresaid of the dait the last day of September, 1634, at lenth beirs.
The execution of the whilk commission hes ever beene delayed sensyne and as yitt lyes over so that the disorders and abuses of the said colledge yitt continewes, to the great hurt thairof and fostering of the abuses and disorders, if ane be, within the same.
And thairfoir the Lords of Secreit Counsell ordains and commands the commissioners particulate abonewrittin to accept the said commission in and upon thame and to proceid to the execution thairof in the haill points, clauses, articles and conditions of the same, and in speciall that they forgett not to visite the said Universitie and to represse suche abuses and sattle suche good orders therein as lawfullie and warrantablie may be done, and that they make ane report in writt to the saids Lords under thair hands of thair proceedings in this commission with all convenient diligence to the intent this good and worthie worke importing so neere the weale of the said colledge susteane no longer delay, as they will ansuer upon the dewtifull discharge of the trust committed unto thame in this so important and necessar a bussines.”
Modern English Rendering
The King had been reliably informed that various rules, jurisdictional privileges, immunities and exemptions had originally been granted to the University of Old Aberdeen by James IV, its founder, and later confirmed and enlarged by subsequent monarchs.
Those privileges were said to have been infringed, to the harm of the University and its members in their studies and several faculties. Charles I therefore wished the ancient privileges to be restored according to the founder’s intention, and also considered whether further privileges and immunities enjoyed by other notable universities should be granted where appropriate to Aberdeen.
For that purpose, the King had issued a commission under his hand and signet to the Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow and the Bishops of Aberdeen, Moray and Ross. Any two of them could act.
They were authorised to examine the University’s ancient writs and records and to call the King’s Advocate before them for legal advice. After considering the documents and any other evidence that could clarify the University’s rights, they were to certify to the King what they found and submit their signed opinion about what he should do.
Their findings could then support the issuing of a charter and new grant under the Great Seal.
In the meantime, with the advice and participation of the Bishop of Aberdeen, Chancellor of the University, the commissioners were to visit the institution, suppress abuses and establish whatever lawful good order they could.
The royal commission had been dated 30 September 1634, but its execution had been delayed ever since. The Privy Council stated that the alleged disorders and abuses therefore continued to the College’s harm.
The Lords consequently ordered the commissioners to accept the commission and carry out all of its provisions. They were specifically reminded to visit the University, deal with abuses, establish lawful order and submit a written and signed report of their proceedings without further unnecessary delay.
This act places Bishop John Guthrie within a high-level royal commission concerned with university governance, legal privileges and institutional reform.
The work was substantial. The commissioners were authorised to examine ancient records, evaluate legal rights, seek advice from the King’s Advocate, recommend new royal grants, conduct a visitation of the University and address alleged abuses.
The record therefore broadens the documented range of Guthrie’s secular administrative responsibilities well beyond criminal investigation and regional peacekeeping.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Priviledges of jurisdiction — rights allowing an institution to exercise specified forms of legal or disciplinary authority.
- Immuniteis and exemptions — protections or exceptions from ordinary obligations or jurisdictions.
- Ancient writts and records — charters, grants and other documentary evidence establishing institutional rights.
- Advocat — the King’s Advocate, consulted here for legal advice.
- Chartour and new gift — a new royal charter or grant confirming or enlarging institutional rights.
- Great seale — the Great Seal used to authenticate important royal grants and charters.
- Visite — conduct an official visitation or inspection of an institution.
- Sattle suche good orders — establish lawful regulations or administrative arrangements.
- Report under thair hands — written report authenticated by the commissioners’ signatures.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 311–312, Edinburgh, 6 September 1636; royal commission dated 30 September 1634; Acta, May 1636–November 1639, fols. 167b–168a. Complete printed Council act. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Commission to Examine Prisoners in the False-Dollar Case
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 347 • 8 December 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 8 December 1636, the Privy Council appointed a six-member commission to examine prisoners accused in connection with counterfeit or false dollars.
The commission included John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, together with Lord Lorne and senior financial, legal and judicial officers. Any three of the commissioners were sufficient to act.
Their authority was unusually severe. They could question the prisoners and, if they considered it necessary for discovering accomplices, subject them to torture. They were also instructed to examine McInstalker and report their findings to the Council on the following Tuesday.
This proceeding also connects with the earlier false-coin business in Volume VI. Bishop Guthrie had already been named on 1 April 1635 in a commission directed against counterfeit dollars; the present act shows him again involved in the government’s investigation of false currency.
Original Scots / Printed Volume Text — Complete Entry
“The Lords of Secreit Counsell nominats and appoints Archibald, Lord Lorne, Johne, Bishop of Murrey, Sir James Carmichell, deputie Tresaurer, Sir Thomas Hope, his Majesteis Advocat, Johne Hamilton of Orbeston, Justice Clerk, and the Justice deputs, or anie three of thame, to examine the prisouners challenged for false dollers, and, as they sail find caus for discovering of thair complices, to putt thame to the torture; as likewise to examine McInstalker and to report upon Tuisday.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords of the Privy Council appointed Archibald, Lord Lorne; John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray; Sir James Carmichael, Deputy Treasurer; Sir Thomas Hope, the King’s Advocate; John Hamilton of Orbiston, Justice Clerk; and the Justice Deputes.
Any three of these commissioners were authorised to examine the prisoners accused in connection with counterfeit dollars.
If, in the commissioners’ judgment, there was sufficient reason to do so in order to discover the prisoners’ accomplices, they were authorised to subject the prisoners to torture.
They were also to examine McInstalker and report back to the Privy Council on Tuesday.
This act gives Bishop John Guthrie a documented place in a high-level criminal investigation concerning counterfeit currency. He served alongside senior officers of finance, prosecution and criminal justice rather than solely with other churchmen.
It also shows that Guthrie’s involvement in false-coin cases was not limited to the 1635 commission recorded near the beginning of the volume. By December 1636 he was again selected for investigative work connected with counterfeit dollars.
The act is especially important for defining the extent of the commission’s legal authority: examination could escalate to torture where the acting commissioners believed this necessary to discover accomplices.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- False dollers — counterfeit dollars or dollar-denominated coins alleged to be false.
- Challenged — accused, called to answer or proceeded against for an alleged offence.
- Complices — accomplices or persons alleged to have participated in the same unlawful activity.
- Justice Clerk — senior officer in Scottish criminal justice administration.
- Justice Deputes — deputies acting within the criminal jurisdiction of the Justice.
- Advocat — the King’s Advocate, the Crown’s principal prosecuting and legal officer.
- Put to the torture — subject a prisoner to judicially authorised physical coercion during examination; the act grants conditional authority rather than recording its completed use.
- Any three of thame — any three of the named commissioners constituted a sufficient acting quorum.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 347, Edinburgh, 8 December 1636; Acta, May 1636–November 1639, fol. 178b. Complete printed act. Digitized volume .
James Guthrie, Writer — Witness to William Halliday’s Subscription of a Separation Contract
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 371–372 • 26 January 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Sir Robert Bruce of Clackmannan appeared before the Privy Council with his second lawful daughter, Annabell Bruce, wife of William Halliday of Tullibole. Halliday appeared on the other side.
The parties declared that earlier complaints against Halliday had been withdrawn and that they had entered into a formal contract, which they now wished to have registered under the authority of the Privy Council.
The contract recorded that William and Annabell, acting with the advice of friends, had agreed no longer to cohabit. Annabell was to receive 900 merks yearly for her support from specified rents belonging to Halliday.
The agreement also protected her existing marriage-contract rights in the event of Halliday’s death or a divorce attributable to him, secured her personal belongings and jewels, and required Halliday to pay certain debts she had incurred before the previous Martinmas.
James Guthrie, writer, enters the record only in the closing attestation: he and Robert Drummond of Medop witnessed William Halliday’s subscription of the contract.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abstract
In presence of the Lords compeared Sir Robert Bruce of Clackmannan with Annable Bruce, his second lawful daughter, spouse to William Halliday of Tulliboll, on the one part, and the said William Halliday, on the other, and they both declared that they had taken up the letters and complaint raised by them against the said William, and that a contract had been entered into between them, to which they craved that their Lordships would interpone their authority and permit the same to be registered in their Books.
The Lords, having seen the contract, grant what is craved, and the contract is registered and is to the following effect:—At Edinburgh, 26th January, 1637, it is agreed between Sir Robert Bruce of Clackmannan and Annabell Bruce, his second lawful daughter, spouse of William Halliday of Tullivol, on the one part, and the said William Halliday, on the other, narrating that the said William and Annabell, by the advice of certain of their good friends, had resolved not to cohabit longer, but to remain separate.
It is arranged that the said Annabell shall receive 900 merks of yearly rent for her support, viz., the rents of the following lands belonging to the said William and possessed by his tenants and vassals, who are to pay the same to her: John Baverage, feuar of the half of Brachter, 100 merks; Robert Angus for the lands of Eistsyde, 100 merks; James Anderson for the lands of Golan, 100 merks; John Anderson for his lands of Nether Carupo, 100 merks; Matthew Baverage there, 100 merks; James Wilsone there, 50 merks; Andrew Greive and David Kirk there, equally between them 50 merks; Patrick Hutson in Kilduff, 20 merks; David Dempster, 20 merks; Andrew Blackwood there, 40 merks; Adam Wilson, elder and younger, there, 40 merks equally between them; Robert Huton there, 20 merks; Yong, widow, there, 20 merks; James Hugan, Patrick Duncan, and Thomas Baverage, each of them 10 merks for the lands of Whorlawhill; Janet Hutsone and William Browne there, 10 merks equally between them; and Henry Yong for Bankhead, 100 merks.
These sums represent the rents of the said lands, and for payment thereof William Halliday assigns and dispones the said lands to Annabell Bruce, under reservation of the kains, customs and other duties, other than the feu rents, during the said separation.
Further, he obliges himself, personally or by his bailie, to hold courts if necessary on eight days’ warning from Annabell to compel payment thereof. Both parties renounce all action of adherence against each other until they give their own mutual consents.
In case of the death of William Halliday, or of divorce through his default, it is provided that her acceptance of the above assignation shall not hinder her enjoyment of the jointure lands and others provided to her by their contract of marriage, and that she shall have right to her whole abulizaments, jewels, ornaments of her body and her coffers.
Further, William obliges himself to pay all debts contracted by her prior to Martinmas last, particularly those due to Patrick Kingorne, burgess of Dunfermline, and Margaret Foster, his spouse, and to Chalmer, “chopman in Allouay,” provided the whole of such debts do not exceed £100 Scots.
It is also agreed that, if a divorce be obtained between them in the default of Annabell, this contract shall become null and void.
The contract, which was written by John Sempell, W.S., is attested by Mr Alexander Colvill, Justice Depute, Michel Elphinstone of _____, and Mr John Callendar, servitor to James Primerose, Clerk to the Privy Council, so far as the signature of Sir Robert Bruce and his daughter are concerned, while Robert Drummond of Medop and James Guthrie, writer, are witnesses to Tulliboir’s subscription.
Modern English Rendering
Sir Robert Bruce of Clackmannan and his second lawful daughter, Annabell Bruce, appeared before the Privy Council on one side, and Annabell’s husband, William Halliday of Tullibole, appeared on the other.
They declared that the earlier legal complaints against Halliday had been withdrawn and that the parties had reached a contractual settlement. They asked the Privy Council to give authority to that agreement and register it in the Council books. The Lords agreed.
The contract, dated at Edinburgh on 26 January 1637, stated that William and Annabell, after consulting friends, had decided to live separately rather than continue to cohabit.
William was to provide Annabell with 900 merks annually for her maintenance. The money was assigned from rents payable by specified tenants and vassals on his lands. During the separation, Annabell was given the right to collect those rents, while other customary and feudal duties remained reserved.
Halliday also agreed that he or his bailie would hold courts when necessary to compel tenants to make the assigned payments. Both spouses renounced proceedings to force the other to resume marital cohabitation unless they mutually agreed to do so.
If William died, or if the marriage ended in divorce through his fault, Annabell’s acceptance of the 900-merk arrangement would not prejudice the jointure lands or other rights already secured to her under the marriage contract. She would also retain her clothing, jewels, personal ornaments and coffers.
William further undertook to pay Annabell’s debts incurred before the preceding Martinmas, up to a total of £100 Scots, including specified debts owed at Dunfermline and Alloa.
Conversely, if a divorce were obtained through Annabell’s own fault, the separation contract would become void.
John Sempell, Writer to the Signet, prepared the contract. Different witnesses attested the subscriptions of the parties. James Guthrie, writer, and Robert Drummond of Medop specifically witnessed William Halliday of Tullibole’s subscription.
The Guthrie evidence is limited but precise: James Guthrie is identified by name and occupation as a writer and is expressly recorded as a witness to William Halliday’s subscription.
His appearance in the attestation clause places him within the professional documentary environment surrounding legal contracts registered before the Privy Council in Edinburgh.
Because the document distinguishes the witnesses associated with the different subscriptions, it also tells us exactly which act James witnessed: Halliday’s signing, rather than the signatures of Sir Robert Bruce or Annabell Bruce.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Subscription — formal signing or authentication of a legal document.
- Interpone thair authority — formally apply the Council’s authority to the agreement so that it could be registered and enforced.
- Contract of separation — private agreement regulating spouses’ financial and property affairs while they lived apart.
- Action of adherence — legal proceeding seeking to compel a spouse to resume cohabitation.
- Jointure — property or income settled for the support of a wife, particularly in widowhood.
- Abulizaments — clothing, apparel or personal effects.
- Kains and customs — customary dues and payments associated with landholding.
- Writer — a professional engaged in preparing or handling legal and administrative documents.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 371–372, Edinburgh, 26 January 1637. Detailed printed editorial abstract of the registered contract. Digitized volume .
Hercules and James Guthrie, Surgeons of Aberdeen — Medical Testimonial for Alexander Leslie
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 373–374 • 2 February 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Alexander Leslie petitioned the Privy Council after suffering a severe head wound in Aberdeen. He stated that a meeting had been arranged between Mr James Clerk of Tullichortis and Leslie’s father to settle disagreements between them.
According to Leslie’s complaint, Clerk came up behind him and struck him with a drawn sword, cutting away a substantial portion of his skull and causing him to fall to the ground as though dead.
Leslie said that he had been under the care of the surgeons of Aberdeen for the preceding fourteen days and that there was still little hope for his survival. He supported that assertion with a medical testimonial signed by Thomas Cargill, Hercules Guthrie and James Guthrie, all identified as surgeons and burgesses of Aberdeen.
Leslie had learned that Clerk had obtained, or was seeking to use, a warrant that could result in his release from the Aberdeen tolbooth or his transfer for appearance before the Privy Council. Leslie therefore asked that Clerk remain securely imprisoned in Aberdeen until Leslie’s medical condition improved.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Supplication by Alexander Leslie, lawful son of Mr George Leslie in _____, as follows:—“There being a tryst drawne on betuix Mr James Clerk of Tullichortis and the supplicants father for setling some questions betuix thame in the burgh of Aberdene, the said Mr James come behind the supplicants backe and with ane drawne suord strake aff ane great part of his harnepan more as the bred of ane doller, quhilk made him fall deid to the ground.”
He has been under the care of the whole surgeons of Aberdene for the past fourteen days, and yet there is no hope of his life, as a certificate from them bears.
Notwithstanding hereof the supplicant is informed that the said Mr James has procured a warrant from their Lordships for his liberation from the tolbooth of Aberdene, or that the bailies shall exhibit him before their Lordships, which is only for the same purpose, and he therefore craves that their Lordships will ordain the provost and bailies of Aberdene to keep the said Mr James “in sure firmance within thair tolbuith” until the supplicant be convalescent.
The Lords, having seen the testimonial signed by Thomas Cargil, Hercules and James Guthrie, surgeons, burgesses of Aberdene, certifying that the supplicant is more likely to die than recover from the stroke foresaid given him, grant the supplicant’s desire.
Modern English Rendering
Alexander Leslie, lawful son of Mr George Leslie, petitioned the Privy Council concerning a serious assault which he said had occurred in Aberdeen.
A meeting had been arranged between Mr James Clerk of Tullichortis and Leslie’s father in order to settle disputes between them. Leslie alleged that Clerk came up behind him and struck him with a drawn sword, cutting away a large portion of his skull—described as larger than the breadth of a dollar—and causing him to fall to the ground as though dead.
Leslie stated that he had been under the care of Aberdeen’s surgeons for fourteen days and that there was still little hope that he would survive.
A medical certificate signed by Thomas Cargill, Hercules Guthrie and James Guthrie, surgeons and burgesses of Aberdeen, supported that assessment. The surgeons certified that Leslie was more likely to die than to recover from the wound.
Leslie further reported that Mr James Clerk had obtained a warrant which might permit his release from the Aberdeen tolbooth, or alternatively require the bailies to produce him before the Privy Council. Leslie asked that Clerk instead be kept securely imprisoned in Aberdeen until Leslie recovered.
After considering the surgeons’ testimonial, the Privy Council granted Leslie’s request.
This entry directly identifies Hercules Guthrie and James Guthrie as surgeons and burgesses of Aberdeen. Their professional status is not inferred from context: it is expressly stated in the Privy Council record.
Their certificate also had practical legal significance. The Privy Council relied upon the surgeons’ assessment of Alexander Leslie’s dangerous condition when deciding whether the alleged assailant should remain confined.
The record therefore documents the Guthries not merely as medical practitioners but as professionals whose signed medical evidence could influence Privy Council decisions.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Tryst — an arranged meeting or appointment.
- Harnepan — skull or cranium.
- Bred of ane doller — breadth or width of a dollar coin; used here to describe the extent of the skull injury.
- Testimonial — written certificate or formal statement offered as evidence.
- Surgeon — medical practitioner concerned particularly with wounds, injuries and operative treatment.
- Burgess — person formally admitted to the privileges and civic status of a burgh.
- Sure firmance — secure custody or close confinement.
- Tolbooth — burgh building serving civic and judicial functions, including imprisonment.
- Convalescent — sufficiently recovered from illness or injury.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 373–374, Edinburgh, 2 February 1637; Decreta, April 1635–February 1639, p. 287. Complete printed editorial abridgment of the supplication and Council disposition. Digitized volume .
Hercules and Gilbert Guthrie, Surgeons of Aberdeen — Medical Certificate of Alexander Leslie’s Recovery
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 412 • 14 March 1637 • Certificate dated 3 March 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This proceeding returns to the serious head injury suffered by Alexander Leslie in Aberdeen. Mr James Clerk of Tillecorthie had been imprisoned in the Aberdeen tolbooth in connection with the wounding and had remained there for approximately eight weeks.
Clerk now presented his own account of the incident. He stated that he had been attending officers executing a caption against Mr George Leslie at Birsak Mylne and Alexander Leslie, his son. According to Clerk, Alexander attacked the messenger and Clerk wounded Leslie while defending that officer.
An earlier application for Clerk’s release had been delayed because a medical certificate from Thomas Cargill, Hercules Guthrie and Gilbert Guthrie reported that Alexander Leslie’s life remained in great danger.
By March, however, those same three surgeons had issued an updated certificate. Leslie was improving daily, had substantially recovered, and was expected soon to be completely cured.
Clerk offered to provide whatever caution the Council considered appropriate for his future appearance. After Mr Robert Udny of Langton became cautioner for £500, the Council ordered the Aberdeen magistrates to release Clerk.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Supplication by Mr James Clerke of Tillecorthie, as follows:—He was recently in Aberdene attending the officers there in the execution of a caption against Mr George Leslie at Birsak Mylne and Alexander Leslie, his son, and “it fell furthe that in defence of the messinger, who wes invadit be the said Allexander, he wes woundit be the supplicant on the head for the quhilk the supplicant wes wardit in the tolbuith of Aberdene, quhair he hes remained these 8 weekes bygane.”
He petitioned their Lordships in February last, but the matter was continued till the 22nd of this month upon a certificate under the hands of Thomas Cargill, and Hercules and Gilbert Guthrie, surgeons, burgesses of Aberdene, that the life of the said Alexander was in great hazard.
Now these same three chirurgeons have certified that the said Alexander “is become better daylie and so farre convalesced that within a short tyme they hope he salbe perfytlie cured,” as their certificate, dated 3rd March, shows.
The supplicant is content to find caution in such an amount as their Lordships shall appoint to appear for trial of the matter before their Lordships or any other judge the said Alexander shall choose upon a lawful charge, and he therefore craves that command may be given to the provost and bailies of Aberdene to put him to liberty.
The Lords having considered the petition, and Mr Robert Udnie of Langtoune having become cautioner in £500 to the above effect, they give command as craved to the said magistrates.
Modern English Rendering
Mr James Clerk of Tillecorthie petitioned the Privy Council for release from the Aberdeen tolbooth, where he said he had been imprisoned for approximately eight weeks.
Clerk stated that he had recently been in Aberdeen assisting officers who were executing a warrant of arrest against Mr George Leslie at Birsak Mill and George’s son, Alexander Leslie.
According to Clerk’s account, Alexander Leslie attacked the messenger carrying out the legal process. Clerk said that while defending the messenger he wounded Alexander in the head, after which Clerk himself was imprisoned.
Clerk had previously petitioned the Council in February, but a decision on his release was postponed because a medical certificate signed by Thomas Cargill, Hercules Guthrie and Gilbert Guthrie, all surgeons and burgesses of Aberdeen, reported that Alexander Leslie’s life remained in serious danger.
Those same three surgeons had now issued another certificate, dated 3 March 1637. They reported that Leslie was improving each day and had recovered so far that they hoped he would soon be completely cured.
Clerk offered to provide whatever financial security the Council required, guaranteeing that he would appear for trial before the Council—or before another judge chosen by Alexander Leslie—when lawfully summoned.
After considering the petition, the Council accepted Mr Robert Udny of Langton as cautioner for Clerk in £500 and ordered the provost and bailies of Aberdeen to release Clerk from custody.
This is the second medical record in Volume VI involving members of Aberdeen’s Guthrie surgeon community. The earlier 2 February 1637 proceeding names Hercules Guthrie and James Guthrie, together with Thomas Cargill, as the surgeons who certified that Alexander Leslie was then more likely to die than recover.
This later record names Hercules Guthrie and Gilbert Guthrie, again with Thomas Cargill, and records the opposite medical development: Leslie was now recovering and expected to be completely cured.
The Council’s decision changed accordingly. The updated medical evidence helped make it possible for James Clerk to obtain release on substantial caution rather than remain imprisoned while Leslie’s life was considered to be in immediate danger.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Supplication — a formal petition to the Privy Council requesting legal or administrative relief.
- Caption — legal warrant authorizing the arrest or apprehension of a person.
- Messenger — an officer responsible for executing formal legal process.
- Ward / warded — imprisonment or legal custody.
- Tolbooth — burgh building used for civic and judicial purposes, including imprisonment.
- Chirurgeon — surgeon; an early form of the occupational term.
- Convalesced — recovered or progressed substantially toward recovery.
- Caution — legal security guaranteeing future performance or appearance.
- Cautioner — the person providing that security and becoming responsible for fulfilment of the obligation.
- £500 — the amount of Scots money in which Robert Udny became cautioner for Clerk’s future appearance.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 412, Edinburgh, 14 March 1637; medical certificate dated 3 March 1637; Decreta, April 1635–February 1639, p. 315. Complete printed editorial abridgment of the supplication and Council disposition. Digitized volume .
Richard Guthrie, W.S. — Procurator in a 5,000-Merk Debt Action
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 414 • 16 March 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Katherine Dunbar, widow of David Brodie, and her present husband, Alexander Dunbar of Westfield, pursued enforcement of a substantial debt against four defenders.
Sir Thomas Urquhart of Cromarty, Alexander Urquhart of St Martins, Gilbert Paip of Culcallane and Thomas Ross of Rarolls had already been put to the horn on 24 and 25 January for failure to pay 5,000 merks principal, 1,000 merks expenses and interest.
At the March hearing, the pursuers appeared through Richard Guthrie, W.S., while none of the defenders appeared.
The Privy Council therefore escalated enforcement, ordering the defenders to surrender their respective houses and enter ward in Blackness Castle within fifteen days, under pain of treason.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by Katherine Dumbar, widow of David Brodie, and Alexander Dunbar of Westfeild, now her spouse, for his interest, as follows:—On 24th and 25th January last Sir Thomas Urquhart of Cromertie, Alexander Urquhart of St. Martines, Gilbert Paipe, portioner in Culcallane and Thomas Ros of Rasolls were put to the horn at the complainers’ instance for non-payment of a debt of 5000 merks of principal, 1000 merks of expenses and certain interest due thereon; and they lie at the horn in gross contempt of law.
The pursuers compearing by Richard Guthrie, W.S., but the defenders not compearing, the Lords ordain the latter to be charged to render their respective houses of Cromartie, St. Martines, Culcallane and Rossolls, and to enter themselves in ward within the Castle of Blacknes within fifteen days, under the pain of treason.
Modern English Rendering
Katherine Dunbar, widow of David Brodie, together with her present husband Alexander Dunbar of Westfield for his legal interest, complained against four debtors.
On 24 and 25 January 1637, Sir Thomas Urquhart of Cromarty, Alexander Urquhart of St Martins, Gilbert Paip of Culcallane and Thomas Ross of Rarolls had been formally put to the horn for failing to pay 5,000 merks of principal debt, 1,000 merks in expenses and the interest due.
They remained under that denunciation.
The pursuers appeared through Richard Guthrie, Writer to the Signet, acting as their procurator. The defenders did not appear.
The Privy Council ordered the defenders to be charged to surrender their respective houses of Cromarty, St Martins, Culcallane and Rarolls and to enter custody in Blackness Castle within fifteen days. Failure to obey carried the stated penalty of treason.
This entry gives a clear professional identification for Richard Guthrie, W.S. and places him in active legal practice before the Privy Council.
His role was representative rather than personal: he appeared for Katherine Dunbar and Alexander Dunbar in a substantial debt-enforcement proceeding that had already progressed through horning and was now moving toward surrender of houses and imprisonment.
The record is also important for distinguishing this Richard Guthrie, W.S. from the different Richard Guthrie who later appears in this volume as an officer in Haddington.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- W.S. — Writer to the Signet, a professional designation associated with Scottish legal practice.
- Procurator — legal representative appearing on behalf of another party.
- Portioner — proprietor holding a divided share or portion of lands.
- Put to the horn — formally denounced as a rebel for failure to obey lawful process.
- Render their houses — surrender the houses in obedience to Council process.
- Ward — legal custody or imprisonment.
- Blackness Castle — royal fortress regularly used as a place of confinement.
- Under pain of treason — warning that failure to obey the command could expose the disobedient party to more severe proceedings for treason.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 414, Edinburgh, 16 March 1637; Decreta, April 1635–February 1639, pp. 317–318. Complete printed editorial abridgment. Digitized volume .
Guthrie, Younger of Collestoun — Charged to Appear as a Witness in the Ogilvie Dispute
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 415–416 • 17 March 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 17 March 1637 the Privy Council intervened in a serious dispute in the sheriffdom of Forfar involving two groups headed by prominent members of the Ogilvie family.
On one side were James, Lord Ogilvie of Airlie, his son James, Master of Ogilvie, and Sir George Ogilvie of Banff. Opposing them were James, Lord Deskford, and Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Inchmartine.
The Council had been informed that the dispute had reached the point of “lyings at await” as the parties sought opportunities to gain an advantage over one another. The act states that serious disorder would have followed had the danger not been prevented.
Both sides were therefore ordered to appear before the Council on the last day of March 1637 and, until then, to refrain from attacking or pursuing one another except through lawful process. Each party faced a penalty of £20,000 Scots for violating the order.
The same act then names a separate group of witnesses who were to appear on that date. Among them was “Guthre, younger of Collestoun.” He was ordered to give true testimony concerning what he knew of the matter.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
“Forsamekle as the Lords of Secreit Counsell ar informed of some great appearance of trouble like to have fallin out of late within the shirefdome of Forfar betuix James, Lord Ogilvie of Airlie, James, Maister of Ogilvie, his sone, and Sir George Ogilvie of Bamff, on the ane part, and James, Lord Desfurd, and Sir Patrik Ogilvie of Inchemartine, on the other part, and that there hes beene betuix thame lyings at await to have tane advantage the one of the other, whilk had not failed to have procured great disorder and trouble in the countrie to the bringing on of manie others inconvenients, all tending to the breake of the peace, if by God’s providence the same had not beene prevented and disappointed;
thairfoir the Lords of Secreit Counsell ordains letters to be direct charging both the saids parties to compeir personallie before the saids Lords upon the last day of Marche instant to answer to the premises and to underly suche tryell and order as the saids Lords sail thinke meit, under the pane of rebellion, etc., with certification, etc., and in the meantime to command and charge both the saids parteis to observe our soverane lords peace and to keepe good rule and quyetnes in the countrie, and that nane of thame presoome nor take upon hand to invade nor persew one another in thair persons, lands, goods nor geir for whatsomever deed, caus nor occasion otherwayes nor be order of law and justice,
eache partie under the pane of twentie thowsand punds; certifeing thame that sail doe in the contrare that they sail be decerned to have incurred and to incurre the said pane of twentie thousand punds, and letters and executorialls sail be direct aganis thame for payment thairof to his Majesteis officers in his Majesteis name and to his Majesteis use in forme as effeirs;
as lykewayes to charge James Ogilvie, younger of Newgrange, Ogilvie, younger of Peill, Guthre, younger of Collestoun, Williame Arrat in [blank], Williame Feichie in [blank], Alexander Peirson of Balmadeis, James Peirson, clerk of Forfar, and Alexander Abercrombie, elder of Birkinboig, to compeir personallie before the saids Lords, day and place foresaid, to beir leill and suithfast witnessing and to depone what they know in this mater, under the pane of rebellion, etc., with certificatioun, etc.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords of the Privy Council had been informed that serious trouble had recently threatened to break out in the sheriffdom of Forfar between James, Lord Ogilvie of Airlie, his son James, Master of Ogilvie, and Sir George Ogilvie of Banff on one side, and James, Lord Deskford, and Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Inchmartine on the other.
The opposing groups had reportedly been lying in wait in order to gain an advantage over one another. The Council stated that this could have produced serious disorder in the country and other consequences tending toward a breach of the peace had the danger not been prevented.
The Council therefore ordered letters to be issued charging both parties to appear personally before it on 31 March 1637. They were to answer concerning these matters and submit to whatever examination and order the Council considered appropriate, under pain of rebellion.
Until that hearing, both sides were commanded to observe the King’s peace and maintain good order and quietness. None was to attack or pursue another in person, lands, goods or property for any cause except through lawful process.
Each party was placed under a penalty of £20,000 Scots. Anyone acting contrary to the order could be declared liable for that penalty, and legal process could be issued to recover it for the King’s use.
The Council also ordered James Ogilvie, younger of Newgrange; the unnamed Ogilvie, younger of Peill; Guthrie, younger of Collestoun; William Arrat; William Feichie; Alexander Peirson of Balmadeis; James Peirson, clerk of Forfar; and Alexander Abercrombie, elder of Birkinboig, to appear personally before the Council on the same day.
These men were summoned as witnesses. They were required to give faithful and truthful evidence and to state what they knew about the matter, under pain of rebellion.
This act provides a firmly dated contemporary appearance of an otherwise unnamed “Guthre, younger of Collestoun” in March 1637.
His inclusion among the witnesses places the younger of Collestoun within the local Forfarshire network surrounding a significant dispute involving the Ogilvie families of Airlie, Banff, Deskford and Inchmartine. The Council considered him one of the people from whom relevant evidence could be obtained.
The designation is particularly useful for Collestoun research because the volume separately identifies John Guthrie of Collestoun in the June 1636 proceeding on p. 268. This March 1637 act, however, does not provide the younger man’s forename or state his precise relationship to John.
The style “Guthrie, younger of Collestoun” appears again later in 1637 in the proceedings on pp. 692–693. That later source should be evaluated on its own evidence rather than used to supply a forename that this act does not give.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Shirefdome — sheriffdom; the territorial jurisdiction of a sheriff. Here, the sheriffdom of Forfar.
- Lyings at await — lying in wait or positioning oneself to ambush or take an opponent by surprise.
- Compeir personallie — appear personally before the court or Council.
- Underly tryell and order — submit to examination and to whatever judicial or administrative order the Council might impose.
- Good rule and quyetnes — orderly and peaceful conduct; language commonly used in measures intended to prevent local disorder.
- Pane of rebellion — threatened legal consequence for failure to obey the Council’s charge, with further process potentially leading to denunciation as a rebel.
- Executorialls — legal writs or processes used to execute or enforce an order or decree.
- Beir leill and suithfast witnessing — bear loyal, faithful and truthful witness.
- Depone — give sworn evidence or make a formal deposition.
- Younger of — a Scottish territorial designation used to distinguish a junior man associated with an estate or family from its senior representative; it should not automatically be read as a statement of minority.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 415–416, Edinburgh, 17 March 1637; Acta, May 1636–November 1639, fols. 196b–197a. Complete printed transcription of the Council act. Digitized volume .
Jean Guthrie, Widow of Robert Stirling of Letter — Debt Enforcement Against John Hamilton of Blair
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 435 • 6 June 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 6 June 1637, Jean Guthrie, widow of Robert Stirling of Letter, pursued further enforcement of a debt owed by John Hamilton of Blair.
Hamilton had already been formally put to the horn at Jean’s instance on 26 July 1636 for failing to pay £1,000 principal, together with interest and expenses. According to the complaint, he continued to disregard that horning.
Jean did not appear personally before the Council. The printed entry states that the pursuer appeared through Alexander Stirling, her son. Hamilton did not appear.
The Council therefore ordered Hamilton to be charged to surrender his houses of Blair and a second property whose name is left blank in the printed text, and to enter ward in Blackness Castle within ten days after service of the charge. Disobedience carried the stated penalty of treason.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by Jean Guthrie, widow of Robert Stirline of Letter, as follows:—On 26th July last John Hamilton of Blair was put to the horn at her instance for not paying £1000 of principal and interest and expenses due thereupon, but to this horning he pays no heed.
The pursuer compearing by Alexander Stirline, her son, but John Hamilton not compearing, the Lords ordain the latter to be charged to render his houses of Blair and [blank] and enter himself in ward within the castle of Blacknes within ten days after being charged upon pain of treason.
Modern English Rendering
Jean Guthrie, widow of Robert Stirling of Letter, complained against John Hamilton of Blair.
On 26 July 1636, Hamilton had been formally put to the horn at Jean’s instance because he had failed to pay her £1,000 of principal debt, together with the interest and expenses due upon it.
Hamilton nevertheless continued to disregard that legal denunciation.
At the Council hearing, Jean’s case was presented by Alexander Stirling, expressly identified as her son. John Hamilton did not appear.
The Council ordered Hamilton to be formally charged to surrender his houses of Blair and another property whose name is blank in the printed record, and to enter custody in Blackness Castle within ten days after the charge was served.
Failure to obey carried the stated penalty of treason.
This entry contains unusually useful direct family evidence. Jean Guthrie is expressly identified as the widow of Robert Stirling of Letter, while Alexander Stirling is expressly identified as her son.
The record therefore documents two relationships in a single contemporary proceeding: Jean Guthrie’s marriage to Robert Stirling of Letter and her mother-son relationship with Alexander Stirling.
It also shows Jean acting as the named creditor and pursuer in her own right. The original horning against John Hamilton of Blair had been obtained at her instance, and the Privy Council proceeding of June 1637 was a further stage in enforcement after that earlier process had failed to secure compliance.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Widow — Jean Guthrie survived her husband, Robert Stirling of Letter; the wording directly establishes their marriage.
- At her instance — legal process had been raised or pursued at Jean Guthrie’s request and on her behalf.
- Put to the horn — formally denounced as a rebel for failure to obey lawful process.
- Compearing — appearing before the court or Council. A party could appear through a representative rather than personally.
- Render his houses — surrender the houses in obedience to the Council’s enforcement process.
- Ward — legal custody or imprisonment.
- Blackness Castle — royal fortress frequently used as a place of confinement.
- Upon pain of treason — warning that disobedience of the Council’s command could expose the person charged to further proceedings carrying the consequences of treason.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 435, Edinburgh, 6 June 1637; Decreta, April 1635–February 1639, p. 333. Complete printed editorial abridgment. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — Opinion on the Scarcity of Coin
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 465–466 • 26 June 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Charles I had recently issued a Great Seal commission authorising members of the Privy Council to examine the condition of the Mint, the shortage of money in Scotland, and possible remedies.
On 26 June 1637 the committee considered reports that one cause of the scarcity was a belief that the value of dollars was about to be raised. The Council ordered public notice that no such alteration was intended.
The Edinburgh merchants and officers of the Mint were also instructed to give their opinions concerning both the causes of the shortage and possible remedies.
Later that same day, Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, appeared personally before the committee accompanied by James Cochrane, a bailie, and a group of Edinburgh merchants.
When they were asked about the most effective means of remedying the scarcity of money, the record specifically preserves Alexander Guthrie’s own stated judgment.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
“The whilk day Mr Alexander Guthre, toun clerk of Edinburgh, accompanied with James Cochrane, baillie, William Dick, Williame Gray, Archibald Tod, David McCall, Peter Blaikburne, Johne and Robert Fleemings, compeirand personallie before the Lords of the Committee anent the coyne, and being demanded anent the most conduceable meanes for remedying the present skarsetie of moneyes, the said Mr Alexander declared that in his judgement the crying up of annuelrente, the enlargement of trade by ane ease of the custome and the erecting of manufactoreis would greatumlie conduce to the imbringing and furnishing of the countrie with store of moneyes.”
