RPCS: Third Series
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland
Third Series
Third Series Overview
The Third Series begins with the Restoration government of Charles II and continues through the reign of James VII and the opening years of the post-Revolution settlement. Across its sixteen volumes, the Privy Council records the daily workings of central government, local administration, criminal procedure, religious policy, burgh affairs, military and maritime matters, imprisonment, caution and petitions for relief.
Guthrie references range from ministers, landholders, civic officers and legal professionals to witnesses, prisoners, petitioners and people accused in criminal proceedings. Territorial designations, occupations and offices are retained carefully so that contemporary people sharing the Guthrie name are not automatically merged.
Political and religious descriptions are presented in their documentary context. Terms such as rebel, seditious or disaffected, when used by the Crown or Council, describe the government’s allegation or classification and are not treated as independent proof of the conduct alleged.
Volume 1
Volume 1 opens immediately after the Restoration and contains several distinct bodies of Guthrie evidence. The political aftermath of the trial and execution of Rev. James Guthrie appears in the Crown’s investigation of the Earl of Tweeddale. Separate records identify Major John Guthry as a prisoner seeking release and several Angus Guthries in the Forfar witchcraft proceedings.
Particularly strong family evidence occurs in 1662, when James Guthry, writer in Dundee, expressly identifies Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie of Montrose as his sisters. Their successive petitions also provide an unusually detailed record of imprisonment, repeated demands for a lawful trial and eventual release on caution.
The later pages broaden the evidence to Edinburgh legal and professional networks, the parish or kirk of Guthrie, ministers at Tarbolton and Kilspindie, the former provost of Irvine and notarial practice. These individuals are kept distinct unless the records themselves or independent evidence establish a connection.
Read Volume 1 Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664. Edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown, M.A., LL.D., Historiographer Royal for Scotland. Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1908.
References below use the volume’s printed page numbers. A digitized viewer’s image or sequence number will therefore be higher than the printed page number.
Volume 1 — Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| xi–xii | Sept. 1661–May 1662 | Rev. James Guthrie Editorial introduction | Hume Brown summarizes the Earl of Tweeddale’s imprisonment, examination and eventual restoration after royal concern over his conduct during the Parliamentary trial of James Guthrie. |
| 37 | 13 Sept. 1661 | James Guthrie Royal letter / political aftermath | Charles II orders the Earl of Tweeddale imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle because of reported speeches made during the trial of James Guthrie, described in the letter as lately attainted and executed. |
| 39 | 13 Sept. 1661 | Major John Guthry Prisoner / supplicant | Petitions for release after about five months’ imprisonment in the Edinburgh tolbooth on suspicion arising from a robbery accusation. The Council orders release on caution because no one is pursuing his trial. |
| 53–54 | Sept.–Oct. 1661 | James Guthrie Royal direction for examination | Senior councillors are directed to examine Tweeddale concerning his conduct and votes during the Parliamentary process against Guthrie and to obtain his signed declaration. The printed sequence preserves a 20/23 September dating issue that is retained in the detailed record. |
| 57 | Autumn 1661 |
Gideon Guthry of Halkertoun; Alexander Guthrie of Carsbank; Thomas Guthrie, baillie of Forfar Witchcraft commission — Council order |
Named among commissioners whom the Council orders empowered to put Issobell Syrie of Forfar to a lawful trial. The order requires a voluntary confession obtained without torture or other indirect means, or legally established proof of malefices. |
| 60–61 | 3 Oct. 1661 | James Guthrie Report to the King | Councillors who had been present in Parliament state that Tweeddale had not joined the affirmative votes on the articles that passed against Guthrie. |
| 74 | 7 Nov. 1661 |
Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun; Alexander Guthry of Carsbank; Thomas Guthrie, baillie of Forfar Formal witchcraft commission |
Formal commission implementing the earlier Council order concerning Issobell Syrie. The commissioners are empowered to constitute a court, try her lawfully and investigate additional persons accused of witchcraft without torture. |
| 122 | 17 Dec. 1661 |
Alexander Guthrie of Carsbank; Thomas Guthrie, baillie of Forfar; Helen Guthéry; Elspeth Guthrie Commissioners and accused persons |
Alexander and Thomas are among commissioners appointed to try several accused persons. Helen Guthéry and Elspeth Guthrie are among those whom the Council entry states had confessed themselves guilty. The commissioner list prints Gideon Murray of Halkertoun, not Gideon Guthrie. |
| 190 | 1 Apr. 1662 | William Guthry, writer in Edinburgh Cautioner-sufficiency attestation | Attests the sufficiency of George Nairne of Greens as cautioner for James Gordon. This chronological Council registration was omitted from the legacy Finding Aid. A related version of the underlying bond is printed later at p. 657 with differing date details. |
| 222 | 12 June 1662 |
James Guthry, writer in Dundee; Margaret Guthrie; Elizabeth Guthrie Brother and sisters — direct kinship evidence |
James petitions on behalf of Margaret and Elizabeth, expressly identified as his sisters and as indwellers in Montrose. They had been imprisoned on witchcraft accusations. The petition states that nothing had been confessed or proved against them, and the Council orders a lawful trial without torture or pricking. |
| 265 | 16 Sept. 1662 |
Margaret Guthrie; Elizabeth Guthrie Supplicants / accused persons |
After repeated Council interventions of 22 May, 12 June and 8 August failed to produce either trial or release, the sisters again petition. The Council orders their liberation within twenty-four hours on finding caution. |
| 300 | 28 Nov. 1662 | Thomas Guthrie, burgess of Edinburgh Bond witness | Witness to a registered bond of caution. His Edinburgh designation distinguishes him from Thomas Guthrie, baillie of Forfar. |
| 333 | 12 Feb. 1663 | Kirk of Guthrie Place / parish reference | Mr Walter Keith seeks payment of the 1661 and 1662 stipend after serving the vacant kirk of Guthrie. No individual surnamed Guthrie is named in this source unit. |
| 389 | 14 July 1663 | John Gutherey, minister at Tarbolton Minister summoned before Council | Named among ministers whom the Council orders summoned to answer allegations of “turbulent and seditious” conduct. Independent ecclesiastical evidence identifies him as a son of James Guthrie of Pitforthie. |
| 507 | 16 Feb. 1664 | John Guthery, late provost of Irvine Civic officer | Authorised with former bailies and councillors to convene a new election of Irvine’s magistrates and council so the burgh could satisfy the Parliamentary Declaration required of persons in public trust. |
| 550 | 16 June 1664 | Mr Hary Guthrie, minister at Kilspindie Minister / supplicant | Seeks payment of a £150 sterling Parliamentary allowance from vacant stipends. Independent evidence identifies him as Henry Guthrie, formerly associated with Guthrie parish and Stirling and later Bishop of Dunkeld. |
| 648–649 | 30 May 1661 | James Gottray in Over Boltoun Witness to witchcraft confession | One of four named witnesses before whom Margaret Ker’s confession was taken. The full source unit begins on p. 648 and concludes on p. 649; subsequent confessions are separate documents. |
| 657 | 21/28 Apr. 1662 | Mr William Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh Related surviving bond | Miscellaneous Paper 36 preserves a related version of the George Nairne caution transaction recorded chronologically at p. 190. It dates the bond 21 April and the acceptance of the cautioner 28 April, creating a discrepancy with the 1 April dating printed at p. 190. |
| 662 | 22 Apr. 1663 | Richard Guthrie, W.S. Writer to the Signet | Alexander Ord, servitor to Richard Guthrie, attests the sufficiency of a cautioner. Richard himself is identified through his professional office rather than as the direct signer of the attestation. |
| 691 | 20 Aug. 1664 | John Guthrie, notary Notarial assistance | With Andrew Young, provides notarial aid enabling William Geddes to execute a bond connected with his release from the Edinburgh tolbooth and obligations arising from the slaughter of Patrick Porteous. |
Page 222 supplies direct contemporary kinship evidence by expressly identifying Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie as sisters of James Guthry, writer in Dundee.