Modern English Rendering
That same afternoon, Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, personally appeared before the Lords of the committee dealing with the coinage.
He was accompanied by James Cochrane, bailie; William Dick; William Gray; Archibald Tod; David McCall; Peter Blackburne; and John and Robert Fleming.
The group was asked what measures would be most effective in remedying the current scarcity of money.
Alexander Guthrie stated that, in his judgment, three measures would greatly help to bring money into the country and increase its supply:
- raising the rate of annualrent or interest;
- expanding trade by easing customs duties; and
- establishing manufactures.
This is one of the more substantive appearances of Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, because the register does more than record his presence or his delivery of another body’s papers. It preserves an economic opinion expressly attributed to him.
Guthrie appears here in direct discussion with a royal committee dealing with the national shortage of coin. His participation adds another dimension to the administrative record already established elsewhere in this volume through his involvement in ferries, maritime lights, burgh affairs and the Council-house.
The entry also demonstrates the breadth of matters in which an Edinburgh town clerk could participate. Guthrie was not confined to record-keeping or formal legal procedure; he was consulted in deliberations touching trade, customs, manufacturing and monetary policy.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Committee anent the coyne — the committee appointed to examine questions concerning coinage, the Mint and the scarcity of money.
- Compeirand personallie — appearing personally before the committee.
- Conduceable meanes — measures considered useful or effective in producing the desired result.
- Skarsetie of moneyes — shortage or scarcity of circulating money or coin.
- Annuelrente — annual return or interest payable on money. Guthrie proposed its “crying up,” or raising.
- Ease of the custome — reduction or relaxation of customs burdens in order to encourage trade.
- Manufactoreis — manufactures or organised manufacturing enterprises.
- Imbringing — bringing into the country.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 465–466, Edinburgh, 26 June 1637; Acta, May 1636–November 1639, fol. 239a. Complete printed transcription of the substantive Guthrie entry. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Commission for the Visitation of King’s College, Aberdeen
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 478–479 • 13 July 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Charles I had repeatedly recommended that the Privy Council and the royal Commission for helping the universities undertake a visitation of his college at Aberdeen and establish regulations that would advance learning there.
On 13 July 1637, the Privy Council created a six-man commission for that purpose. The commissioners included John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
The commission was broad. The visitors were empowered to summon the principal, professors, regents and masters of King’s College; require production of its ancient records, foundation documents, written laws and books of former visitations; hear surviving witnesses to the earlier visitations of 1616 and 1619; investigate the duties and conduct of officeholders; review college rents, doctrine, discipline, customs, privileges, teaching arrangements and stipends; and examine recent abuses, disorders and divisions.
The commissioners were then to recommend how those problems might be corrected and submit a written report to the Privy Council by the first Council day in November.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
“Forsamekle as the King’s Majestie, out of his most religious and pious disposition towards the forderance and advancement of learning within this kingdome, hes diverse times recommendit to the Lords of his Privie Counsell, and Commission for helping the universiteis, the visitation of his Majesteis colledge of Aberdene, and establishing of suche good orders therein as may procure the forderance and advancement of that good worke; and the said Lords, being carefull to secund his Majesteis royall and gracious disposition in this point, hes for this effect givin and grantit and be the tennor heirof gives and grants full power, warrant and auctoritie to George, Marques of Huntlie, William, Erie Marishell, Adame, Bishop of Aberdene, Johne, Bishop of Murrey, Johne, Bishop of Ros, and James, Lord Deskford, or anie three of thame, the bishop of Aberdene alwayes being one,
to resort and repaire to the burgh of Aberdene and King’s Colledge thairof upon the last day of August nixt, or quhatsomever other dayes that they sail judge convenient, and to call and conveene before thame the principall, publict professors, regents and maisters of the said Colledge of Aberdene, and to call for production of the ancient records and writts of the said universitie, and the ancient and trew foundation thairof, as the writtin lawes of thair proceedours, togidder with the acts and bookes of thair former visitations,
and to convocat suche persons yitt on life as wer present at the former great visitations, 1616 and 1619, and whatsomever other testimoneis can give thame farther light and information, in particulars how and in what maner the foresaids founded persons sould acquitt thameselffes in thair privat stations according to the said foundation, and wherein the colledge rent, doctrine, discipline and maners or priviledges, good order, articles and clauses of the said foundation hes beene wronged or infringed by anie of thame,
and what hes beene or sould be thair ordinarie offices, order of teaching and stipends as the present meanes of the said colledge may affoord and in time comming according as they sail happin to increasse, and generallie to try and informe thameselffes of all the abuses, disorders and dissensions croppin in of late in the said colledge and how they may be rectified and repaired, and the causes and occasions thairof takin away in all time comming,
and to make a full report in writt of thair proceedings and opinions hereanent to the saids Lords under thair hands betuix and the first Counsell day of November nixt, to the intent the saids Lords may take suche order heerin as they sail thinke expedient, quherethrow this good and worthie worke, importing so neir the weale of the said colledge, be no longer delayed: Commanding heirby the saids commissioners to accept the commission in and upon thame and proceed in the execution thairof with all convenient diligence, as they will answer to his Majestie and the saids Lords upon thair obedience.”
Modern English Rendering
Because the King, from his concern for the advancement of learning in Scotland, had repeatedly recommended a visitation of his college at Aberdeen and the establishment of suitable regulations there, the Privy Council appointed a commission to carry out that work.
The commissioners were George, Marquis of Huntly; William, Earl Marischal; Adam, Bishop of Aberdeen; John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray; John, Bishop of Ross; and James, Lord Deskford.
Any three of them were authorised to act, provided that the Bishop of Aberdeen was always one of the three.
They were to go to Aberdeen and King’s College on 31 August 1637, or on another date they judged convenient, and summon before them the principal, public professors, regents and masters of the college.
They were to require production of the university’s ancient records and writings, its authentic foundation documents, the written laws of earlier officeholders, and the acts and books of previous visitations.
They could also summon people still living who had attended the important visitations of 1616 and 1619, together with any other witnesses able to provide useful information.
The commissioners were to determine how those holding endowed positions ought to perform their duties under the foundation and investigate whether the college’s rents, doctrine, discipline, customs, privileges, good order or provisions of its foundation had been infringed.
They were also to consider the proper offices, teaching arrangements and stipends of the college in light of its current and future resources.
More generally, they were to investigate recent abuses, disorders and dissensions within the college, determine how those problems might be corrected, and remove their causes for the future.
Finally, the commissioners were to prepare and sign a full written report of their proceedings and opinions and submit it to the Privy Council by the first Council day of November so that further action could be taken without additional delay.
This commission provides another substantial example of Bishop John Guthrie’s secular administrative work as a member of the Privy Council.
His responsibilities extended here into university governance. The proposed visitation was not merely ceremonial: the commissioners were authorised to inspect King’s College’s foundation documents, finances, teaching, discipline, privileges, offices, salaries and internal disputes and to recommend reforms.
The entry is also especially useful because John Guthrie appears in two distinct capacities on the same Council day: he is listed in the sederunt as Bishop of Moray, showing that he was present at the meeting, and he is separately named among the commissioners appointed to undertake the visitation.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Sederunt — the recorded membership present at a formal sitting of the Privy Council.
- Visitation — an official inspection or review of an institution, with authority to investigate its governance, records, finances, personnel and observance of its foundation.
- Principal — senior academic and administrative head of the college.
- Regents — university teachers responsible for instructing students through parts of the curriculum.
- Foundation — the legal charter and endowment arrangements establishing the institution and defining its offices, revenues, duties and privileges.
- Founded persons — officeholders or members whose positions and support derived from the college’s foundation and endowments.
- Colledge rent — the revenues and income belonging to the college.
- Convocat — summon or call together.
- Under thair hands — signed or authenticated by the commissioners themselves.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 478–479, Edinburgh, 13 July 1637; Acta, May 1636–November 1639, fols. 218a–218b. Complete printed transcription of the Council act. The volume’s miscellaneous papers also preserve a copy of the act, described as dated 13 July 1637 and appointing the commission for visitation of the College of Aberdeen. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Bonds Between Alexander Brodie of Lethin and Certain Dunbars
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 484 • 25 July 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 25 July 1637, during the Privy Council’s meeting at Holyrood House, the Council issued a short order concerning bonds connected with an earlier dispute involving Alexander Brodie of Lethin and members of the Dunbar family.
The minute states that the bonds had been “tane be” the Bishop of Moray — that is, taken or received by him in connection with the parties — and directs the Clerk of Council to give those documents to the bishop.
The entry does not reproduce the bonds themselves, identify the Dunbars individually, or state their precise terms.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
“The Lords ordains the Clerk of Counsell to give up to the Bishop of Murrey the bands tane be him betuix Alexander Brodie of Lethin and some of the Dumbars.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council ordered its clerk to deliver to John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, the bonds that the bishop had previously taken between Alexander Brodie of Lethin and certain members of the Dunbar family.
Although brief, this minute supplies evidence of Bishop John Guthrie’s continuing administrative role in the Brodie–Dunbar dispute.
Earlier in this volume the Bishop of Moray had been named among the commissioners dealing with conflict involving the Brodies and Dunbars. This later minute shows that bonds associated with those parties had actually been taken by him and remained sufficiently important for the Council to issue a formal order concerning their return or delivery.
The entry therefore adds evidence beyond a bare commission: Guthrie had handled documentary securities arising from the matter.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Band / bond — a written legal obligation or security binding one or more parties to specified conditions.
- Tane be him — taken or received by him; here, indicating that the Bishop of Moray had taken the bonds between the parties.
- Give up — deliver or hand over; in this context, the Clerk of Council was ordered to deliver the documents to the bishop.
- Clerk of Council — official responsible for the written records, process and documents of the Privy Council.
- Sederunts — Council minute books recording sittings and business transacted there.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 484, Holyrood House, 25 July 1637; Sederunts, January 1635–November 1643, fol. 50a. Complete printed Council minute. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — Edinburgh’s Response to the Service-book Uproar
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 486 • 26 July 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This brief but important order belongs to the Privy Council’s immediate response to the violent public disturbance associated with the attempted introduction of the new Service-book in Edinburgh.
Earlier Council proceedings describe the recent disorder as a “turbulent and mutinous cariage” occurring during divine service and order the Edinburgh authorities to investigate the offenders and prevent further disturbances.
On 26 July 1637, the Council placed a more specific responsibility on Edinburgh’s civic government. Andrew Ainslie and John Smith, bailies, together with Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk, were ordered to have the Town Council assembled at eight o’clock the next morning.
After consultation, they were to report back to the Privy Council at two o’clock that afternoon with the course Edinburgh believed most suitable both for investigating and punishing those responsible for the recent uproar and for ensuring that the Service-book could be read safely.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
“The Lords of Secreit Counsell ordains and commands Andro Ainslie and Johne Smith, bailleis of Edinburgh, and Mr Alexander Guthre, toun clerk, to caus conveene the toun counsell the morne at eight houres in the morning, and after consultation had with thame to report to the saids Lords at twa of the clocke in the afternoone what course they thinke fittest for trying and punishing the authors of the late uproare and securing the reading of the service booke.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council ordered Andrew Ainslie and John Smith, bailies of Edinburgh, together with Mr Alexander Guthrie, the town clerk, to arrange for the Edinburgh Town Council to meet at eight o’clock the following morning.
They were to consult with the Town Council and determine what measures it considered most appropriate for investigating and punishing the people responsible for the recent uproar.
They were also to consider how the reading of the Service-book could be secured against further disruption.
After the consultation, they were required to report the Town Council’s conclusions to the Privy Council at two o’clock that afternoon.
This entry places Mr Alexander Guthrie directly within Edinburgh’s civic response to one of the pivotal crises of 1637: resistance to the new Service-book.
The Privy Council did not merely ask Guthrie to transmit paperwork. It specifically named him with two bailies as one of the officials responsible for convening Edinburgh’s Town Council, obtaining its advice and carrying that response back to central government.
The record therefore adds an important political and ecclesiastical dimension to Guthrie’s already extensive civic activity. Elsewhere in this volume he appears in matters involving ferries, shipping, the Isle of May lights, municipal buildings and monetary policy; here his administrative work intersects directly with the developing Service-book crisis.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bailie — burgh magistrate with judicial and administrative responsibilities.
- Toun clerk — town clerk; senior burgh official responsible for records and important legal and administrative business.
- Caus conveene — cause or arrange for a body to assemble formally.
- The morne — the following day.
- Trying — investigating or examining the facts and responsibility for an alleged offence; not necessarily a completed criminal trial in the modern sense.
- Uproare — riot, tumult or serious public disturbance.
- Service-book — the new Scottish liturgy whose attempted introduction in 1637 provoked major opposition and became one of the immediate causes of the wider ecclesiastical and political crisis preceding the National Covenant.
- Securing the reading — arranging measures intended to permit the Service-book to be read without renewed violence or interruption.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 486, Holyrood House, 26 July 1637; Acta, May 1636–November 1639, fol. 220a. Complete printed Council minute. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — Surety for the Safe Reading of the Service-book
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 486–487 • 27 July 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This proceeding directly continues the Privy Council’s efforts to make Edinburgh’s civic authorities responsible for maintaining order during the attempted introduction of the new Service-book.
On the previous day, 26 July, the Council had ordered Edinburgh bailies Andrew Ainslie and John Smith, together with Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk, to convene the Town Council and consider how those responsible for the recent uproar should be investigated and punished and how the reading of the Service-book might be secured.
On 27 July 1637, the Privy Council returned to the question. This time John Smith, Charles Hamilton and Alexander Guthrie were expressly recorded as personally present.
They were ordered to consult Edinburgh’s Town Council the following morning about the surety it would provide for the safe reading of the Service-book and whether the Town Council would formally bind itself to guarantee that result.
The three civic officials were then to report the Town Council’s response to the Privy Council at nine o’clock that morning in the Chancery House.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
“The Lords of Secreit Counsell ordains and commands Johne Smith and Charles Hamiltoun, bailleis of Edinburgh, and Mr Alexander Guthre, toun clerk, who wer personallie present, to consult the toun counsell of Edinburgh the morne anent the suretie quhilk they will give for the saife reading of the service booke, and if they will act thameselffes for that effect, and to make thair report the morne at nyne of the clocke in the Chancery Hous.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council ordered John Smith and Charles Hamilton, bailies of Edinburgh, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk, all of whom were personally present, to consult with the Edinburgh Town Council the following morning.
They were to ask what form of security or guarantee the Town Council would provide to ensure that the Service-book could be read safely and without renewed disruption.
They were also to determine whether the Town Council was willing to formally bind itself to that obligation.
Smith, Hamilton and Guthrie were to report the Town Council’s answer to the Privy Council at nine o’clock the following morning in the Chancery House.
This entry gives particularly strong evidence for Alexander Guthrie’s direct participation in the official response to the Service-book crisis because the record expressly states that he was “personallie present.”
It also shows that his role went beyond routine clerical duties. Together with Edinburgh’s bailies, Guthrie served as an intermediary between the Privy Council and the Town Council at a moment when the Crown was pressing Edinburgh to accept formal responsibility for maintaining order during the reading of the disputed liturgy.
Read with the proceeding of 26 July, the entry documents a rapid sequence of official action: first the city was asked to propose a course for dealing with the recent uproar and protecting the Service-book; then it was pressed to consider formal surety for the safe reading itself.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bailie — municipal magistrate with judicial and administrative responsibilities within a Scottish burgh.
- Toun clerk — town clerk; senior civic officer responsible for legal, record-keeping and administrative business.
- Suretie — security or guarantee for performance of an obligation.
- Act thameselffes — formally bind or obligate themselves in the Council’s records for performance of a stated duty.
- The morne — the following day; here, 28 July 1637.
- Chancery House — the place appointed in this entry for the officials to make their report to the Council.
- Saife reading of the Service-book — reading of the new liturgy without renewed riot, interruption or violence.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 486–487, Holyrood House, 27 July 1637; Acta, May 1636–November 1639, fol. 220b. Complete printed Council minute. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — Conditions and Objections Concerning the Master of the Mint
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 507–508 • 2 August 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council’s examination of Scotland’s coinage continued into August 1637. The Crown had directed Nicolas Briot, a royal Mint official, to Scotland to carry forward changes concerning the gold and silver coinage.
On the preceding Council day, Briot’s royal instructions had been considered and the King’s letter concerning the coinage had been given to the burghs so that they could consider it.
On 2 August 1637, the Council ordered Sir John Sinclair, William Dick, Mr Alexander Guthrie and the officers of the Coining House to appear the next morning and produce in writing the conditions they believed should bind the Master of the Mint.
They were also invited to state any objections they had to Nicolas Briot being admitted as Master of the Mint, provided that he fulfilled the duties of the office.
Briot meanwhile submitted written proposals for bringing money into the kingdom. Those proposals were delivered to the burghs for consideration until the following morning, linking Guthrie’s assignment directly to the broader consultation over Mint policy.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
“The Lords assignes to Sir Johne Sinclar, William Dick and Mr Alexander Guthre and the officers of the Cunyiehous the morne at nyne of the clocke in the morning to appeare before the Counsell in the Chancellery hous, and to exhibite in writt all the conditions requisite to be craved of the master cunyear for ordering of the mynt; as likewayes to propone thair objections, if they anie have, why Mr Briot sould not be receaved Master of the Mynt, he performing the dewtie incumbent to the office.”
“The quhilk day Mr Briot gave in some overtures in writt for imbringing of money within the kingdome, quhilks wer ordained to be delivered to the Burrowes to be advised therewith till the morne.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council appointed Sir John Sinclair, William Dick, Mr Alexander Guthrie and the officers of the Mint to appear before the Council in the Chancery House at nine o’clock the following morning.
They were to present in writing all the conditions that they considered necessary to require from the Master of the Mint for the proper regulation of the Mint.
They were also to state any objections they might have to Nicolas Briot being admitted as Master of the Mint, on the understanding that Briot would perform the duties belonging to that office.
On the same day Briot submitted written proposals concerning ways of bringing more money into the kingdom.
The Council ordered Briot’s proposals to be delivered to the representatives of the burghs so that they could consider them until the following morning.
This entry places Mr Alexander Guthrie in a formal consultative role during the reorganisation of Scotland’s Mint.
The Council expected Guthrie and the others not merely to attend, but to produce a written statement of the obligations and conditions that should govern the Master of the Mint. They were also expressly permitted to raise objections to Nicolas Briot’s admission to the office.
The record builds directly on Guthrie’s earlier appearance before the coinage committee in June 1637, when he offered his judgment on remedies for the scarcity of money. By August he remained involved in the practical details of Mint administration, accountability and regulation.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Cunyiehous — Coining House or Mint.
- Master cunyear — Master Coiner; senior officer responsible for the operation and faithful administration of the Mint.
- Exhibite in writt — formally produce or submit a written document.
- Propone — put forward or state formally.
- Overtures — proposals or suggested measures submitted for consideration.
- Imbringing of money — bringing or attracting money into the kingdom.
- Advised therewith — given time to consider, study or deliberate upon a document before responding.
- Burrowes — Scotland’s royal burghs acting collectively through their representatives.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 507–508, Holyrood House, 2 August 1637; Sederunts, January 1635–November 1643, fol. 51c. Complete printed Council minutes relating to the Mint consultation. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — Written Proposals for the Obligations of the Master of the Mint
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 509 • 3 August 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This entry is the direct follow-up to the Privy Council order of 2 August 1637.
On that day, Sir John Sinclair, William Dick, Mr Alexander Guthrie and officers of the Coining House had been instructed to appear before the Council and submit in writing the conditions that should be required of the Master of the Mint.
On 3 August, John Sinclair, William Dick and Alexander Guthrie appeared and produced the requested written information. The document concerned both the administration of the Mint itself and the particular legal obligations to which its master should be bound.
The Council then appointed a committee to work with the Lord Treasurer in establishing the regulations of the Coining House and determining the formal obligations required for faithful performance of the Master Coiner’s duties.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
“The quhilk day Johne Sinclar, deane of gild of Edinburgh, William Dick and Mr Alexander Guthre, toun clerk, compeirand before the Counsell exhibitie ane informatioun concerning the mynthous and the conditions and particular obligement quhairunto the Maister of the Mynt sould be lyable and bound.”
“The Lords nominats and appoints the Lord Privie Seale, the Erles of Wintoun, Southesk, Lord Alexander, Bishop of Edinburgh, Clerk Register, Justice Generall, Justice Clerk, Deputie Treasurer, Advocat, or anie twa of thame, to attend upon the Lord Treasurer, and to concurre with him for setting doun the orders of the Coynehous and the condition of the master cunyear his obligement for the faithfull discharge of his dewtie to his Majestie and his lieges.”
Modern English Rendering
On 3 August 1637, John Sinclair, Dean of Guild of Edinburgh, William Dick, and Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk, appeared before the Privy Council.
They formally presented a written report concerning the Mint and setting out the conditions and specific obligations by which the Master of the Mint should be legally bound.
After receiving this information, the Council appointed the Lord Privy Seal, the Earls of Winton and Southesk, Lord Alexander, the Bishop of Edinburgh, the Clerk Register, Justice General, Justice Clerk, Deputy Treasurer and King’s Advocate — or any two of them — to attend upon the Lord Treasurer.
They were to work with him in establishing the regulations of the Coining House and determining the formal obligation under which the Master Coiner would be bound for the faithful discharge of his duties to the King and the King’s subjects.
This proceeding confirms that Alexander Guthrie followed through on the Council’s previous day’s order. He was not merely asked for advice: he returned with John Sinclair and William Dick and formally produced written information concerning regulation of the Mint.
The subject of that written submission was substantial. It dealt with the conditions and legal obligations of the Master of the Mint, an office responsible for an institution of direct importance to royal revenue, national currency and public commerce.
Together with the 26 June and 2 August entries, this record shows Alexander Guthrie participating repeatedly in the government’s examination of monetary policy and Mint administration during 1637.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Dean of Guild — senior burgh officer with important responsibilities relating to merchants, trade and municipal economic affairs.
- Compeirand — appearing formally before the Council.
- Exhibitie — exhibited or formally produced a document before the Council.
- Informatioun — a written statement, report or memorandum supplied for official consideration.
- Mynthous / Coynehous — Mint or Coining House, the institution in which royal coin was produced.
- Obligement — a formal legal obligation or binding undertaking.
- Maister of the Mynt / master cunyear — Master of the Mint or Master Coiner, the senior officer charged with administration and proper operation of the Mint.
- His Majestie and his lieges — the King and his subjects.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 509, Edinburgh, 3 August 1637; Acta, May 1636–November 1639, fol. 239b. Complete printed Council minutes concerning the submitted Mint information and subsequent committee appointment. Digitized volume .
Mr Alexander Guthrie — Edinburgh’s Service-book Indemnity and Security Arrangements
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 513–516 • 9–10 August 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council’s attempts to secure introduction of the Service-book in Edinburgh reached a more formal stage on 9 August 1637.
James Cochrane, John Smith and Charles Hamilton, bailies of Edinburgh, together with Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk, appeared personally before the Council. They were asked whether, as previously required, they had obtained readers for the Edinburgh churches and whether the city was prepared to provide security for the Bishop, ministers and readers who would take part.
The civic representatives said that they were willing to obey the Council but could not find suitably qualified clerks and readers at such short notice. According to their answer, the available candidates were ordinary schoolmasters whose employment might bring the service into disrepute and provoke further opposition.
They nevertheless agreed that the clergy should receive whatever legal security the laws of Scotland permitted.
The Council then ordered the bailies and Alexander Guthrie as town clerk to consider and set down in writing an obligatory act providing indemnity for the bishops, ministers and others involved in the service.
The matter continued through the afternoon and into the following stage of Council business. The resulting obligation made the municipal authorities responsible, within the limits permitted by law, for protecting the clergy and readers from violence, injury, insult and disorder connected with the Service-book.
After the indemnity act had been approved, the Council again addressed the bailies and town clerk, requiring them to investigate the earlier disturbance and to secure competent readers and clerks for the service.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
“The whilk day James Cochrane, Johne Smith, Charles Hamilton, bailleis of Edinburgh, and Mr Alexander Guthre, toun clerk, compeirand personallie before the Lords of Privie Counsell, and being demanded if according to the late ordinance and dewtie incumbent to thame, they had provided readers for officiating the service in the kirks of Edinburgh upon Sunday nixt, and if they wer readie to secure and give assurance for the indemnitee of the Bishop of Edinburgh, ministers and pastors of the said citie and of the readers to be imployed for performing and using the service booke appointed be auctoritie to be receaved within the saids kirks,
the saids bailleis declared that they wer most willing to obtemper the Counsells ordinance but that they could not upon so short a time provide understanding and sufficient clerkes and readers, there being none within the citie but vulgar schoolemaisters be whome the service might be disgraced and his Majesteis auctoritie upon thair imployment receave opposition, and that they wer content to secure the clergie in suche legall way as the lawes of the kingdome in suche a caise will allow.
The Lords having heard the Bishop of Edinburgh and Mr Alexander Thomesoun for himselfe and in name of the rest of the ministers of Edinburgh, and having considderit of thair desyres and of the answers made thereto be the saids bailleis and clerk, they forbeare to meddle with or make anie change or innovation of the acts formerlie made upon remonstrance frome the clergie tuicheing the settling and begining of the service booke upon Sunday nixt,
and remitts to the Bishop of Edinburgh to confer with the ministers and bailleis of Edinburgh anent the orderlie performance of the same in a peaceable and decent manor and that these who ar to be imployed therein be provided of sufficient maintenance for thair better encouragement to undergoe the service,
and siclyke ordains the saids bailleis and clerk to consider and sett doun in writt the obligatorie act for the saids bishops, ministers and others thair indemnitie and to exhibite the same to the Counsell at foure of the clocke in the afternoone, till quhilk time the Lords continewes thair further advisement and resolution in the particulars abonewrittin.”
Eodem die post meridiem.
“The whilk day Mr Alexander Thomesone, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, for himselfe and in name and behalfe of the rest of the ministry of the said citie, compeirand before the Counsell made humble remonstrance to the Lords and therewithall craved that they might not be burdenned to reade the service untill suche time as the toun of Edinburgh sail furnishe readers and clerkes for officiating the same, and that they be provided of a competent maintenance for thair better enducement to undergoe the charge,
whiche being done, that the ministers would reade the service for the space of a moneth; that in the meanetime they may informe and instruct suche persons as sail be presented and upon tryell admitted to that charge; as lykewise that the kirks of Halyrudhous, the North Bridge of Leith, Libbertoun, Colintoun and St Cuthbert’s kirk sould joyntlie and at the same time receave and performe the service,
and withall that the citie of Edinburgh be ordained to give assurance for the indemnitie of the ministrie of Edinburgh. Whiche proposition and desyre being heard and considderit be the Lords, they callit for his Majesteis Advocat and required him with the clerk of Counsell to draw up ane obligatorie act aganis the provest, bailleis and counsell of Edinburgh for securing of the ministers and provyding for thair indemnitie, so far as the law, custome and practick of the kingdome in suche a kynd may warrant and allow,
and that copeis be delivered thairof to the parteis interessed to be advised therewith, till the morne at foure of the clocke in the afternoone, till quhilk time the Lords continewes the mater and ordains thair meeting to be at Halyrudhous.”
“Forsamekle as it hes pleased his sacred Majestie by his letter direct to the Lords of Privie Counsell to require thame to concurre with the lords and others of the clergie by strenthening thame in all whiche by his Majesteis auctoritie may contribute to the settling of the forme of divine service now prescribed, and that both in the citie of Edinburgh and other parts as the saids lords of the clergie frome time to time sail require thair helpe;
and forsamekle as the saids lords of the clergie hes represented to the Counsell that the most part of the actuall ministers of Edinburgh, togidder with suche others as ar imployed in officiating the service within the said citie, hes offered thameselffes readie to performe the dewtie incumbent unto thame, in reading of the said service, provyding that they be secured in thair persons, and made free of all danger or disgrace to be offered unto thame or to the said service be whatsomever persons within the said citie,
and that als weill during thair actuall service as in thair comming thereto, and returning frome the same or otherwayes whatsomever untill the discontentments of the people arising upon occasion of the said service be removed,
and the saids Lords, being most willing according to thair bound dewtie to give prooffe of thair fordward affectioun to his Majesteis service and execution of his royall commandements, thairfoir the saids Lords caused call for the provest and bailleis of Edinburgh, who compeired be the foure bailleis and toun clerk, to whome the saids Lords propouned the desyre of the clergie and the necessitie and justice thairof,
to the quhilk the saids bailleis and clerk humbelie consented so far as they could or might be bound be the lawes of the kingdome; and thairfoir the saids Lords finds, declares and ordains the provest, bailleis and counsell of the said citie of Edinburgh present and thair successors in the saids offices to keepe the bishop of Edinburgh and ministers thairof and all others persons to be imployed for officiating the service free, harmlesse and skaithlesse of all and quhatsomever danger, perrell or trouble whiche they, thair wyffes, servants or famileis sail susteane or incur in thair persons, bodeis, goods or geir,
and free and secure frome all injureis, contumeleia and disgraces to be done or offered to thair persons or names directlie or indirectlie, and that als weill enduring the time of thair actuall service as in repairing thereto and returning frome the same, and at all other times whatsomever quhill the discontentments of the people arising upon occasion of the said service be purged and removed,
and that fra all fact, deid or words to be done be the saids provest, bailleis and counsell of the said citie of Edinburgh or be whatsomever persons, inhabitants within the same or being there for the time, als weill male as female, maisters or servants, or what other condition they be of and all others whome they may stop or latt directlie or indirectlie,
and that in so far as they ar or may be answerable be the lawes of the kingdome and that under suche panes, fynes and penalteis, and suche farther censure and punishment in thair persons and goods as the Lords of Counsell sail inflict after tryell of the contraventioun, ground and merite thairof, and of the diligence done be the magistrate for repressing the disorders and apprehending and exhibition of the parteis delinquents, quhilk tryell and punishment the Lords reserves to thameselffes.”
“The whilk day the act concerning the indemnitie of the Bishop of Edinburgh, ministers thairof, and others to be imployed for officiating the service booke being exhibite and considderit be the saids Lords, they allowed of the same, and accordinglie past and exped the said act,
quherof intimatioun wes made to the foure bailleis, deane of gild, tresaurer and toun clerk of Edinburgh for thameselffes and in name and behalfe of the provest and counsell of the said citie, and to the Deane of Edinburgh and Mr Alexander Thomeson in name of the ministrie, who acquiesced thereto.”
“The quhilk day the Lords of Secreit Counsell recommendit to the bailleis and toun clerk of Edinburgh and therewithall required thame for satisfactioun and expiatioun of the former uproare and insurrection within thair citie, to make diligent inquirie anent the authors, actors and abbettors of that mutinie and withall to provide with all convenient diligence for readers and clerkes to officiat the service and to furnishe competent meanes to thame for discharge thairof, quherunto the saids bailleis and clerk promeist most fordward and reall obedience.”
Modern English Rendering
On 9 August 1637, Edinburgh bailies James Cochrane, John Smith and Charles Hamilton, together with Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk, personally appeared before the Privy Council.
They were asked whether they had complied with the Council’s previous orders by finding readers to conduct the Service-book in Edinburgh’s churches on the following Sunday and whether they were prepared to guarantee the safety of the Bishop of Edinburgh, the ministers and pastors of the city, and the readers who would conduct the service.
The civic officials answered that they were entirely willing to obey the Council, but that the time allowed had been too short to find competent and suitably qualified clerks and readers. They said that only ordinary schoolmasters were available and feared that using such men might bring the service into disrepute and provoke opposition to royal authority.
They nevertheless agreed that the clergy should be protected in whatever lawful form Scottish law permitted.
After hearing both the civic representatives and the clergy, the Council declined to alter its previous orders for beginning the Service-book. The Bishop of Edinburgh was instructed to confer with the ministers and bailies about conducting the service peacefully and decently and about providing adequate maintenance for those employed as readers.
The bailies and town clerk were meanwhile ordered to prepare in writing a formal act providing legal indemnity for the bishops, ministers and others involved in conducting the service and to submit it to the Council at four o’clock that afternoon.
Later that day, Edinburgh minister Alexander Thomson appeared for himself and the other ministers. He asked that the ministers not be required to read the Service-book until the town supplied readers and clerks and provided them with adequate maintenance.
The ministers proposed temporarily reading the service themselves for one month while suitable permanent readers were trained. They also asked that Holyroodhouse, North Leith, Liberton, Colinton and St Cuthbert’s adopt the service at the same time and that Edinburgh formally guarantee the safety of its ministry.
The Council ordered the King’s Advocate and Clerk of Council to draw up a formal obligatory act binding Edinburgh’s municipal authorities to secure the ministers and provide indemnity, but only so far as the law, custom and established practice of Scotland permitted.
The resulting obligation declared that Edinburgh’s provost, bailies and council, and their successors in office, were to keep the Bishop of Edinburgh, the ministers and all others employed in conducting the Service-book harmless from danger, violence, injury, insult and disgrace.
The protection extended to their persons, property, wives, servants and families, both while conducting the service and while travelling to and from it, and was to continue while the public discontent associated with the Service-book remained.
The city’s responsibility, however, was expressly limited to what its magistrates could legally prevent or control under the laws of Scotland. Any alleged breach would still require examination by the Privy Council, which reserved to itself the determination of penalties and punishment.
When the completed indemnity act was later presented to the Council, the Lords approved and formally issued it. Notice was given to Edinburgh’s four bailies, Dean of Guild, treasurer and town clerk on behalf of themselves, the provost and Town Council, and also to representatives of the ministry. Both sides acquiesced in the arrangement.
Finally, the Council required the bailies and town clerk to make diligent inquiry into the authors, actors and supporters of the earlier uprising and to obtain suitable readers and clerks for the Service-book, providing them with adequate means to perform their duties. The bailies and clerk promised earnest and effective obedience.
This is one of the most substantial surviving Privy Council records for Mr Alexander Guthrie in Volume VI. Rather than merely recording his name or attendance, the sequence places him repeatedly within the civic negotiations arising from the Service-book crisis.
Guthrie personally appeared with Edinburgh’s bailies, participated in the city’s answer to the Council, was included in the order to formulate a written indemnity, and remained one of the civic officers responsible for carrying out the resulting security and investigative arrangements.
The entry also documents the difficult position of Edinburgh’s municipal government. The civic representatives expressed willingness to obey royal and Council authority while at the same time insisting that any guarantee imposed upon them remain within the limits of Scottish law.
For the wider historical record, the sequence captures the Crown, clergy and municipal authorities attempting to construct a legal framework that would permit the disputed liturgy to proceed in the aftermath of the Edinburgh disturbances.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Obtemper — obey or comply with an official order.
- Indemnitie — legal protection against loss, injury, liability or harm.
- Obligatorie act — formal written instrument placing a legal obligation upon the parties named in it.
- Clerkes and readers — persons employed to read or assist in conducting the prescribed liturgical service.
- Practick — established legal practice or precedent.
- Free, harmlesse and skaithlesse — protected from loss, injury or damage.
- Contumelie — insult, reproach or degrading treatment.
- Exhibite — formally present or produce before the Council.
- Exped — formally issue, complete or put into legal effect.
- Acquiesced — accepted or assented to the arrangement without further objection.
- Authors, actors and abbettors — those alleged respectively to have originated, carried out or assisted the disturbance.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 513–516, Edinburgh and Holyrood House, 9–10 August 1637; Acta, May 1636–November 1639, fols. 228b–229b. Complete continuous printed Service-book indemnity sequence, including the concluding act that begins on p. 515 and continues onto p. 516. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Appointed to Examine Witnesses in the Maxwell–McCulloch Dispute
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 586 • Summons dated 16 June 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Page 586 preserves a miscellaneous paper connected with the dispute between James Maxwell of Knock and John McCulloch of Ardwell.
A summons dated 16 June 1636 directed Patrick Calbreth, messenger, to charge witnesses at Maxwell’s instance. A corresponding summons on the preceding page had been raised at McCulloch’s instance for witnesses on his side of the same cause.
Two hearing notes had later been written in the margin of Maxwell’s summons. Brown states that their dates and parts of their wording had been torn away. One surviving fragment records the appointment of “. . . . Murray, the Bishop of Aberdene, and Lord Alexander” to examine the witnesses at nine o’clock on the following morning.
Because the title immediately preceding “Murray” is lost from the damaged document, the body text alone is incomplete. Brown’s index, however, specifically places page 586 under John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, among the references in which he was appointed to examine witnesses or prisoners.
The second surviving marginal note recorded the Council’s final decision in the dispute and referred back to the determination printed on page 282.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Description of the Surviving Paper
“39. Summons directed to Patrick Calbreth, messenger, at the instance of James Maxwell of Knock, against the persons named as witnesses ante, p. 585; dated 16th June, 1636, and signed Ja. Prymrois.
There are notes of two diets of hearing on the margin, the dates and other parts of which are torn away; but of which one is the appointment of . . . . Murray, the Bishop of Aberdene, and Lord Alexander to examine the witnesses on the morrow at 9 o’clock, and the other giving their Lordships’ final decision in the case, as on p. 282, ante.”
Modern English Rendering
A summons dated 16 June 1636 was issued to Patrick Calbreth, messenger, at the request of James Maxwell of Knock. It directed that the witnesses identified in the related proceeding on the preceding page be formally summoned.
Two later hearing notes had been written in the margin of this document, but portions of both notes — including their dates — had been torn away.
Enough survived of one note to show that the Bishop of Moray, the Bishop of Aberdeen and Lord Alexander were appointed to examine the witnesses at nine o’clock on the following morning. Brown’s index identifies the Bishop of Moray in this p. 586 reference as John Guthrie.
The second marginal note recorded the Council’s final decision in the case, which Brown directs the reader to the fuller proceeding printed on page 282.
Related Council Decision — 12 July 1636
The dispute concerned sheep claimed by James Maxwell of Knock and retained by John McCulloch of Ardwell. Maxwell alleged, among other things, that McCulloch had separated twenty lambs from their mothers and removed identifying black-wool marks from the ewes.
After the parties and witnesses were examined, the Council ultimately found no ground for a criminal prosecution against John McCulloch and discharged the Justice, Justice Clerk and their deputies from proceeding against him on that accusation.
The Council nevertheless ordered McCulloch to pay £3 to each witness for expenses, to deliver to James Maxwell the sheep and lambs belonging to him, and ordered both parties to find law-surety to one another in 1,000 merks.
This fragment adds another example of Bishop John Guthrie’s work in the judicial and investigative business of the Privy Council.
His role here was not ecclesiastical. He was selected with other senior officeholders to examine witnesses in a disputed case requiring the Council to determine whether allegations justified criminal proceedings.
The record is also useful precisely because of its damaged state. Brown’s printed description preserves what remained of the original marginal notes, while his index identifies the otherwise incomplete “Murray” reference as John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Summons — formal legal process requiring a person to appear or answer before the appropriate authority.
- Messenger — messenger-at-arms or other officer responsible for formally executing legal process.
- Diet of hearing — appointed sitting or date for hearing a cause or procedural stage.
- Examine the witnesses — hear sworn evidence from persons summoned to give information concerning the dispute.
- Precognition — preliminary examination of witnesses or evidence before deciding whether and how a case should proceed.
- Law-surety — security or caution requiring parties to keep the peace toward one another.
- Merks — Scottish money of account; the Council required each side to find law-surety in 1,000 merks.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 586, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 39, summons dated 16 June 1636. The marginal hearing notes are expressly described as partly torn away. Brown’s index, pp. 833–834, identifies the p. 586 “Murray” reference as John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray. Related final decision: pp. 282–283, Edinburgh, 12 July 1636. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Authorizes Summons in the Keith–Stirling Supplication
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 604 • 28 July 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 28 July 1636, William Keith of Logyruif and his wife Bessie Stirling sought Privy Council intervention after a debtor whom they had caused to be imprisoned was released from ward.
Their debtor, John Keith of Pettie, had previously been put to the horn at their instance for non-payment of certain sums of money. Following further legal process, he had been apprehended and committed to the tolbooth of Edinburgh.
According to the supplication, John had remained in ward only a few hours when Sir William Keith of Ludquharne and Nathaniel Keith negotiated with friends of the petitioners for his release. They allegedly promised to return him to ward by the following Tuesday night, on penalty of losing the benefit of a royal protection so far as the petitioners were concerned.
The petitioners complained that the promised re-entry had not occurred and asked that Sir William and Nathaniel Keith be summoned before the Council and required either to produce John Keith so that he could be returned to ward or to suffer enforcement of the agreed consequence.
The endorsement written on the back authorized precisely that procedural step and was signed “Jo. B. of Moray.” Brown’s index identifies John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, as the bishop represented by this p. 604 signature.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment with Original Endorsement
Supplication by William Keethe of Logyruif and Bessie Stirline, his spouse, as follows:—John Keethe of Pettie was put to the horn at their instance for non-payment of certain sums of money, and, having raised caption thereon, they caused apprehend and ward him in the tolbooth of Edinburgh on [blank] July instant; but he had only been a few hours in ward when Sir William Keethe of Ludquharne and Nathaniel Keethe, his uncle, earnestly dealt with some of the complainers’ friends, ignoring the complainers themselves, for the rebel’s release, promising to re-enter the rebel in ward on Tuesday last before night under the penalty of forfeiting the benefit of the protection granted by his Majesty to them so far as regards the complainers.
But they have not and do not intend to re-enter the said John. They therefore crave that Sir William and Nathaniel Keethe may be ordained to compear before their Lordships and produce the said John this afternoon so that he may be replaced in ward, or that their Lordships would enforce the stipulation regarding their protection.
[On the back] . . . “xxviij Julij, 1636. Fiat summonitio ut petitur. Jo. B. of Moray.”
Also note of service by Mr William Dowglas, macer, against Sir William and Nathaniel Keethe, both personally apprehended; witnesses, John Dowglas, his servitor, and John Dowglas, macer. There has been a note of hearing on the margin, but it is now torn away.
Modern English Rendering
William Keith of Logyruif and his wife, Bessie Stirling, petitioned the Privy Council concerning John Keith of Pettie.
John Keith had already been formally denounced as a rebel at their instance for failing to pay sums of money owed to them. The petitioners had then obtained a warrant of arrest and caused him to be apprehended and imprisoned in the Edinburgh tolbooth.
He had been imprisoned only a few hours when Sir William Keith of Ludquharne and Nathaniel Keith persuaded some of the petitioners’ friends to allow his release.
They reportedly promised that John Keith would be returned to ward by the following Tuesday night. If they failed, they were to lose the benefit of the royal protection they enjoyed so far as William Keith and Bessie Stirling were concerned.
Because John Keith had not been returned, the petitioners asked the Council to summon Sir William and Nathaniel Keith and require them either to produce John that afternoon so that he could be imprisoned again or to enforce the agreed consequence concerning their protection.
The petition was endorsed on 28 July 1636: “Let the summons issue as requested. Jo., Bishop of Moray.”
The resulting summons was served personally upon Sir William and Nathaniel Keith by Mr William Douglas, macer.
This record gives direct evidence of Bishop John Guthrie exercising Privy Council authority by authorizing formal legal process.
His surviving endorsement is especially valuable because it is not merely an editorial statement that he attended a Council meeting. The printed source preserves the abbreviated form in which he authenticated the order: “Jo. B. of Moray.”
The record also reconnects with an earlier Guthrie-related proceeding in this same volume. On page 275, Bessie Stirling, spouse of William Keith of Logyruith, had appeared as pursuer through “Guthrie, her mother.” The matching spouses and continuing Keith family litigation identify this as the same Bessie Stirling and William Keith couple.
The two records therefore provide an unusual intersection of otherwise separate Guthrie evidence: Bessie Stirling had an explicitly identified Guthrie mother, while this later petition was authorized by John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Supplication — formal petition asking the Privy Council to grant a remedy or issue legal process.
- Put to the horn — formally denounced as a rebel for failure to obey lawful process.
- Caption — warrant authorizing apprehension of a person already subject to legal process.
- Ward — legal custody or imprisonment.
- Tolbooth of Edinburgh — municipal building used, among other purposes, for detention and imprisonment.
- Protection — royal or other lawful protection temporarily shielding a person from specified forms of legal diligence or arrest.
- Fiat summonitio ut petitur — Latin: “Let the summons issue as petitioned.”
- Macer — officer responsible for carrying out formal court and Council process.
- Personally apprehended — here, personally reached and formally served with the legal process; it does not mean imprisoned in this context.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 604, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 88, supplication endorsed 28 July 1636. Original endorsement: “Fiat summonitio ut petitur. Jo. B. of Moray.” Brown’s index, pp. 833–834, identifies John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, and includes p. 604 among his signed documents. Related Bessie Stirling / Guthrie-mother proceeding: p. 275. Digitized volume .
Richard Guthrie, Officer in Haddington — Witness to Execution of a Summons
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 618 • 4 September 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The underlying summons arose from a disagreement between Sir John Auchinmowtie of Gosford, sheriff principal of Haddington, and John Cockburne, provost of the burgh.
A man named Thomas Hendrie had been committed to the Haddington tolbooth for theft. After his confession, the Privy Council granted a commission to the sheriff and his deputies and to the provost and bailies of Haddington to hold a justice court and put Hendrie to trial before an assize.
According to the sheriff’s complaint, the necessary assize and pursuer were assembled, but the provost refused to participate, causing the commission and appointed trial diet to fail.
The Privy Council therefore authorized a summons against the provost. That summons was dated 2 September 1636.
On 4 September 1636, James Hamilton, messenger, formally executed the summons upon John Cockburne. The service was witnessed by John Strauchane and Richard Gotherie, both described as town officers of Haddington.
Complete Printed Entry — Note of Execution
“Note of execution by James Hamyltone, messenger, on 4th September, 1636, of a summons at the instance of Sir John Awchinmowtie, principal sheriff of Hadingtoun, against John Cokburne, provost of Hadingtoun, personally apprehended; witnesses, John Strauchane and Richard Gotherie, two of the town officers of Hadingtoun.”
Modern English Rendering
On 4 September 1636, James Hamilton, a messenger, formally served a Privy Council summons raised at the request of Sir John Auchinmowtie of Gosford, sheriff principal of Haddington.
The summons was served personally upon John Cockburne, provost of Haddington.
The execution of the summons was witnessed by John Strauchane and Richard Guthrie, both identified as town officers of Haddington.
This entry provides a concise but direct occupational identification for Richard Guthrie in 1636: he was one of the town officers of Haddington.
It also shows him participating in the routine machinery of legal process as a witness to the service of a Privy Council summons upon the burgh’s provost.
The record is especially useful for distinguishing this man from the Richard Guthrie, Writer to the Signet, who appears elsewhere in this same volume on page 414 as a procurator. The two men hold different offices and should remain separate unless independent evidence demonstrates otherwise.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Town officer — burgh official who assisted in carrying out municipal and judicial business, including service and enforcement work.
- Messenger — messenger-at-arms or other officer authorized to execute formal legal process.
- Execution of a summons — formal service of legal process upon the person required to appear or answer.
- Personally apprehended — personally reached and served with process in this context.
- Provost — chief magistrate of a Scottish burgh.
- Sheriff principal — senior royal judicial officer for a sheriffdom.
- Assize — jury convened to determine guilt or innocence in a criminal proceeding.
- Diet — formally appointed date or sitting for a judicial proceeding.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 618, Miscellaneous Papers, note of execution dated 4 September 1636; underlying summons dated Edinburgh, 2 September 1636. Brown’s index, pp. 785–786, identifies Richard Guthrie, officer in Haddington, as witness to the execution of a charge at p. 618. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Committee for the Visitation and Accounts of the Hospital of Leith
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 641–642 • 3–29 November 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Hospital of Leith was the subject of a lengthy series of Privy Council proceedings concerning its money, bonds, management and the interests of the poor and mariners for whose benefit it existed.
In this record, dated 3 November 1636, the Council states that Charles I had been informed of “abuses and disorders” in the management of matters belonging to the hospital, which the document describes as pertaining to mariners.
The King had therefore directed the Privy Council to establish rules governing the hospital and, in particular, to prescribe how its annual accounts should be made so that its affairs could be shown to have been administered properly.
Hospital masters and other interested persons were ordered to appear before the Council on 22 November to hear what regulations would be established concerning the hospital’s government and accounting.
The later procedural note records that the Council nominated a committee consisting of the Earls of Southesk and Winton, Lauderdale, the Bishops of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
A further note dated 29 November declared that Edinburgh’s bailies and other representatives of the town were to have no part in the hospital’s visitation.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Record and Procedural Notes
“Apud Edinburgh, tertio Novembris, 1636.
Forsamekle as the Kings Majestie, being trewlie informed that there hes beene some abuses and disorders in the mannaging of these things belonging to the hospitall of Leith quhilk apperteanneth to mariners, and that latelie the Lords of his Majesteis Privie Counsell hes tane great care to see what hes beene disordered there reduced againe to the right use,
his Majestie for this effect, out of his princelie and pious care of the weale of the said hospitall, hes givin order and direction to his said Counsell to prescryve and give order how the yeerelie accompts of the said hospitall sail be made, that it may appeare that all things ar orderlie and piouslie done;
thairfoir the saids Lords, according to his Majesteis warrand and direction givin unto thame, ordains ane of the maissers of Counsell to pas, and in his Majesteis name and auctoritie to command and charge the persons following, maisters of the said hospitall; they ar to say: [blank], as alsua Mr William Wishart, minister at Leith, and one of the bailleis of Edinburgh, to compeir personallie before the saids Lords upon the 22 of November instant to heare and see suche order tane anent the governement of the said hospitall and making of the yeerelie accompts thairof as sail be thought expedient, under the pane of rebellioun; with certificatioun.
22 November, 1636. Mr John Nisbet for the skipperis, the persone of Leyth and James Cochrane personalis. Continewit to this day eight day.
The Lordis nominatis the Earlis of Southesk and Wintoun, Lauderdaill, the Bishops of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Bishop Murray.
29 Novembris. The Lords declairis that the baillies of Edinburgh nor no other for the toun of Edinburgh sail haif ony hand in the visitatioun of the hospitall.
On the back there is a note of execution on 21st November, 1636, by Mr John Henrysone, macer, against the provost of Edinburgh, Mr William Wishart, parson at Leith, George Scot, David Robertsone, David Logane, Alexander Banes, John Leuphope and James Halyburtoun, maister of the Hospital of Leith, to compear before the Council on 22nd November; witnesses, Hary Veitche, James Veitche, James Ramsay and William Henrysone.”
Modern English Rendering
On 3 November 1636, the Privy Council recorded that the King had been informed of abuses and disorders in the management of the Hospital of Leith, an institution associated in this record with mariners.
The Council had already been taking steps to restore improperly managed matters to their proper use. Charles I now directed the Council to establish regulations governing how the hospital’s annual accounts were to be prepared so that its affairs could be shown to have been conducted properly and for their intended charitable purposes.
The Council therefore ordered hospital masters, together with William Wishart, minister at Leith, and an Edinburgh bailie, to appear before it on 22 November.
At that hearing they were to receive whatever orders the Council considered appropriate concerning the government of the hospital and preparation of its yearly accounts.
The later procedural note records that the Council nominated the Earls of Southesk and Winton, Lauderdale, the Bishops of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, to deal with the matter.
On 29 November, the Council further declared that the bailies of Edinburgh, and anyone else acting for the town of Edinburgh, were to have no part in the visitation of the hospital.
The surviving paper also records that the summons requiring the relevant parties to attend on 22 November had actually been served on 21 November.
This entry adds another significant secular administrative duty to Bishop John Guthrie’s Privy Council record. Here his role concerned the governance and financial accountability of a charitable institution rather than church administration within his own diocese.
The hospital controversy involved substantial questions about money, bonds, legal rights and the proper use of funds intended for the hospital and its poor. Guthrie’s nomination therefore placed him among the senior councillors charged with examining an already complicated institutional dispute.
The record also marks the beginning of a sequence of Leith Hospital references for Bishop Guthrie in this volume. Later proceedings on pages 652–654 return to the same institutional controversy and should be read as separate stages rather than merged into this appointment.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Hospital — a charitable foundation rather than necessarily a medical hospital in the modern sense; here the institution served charitable purposes connected with Leith and mariners.
- Masters of the hospital — persons responsible for administration or management of the institution.
- Yearly accounts — annual financial accounting intended to show how the hospital’s property and money had been administered.
- Visitation — formal inspection or review of an institution, its governance and administration.
- Macer — Council officer responsible for serving and executing formal process.
- Compeir personallie — appear personally before the Council.
- Under the pain of rebellion — failure to obey the charge could expose the person to formal denunciation as a rebel after the required legal process.
- Continued — adjourned or postponed to a later diet for further consideration.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 641–642, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 163, Edinburgh, 3 November 1636, with procedural notes dated 22 and 29 November 1636. Complete printed record and surviving procedural notes. Brown’s index, pp. 833–834, identifies John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray as a member of the Leith Hospital committee at pp. 641, 652 and 654. Digitized volume .
Unnamed Guthrie — Witness to Execution of Summons in the Robert Lermonth Dispute
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 648–649 • 14–15 November 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This miscellaneous paper concerns a dispute with Mr Robert Lermonth, advocate, over possession of an Edinburgh lodging.
The identity of the supplicant is lost because the document is badly damaged. Brown’s surviving account states that Robert Lermonth had been the supplicant’s tenant and had been warned to remove. A decree of the town of Edinburgh subsequently required him to leave the property and pay a half-term’s rent.
After Lermonth removed his furnishings from the back portion of the property but left books and papers in the front rooms, the supplicant obtained possession of the keys and let the whole lodging to another tenant.
The supplication then alleged that on the 10th of November 1636, under cover of night, Robert Lermonth returned with his son, Mr John Lermonth, and James Patoun, servant to a locksmith, broke through several doors and forcibly resumed possession.
A summons was therefore authorized. Brown records that Mr John Henrysone executed that summons on 14 and 15 November upon the named defenders. Among the witnesses to that execution was an individual identified only as “. . . . Guthrie.”
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
“181. Supplication by . . . . (document very badly mutilated) . . . against Mr Robert Lermonth, to the following effect:— Mr Robert Lermonth was tenant of the supplicant’s house, and he warned him to remove therefrom, and in an action before the town of Edinburgh obtained decree against him to remove from the back half at Whitsunday last, and from both back and fore within eight days after the date of the sentence, which was upon the twenty seventh . . . and to pay a half term’s rent.
Mr Robert Leirmonth delayed obedience till the session had risen and he had removed his plenishing from the back land, but still kept some books and papers in the front chambers.
In his absence, however, the supplicant obtained possession of the keys from some of Mr Robert’s people and thereupon let his whole lodging, both back and fore.
But ‘the said Mr Robert Leirmonth, upon the tent of this instant, under cloud and silence of night, accompanied with Mr Johne Leirmonth, his sonn, and James Pattone, servitour to Thomas Browne . . . smyth, enterit within my lodging and violentlie hes broken up thrie doores and violentlie . . . broken and spoilit the locks, bandis and yron barris therof, and swa violentlie enterit . . . hous and hes possest himselffe therein,’ to the supplicant’s heavy damage, of which he can obtain no redress without their Lordships’ interposition.
He therefore craves warrant to James Prymros, Clerk of Council, for raising letters against Mr Robert Leirmonth, whose ‘fault is ane dowbill fault sieing he is ane professour of lawes and sould schew [ane ex]ample to wthers.’
[On the back] ‘Apud Edinburgh, decimo [Novembris], 1636. Fiat summonitio ut petitur to . . . day of November instant, and to su[mound . . .] if neid beis . . .’
Also note of execution by Mr John Henrysone on 14th and 15th November against Mr Robert Leirmonth, advocate, Mr John Leirmonth, his son, William Dumb . . . , and James Patoun, servitor to Thomas Broun, locksmith, all personally apprehended, to compear before the Council on 15th November; witnesses, Robert Creichtoun, Alexander Maxwell, . . . . Guthrie and William Maxwell.”
Modern English Rendering
The unnamed petitioner complained that Mr Robert Lermonth, advocate, had been his tenant but had been ordered by the Edinburgh authorities to leave the lodging.
After Lermonth removed some of his possessions, the petitioner obtained the keys and rented the entire property to someone else.
The petitioner alleged that on 10 November 1636 Lermonth, accompanied by his son and another man, returned at night, forced open three doors, damaged locks and iron fittings, and retook possession of the house.
He therefore requested authority to raise a summons against Lermonth. That summons was granted.
On 14 and 15 November 1636, Mr John Henrysone formally served the summons upon Robert Lermonth and the other named persons, requiring them to appear before the Privy Council on 15 November.
The service was witnessed by Robert Creichtoun, Alexander Maxwell, an unnamed Guthrie, and William Maxwell.
The Guthrie evidence in this entry is limited but definite: an individual bearing the surname Guthrie witnessed execution of Privy Council process in Edinburgh in November 1636.
Because the forename has been lost with the damaged portion of the document, the record should remain attached to an unnamed Guthrie rather than assigned to one of the other known Guthries active in Edinburgh.
The entry is nevertheless useful as evidence of another Guthrie participating in the legal-administrative environment surrounding Council process during this period.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Supplication — formal petition asking the Privy Council for legal or administrative relief.
- Decree of removing — judicial order requiring a tenant or occupier to leave property.
- Plenishing — household furnishings and movable possessions.
- Under cloud and silence of night — a legal description emphasizing that an act was allegedly committed secretly during the night.
- Letters — formal written legal process issued under authority.
- Fiat summonitio ut petitur — Latin: “Let the summons issue as petitioned.”
- Execution of summons — formal service of the legal process upon the persons required to appear.
- Personally apprehended — personally reached and served with process in this context.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 648–649, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 181, supplication endorsed at Edinburgh, 10 November 1636, with note of execution dated 14–15 November 1636. Complete printed editorial abridgment of a document described by Brown as “very badly mutilated.” Brown’s Guthrie index identifies the p. 649 individual only as “. . . . , witness to the execution of a charge.” Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Formal Commission to Examine and Regulate the Hospital of Leith
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 652–653 • 29 November 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council’s concern over the Hospital of Leith had already produced summonses, hearings and an earlier committee nomination. By 29 November 1636, the matter had advanced to a formal and much more detailed commission.
The act states that Charles I had charged the Privy Council to investigate what had been disordered in the hospital and restore its affairs to their proper use. Because the full Council could not devote itself to the matter, six senior councillors were appointed to carry out the work.
Among them was John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
The committee’s remit was extensive. It could call before it the ministers of Leith, former hospital administrators, skippers and other relevant persons; require production of the hospital’s original foundation; determine what rents and revenues had been endowed to it; create a suitable governing council; establish rules for its future management; and consider the Council decrees involving Violet and Thomas Dawling.
The appointment therefore moved beyond a general inquiry into a structured review of the hospital’s legal foundation, finances, administration and governance.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
“Apud Edinburgh, penultimo Novembris, 1636.
Forsamekle as the Kingis Majestie, oute of his princelie and pious regaird of the weele of the hospitall of Leethe whilk apperteyneth to the skipperis and marinaris, hes recommendit to the Lordis of Previe Counsell to informe thame selffis quhat hes beene disordourit in the said hospitall and to caus the same be reducet agane to the right use;
and wtheras the necessitie of otheris his Majesties weghtie affairis will not permitt the whole Counsell to attend this bussynes, thairfoir the saidis Lordis hes nominat and oppointit Patrik, Archiebishop of Glasgow, George, Earle of Wintoun, Johnne, Earle of Lauderdaill, David, Earle of Southesk, David, Bishop of Edinburgh, Johnne, Bishop of Murray, to conveene and meete when and whair thay sail think goode,
and to call befoir thame the persone of Restalrig and Mr Williame Mortoun, ministeris at Leethe, and Mr Andro Fairfoull, minister at the north kirk of Leethe, and suche skipperis and otheris as in tyme bigane hes had the charge of the said hospitall,
and to call for productioun of the first fundatioun of the said hospitall to the intent it may be knoune quhat rentis and revennewis hes bene mortified thairto, alsweele at the beginning as sensyne,
and to nominat ane competent nomber of personis to be the counsell of the said hospitall, of whome the said persone of Leethe to be one, and to prescryve and sett doun actis, reulis and ordinanceis how the said hospitall salbe governit and the reulis thairof mannaged in tyme comeing,
and to do and performe everie other thing whiche to the weele of the said hospitall apperteyneth and to considder the decreits gevin and pronunced be the Lordis of Secreit Counsell in favours of the said hospitall aganis Violett and Thomas Dawlingis and to heir the pairtyis thairupoun.”
Modern English Rendering
On 29 November 1636, the Privy Council recorded that the King, out of concern for the welfare of the Hospital of Leith, which served skippers and mariners, had directed the Council to investigate what had been mismanaged there and restore the institution to its proper use.
Because other important royal business prevented the full Council from attending to the matter, six councillors were formally appointed: the Archbishop of Glasgow, the Earls of Winton, Lauderdale and Southesk, the Bishop of Edinburgh, and John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.
They were authorized to meet whenever and wherever they thought appropriate.
They could summon the parson of Restalrig, William Morton, minister at Leith, Andrew Fairfoull, minister at North Leith, and any skippers or others who had formerly been responsible for the hospital.
They were to require production of the hospital’s original foundation so that they could determine what rents and revenues had been endowed to it both originally and afterward.
The commissioners were also authorized to appoint a suitable number of persons to form the governing council of the hospital, with the parson of Leith among them, and to establish rules and ordinances for the hospital’s future government.
More broadly, they could undertake whatever other measures were necessary for the welfare of the institution.
Finally, they were directed to consider the Privy Council decrees previously issued in favor of the hospital against Violet and Thomas Dawling and to hear the parties concerning those decisions.
This is stronger evidence than the earlier procedural notation on pp. 641–642 because it sets out John Guthrie’s formal appointment and the full scope of the committee’s authority.
Guthrie was one of only six senior councillors entrusted with reviewing the hospital’s foundation, revenues, administration and future governance. The commission also empowered the group to revisit an existing financial dispute involving the Dawlings and the institution’s assets.
The record therefore illustrates the breadth of Bishop John Guthrie’s secular Council duties. His responsibilities extended from criminal investigations and university governance to the oversight of charitable property and institutional finance.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Hospital of Leith — charitable foundation associated here with the welfare of skippers, mariners and the poor rather than a hospital solely in the modern medical sense.
- Foundation — the original legal instrument or instruments establishing the institution and defining its purposes, property and revenues.
- Mortified — permanently dedicated or endowed to a charitable or religious use.
- Rents and revenues — income-producing property and other sources of financial support belonging to the hospital.
- Counsell of the hospitall — governing body to be established for administration of the institution.
- Acts, rules and ordinances — formal regulations governing future administration.
- Decreits — formal judicial or Council decisions.
- Heir the pairtyis — hear the competing parties and their arguments before proceeding further.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 652–653, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 196, Edinburgh, 29 November 1636. Complete printed text of the committee appointment. Brown’s index, pp. 833–834, identifies John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray as a member of the Leith Hospital committee at pp. 641, 652 and 654. Digitized volume .
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Present at Hearing on the Government of the Hospital of Leith
Second Series, Volume 6 • Page 654 • 9 December 1636
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Leith Hospital inquiry had developed through several stages during November 1636. On 29 November, John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, had been formally named as one of six commissioners empowered to investigate the hospital’s foundation, revenues, administration and future government.
The present entry provides stronger evidence of his actual participation.
On 9 December 1636, the Bishop of Moray was present with the Archbishop of Glasgow, the Earl of Southesk and the Bishops of Edinburgh and Brechin when Mr John Nisbet and Alexander Hay were heard concerning the commission for government of the Hospital of Leith.
The hearing did not produce a final decision. After hearing the two men, the Lords postponed further consideration until the following Tuesday.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Record Text
“9 Decembris, 1636. In presence of the Archbishop of Glasgow; Southesk; Bishops [of] Edinburgh, Murrey and Brechin, Mr Johne Nisbit and Alexander Hay being heard anent the commission toward the governement of the hospitall of Leith, the Lords continewes the mater till Tuisday nixt.”
Modern English Rendering
On 9 December 1636, a hearing was held in the presence of the Archbishop of Glasgow, the Earl of Southesk, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, Moray and Brechin.
Mr John Nisbet and Alexander Hay were heard concerning the commission established for the government of the Hospital of Leith.
After hearing them, the Lords postponed further consideration of the matter until the following Tuesday.
This short minute is important because it moves the evidence for John Guthrie’s involvement in the Leith Hospital matter from appointment to documented participation.
Pages 641–642 and 652–653 show him being nominated and formally commissioned. Page 654 now places him in the hearing itself while parties were being heard concerning the hospital’s government.
Taken together, the records demonstrate that Bishop Guthrie’s role in this institutional inquiry was not merely nominal. He was present during at least one substantive stage of the Council’s consideration of the hospital.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- In presence of — explicit statement that the named councillors were present at the proceeding.
- Anent — concerning or regarding.
- Commission — formal authority delegated to designated persons to investigate, regulate or decide specified matters.
- Government of the hospital — administration, oversight and regulation of the charitable institution.
- Being heard — the named persons were allowed to present information, argument or advice before the councillors.
- Continues the matter — postpones further consideration to another appointed sitting without reaching a final decision.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), p. 654, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 198, 9 December 1636. Complete printed hearing minute. Brown’s index, pp. 833–834, identifies John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray as a member of the Leith Hospital committee at pp. 641, 652 and 654. Digitized volume .
Guthrie, Younger of Collestoun — Charged to Appear in an Ogilvie Peace Dispute
Second Series, Volume 6 • Pages 692–693 • 18 July 1637
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 18 July 1637, the Privy Council intervened in a developing dispute involving several members and associates of the Ogilvie families of Angus and Forfarshire.
The Council had been informed that serious trouble and “unquyetnes” appeared likely to arise between two groups. Among those named on the side of James, Master of Ogilvie, was “Guthre, younger of Collestoun.”
The opposing side was represented by James, Lord Deskford, and Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Inchemartine. The Council attributed the increasing tension to “mistakings and reports” passing between the parties.
Rather than wait for the dispute to develop into open violence, the Lords ordered the principal persons on both sides to appear personally before them on 27 July 1637. They were to submit to whatever measures the Council considered necessary for preservation of the King’s peace.
A second group of individuals was summoned as witnesses, including an unnamed footman to “young Collestoun.”
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
“Apud Edinburgh, 18 July, 1637.
Forsamekle as the Lords of Secreit Counsell ar informed that there is great appearance of trouble and unquyetnes like to fall out betuix James, Master of Ogilvie, James Ogilvie, younger of Newgrange, William Arrat of Dumbarnie, William Fiethie, Guthre, younger of Collestoun, Ogilvie, younger of the Peill, . . . Ogilvie, brother to Ogilvie of Pitmowie, Patrik Ogilvie in Cadgerdrak and Robert Grahame in Guthre, on the ane part,
and James, Lord Deskford and Sir Patrik Ogilvie of Inchemartine, on the other part, upon occasion of some mistakings and reports past betuix thame, quhilk hes stirred thame up to ane great animositie and heate, and hardlie can they be sattled but [be] auctoritie,
and thairfoir the saids Lords ordains letters to be direct charging the persons foresaids to compear personallie before the saids Lords upon the 27 of July instant to underly suche order tuicheinge the keeping of his Majestei’s peace as sail be prescrived unto thame, under the pane of rebellioun, with certificatioun;
as alsua charging Sir Johne Ogilvie of Innerquharritie, Henrie Durhame, servitour to James, Lord Ogilvie, Robert Alexander, servitour to the Laird of Innerquharritie, Johne Ogilvie of Inschewin, William Lyon in Brechin, Robert . . . , viccar of Brechin, David Norie there, Johne Beattie, his servant, William Ros, servitour to Sir Alexander Abircrombie of Birkinbog, James Rathven, alsua his servant, William Walker, footman to the Master of Ogilvie, . . . footman to young Collestoun, John Mathie, citinar in Brechin, Robert Dempster, baillie of Brechin, . . . Person, elder of Balmadeis, and Mr David Person, clerk of Forfar,
to compeir before the saids Lords the day foresaid to beir leill and faithfast witnessing in sa far as they sail be speirit at thame in the saidis mistakings, under the pane of rebellioun with certificatioun, etc.”
Modern English Rendering
On 18 July 1637, the Privy Council recorded that it had received information of a serious likelihood of trouble between two groups in Forfarshire.
On one side were James, Master of Ogilvie, several other Ogilvies and their associates, including the unnamed younger Guthrie of Collestoun. On the other were James, Lord Deskford, and Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Inchemartine.
The dispute had arisen from misunderstandings and reports that had passed between them and had, according to the Council, produced considerable hostility.
Because the Lords believed the dispute could not readily be settled without official intervention, they ordered all the principal parties to appear personally before the Council on 27 July.
They were then to submit to whatever order the Council imposed for preservation of the King’s peace. Failure to obey the charge exposed them to the legal consequences associated with rebellion.
A separate list of witnesses was also summoned for the same date. Among them was an unnamed footman serving the younger of Collestoun. These witnesses were to give truthful evidence concerning the matters in dispute.
This entry provides a second substantial reference in Volume VI to an unnamed “Guthrie, younger of Collestoun.” Earlier, on pp. 415–416, a man bearing the same territorial style had been summoned as a witness in another stage of an Ogilvie dispute.
Here the younger of Collestoun occupies a different position: he is named among the principal persons whose own conduct and relations with the opposing party concerned the Council. He was not merely summoned to testify.
The entry also places him within the political and social network surrounding the Ogilvie interests of Angus and Forfarshire and shows that his household included at least one servant described as his footman.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Younger of Collestoun — territorial style indicating a younger or succeeding member associated with the estate; the record itself does not state the precise relationship to the current laird.
- Unquyetnes — unrest, disturbance or disorder.
- Mistakings — misunderstandings, disputes or perceived grievances.
- Compear personallie — appear personally before the Council.
- Underly order — submit to whatever formal order or obligation the Council determined should be imposed.
- Keeping of the King’s peace — obligation to refrain from violence, unlawful pursuit or other conduct likely to disturb public order.
- Caution — security or surety guaranteeing future conduct or performance of an obligation.
- Bear leal and faithful witnessing — give truthful testimony under lawful examination.
- Under pain of rebellion — failure to obey the formal charge could lead, after the required procedure, to denunciation as a rebel.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 692–693, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 258, Edinburgh, 18 July 1637. Complete printed original charge. Brown’s index, pp. 785–786, lists “. . . , younger [of Collestoun]” as appearing as a witness at p. 416 and as being put under caution for keeping the peace at pp. 692–693. Digitized volume .
1637 — Presbytery of Stirling Petition Against the Service Book
Second Series, Volume VI • Pages 715–716
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The ministers of the Presbytery of Stirling addressed the Privy Council concerning the Book of Service ordered for use throughout Scotland in 1637. After considering the book, they declared that they could not in good faith and conscience adopt it.
Their objections included the absence of authorization by General Assembly or Parliament, departure from the worship practised in the Scottish Church since the Reformation, perceived movement toward Roman Catholic forms, and the feared effects upon their ministries and congregations.
Among the subscribing ministers the printed volume gives “J. Guthrie, minr at Sterline.” The initial is preserved exactly as printed and should not be expanded without further evidence.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Document Text
335. Presbytery of Stirling.—“My Lordis of his Majesties most honourable Privie Counsell; We, the brethren of the presbitrie of Stirling, efter due and frequent consideratioun of the Book of Service commanded be open proclamatioun to be used in all the churches of this kingdome, and also urged be the ordinar in the last synod to be bought be the ministeris within the diocie of Edinburgh, with libertie at the nixt synod to mak remonstrance of the exceptions which be ws might be takin against it, hawe resolved upon occasion of this present inciting of your Lordships to declair that we cannot be induced salva fide et bona conscientia to the practise thairof, in regard that it is not warranted be authoritie of Generall Assemblie nor Parliament, which in materis of this nature hath ever bein reput necessar, and in regard it declyneth altogither from the service universallie receawed and practised in this church since the Reformatioun, and draweth neir to the Romish church in materis most materiall; as also in regard of the dangerous effectis that hath and will questionless ensue, as the contempt of our ministerie, the alienatioun of the peoples affectionis from our selfis and the word preached be ws, the exposing of our personis to inevitable hazard, and great advantage giwen be our selfis to the adversaria Quhairfor we humblie supplicat your Lordships to tak to heart these our grivances, and out of that filiall dutie your Lordships owght to your deir mother the Church of Scotland, who now imploreth and expecteth your help, to deale with the King his Majestie, her gracious nursing father (whose loyall subjectis we professe our selfis befor God and the world), that we may be fred of the dangerous innovatiouns thairin contained, and your Lordships answer humblie we beseich.
(Signed) M. James Edmonstone, minister at St Ninians; J. Guthrie, minr at Sterline; M. W. Justice, minister at Gargunnok; Mr Joh. Cragingelt, minister at Alloway; M. E. Wright, minister at Clakmannan; M. Alexr Callender, minister at Dennie; Mr T. Strahan, minister at Dollor; M. A. Rynd, minister at Tullecultry; Mr Jo. Galbraye, minister at Bothkenner.
Modern English Rendering
The ministers of the Presbytery of Stirling informed the Privy Council that, after repeatedly considering the Book of Service ordered by proclamation for use in all the churches of Scotland, and after being required by their ecclesiastical superior at the previous synod to obtain copies of it, they had concluded that they could not in good faith and conscience use it.
They argued that the book had not been authorized by either a General Assembly or Parliament, authorities they regarded as necessary in matters of this kind. They also believed that the book departed substantially from the form of worship received and practised in the Church of Scotland since the Reformation and moved in important respects toward Roman Catholic practice.
They further warned that imposing the book would bring dangerous consequences: contempt for their ministry, alienation of their congregations from both the ministers and their preaching, personal danger to the ministers themselves, and advantage to those they regarded as opponents of the Reformed Church.
They therefore asked the Privy Council to take their grievances seriously and, out of its duty toward the Church of Scotland, to intercede with the King so that they might be freed from what they called the dangerous innovations contained in the Service Book.
The supplication was signed by ministers of the Presbytery of Stirling, including James Edmonstone of St Ninians, J. Guthrie, minister at Stirling, W. Justice of Gargunnock, John Cragingelt of Alloa, E. Wright of Clackmannan, Alexander Callender of Denny, T. Strahan of Dollar, A. Rynd of Tillicoultry, and John Galbraith of Bothkennar.