Page 190 was recovered during the Volume I audit and is a separate chronological entry naming William Guthry, writer in Edinburgh. Page 657 preserves a related version of the underlying bond and contains differing dates; both records are retained rather than silently harmonized.
September 1661–May 1662 · James Guthrie and the Political Aftermath of His Trial
Third Series · Volume 1 · Editorial Introduction, pp. xi–xii
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
In his introduction to Volume 1, P. Hume Brown uses the Earl of Tweeddale episode to illustrate the political expectations imposed upon members of the restored Privy Council. Tweeddale came under royal suspicion because of his conduct during the Parliamentary trial of James Guthrie. The resulting sequence began with his imprisonment in September 1661, continued through petition and formal examination, and did not fully end until his restoration to his former privileges in May 1662.
For Guthrie research, the value of this passage lies less in new biographical information about James himself than in the way it identifies a connected series of primary acts. His trial and condemnation continued to shape royal scrutiny of senior officeholders after his execution.
Editorial Introduction — Contextual Summary
Hume Brown explains that on 13 September 1661 an order arrived for the arrest and imprisonment of the Earl of Tweeddale in Edinburgh Castle. The accusation was that, during the late Parliament’s trial of James Guthrie, Tweeddale had shown sympathy toward the accused in a case treated as high treason.
Tweeddale was imprisoned, though not as a close prisoner. He soon petitioned the Council, expressing distress at the King’s displeasure and seeking either release or confinement at his own house at Bothans. The Council transmitted the substance of his petition to Charles II.
The King’s response allowed Tweeddale’s release from the Castle but required a report concerning his conduct at Guthrie’s trial. A special commission examined him, and councillors who had been present in Parliament reported that he had not voted with the majority on the measures that condemned Guthrie. Suspicion nevertheless continued, and Hume Brown notes that Tweeddale was not restored to his former privileges and liberties until May 1662.
Plain-Language Reading
James Guthrie’s execution did not end the political consequences of his case. Months later, Charles II’s government was still examining how individual councillors had spoken and voted during the trial. Tweeddale’s perceived lack of support for the proceedings against Guthrie was serious enough to lead to imprisonment, investigation and a prolonged loss of royal confidence.
The introduction therefore functions as a roadmap: p. 37 records the royal imprisonment order; p. 41 concerns Tweeddale’s petition; pp. 53–54 order his examination; pp. 60–61 report the result; and p. 206 records the later restoration of his privileges.
This is the editorial key to the principal James Guthrie sequence in the opening portion of Volume 1. It demonstrates that his Parliamentary trial became a continuing political test after his death. For a genealogical biography, that helps explain the national significance of his case without treating each later reference as an isolated mention.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- High treason: the category of offence under which the Parliamentary proceedings against James Guthrie were pursued.
- Close prisoner: a prisoner held under stricter confinement; the order concerning Tweeddale expressly stated that he was not to be kept as a close prisoner.
- Declaration under his hand: a signed written statement, later required from Tweeddale during the investigation.
- Former privileges and liberties: the political and personal freedoms restored to Tweeddale after the period of restraint.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), Introduction, pp. xi–xii. Related primary entries: pp. 37, 41, 53–54, 60–61 and 206. Parliamentary comparison: Records of the Parliaments of Scotland, 1661 treason process of Mr James Guthrie.
13 September 1661 · Royal Order to Imprison the Earl of Tweeddale over His Conduct at James Guthrie’s Trial
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 37 · Royal letter dated 7 September 1661
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
At the Council meeting of 13 September 1661 the Lord Chancellor produced a royal letter sent from Whitehall on 7 September. Charles II stated that he had received information about speeches made by the Earl of Tweeddale during the trial of James Guthrie. Because those speeches were reported as tending to the prejudice of royal authority, the King ordered Tweeddale imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle pending investigation or further royal instructions.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
Edinburgh, 13th September 1661.
Sederunt:— Chancellor; Eglintoun; Roxburgh; Haddingtoun; Dundy; Lord President of Session; Lord Register; Lord Advocate; Lord Lie; Sir Archibald Stewart; Sir Robert Murray, Provost of Edinburgh.
“A letter from his Majesty for committing the Earle Tueiddale prisoner in the castle of Edinburgh was produced be the Lord Chancellor and read, the tennor whereof followes:— Sic superscribitur, CHARLES R.
Right trusty and right weilbeloved cousin and councellor, right trusty and weilbeloved cousins and councellors, right trusty and weilbeloved councellors and trusty and weilbeloved councellors, wee greet yow weill. Having received information of some speeches uttered by the Earl of Tueiddale in the tryall of James Guthrie, lattie attainted and executed, which speeches (as we are informed) did tend much to the prejudice of our authority, these are, therefor, to requyre yow to committ the said Earle of Tueiddale prisoner in our Castell of Edinburgh, there to remain untill we have examined the busines or till we shall declare our further pleasure, and that he be keipt in durance within our castle but not as a close prisoner; and so we bid yow heartily fairweill. Given at our court at Whitehall, the seventh day of September, 1661, and of our reigne the 13 yeare. By his Majesties command. So subscryved, Lauderdale.”
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 13 September 1661. The Lord Chancellor produced and read a letter from the King ordering the imprisonment of the Earl of Tweeddale in Edinburgh Castle.
Charles II told the Privy Council that he had received information concerning speeches made by Tweeddale during the trial of James Guthrie, recently attainted and executed. The King had been informed that these speeches were prejudicial to royal authority.
He therefore ordered the Council to commit Tweeddale to Edinburgh Castle until the matter could be examined or the King issued further instructions. Tweeddale was to remain confined in the Castle, but he was not to be treated as a close prisoner. The letter was dated at Whitehall on 7 September 1661 and sent by royal command through Lauderdale.
This is the opening primary act in the Tweeddale sequence. It proves that three months after James Guthrie’s execution, his trial remained politically consequential enough that the King’s interpretation of a councillor’s behaviour during that proceeding could trigger imprisonment.
For the James Guthrie biography, the phrase “lattie attainted and executed” also provides a contemporary governmental description of his legal status immediately after the Parliamentary process.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Attainted: subjected to the legal consequences of conviction for treason, including forfeiture.
- Durance: confinement or imprisonment.
- Close prisoner: a prisoner kept under stricter confinement; the King expressly directed that Tweeddale was not to be held in that manner.
- Sic superscribitur: “thus it is written above,” indicating the royal superscription or signature heading.
- Sederunt: the councillors recorded as present at the meeting.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 37. Royal letter dated Whitehall, 7 September 1661; read before the Council at Edinburgh, 13 September 1661.
13 September 1661 · Major John Guthry Petitions for Release from the Edinburgh Tolbooth
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 39
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Major John Guthry told the Council that he had been imprisoned for five months following an accusation by William Laurence, an Englishman, concerning the robbery and spoiling of Laurence’s house. Guthry maintained that the accuser had failed to pursue the case, had not provided the maintenance required during the imprisonment, and had left him in severe want. He also stated that he had produced certificates supporting an alibi.