This document places a Guthrie minister directly among the clergy of the Presbytery of Stirling who formally opposed the introduction of the 1637 Service Book. It is contemporary evidence of a Guthrie minister participating in the ecclesiastical resistance that immediately preceded the Covenanting crisis of 1638.
It is also genealogically and biographically important because the published text gives only an initial. The record therefore proves the presence of a J. Guthrie serving as a minister at Stirling according to the printed edition, but it does not itself establish his full forename or ancestry.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Presbytery — a regional church court composed principally of ministers and elders from the congregations within its bounds.
- Book of Service / Service Book — the Scottish liturgical book ordered for use in 1637 under Charles I, whose attempted introduction provoked widespread opposition.
- Salva fide et bona conscientia — “with faith and good conscience preserved”; here expressing the ministers’ claim that they could not conscientiously adopt the Service Book.
- Ordinar — the ecclesiastical ordinary or superior exercising jurisdiction within the diocese.
- Remonstrance — a formal statement of objections or grievances.
- Initial as printed — the abbreviated forename supplied by the published source is retained rather than expanded from later expectations.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VI, A.D. 1635–1637 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1905), pp. 715–716, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 335, “Presbytery of Stirling.” Read the digitized volume .
Independent identification evidence: Fasti Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ, vol. IV, p. 318, records Henry Guthrie’s admission to Stirling on 13 May 1632; vol. II, p. 153 and vol. VIII, p. 393 record James Guthrie’s ordination at Lauder in 1642 and translation to Stirling in November 1650.
Guthrie Research in Perspective — Volume 6
Volume VI is unusually rich in Guthrie evidence, but its records do not describe one continuous Guthrie family. They document several distinct men and women occupying very different places in seventeenth-century Scottish life: a bishop and Privy Councillor, Edinburgh’s town clerk, landed Guthries, surgeons, writers, legal officers, widows, witnesses, and a minister participating in the controversy over the Service-book.
The value of the volume lies in keeping those identities separate while preserving the few relationships that the records state directly.
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray — Far Beyond Ecclesiastical Administration
John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, is the most frequently recurring Guthrie in the volume. Brown’s introductory summary places him repeatedly in attendance at the Privy Council, while the individual acts reveal the unusually wide range of secular government business in which he participated.
His documented responsibilities include commissions concerning false coin, the Brodie–Dunbar peace dispute, northern disorders, investigation of an alleged assault at Inverness, examination of witnesses and suspected offenders, the privileges and visitation of Aberdeen’s university and colleges, and the administration of the Hospital of Leith.
Several records are especially useful for distinguishing appointment from demonstrated participation. At p. 586, for example, the damaged source establishes his appointment to examine witnesses but does not prove his attendance at the later examination. By contrast, p. 654 expressly places the Bishop of Moray “in presence” at a hearing concerning the government of the Hospital of Leith.
Page 604 preserves another kind of evidence: the abbreviated endorsement “Jo. B. of Moray” authorizing a summons. It is a direct example of Bishop Guthrie exercising Council authority rather than merely appearing in an attendance list.
Mr Alexander Guthrie — Edinburgh’s Civic Intermediary
Mr Alexander Guthrie, town clerk of Edinburgh, forms the other major documentary thread in Volume VI. His repeated appearances show him acting at the meeting point of municipal government, the royal burghs and the Privy Council.
His work ranges across the condition of the Forth and ferries, negotiations concerning salt, the proposed light on the Isle of May, Edinburgh’s proposed Council-house, monetary scarcity and regulation of the Mint.
The June and August 1637 coinage records are particularly revealing. Guthrie first gave his judgment on measures that might increase the supply of money and encourage trade. He was then ordered, with other civic and Mint representatives, to formulate conditions governing the Master of the Mint, and on the following day he and his colleagues actually produced the requested written information.
None of this makes Guthrie the sole author of the collective reports. The records consistently place him among other burgh and civic representatives, so presentation, participation and collective authorship must remain distinct.
Alexander Guthrie and the Service-book Crisis
The records of July and August 1637 place Alexander Guthrie close to the developing dispute over the new Service-book. Following the Edinburgh disturbance, he and the city’s bailies were ordered to consult the Town Council, report on measures for investigating the disorder, consider security for the reading of the book, obtain readers, and address legal indemnity for the clergy and others employed in the service.
The sequence is unusually detailed. It moves from consultation and proposed surety to personal appearances before the Privy Council, formulation of a written indemnity, approval of that obligation, and further instructions concerning readers and investigation of the earlier disturbance.
These are records of Alexander Guthrie’s civic office and the duties imposed upon Edinburgh’s magistrates. They do not state his personal theological opinion of the Service-book.
A Different Guthrie Voice — J. Guthrie, Minister at Stirling
At the end of the volume, another Guthrie appears on the opposite side of the administrative problem. J. Guthrie, minister at Stirling, signed the collective petition of the Presbytery of Stirling objecting to use of the Service-book.
The ministers argued that the book lacked authorization by General Assembly or Parliament, departed from the form of worship received in Scotland since the Reformation, approached Roman practice in important respects, and threatened damaging consequences for ministers and their congregations. At the same time, they expressly professed loyalty to Charles I and asked the Privy Council to intercede with the King.
The source identifies this minister only as “J. Guthrie”. The initial must remain unexpanded unless independent evidence establishes his identity. The record itself does not identify him as the later Rev. James Guthrie of Stirling.
Direct Family Evidence
Amid the many administrative records are several statements with direct genealogical value.
- 31 March 1636, p. 220 — William Guthrie is explicitly identified as brother of Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum. This is direct relationship evidence and does not depend upon pedigree reconstruction.
- 30 June 1636, p. 275 — Bessie Stirling appears through “Guthrie, her mother.” The mother’s forename is not supplied, but the maternal Guthrie relationship is explicit.
- 6 June 1637, p. 435 — Jean Guthrie is identified as the widow of Robert Stirling of Letter within her debt proceeding, providing another securely placed Guthrie woman within a named marital family.
The later p. 604 supplication by William Keith of Logyruif and Bessie Stirling returns to the same Keith–Stirling couple seen in the earlier litigation. Bishop John Guthrie’s authorization of process in that later case does not imply a relationship between him and Bessie’s unnamed Guthrie mother.
The Collestoun Evidence — Keep the Generations Separate
Volume VI preserves two distinct territorial descriptions associated with Collestoun.
- 16 June 1636, p. 268 — John Guthrie of Collestoun appears as pursuer in a debt and horning proceeding against Laurence Mercer of Aldie.
- 17 March 1637, pp. 415–416 and 18 July 1637, pp. 692–693 — a different source identity is styled only “Guthrie, younger of Collestoun.”
The younger man first appears as a person required to give evidence in an Ogilvie dispute. In July he is himself among the parties ordered to appear because the Council feared escalating hostility and wished to impose measures for keeping the King’s peace.
The records never supply the younger man’s forename. He should therefore remain separate from John Guthrie of Collestoun rather than being given a name from later pedigrees or inference.
Professional and Occupational Guthries
Volume VI also demonstrates why occupation can be as useful as territory for distinguishing people of the same surname.
- Hercules Guthrie and James Guthrie, surgeons and burgesses of Aberdeen, signed the medical certificate concerning Leslie in February 1637.
- A later certificate names Hercules Guthrie and Gilbert Guthrie. The James/Gilbert difference must be preserved rather than harmonized.
- James Guthrie, writer, appears as a witness to the subscription of a legal document.
- Richard Guthrie, W.S., acted as a procurator in a substantial debt action.
- A separate Richard Guthrie, printed as Richard Gotherie, was a town officer of Haddington and witnessed execution of a summons.
- Another witness on pp. 648–649 is identified only as “. . . . Guthrie.” The damaged source supplies neither forename nor occupation.
None of these occupational similarities establishes kinship. The Aberdeen surgeons should remain individually identified, and the two Richard Guthries should remain separate unless independent evidence connects them.
What the Damaged and Abridged Records Still Preserve
Several Volume VI references survive through editorial abridgments, damaged miscellaneous papers, torn marginal notes or incomplete names. These limitations are themselves part of the evidence.
Page 586 preserves only a damaged reference to “. . . . Murray”, with Brown’s index identifying the Bishop of Moray as John Guthrie. Pages 648–649 preserve an unnamed Guthrie witness because the original paper is badly mutilated. Similar blanks occur among witnesses and servants elsewhere in the volume.
Such gaps should remain visible. A missing forename, lost date or damaged clause is not an invitation to fill the record from a pedigree unless a separate source independently supplies the missing fact.
Volume VI as a Whole
Across 1635–1637, the Guthrie references move through central government, burgh administration, landed disputes, professional practice, family litigation and ecclesiastical controversy.
The strongest pattern is not one lineage but the breadth of Guthrie participation in Scottish public life. Bishop John Guthrie appears within the machinery of royal government; Alexander Guthrie repeatedly carries Edinburgh and burgh business before the Privy Council; surgeons, writers and officers appear through their professions; landed Guthries appear in debt and peacekeeping proceedings; and J. Guthrie of Stirling appears among ministers protesting the Service-book.
For genealogical purposes, the volume is most dependable when its evidence is used at the level the records actually support: explicit relationships remain explicit relationships; territorial styles identify people but do not automatically define parentage; appointments remain distinct from attendance; allegations remain distinct from proof; and shared surnames, places or occupations do not by themselves establish kinship.
With those distinctions preserved, Volume VI provides an unusually dense documentary cross-section of Guthrie individuals immediately before the religious and constitutional conflicts of the later 1630s entered their next stage.
Volume 7
Volume 7 opens amid the political and ecclesiastical crisis of 1638 and continues through 1643. Its Guthrie records range from local judicial authority and Council summonses to Dundee civic government, debt enforcement, proceedings against persons accused of resetting Clan Gregor, and the 1641 Roll of Delinquents.
James Guthrie of Barnhill appears exercising authority under a Council commission; John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray is summoned by his episcopal title to a special meeting of Council and later appears with his son, another Mr John Guthrie; Patrick Guthrie, elder, is documented as a Dundee merchant and councillor and later as a witness; Richard Guthrie appears as a Writer to the Signet; and John Guthrie in the Mains of Rothes is examined in the extensive proceedings concerning Clan Gregor and its alleged resetters.
Read Volume 7 Online
P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VII, A.D. 1638–1643 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1906).
Volume 7 — Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 16 February 1638 | James Guthrie of Barnhill Commissioner / joint supplicant | James Guthrie of Barnhill and James Crichton of Wester Adie, acting under a Council commission, had brought Matthew Bigholme and his son Robert to trial and sought instructions concerning the sentences to be pronounced. Matthew was ordered banished; Robert was to be released upon finding caution for good behaviour. |
| 19 | 16 May 1638 | John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray Title-based identification | Following the King’s order for a solemn meeting of the Privy Council at Dalkeith on 6 June, the Council directed missives to named nobles and prelates, including the “Bishop of Murrey.” The volume’s own index identifies the Bishop of Moray here as Mr John Guthrie. |
| 401–403 | 28 February 1643 | Patrick Guthre, elder Dundee merchant, councillor and joint complainer | Named among the magistrates and councillors of Dundee seeking suspension of horning raised at the instance of John, Viscount of Dudhope, and James, Master of Dudhope. The proceeding concerns the extent to which the burgh and its officers could be required to provide caution for the conduct of Dundee’s inhabitants. Selected representatives, rather than every named complainer, subsequently appeared before the Council. |
| 448 | 15 June 1643 | Richard Guthre, writer to the Signet Joint supplicant / creditor | One of several creditors seeking a commission to apprehend Harry Cunningham, portioner of Restalrig, who was already at the horn for debts and was alleged to resist officers from his fortified house. The Council granted the requested commission. |
| 487–495 |
Courts held 9 February–18 March 1641; produced 1 December 1641 |
John Guthrie in Mains of Rothes Examination and evidence in Clan Gregor proceedings | Appears within a lengthy record of courts held under commission against persons accused of resetting, supplying or intercommuning with Clan Gregor and other broken men. Guthrie was examined, made admissions concerning visits to his house, and was fined. His name also appears in testimony concerning communications between Rothes and members of the clan and in evidence given against another accused person. |
| 510–512 | 1641 |
Mr John Guthrie, former Bishop of Moray; Mr John Guthrie, his son Roll of Delinquents — explicit father-son relationship |
Both men are named in the 1641 Roll of Delinquents. The source expressly describes the younger Mr John Guthrie as son of Mr John Guthrie, sometime Bishop of Murray. Inclusion in the roll is evidence of their placement in that contemporary list; it should not by itself be expanded into a finding concerning every possible underlying allegation. |
| 594 | 6 January 1643 | Patrick Guthrie, elder Witness to Dundee declaration | Witness at Dundee to a declaration by George Spens and other bonnetmakers concerning William Stevenson, the Master of Dudhope and a disputed petition in favour of Mr George Halyburton. Patrick later subscribes the document as “P. Guthrie, elder, witnes.” |
Finding-aid sources: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VII, A.D. 1638–1643 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1906); Guthrie index and the separate Bishop of Moray / Moray index references, checked against the complete printed records cited above. Original spellings and historical title forms are retained in the detailed source texts.
16 February 1638 — James Guthrie of Barnhill Seeks Sentencing Instructions
Second Series, Volume VII • Page 3
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Acting under a commission previously granted by the Privy Council, James Crichton of Wester Adie and James Guthrie of Barnhill had placed Matthew Bigholme, formerly in Brigland, and Matthew’s son Robert Bigholme before an assize.
Matthew had confessed to stealing three sheep belonging to William Miller of Aldie and had been convicted. Robert was not described as convicted of a specified theft; instead, the assize declared him an unlawful and suspect person whose punishment was left to the discretion of the judges.
Crichton and Guthrie explained that their commission did not carry their authority beyond the proceedings they had already completed. They therefore petitioned the Privy Council for instructions as to the sentences they should pronounce.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Supplication by James Crichton of Wester Adie and James Guthrie of Barnhill, as follows:—In accordance with a commission granted by their Lordships to them they had put Matthew Bigholme, sometime in Brigland, and Robert Bigholme, his son, to the trial of an assise for theft. The said Matthew has been convicted, upon his own confession, of stealing three sheep from William Miller of Aldie, and the said Robert “wes declared to be ane unlawfull and suspect person to be punished at the sight of the judges.” The supplicants have done all they were empowered to do by the commission and crave further instructions as to the sentence they should pronounce, etc.
The Lords direct them to pronounce sentence of banishment against the said Matthew, taking him judicially acted to depart from the kingdom and never to return, under pain of death; and to dismiss the said Robert on his finding caution to behave himself as a good and peaceable subject, under such a penalty as they should think good.
Modern English Rendering
James Crichton of Wester Adie and James Guthrie of Barnhill petitioned the Privy Council after carrying out a commission that authorized them to bring Matthew Bigholme, formerly of Brigland, and his son Robert Bigholme to trial before an assize for theft.
Matthew had confessed to stealing three sheep from William Miller of Aldie and was convicted on that confession. Robert was declared by the assize to be an unlawful and suspicious person, with his punishment left to the judges.
Crichton and Guthrie had completed everything that their existing commission authorized them to do, but they did not consider themselves empowered to determine the final sentences without further direction. They therefore asked the Privy Council to tell them how to proceed.
The Council instructed them to sentence Matthew to banishment from Scotland. He was to be formally bound to leave the kingdom and never return, under pain of death if he did return. Robert was to be released once he provided sufficient security that he would conduct himself as a good and peaceable subject, with the amount of the penalty left to the commissioners’ judgment.
The entry places James Guthrie of Barnhill in an identifiable public judicial role. He was not merely a witness or local observer: the Privy Council had included him in a commission under which accused persons were brought before an assize.
The petition also shows the limits of that delegated authority. Guthrie and Crichton regarded the trial proceedings as within their commission but returned to the Council for instructions before imposing the final punishments. This provides unusually clear evidence of how local commissioners operated under central authority.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Commission — delegated authority from the Privy Council permitting named persons to perform specified judicial or administrative acts.
- Assise — a jury or body of persons empanelled to determine the facts in a criminal proceeding.
- Judicially acted — formally entered or bound upon the judicial record to perform the stated obligation.
- Banishment under pain of death — an order to leave the kingdom and not return, with death stated as the penalty for breach of that condition.
- Caution — security or surety guaranteeing future conduct or performance of an obligation.
- At the sight of the judges — left to the judgment or discretion of the judges.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VII, A.D. 1638–1643 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1906), p. 3, Stirling, 16 February 1638; Decreta, April 1635–February 1639, p. 412. Read the digitized volume .
16 May 1638 — John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray, Called to the Dalkeith Council
Second Series, Volume VII • Page 19
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 16 May 1638, John, Earl of Traquair, Lord High Treasurer, personally appeared before the Privy Council and produced a royal letter dated at Whitehall on 8 May.
Charles I announced that he intended a “solemne meeting” of the Privy Council at Dalkeith on 6 June. James, Marquis of Hamilton, was to attend as the King’s commissioner concerning matters said to affect both the Crown and the welfare of Scotland.
The King instructed the Council to notify all of its members so that they could attend and provide their advice and assistance. After reading the letter, the Council immediately ordered missives to a substantial group of nobles and bishops. Among the latter was the “Bishop of Murrey”, securely identifiable as John Guthrie.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
Sederunt:—Treasurer; Winton; Lauderdaill; Lord Angus; Lord Lorne; Justice Generall; Deputy Treasurer; Justice Clerk.
“The whilk day, in presence of the Lords of Secreit Counsell, compeired personallie Johne, Erle of Traquair, Lord High Tresaurar of this kingdome, and produced and exhibite before the said Lords the missive letter underwrittin, signed be the King’s Majestie and direct to the saids Lords, of the quhilk the tennor followes:—Charles R.—Right reverend father in God and right trustie and weilbelovit counseller, right trustie and weilbelovit cousins and counsellers, right trustie and trustie and weilbelovit counsellers, we greit yow well. Whereas we have determined to have a solemne meeting of our Counsell at Dalkeith upon the sixt day of Junij nixt where our right trusty and right weilbelovit cousine and counseller, the Marques of Hamilton, is to be commissioner frome ws for maters speciallie concerning ws and the good of that our ancient kingdome, it is our pleasure that yow give particular advertisement thairof to all who ar of our Privie Counsell there that they may be present with thair advice and assistance at the said meiting, wherein not doubting of your accustomed care, we bid yow farewell. Frome our Court at Whitehall, the 8 of May, 1638.—Quhilk missive being read and considderit be the saids Lords, they in obedience thairof did immediatlie direct missives to the Archbishop of Glasgow, the Marques of Huntlie, the Erles of Murrey, Perth, Winton, Kingorne, Seafort, Galloway, Southesk, Dumfreis, Finlatter, Lord Elphinston, Bishops of Aberdene, Murrey, Dunkeld, and Yles, the Lord Downe and Laird of Blakhall, to attend the said dyet.”
Modern English Rendering
On this day John, Earl of Traquair, Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, appeared personally before the Privy Council and produced a royal letter signed by Charles I and addressed to the Council.
The King stated that he had determined to hold a solemn meeting of the Privy Council at Dalkeith on 6 June. The Marquis of Hamilton was to attend as the King’s commissioner to deal with matters particularly concerning the King and the good of the kingdom. The Council was therefore instructed to notify all of its members so that they could be present to give their advice and assistance.
After considering the King’s letter, the Council immediately directed notices to the Archbishop of Glasgow; the Marquis of Huntly; the Earls of Moray, Perth, Winton, Kinghorn, Seaforth, Galloway, Southesk, Dumfries and Findlater; Lord Elphinstone; the Bishops of Aberdeen, Moray, Dunkeld and the Isles; Lord Doune; and the Laird of Blackhall, requiring them to attend the appointed meeting.
Although John Guthrie’s surname does not appear in the body of this act, the record is evidence of his continuing place in the Privy Council in May 1638. He was among the councillors specifically notified to attend the extraordinary meeting at Dalkeith during the rapidly developing national dispute between Charles I and his Scottish subjects.
The entry is also an important example of why office-based references must be included in Guthrie research. A search restricted to the surname Guthrie would miss this record entirely.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Missive — a formal letter or written communication; here, notices directed to individual members of the Privy Council.
- Sederunt — the recorded list of councillors present at the sitting in which the act was made.
- Dyet — an appointed date or sitting; here the Council meeting fixed for 6 June.
- Commissioner — a person authorized to act on behalf of the Crown for a specified purpose; the Marquis of Hamilton was to represent the King at the forthcoming meeting.
- Title-based identification — where the contemporary record names a person only by an office such as “Bishop of Murrey,” the officeholder may be identified in the editorial material when independent evidence securely establishes the identity. The original source wording remains unchanged.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VII, A.D. 1638–1643 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1906), p. 19, Dalkeith, 16 May 1638; Acta, May 1638–November 1639, fols. 254b–255a. Royal letter dated Whitehall, 8 May 1638. Read the digitized volume .
Independent identification evidence: Fasti Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ, Volume VI, p. 388, identifies John Guthrie of Guthrie, M.A., as Bishop of Moray from 1623 until his deposition on 11 December 1638.
28 February 1643 — Patrick Guthre, Elder, and the Dundee Council Seek Suspension of Horning
Second Series, Volume VII • Pages 401–403
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This proceeding forms part of the prolonged dispute between the civic authorities of Dundee and John, Viscount of Dudhope, hereditary Constable of Dundee, together with his son James, Master of Dudhope.
A large group of Dundee magistrates and councillors, including Patrick Guthre, elder, had been charged to find caution in the Privy Council’s books for the safety of the Viscount and Master, their men, tenants and servants, against both the named civic officers and the inhabitants of Dundee. The required penalty was £10,000.
The Dundee parties argued that the obligation was legally too broad. They maintained that they could properly be responsible for themselves and persons dependent upon them, but not for every inhabitant of an incorporated royal burgh. They had nevertheless supplied caution to avoid the consequences of horning and now sought suspension of the letters.
Although Patrick Guthre is one of the named complainers, the entry does not say that he personally appeared before the Council. The persons expressly recorded as appearing for the complainers were Alexander Wedderburn, bailie; Thomas Mudie, dean of guild; John Blyth; Alexander Halyburtoun; and Mr Alexander Wedderburn, town clerk.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by James Fletcher, provost, James Simson, Alexander Milne, Alexander Wedderburne, and George Broun, bailies, James Wedderburne, Robert Davidsone, Thomas Mudie, John Blyth, Robert Fletcher and Alexander Halyburtoun, William Wright, elder, Patrick Guthre, elder, Robert Bultie, Alexander Wedderburne, James Leslie, Robert Strane, William Stevensone, collector, John Lauson, elder, and Peter Wright, councillors of the burgh of Dundie, as follows:—They have been charged by their Lordships at the instance of John, Viscount of Duddop, and James, Master of Duddop, to find caution in their Lordships’ books for the indemnity of the said Viscount and Master and their men, tenants and servants at their hands and the whole inhabitants of their town under a penalty of £10,000; and for the complainers’ alleged disobedience they are threatened with horning.
Now this is wrongly done, for (1) by the law of this kingdom they are only bound to find caution for themselves and their men, tenants and servants; (2) being all burgesses they cannot be charged for a greater sum than 500 merks; (3) there are many inhabitants in their town who are gentlemen having no relation to nor dependance upon the complainers and for whom they cannot be answerable; (4) it should be cleared who are the said Viscount’s and Master’s men, tenants and servants to whom this caution applies, seeing they are in many places, as in Argile and other shires, and some of them in Dundie, who will disclaim the charge; and (5) the charge is groundless as the said Viscount and Master cannot swear that they dread bodily harm from the complainers and the inhabitants of Dundie since many of them are their own tenants, and others are gentlemen of good correspondence with them, and none of the complainers did ever give them just cause of fear.
Still for eschewing the danger of horning they have found caution as required and now seek that the letters be suspended. The complainers compearing by Alexander Wedderburne, bailie; Thomas Mudie, dean of guild; John Blyth, Alexander Halyburtoun and Mr Alexander Wedderburne, clerk to the town of Dundie, the last named gave in an additional reason, viz.,
“That the magistrats and counsell of Dundie cannot be tyed to find caution to anie particular person for everie inhabitant of their burgh, becaus the burgh being ane incorporation can onelie be esteemed the representative bodie for what concernes the haill toun in generall or what is done be their command; and cannot be answerable for the deid of everie individuall burges, who aucht to [be] lyable for themselves and have als great fredom within the burgh as the magistrats, and so aucht to be particularlie charged conforme to the act of Parliament and under the panes allanerlie conteanned therein; nather can the toun be answerable for their haill inhabitants who ar not burgesses and under their jurisdictioun since the charger himselfe may be ane inhabitant, and anie of his servants or tennents duelling in the toun doing him anie wrong cannot be layed to the charge of the toun.”
The Master of Duddop also compearing for himself and his father, replied “That the charge is used against the magistrats as a representative bodie and who aucht rather to be lyable for their inhabitants and members of their toun then a maister for the persons being in his familie, speciallie in this caise where a cleere oppressioun hes beene provin to be done be them against the chargers; and the Counsell hes beene in continuall custome of modifeing panes of lauborrowes according to the qualitie of the persons and merit of the caus. And the toun aucht also to be answerable for such of their burgesses as ar tennents to the charger in respect he hes no power over them, but they may be instigat to violence in the touns quarrell being subject to their jurisdictioun. And, farther, the toun cannot but be answerable for their haill inhabitants since they as the representative bodie have charged the Lord Duddop and his sone not onelie to sett caution to themselves but also to their haill burgesses. So the termes being reciprocall the caution aucht also to be reciprocall.”
The Lords, after advising, suspend the horning in respect of the caution found by the suspenders, which the Lords ordain to stand and be in force simply “aganis the toun of Dundie for everie fact or deid to be done be the provest, anie of the baillies or counsell, or be anie of the commonn officers of the burgh for the time being; and declares the toun to be no farther bound for the deeds of the rest of thair inhabitants or burgesses but such as sail be done be their causing, sending, hounding, command, ressett, assistance or ratihabitioun; excepting alwayes the particular time wherein the Vicount of Duddop or his successors sail be in exercise of the priviledge of their office of constabularie within the toun of Dundie, during quhilk time the Lords finds that the toun aucht to be liable simpliciter for the deads of their haill inhabitants.”
The Lords ordain that this act shall not prejudge any former act or decreet procured by the chargers against the suspenders. On pronouncing hereof Mr Alexander Wedderburn, in name of the suspenders, protested that the same should be without prejudice of their civil actions depending against the Viscount of Duddop.
Modern English Rendering
James Fletcher, provost of Dundee; the named bailies; and a substantial group of councillors, including Patrick Guthre, elder, complained that at the instance of John, Viscount of Dudhope, and his son James, Master of Dudhope, they had been ordered to provide security in the Privy Council’s books.
The security was intended to guarantee the safety of the Viscount and Master of Dudhope and their men, tenants and servants, not only against the named Dundee officials but against the whole body of inhabitants of Dundee. The penalty attached to the obligation was £10,000. Because of their alleged failure to obey the charge, the Dundee parties were threatened with horning.
The complainers argued that the charge exceeded what the law permitted. First, they maintained that they were obliged to give security only for themselves and their own men, tenants and servants. Second, as burgesses, they argued that they could not properly be charged for more than 500 merks. Third, many Dundee inhabitants were independent gentlemen with no relationship of dependence upon the magistrates and councillors. Fourth, the opposing side should identify precisely which men, tenants and servants of Dudhope were supposedly protected, since they lived throughout several shires and some were themselves inhabitants of Dundee. Fifth, they argued that Dudhope and his son could not truthfully swear that they feared bodily harm from all of the Dundee parties and inhabitants.
Nevertheless, in order to avoid the consequences of horning, the Dundee parties had provided the required caution. They therefore asked that the letters of horning be suspended.
The complainers were represented before the Council by Alexander Wedderburn, bailie; Thomas Mudie, dean of guild; John Blyth; Alexander Halyburtoun; and Mr Alexander Wedderburn, town clerk. The town clerk added that Dundee, as an incorporated burgh, could represent the community in matters affecting the whole town or matters done by municipal command, but could not reasonably be responsible for every private act of every individual burgess or inhabitant.
James, Master of Dudhope, appearing for himself and his father, replied that the Dundee magistrates acted as the representative body of the town and should therefore be answerable for its inhabitants. He also argued that the Council customarily set lawburrows penalties according to the status of the parties and seriousness of the circumstances. Because Dundee had itself required the Dudhope side to provide security extending beyond the two principals, he maintained that the town’s obligation should be reciprocal.
After considering the arguments, the Privy Council suspended the horning because the Dundee parties had already found caution. The Council nevertheless ordered that the caution should remain fully effective against the town for acts committed by the provost, bailies, council or common officers of the burgh.
Dundee was not otherwise to be responsible for acts of ordinary inhabitants or burgesses unless those acts were caused, commissioned, encouraged, commanded, received, assisted or subsequently ratified by the town authorities.
The Council made one important exception. Whenever the Viscount of Dudhope or his successors were exercising the privilege of the office of constable within Dundee, the town was to be directly responsible for the acts of all of its inhabitants. The ruling was not to prejudice earlier acts or decrees obtained by the Dudhope side, and Mr Alexander Wedderburn formally reserved the Dundee parties’ pending civil actions against the Viscount.
This record places Patrick Guthre, elder squarely within Dundee’s civic governing body in 1643. He is expressly included among the councillors joining the provost, bailies and other municipal officers in a major institutional dispute with the Viscount of Dudhope.
The act therefore supplies more than a simple Dundee residence. It documents Patrick’s participation in the corporate legal affairs of the burgh and places him among a substantial group of named civic officials at a precisely dated moment.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Lawburrows — preventive security intended to protect a person who claimed to fear bodily harm or disturbance from another.
- Caution — formal security or surety for performance of an obligation or good behaviour.
- Horning — legal process by which failure to obey formal letters could lead to denunciation as a rebel.
- Suspenders — the parties seeking suspension of legal process; here the Dundee magistrates and councillors.
- Chargers — the parties at whose instance the underlying legal charge had been raised; here the Viscount and Master of Dudhope.
- Hounding — inciting or setting another person on to commit an act.
- Resett — receiving, harbouring or knowingly supporting a person or act in circumstances carrying legal responsibility.
- Ratihabition — subsequent approval or ratification of an act already performed.
- Constabularie — the jurisdiction or privileges belonging to the office of constable; here the hereditary constabulary exercised by the Viscount of Dudhope within Dundee.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VII, A.D. 1638–1643 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1906), pp. 401–403, Edinburgh, 28 February 1643; Decreta, November 1641–October 1646, pp. 223–226. Read the digitized volume .
15 June 1643 — Richard Guthre, Writer to the Signet, Seeks Commission to Arrest a Debtor
Second Series, Volume VII • Page 448
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Richard Guthre, writer to the Signet, joined physician Mr John Hart, Bathia Aird, the Denniston siblings, advocate Mr Robert McGill and Edinburgh tailor William Craufurd in petitioning the Privy Council concerning Harry Cunningham, portioner of Restalrig.
Cunningham was already at the horn for substantial sums owed to the petitioners. Ordinary enforcement had proved ineffective, however, because messengers were allegedly unable to approach his residence safely.
According to the petition, Cunningham defended the house by throwing large stones at approaching officers and maintained himself there as though occupying a fortified position. The creditors therefore asked the Council to authorize designated officers to apprehend and imprison him, including authority to force entry if necessary.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Supplication by Mr John Hart, doctor of physic, Richard Guthre, writer to the signet, Bathia Aird, widow of Joseph Miller, advocate, David, Alexander and Jonet Denniston, Mr Robert McGill, advocate, and William Craufurd, tailor burgess of Edinburgh, as follows:—Harie Cunningham, portioner of Restalrig, is at the horn for several great sums of money due to them, but all legal process is futile as no messenger “darre goe neir the hous quher he duells from whence he casts doun great stones to fell them, and keepes himself as in a hous of warre.”
They therefore crave that commission may be granted to the sheriff of Edinburgh and his deputes, and to Lord Balmerinoch and his bailie, jointly and severally, to search for and apprehend the said Harry and imprison him, making open doors and using his Majesty’s keys for this purpose as may be necessary. The Lords grant commission as craved.
Modern English Rendering
Mr John Hart, physician; Richard Guthre, Writer to the Signet; Bathia Aird, widow of advocate Joseph Miller; David, Alexander and Jonet Denniston; advocate Mr Robert McGill; and William Craufurd, an Edinburgh tailor and burgess, petitioned the Privy Council as creditors of Harry Cunningham, portioner of Restalrig.
Cunningham had already been formally denounced at the horn for substantial sums of money owed to them. The normal legal process had nevertheless failed because, according to the petitioners, no messenger dared approach the house in which Cunningham was staying. They alleged that he threw large stones down at anyone approaching, intending to strike them, and kept the residence as though it were a fortified house.
The petitioners therefore asked that a special commission be granted to the sheriff of Edinburgh and his deputies, together with Lord Balmerinoch and his bailie, acting jointly or separately, authorizing them to search for Cunningham, arrest him and place him in prison.
They also sought authority to force open doors and use the Crown’s legal authority for entry wherever necessary in carrying out the arrest. The Privy Council granted the commission in the terms requested.
The entry gives a particularly precise professional identification for Richard Guthre: he was a writer to the Signet. That designation places him among the legally trained writers who prepared and handled documents passing the royal Signet and frequently acted in sophisticated legal and financial matters.
Richard appears here not merely in a professional capacity for another party, but as one of the creditors personally interested in the enforcement proceedings against Cunningham.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Writer to the Signet — a member of the professional body of Scottish legal writers associated with preparation of writs passing the royal Signet; commonly abbreviated W.S.
- Portioner — a person holding a portion or divided share of lands rather than necessarily the whole estate.
- At the horn — formally denounced as a rebel following failure to obey lawful letters or charges.
- Messenger — a messenger-at-arms authorized to execute formal legal writs and charges.
- Commission — delegated authority empowering designated persons to perform the acts specified by the Council.
- Jointly and severally — authority permitting the named officers to act together or individually.
- Making open doors — authority to force entry where lawful execution of the commission required it.
- His Majesty’s keys — conventional language for lawful forced entry under Crown authority rather than ordinary private breaking of doors.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VII, A.D. 1638–1643 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1906), p. 448, Edinburgh, 15 June 1643; Decreta, November 1641–October 1646, pp. 269–270. Read the digitized volume .
9 February–18 March 1641 — John Guthrie in the Mains of Rothes and the Clan Gregor Commission Courts
Second Series, Volume VII • Pages 487–494 • Produced before the Privy Council 1 December 1641
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This unusually extensive record preserves the proceedings of commission courts held in the tolbooth of Elgin on 9, 10, 11, 23, 24 and 25 February and 4, 12 and 18 March 1641. The commissioners included James, Earl of Moray; Sir Robert Innes of that Ilk; Alexander Dunbar of Westfield, sheriff principal of Elgin and Forres; Thomas Mackenzie of Pluscarden; Robert Cuming of Altyre; and Robert Leslie of Finrassie.
Their authority derived from a commission issued by the Committee of Estates in December 1640 against persons accused of resetting, supplying, maintaining or intercommuning with Clan Gregor and other broken men.
The record is important for understanding the nature of the charges. Many of those examined described Clan Gregor parties arriving at their houses, taking food or money, breaking doors, carrying away livestock, forcing people to accompany them, or otherwise using intimidation. Nevertheless, the court also treated eating, drinking, meeting, supplying food, giving money, carrying messages or otherwise maintaining contact with members of the clan as grounds for conviction and monetary penalties.
Johne Guthrie in the Mains of Rothes appears at the center of several interconnected depositions. Leonard Leslie said that he had drunk with Clan Gregor men in Guthrie’s house. Guthrie himself admitted that two separate groups had come to his house. Norman Deane said that he had been taken there by force. Alexander Leslie of Conrak described himself and Guthrie as messengers between Rothes and Clan Gregor. Michell Yevine was subsequently found guilty upon evidence supplied by Leonard Leslie and John Guthrie.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
79. “The Courtis hauldin be ane nobill erle, James, Erle of Murray, Lord Doune, and Abernethie, etc., Sir Robert Innes of that Ilk, knicht barronet, Alexander Dunbar of Westfeild, shireff principall of Elgin and Forres, Thomas Mackeinzie of Pluscarden, Robert Cuming of Altyr, and Robert Lesley of Finressie, within the tolbuith of Elgin upon the 9, 10, 11, 23, 24 and 25 dayis of February the 4, 12 and 18 dayis of Mairche respective, the yeir of God 1641 yeiris, conforme to ane commissione direct theranent from the Committie of Estaittis the day of December, 1640 yeiris; the sectis callit, the courtis lawfullie fensit and affirmit, as use is.
“Johne Chalmer, notar publict, burges of Elgin, creat clerk, Mr James Annand, notar publict, burgess there, procurator fischall, William Cuik, messenger, creat officer, and William Ross, dempster, quha hes gewin ther aithis de fideli administratione ay and quhill they be dischairgit.
“Duncan Grant in Waster Elcheis, being accusit for ressetting, supplying, mantening the Clangregour and other brokin men in meat, drink, money, weapones, ludging or intercommoning, being suorne, deponit that sextein or therby of the Clangrigour cam to his house, his wyff lying in chyldbed, in his absence, and they causit mak readie thair supperis and went away befor he came hame, but could not cleir himself of intercommoning with them. Convict in fiftie pundis money.
“James Grant there, being suorne, deponit that Johne Dowe, younger, with sex men with him cam to his hous in his absence and knewe nothing thereof bot wes in Elgin quhen they cam, and also confest intercommoning with the Clangrigour at the kirk of Skirdurstane, and confest he drank with them in Thomas Gillimichells hous there. Convict in fiftie pundis.
“James Hay in Auchrosk, being suorne, deponit that Johne Drummond send to him for supplies, and he send him ane dollour and they cam tuyse to his hous. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“William Gilbert in Wester Elcheis deponit negative; nevertheles prowin guiltie be Duncan and James Grantis in Elcheis. Convict in ten pundis.
“George Lesley at the Boitt of Elcheis, being sworne, deponit that the Clangrigour tuik his boatis at thair awin handis, boastit his wyff and drank his aill and payit nothing therfor; yit notwithstanding he is prowin guiltie be the saidis Duncan and James Grantis. Convict in tuentie merkis.
“Johne Oig McPhersone in Boighead of Eingzie, being suorne, deponit that thrie nicht efter Michelmes day last tua brokin men ludgit with him, and alse he confest intercommoning with the Clangrigour at desyre of utheris, and declaire he intercommonit with them the night befor Johne Dowe Gair wes killit, and that he drank with them in Mathisones hous in Farnachtie in Eingzie. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“Alexander Cuming in Hauche of Dundurcus, being sworne, confest that fourtie of the Clangrigour or thairby cam to his hous thrie yeiris since or thairby and wes forcit to gewe them ane firlot (?) of maill; and declairit thair cuming wes by his knowledge; and alse confest they cam to his hous another tyme when they returnit fra the persewing the salmond fischeris of Spey at Gairmoche and tuik him out of his bed and haid him to the Craig of Sourdane and then dismist him. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“Gilbert Barclay in Allenboy, being suorne, he never ressett them nor supplyit them, but confest that being in company with James Gordoune of Birkinburne and George Adamsone of Braco in James Fordyce hous in Keith thair cam in old Johne Dowe with ane number of men and he drank with them before Martimes, 1639 yeiris, and he payed nothing for the drink, nether wes thair cuming to his knowledge. Convict in fiftie pundis. (Added in another hand)—‘James Gibsones tennentt.’
“Johne Hamiltoune in Boighead deponit they cam anes to his hous in Auchbeigis in his absence and tuik thair supperis, being young Johne Dowe, being sextein in company thrie yeiris since or thairby. Convict in ten pundis.
“William Hay in Mulben, being suorne, deponit he never ressett them nor supplyit them bot wes brocht to his hous be his nighbouris and dang him and abusit him and tuik half ane dollour out of his breikis; and declairit it wes Johne Stronoche, younger, thair, that brocht them to his hous. And lykways William Hay is prowin guiltie be James Hay in Mulben, George Hay thair and James Hay in Auchrosk. Convict in ten pundis.
“Andrew Thomsone in Boighead deponit negative, yit confest he drank with Johne Dowe, younger, in Thomas Duffis hous in Strathbogie. Convict in ten pundis.
“Thomas Dumbrek in Dundurcus, being sworne, confest that he schuik handis with the Clangrigor at the Craig of Sourdane, and thairefter gawe them ane dollour and supplyit thair wyffis and pairties with wittall; and lykwayis prowin guiltie be Alexander Cuming. Convict in ten pundis.
“George Yevine thair, William Duncan thair, David Allan thair, and Issobell Mein thair, all prowin guiltie be the saidis Alexander Cuming and Thomas Dumbrek that they contrabute [sic] moneyis to the Clangrigor and supplyitt thair wyffis and pairties with victuall. Ilkane of them convict in ten pundis.
“Gawin Milne in Gerbettie, being suorne, deponit he never ressett themselffis but supplyit thair wyffis and pairties with wittall; and declairit he gave them tua dollouris for his guidis wes takin away. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“Johne Milne thair deponit negative, yit neverthelese is prowin guiltie be Gavin Milne and utheris his nighbouris. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“Johne Tailyeour in Carntie, being suorne, confest they tuik tuell shillings at ane tyme fra him, and another tyme he went to James Gordounes hous in the Brigge with them and he and Gilbert Mitchell, his nighbour, payit 30s. for meat and drink to them, quhilk Gilbert Mitchell confest. Ilkan of them convict in ten pundis.
“Androw McKimmie in Balnabruiche deponit negative, yit prowin guiltie be the saidis James and George Hayis. Convict in tuentie markis.
“Johne McKimmie thair deponit negative, yit prowin guiltie be the saidis James and George Hayis. Convict in tuentie markis.
“James Mougache, elder thair, being suorne, deponit Johne Drummond cam to his hous and himself absent, and confest he gawe them 13s., and alse prowin guiltie be James and George Hayis. Convict in ten pundis.
“James Mougache thair deponit negative, yit prowin guiltie be James and George Hayis. Convict in tuentie markis.
“Patrik Clerk upon his awin confessione convict and alse prowin guiltie be James and George Hayis, James Hay in Auchrosk and George Scherer. Convict in ten pundis. (Added in another hand)—‘James Gibsones man.’
“George Scherer convict upon his awin confessione that he drank, mett and intercommonit with them, and confest he drank with them in Patrik Clerkis hous. Convict in fourtie markis. (Added in another hand)—‘James Gibsones tennentt.’
“Johne Clerk in Belnabruiche confest he intercommonit with them and gave them meat and drink, and alse prowin guiltie be James and George Hayis, and James Hay in Auchrosk. Convict in ten pundis.
“Johne Wentoune in Mulben deponit they were never in his hous, but declairit he met with them and intercommonit with them in Johne Robisones hous at the Muire of Rynie about the fair of Auchindor the last yeir. Convict in ten pundis.
“Patrik Milne, milvart in Mulben, deponit that Johne Dowe cam to his hous and drank tua or thrie pyntis of newe aill; and alse prowin guiltie be James and George Hayis. Convict in ten pundis.
“Robert Yevine thair deponit that thrie of them cam within his dores but got nothing; and confest they cam again to his hous and tuik 14s. out of his pouche. Convict in ten pundis.
“James Duncane thair deponit that ten dayis or Johne Dowe wes killit they cam to his hous and tuik thrie bear bannokis and ane pynt of milk, and alse prowin guiltie be James and George Hayis, James Hay in Auchrosk and Patrik Milne. Convict in ten pundis.
“Andrew Duncan thair deponit that thrie of them cam upon him, viz., Duncane McGrigour, Johne Gordoune and ane dummie and tuik half ane hyd fra him, and alse prowin guiltie be James and George Hayis and Patrick Milne. Convict in ten pundis.
“Johne Robertsone in Breaben, being suorne, confest they cam to him tua yeiris sensyne and he gave them half ane dollour and sum turnouris, and alse confest he gawe ane pek of maill to wtheris of them, quhilk quhen it wes brocht to them they wold not tak it; and alse prowin guiltie be James and George Hayis and James Hay in Auchrosk. Convict in ten pundis.
“Robert Simsone thair confest he gawe them xx s. and maill and declairit they bled his wyff, and alse prowin guiltie be Patrik Milne, Robert Yevine and Johne Robertsone. Convict in ten pundis.
“Johne Rattray in Gairlen deponit that the night James Hayis hous wes brokin tua lounes cam doune fra the hill and causit fill tua pyntis of beir and troublit tua of my Lord Forbes men, and alse prowin guiltie be James and George Hayis and James Hay in Auchrosk. Convict in ten pundis. (Added in another hand)—‘James Gibsones tennentt.’
“George Tailzeour in Towe confest intercommoning with them and confest he gawe them ane bonet and they keist the bonet bak again being without the hous. Convict in ten pundis.
“James Hay, cordoner thair, deponit that 4 yeiris syne they came and berried him, being 14 men in number, and tua yeiris syne Duncan McGrigour, Johne Gordoune and utheris cam to his hous again and gawe them nothin, yit prowin guiltie be Robert Yevine. Convict in ten pundis.
“Johne Chalmer in Auldchastle deponit that thrie yeiris bygane at Fastingis Ivin allewin of them cam to his hous and would have four dollouris perforce fra him, and declairit he wes forcit to borrowe halff ane dollour fra ane puir wyff in the toune, callit Jonet Hay, and thairefter auchtein of them cam, himselfe being absent, quhen they cam fra persewing the salmond fischeris of the watter of Spey at the Gairmoche. Convict in ten pundis. (Added in another hand)—‘James Gibsonnes tenentt.’
“James Hossak in Fochabirs, being sworne, confest that the Clangrigor wes brocht to his hous be Johne Oige ane nicht befor Johne Dowe wes killit, being 18 men in number; and alse prowin guiltie be Johne Oig and Johne Hamiltoune. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“Thomas Grant in Croftis of Kirdellis, being sworne, deponit that he never supplyit them, but confest at Inchebrokis desyre he spak with Duncan Gair, and confest he intercommonit with old Johne Dowe sundrie tymes. Convict in ten pundis.
“Patrick Dollace in Glenairder confest intercommoning with them on the hie way. Convict in ten pundis.
“William Grant of Kirdellis confest the ressett of Patrik Oig at Andersmes, 1639 yeiris, and confest intercommoning with Duncan Gair at Dumphaillis desyre in Thomas Gordounes hous in Inveravin. Convict in fourtie pundis.
“William Grant in Auchnahoungen confest intercommoning with them. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“William Innes in Mulben, being sworne, declairit that Johne Dowe cam to his boundis in October 1639 yeiris and send in ane boy to him, he being in his corneyaird, and he intercommonit with him. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“Robert Lesley in Dundurcus deponit that sex of them cam upon him ane nicht and brak up his dores and said they got ane dollour fra him, quhilk he wes forcit to give them. Convict in ten pundis.
“William Gray in Daigenis, being sworne, confest that upon Sanct McRuiffis day last Johne Drummond with sevin with him cam to his hous and brak his dores and tuik his awne schone aff his feit with tuentie s. fra his wyff; and confest he fillit ane coig full of aill to them, quherof they drank littill, and confest intercommoning with them and drinking with Johne Drummond in Farquhar Mulliardis hous. Convict in ten pundis.
“Alexander Brouster in Croknacroy, being sworne, declairit that thrie of them fell upon him and tuik tuell s. of turnouris fra him; and alse prowin guiltie be William Innes in Mulben. Convict in ten pundis.
“Alexander Schand in Gairlen, being sworne, confest intercommoning with old Johne Dowe, and they tuik him to ane ailhous and drank with them, being on Sonday in tyme of preaching. Convict in tuentie markis. (Added in another hand)—‘James Gibsones man.’
“Farquhar Garrowe in Elcheis, being sworne, deponit that fyve yeiris since Johne Dowe, elder, brak his hous and spuilyeit him; and also is prowin guiltie be the saidis Duncan and James Grantis. Convict in ten pundis.
“Thomas Durstane in Dandaleith deponit negative, yit prowin guiltie be William Gray. Convict in ten pundis.
“Thomas Yevine in Dagenis deponit that Johne Drummond, with sex with him, cam to his hous on Sanct McRuiffis ivin last and drank thrie pintis aill and went instantlie away and payit nothing for it and confest he intercommonit with them quhen they tuik away his guidis and declairit they tuik sevin head fra him and he gave them sex dollouris for sex head and they killit ane. Convict in ten pundis.
“Donald Moir in Elcheis juravit negative, yit prowin guiltie be Duncan and James Grantis. Convict in ten pundis.
“William Proctor thair deponit they brak the gavill of his hous and pantrie dore tua yeiris since and spulyeit him and confest intercommoning with them in Skirdurstan; and alse provin guiltie be Duncan and James Grantis. Convict in ten pundis.
“William Stewart at the Boit of Boig, being sworne, declairis he never resset brokin men to his knowledge, except fyve or sex of them cam in the day Johne Dowe wes killit and his wyff gave them meit and drink; and alse confest that ane fidler of the Clangregouris cam to his hous and wes at his dochteris mariage. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“Thomas Cruikschank in Elcheis deponit he never resset brokin men, yet confest that Duncan Gair and Johne Dowe Gair came to his hous and tuik him with them to Archibald Stewartis hous at the boit of Skirdurstane and keipit him thair ane nicht and causit him drink and eat with them, and alse confest intercommoning and meting with them at uther times, and alse prowin guiltie be Duncan and James Grantis. Convict in ten merkis.
“Johne Jacksone in Fochabirs of Eingzie deponit that thrie of them cam and tuik him and tuik his bygirdill fra him, with fiftie markis money, and they cam to James Hossakis thair and they gave him his money again and thairefter he wes forcit cum to James Hossakis hous and gave them ane quart aill, prowin guiltie be Johne Oig. Convict in ten pundis.
“William Logane in Ardiquhische, being sworne, confest that the day old Johne Dowe Gair wes killit sex of them forcit him to put them ower the Watter of Spey and confest he yeid as commissioner for the Clangrigour to the Gairmoche to requyre ane compositione fra them in name of the said Johne Dowe Gair and utheris his complices. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“Thomas Cuming in Elcheis, being sworne, deponit that xviij of the Clangrigour cam to his hous sex yeiris sensyne and tuik his hous, himself being absent, at last with difficultie cam in and wes forcit to give them thair supperis and brekfast on the morne and confest intercommoning with them sundrie tymes. Convict in ten pundis.
“Johne McWilliam thair, being sworne, confest four yeir since Johne Dowe cam to his hous and sought meat, and he offerit bread and milk, quhilk they wold not tak and went away; neverthelese prowin guiltie be Duncan and James Grantis. Convict in ten pundis.
“William McWilliam McKiane thair, being sworne, confest intercommoning and drinking with them in Johne McCagies at ane brydell; also prowin werie guiltie be Duncan and James Grantis. Convict in tuentie markis.
“Andrew Hay thair, being sworne, confest he ressett ane of thair wyffis and bairnes ane yeir since or thairby and gave hir meat with ane corne maill; and alse prowin guiltie be Duncan and James Grantis. Convict in ten pundis.
“Robert Logane thair confest intercommoning with Allester McAndie Voir at the brydell in Johne McCagies; as also prowin guiltie be Duncan and James Grantis. Convict in ten pundis.
“William Hay in Easter Elcheis, being suorne, deponit they berried him oft within this sex yeiris, and anes auchtein of them cam to his hous and tuik sic meat as wes readie, and is prowin guiltie be Duncan and James Grantis. Convict in ten pundis.
“Johne Gray thair, deponit negative, and notwithstanding prowin guiltie be Duncan and James Grantis. Convict in ten pundis.
“James Muckill thair, deponit negative, and notwithstanding prowin guiltie be Duncan and James Grantis. Convict in ten pundis.”
Rothes.
“Patrik Lesley in Petteddertie, being suorne, confest that Johne Dowe, being ane day in Dundurcus, send ane man to him to seik silver, and the said Patrik ansuerit he haid not silver bot said Marjorie Roy wes restand to him thrie or four bollis of malt, and giff he were ther he wold giwe them half ane dollour, lykas they tuik up four pundis fra hir at thair awin hand. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“Leonard Lesley of Cheppellhill, being suorne, confest intercommoning, eating and drinking with them in seiking bak of wther menis guidis takin avay; and confest that he drank with them in Johne Guthries hous in Rothes and another tyme in William Grayis hous at the Craignuik. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“Walter Innes of Wrtane, bailyie of Rothes, being suorne, confest that Johne Dowe send commissioneris to him to schawe my Lord of Rothes that he wes willing of peace, and confest that he sawe sextein of them or thairby in Rothes and drank with them in the Miltoune of Rothes, and alse that he trystit with the Clangrigour anent the gudwyff of Wrtane and David Dunbar; and alse confest that the barronie of Rothes contrabute and gawe them ane supper quhilk wes thrie bollis of malt and wes spent at Fiddiche. Convict in ane hundreth markis.
“Johne Guthrie in Maynes of Rothes, being suorne, confest that Allaster McAndie Voir and Johne Drummond, being tuell in company, cam to his hous wpon ane Sonday, and Leonard Lesley being in company, and drank four pundis and payd nothing therof; and another tyme thair cam to his hous Duncan Gair, being aucht or nyne in companie, and brocht Norman Deane perforce thairto and drank tuentie sevin schilling and left him in wod of the lawing. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“Normond Deane thair, being suorne, deponit that quhen Mr Johne Weymes guidis wes takin away he mett with them in Mortliche and they schott him fra place to place and another tyme they tuik him perforce to Johne Guthries hous and causit him pay tuentie four schillingis, and confest he payit ane pairt of the contrabutione to the supper. Convict in fourtie markis.
“Alexander Lesley of Conrak, being suorne, confest that they haid berried his man, George Gray, and tuik sex horse fra himself, and alse confest that he contrabute to the Clangrigour for thrie bollis malt, and confest that he met with them and drank with them in seiking bak his awin and wtheris menis guidis at the boit of Fiddiche, and confest Allaster McAndie Voir and Johne Stewart were in his hous, and confest he went to William Grayis hous at the Craig to supply him, and confest he met with old Johne Dowe, quha tuik him perforce to George Innes hous at Fiddiche, and confest he intercommoned with Johne Drummond, and confest he wes at the said William Grayis hous at Dandaleith quhen they drank fourtie s. and causit the tennentis stent for paying of it; and alse confest that he and Johne Guthrie wes messingeris betuix the boundis of Rothes and the Clangrigour and declairit that they tuik him perforce to George Innes hous quhen they drank the four pundis giwin be the forsaid Patrik Lesley of Petteddertie. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“Johne Gray in Rothes, being suorne, confest that they cam in to his house at the gavill thairof, and confest that sum of them cam to his hous and stayit tua houris and did eat and drink. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“Thomas Gray thair, being suorne, deponit that Allaster McAndie Voir, with auchtein with him, cam and brak his dores and drank ane broust of aill and payit nothing for it. Convict in tuentie pundis.
“Michell Yevine in Strabukie, deponit negative, yit prowin guiltie be Leonard Lesley and Johne Guthrie. Convict in ten pundis.
“George Gray in Ardnellie, being suorne, deponit that he never supplyit them, except that his wyff haid sumtyme supplyit thair wyffis quhilk he could not purge himself of. Convict in ten pundis.
“Patrik Grant in Delnapoitt, Borache, wobster in Oldweime, Patrik Mougache in Knoken, Allaster McCagie in Nether Borlum, David McKeane Mor in Tombrek, Allaster Gillimichell there, Johne Roy at the milne of Daltalies, James Donaldsone in Elcheis, Johne Garrowe there, Johne Milvart there, James McCondachie in Clagan, Johne McCagie there, William Dumbrek in Dundurcus, George Gilleis in Collie, Alexander Deane in Easter Elcheis, Robert Deane in Dandaleith, William Man there, Johne Man there, William Gray in Carntie, Stronoche there, Patrik Bogtoune in Conrak, Thomas Schankis thair, Robert Yevine thair, Johne Riache in Hauche of Airtindillie, Johne Gray younger in Rothes, Alexander Hay in Maynes of Rothes, William Tailyeour thair, William Man in Auchinroth, Michaell Schankis in Keldillie and James Innes in Mulben, they and ilkan of them ar unlawit and amerciat for thair not compeirance to the saidis courtis, being laufullie summondit thairto, quherupon act extract furth of the said court buikis be me Johne Chalmer notar publict clerk thairof. (Signed) Jo. Chalmer clr.”
“Apud Edinburgh, primo Decembris, 1641. Producit be the Laird of Innes and allowed be the Counsell and letters of horning and poynding ordaned to be past therupon upon 20 dayes warning. (Signed) Loudoun, Canrius.”
Modern English Rendering
Courts were held in the tolbooth of Elgin on nine dates between 9 February and 18 March 1641 by the Earl of Moray, Sir Robert Innes of that Ilk, Alexander Dunbar of Westfield, Thomas Mackenzie of Pluscarden, Robert Cuming of Altyre and Robert Leslie of Finrassie. The courts acted under a December 1640 commission from the Committee of Estates against persons accused of harbouring, supplying, maintaining or communicating with Clan Gregor and other outlawed or “broken” men.
John Chalmer served as clerk; Mr James Annand as procurator fiscal; William Cuik as officer; and William Ross as doomster. The following evidence and judgments were recorded:
- Duncan Grant in Wester Elchies said about sixteen Clan Gregor men came to his house while he was absent and his wife was in childbed. Although they left before he returned, he could not clear himself of intercommuning with them. Fine: £50.
- James Grant there said younger John Dowe and six men came while he was in Elgin; he admitted meeting Clan Gregor at the kirk of Skirdurstan and drinking with them. Fine: £50.
- James Hay in Auchrosk admitted sending John Drummond a dollar after Drummond sought supplies and said the men came twice to his house. Fine: £20.
- William Gilbert in Wester Elchies denied the charge but was found guilty on the evidence of Duncan and James Grant. Fine: £10.
- George Leslie at the Boat of Elchies said Clan Gregor took his boats, threatened his wife, drank his ale and paid nothing, but he was nevertheless found guilty on the Grants’ evidence. Fine: 20 merks.
- John Oig McPherson in Boighead of Kingzie admitted lodging two broken men, communicating with Clan Gregor and drinking with them shortly before John Dowe Gair was killed. Fine: £20.
- Alexander Cuming in the Haugh of Dundurcus said about forty Clan Gregor men came to his house and that on another occasion they took him from his bed after pursuing the salmon fishers of the Spey. Fine: £20.
- Gilbert Barclay in Allenboy denied harbouring or supplying them but admitted drinking with old John Dowe and others in Keith before Martinmas 1639. Fine: £50.
- John Hamilton in Boighead said young John Dowe and about sixteen companions came to his house in his absence and ate supper there. Fine: £10.
- William Hay in Mulben said neighbours brought the men to his house, where they struck and abused him and took half a dollar, but testimony from three Hays was also given against him. Fine: £10.
- Andrew Thomson in Boighead denied the charge but admitted drinking with younger John Dowe in Strathbogie. Fine: £10.
- Thomas Dumbrek in Dundurcus admitted shaking hands with Clan Gregor, giving them a dollar, and supplying their wives and parties with victual. Fine: £10.
- George Yevine, William Duncan, David Allan and Isobel Mein were found to have contributed money and supplied the clan’s wives and parties with victual. Fine: £10 each.
- Gavin Milne in Gerbettie denied harbouring the men themselves but admitted supplying their wives and parties and paying two dollars after his goods were taken. Fine: £20.
- John Milne there denied the charge but was found guilty by Gavin Milne and other neighbours. Fine: £20.
- John Taylor in Carntie and Gilbert Mitchell were involved in paying for meat and drink consumed by the men. Fine: £10 each.
- Andrew McKimmie and John McKimmie in Balnabruiche denied the charge but were found guilty on the evidence of James and George Hay. Fine: 20 merks each.
- James Mougache, elder admitted giving money after John Drummond came to his house in his absence and was also found guilty by the Hays. Fine: £10.
- James Mougache there denied the charge but was found guilty by the same witnesses. Fine: 20 merks.
- Patrick Clerk was convicted on his own confession and other testimony. Fine: £10.
- George Scherer admitted meeting, drinking and intercommuning with the men. Fine: 40 merks.
- John Clerk in Belnabruiche admitted communicating with them and giving them meat and drink. Fine: £10.
- John Wentoun in Mulben said they never entered his house but admitted meeting and communicating with them at another house. Fine: £10.
- Patrick Milne, miller in Mulben said John Dowe came to his house and drank ale and was also found guilty by other witnesses. Fine: £10.
- Robert Yevine admitted that men entered his house on two occasions and took 14 shillings from his pocket. Fine: £10.
- James Duncan said the men took barley bannocks and milk from his house shortly before John Dowe was killed and was also found guilty by witnesses. Fine: £10.
- Andrew Duncan said three men took half a hide from him and was also found guilty by witnesses. Fine: £10.
- John Robertson in Breaben admitted giving money and offering meal and was also found guilty by witnesses. Fine: £10.
- Robert Simpson admitted giving money and meal and said the men bled his wife. Fine: £10.
- John Rattray in Gairlen described two men coming from the hill, drinking beer and troubling Lord Forbes’s men; he was also found guilty by witnesses. Fine: £10.
- George Taylor in Towie admitted communicating with the men and giving them a bonnet, which they later threw back. Fine: £10.
- James Hay, cordiner in Towie described repeated coercive visits but was nevertheless found guilty on Robert Yevine’s evidence. Fine: £10.
- John Chalmer in Auldchastle described men demanding money by force and a later visit to his house after the pursuit of salmon fishers. Fine: £10.
- James Hossak in Fochabers admitted that eighteen Clan Gregor men had been brought to his house and was also found guilty by John Oig and John Hamilton. Fine: £20.
- Thomas Grant in Crofts of Kirdellis denied supplying them but admitted communicating repeatedly with Duncan Gair and old John Dowe. Fine: £10.
- Patrick Dollace in Glenairder admitted communicating with them on the highway. Fine: £10.
- William Grant of Kirdellis admitted harbouring Patrick Oig in 1639 and communicating with Duncan Gair. Fine: £40.
- William Grant in Auchnahoungen admitted communicating with them. Fine: £20.
- William Innes in Mulben admitted communicating with John Dowe in October 1639. Fine: £20.
- Robert Leslie in Dundurcus said six men broke open his doors and forced him to give them a dollar. Fine: £10.
- William Gray in Daigenis described John Drummond and seven men breaking his doors, taking his shoes and money from his wife, and drinking ale; he also admitted later communication and drinking with Drummond. Fine: £10.
- Alexander Brouster in Croknacroy said three men attacked him and took twelve shillings in small coins, but he was also found guilty by William Innes. Fine: £10.
- Alexander Schand in Gairlen admitted communicating with old John Dowe and drinking with the men on a Sunday during preaching. Fine: 20 merks.
- Farquhar Garrowe in Elchies said old John Dowe had broken into and plundered his house five years earlier but was also found guilty on the Grants’ evidence. Fine: £10.
- Thomas Durstane in Dandaleith denied the charge but was found guilty by William Gray. Fine: £10.
- Thomas Yevine in Daigenis described John Drummond and six men drinking at his house without payment and taking livestock, but admitted communicating with them. Fine: £10.
- Donald Moir in Elchies swore negatively but was found guilty on the Grants’ evidence. Fine: £10.
- William Proctor there described his house and pantry being broken open and plundered but admitted communicating with the men at Skirdurstan. Fine: £10.
- William Stewart at the Boat of Boig said several men came on the day John Dowe was killed and his wife gave them food and drink; he also admitted that a Clan Gregor fiddler attended his daughter’s marriage. Fine: £20.
- Thomas Cruikshank in Elchies described being taken away and detained by Clan Gregor men but also admitted meeting and communicating with them at other times. Fine: 10 merks.
- John Jackson in Fochabers of Kingzie said three men seized him and took his belt and fifty merks, later returning the money; he was then compelled to go to another house and give them ale. Fine: £10.
- William Logan in Ardiquhische admitted ferrying six men across the Spey under force and acting as a commissioner for Clan Gregor to seek a composition. Fine: £20.
- Thomas Cuming in Elchies said eighteen Clan Gregor men occupied his house and forced him to provide supper and breakfast; he also admitted communicating with them at other times. Fine: £10.
- John McWilliam there said John Dowe sought food at his house and was also found guilty by the Grants. Fine: £10.
- William McWilliam McKiane admitted communicating and drinking with them at a wedding. Fine: 20 merks.
- Andrew Hay admitted harbouring one of the clan’s wives and children and giving her food and meal. Fine: £10.
- Robert Logan admitted communicating with Allaster McAndie Voir at a wedding and was also found guilty by the Grants. Fine: £10.
- William Hay in Easter Elchies said the men had repeatedly harried him and once took whatever food was ready, but was found guilty by the Grants. Fine: £10.
- John Gray and James Muckill there denied the charges but were each found guilty on the Grants’ evidence. Fine: £10 each.
The proceedings then turned specifically to Rothes.
- Patrick Leslie in Petteddertie admitted that after John Dowe sought money he indicated a debt owed to him by Marjorie Roy, from whom the men then took £4. Fine: £20.
- Leonard Leslie of Chapelhill admitted communicating, eating and drinking with Clan Gregor while trying to recover stolen goods. He specifically said that he drank with them in John Guthrie’s house in Rothes. Fine: £20.
- Walter Innes of Wrtane, bailie of Rothes admitted receiving commissioners from John Dowe, drinking with about sixteen Clan Gregor men, negotiating with them and participating in a contribution by the barony of Rothes of three bolls of malt for a supper. Fine: 100 merks.
- John Guthrie in the Mains of Rothes admitted that Allaster McAndie Voir and John Drummond came to his house on a Sunday with a company of twelve, including Leonard Leslie, and consumed £4 worth of drink without paying. On another occasion Duncan Gair came with eight or nine companions and brought Norman Deane to Guthrie’s house by force. They consumed 27 shillings’ worth and left Deane pledged for the reckoning. Guthrie was convicted and fined £20.
- Norman Deane testified that on another occasion Clan Gregor men took him by force to John Guthrie’s house and made him pay 24 shillings; he also admitted contributing toward the supper. Fine: 40 merks.
- Alexander Leslie of Conrak made a lengthy confession of meetings, payments and contacts with Clan Gregor. Of particular importance, he stated that he and John Guthrie were “messengers” between the bounds of Rothes and Clan Gregor. He also said that on one occasion Clan Gregor men had forced him to another house. Fine: £20.
- John Gray in Rothes admitted that members of the clan came into his house and stayed for about two hours eating and drinking. Fine: £20.
- Thomas Gray there said Allaster McAndie Voir and eighteen companions broke his doors and drank a brewing of ale without paying. Fine: £20.
- Michell Yevine in Strabukie denied the charge but was nevertheless found guilty on the evidence of Leonard Leslie and John Guthrie. Fine: £10.
- George Gray in Ardnellie said he had not supplied the men himself, although his wife had at times supplied their wives, a matter from which he could not clear himself. Fine: £10.
A final group of persons who had been lawfully summoned but did not appear were amerciated for their nonappearance. The extract was certified by the court clerk, John Chalmer.
On 1 December 1641 the Laird of Innes produced the proceedings before the Privy Council at Edinburgh. The Council allowed them and ordered that letters of horning and poinding pass upon the judgments after twenty days’ warning.
This is one of the most detailed surviving Privy Council records for a Guthrie in the northern counties during this period. John Guthrie in the Mains of Rothes is identified by a precise residence and appears repeatedly within a network of evidence rather than in a single isolated reference.
His own sworn statement places two different Clan Gregor groups at his house. Independent testimony places Leonard Leslie drinking with Clan Gregor there and Norman Deane being taken there by force. Alexander Leslie further states that he and Guthrie acted as “messingeris betuix the boundis of Rothes and the Clangrigour.” Guthrie himself subsequently appears as one of the witnesses whose evidence was used to convict Michell Yevine.
The act therefore documents John Guthrie simultaneously as an accused person, sworn deponent, fined participant and evidentiary witness within a much broader inquiry into local interaction with Clan Gregor.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Reset / resetting — harbouring, receiving or knowingly supporting persons under legal proscription; the proceedings use the concept broadly alongside supplying and intercommuning.
- Broken men — persons considered outside ordinary lawful social and territorial control, frequently associated in government records with raiding or outlawry.
- Intercommuning — communicating, associating or maintaining prohibited contact with persons under legal ban.
- Being suorne / deponit — being sworn and giving testimony or a deposition.
- Convict in £20 — here, adjudged liable for a monetary penalty of £20 Scots; it does not mean imprisonment.
- Messenger — in Alexander Leslie’s deposition, a person carrying communications between parties; this is distinct from the formal office of messenger-at-arms.
- Lawing — the reckoning or bill for food and drink.
- In wod — left as a pledge or security for a debt or reckoning.
- Amerciat / unlawit — subjected to a monetary penalty, here for failure to appear after lawful summons.
- Horning — formal process leading to denunciation as a rebel for failure to obey lawful letters.
- Poinding — legal seizure of goods to enforce a debt, fine or other obligation.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VII, A.D. 1638–1643 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1906), Miscellaneous Papers, no. 79, pp. 487–494. Commission courts held in the tolbooth of Elgin, 9 February–18 March 1641; proceedings produced before the Privy Council at Edinburgh and allowed 1 December 1641. Read the digitized volume .
1641 — Bishop John Guthrie and His Son John in the Roll of Delinquents
Second Series, Volume VII • Pages 510–512
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper 101 is a long list headed “Roll of Delinquents in 1641.” It names nobles, former bishops, lairds, lawyers, military officers, burgesses, servants and other individuals from across Scotland.
Among them are two Guthries: Mr Johne Guthrie, sometime described in the document as “pretendit Bishope of Murray,” and Mr Johne Guthrie, his son. The wording is especially important genealogically because the younger man’s relationship to the former bishop is stated directly rather than inferred from a shared surname.
The roll itself does not give an individual allegation, conviction, sentence or penalty beside each name. Inclusion in this list should therefore not be expanded into a more specific legal conclusion unless another record supplies one.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Document List
101. Roll of Delinquents in 1641.—Patrik, Earle of Tullibairdin; Seatoune of Scheathin; Robert, Earle of Carnwath; William, Lord Crichtoun; Lord Gordoun; Sir James Scott of Rossie; Sir Johne Fergussone of Kilkerrane; Fergussone, younger thairof; James Kennedy of Blairquhan; Sir James Galloway; Harie, Earle of Strivilling; Doctor Arthur Johnestoun; Sir William Elphingstoun; Johne, Lord Herres; Robert Maxwell of Orchardtoun; Johne Maxwell of Mylnetoun; Maxwell of Kirkconill; William McClellane of Softlaw; McClellane of Stankis; James Gordoun of Rothemay; Generall James King; William Scott, burges of Abirdein; Paull Inglis, burges thair; William Andersone, burges thair; Robert Rae, burgess thair; George Cullane, burges thair; Sir William Hamiltoun of Elistoune; Bryce Sempill of Cathcart; Patrik Vans, younger of Barnbarroche; Mr Robert Burnet, advocat; Harie Dun, burges of Abirdeine; Livetennent-Colonell Johnestoun; Mr Walter Quhytfurd, pretendit Bischope of Breachin; James Ogilvie of Newgrange; Johne, Earle of Traquair; Sir Johne Hay, Clark Register; Doctor Walter Balcanquell; Sir Robert Spotiswod of Donypace; Johne Home of Rentoune; Capitane David Scrymgeour; Robert Hwy, sone to Doctor Hwy; Sir Patrik Drumond, Conservatour; Sir Donald McDonald of Sleat; Sir George Ogilvie of Bamff; Sir Johne Scrymgeour of Dudope, Constable of Dundy; James Maxwell of Litlebar; Roger Lyndsay of Maynes; Johne Lyndsay of Wauchope; Robert Herres of Barbarro; Edward Moriesone of Edinghame; Johne Sturdgeon of Torrorie; James Lyndsay of Auchinskeoch; William Maxwell of Killelung; Fergus Grahame of Blairetwod; James, Master of Maxwell, brother to Earl Nithisdaill; Johne Maxwell of Castlemilk; Sir Johne Maxwell of Conhaith; Johne Mcbrair of Allmigill; George Johnestoun, burges of Aberdein; William Petrie, burgess thair; Robert Forbes thair; David Richard thair; George Gordoun of Nethirmure thair; Sir Alexander Irweing of Drum; Robert Irweing of Federat; Sir Alexander Cumyng of Coulter; Alexander Gordoun of Abiryeldie; Mr Johne Paip, younger, advocat; Mr James Inglis, servitour to the Earl of Wintoun; George, Marques of Huntley; William, Earle of Airth; Sir Thomas Crombie of Kemnay; Sir James Dowglas of Mordingtoun; Sir Johne Seatoune of Barnes; Sir James Lockhart of Ley; Sir Johne Turone of Foverane; William, Marques of Dowglas; Alexander, Earle of Linlithgow; Sir Nisbet of Westnisbet; James Lord Ogilvie; George Home, brother to the Laird Rentoune; Lodovick, Earle of Crawfurd; James, Earle of Airlie; Urquhart of Crombie; Thomas Urquhart of Cromartie, younger; Sir James Stewart of Buitt; George Gordoun of Geicht, younger; Ronald Oig McRonald; Alexander Gordon of Ardestie; Mr David Lyndsay, sumtyme pretendit Bishope of Edinburgh; Mr Adam Bannatyne, sumtyme pretendit Bishope of Aberdein; Mr Johne Maxwell, sumtyme pretendit Bishope of Ross; Mr Patrik Lyndsay, sumtyme pretendit Archebishope of Glasgow; Mr Thomas Sydserff, sumtyme pretendit Bishope of Galloway; Mr Johne Guthrie, sumtyme pretendit Bishope of Murray; Earle of Nithisdaill; Sir Harie Bruce; Sir Lues Stewart; Mr Johne Guthrie, sone to Mr Johne Guthrie, sumtyme pretendit Bishope of Murray; Lord Aboyne; the Laird of Craig Gordoun; James Gordoun of Birkinburge; Johne Gordon of Haddo; of Innerbuikat; George Gordon of Tillichowdie; George Gordoun of Corachrie; Johne Seatoun, Chamberlane of Fyvie, and his sones; James Gordoun at the Mylne of Des; Hector Abircrombie of Fettirneir; Abircrombie his sone; James Leslie of Auchortes; Johne Gordoun of Dewchries; Johne Leith of Ardoyne; Patrik Leith of Kirktoun; George Leith of Newrayne; Johne Leith of Newlands; Johne Leith of Balquhairne; Mr James Leith, his sone; Adam Abircrombie of Aldraine; Normond Leslie at the mylne of Carden; Patrik Leslie of Legatsden; Johne Leslie of Badiforrow; Alexander Chalmer of Drynies; Johne Gordoun of Knokaspeik; Johne Gordoun, his sone; Robert Gordoun at the Mylne of Auchindore; Alexander Gordon of Methrum; George Gordoun of Cocklarchie; Mr James Gordoun, his brother; George Gordoun of Wranghame; Gordoun of Dalpersie and his sones; George Gordoun of Newtoun; George Gordoun of Colluthie; George Gordoun, Chamberlane of Strathbogy; William Gordoun of Maynemure; Adam Duff in Auchindoun; Adam Duff of Drummure; Robert Gordoun of Cowdrayne; Johne Spence of Bruikistoun; Spensses, his breither; Mr Robert Bissett of Lessindrum; Mr Thomas Gordoun of Pittindreiche; Gordon of Tulloche; George Andersone, sone to Mr Patrik Andersone of Law; Maister Thomas Gordoun of Keythsmylne; Patrik Gordoun of Sauchin; William Gordoun of Gordounsmylne; Capitane James Forbes; Major Alexander Forbes; Arthur Forbes, sumtyme of Meany; William Doegood of Auchinhoove; Harie Gordoun of Glasso; James Gordoun of Lattirfurie; Johne Gordoun of Auchinraith; Sir George Johnestoun of Caskiben; George Johnestoun, his sone; James Cruikschank in Broadgait of Aberdein, in James Seatoun his hous; George Jamesone, paynter; Robert Irweing of Fornet; Patrik, Lord Olyphant; James McRonald, alias McDonald, oy to Alexander McDonald of Glengarie; Johne Ramsay of Culsche; Johne Lyon of Murres; Thomas Burnet of Campbell; Johne Innes of Tippertie; Patrick Urquhart of Lethintie; Patrick Meldrum, sumtyme of Iden; Blakhall of that Ilk; Alexander Blakhall of Finersie; Gairdin of Blakfurd and his two sones; George Meldrum of Haltoun; William Meldrum of Strathquharrie; Patrik and William Meldrumes, his sones; Mr William Seatoun of Ranystoun; Mr James Clark of Tillichortie; Johne Donaldsone of Hiltoun; Gordoun of Auchlewchries; Mr James Kennedy; Colonell Gairdine; Hew Gordoun of Smythstoun; Patrik Gordoun of Badinscoth; William Troupe of Bannacraig; Gilbert Johnestoun in Essilmonth; Thomas Stewart of Ryeland; Walter and George Mortimers of Auchinbaldie, elder and younger; Johne Gordoun of Innermarkie; Alexander Gordoun, younger of Innermarkie, his sone; Gordoun of Beldorne; Johne Coupland of Hauches; Alexander Gordoun of Lewes; George Adamsone of Braco; Alexander Irweing of Tarsettis; Johne Irweing of Allathin; Alexander Seatoun, brother to Sheathin; Johne Gordoun of Blealak; Mr William Davidsone of Ord; George Gordoun in Gallowgait; George Moriesone, burges of Aberdein; James Blakhall, sone to Alexander Blakhall; Mr William Johnestoun, burges of Abirdein; Alexander Robertsone, burges thair; Johne Scott, burges thair; Johne Strauchan, burges thair; Andrew Chalmer, burges thair; James McDonald, sone to Sir Donald McDonald of Sleat; Johne Seatoune, elder of Auchortie; Sir James Lundy; William Spotswod, sone to Sir Johne Spotiswod of Dairsie; Robert Hamiltoun of Torrens; William Hamiltoun of the Maynes of Kilbryd; Hamiltoun, his sone; Robert Hamiltoun of Cathkine; Gawne Hamiltoun, his sone; Mr Johne Hamiltoun of Raith; James Hamiltoun, his brother; Mr William Burnet, sone to Johne Burnet of Barnes; Johne Burnet, brother to the said Mr William; Maister James Gordoun; Johne Wilsone, wreater; Johne Leith of Harthill.”