The Council did not determine the robbery accusation. Instead, because no one was insisting on bringing Guthry to trial, it ordered his release upon surety that he would appear if lawfully cited.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
[Sederunt as recorded above.]
Supplication by Major John Guthry, prisoner within the tolbooth of Edinburgh, as follows:— Five months ago on the naked assertion of William Laurence, an Englishman, he was imprisoned by order of the Lord Chancellor on suspicion of being concerned in the robbery and spoiling of the house of the said William Laurence, who was “ordained to putt in band and bale for legall persute within two dayes after his committment to the effect the petitioner might sustaine no prejudice by his imprisonment, and that he might be intertained be the same William in the mean tyme.” The supplicant has petitioned the Justice Deputes for trial and has produced certificates under the hands of “famous gentlemen declaring that he was never thrie myles distant from Edinburgh thrie months before nor thrie months after the alleged committing of that fact.” But the said William has taken no steps for his trial, nor allowed anything for his maintenance, and he is in very great straits and at the point of starving. He craves their Lordships’ compassion and their order for his release.
The Lords, in regard that no one is insisting for his trial, ordain the magistrates of Edinburgh to release the supplicant upon his finding caution to compear for trial when lawfully cited.
Modern English Rendering
Major John Guthry, then imprisoned in the Edinburgh tolbooth, petitioned the Privy Council for release. He said that about five months earlier William Laurence, an Englishman, had accused him of involvement in robbing and plundering Laurence’s house.
Guthry had been imprisoned by order of the Lord Chancellor. Laurence had been required to provide bond and surety to pursue the prosecution promptly and to maintain Guthry in the meantime.
Guthry stated that he had asked the criminal judges to bring him to trial and had produced certificates signed by reputable gentlemen asserting that, for three months before and three months after the alleged robbery, he had never been more than three miles from Edinburgh.
According to the petition, Laurence nevertheless had taken no steps to prosecute him and had provided nothing for his maintenance, leaving Guthry in severe hardship and near starvation.
Because no one was actively pursuing a trial, the Council ordered the Edinburgh magistrates to release Guthry once he provided caution guaranteeing that he would appear for trial whenever lawfully summoned.
The entry gives a precise date and place for Major John Guthry, preserves his military style, and documents his imprisonment in Edinburgh. It also records the legal mechanism by which an untried prisoner could seek relief when a private accuser failed to prosecute.
For genealogy, the designation “Major” is potentially valuable, but this act does not identify the regiment, army, place of origin, family, age or residence of the man. Those questions must therefore remain open.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Tolbooth: the burgh prison; here, the Old Tolbooth of Edinburgh.
- Naked assertion: a bare allegation unsupported, in the petitioner’s characterization, by sufficient proof.
- Band and bale for legall persute: bond and surety requiring an accuser to pursue the prosecution through lawful procedure.
- Justice Deputes: deputies exercising criminal jurisdiction.
- Finding caution: providing a surety who guaranteed the person’s future appearance.
- Compear: to appear formally before a court or other authority.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 39. The printed edition abridges the underlying supplication while preserving quoted portions of its wording.
September 1661 · Royal Direction to Examine Tweeddale about the Parliamentary Votes against James Guthrie
Third Series · Volume 1 · pp. 53–54
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Following Tweeddale’s imprisonment, the Crown required a more exact inquiry into what he had done during the Parliamentary proceedings against James Guthrie.
Senior councillors were appointed to examine Tweeddale personally in Edinburgh Castle. They were to question him about the individual votes taken during Guthrie’s process, obtain his signed declaration, and report the result back to the Council.
This record therefore moves the episode beyond the general allegation recorded on p. 37. The question was now not simply whether Tweeddale had made sympathetic speeches, but how he had actually behaved at the successive Parliamentary votes in Guthrie’s case.
Complete Printed Order — Original Register Text
“Ordered that in pursuance of his Majesties orders the Earls of Haddingtoun, Annandale and Callandar, the Lord President of the Session, Lord Register, Lord Advocatt and Lord Lie, doe examin the said Earle of Tweeddale at the castle of Edinburgh the morne at nyn of clock in the morneing anent his cariage at the late vote in Parliament which condemned James Guthrie, and to take his oune declaration under his hand upon the severall votes which past in that proces, whereupon he is to be interrogat and to report the same the nixt meitting.”
Modern English Rendering
In accordance with the King’s instructions, the Earls of Haddington, Annandale and Callendar, together with the President of the Court of Session, the Lord Register, the Lord Advocate and Lord Lee, were ordered to examine the Earl of Tweeddale in Edinburgh Castle at nine o’clock the following morning.
They were to question him about his conduct during the Parliamentary votes in the process that condemned James Guthrie. Tweeddale was to give a signed declaration explaining his position on the several votes taken during that process, and the examiners were to report their findings at the next Council meeting.
The entry shows that Guthrie’s prosecution involved several separate Parliamentary votes, sufficiently important that Tweeddale was required to explain his conduct at each of them.
For research on Rev. James Guthrie, this is a useful bridge between the RPCS material and the surviving Parliamentary treason process. The latter should be used to identify the stages and decisions to which Tweeddale’s later examination referred.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Cariage: conduct or behaviour.
- Severall votes which past in that proces: the individual Parliamentary decisions taken during the proceedings.
- Declaration under his hand: a written statement authenticated by Tweeddale’s own signature.
- Interrogat: formally questioned or examined.
- Morne at nyn of clock: the following morning at nine o’clock.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), pp. 53–54. Compare the preceding royal order at p. 37 and the examination report at pp. 60–61.
1661 · Guthrie Commissioners Named in the Issobell Syrie Witchcraft Proceeding
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 57
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council ordered a commission to be issued for the trial of Issobell Syrie, an inhabitant of Forfar. Three men bearing the Guthrie surname were included among the proposed commissioners: Gideon Guthry of Halkertoun, Alexander Guthrie of Carsbank, and Thomas Guthrie, one of the bailies of Forfar.
The Council record states that Syrie had confessed to witchcraft, including a pact with the devil and renunciation of baptism. Even so, the Council imposed explicit conditions on any trial and punishment. A guilty finding was to depend either upon a voluntary confession obtained without torture or indirect means, or upon harmful acts being otherwise legally established and proved.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
“Ordered that commission be direct to Patrik Kairncrose of Balmishanner, Mr Thomas Huntar of Restennett, David Huntar of Burnsyd, Gideon Guthry of Halkertoun, Alexander Guthrie of Carsbank, Alexander Scott, provest of Forfar, Thomas Guthrie and David Dicksone, baylies there, or any fyve of them, for putting of Issobell Syrie, indueller in Forfar, who hath confest the abominable sin of witchcraft in entering into paction with the divell, renunceing her baptisme and otherwayes, as there depositiones beares, to ane legall tryal, and, if she shall be found guilty upon voluntar confession, without any sort of torture or other indirect meanes used against her to bring her to ane confession, or that malifices be otherwayes legally instructed and proven, that then and in that case and no otherwayes they cause justice be administrat upon her conforme to the lawes of the kingdome. Subscribitur ut proxima supra.”
Modern English Rendering
The Council ordered a commission to be issued to Patrick Cairncross of Balmashanner, Mr Thomas Hunter of Restennett, David Hunter of Burnside, Gideon Guthry of Halkertoun, Alexander Guthrie of Carsbank, Alexander Scott, provost of Forfar, and Thomas Guthrie and David Dickson, bailies of Forfar, or any five of them.