[Endorsed] “The Roll Delinquents, 1641.”
Modern English Rendering
This document is a roll of names rather than a narrative act. The names and territorial designations therefore require little translation. In modern terms, it records the following persons in a list endorsed “The Roll of Delinquents, 1641”:
Patrick, Earl of Tullibardine; [blank] Seton of Schethin; Robert, Earl of Carnwath; William, Lord Crichton; [blank], Lord Gordon; Sir James Scott of Rossie; Sir John Ferguson of Kilkerran; the younger Ferguson there; James Kennedy of Blairquhan; Sir James Galloway; Harry, Earl of Stirling; Dr Arthur Johnston; Sir William Elphinstone; John, Lord Herries; Robert Maxwell of Orchardton; John Maxwell of Milntown; [blank] Maxwell of Kirkconnel; William McClellan of Softlaw; [blank] McClellan of Stank; James Gordon of Rothiemay; General James King; William Scott, burgess of Aberdeen; Paul Inglis, burgess there; William Anderson, burgess there; Robert Rae, burgess there; George Cullen, burgess there; Sir William Hamilton of Elistoun; Bryce Semple of Cathcart; Patrick Vans, younger of Barnbarroch; Mr Robert Burnet, advocate; Harry Dun, burgess of Aberdeen; Lieutenant-Colonel Johnston; Mr Walter Whitford, described in the roll as pretended Bishop of Brechin; James Ogilvie of Newgrange; John, Earl of Traquair; Sir John Hay, Clerk Register; Dr Walter Balcanquall; Sir Robert Spottiswood of Dunyvaig; John Home of Renton; Captain David Scrymgeour; Robert Hay, son of Dr Hay; Sir Patrick Drummond, Conservator; Sir Donald McDonald of Sleat; Sir George Ogilvie of Banff; Sir John Scrymgeour of Dudhope, Constable of Dundee; James Maxwell of Littlebar; Roger Lindsay of Mains; John Lindsay of Wauchope; Robert Herries of Barbarro; Edward Morrison of Edingham; John Sturgeon of Torrorie; James Lindsay of Auchinskeoch; William Maxwell of Killelung; Fergus Graham of Blairwood; James, Master of Maxwell, brother of the Earl of Nithsdale; John Maxwell of Castlemilk; Sir John Maxwell of Conhaith; John McBrair of Almigill; George Johnston, burgess of Aberdeen; William Petrie, burgess there; Robert Forbes there; David Richard there; George Gordon of Nethermure there; Sir Alexander Irvine of Drum; Robert Irvine of Federat; Sir Alexander Cumming of Coulter; Alexander Gordon of Abiryeldie; Mr John Paip, younger, advocate; Mr James Inglis, servant to the Earl of Winton; George, Marquis of Huntly; William, Earl of Airth; Sir Thomas Crombie of Kemnay; Sir James Douglas of Mordington; Sir John Seton of Barnes; Sir James Lockhart of Lee; Sir John Turner of Foveran; William, Marquis of Douglas; Alexander, Earl of Linlithgow; Sir [blank] Nisbet of West Nisbet; James, Lord Ogilvie; George Home, brother of the Laird of Renton; Ludovic, Earl of Crawford; James, Earl of Airlie; [blank] Urquhart of Crombie; Thomas Urquhart of Cromarty, younger; Sir James Stewart of Bute; George Gordon of Gight, younger; Ronald Oig McRonald; Alexander Gordon of Ardestie; Mr David Lindsay, described as sometime pretended Bishop of Edinburgh; Mr Adam Bannatyne, sometime pretended Bishop of Aberdeen; Mr John Maxwell, sometime pretended Bishop of Ross; Mr Patrick Lindsay, sometime pretended Archbishop of Glasgow; Mr Thomas Sydserff, sometime pretended Bishop of Galloway; Mr John Guthrie, sometime described as pretended Bishop of Moray; the Earl of Nithsdale; Sir Harry Bruce; Sir Lewis Stewart; Mr John Guthrie, son of Mr John Guthrie, sometime described as pretended Bishop of Moray; Lord Aboyne; the Laird of Craig Gordon; James Gordon of Birkenburn; John Gordon of Haddo; [blank] of Inverbucket; George Gordon of Tillichowdie; George Gordon of Corachrie; John Seton, chamberlain of Fyvie, and his sons; James Gordon at the Mill of Dee; Hector Abercrombie of Fetternear; [blank] Abercrombie, his son; James Leslie of Auchortes; John Gordon of Dewchries; John Leith of Ardoyne; Patrick Leith of Kirktown; George Leith of Newrayne; John Leith of Newlands; John Leith of Balquhairne; Mr James Leith, his son; Adam Abercrombie of Aldraine; Norman Leslie at the mill of Carden; Patrick Leslie of Legatsden; John Leslie of Badiforrow; Alexander Chalmers of Drynies; John Gordon of Knockaspick; John Gordon, his son; Robert Gordon at the Mill of Auchindore; Alexander Gordon of Methrum; George Gordon of Cocklarchie; Mr James Gordon, his brother; George Gordon of Wranghame; [blank] Gordon of Dalpersie and his sons; George Gordon of Newton; George Gordon of Colluthie; George Gordon, chamberlain of Strathbogie; William Gordon of Maynemure; Adam Duff in Auchindoun; Adam Duff of Drummure; Robert Gordon of Cowdrayne; John Spence of Bruikistoun; the Spences, his brothers; Mr Robert Bisset of Lessindrum; Mr Thomas Gordon of Pittendreich; [blank] Gordon of Tulloche; George Anderson, son of Mr Patrick Anderson of Law; Mr Thomas Gordon of Keithsmylne; Patrick Gordon of Sauchin; William Gordon of Gordonsmylne; Captain James Forbes; Major Alexander Forbes; Arthur Forbes, sometime of Meany; William Doegood of Auchinhoove; Harry Gordon of Glasso; James Gordon of Lattirfurie; John Gordon of Auchinraith; Sir George Johnston of Caskieben; George Johnston, his son; James Cruikshank in Broadgate of Aberdeen, in James Seton’s house; George Jamesone, painter; Robert Irvine of Fornet; Patrick, Lord Oliphant; James McRonald alias McDonald, grandson of Alexander McDonald of Glengarry; John Ramsay of Culsche; John Lyon of Murres; Thomas Burnet of Campbell; John Innes of Tippertie; Patrick Urquhart of Lethintie; Patrick Meldrum, sometime of Iden; [blank] Blackhall of that Ilk; Alexander Blackhall of Finersie; [blank] Garden of Blackford and his two sons; George Meldrum of Haltoun; William Meldrum of Strathquharrie; Patrick and William Meldrum, his sons; Mr William Seton of Ranystoun; Mr James Clark of Tillichortie; John Donaldson of Hilton; [blank] Gordon of Auchlewchries; Mr James Kennedy; Colonel Garden; Hugh Gordon of Smythstoun; Patrick Gordon of Badinscoth; William Troup of Bannacraig; Gilbert Johnston in Essilmonth; Thomas Stewart of Ryeland; Walter and George Mortimer of Auchinbaldie, elder and younger; John Gordon of Innermarkie; Alexander Gordon, younger of Innermarkie, his son; [blank] Gordon of Beldorne; John Coupland of Hauches; Alexander Gordon of Lewes; George Adamson of Braco; Alexander Irvine of Tarsettis; John Irvine of Allathin; Alexander Seton, brother to Schethin; John Gordon of Blealak; Mr William Davidson of Ord; George Gordon in Gallowgate; George Morrison, burgess of Aberdeen; James Blackhall, son of Alexander Blackhall; Mr William Johnston, burgess of Aberdeen; Alexander Robertson, burgess there; John Scott, burgess there; John Strachan, burgess there; Andrew Chalmers, burgess there; James McDonald, son of Sir Donald McDonald of Sleat; John Seton, elder of Auchortie; Sir James Lundy; William Spottiswood, son of Sir John Spottiswood of Dairsie; Robert Hamilton of Torrens; William Hamilton of the Mains of Kilbride; [blank] Hamilton, his son; Robert Hamilton of Cathkin; Gawne Hamilton, his son; Mr John Hamilton of Raith; James Hamilton, his brother; Mr William Burnet, son of John Burnet of Barnes; John Burnet, brother of the said Mr William; Mr James Gordon; John Wilson, writer; and John Leith of Harthill.
For Guthrie genealogy, the most important wording in the entire roll is the explicit relationship: “Mr Johne Guthrie, sone to Mr Johne Guthrie, sumtyme pretendit Bishope of Murray.” This directly establishes that the former Bishop of Moray had a son named John Guthrie.
The relationship does not depend upon a pedigree, shared surname, territorial succession or later family reconstruction. It is stated within the seventeenth-century document itself.
Independent ecclesiastical evidence further identifies a John Guthrie, minister of Keith and later Duffus, as a son of Bishop John Guthrie. That evidence can be compared with this direct Privy Council father-son statement, while the designation actually supplied by this roll remains simply Mr Johne Guthrie, his son.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Delinquent — the label used by this particular roll for the persons included in it. The list itself does not specify an individual offence or judgment beside every name.
- Sumtyme — sometime or formerly.
- Pretendit Bishop — the source’s polemical post-episcopacy designation for men who had held bishoprics; preserved as original wording rather than adopted as a modern editorial judgment.
- Sone to — son of; direct relationship language.
- Oy — grandson; used elsewhere in the roll for James McRonald in relation to Alexander McDonald of Glengarry.
- Burges — burgess, a formally admitted member of a burgh community possessing its civic rights and obligations.
- Advocat — advocate, a lawyer entitled to plead before Scotland’s supreme civil courts.
- Clark Register — Clerk Register, the senior officer responsible for major national records.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VII, A.D. 1638–1643 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1906), Miscellaneous Papers, no. 101, “Roll of Delinquents in 1641,” pp. 510–512; endorsed “The Roll Delinquents, 1641.” Read the digitized volume .
Independent identification context: Fasti Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ records John Guthrie of Guthrie, M.A., as Bishop of Moray from 1623 until his deposition on 11 December 1638, and elsewhere identifies John Guthrie, minister of Keith and Duffus, as a son of Bishop John Guthrie.
6 January 1643 — Patrick Guthrie, Elder, Witnesses Dundee Bonnetmakers’ Declaration
Second Series, Volume VII • Page 594
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Five Dundee bonnetmakers—George Spens, James Richardson, James Barrie, David Hoig and James Hoig—issued a formal declaration concerning allegations involving William Stevenson, collector.
They had learned that the Viscount and Master of Dudhope had charged Stevenson with claiming that he had imposed an unlaw or penalty upon them because they had subscribed a petition in favour of Mr George Halyburton. The bonnetmakers declared that they had made no such complaint against Stevenson and had not authorized proceedings in their names.
Their declaration also gives their own account of how they came to subscribe the Halyburton petition. They stated that they had been threatened by the Master of Dudhope and detained and locked in the Tolbooth of the Hill until they subscribed it. They afterwards formally revoked and disclaimed the petition.
The declaration was made at Dundee on 6 January 1643 before Patrick Guthrie, elder, Robert Stirling and David Sword, merchants, and James Nicoll, writer of the document, all burgesses of Dundee.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Document Text
283. “We, George Spens, James Ritchardsone, James Barrie, David Hoig, and James Hoig, bonnatmakaris, burgesses of Dundie, being informed that William Stevinsone, collectour, is chairged be the Vicount and Master of Duddop for alleadgeing that we wer unlawed be the said William Stevinsone for subscryveing ane supplicatione in favoris of Mr George Halyburtoune, doe by these presentis testifye and declair to the Lordis of his Majesteis most honorable Privie Counsell, that, gif any suche complent be maid in our names, or any letters pasit chairgeing the said William Steivinsone to compeir befoir the saidis Lords, that we altogiddcr are ignorant thairof, wer nevir accessorie thairunto, and thairfore dischairges the said William Steivinsone off all actione conceavit in our names for any caus quhatsumevir.
“For this we declair in presence of God and as we sail answer to him, he did nevir exact any unlaw from us or ather of us for the caus foirsaid, but we being sensibill of the great wrong we had beine in separating our selffis from our societies in subscryveing of ane petitione in favoris of the said Mr George Halyburtoune, to the quhilk we wer threattned be the said Master of Duddop, and deteined and lockit in the Tolbuith of the Hill quhill we did subscryve the same, whilk thaireftir we did solemnlie revoik and disclame, did intreat the said William Steivinsone to deall with our deacones to accept us in thair favoir and to tak the wyne from us, whilk they wer pleased to doe in a verrie sober maner; and this we declair to be of verritie, be this our subscription and oath foirsaid.
“At Dundie, the sext day of Januare the yeir of God ane thowsand sex hundreth and fourtie thrie yeires, befoir thir witnesses—Patrick Guthrie, elder, Robert Striviling and David Sword, merchandis, and James Nicoll, wreitter heirof, burgesses of Dundie. (Signed) George Spens. Ja. Nicoll, witnes.
“We, James Richardsone, James Barrie and David Hoig above named, with our handes at the pen led be the notaris wnder subscryeand at our commandis, becaus we cannot wreit our selffes.
“De mandate dictorum Jacobi Richardsone, Jacobi Barrie, Davidis Hoig, scribere nescientium (ut asseruerunt), ego, David Yeaman, notarius publicus, subscribe.
“Similiter de mandate dictorum Jacobi Richartsone, Jacobi Barrie et Davidis Hoig, scribere nescientium ut asseruerunt, ego, Georgius Wichtane, connotarius publicus, subscribe. (Signed) P. Guthrie, elder, witnes; Rot Strivling, wittnes; James Hog.”
Modern English Rendering
George Spens, James Richardson, James Barrie, David Hoig and James Hoig, bonnetmakers and burgesses of Dundee, declared that they had been informed that William Stevenson, collector, had been charged by the Viscount and Master of Dudhope with saying that he had fined them for subscribing a petition in favour of Mr George Halyburton.
They formally testified to the Privy Council that if any complaint had been made in their names, or if legal letters had been issued requiring Stevenson to appear before the Council, they knew nothing of the proceeding and had never authorized it. They therefore discharged Stevenson from any action purportedly brought in their names.
They further declared under oath that Stevenson had never imposed a fine upon any of them for subscribing the Halyburton petition. Instead, they said that they themselves came to regret separating from their craft societies by signing it.
According to their declaration, the Master of Dudhope had threatened them and caused them to be detained and locked in the Tolbooth of the Hill until they subscribed the petition. They later formally revoked and disclaimed what they had signed.
They then asked William Stevenson to intercede with their deacons so that they might again be received into favour and so that the customary wine might be accepted from them. They stated that their deacons did so in a restrained manner.
The declaration was sworn and subscribed at Dundee on 6 January 1643 before Patrick Guthrie, elder, Robert Stirling and David Sword, merchants, together with James Nicoll, writer of the document, all burgesses of Dundee.
George Spens and James Nicoll signed personally. James Richardson, James Barrie and David Hoig stated that they could not write, so the notaries David Yeaman and George Wichtane subscribed for them at their command. Patrick Guthrie then signed the document in his capacity as a witness.
This entry provides another precise identification of Patrick Guthrie, elder within Dundee’s civic and commercial community. The grammar of the witnessing clause places him with Robert Stirling and David Sword among the merchants and burgesses of Dundee.
It also preserves Patrick’s own abbreviated subscription, “P. Guthrie, elder, witnes,” providing direct evidence that he personally witnessed and subscribed this declaration.
Read alongside the 28 February 1643 Privy Council proceeding in which Patrick Guthre, elder appears among the councillors of Dundee, this document supplies a closely dated second record of a man bearing the same name, distinguishing qualifier and Dundee civic-commercial setting.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bonnetmaker — a craftsman engaged in the manufacture of bonnets; the declarants were members of Dundee’s incorporated craft community.
- Unlaw — a fine or monetary penalty imposed for an offence or breach of regulation.
- Collector — here William Stevenson’s Dundee civic or craft office; the source identifies him simply as “collectour.”
- Deacon — an elected officer governing an incorporated craft or trade body.
- Tolbooth of the Hill — the place in which the bonnetmakers said the Master of Dudhope had caused them to be detained until they subscribed the disputed petition.
- Hand at the pen — a method by which a person unable to write made or authorized a subscription with assistance.
- Notary public — an authorized legal officer who could authenticate acts and subscribe on behalf of persons unable to write.
- Connotary — a second notary acting jointly in authenticating the subscriptions.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VII, A.D. 1638–1643 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1906), Miscellaneous Papers, no. 283, p. 594, declaration dated Dundee, 6 January 1643. Read the digitized volume .
Volume VII — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume VII, covering 1638–1643, contains a smaller number of Guthrie source units than several preceding volumes, but the surviving evidence is unusually varied. The records place Guthries in delegated criminal justice, the Privy Council, Dundee civic government, professional legal practice, northern proceedings against Clan Gregor, and the political consequences of Scotland’s rejection of episcopacy.
Several of the entries are also especially valuable for identification. The volume securely connects an office-only reference to John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray; gives a direct father-son statement for the bishop and another Mr John Guthrie; identifies Patrick Guthrie, elder within Dundee’s merchant and governing community; and gives both residence and detailed testimony for John Guthrie in the Mains of Rothes.
On 16 February 1638, James Guthrie of Barnhill and James Crichton of Wester Adie petitioned the Privy Council after carrying out a commission for the trial of Matthew Bigholme and his son Robert.
Matthew had confessed to stealing three sheep and had been convicted; Robert had been declared an unlawful and suspect person. Guthrie and Crichton considered that they had exhausted the authority contained in their commission and therefore returned to the Council for instructions concerning sentence.
The Council ordered Matthew banished from Scotland under pain of death if he returned, while Robert was to be released after finding caution for peaceable behaviour. The act demonstrates both the judicial authority delegated to Guthrie and the limits placed upon that authority.
Reference: p. 3.
The volume captures a significant change in John Guthrie’s public status. On 16 May 1638, while he still held the bishopric, the Council directed a missive to the “Bishop of Murrey” requiring attendance at the special Council meeting appointed for Dalkeith on 6 June.
The contemporary act gives the office rather than the surname, but the volume’s own index and independent ecclesiastical evidence identify the officeholder as John Guthrie. The distinction between the Earl of Murrey and Bishop of Murrey is also explicit within the same recipient list.
By the time of the 1641 Roll of Delinquents, the political and ecclesiastical landscape had changed dramatically. The roll calls him “Mr Johne Guthrie, sumtyme pretendit Bishope of Murray.” The polemical language belongs to the document and reflects the post-1638 Covenanting rejection of the episcopal office; it is not a neutral modern description of Guthrie’s earlier consecration and service.
References: p. 19 and pp. 510–512.
The 1641 Roll of Delinquents contains one of Volume VII’s strongest genealogical statements. Immediately after the former Bishop of Moray appears “Mr Johne Guthrie, sone to Mr Johne Guthrie, sumtyme pretendit Bishope of Murray.”
This is direct contemporary relationship evidence. It does not depend on matching names, later pedigrees, territorial succession or genealogical reconstruction: the younger man is expressly called the bishop’s son.
The roll itself supplies no age, mother, residence or ministerial charge for the younger John. Those details must therefore remain separate from what this particular source proves, even where other ecclesiastical evidence may help identify him further.
Reference: pp. 510–512.
Two 1643 records provide complementary evidence for Patrick Guthrie, elder within Dundee.
In the major dispute between the burgh and John, Viscount of Dudhope, Patrick is expressly included among the councillors of Dundee joining the provost, bailies and other civic officers in seeking suspension of horning. The proceeding concerned the extent to which Dundee as an incorporated community could be made responsible for the conduct of all its inhabitants.
A separate declaration dated 6 January 1643 places Patrick among Dundee merchants and burgesses witnessing the sworn statement of several bonnetmakers. His personal subscription survives in the printed record as “P. Guthrie, elder, witnes.”
The shared name, distinguishing style “elder,” locality and close chronology strongly support continuity between the two appearances. Each document nevertheless contributes its own evidence: one places Patrick in municipal government; the other explicitly places him among Dundee’s merchant burgesses and preserves his witnessing role.
References: pp. 401–403 and p. 594.
On 15 June 1643, Richard Guthre, writer to the Signet, joined a group of creditors seeking extraordinary enforcement against Harry Cunningham, portioner of Restalrig.
Cunningham was already at the horn for debts owed to the petitioners, but they alleged that ordinary messengers could not safely approach his house because he threw large stones at them and maintained the residence “as in a hous of warre.” The Council granted authority to search for, apprehend and imprison him, including forced entry where necessary.
The occupational designation is particularly useful. Writer to the Signet corresponds to the abbreviation W.S. encountered with a Richard Guthrie in Volume VI. That makes professional continuity plausible, but Volume VII does not independently establish that every Richard Guthrie carrying a legal designation is the same man.
He should in particular remain distinct from the Richard Guthrie/Gotherie who appears in earlier records as an officer in Haddington unless additional evidence proves identity.
Reference: p. 448.
The commission-court record of February–March 1641 provides the most extensive evidence concerning a Guthrie in this volume. Johne Guthrie in Maynes of Rothes was examined under oath during proceedings against persons accused of resetting, supplying, maintaining or intercommuning with Clan Gregor and other “broken men.”
Guthrie admitted that two separate groups came to his house. On one occasion Allaster McAndie Voir and John Drummond arrived with a company of twelve and consumed drink without paying. On another, Duncan Gair’s party brought Norman Deane there by force and left him responsible for the reckoning. Guthrie was convicted in £20 Scots.
Other depositions broaden the picture. Leonard Leslie admitted drinking with Clan Gregor in Guthrie’s house; Norman Deane said he had been taken there by force; Alexander Leslie stated that he and John Guthrie were messengers between Rothes and Clan Gregor; and Guthrie’s evidence was later used with Leslie’s to convict Michell Yevine.
The word “messengeris” in Alexander Leslie’s deposition means carriers of communication between the parties. It should not be confused with the formal Scottish legal office of messenger-at-arms.
Reference: pp. 487–494.
The Rothes proceedings demonstrate particularly clearly why the court’s legal categories cannot be reduced to a simple statement that every person fined voluntarily harboured Clan Gregor.
Across the same court record, defendants described doors being broken, livestock or money being taken, compulsory drinking, forced transportation, threats and involuntary provision of food. Some nevertheless admitted other occasions of voluntary contact; others denied wrongdoing but were convicted upon testimony from witnesses.
John Guthrie’s own confession records people coming to his house and does not say that he invited them. Alexander Leslie’s separate evidence that Guthrie acted as a messenger provides stronger evidence of active communication. Both statements belong in the analysis; neither should erase the other.
The Council’s later authorization of horning and poinding approved enforcement of the commission judgments. It does not establish from this record alone that Guthrie was subsequently denounced, that his goods were actually seized, or that the £20 fine was collected.
Volume VII shows why Guthrie research cannot rely upon surname searches alone. The May 1638 act refers only to the “Bishop of Murrey”; the identity of John Guthrie is recoverable because the officeholder is securely established by the volume’s index and independent ecclesiastical evidence.
Conversely, titles and occupational labels should not be silently expanded where the evidence is weaker. The wording printed in the source remains the transcription; identification supplied from elsewhere belongs in the explanatory material.
Relationship language deserves the same precision. The 1641 roll’s statement that the younger John is “sone to” the former bishop is direct genealogical evidence. By contrast, two men appearing in the same proceeding, sharing an occupation, residence or surname does not by itself establish kinship.
The records in Volume VII represent very different stages and types of legal process. James Guthrie of Barnhill possessed a commission and sought further sentencing instructions. Bishop John Guthrie was sent a missive to attend a meeting, which does not establish that he actually attended. Patrick Guthrie joined a corporate Dundee complaint but was not among the smaller group expressly said to have personally appeared before the Council.
Richard Guthre and his fellow creditors obtained authority to arrest Harry Cunningham, but the grant of that commission does not prove that the arrest was subsequently carried out. John Guthrie in the Mains of Rothes was actually examined and fined, while the subsequent Council order authorized enforcement of the commissioners’ judgments.
Finally, inclusion in the 1641 Roll of Delinquents establishes inclusion in that contemporary list. Because no individualized allegation, conviction or sentence accompanies every name, the roll should not be treated as though it were itself a uniform criminal judgment against every person named.
Volume VII directly documents several distinct Guthrie identities: James Guthrie of Barnhill, commissioner; John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray; Mr John Guthrie, the bishop’s son; Patrick Guthrie, elder, merchant, burgess and councillor of Dundee; Richard Guthre, Writer to the Signet; and John Guthrie in the Mains of Rothes.
The strongest genealogical relationship in the volume is the contemporary statement that the younger Mr John Guthrie was son of the former Bishop of Moray. The remaining Guthries should be treated as separate individuals unless other evidence establishes connections between them.
Bishop John Guthrie’s transition from the active “Bishop of Murrey” in May 1638 to “sumtyme pretendit Bishope of Murray” in the 1641 roll is evidence of the changed political and ecclesiastical context, not a change in personal identity.
Patrick Guthrie’s two Dundee appearances should be compared together: the January declaration identifies him as a merchant and burgess and preserves his witness subscription, while the February Council action expressly includes him among Dundee’s councillors.
John Guthrie of Rothes requires especially careful reading. The record contains both evidence of coercive visits to his house and separate testimony that he carried messages between Rothes and Clan Gregor. Those different evidentiary strands should remain visible rather than being compressed into a single generalized description.
Where the printed record identifies a Guthrie only by office or title, secure outside identification may be supplied in the editorial discussion, but the original title-only wording should remain unchanged in the transcription.
Basis of synthesis: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VII, A.D. 1638–1643 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1906). The linked detailed records preserve the relevant printed source units, original spellings, legal stages and evidentiary limits. Digitized volume .
Volume 8
Volume VIII is the concluding volume of the Second Series, but it is not simply a chronological continuation from 1644 to 1660. Its printed title is A.D. 1544–1660. Alongside the later Council material are extensive miscellaneous papers from much earlier periods, so records dated 1627 appear hundreds of pages after entries from 1643 and 1644.
The Guthrie material reflects that mixed arrangement. The opening pages document Mr Alexander Guthre, clerk to the royal burghs in two major coal-price and export proceedings. Later miscellaneous papers preserve several important 1627 records involving Guthries of Kincaldrum, Gagie and that Ilk, including direct statements of brotherhood and parentage. The volume closes with documents concerning Mr James Guthrie in 1660, immediately preceding his imprisonment in Edinburgh Castle.
Read Volume 8 Online
P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VIII, A.D. 1544–1660 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1908).
Volume 8 — Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8–10 | 19 October 1643 | Mr Alexander Guthre Clerk to the Burghs | Appears with the commissioners for the royal burghs and their agent John Ramsay in proceedings against coalmasters concerning coal prices, measures, preference of native purchasers and the export of coal. The Council imposed interim prices and restrictions pending further proof. |
| 14–17 | 9 November 1643 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Clerk to the royal burghs | Appears in a second, distinct coal proceeding after the royal burghs led evidence concerning earlier prices and measures. The Council fixed detailed coal prices and measures and regulated the conditions under which burghs were to receive coal before exporters. |
| 135 | 9 & 11 November 1644 | Richard Guthrie Officer in Edinburgh • execution witness | Named among the witnesses to James Grahame, messenger, executing summonses in the action brought by Agnes Fynnie, then imprisoned in the Edinburgh tolbooth on an accusation of witchcraft. Richard is expressly styled an officer in Edinburgh. |
| 379 | 5 June 1627 |
Alexander Qoothrie; Alexander Guithrie, younger of Kincaldrum; William Guthrie, his brother; Alexander Guthrie of Gagie Military recruitment / alleged armed rescue |
Alexander Qoothrie, described as a servant of Hew Maxwell of Teillings, had been taken for military service under the King of Denmark. The petition alleges that Alexander Guithrie, younger of Kincaldrum, William Guthrie, his brother, Alexander Guthrie of Gagie and accomplices pursued the recruiting party while armed and forcibly recovered Alexander Qoothrie. The brother relationship between Alexander of Kincaldrum and William is explicit. |
| 387 | 13 June 1627 | Alexander Guithrie, fiar of that Ilk Cautioner | Dame Annas Lindsay complained that part of the annual aliment ordered during her separation from Sir Alexander Falconer of Halkertoun remained unpaid. Alexander Guithrie, fiar of that Ilk had been found cautioner for Falconer under the earlier arbitral decree. |
| 389–390 | 14 June 1627 | William Guthrie Lawful son of David Guthrie of that Ilk | Captain James Blair named William among men who had accepted pay and voluntarily enlisted for military service under the King of Denmark but had subsequently absented themselves. The source expressly identifies William Guthrie as the lawful son of David Guthrie of that Ilk. |
| 392–393 | 20 June 1627 |
Andrew Guithrie in Finmarak; Patrick Guithrie, his son Joint pursuers • alleged victims of armed assault |
Andrew and his son Patrick complained, with the King’s Advocates, of an alleged armed night attack by soldiers connected with Captain John Lindsay of Bonshaw. The petition describes separate assaults upon father and son at Finmarak and expressly identifies Patrick as Andrew Guithrie’s son. |
| 464–465 | c. 1660 • undated draft | Mr James Guthrie Draft petition / instructions | Paper endorsed “Mr Ja. Guthries petition to the King.” The surviving draft gives instructions for contacting ministers in Hamilton, Glasgow, Paisley, Irvine and Ayr and persuading ministers of the same judgment to join an address and supplication. Independent ecclesiastical evidence identifies this James Guthrie as the minister of Stirling. |
| 465–466 | 23 August 1660 | Mr James Guthrie Minister • ordered imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle | The Committee of Estates, alleging an unauthorized conventicle and private meeting and referring to petitions, draft papers and letters found there, ordered Mr James Guthrie, nine other ministers and ruling elder John Kirko to be committed as prisoners in Edinburgh Castle until the King’s further pleasure was known. Independent ecclesiastical evidence confirms this as Rev. James Guthrie, minister of Stirling. |
Finding-aid sources: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VIII, A.D. 1544–1660 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1908), Guthrie index, pp. 822–823, checked against the complete records cited above. The 1660 identification of James Guthrie as the minister of Stirling is independently supported by Fasti Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ, which records his translation from Lauder to Stirling in November 1650 and his arrest on 23 August 1660.
19 October 1643 — Mr Alexander Guthre, Clerk to the Burghs, in the Coal-Price and Export Dispute
Second Series, Volume VIII • Pages 8–10
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The commissioners of Scotland’s royal burghs brought this complaint against a large group of coal owners and tacksmen. They relied upon earlier Privy Council regulation dating from 1620 and 1621, which had attempted to restrain rising coal prices, regulate measures, limit export and ensure that Scottish purchasers were not displaced by foreign buyers.
The burgh commissioners alleged that those abuses had continued: prices and measures had been altered, native purchasers had been postponed to strangers, coal had been exported in substantial quantities, and local consumers sometimes waited without obtaining coal at all.
The pursuers appeared through George Suttie, dean of guild and commissioner for Edinburgh, commissioners from numerous other royal burghs, Mr Alexander Guthre, clerk to the Burghs, and John Ramsay, their agent.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by the commissioners for the royal burghs, as follows:—In December 1620, the Council, upon the complaint of his Majesty’s Advocate and the noblemen and inhabitants of the sheriffdom of Hadintoun, annulled a bond entered into by the coalmasters upon the water of Forth for raising the prices of coal, and discharged the export of coal by either natives or strangers; and in April following the Council further dealt with the sale of coal.
Again, on 29th November, “the same yeare,” the Council, considering “the prejudices and sufferings of the countrie by the exhorbitant prices sett upon coale and the preferring of strangers to natives in the sale of coale” ordained the masters of the coal heughs upon the water of Forth to prefer the natives to all strangers, not to postpone them on account of any contracts with strangers, “and to serve them with the like measure and prices used and takin at the said coaleheuches the space of three moneths, under the pane of ane hundreth punds to be payed to the pairtie wronged, ather by highting the prices, altering the measure, or delaying and postponing them to strangers,” toties quoties.
The said prices and measures were ordered to stand in force till Pasche thereafter and further order was to be taken thereanent. The coalmasters cannot pretend ignorance of this act, as it was so often and carefully published, yet against the tenor thereof the abuses complained of are continued and are come to a greater height than formerly.
Not only have the price and measure of the coal been altered, natives postponed to strangers, and great quantities of coal exported, but the natives are “altogether defrauded of coale after long attendance upon the same.”
Charge having been given to John Cornwall of Bonhard, Mr Robert Cornwall, his brother, Sir William Dick of Braid, Mr Andrew Dick, his son, James Hamilton of Grange, John Hamilton of Kinglassie, John Hamilton, chamberlain of Kinneill, Robert Elphinston of Querrell, James Spittell there, Edward Cowie, tacksman of the coal of Fawkirk, William, Earl of Airth, George Forrester, tacksman of the coal there, Alexander, Lord Elphinston, John, Earl of Mar, Harry Stuart of Baith, Sir Alexander Schaw of Sauchie, Mr Robert Bruce of Kennet, Edward Bruce now of Culros, Mr Alexander Clerk of Pittincreiff, Thomas Charters, James Loch, and John Rynde for the coalheughs of Tulliallan, John Bairdie in Innerkeithing, Sir John and George Preston of Valafeild, John, Earl of Wemes, Sir Alexander Gibson, elder of Durie, John Coilyear of Kirkaldie, John, Lord Sinclar, David Boswell of Balmowto, David Beatson of Carden, George, Earl of Wintoun, Sir John Johnestoun of Elphinston, Captain Robert Hamiltoun, Captain Thomas Hamiltoun, Robert Cokburne of Butterden, James Dischington in Elphinstoun, Robert Greirson, skipper in the Panns, John Aikman there, and David Preston of Craigmillar;
and the pursuers compearing by George Suttie, dean of guild and commissioner for Edinburgh, many other commissioners from divers particular royal burghs within the kingdom, and Mr Alexander Guthre, clerk to the Burghs, with John Ramsay, their agent;
and of the defenders Mr Andrew Dick, Mr Robert Bruce of Kennet, Mr Alexander Clerk of Pittincreiff, John, Earl of Wemes, John, Lord Sinclar, David Beatson of Carden, David Boswell of Balmowto and James Dischingtoun of Elphinston compearing personally, and Sir William Dick by his said son, Lord Elphinston by Hall, his servant, and John, Earl of Mar and John Hamilton of Kinglassie by Mr David Williamson;
“the said Earle of Wemes and remanent coalmaisters compeirand declared all with one voice that as they ever had so they would still continue in their obedience to the act of Counsell for preferring natives to strangers,” and were content that the said act should stand in full force against them.
Further, the said Earl declared that “he sold the load of his land coale, being a water boll, for fyve shillings tuo pennies, and the load of his sea coale of the measure foresaid at seven shillings one pennie.”
The commissioners for the burghs offered to prove that they bought the load of his land coal at 4s. 2d. seven years since. This the Lords refer to their probation upon 2nd November next, until which time they ordain the pursuers to pay 5s. 2d. to the said Earl of Wemes for his land coal and 7s. 1d. for his sea coal.
David Beatson acted himself “to keepe eight men still working at his great coale for furnishing the countrie and to sell the load thereof, being a water boll, at three shillings six penneis.”
The Lords ordain the Laird of Balmowto to sell his coal to the country people at the price he has charged for the last five years; and they ordain the Earl of Mar and the rest of the coalmasters on the water of Forth who sell their coal by chalders to sell the same at 5 merks the chalder until the pursuers prove that they sold the same at an easier rate, for which the 2nd November has been fixed with consent of parties.
Mr Alexander Clerk acted himself to furnish the country with his coal at 3s. 6d. the load, “being a water boll.”
The Lords ordain Mr Andrew Dick and his father and John Hamiltoun of Kinglassie to sell the chalder of their coal, “which is the double of Alloway chalder, at ten merkes,” until the burghs prove that they sold the same cheaper before; and the said Mr Andrew to sell the load of his land coal at 6s. the load “of the mett foresaid.”
Richard Chaplane, commissioner for the burgh of Hadinton, offering to prove “that the countrie people had at the Earle of Wintons coaleheuches 3 coale creills (which would be a full hors load and conteane ane water boll in his estimatioun) for three shillings foure penneis and tua pennies to the caryer,” the Lords assign to him the 2nd November to prove the same.
Further, the Lords ordain the whole remanent coalmasters abovewritten and their tacksmen to sell the load of their coals, being a water boll, at the same price as they have been receiving for the past three years until the pursuers prove that they sold them cheaper.
Moreover, as “the coale of Elphinston hes ever beene a land coale for furnishing the countrie,” the Lords discharge James Dischington and the other tacksmen of that coal to sell any of it for export under the penalties contained in the Acts of Parliament thereanent, or to increase the price above 3s. 4d. the load, being a water boll, which is the price taken by them for the past three years.
The Commissioners for the Burghs declared they would use the same probation on 2nd November respecting the coal of Dysert belonging to Lord Sinclar as against the Earl of Wemes.
And finally the Lords ordain the whole coalmasters to prefer the natives coming to them for coal to all strangers and not delay them on any pretext of a contract with strangers, but to serve them at the prices and measures abovewritten under the penalty of £100 to be paid to the party wronged toties quoties in terms of the act and proclamation of 29th November 1621, and under the further penalty of being altogether prohibited to export coal, and to be censured and punished in their persons and goods at the will of the Council.
Modern English Rendering
The commissioners representing Scotland’s royal burghs reminded the Privy Council that it had already attempted to regulate the coal trade. In December 1620 the Council had annulled an agreement among coalmasters on the Forth that raised prices and had restricted coal exports. Further regulation followed in 1621.
In particular, the Council had ordered coalmasters to give Scottish purchasers priority over foreign buyers and to use the established prices and measures. A coalmaster who raised prices, changed the measure or delayed a native purchaser in favour of a foreign buyer could incur a £100 penalty for each offence.
The royal burghs now complained that these abuses had become worse. They alleged that coal prices and measures had been altered, Scottish purchasers were being postponed to foreigners, large quantities were exported, and native consumers could wait for coal without receiving any.
A large group of coal owners and operators was therefore cited. The burgh interest appeared through George Suttie, dean of guild and commissioner for Edinburgh, commissioners from numerous other royal burghs, Mr Alexander Guthre, clerk to the Burghs, and John Ramsay, the burghs’ agent.
Several of the coalmasters appeared personally; others were represented by sons, servants or legal representatives. The Earl of Wemyss and the other coalmasters appearing stated together that they had obeyed, and would continue to obey, the Council’s order giving native purchasers preference over strangers.
The Earl of Wemyss stated that he sold a water-boll load of land coal for 5s. 2d. and sea coal for 7s. 1d. The burgh commissioners offered to prove that seven years earlier they had bought his land coal for 4s. 2d. The Council appointed 2 November for that proof and meanwhile retained the Earl’s stated prices.
David Beatson undertook to keep eight men working his principal coal seam and to sell a water-boll load at 3s. 6d. The Laird of Balmowto was ordered to continue the price he had charged during the previous five years.
The Earl of Mar and other Forth coalmasters selling by the chalder were ordered temporarily to charge no more than 5 merks per chalder. Mr Alexander Clerk undertook to supply the country at 3s. 6d. per water-boll load.
Mr Andrew Dick, his father Sir William Dick, and John Hamilton of Kinglassie were ordered to sell their larger chalder—described as twice the Alloway chalder—for 10 merks until the burghs could prove that it had formerly been sold more cheaply. Andrew Dick’s land coal was meanwhile set at 6s. per specified load.
Richard Chaplane, commissioner for Haddington, offered to prove that country buyers had previously obtained three coal creels, estimated as one full horse load or one water boll, from the Earl of Winton’s works for 3s. 4d., with another 2d. paid to the carrier. He too was given until 2 November to prove the claim.
Other coalmasters and their tacksmen were ordered to continue using the prices charged during the preceding three years unless the burghs proved that lower prices had previously prevailed.
Because the Elphinston coal had traditionally supplied the surrounding country, James Dischington and its other tacksmen were prohibited from exporting it and from charging more than 3s. 4d. per water-boll load.
The burgh commissioners also reserved proof concerning Lord Sinclair’s coal at Dysart for 2 November.
Finally, the Council ordered all of the coalmasters to give native purchasers priority over foreigners and not to delay them because of contracts with foreign buyers. Breach could incur a £100 penalty for each offence, loss of the right to export coal, and further punishment of person and property at the Council’s discretion.
This record continues the well-documented public career of Mr Alexander Guthrie as an intermediary for Scotland’s royal burghs. His formal style here is “clerk to the Burghs.”
The dispute was economically significant. Alexander appears with the burgh commissioners in a national proceeding involving fuel supply, prices, weights and measures, domestic consumption and export regulation across numerous coal-producing estates.
The act is also the first of two distinct Volume VIII coal proceedings in which Alexander appears. The evidentiary hearing anticipated here for 2 November developed into the separate Council proceeding recorded on 9 November 1643 at pp. 14–17.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Royal burghs — Scottish burghs holding royal charters and represented collectively in national civic and commercial matters.
- Coalheugh — a coal working, pit or mine.
- Tacksman — a person holding a lease or tack; here, one operating or managing coal workings under lease.
- Water boll — a measure used here to define the quantity represented by a load of coal.
- Chalder — a larger Scottish measure of capacity; the record shows that local chalder measures were not necessarily uniform.
- Creel — a basket or pannier used for carrying commodities; three coal creels are described here as approximately a full horse load.
- Mett — a measure or standard of measurement.
- Probation — formal proof or evidentiary proceedings concerning a disputed factual claim.
- Toties quoties — “as often as”; here meaning that the £100 penalty could apply on each separate breach.
- Pasche — Easter.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VIII, A.D. 1544–1660 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1908), pp. 8–10, Edinburgh, 19 October 1643; Decreta, November 1641–October 1646, pp. 282–287. Read the digitized volume .
9 November 1643 — Mr Alexander Guthrie and the Royal Burghs Lead Proof on Coal Prices and Measures
Second Series, Volume VIII • Pages 14–17
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This record is the evidentiary continuation of the 19 October 1643 coal proceeding. In the earlier case the commissioners for the royal burghs had challenged current coal prices and measures and offered to prove that several coalmasters had formerly sold coal more cheaply.
The Council had reserved those disputed questions for later proof. The present proceeding records the burgh commissioners returning with evidence concerning earlier prices and measures.
The pursuers again appeared through George Suttie, dean of guild of Edinburgh and commissioner for that burgh, commissioners for other royal burghs, Mr Alexander Guthrie, clerk to the said burghs, and John Ramsay, their agent.
After hearing the witness depositions and considering the matter, the Council issued a much more detailed schedule regulating coal prices and measures at named workings and set conditions governing burgh purchases and export.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by the commissioners for the royal burghs as follows:—In the process lately pursued at their instance against the coalmasters they undertook to prove that they bought the load of the Earl of Wemes’s land coal and that of Lord Sinclar at 4s. 2d. seven years since; that the Earl of Mar and other coalmasters on the water of Forth who sell their coal by chalders sold the same several years ago cheaper than five merks the chalder; that Sir William Dick, Mr Andrew Dick, his son, and John Hamilton of Kinglassie have sold the chalder of their coal, “being the double of Alloway chalder,” cheaper than ten merks;
that the country people in East Lothian received at the Earl of Winton’s coalheughs “three creills (quhilks would be a full hors laid and containe a water boll)” for 3s. 4d. and 2d. to the carrier; and that the remaining coalmasters of the kingdom have sold their coals cheaper some years past than they do now; and the Lords appointed 2nd November for leading this probation.
Charge having been given to Cornwall of Bonhard, Sir William and Mr Andrew Dick, James Hamilton of Grange, Hamilton of Kinglassie, John Hamilton, chamberlain of Kinneill, Robert Elphinston of Querrell, James Spittell there, Edward Cowie in Fakirk, William, Earl of Airth, George Forrester, Harie Stuart of Baith, Sir Alexander Schaw of Sauchie, Mr Robert Bruce of Kennat, Edward Bruce of Carnock, Thomas Charters, James Loch and John Rynd, John Bairdie, Sir John and Sir George Preston, John, Earl of Wems, John, Lord Sinclar, Sir Alexander Gibson of Durie, John Coilyear and George, Earl of Wintoun,
and the pursuers compearing by George Suttie, dean of guild of Edinburgh, commissioner for the said burgh, and many other commissioners for other particular burghs, with Mr Alexander Guthrie, clerk to the said burghs, and John Ramsay, their agent;
and of the defenders compearing John, Earl of Mar, John, Earl of Wems, John, Lord Sinclar, Mr Robert Bruce of Kennet, Mr Andrew Dick for himself and his father, and Sir George Preston of Valafield, personally, and John Hamilton of Kinglassie by Mr David Williamson,
the Lords, after hearing the depositions of the witnesses produced and advising, ordain “the chalder of coale of the old measure keeped thir diverse yeeres bigane at the coalheuches of Alloway, Airth, Tulliallan, Sauchy and Kennet to be sold at three punds;
“and the chalder of the coale at Caribdin, Grange, Bonhard, and Borrowstounes, quhilk is the double of Alloway measure, to be sold at six punds, and the land laid, being ane measure of ane water boll at six shillings;
“and in regard the measure of Sir George Prestoun of Valifeild his coale is alledged to be foure and a halfe of Alloway measure and somwhat more nor the double of the measure of Borrowstounes, ordains the said Sir George to sell his said measure at tuelife punds, quhilk is the double of Borrowstounes measure and the quadruple of Alloway measure ay and quhill the said Sir George his measure be compared with the measure of Alloway and so the true proportion be knowne;
“and siclyke ordains John Bairdie of and Harie Stuart for their coale of Innerkething and Johne Coilyer in Kirkaldie for his coale at Lochgellie to sell the laid of their coale of a water boll at three shillings six penneis;
“as alsua ordains the said Robert Elphinstoun and James Spittell for the coale of Querrell and Edward Cowie for the coale of Fakirk, to sell the laid of their coale at the same price and measure;
“and ordains the Earle of Wems and the Lord Sinclair and the Lord Durie to sell the laid of their land coale, being 18 pecks water mett, at fyve shillings tua penneis, and the laid of sea coale at seven shillings one pennie;
“and last ordains the said Earle of Winton to sell a full hors laid of his coale, being three creills full and ane water boll, at fourtie penneis the laid and tuo penneis to the caryer;
“and thir prices and measures to stand onelie till the terme of Witsonday nixt and ay and whill the Counsell take farther order anent this mater and the Burrowes be warned and heard heeranent.”
The Lords ordain likewise that if the coalmasters fail in obedience of this ordinance they will incur toties quoties a penalty of £100.
It is also declared that the said coalmasters shall not be tied to serve any of the burghs with coal “but such as sail have a note under their magistrats hands that they ar to serve the countrie with the coale to be receaved”; on production of which note they will be preferred to exporters, under the penalty of £100 for each offence and absolute prohibition of exportation.
Further, it is provided that the Burghs may use their own barques and vessels or such as they may hire from others for conveying their coal on attestation that the coal is for the country and not for exportation and giving surety to the coalmasters for that effect;
or, failing this, on enacting themselves to report to the coalmasters a certificate from the magistrates or the master of the ground where they unloaded their vessels, otherwise they are not again to be served by the coalmasters.
Modern English Rendering
The commissioners for the royal burghs returned to the Council in continuation of their recent proceedings against Scotland’s coalmasters.
They had undertaken to prove several claims about historical prices. They maintained that seven years earlier the Earl of Wemyss and Lord Sinclair had sold a load of land coal for 4s. 2d.; that the Earl of Mar and other coalmasters along the Forth had formerly charged less than five merks per chalder; that Sir William Dick, his son Mr Andrew Dick and John Hamilton of Kinglassie had once sold their larger chalder for less than ten merks; and that country purchasers in East Lothian had formerly obtained three creels of the Earl of Winton’s coal for 3s. 4d., plus 2d. to the carrier.
The burghs also maintained more generally that other coalmasters had charged lower prices in earlier years. The Council had appointed a later hearing so that this evidence could be produced.
The burgh interest appeared through George Suttie, dean of guild and commissioner for Edinburgh; commissioners representing other royal burghs; Mr Alexander Guthrie, clerk to the burghs; and John Ramsay, their agent.
Several coalmasters appeared personally, while John Hamilton of Kinglassie appeared through Mr David Williamson. After hearing the witness depositions and considering the evidence, the Council established a detailed temporary schedule of coal prices and measures.
At Alloa, Airth, Tulliallan, Sauchie and Kennet, the old chalder measure was to be sold for £3 Scots.
At Caribdin, Grange, Bonhard and Borrowstounness, where the chalder was described as twice the Alloway measure, the price was fixed at £6 Scots. A land load of one water boll was to cost 6 shillings.
Sir George Preston of Valleyfield used a substantially larger measure said to equal approximately four and a half Alloway measures. Pending an actual comparison of the measures, his quantity was to sell for £12 Scots.
Coal from Inverkeithing and John Coilyear’s workings at Lochgelly was to sell at 3s. 6d. per water-boll load. The same price and measure applied to the coal of Querrell and Falkirk.
The Earl of Wemyss, Lord Sinclair and Lord Durie were to sell their land coal—measured at eighteen pecks water measure—for 5s. 2d. per load, and sea coal for 7s. 1d.
The Earl of Winton was to sell a full horse load, defined as three full creels and one water boll, for 40 pennies, with another 2 pennies payable to the carrier.
These prices and measures were temporary. They were to remain in effect until the following Whitsunday and thereafter until the Council made further provision after the burghs had been warned and heard.
A coalmaster disobeying the ordinance could incur a £100 penalty for each offence.
The Council also placed conditions upon the burghs. Coalmasters were not obliged to give every purchaser from a burgh priority over exporters. The purchaser had to produce a written note from the burgh magistrates confirming that the coal was intended to supply the country.
Upon production of that authorization, the burgh purchaser was to receive priority over exporters. A coal owner who failed to respect that priority risked the £100 penalty and complete prohibition from exporting coal.
Burghs could transport coal in their own vessels or hired ships, but they were required to attest that the coal was intended for domestic use rather than export and to provide security to that effect.
Alternatively, they could undertake to return a certificate from the magistrates or landholder at the place where the coal had actually been unloaded. Failure to provide the required evidence could result in the burgh no longer being supplied by the coalmasters.
This second coal case reinforces Mr Alexander Guthrie’s continuing position as clerk to the royal burghs and places him directly within the burghs’ collective representation before the Privy Council.
Unlike the 19 October proceeding, which largely established interim rules while reserving disputed historical prices for proof, this record documents the later evidentiary stage. Witness depositions had now been heard, and the Council responded with a detailed schedule of prices and standardized measures.
The pair of records therefore provides unusually clear evidence of Alexander Guthrie’s sustained involvement in a national commercial dispute from initial complaint through subsequent proof and regulation.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Probation — formal proof of disputed facts by evidence, including witness depositions.
- Deposition — sworn evidence or testimony given by a witness.
- Chalder — a Scottish measure of capacity. This record demonstrates that local chalders could differ substantially in size.
- Water boll / water measure — a measure used here as a standard for comparing coal loads.
- Peck — a smaller unit of dry measure; the Wemyss, Sinclair and Durie land-coal load is described as eighteen pecks water measure.
- Creel — a basket or pannier used to transport coal, often carried by a horse.
- Horse load — a load carried by a horse; here explicitly equated in one context with three full creels and a water boll.
- Barque — a vessel or small ship used for coastal or other transport.
- Caution / surety — security guaranteeing that an undertaking would be fulfilled.
- Toties quoties — “as often as”; the £100 penalty could be incurred separately for repeated violations.
- Whitsunday — one of the traditional Scottish term days used for legal, financial and tenancy obligations.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VIII, A.D. 1544–1660 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1908), pp. 14–17, Edinburgh, 9 November 1643; Decreta, November 1641–October 1646, pp. 294–299. Read the digitized volume .
9 & 11 November 1644 — Richard Guthrie, Officer in Edinburgh, Witnesses Execution of Agnes Fynnie’s Summons
Second Series, Volume VIII • Page 135
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The preceding paper in Volume VIII records a supplication by Agnes Fynnie, prisoner in the tolbooth of Edinburgh. She stated that, following accusations of witchcraft made by Harry Moriesoun at the Potterrow Port, the Edinburgh magistrates had kept her imprisoned for approximately eighteen weeks without either bringing her to trial or releasing her.
Fynnie therefore obtained a summons requiring the Edinburgh magistrates and Harry Moriesoun to appear before the Privy Council. Paper 101 records the formal execution of that summons by James Grahame, messenger.
During the first execution, on 9 November 1644, four Edinburgh bailies and Harry Moriesoun were personally apprehended and served. Richard Guthrie is among the persons named as witnesses and is expressly described, with another man, as an officer in Edinburgh.
A second execution followed on 11 November against Sir John Smyth, provost of Edinburgh. Richard Guthrie is not named among the witnesses to that second service.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
101. Note of executions by James Grahame, messenger, of a summons at the instance of Agnes Fynnie, (1) on 9th November, 1644, against Andrew Symesone, George Walker, Robert Achiesone and John Inglis, bailies of Edinburgh, all personally apprehended, and against Harry Moriesone, also personally apprehended, to compear before the Council;
witnesses, David Wright, messenger in Edinburgh, and John Peirsone, post there, Richard Guthrie and James Grahame, officers in Edinburgh, Thomas Allane, messenger there, John Rowane, writer there, John Hairt, younger, and George Neill, messenger in Edinburgh;
and (2) on 11th November, 1644, against Sir John Smyth, provost of Edinburgh, personally apprehended; witnesses, the said Robert Achiesone and Andrew Symesone, bailies of Edinburgh, and James Cleghorne, town officer there.
Modern English Rendering
James Grahame, a messenger, formally served a summons obtained by Agnes Fynnie.
On 9 November 1644, he personally served Andrew Symesone, George Walker, Robert Achiesone and John Inglis, all bailies of Edinburgh, together with Harry Moriesoun. They were required to appear before the Privy Council.
The execution was witnessed by David Wright, a messenger in Edinburgh; John Peirsone, a post there; Richard Guthrie and James Grahame, described as officers in Edinburgh; Thomas Allane, another messenger; John Rowane, writer; John Hairt, younger; and George Neill, messenger in Edinburgh.
On 11 November 1644, the same summons was also personally served upon Sir John Smyth, provost of Edinburgh. That second execution was witnessed by Robert Achiesone and Andrew Symesone, bailies of Edinburgh, and James Cleghorne, town officer there.
The principal genealogical value of the entry is its explicit occupational and geographical identification: Richard Guthrie was an officer in Edinburgh in November 1644.
That is more specific than a bare name and provides an important distinction from other contemporary men named Richard Guthrie. His appearance among messengers, posts, writers and other civic or legal personnel also places him within the practical machinery by which formal legal process was executed in Edinburgh.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Execution of a summons — the formal legal act of serving or intimating a summons upon the persons required to answer it.
- Personally apprehended — personally reached and served by the officer executing the legal process; it does not here mean arrested and imprisoned.
- Messenger — a messenger-at-arms or other authorized officer responsible for executing formal legal writs.
- Officer in Edinburgh — the occupational description expressly applied to Richard Guthrie in this record. The entry does not further define his particular municipal office.
- Bailie — a magistrate of a Scottish burgh.
- Provost — the senior civic magistrate of a Scottish burgh.
- Post — a person employed to carry letters or official communications.
- Tolbooth — a burgh building commonly serving civic, judicial and prison functions.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VIII, A.D. 1544–1660 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1908), p. 135, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 101, executions dated 9 and 11 November 1644. Read the digitized volume .
5 June 1627 — Alexander Guthrie of Kincaldrum, His Brother William, and Alexander Guthrie of Gagie Accused of Rescuing a Recruited Soldier
Second Series, Volume VIII • Page 379
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This paper belongs to a group of 1627 records concerning the recruitment of Scottish soldiers for foreign military service. John Lindsay of Bonshaw, together with the King’s Advocates, complained that one Alexander Qoothrie, servant to Hew Maxwell of Teillings, had been received for service in Lindsay’s company under the King of Denmark.
While Alexander was being conducted with Lindsay’s servants and soldiers toward the place where Lindsay had assembled other recruits, the party was allegedly pursued for approximately three miles by Alexander Guithrie, younger of Kincaldrum, William Guthrie, his brother, Alexander Guthrie of Gagie, and six or seven accomplices.
The petition alleged that the pursuing party was armed with swords, reinforced staffs, gauntlets, firearms and pistols; that they threatened Lindsay’s men with death; and that they forcibly took Alexander Qoothrie back with them.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
259. Supplication by Sir William Oliphant of Newtoun, knight, and Mr Thomas Hoip of Craighall, King’s Advocates, for his Majesty’s interest, and John Lindsay of Bonshaw, as follows:—Although the bearing and wearing of hagbuts is prohibited, yet on April some of the said John Lindsay’s servants and soldiers, having received in his name Hew Maxwell of Teillings servant, called Alexander Qoothrie, to serve as a soldier in his company under the King of Denmark, the said Alexander was coming in company with them to , where the supplicant had a number of other soldiers,
when Alexander Guithrie, younger of Kincaldrum, William Guthrie, his brother, Alexander Guthrie of Gagie, and six or seven other persons, their accomplices, “all bodin in feir of weir, with swordis, bandit stalffis, gantlettis and utheris wapponis invasive and with hagbuittis and pistolettis prohibite to be worne, as said is, followit my saidis servandis and sojouris the speace of thrie mylis or thairby and haveing overtane thame thay presentit thair gwnis, pistolettis and utheris wapponis foirsaidis to thame threattning to bereave thame of thair lyves and violentlie reft and tooke bak with thame the said Alexander Guithrie.”
They crave production and redelivery of the said Alexander. (Signed) “S. W. Oliphant; S. Thomas Hop.”
[On the back] “Apud Halyrudhous, quinto Junii, 1627. Fiat ut petitur.”
Modern English Rendering
Sir William Oliphant of Newtoun and Mr Thomas Hope of Craighall, acting as King’s Advocates for the Crown’s interest, joined John Lindsay of Bonshaw in petitioning the Privy Council.
They stated that carrying hagbuts and pistols was prohibited. During the preceding April, some of Lindsay’s servants and soldiers had, in his name, taken Alexander Qoothrie, a servant of Hew Maxwell of Teillings, into Lindsay’s military company for service under the King of Denmark.
Alexander Qoothrie was being conducted with Lindsay’s men toward a place where Lindsay had a number of other soldiers assembled. The place-name is left blank in the printed record.
According to the petition, Alexander Guithrie, younger of Kincaldrum, William Guthrie, expressly described as Alexander’s brother, Alexander Guthrie of Gagie, and six or seven companions then pursued Lindsay’s servants and soldiers for about three miles.
The petition alleged that the pursuing men were armed for conflict with swords, reinforced staffs, gauntlets, other offensive weapons, hagbuts and pistols. After overtaking the recruiting party, they allegedly aimed their firearms and other weapons at Lindsay’s men, threatened to take their lives, and forcibly recovered Alexander Qoothrie.
Lindsay and the King’s Advocates therefore asked that Alexander Qoothrie be produced and returned. The Council endorsement dated at Holyroodhouse on 5 June 1627 granted the request in the usual formula, Fiat ut petitur—“Let it be done as requested.”
This record contains unusually valuable direct relationship evidence for the Kincaldrum Guthries. William is not merely listed beside Alexander: the source expressly styles him “William Guthrie, his brother” immediately after Alexander Guithrie, younger of Kincaldrum.
The record also distinguishes several Guthrie men who could easily be confused in an abbreviated index entry: Alexander Qoothrie, the recruited soldier; Alexander Guithrie, younger of Kincaldrum; William, his brother; and Alexander Guthrie of Gagie.
Their simultaneous appearance in one act makes the distinctions particularly useful. The document does not treat “Alexander Guthrie” as one interchangeable identity but identifies three separate men by circumstance or territorial designation.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Supplication — a formal petition presented to the Privy Council requesting legal or administrative action.
- King’s Advocates — Crown legal officers acting here for his Majesty’s interest.
- Hagbut — an early firearm or arquebus; its carrying was subject to statutory restrictions.
- Bodin in feir of weir — equipped or arrayed in warlike fashion.
- Bandit staff — a reinforced or iron-bound staff capable of use as a weapon.
- Sojour — soldier.
- Reft — forcibly took or carried away.
- Fiat ut petitur — “Let it be done as requested,” a formula granting the process sought in the petition.
- Younger of Kincaldrum — a territorial designation distinguishing Alexander from an older holder or senior member associated with Kincaldrum; it does not by itself specify the exact succession relationship.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VIII, A.D. 1544–1660 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1908), p. 379, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 259; supplication endorsed at Holyroodhouse, 5 June 1627. Read the digitized volume .
13 June 1627 — Alexander Guithrie, Fiar of That Ilk, Named as Cautioner in Dame Annas Lindsay’s Aliment Case
Second Series, Volume VIII • Page 387
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Dame Annas Lindsay, spouse of Sir Alexander Falconer of Halkertoun, petitioned the Privy Council concerning an earlier arbitral decree governing her support while she and her husband were living separately.
The decree, dated 8 March 1627, required Falconer to pay her 1,000 merks yearly during their separation, until they resumed cohabitation either by mutual consent or by order of the Council.
As security for Falconer’s performance of that decree, Alexander Guithrie, fiar of that Ilk, had become his cautioner.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
271. Supplication by Dame Annas Lindsay, spouse to Sir Alexander Falcouner of Halkertoun, knight, as follows:—Their Lordships, by a decreet arbitral dated 8th March last, ordained her said husband to pay 1000 merks yearly to her during their separation “and quhill it sall please God that, with mutual consent or by your Lordships ordinance, we sould be moved to cohabite togidder,” and the first year’s payment was to be made in full at Whitsunday last, and the following payments at two terms in the year equally, with a penalty of 200 merks additional in the event of delay;
and according to the decreet the said Sir Alexander found Alexander Guithrie, fiar of that Ilk, cautioner for him.
But although the term for the first year’s payment is past, there is 500 merks thereof still owing to her, which she cannot obtain payment of, and likewise they do not intend to make further payments.
She craves letters for charging them to fulfil the terms of the decreet.
[On the back] “Apud Edinburgh, xiij Junii, 1627. Fiat ut petitur.”
Modern English Rendering
Dame Annas Lindsay, wife of Sir Alexander Falconer of Halkertoun, petitioned the Privy Council about an arbitral decree issued on 8 March 1627.
Under that decree, her husband was required to pay her 1,000 merks each year while they remained separated. The arrangement was to continue until they resumed living together, either by mutual agreement or by order of the Council.
The first full annual payment was due at Whitsunday. Thereafter, the yearly amount was to be paid in two equal instalments. An additional penalty of 200 merks applied in the event of delayed payment.
In accordance with the decree, Sir Alexander Falconer had provided Alexander Guithrie, fiar of that Ilk, as his cautioner.
Dame Annas now alleged that although the first payment date had passed, 500 merks remained unpaid. She further stated that Falconer and his cautioner did not intend to make the remaining payments.
She therefore asked the Council to issue letters formally charging them to fulfil the terms of the arbitral decree. The endorsed order granted her request.
The entry provides a precise territorial and legal identification: Alexander Guithrie was “fiar of that Ilk” in June 1627.
His appearance as cautioner for Sir Alexander Falconer also places him within a network of landed legal obligations extending beyond his own immediate property affairs. Becoming cautioner meant that Alexander stood as security for Falconer’s compliance with the Council-backed financial arrangement.
The wording is particularly useful when compared with the nearby Volume VIII records, which distinguish several other Guthrie men by Kincaldrum, Gagie, Finmarak and explicit family relationships. This Alexander is identified specifically by “that Ilk.”
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Fiar — the holder of the fee or heritable interest in property, often distinguished from a liferenter or senior holder.
- Of that Ilk — a territorial style indicating a family whose surname and principal territorial designation were the same.
- Cautioner — a surety who guaranteed another person’s performance of an obligation.
- Decreet arbitral — a binding determination reached through arbitration.
- Aliment — financial maintenance or support, particularly for a spouse or family member.
- Whitsunday — one of the traditional Scottish term days on which financial and property obligations commonly fell due.
- Merks — Scottish money of account; a merk was worth 13s. 4d. Scots.
- Letters of charge — formal legal letters requiring obedience to an obligation or decree.
- Fiat ut petitur — “Let it be done as requested,” authorizing the process sought by the petitioner.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VIII, A.D. 1544–1660 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1908), p. 387, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 271; supplication endorsed at Edinburgh, 13 June 1627. Read the digitized volume .
14 June 1627 — William Guthrie, Lawful Son of David Guthrie of That Ilk, Charged to Fulfil His Military Engagement
Second Series, Volume VIII • Pages 389–390
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Captain James Blair petitioned concerning a substantial body of men recruited for military service under the King of Denmark.
Blair divided the problem into two related groups. First were men whom he said had been hired by him or his officers, had received pay and willingly enlisted, but had subsequently absented themselves and abandoned his service. Among these was William Guthrie, lawful son of David Guthrie of that Ilk.
The second group consisted of enlisted soldiers whom Blair alleged were being deliberately withheld from him by landlords, ministers, officials and other persons, preventing the soldiers from being brought to Leith for embarkation.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
276. Supplication by Captain James Blair, as follows:—He and his officers and servants in his name hired the following persons to serve in the wars under the King of Denmark, and they received pay and enlisted themselves willingly, viz.,
Alexander Durhame, younger of the Mill of Patrik Thrislo, Thomas Gregour in the South Ferry of Dundee, Andrew Halyburtoun, brother german to James Halyburtoun of Bittergaske, James Blak in Montrose, James Finlay there, George Ker there, Andrew Rose in Brechin, Arthur Low there, Robert Cowie there, John Durwart there, David Strachane there, James Durhame in Dundee, James Wodderburne there, Walter Smythe there, John Mar, wright there, Alexander Boutcher there, Thomas Smythe there, William Moresone there, William Rudderfurde there, William Spence in Bruntellane, and James Wentoun in Newbruche;
John Flures in , Andrew Croll in , David Hendersone in , James Orroke in , Gilbert Mitchell in , Williame Durhame, younger of Grang, Mr William Murray in Ardowny, William Guthrie, lawful son of David Guthrie of that Ilk, and Andrew Melwill, servant to Andrew Caldwallis, gardener of the South yard of Holyroodhouse,
yet these persons have absented themselves and abandoned his service.
“Lykeas a nomber of utheris of my hyred sojouris underwrittin ar most wrongouslie and violentlie withhaldin and detenit frome me be the personis following, who keipis and intertenyis thame and will not suffer me to meddle with thame for bringing of thame to Leyth to be imbarqued, that is to say.”
Sir of Purie Foddringhame keeps and detains Thomas Syme, soldier to the supplicant; Alexander Maxwell in Forfar keeps and detains another of his soldiers named John Balfour; Sir John Scrymgeour, Constable of Dundee, detains Archibald Campbell and Peter Peebles, soldiers; Colin Campbell of Denhead detains Robert Alexander; Laurence Andersone at the mill of Newtyle detains James Tyrie; David Ogilvie of Glaswall detains John Hutchone; John in the Brae of Mar detains Andrew Balinne; James Carnegie of Balmakie detains John Durhame;
Thomas Irland and John Angous in Coupergrange detain John Thome; Alexander Campbell of Crwnane detains Alexander Grigorie; James Irland in Langleyis detains John Thome, younger; Mr William Morray of Ardunie detains Donald Robertsone; Mr James Halyburtoun detains Thomas Gibboun; James Hendersone in detains David Pattoun;
David Rattrey, Laird of Craighall, detains John Blair; William Blair of Bagillo detains Laurence Irland and Thomas Oistlar; Alexander Smythe, customer at Dundee, detains James Martene, his servant; Mr James Drummond, minister at Kinloche, detains John Lawis; Peter Balmano in Dundee detains Andrew Ogilvie; and Robert Rollok in Watterstoun detains David Pherne.
By doing so, Blair alleged that these persons “dois quhat in [thame] lyis to croce and hender the service foirsaid so heichlie concerning his Majestie in honour and credit, to his gryt offence and contempt of his Hienes auctoritie and evill exempill of utheris to doe the lyke, without remeid be provydit.”
He therefore craves letters for charging all the persons foresaid and those who detain them to compear that they may fulfil their engagement and service.
[On the back] “Apud Halyrudhous, xiiij Junij, 1627. Fiat ut petitur. (Signed) Geo. Cancellr, I.P.D.”
Modern English Rendering
Captain James Blair stated that he, his officers and servants had hired a substantial number of men for military service under the King of Denmark. According to Blair, these recruits had received pay and had enlisted willingly.
His list included men from Dundee, Montrose, Brechin and other places. Among those specifically named was William Guthrie, lawful son of David Guthrie of that Ilk.
Blair alleged that these enlisted men had subsequently absented themselves and abandoned his service.
He then described a second problem. Other soldiers whom he had recruited were, he claimed, being wrongfully and forcibly withheld from him by various individuals who housed or supported them and would not allow Blair’s officers to take them to Leith for embarkation.
Blair named the persons allegedly withholding each soldier. They included landholders, Sir John Scrymgeour as Constable of Dundee, the minister of Kinloche, a Dundee customs official and other local men.
He argued that this interference obstructed a military service affecting the King’s honour and authority and set a dangerous example for others.
Blair therefore asked the Privy Council to issue formal letters requiring both the men who had allegedly abandoned their engagements and the persons accused of withholding other recruits to appear, so that the soldiers could be compelled to fulfil their military service.
At Holyroodhouse on 14 June 1627, the Council granted the requested process with the formula Fiat ut petitur—“Let it be done as requested.”
For Guthrie genealogy, the most important sentence is the unambiguous identification: “William Guthrie, lawful son of David Guthrie of that Ilk.”
This is direct parent-child evidence from a contemporary seventeenth-century record. William’s relationship to David does not depend upon later pedigrees, succession assumptions or a shared territorial surname.
The record is also significant when read beside the 13 June 1627 entry immediately preceding it, where an Alexander Guithrie, fiar of that Ilk appears as cautioner for Sir Alexander Falconer. The two records place Alexander and William in closely dated documents associated with the Guthries “of that Ilk,” but this particular act states only William’s relationship to David. It does not itself call Alexander and William brothers.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Lawful son — a son born within a legally recognized marriage; direct legitimacy and parentage language.
- Of that Ilk — territorial style in which the family surname and principal landed designation are the same.
- Sojour — soldier.
- Hired soldier — a man engaged for military service under an agreed recruitment arrangement.
- Enlisted — entered or enrolled for military service; the petition says the men did so willingly and received pay.
- Brother german — full brother, sharing both parents; used elsewhere in this same recruitment list for Andrew and James Halyburton.
- Customer — customs officer; Alexander Smythe is styled customer at Dundee.
- Embark — to place aboard ship for transport; the soldiers were to be brought to Leith for embarkation.
- Letters — formal legal writs issued under authority of the Council requiring appearance or performance.