They were authorised to place Issobell Syrie, a resident of Forfar, on lawful trial. The Council record states that she had confessed to witchcraft, including entering into a pact with the devil and renouncing her baptism.
If she were found guilty upon a voluntary confession, provided no torture or other improper means had been used to obtain it, or if harmful acts of witchcraft were otherwise lawfully established and proved, the commissioners could administer justice according to the laws of the kingdom. They were authorised to proceed only under those conditions.
This record introduces a significant Third Series research theme: Guthries participating in witchcraft proceedings as local judicial officers.
The appearance of three Guthrie commissioners in a single Forfar proceeding is genealogically notable, but the record itself does not explain whether they were related to one another. Territorial and civic designations must therefore be preserved: Halkertoun, Carsbank, and baillie of Forfar.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Commission direct: a commission ordered to be issued to named persons.
- Indueller: inhabitant or resident.
- Paction with the divell: an alleged pact with the devil, a recurring component of Scottish witchcraft accusations and confessions.
- Voluntar confession: a confession regarded as freely made rather than coerced.
- Malifices: harmful acts attributed to witchcraft.
- Legally instructed and proven: established by evidence in accordance with legal procedure.
- Or any fyve of them: the quorum required from among the named commissioners.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 57. See also the resulting formal commission at p. 74 and the later Forfar commission at p. 122.
3 October 1661 · Council Reports on Tweeddale’s Votes during James Guthrie’s Trial
Third Series · Volume 1 · pp. 60–61
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This is the principal report arising from the investigation ordered after Tweeddale’s imprisonment. A special group of councillors examined him in Edinburgh Castle regarding his conduct at the several Parliamentary votes in James Guthrie’s trial.
Tweeddale supplied his own signed declaration. When that declaration was considered in Council, members who had also been present in Parliament stated that, as they remembered the proceedings, Tweeddale had not joined in the affirmative votes on the articles that had passed against Guthrie.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 3rd October 1661.
“The Lords appointed to draw up the report and letter to be sent to his Majesty concerning the Earle of Tueiddale gave in the draughts following, which were read and approven:—
Having mett at Edinburgh the first of October instant in pursuance of his Majesties commands sent by a letter of the date the tuentie thrid day of September last, the Lords of Councill did commissionat the Earles of Haddingtoun, Annandale and Callendar, the Lords President of Session, Register, Advocatt and Sir James Lokhart, ane of the Senatours of the Colledge of Justice, to examin him at the castle of Edinburgh the nixt day, who accordingly did interrogat him upon his cariage at the severall votes past in Parliament at Guthries tryall, and did returne his answer and declaration under his hand, which being examined in Councill, all of their number who were members of Parliament and present when the saids votes were past, did affirme that as to all these articles of the declaration they did remember that he went not alongst with any of them in the affirmative which past in Parliament. Sic subscribitur, Glencairne, Cancelᵘˢ; Rothes; Eglintoun; Linlithgow; Wigtoun; Kellie; Sinclair; G. Kinnaird; A. Bruce; Rᵗ Murray.”
“Followes the letter sent to his Majesty. Most sacred soverreigne, In obedience of your Majesties letter, of the date the tuenty thrid of September last, we have proceed to the examination of the Earl of Tueiddale, whereof we have sent a report with all instructions relating thereto for clearing the whole matter … Sic subscribitur, Glencairne, Cancelᵘˢ; Rothes; Eglintoun; Linlithgow; Wigtoun; Annandale; Sinclair; Mortoun; Roxburgh; Kellie; Haddingtoune; Jo. Kilmoir; A. Bruce; G. Kinnaird; J. Lokhart; R. Murray.”
Modern English Rendering
On 3 October 1661 the councillors appointed to prepare the report and accompanying letter to the King concerning the Earl of Tweeddale submitted their drafts, which the Council read and approved.
The report stated that the Council had met on 1 October in response to royal commands contained in a letter dated 23 September. The Earls of Haddington, Annandale and Callendar, together with senior legal officers and Sir James Lockhart, were commissioned to examine Tweeddale in Edinburgh Castle the following day.
They questioned him concerning his conduct at the several votes taken in Parliament during James Guthrie’s trial. Tweeddale gave his answers and a signed declaration.
When the declaration was examined by the Privy Council, those councillors who had themselves been members of Parliament and present when the votes were taken stated that, so far as they remembered, Tweeddale had not joined in the affirmative on any of the articles in his declaration that had passed against Guthrie.
An accompanying letter informed the King that the examination had been carried out and that the Council was sending its report and supporting material so that the matter could be fully clarified.
This is the strongest finding in the immediate Tweeddale sequence. The inquiry did not merely record Tweeddale’s own version of events; councillors who had been present during the Parliamentary process compared their memories with his declaration and stated that he had not joined the affirmative votes on the relevant articles against James Guthrie.
For Guthrie researchers, the record confirms how closely political loyalty was measured against conduct during James’s prosecution. His case remained an active matter of royal concern months after his execution.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Commissionat: formally appointed or authorised as commissioners.
- Cariage at the severall votes: conduct or voting behaviour during the individual Parliamentary decisions.
- Declaration under his hand: Tweeddale’s signed written statement.
- Went not alongst … in the affirmative: did not join those voting in favour of the propositions or findings that passed.
- Sic subscribitur: “thus it is subscribed,” introducing the names attached to the report or letter.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), pp. 60–61. This entry continues the sequence beginning with the royal order at p. 37 and the examination direction at pp. 53–54.
7 November 1661 · Formal Commission for the Trial of Issobell Syrie of Forfar
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 74
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This is the formal commission arising from the Council’s earlier order at p. 57. It empowers named local landholders and burgh officials to constitute a court for the trial of Issobell Syrie of Forfar.
The commission is particularly useful because the original surviving document has also been published independently among the Forfar witchcraft papers. That fuller text shows the extent of the commissioners’ authority and makes clear that they were also empowered to secure and examine other people subsequently accused.
Complete Surviving Commission — Original Text
Charles be the grace of God King of Great Britane France and Ireland defender of the faith to all and sundry our leidges and subjects whom it efferis to whose knowledge thir our letters shall come greitting Forsameikle as Issobel Syrrie indweller in Forfar hes confest the abominable cryme of witchcraft in entering into paction with the divell renuncing hir baptism and otherwayes as hir depositions in presence of divers famous witnesses beares therefore wee with advyce and consent of the Lords of our Privy Councll have granted and given and by these presents gives and grantes our full power authority expresse bidding and charge to our lovitts Patrick Cairncrosse of Balmishanner Mr Thomas Huntar of Restennett David Huntar of Burnsyde Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoune Alex. Guthry of Carsbank Alex. Scott provest of Forfar Thomas Guthrie and David Dickson baylies there or any fyve of them to meitt at such tymes and places as they shall think most convenient and there to affix and hold courts call suits amerciat absents uplift unlawes and amerciaments and creat clerks sergands demsters and all other members of court neidful.
And in their said courts to call the said Issobell Syrrie and to put her to her tryall and to the knowledge of ane assyse and if she shall be found guilty upon volunteer confession without any sort of torture or any other indirect meanes used against her to bring her to ane confession or that malefices be otherwayes legally instructed and proven that then and in that case and no otherwayes they cause justice be administrat and execute upon her conform to the lawes of this kingdome And to doe all other things necessary to the execution of this [commission according to] the lawes of the kingdome.
With power also to the said [Commissioners] or any fyve of them to secure such others as are or shall be delate guilty and to examine them and to use all fair meanes without any sort of torture for their tryall and bringing them to the confession of their sinnes.
Given under our Signett at Edinburgh the sevent day of November and of our reigne the threttienth yeare 1661.
GLENCAIRNE Cancellarius. JO. GILMOUR.
ROTHES. JO. FLETCHER.
LINLITHGOW. J. LOCKHART.
HOME. ROBT. MURRAY.
Modern English Rendering
Charles II, with the advice and consent of his Privy Council, declared that Issobell Syrie of Forfar had confessed to witchcraft, including entering into a pact with the devil and renouncing her baptism.
The King therefore authorised Patrick Cairncross of Balmashanner, Mr Thomas Hunter of Restennett, David Hunter of Burnside, Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun, Alexander Guthry of Carsbank, Alexander Scott, provost of Forfar, and Thomas Guthrie and David Dickson, bailies there—or any five of them—to meet when and where they considered appropriate and constitute a court.
They could call suits, fine absentees, collect penalties, appoint clerks, officers and dempsters, and perform the other acts necessary for a functioning criminal court.
They were authorised to place Issobell Syrie before an assize. If she were found guilty upon a voluntary confession obtained without torture or other improper means, or if harmful acts attributed to witchcraft were otherwise lawfully proved, they could administer and execute justice according to the laws of the kingdom. They were authorised to proceed only on those conditions.
The commissioners—or any five of them—were additionally empowered to secure other people who had been or might later be accused, examine them, and use fair means, expressly without torture, in investigating them.
The commission was issued under the royal signet at Edinburgh on 7 November 1661.
This document places three Guthries directly within the machinery of local criminal justice in Forfar: Gideon of Halkertoun, Alexander of Carsbank and Thomas Guthrie, bailie.
It is also more revealing than a simple statement that they were “commissioners.” They were empowered to constitute a court, summon an assize, appoint officers and carry the proceeding through to judgment and execution if the legal conditions stated in the commission were satisfied.
Most importantly for the developing Guthrie witchcraft research thread, the commission also authorised the commissioners to secure and examine other persons who were or might thereafter be accused. That provision provides a documentary bridge into the broader Forfar prosecutions that follow.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Knowledge of ane assyse: determination by a jury or assize.
- Amerciat absents: fine persons who failed to appear.
- Unlawes / amerciaments: monetary penalties or fines imposed by the court.
- Dempster: court officer traditionally responsible for formally pronouncing doom or sentence.
- Delate guilty: accused, denounced or reported as guilty.
- Under our Signett: issued under royal authority using the Signet.
Sources: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 74; Joseph Anderson, “The Confessions of the Forfar Witches (1661), from the Original Documents in the Society’s Library,” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, vol. 22 (1887–88), pp. 255–256.
17 December 1661 · Helen Guthéry and Elspeth Guthrie Named among Accused Witches in Forfar
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 122
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 17 December 1661 the Privy Council ordered another Forfarshire witchcraft commission. This entry is especially significant for Guthrie research because people bearing the surname appear on both sides of the proceeding.
Alexander Guthrie of Carsbank and Thomas Guthrie, bailie of Forfar, were among the commissioners. Helen Guthéry and Elspeth Guthrie were among the accused persons whom the Council record states had confessed themselves guilty of witchcraft.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
Edinburgh, 17th December 1661.
Sederunt:— Chancellor; Rothes, President; Mortoun; Linlithgow; Southesk; Callandar; Annandale; Halkertoun; President of Session; Advocate; Lord Lie; Alexander Bruce; Provost of Edinburgh.
“Commission is ordered to be direct to Patrik Cairncroce of Balmashanner, Mr Thomas Huntar of Restennett, David Huntar of Burnsyd, Gideon Murray of Halkertoun, James Keith of Cadam, shireff deputt, Alexander Guthrie of Carsbank, Alexander Scott, provest of Forfar, Thomas Guthrie and David Dicksons, baylies there, or any thrie of them, the said James Keith being alwayes one, for trying and judging of Helen Cothall, Helen Guthéry and Elspeth Guthrie in the paroch of Forfar and Issobell Smith in the paroch of Otholl, who have confest themselves to be guiltie of the cryme of witchcraft. Subscribitur, Glencarne, Rothes, Mortoun, Linlithgow, Southesk, Callander, Annandale, Halkertoun, Jo. Gilmoir, Rᵗ Murray.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council ordered a commission to be issued to Patrick Cairncross of Balmashanner, Mr Thomas Hunter of Restennett, David Hunter of Burnside, Gideon Murray of Halkertoun, James Keith of Caddam, sheriff-depute, Alexander Guthrie of Carsbank, Alexander Scott, provost of Forfar, and Thomas Guthrie and David Dickson, bailies there.
Any three of those commissioners could act, provided James Keith was always one of them.
They were authorised to try and judge Helen Cothall, Helen Guthéry and Elspeth Guthrie of the parish of Forfar, and Issobell Smith of the parish of Oathlaw. The Council entry states that these women had confessed themselves guilty of the crime of witchcraft.
This is one of the strongest examples in the Third Series of Guthries appearing on opposite sides of the same legal machinery. Alexander of Carsbank and Thomas the bailie were exercising judicial authority, while Helen Guthéry and Elspeth Guthrie were accused persons facing trial.
It also confirms the recurring roles of Alexander and Thomas after the Issobell Syrie commission, showing that their participation was not confined to a single case.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Trying and judging: authority to conduct the criminal proceeding and reach judgment.
- Shireff deputt: deputy sheriff exercising local judicial authority.
- Any thrie … James Keith being alwayes one: three commissioners constituted a valid quorum, but James Keith was a mandatory member.
- Confest themselves to be guiltie: the Council’s statement that the accused had confessed; this does not substitute for examination of the surviving confession records themselves.
Sources: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 122. Companion primary material: Joseph Anderson, “The Confessions of the Forfar Witches (1661),” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, vol. 22 (1887–88), pp. 241–262.
1 April 1662 · William Guthry, Writer in Edinburgh, Attests George Nairne of Greens as Cautioner
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 190
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This previously omitted entry records the registration of a bond of caution by George Nairne of Greens for James Gordon, brother-german of Sir George Gordon of Geight.
The bond was intended to ensure that Mr Alexander Gregory of Netherdale, his wife, tenants and others could peaceably possess their lands, especially Frendraught and Netherdale.
At the end of the abstract, William Guthry, writer in Edinburgh, formally attests that George Nairne was financially sufficient to stand as cautioner.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 1st April 1662.
Registration by ______ of a bond of caution by George Nairne of Greens for James Gordon, brother german to Sir George Gordon of Geight, that Mr Alexander Gregory of Netherdale, his wife, tenants, etc., shall peaceably enjoy their lands, in special the lands and barony of Frendraught and Netherdale, under a penalty of 1000 merks; with clauses of relief and registration.
The deed is written by the said George Nairne, and dated at Aberdeen, 1st April, 1662; witnesses, Patrick Innes and Robert Mairnes.
William Guthry, writer in Edinburgh, attests the sufficiency of the cautioner.
Modern English Rendering
On 1 April 1662 a bond of caution was registered in which George Nairne of Greens stood as surety for James Gordon, the full brother of Sir George Gordon of Geight.
Nairne guaranteed that Mr Alexander Gregory of Netherdale, Gregory’s wife, tenants and other members of his household or interest would be allowed to possess their lands peaceably, particularly the lands and barony of Frendraught and Netherdale.