- Fiat ut petitur — “Let it be done as requested,” authorizing the legal process sought in the supplication.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VIII, A.D. 1544–1660 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1908), pp. 389–390, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 276; supplication endorsed at Holyroodhouse, 14 June 1627. Read the digitized volume .
20 June 1627 — Andrew Guithrie in Finmarak and Patrick Guithrie, His Son, Complain of a Violent Night Assault
Second Series, Volume VIII • Pages 392–393
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Sir William Oliphant of Newtoun and Mr Thomas Hope of Craighall, acting as King’s Advocates for the Crown’s interest, joined Andrew Guithrie in Finmarak and Patrick Guithrie, expressly identified as Andrew’s son, in a complaint concerning an alleged armed attack during the preceding April.
The accused men were George Huntar, Alexander Scott and George Ranye, soldiers serving Captain John Lindsay of Bonshaw, accompanied by other soldiers and allegedly acting at Lindsay’s direction.
The petition first describes an attack upon Andrew at his dwelling house in the Cottoun of Finmarak. It then describes a separate attack upon Patrick at the place of Finnerak. Both accounts are presented as the Guthries’ allegations and should not be converted into findings of guilt.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
280. Supplication by Sir William Oliphant of Newtoun, knight, and Mr Thomas Hoip of Craighall, King’s Advocates, for his Majesty’s interest, and by Andrew Guithrie in Finmarak and Patrick Guithrie, his son, as follows:—Against the laws forbidding the wearing of hagbuts and pistolets, on April last George Huntar, Alexander Scott and George Ranyc, soldiers to Captain John Lindsay of Bonshaw, accompanied with others of his soldiers, and all at his direction,
“bodin in feir of weir, with gwnis, pistolettis, swordis, stalffis, battonis and utheris wapponis invasive, come under cloode and silence of night about tuo of the clock in the morneing to myne the said Andro Guithreis duelling house in the Cottoun of Finmarak, quhair I and my famelie wer all in our bedis takand the nightis rest under our soverane lord his protectioun and peace, expecting harme of no man,
“and thair violentlie brak and dang up the doores of my said house, perforce enterit within my said house, patt violent hand in my persone and, after thay haid schamefullie straikin, dang and abused me, thay pullit me out of my bed quhairin I wes lying, quhilk in the meanetyme thay most malitiouslie brak and dang doun with certane uther of my houshald gear and plenissing,
“and thairefter carryed me with thame the space of from my house of purpois, as thay pretendit, to have tane me to the wardhouse of Forfar, althocht I wes his Majesteis frie liege, haveing committit no cryme nor offence, nor thay being cled [with] no laufuU power nor auctoritie aganis me.
“And, I refuseing willinglie to go with thame, thay, after a most cruell and unmercifull maner, strak, dang and hurt me in sindrie pairtis of my bodie and thair left me for dead.
“And, not being content thairwith, thay thairefter come to the plaice of Finnerak quhair I, the said Patrik Guithrie, wes also lying in my bed, expecting harme of no man, and thair violentlie braik and dang up the doores of the house quherin I lay, enterit in upoun me, pullit me out of my bed and schamefullie and cruellie straik and dang me, commanding me to go with thame;
“and I haveing putt on my cloithis, thay violentlie pullit of my coit, tooke my bonnet af my head, and with grite coards coft be chance in Forfar the night befoir for the purpois thay band and fetterrit me as gif I had bene a theiff and malefactour;
“thairefter thay perforce caryed me with thame from Finnerak the speace of a myll, contenowallie stryking, danging and abuseing me, threattning and avowing with mony horribill oathes to putt me in the theiffis hoill of Forfar thair to be used as thair slave, notwithstanding I wes his Majesteis frie leige, ansuerable and obedyent to the lawis, and thay haveing no warrand nor power to tak me;
“and gif by the providence of God some weill disposit personis had not come and disswadit thame frome meddling any forder with me, thay had not faillit to have gone fordwart in their wicked purpois aganis me.
“Lykeas the said Captaine Johne Lindsay and remanent personis foirsaidis daylie and contenowallie bearis hagbuittis and pistollettis, rydis and gangis thairwith in all pairtis of the countrie quhair thair adois drawis thame, useing the same as a terrour to all these whome thay wald have commandment over.”
They crave summons against them. (Signed) “S. W. Oliphant; S. Thomas Hop.”
[On the back] “Apud Edinburgh, … Junij, 1627. Fiat ut petitur.”
Modern English Rendering
Sir William Oliphant of Newtoun and Mr Thomas Hope of Craighall, acting for the Crown, joined Andrew Guthrie in Finmarak and his son Patrick in petitioning the Privy Council.
They complained that during the preceding April George Huntar, Alexander Scott and George Ranye, soldiers serving Captain John Lindsay of Bonshaw, came with other soldiers allegedly acting under Lindsay’s direction. The petition said that they were equipped for fighting with guns, pistols, swords, staffs, clubs and other offensive weapons.
According to Andrew’s account, at approximately two o’clock in the morning the soldiers came under cover of darkness to his dwelling house in the Cottoun of Finmarak, where he and his family were asleep.
He alleged that they violently broke open the doors, entered the house by force, attacked him, struck and abused him, dragged him from his bed, and damaged the bed together with other household furnishings.
The soldiers then allegedly carried Andrew away from his house, claiming that they intended to take him to the wardhouse at Forfar. Andrew protested that he was a free subject of the King, had committed no crime, and that the men had no lawful authority to apprehend him.
When Andrew refused to go willingly, he alleged that they again beat and injured him in several parts of his body and eventually left him for dead.
The petition then shifts to Patrick Guthrie’s own account. Patrick said the soldiers afterwards came to the place of Finnerak while he too was in bed. They allegedly broke open the doors, entered his room, pulled him from bed, beat him and ordered him to accompany them.
Patrick said that after he dressed, they pulled off his coat and removed his bonnet. Using large cords which, according to the petition, had been obtained in Forfar the night before for that purpose, they bound and fettered him as though he were a thief or criminal.
He alleged that they then forcibly took him approximately one mile from Finnerak, continually striking and abusing him and threatening to place him in the “thief’s hole” at Forfar and treat him as their slave.
Patrick likewise asserted that he was a free subject obedient to the law and that the soldiers had no warrant or authority to arrest him. He said that other people intervened and persuaded the soldiers not to proceed further.
Finally, Andrew and Patrick alleged more generally that Captain John Lindsay and the soldiers concerned habitually carried hagbuts and pistols throughout the country and used the weapons to intimidate people over whom they wished to exercise control.
They requested summons against the accused men. The Council authorized the requested legal process.
The entry provides an unusually strong combination of relationship, residence and first-person narrative. At the beginning of the act, Patrick is expressly styled “Patrick Guithrie, his son” immediately after Andrew Guithrie in Finmarak.
The relationship is therefore explicit: Andrew Guithrie of Finmarak was the father of Patrick Guithrie.
The petition also places Andrew’s household in the Cottoun of Finmarak and Patrick at the place of Finnerak. Those local descriptions may prove useful when comparing this family with other Angus Guthrie records.
Unlike many short Council notices, this paper preserves extended first-person accounts attributed separately to Andrew and Patrick, giving substantially more biographical context than a simple name in a summons or caution.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Cottoun — a small settlement or group of dwellings associated with cottages or agricultural holdings.
- Place — in seventeenth-century Scottish usage, often a principal residence or house rather than merely a geographical location.
- Bodin in feir of weir — armed or equipped in warlike fashion.
- Hagbut — an early firearm or arquebus.
- Under cloud and silence of night — legal phrasing emphasizing that an alleged act was committed secretly during nighttime.
- Free liege — a free subject under the King’s protection and law.
- Wardhouse — a place of imprisonment or confinement.
- Fettered — bound or shackled.
- Thief’s hole — the expression used in the complaint for a place of confinement at Forfar.
- Summons — formal legal process requiring a person to appear and answer a complaint.
- Fiat ut petitur — “Let it be done as requested,” authorizing the requested process.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VIII, A.D. 1544–1660 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1908), pp. 392–393, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 280, 20 June 1627. Read the digitized volume .
c. 1660 — Draft Instructions Endorsed “Mr Ja. Guthries Petition to the King”
Second Series, Volume VIII • Pages 464–465
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This short paper is preserved as a draft. Its endorsement reads “Mr Ja. Guthries petition to the King.” The surviving text consists not of the petition itself, but of proposed instructions for organizing support among ministers in the west of Scotland.
The recipient was to send reliable messengers to Hamilton, Glasgow, Paisley, Irvine and Ayr and contact a named group of ministers. Those ministers were to alert others sharing their judgment and encourage them to attend a meeting at Glasgow, where they were to be persuaded to join an address and supplication by subscribing it.
Independent ecclesiastical evidence identifies the Mr James Guthrie associated with the events of 1660 as Rev. James Guthrie, minister of Stirling, formerly minister of Lauder.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Document Text
419. Paper endorsed “Mr Ja. Guthries petition to the King.”
“Commissione and instructions for our . . . Youe sail [with all possible expedition], so soone as is possible, dispacthe a sure bearer or bearers unto Hamiltone, Glasgowe, Pasley, Irvin, Aire, to our brithren Mr James Nesmith, Mr John Burnett, [Mr Patrick Gillespie], Robert Mackvatter, Mr John Carstairs, Mr Alexander Dunlope, Mr James Stirtone, Mr John Nevay, Mr Matthew Mowatt, Mr Gabriell Maxwell and Mr William Adaire, with ane earnest and pressing letter from your selfe in name of this meiting, earnestlie desiring them to give advertisment to all the brithren of our judgement in the bounds of there prisbyterie [to meet youe at Glasgowe the day of] that they together with youe sail be carefull to keepe the said dyett at Glasgowe,
and by the best and most convincing arguments youe can use persuad them to joine in this addresse and supplication by subscribing thereof themselves would meet youe at Glasgowe the day for busines of speciall concernment to the worke of God whiche youe sail then communicat unto them.”
Brown’s note: “The words within brackets are scored through, the paper being a draft.”
Modern English Rendering
The document is a draft set of instructions associated by its endorsement with Mr James Guthrie’s petition to the King.
The person receiving the instructions was to act as soon as possible and send one or more trustworthy messengers to Hamilton, Glasgow, Paisley, Irvine and Ayr.
They were to contact the named ministers and associates: James Nesmith, John Burnett, Robert Mackvatter, John Carstairs, Alexander Dunlop, James Stirton, John Nevay, Matthew Mowatt, Gabriel Maxwell and William Adair. Patrick Gillespie’s name had been written into the draft but was subsequently struck out.
An urgent letter was to be sent in the name of the meeting, asking these men to notify other ministers within their presbyteries who shared the same views.
Those ministers were to attend an appointed meeting at Glasgow. The precise proposed date was left blank or removed during revision of the draft.
At Glasgow, the recipient was to use the strongest persuasive arguments available to encourage the ministers to join the proposed address and supplication by signing it themselves.
The ministers were to be told that the Glasgow meeting concerned a matter of special importance to what the authors described as “the worke of God”, the details of which would be communicated to them when they assembled.
This document provides a rare glimpse into the organizational activity surrounding Rev. James Guthrie shortly before his arrest in August 1660.
Rather than merely naming him in a government order, it preserves part of a working draft intended to coordinate communication among ministers across several western presbyteries and gather subscriptions to an address and supplication.
The revisions are themselves informative. Brown specifically notes that bracketed words were scored through because the paper was a draft, showing that the instructions were still being composed or revised rather than representing a final clean copy.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Commission and instructions — directions authorizing or guiding a person in carrying out a particular task.
- Bearer — a trusted person carrying letters or other communications.
- Presbytery — a regional church court composed of ministers and elders from several congregations.
- Diet — an appointed meeting, sitting or date.
- Address and supplication — a formal written representation or petition intended for a person or governing authority.
- Scored through — crossed out or deleted from a manuscript draft.
- Our judgment — the document’s own description of ministers sharing the same ecclesiastical position or viewpoint; it should not be expanded beyond what the source states.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VIII, A.D. 1544–1660 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1908), Miscellaneous Papers, no. 419, pp. 464–465, undated paper placed by Brown c. 1660, endorsed “Mr Ja. Guthries petition to the King.” Read the digitized volume .
Independent identification context: Fasti Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ records James Guthrie, M.A., as minister of Lauder from 1642, translated to Stirling in November 1650, and arrested on 23 August 1660.
23 August 1660 — Mr James Guthrie and Other Ministers Ordered Imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle
Second Series, Volume VIII • Pages 465–466
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 23 August 1660, the Committee of Estates, meeting under royal authority after the Restoration, acted upon information concerning what it described as a “conventicle and private meeting” of Remonstrator and Protester ministers and others in Edinburgh.
According to the Committee’s act, the meeting had no warrant from the ordinary civil or ecclesiastical courts. Members of the Committee were therefore directed to investigate its purpose.
The investigators reported finding signed petitions together with draft papers and letters intended to summon others who shared the participants’ views. The Committee characterized portions of those writings as critical of the King, the government of the Church and kingdom of England, and the constitution of the Committee itself.
On that basis, it ordered Mr James Guthrie and the other named ministers and elder imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Document Text
420. “Act for securing Mr James Guthrie and others. At Edinburgh, the 23 day of August, 1660.
“The Committee of Estates, now presently conveened by his Majesties speciall warrand and authority, upon information given to them of a conventicle and private meeting of some remonstrator and protesting ministers and others at Edinburgh, for which they had neither warrand from the ordinary civil or ecclesiastick courts;
“and the said Committee, being by his Majesties speciall commission and commands intrusted and impowered with the caring, [o]rdering and providing for what may conduce for the peace of this his Majesties ancient [kin]gdom, and support of his power and au[thor]ity therein,
“finding such unlawfull [con]venticles, upon what p[retext] soever, with[out . . .] lawfull authority expresly de[ro]gatory to his Majesties royal prerogative a[nd tend]ing to the disturbance of the present [pe]ace of his Majesties dominions,
“gave orde[r and] command to some of their number to search and make trial after the occasion and reason of their meeting, who in the said inquiry found them with petitions subscribed and some papers and letters scroled, to be sent for convocating all of their own judgement,
“containing many particulars reflecting upon his sacred Majesty, the government of our neighbour church and kingdom of England, and constitution of this present Committee, and many other [t]hings directly tending to seditions, raising of new tumults, and (if possible) rekindling [civ]il war amongst his Majesties good subjects.
“Therefore, the said Committee have thought fit, and hereby ordains the persons, subscribers of the said papers, and these in company at the updrawing thereof; they are to say, Mr James Guthrie, Mr Robert Trail, Mr John Sterling, Mr Alexander Moncreif, Mr John Semple, Mr Thomas Ramsay, Mr Gilbert Hall, Mr John Scot, Mr George Nairn, Mr John Murray ministers, and John Kirko, ruling elder,
“to be committed prisoners within the castle of Edinburgh, therein to remain untill his Majesties pleasure shall be farther made known; and gives warrand to the present captain of the said castle to receive them prisoners, and to keep them in safe custody.
“Extracted forth of the books of the said Committee be me, Jo. Hay, Cler. Coun. Edinburgh. Printed by a Society of Stationers, 1660.”
Modern English Rendering
On 23 August 1660, the Committee of Estates was meeting in Edinburgh under special royal warrant and authority.
The Committee stated that it had received information about a private meeting in Edinburgh involving ministers associated with the Remonstrator and Protester parties and other persons. It alleged that the meeting had been held without authorization from the ordinary civil or ecclesiastical courts.
Because the Committee had been specially empowered by the King to preserve peace and royal authority in Scotland, it considered such unauthorized meetings potentially contrary to the royal prerogative and threatening to public peace.
Members of the Committee were therefore instructed to investigate why the group had assembled.
The investigators reported finding signed petitions, draft papers and draft letters intended to call together other people who shared the same opinions.
The Committee stated that those papers contained passages reflecting upon the King, the government of the Church and kingdom of England, and the constitution of the Committee of Estates. It further characterized the writings as tending toward sedition, renewed tumult and potentially renewed civil war.
The Committee therefore ordered the people it described as subscribers of the papers or persons present while they were being drawn up to be imprisoned.
Those named were the ministers James Guthrie, Robert Trail, John Stirling, Alexander Moncrieff, John Semple, Thomas Ramsay, Gilbert Hall, John Scott, George Nairn and John Murray, together with John Kirko, ruling elder.
They were to be committed to Edinburgh Castle and kept there until the King gave further instructions. The captain of the castle was formally authorized to receive and securely hold them.
This is the Privy Council collection’s direct documentary record of the 23 August 1660 imprisonment of Rev. James Guthrie, an event that became a critical step in the final year of his life.
The act is particularly valuable because it gives the exact governmental basis stated at the time. Guthrie was not yet being recorded here as convicted of treason. Rather, the Committee ordered his detention following its investigation of an unauthorized meeting and papers associated with those present.
The record also names the ministers and elder detained with him, preserving the immediate ecclesiastical network surrounding the August 1660 meeting.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Committee of Estates — a governmental body acting here under special royal warrant and authority after the Restoration.
- Conventicle — in this act, the Committee’s term for a religious or political-religious meeting held without the authorization it considered legally required.
- Remonstrator — a member or supporter of the strict Covenanter grouping associated with the Western Remonstrance.
- Protester — a member of the party within the Scottish Kirk that protested against the Resolutioner policy during the divisions of the 1650s.
- Scroled — drafted or written in preliminary form.
- Convocating — calling or gathering people together.
- Ruling elder — a lay elder participating in Presbyterian church government.
- Securing — in the title of this act, taking persons into secure custody rather than merely providing a financial bond.
- Warrant — formal legal authority for an official act; here the captain of Edinburgh Castle was given warrant to receive and keep the prisoners.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VIII, A.D. 1544–1660 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1908), Miscellaneous Papers, no. 420, pp. 465–466, “Act for securing Mr James Guthrie and others,” Edinburgh, 23 August 1660. Read the digitized volume .
Independent identification context: Fasti Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ, entry for James Guthrie, M.A., minister of Stirling, records his translation from Lauder to Stirling in November 1650 and his arrest on 23 August 1660.
Volume VIII — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume VIII is structurally different from the preceding Second Series volumes. Although it concludes the later Privy Council material, its printed title is A.D. 1544–1660, and its extensive Miscellaneous Papers return to earlier decades. The Guthrie records therefore move from 1643–1644, backward to a concentrated group from 1627, and finally forward to 1660.
Within that unusual arrangement, the volume preserves some of the strongest explicit family evidence found in the Second Series: William Guthrie is called the brother of Alexander Guithrie, younger of Kincaldrum; another William Guthrie is called the lawful son of David Guthrie of that Ilk; and Patrick Guithrie is expressly identified as the son of Andrew Guithrie in Finmarak.
The first Guthrie records in Volume VIII continue the civic and commercial career of Mr Alexander Guthrie. On 19 October 1643 he appears with commissioners for the royal burghs and their agent John Ramsay in a major dispute over coal prices, measures, domestic supply and export.
The burghs alleged that coalmasters were charging excessive prices, altering measures, exporting coal and postponing Scottish consumers in favour of foreign purchasers. The Council imposed interim controls and reserved several disputed historical prices for proof.
Alexander appears again on 9 November 1643 in the evidentiary continuation of the dispute, expressly styled “clerk to the said burghs.” After witness depositions were heard, the Council set a detailed temporary schedule of coal prices and measures and regulated the circumstances under which burgh purchasers were to receive priority over exporters.
These are two separate Council proceedings within one broader commercial controversy. Together they provide strong evidence of Alexander’s continuing role as an administrative intermediary for Scotland’s royal burghs.
The November 1644 Miscellaneous Papers identify Richard Guthrie as an officer in Edinburgh. He witnessed the execution of a summons obtained by Agnes Fynnie, then imprisoned in the Edinburgh tolbooth under an accusation of witchcraft.
His documentary role is narrow but useful: he witnessed the legal service carried out on 9 November. He is not a witness to the alleged witchcraft, an accuser of Fynnie, or a party to the underlying dispute.
The explicit Edinburgh office also provides an important identity control. This Richard should remain separate from Richard Guthrie, Writer to the Signet and the Richard Guthrie / Gotherie associated with Haddington unless independent evidence proves that any of those records concern the same man.
Reference: p. 135.
The 5 June 1627 military-recruitment complaint distinguishes four Guthrie identities in a single source: Alexander Qoothrie, a servant of Hew Maxwell of Teillings who had been recruited for military service; Alexander Guithrie, younger of Kincaldrum; William Guthrie, his brother; and Alexander Guthrie of Gagie.
John Lindsay of Bonshaw and the King’s Advocates alleged that Alexander of Kincaldrum, William, Alexander of Gagie and several companions pursued Lindsay’s recruiting party while armed and forcibly recovered the recruited Alexander.
The alleged pursuit and armed rescue remain allegations contained in the supplication. The genealogical language, however, is direct: William is expressly described as the brother of Alexander, younger of Kincaldrum.
The source does not state how Alexander of Gagie was related to either brother, nor does it establish the recruited Alexander Qoothrie as their kinsman.
Reference: p. 379.
On 13 June 1627, Alexander Guithrie, fiar of that Ilk, appears as cautioner for Sir Alexander Falconer of Halkertoun under an arbitral decree concerning the maintenance of Falconer’s separated wife, Dame Annas Lindsay.
Alexander’s role was that of surety. The original obligation arose between Falconer and his wife; Alexander guaranteed performance of the financial arrangement.
The style “fiar of that Ilk” is important landed evidence, but this paper does not itself identify Alexander’s father, mother or exact place within a pedigree. The legal designation should not silently be converted into a specific family relationship.
Reference: p. 387.
The following day’s recruitment petition contains another major genealogical statement. Among men whom Captain James Blair said had willingly enlisted and received pay for service under the King of Denmark appears “William Guthrie, lawful son of David Guthrie of that Ilk.”
This directly establishes both parentage and legitimacy: David Guthrie of that Ilk was William’s father, and William is expressly called his lawful son.
The record does not say that William was David’s eldest son, heir or only son, nor does it identify William’s mother.
It is tempting to compare this William with the William Guthrie called brother of Alexander, younger of Kincaldrum, only days earlier. Volume VIII itself does not explicitly state that those two William Guthrie references concern the same man. That possible identification therefore requires evidence outside these two acts.
Reference: pp. 389–390.
On 20 June 1627, the King’s Advocates joined Andrew Guithrie in Finmarak and Patrick Guithrie, his son, in a detailed complaint against soldiers associated with Captain John Lindsay of Bonshaw.
The petition contains separate first-person narratives attributed to Andrew and Patrick. Andrew alleged that armed soldiers broke into his dwelling house in the Cottoun of Finmarak at approximately two o’clock in the morning, assaulted him and attempted to carry him toward Forfar. Patrick alleged that the same group later broke into the place of Finnerak, dragged him from bed, bound and fettered him, beat him and carried him about a mile.
Those events remain the Guthries’ allegations; the paper does not record a later conviction of the accused soldiers. The family relationship is nevertheless explicit and independent of the truth of the allegations: Patrick was Andrew Guithrie’s son.
Reference: pp. 392–393.
Near the end of the volume is an undated draft placed by Brown approximately in 1660 and endorsed “Mr Ja. Guthries petition to the King.”
The surviving text is actually a draft set of instructions for sending messengers to Hamilton, Glasgow, Paisley, Irvine and Ayr, alerting ministers of the same judgment and encouraging them to meet at Glasgow and subscribe an address and supplication.
Brown notes that portions of the draft were scored through. The deleted wording and unfilled dates show that the paper was still being revised and should not be treated as a record that every proposed action actually occurred.
Independent ecclesiastical evidence identifies this Mr James Guthrie as Rev. James Guthrie, minister of Stirling, formerly minister of Lauder.
Reference: pp. 464–465.
The following paper is the “Act for securing Mr James Guthrie and others”, dated 23 August 1660.
The Committee of Estates stated that it had received information concerning an unauthorized private meeting of Remonstrator and Protester ministers and others in Edinburgh. Its investigators reported finding signed petitions, draft papers and letters intended to call together others sharing the participants’ views.
The Committee characterized the writings as reflecting upon the King, the government of England and the Committee itself, and as tending toward sedition and renewed disorder. On that basis it ordered James Guthrie, nine other ministers and ruling elder John Kirko imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle.
The government’s language must remain attributed to the Committee. This act records detention, not James Guthrie’s later criminal trial, conviction or execution in 1661.
Reference: pp. 465–466.
Three Volume VIII statements deserve to be carried forward in their exact evidentiary form:
1. William Guthrie is expressly called “his brother” after Alexander Guithrie, younger of Kincaldrum.
2. William Guthrie is expressly called the “lawful son of David Guthrie of that Ilk.”
3. Patrick Guithrie is expressly called the son of Andrew Guithrie in Finmarak.
These statements are stronger than relationships reconstructed from chronology, territorial designation or surname similarity because the kinship language occurs directly in the source.
Volume VIII repeatedly demonstrates why repeated forenames cannot be merged automatically.
The 1627 military-recruitment paper alone contains multiple men named Alexander Guthrie: Alexander Qoothrie, the recruited servant; Alexander Guithrie, younger of Kincaldrum; and Alexander Guthrie of Gagie.
A separate act names Alexander Guithrie, fiar of that Ilk. Territorial designations and documentary roles must remain attached to each man unless independent evidence proves identity between them.
The same caution applies to Richard Guthrie and to the several William Guthrie references. Similar names and close dates can suggest research questions; they do not by themselves establish identity.
Several of Volume VIII’s most dramatic narratives occur in supplications. Allegations of armed rescue, desertion, unlawful detention and violent assault therefore need to remain allegations unless the record also preserves a judicial finding.
The repeated formula “Fiat ut petitur” generally authorizes the legal process requested by the petitioner. It does not mean that the Council had already convicted the accused person or proved every factual assertion in the complaint.
Similarly, becoming a cautioner means standing as surety for another person’s obligation; it does not make the cautioner the original debtor. Witnessing execution of a summons does not make the witness a party to the underlying case.
At the other end of the period, the 1660 order against James Guthrie records imprisonment pending the King’s further pleasure. His later trial belongs to a separate legal stage.
Volume VIII extends several established Guthrie careers while also supplying unusually valuable family evidence. It confirms Mr Alexander Guthrie’s continuing work for the royal burghs, identifies a Richard Guthrie serving as an Edinburgh officer, distinguishes several Guthries associated with Kincaldrum, Gagie and that Ilk, establishes a direct Andrew–Patrick father-son relationship at Finmarak, and documents the August 1660 imprisonment of Rev. James Guthrie of Stirling.
The three explicit kinship statements concerning Alexander and William of the Kincaldrum context, David of that Ilk and his lawful son William, and Andrew and his son Patrick of Finmarak should be treated as direct contemporary genealogical evidence.
Do not automatically equate the William Guthrie who was brother of Alexander, younger of Kincaldrum, with the William Guthrie who was lawful son of David Guthrie of that Ilk. The close dates make comparison worthwhile, but Volume VIII does not explicitly say they are the same man.
Likewise, keep the various Alexanders distinct unless another source connects them. The recruited Alexander Qoothrie, Alexander younger of Kincaldrum, Alexander of Gagie and Alexander fiar of that Ilk each enters the record with a different designation or role.
The 1660 James Guthrie papers should also remain distinct: Paper 419 is an undated draft associated by endorsement with his petition to the King, while Paper 420 is the dated 23 August 1660 governmental order of imprisonment. Their subject matter is related, but the printed volume does not prove that Paper 419 was one of the papers seized at the August meeting.
Finally, the damaged “William G . . .” on p. 144 remains excluded from the Guthrie inventory. Neither the surviving text nor the printed index securely expands his surname to Guthrie.
Volume VIII completes the Guthrie Genealogy review of The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series. Volumes I–VII follow the principal chronological progression from 1625 through 1643; Volume VIII closes the series while also incorporating earlier Miscellaneous Papers, giving the printed volume its wider 1544–1660 date range.
Across the eight volumes, the records document Guthries as bishops, ministers, lairds, fiars, burgesses, town officers, clerks, writers, surgeons, merchants, witnesses, cautioners, commissioners and parties to litigation. The completed entries preserve those identities at the level actually supported by each source, while keeping direct genealogical statements separate from later reconstruction.
Basis of synthesis: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volume VIII, A.D. 1544–1660 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1908). The linked detailed records preserve the relevant source units, variant surname spellings, documentary roles, relationship statements and procedural limits. Digitized volume .
Second Series — Guthrie Research in Perspective, 1625–1660
Across eight volumes, the Second Series follows Guthries through a period of profound political, ecclesiastical and administrative change. The records begin in the early reign of Charles I, pass through the expansion of royal and Privy Council government in the 1630s, the Service-book crisis and Covenanting upheaval, and end with the Restoration-era imprisonment of Rev. James Guthrie in August 1660.
The collection is especially valuable because it does far more than supply names. It repeatedly gives offices, territorial designations, occupations, residences, legal roles and direct statements of relationship. Just as importantly, the records show where identification must remain provisional: people sharing a Guthrie surname or forename cannot be merged merely because they appear near one another in time.
One of the clearest continuing careers in the Second Series is that of John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray. The early volumes place him in royal and ecclesiastical business, including commissions concerned with religious conformity and attendance at national governmental meetings.
By the middle volumes, his role had expanded substantially beyond diocesan administration. The records place him in Privy Council business involving northern disorder, criminal investigations, commissions, university affairs, examinations, local government and the administration of charitable institutions such as Leith Hospital.
His changing designation later in the series is equally important. In May 1638 he still appears through the office “Bishop of Murrey.” In the 1641 Roll of Delinquents he is styled “sumtyme pretendit Bishope of Murray,” reflecting the changed Covenanting political and ecclesiastical setting after the overthrow of episcopacy.
That 1641 roll also provides direct family evidence by naming a second Mr John Guthrie as the bishop’s son.
A second major career runs through the collection: Mr Alexander Guthrie, associated with Edinburgh civic government and repeatedly acting for the royal burghs.
The records place him in proceedings involving taxation, commissions, ferries, salt, the Isle of May light, coinage, the Council-house, economic privileges, commercial regulation and the developing Service-book crisis.
Volume VIII closes that long administrative sequence with two substantial coal cases in 1643. There he is expressly styled “clerk to the Burghs” and “clerk to the said burghs,” appearing with burgh commissioners during litigation over coal prices, measures, domestic supply and export.
These records establish sustained participation in the burghs’ collective business. They do not make Alexander the sole author of every argument, petition or policy advanced in their name.
The Second Series contains numerous Guthries identified by landed or residential designations, including men associated with that Ilk, Kincaldrum, Collestoun, Gagie, Finmarak, Barnhill and other localities.
Those designations are essential evidence. They often distinguish men who otherwise share the same forename and surname. Volume VIII, for example, separately names Alexander Qoothrie, Alexander Guithrie, younger of Kincaldrum, Alexander Guthrie of Gagie, and Alexander Guithrie, fiar of that Ilk.
The Collestoun records likewise require care. The series contains both John Guthrie of Collestoun and an unnamed “Guthrie, younger of Collestoun.” A forename should not be supplied to the younger man unless another source independently establishes it.
Several Second Series records state relationships directly. These should be given greater evidentiary weight than relationships reconstructed only from surname, locality or chronology.
Among the clearest examples are:
- Mr John Guthrie expressly identified as the son of John Guthrie, sometime Bishop of Moray.
- William Guthrie expressly called the brother of Alexander Guthrie / Guithrie of the Kincaldrum context.
- William Guthrie expressly identified as the lawful son of David Guthrie of that Ilk.
- Patrick Guithrie expressly identified as the son of Andrew Guithrie in Finmarak.
- An unnamed Guthrie woman identified in Volume VI as the mother of Bessie Stirling.
Even direct statements must be kept within their actual limits. “Son” does not establish birth order; “lawful son” does not name the mother; “brother” does not automatically establish whether the men shared both parents unless the source says so.
The series also preserves a broad social range beyond bishops and landed families. Guthries appear as merchants, burgesses, surgeons, writers, Writers to the Signet, town officers, clerks, ministers, witnesses and cautioners.
The Aberdeen records distinguish the surgeons Hercules, James and Gilbert Guthrie. Other volumes identify a James Guthrie, writer, Richard Guthrie, W.S., a Richard Guthrie associated with Haddington, and in Volume VIII a Richard Guthrie expressly styled officer in Edinburgh.
These occupational descriptions are valuable identity markers. Similar names should remain separate where the offices, towns or documentary roles differ.
Dundee supplies another useful cluster of Guthrie evidence. Records identify Guthries participating in municipal, commercial and legal life rather than merely appearing as names in national proceedings.
In Volume VII, Patrick Guthrie, elder, appears among Dundee’s councillors in the Dudhope dispute and separately among Dundee merchants and burgesses witnessing a sworn declaration. His subscription is printed as “P. Guthrie, elder, witnes.”
Earlier volumes also contain Dundee merchants and burgesses, reinforcing the usefulness of burgh status and occupation when distinguishing local Guthrie identities.
The later 1630s mark a visible change in the records. Volume VI contains the Book of Canons and Service-book crisis, petitions against the new liturgy and the governmental dislocation that preceded the National Covenant.
Bishop John Guthrie remained embedded in royal administration as these disputes intensified, but by the following volumes the political meaning of his episcopal office had changed dramatically.
One Volume VI petition prints “J. Guthrie, minister at Stirling.” Independent ecclesiastical evidence points instead toward Henry Guthrie, who held a Stirling charge during the period, while Rev. James Guthrie was not translated to Stirling until 1650. The printed initial therefore remains an unresolved identification rather than evidence for James Guthrie.
The final Guthrie documents move the collection into the political and ecclesiastical crisis following the Restoration.
An undated draft, endorsed “Mr Ja. Guthries petition to the King,” contains proposed instructions for gathering ministers at Glasgow and securing subscriptions to an address and supplication.
The following act, dated 23 August 1660, records the Committee of Estates ordering Mr James Guthrie, nine other ministers and a ruling elder committed to Edinburgh Castle after an unauthorized meeting and the discovery of petitions, draft papers and letters.
Independent ecclesiastical evidence identifies this man as Rev. James Guthrie, minister of Stirling. The RPCS act itself records imprisonment; his later trial, conviction and execution in 1661 belong to subsequent proceedings.
The Second Series repeatedly demonstrates why the stage of legal process must be stated accurately.
A supplication contains a party’s allegations. A summons requires an appearance but does not establish guilt. A commission grants authority but does not prove that every authorized act was carried out. Caution creates security for an obligation but does not prove that the penalty was later paid.
Likewise, “Fiat ut petitur” authorizes the process requested; it is not a conviction. Inclusion in a Roll of Delinquents establishes inclusion in that list, but without an individualized charge it should not be converted into a specific criminal finding.
These distinctions are essential because many of the most vivid narratives in the RPCS are accusations made before a final judgment.
Guthrie evidence is not always found under a straightforward surname entry. Some records identify a man only by office, such as the Bishop of Moray, while others use forms such as Guthre, Guithrie, Guthra, Qoothrie and related spellings.
Office-only identification can be supplied where the officeholder is independently secure, but the original source wording should remain visible. Variant spelling likewise should be preserved rather than silently normalized inside transcriptions.
At the same time, spelling variation is not permission to collapse distinct people. Locality, office, occupation, kinship wording and documentary role remain the stronger tools for identity control.
Taken together, the eight volumes provide a detailed documentary cross-section of seventeenth-century Guthrie lives. Some individuals, particularly Bishop John Guthrie and Mr Alexander Guthrie associated with Edinburgh and the royal burghs, can be followed repeatedly across years of public business. Others appear only once, but with a residence, occupation, legal role or family relationship that makes the reference genealogically significant.
The result is not a single connected Guthrie pedigree. It is a body of primary-source evidence from which separate people and families can be identified, compared and—where the evidence permits—connected.
Direct relationship statements should remain direct evidence. The bishop’s son John, the Kincaldrum brother relationship, William the lawful son of David Guthrie of that Ilk, Patrick the son of Andrew of Finmarak, and the Guthrie mother of Bessie Stirling should not be reduced to tentative surname associations.
Similar names should not be merged without evidence. The multiple Alexanders, Williams, Richards and Johns in these volumes repeatedly demonstrate the danger of assuming identity from name alone.
Territorial and occupational descriptions should travel with the person. “Of that Ilk,” “younger of Kincaldrum,” “of Gagie,” “in Finmarak,” “of Collestoun,” “W.S.,” “officer in Edinburgh” and similar phrases are not decorative wording; they are part of the evidence used to distinguish individuals.
Allegation, proof, judgment and enforcement are separate stages. A complaint may tell us what a party said happened; it does not automatically tell us what a court later proved. An order may authorize arrest, horning, poinding or imprisonment without proving that every later enforcement step occurred.
Unresolved identities should remain unresolved. The 1637 “J. Guthrie, minister at Stirling” reference and other incomplete or office-only names should not be forced into a pedigree simply because a plausible candidate exists.
Volumes I–VII form the principal chronological run from 1625 through 1643. Volume VIII is the exception: its printed title is A.D. 1544–1660 because it includes a substantial body of earlier Miscellaneous Papers alongside the later Council material.
For that reason, the final volume—and therefore the end of the Second Series page—is not strictly chronological. The detailed Volume VIII entries retain printed page order while displaying each document’s actual date.
Basis of synthesis: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Second Series, Volumes I–VIII. The individual volume sections above contain the verified Guthrie source units, modern-English renderings, documentary cautions and links to the corresponding digitized editions. HathiTrust — Series Catalogue · Electric Scotland — RPCS Volumes .