Failure to observe the obligation carried a penalty of 1,000 merks. The bond also contained the usual clauses permitting reimbursement of the cautioner and formal registration.
George Nairne wrote the deed himself at Aberdeen on 1 April 1662. Patrick Innes and Robert Mairnes witnessed it.
William Guthry, writer in Edinburgh, certified that Nairne possessed sufficient means to serve as surety.
This is a genuine Guthrie-bearing Council entry that was missing from the legacy Volume I Finding Aid.
It independently places William Guthry in the Edinburgh legal profession in April 1662 and shows him performing the professional task of assessing a cautioner’s financial sufficiency.
It also establishes that the material later printed at p. 657 is not an isolated miscellaneous-paper reference: the transaction had already entered the chronological Council record here on p. 190.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bond of caution: formal surety guaranteeing another person’s conduct.
- Brother german: full brother sharing both parents.
- Cautioner: the surety or guarantor.
- Sufficiency: adequate financial means to answer for the stated penalty.
- Clause of relief: provision allowing the surety to recover any loss from the person for whom he stood guarantee.
- Writer in Edinburgh: a professional legal writer practising in the capital; the source does not style William as a Writer to the Signet.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 190. Related surviving bond printed among the Miscellaneous Papers at p. 657.
12 June 1662 · James Guthry, Writer in Dundee, Petitions for His Sisters Margaret and Elizabeth
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 222
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
James Guthry, a writer practising in Dundee, petitioned the Privy Council on behalf of Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie, explicitly described as his sisters. The women were inhabitants of Montrose and had been imprisoned since January 1662 on accusations of witchcraft.
The petition describes repeated transfers between prisons, confinement in stocks, guards maintained at the prisoners’ expense, inadequate bedding and prolonged detention without a completed trial.
It also refers retrospectively to an earlier Council order of 22 May 1662, making this entry part of a longer procedural sequence than the printed Guthrie index alone might suggest.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 12th June 1662. [Sederunt as recorded above, omitting Rothes and Weymes.]
Supplication by James Guthry, writer in Dundy, in behalf of Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie, his sisters, indwellers at Montrose, as follows:—
On 10th January last his said sisters were incarcerated in separate prisons at Montrose on a charge of witchcraft “and from thence transported to Forfar, where they were imprisoned, putt in stocks and ane guard sett to everie one of them to their great expensses, all which while they could have scarce so much clean strae as to rest upon; and were thereafter transported to severall prison houses at Montrose, where they still ly in a most desolat and disconsolat condition.”
In answer to a former petition on 22nd May last the sheriff of Forfar and his deputies were ordained to try the petitioners and report, yet nothing has been done and the said prisoners are still “in ane lamentable condition.”
It is craved that the sheriff or his deputies be ordained to liberate the prisoners, seeing “there is nothing confest be them nor proven against them,” and they are content to find caution for abiding their trial when lawfully charged, “or else that some able and judicious gentlemen unsuspect of any prejudice against them might be ordained to take tryall of what is alledgit and to report.”
The Lords ordain the sheriff-principal of Forfar or his deputies “to cause putt the saids Margaret and Elizabeth Guthries to a legall tryall according to the knoune lawes of this kingdom without any tortur, pricking or other indirect meanes to be used against them and that betuixt and the tuelt day of July nixttocum,” and if they are then found not guilty they and the magistrates of Montrose, in whose prison they are, are to put them to liberty.
Modern English Rendering
On 12 June 1662 James Guthry, a writer in Dundee, petitioned the Privy Council for his sisters Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie, residents of Montrose.
James stated that the sisters had been imprisoned separately in Montrose on 10 January on accusations of witchcraft. They were then taken to Forfar, confined in stocks and kept under guard at their own expense. During that imprisonment they had scarcely enough clean straw upon which to lie. They were later moved back through several prisons in Montrose, where they remained in what the petition described as a desolate and distressed condition.
A previous petition had resulted in a Council order on 22 May directing the sheriff of Forfar or his deputies to try the women and report. According to James, nothing had been done.
James therefore asked that his sisters be released, emphasizing that they had confessed nothing and that nothing had been proved against them. They were willing to provide surety to appear for trial whenever lawfully required. Alternatively, they asked that impartial and competent gentlemen investigate the allegations and report upon them.
The Privy Council ordered the sheriff-principal of Forfar or his deputies to bring Margaret and Elizabeth to a lawful trial under the known laws of Scotland, expressly forbidding torture, pricking or other indirect means. The trial was to occur by 12 July. If they were not found guilty by that date, they were to be released.
This is one of the strongest genealogical records in Third Series Volume 1 because it states a family relationship directly: James Guthry, writer in Dundee, was the brother of Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie of Montrose.
It therefore supplies a three-sibling family cluster anchored to two neighboring Angus burghs and gives James a specific professional identity useful for further research.
The record is also unusually informative about the lived consequences of a witchcraft accusation—months of imprisonment, transfers between jurisdictions, physical restraint, guards charged to the prisoners and repeated efforts to obtain either a trial or release.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Writer: a legal writer or practitioner engaged in preparation and handling of legal documents.
- Indwellers: inhabitants or residents of a particular burgh.
- Putt in stocks: physically restrained in stocks.
- Find caution: provide surety guaranteeing future appearance.
- Pricking: probing the body in a search for an alleged insensitive “witch’s mark,” a practice explicitly prohibited by the Council in this order.
- Nixttocum: next to come; here, the forthcoming 12 July.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 222. Compare the continuation of the case at p. 265.
16 September 1662 · Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie Ordered Released after Repeated Failures to Bring Them to Trial
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 265
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
By September 1662 Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie had been imprisoned for more than eight months following accusations of witchcraft. The present supplication reviews a remarkable sequence of earlier attempts to force the local authorities either to try the sisters lawfully or release them.
The petition states that the sisters were apprehended on 10 January. The Council intervened on 22 May; following another petition it again ordered a trial by 12 July; and after a third representation it issued another order on 8 August, requiring trial before 1 September. According to the September petition, all of these directions had been disregarded.
The Privy Council now ordered their release within twenty-four hours, subject to caution for future appearance if lawfully required.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 16th September 1662.
Supplication by Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie, indwellers in Montrose, as follows:—
“They were apprehended on 10th January last on a false charge of witchcraft and imprisoned, and in response to their petition their Lordships on 22nd May ordained the sheriff depute of Forfar to put them to a lawful trial without delay. But this was slighted and the petitioners were still kept in prison in a most lamentable condition, whereupon, being petitioned a second time, the Lords again ordained the supplicants to be tried before 12th July, or else put to liberty. This also was disregarded, and the petitioners were still ‘most cruelly detained and tormented in dungeons.’ On a third representation their Lordships on 8th August ordained the sheriff-principal or his deputies to try them before 1st September, and this has likewise been disregarded, wherefore they crave that they may now be liberated, ‘or putt of the world, which will be more comfortable to them then the present unexpressable misery they doe sustaine.’”
The Lords command Keith of Caddam, sheriff depute of Forfar, or the provost and bailies of Montrose to put the supplicants to liberty within twenty-four hours on finding caution to appear to their trial before any judge competent when required.
Modern English Rendering
Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie of Montrose petitioned the Privy Council after having remained imprisoned since 10 January 1662 on accusations of witchcraft.
They stated that the Council had already ordered the sheriff-depute of Forfar on 22 May to bring them promptly to a lawful trial. That order was ignored.
After a second petition the Council again required that they be tried by 12 July or released. That order was also ignored, and the women said they remained cruelly confined in dungeons.
Following a third representation, the Council issued another order on 8 August requiring the sheriff-principal or his deputies to try them before 1 September. That deadline too passed without compliance.
The sisters now asked to be released, saying that death would be preferable to the misery of their continuing imprisonment.
The Council finally commanded Keith of Caddam, sheriff-depute of Forfar, or the provost and bailies of Montrose to release Margaret and Elizabeth within twenty-four hours once they provided caution to appear before a competent judge if subsequently required for trial.
This entry supplies the procedural resolution of the imprisonment documented at p. 222. Margaret and Elizabeth had remained confined from 10 January until at least 16 September 1662—more than eight months—without the lawful trial repeatedly ordered by the Privy Council.
Combined with p. 222, it establishes a valuable family cluster: James Guthry, writer in Dundee, and his sisters Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie of Montrose.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Supplication / representation: a formal petition or renewed application to the Council.
- Sheriff-depute: local judicial officer acting for the sheriff-principal.
- Put to liberty: release from imprisonment.
- Finding caution: providing a surety guaranteeing future appearance.
- Judge competent: a judge having lawful jurisdiction to hear the case.
- “Putt of the world”: put to death; the sisters’ expression that execution would be preferable to continued imprisonment.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 265. Continuation of the case recorded at p. 222. Earlier Council interventions recited here: 22 May, 12 June and 8 August 1662.
28 November 1662 · Thomas Guthrie, Burgess of Edinburgh, Witnesses a Bond of Caution
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 300
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Patrick Fraser, advocate, registered a bond involving William Hamilton of Gilkerscleugh, younger, William Lindsay of Birthwood and Matthew Baillie in Crawford.
The bond concerned caution for Matthew Baillie to keep the peace under a penalty of 10,000 merks. At the end of the instrument, Thomas Guthrie, burgess of Edinburgh, appears as one of two witnesses.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 28th November 1662.
Registration by Patrick Fraser, advocate, of a bond by William Hamiltone of Gilkerscleugh, younger, narrating that on 7th October last William Lindsaye of Birthwood became cautioner for Matthew Baillie in the town of Crawford to observe the peace under penalty of 10,000 merks, and now the said William Hamilton becomes conjoint cautioner for him; with clause of relief by the said Matthew Baillie.
This bond is written by Hew Stevensone, servitor to James Wright, writer, and is dated at Edinburgh, 28th November 1662; witnesses, the said Hew Stevinsone and Thomas Guthrie, burgess of Edinburgh.
Modern English Rendering
Patrick Fraser, advocate, registered a bond made by William Hamilton of Gilkerscleugh, younger.
The bond stated that William Lindsay of Birthwood had previously become surety for Matthew Baillie in Crawford, guaranteeing that Baillie would keep the peace under a penalty of 10,000 merks. William Hamilton now joined him as an additional surety, while Matthew Baillie undertook to reimburse or protect them from loss.
The bond was written by Hew Stevenson, servant or clerk to James Wright, writer, and dated at Edinburgh on 28 November 1662. Hew Stevenson and Thomas Guthrie, burgess of Edinburgh, witnessed it.
Although this is a routine legal witness appearance, the designation “burgess of Edinburgh” gives Thomas Guthrie a useful civic identity and a precise date in the capital.
Such apparently minor witness references can become important when combined with burgess admissions, marriage records, testaments, sasines and other legal instruments.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bond of caution: a formal surety obligation guaranteeing another person’s conduct or appearance.
- Conjoint cautioner: an additional or joint surety.
- Clause of relief: provision protecting the surety by requiring the principal debtor or obligated person to reimburse losses.
- Burgess: a formally admitted citizen of a Scottish burgh with associated civic and trading rights.
- Merk: Scottish money of account worth 13 shillings 4 pence Scots.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 300.
12 February 1663 · Stipend for the Vacant Kirk of Guthrie
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 333 · Place-name reference
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Mr Walter Keith petitioned for payment after serving the vacant parish of Guthrie. The local elders and deacons had called him to minister there on 7 October 1660, and he had subsequently preached and served the cure.
Because of unsettled church government, however, Keith had not yet obtained formal presentation and collation. He therefore asked the Privy Council to order the heritors and others liable for the stipend to pay him for 1661 and 1662.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 12th February 1663.
Supplication by Mr Walter Keith, preacher, as follows:—
“The kirk of Guthery being vacand without a minister, and he being by the Lords providence called by the elders and deacons of the said paroch to serve in the ministry ther, as by their act of the sevint of October, 1660, doeth in itself at more lenth testifie, and having accordingly embraced that call and served the cure by preaching, yet, in regard to the troblesomnes of the tyme and the unsettlednes of church government, he hath not gotten a formal presentation and collation as yet. Bot being he hath discharged that deuty which becomes a minister of the gospel all this tyme bygane by preaching the Word, and that the stipend 1661 and 1662 is yet undisposed upon, which is very inconsiderable,” he craves that the heritors and others liable therin may be ordained to pay the same to him.
The Lords ordain as craved.
Modern English Rendering
Walter Keith explained that the church of Guthrie was vacant and without a formally settled minister.
The parish elders and deacons had called him on 7 October 1660 to serve there as a minister. He accepted that call and had performed the ministry by preaching.
Because of the troubled political and ecclesiastical circumstances and the unsettled state of church government, he had not yet received formal presentation and collation.
Since he had nevertheless performed the duties of a minister and the stipends for 1661 and 1662 remained undisposed of, he asked that the parish heritors and others legally responsible for payment be ordered to pay him.
The Privy Council granted the request.
This is not evidence for a person surnamed Guthrie. It is evidence concerning the parish and kirk of Guthrie in Angus.
It is nevertheless valuable to Guthrie place-history because it documents local ecclesiastical administration during the transition surrounding the Restoration and records the parish’s elders and deacons exercising a local call to a preacher before formal settlement.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Vacand: vacant; without a formally settled minister.
- Serve the cure: perform the pastoral duties of the parish ministry.
- Presentation: formal nomination of a minister to a benefice or parish.
- Collation: formal ecclesiastical admission or institution following presentation.
- Heritors: local landholders liable for specified parish obligations, including support of the minister.
- Stipend: the minister’s annual financial support or salary.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 333. The Guthrie reference is to the parish/kirk, not an individual.
14 July 1663 · John Gutherey, Minister at Tarbolton, Summoned before the Privy Council
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 389
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council stated that it had received information concerning the allegedly turbulent and seditious conduct of ten ministers, including John Gutherey at Tarboltoun.
Macers or messengers-at-arms were ordered to summon the ministers to appear before the Council on 23 July 1663 to answer whatever matters would then be laid to their charge. Failure to appear carried the threat of being put to the horn or otherwise proceeded against under the “pain of rebellion.”
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
Edinburgh, 14th July 1663.
“The Lords of his Majesties Privy Councill, being informed of the turbulent and seditious cariag of the persons underwrettin, viz.:— Masters Alexander Livingstoun, late minister at Biggar, Mathew McKell at Bothwell, John Gutherey at Tarboltoun, Jon Blair at Machlen, Jon Shaw at Selkirk, George Jonstoun at Newbotle, Jon Hardy at Gordon, Archibald Hamilton at Wigtoun, Georg Wauch at Kirkinneir, and Anthony Murray at Kirkbean, doe therefore ordaine macers or messengers at armes, to charge the said persons to appear before them the tuentie thrid day of July instant to ansuer to such thinges as shall be laid to their charge under the paine of rebellion, etc.”
Modern English Rendering
On 14 July 1663 the Privy Council stated that it had been informed of the turbulent and seditious conduct of a group of ministers, among them John Gutherey at Tarbolton.
The Council therefore ordered its macers or messengers-at-arms to summon all of the named ministers to appear before it on 23 July.
They were to answer whatever accusations would then be brought against them. Failure to obey the summons would expose them to proceedings under the legal penalty of rebellion.
This is considerably more genealogically useful once the minister is securely identified. Independent ecclesiastical evidence identifies John Guthrie of Tarbolton as a member of the Pitforthie Guthrie family.
Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae identifies him as the son of James Guthrie of Pitforthie and connects him with two other Guthrie ministers: William Guthrie of Fenwick and Alexander Guthrie of Stracathro.
The RPCS entry therefore belongs not only to the history of Restoration religious policy but also to a well-defined ministerial branch of the Pitforthie family.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Turbulent and seditious cariag: the government’s characterization of allegedly disruptive or politically disloyal conduct.
- Macer: an officer attached to a Scottish court or council who served summonses and performed official duties.
- Messenger-at-arms: an officer authorised to serve formal legal documents and execute court orders.
- Pain of rebellion: legal warning that failure to obey the summons could lead to the person being formally denounced as a rebel.
Sources: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 389. Genealogical identification: Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, Volume III, p. 75, parish of Tarbolton and Barnweil.
16 February 1664 · John Guthery, Late Provost of Irvine, Ordered to Conduct a New Burgh Election
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 507
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Several burgesses and inhabitants of Irvine petitioned the Privy Council because the burgh government could no longer form a working quorum.
Many current magistrates and councillors were absent in England and Ireland on mercantile business, while the Dean of Guild had died. This prevented the existing administration from completing the required report concerning subscription of the Parliamentary Declaration by persons holding public office.
The Council therefore authorised John Guthery, late provost, together with two bailies and the previous year’s councillors, to hold a new formal election.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 16th February 1664.
Supplication by several of the burgesses and inhabitants of Irving, as follows:—
“There being an election of magistrates and council in the burgh for the present year, and now the most part of these being necessarily abroad in England and Ireland about their merchandise, and the Dean of Guild removed by death, so that there is not a quorum of the magistrates and council to return a report anent the Declaration which their Lordships have appointed to be subscribed presently by all persons in public trust, the petitioners, thinking it may be to the prejudice of their burgh unless a new election take place, crave order therefor.”
The Lords, having considered the matter, “authorises, commands and ordaines John Guthery, late provest, Allan Cumin and Allan Cunyngham, baylies, and the persons who were councellours the last year, 1663, to convene themselves with all diligence and to proceed to a new and formal election of magistratts and councell for this present year, conform to the laws and acts of borrowes and former constitution of the said burgh, of such persons as will subscryve the declaration appointed to be the Parliament to be taken be all persons in publict trust, to the effect the persons so to be elected may accordingly subscryve the Declaration and report the same to the Councill, they giving ane accompt of their diligence thereanent betuixt and this day tuenty dayes peremptorly.”
Modern English Rendering
Several burgesses and residents of Irvine explained that although magistrates and councillors had been elected for the current year, many of them were away in England and Ireland conducting their mercantile business.
The Dean of Guild had also died. As a result, too few magistrates and councillors remained to form a quorum and report on the Parliamentary Declaration that all persons holding public trust had been ordered to subscribe.
The petitioners feared that the burgh would suffer unless a new election could be held.
The Privy Council therefore authorised and commanded John Guthery, former provost, Bailies Allan Cumin and Allan Cunningham, and those who had been councillors during 1663 to assemble promptly and conduct a new formal election according to the laws governing royal burghs and Irvine’s established constitution.
They were to elect persons willing to subscribe the Parliamentary Declaration and report their compliance to the Council within twenty days.
The designation “late provest” establishes that John Guthery had already held Irvine’s highest civic office before February 1664.
His selection to resolve a breakdown in the town’s government also shows that he retained sufficient standing and trust to be placed at the center of a new municipal election.
The entry additionally places him within Irvine’s mercantile and civic environment at a time when local government was being tied closely to national political declarations.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Provost: chief magistrate of a Scottish royal burgh.
- Bailie: municipal magistrate serving below or alongside the provost.
- Dean of Guild: senior burgh officer associated with merchants, trade and regulation of buildings and property.
- Quorum: minimum number of members required to conduct valid official business.
- Persons in public trust: people holding public office who were subject to the required Parliamentary Declaration.
- Peremptorly: within a fixed deadline not intended to be extended.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 507.
16 June 1664 · Mr Hary Guthrie of Kilspindie Seeks Payment of a £150 Parliamentary Allowance
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 550
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Mr Hary Guthrie, minister at Kilspindie, petitioned the Council concerning money that Parliament had ordered paid to him three years earlier.
The 1661 Parliamentary order had directed Mr John Wilkie to pay Guthrie £150 sterling from vacant stipends. By June 1664 he had still received nothing.
The Council did not itself identify a particular vacant stipend from which payment should be made. Instead, it recommended that the Archbishop of St Andrews provide a locality for the amount, while protecting any stipend to which John Wilkie already had a right.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 16th June 1664.
Supplication by Mr Hary Guthrie, minister at Kilspindy, as follows:—
“In 1661 he obtained an order of Parliament directed to Mr John Wilkie to make payment to him from the vacant stipends of the sum of £150 sterling; but none has been made as yet. He therefore craves that some course be taken to satisfy him thereof.”
The Lords recommend to the Archbishop of St. Andrews to grant a locality to the petitioner for the said sum out of the vacant stipends, “provydeing the same be not out of any stipends wherunto Mr John Wilkie hes right.”
Modern English Rendering
Mr Hary Guthrie, minister of Kilspindie, explained that Parliament had issued an order in 1661 directing Mr John Wilkie to pay him £150 sterling from revenues belonging to vacant church stipends.
Three years later no payment had been made, so Guthrie asked the Privy Council to provide a means by which the money could finally be paid.
The Council referred the matter to the Archbishop of St Andrews and recommended that Guthrie be assigned a specific portion of vacant-stipend revenue sufficient to satisfy the £150 claim, provided that no stipend already belonging to John Wilkie was used.
The old Volume I entry understates the significance of this man. Independent ecclesiastical evidence identifies Hary/Henry Guthrie of Kilspindie as a prominent seventeenth-century minister with earlier direct connections to both Guthrie parish and Stirling.
He had served at Stirling before his deposition in 1648, was restored to the ministry at Kilspindie in 1656, and was still there when this 1664 petition was made.
The following year, in 1665, he became Bishop of Dunkeld.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Vacant stipends: revenues belonging to parishes whose ministerial stipends were temporarily unoccupied or otherwise available for allocation.
- Locality: a specific assignment of revenue from which a monetary claim was to be satisfied.
- Order of Parliament: formal Parliamentary authority for the payment claimed.
- Archbishop of St Andrews: senior ecclesiastical figure to whom the Council referred the practical allocation of the vacant stipend revenue.
Sources: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 550. Independent career context: ecclesiastical records for Henry Guthrie of Kilspindie and Stirling; Stirling burgh proceedings of March–April 1661.
30 May 1661 · James Gottray in Over Boltoun Witnesses Margaret Ker’s Witchcraft Confession
Third Series · Volume 1 · pp. 648–649 · Miscellaneous Papers
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The printed volume preserves a confession attributed to Margaret Ker and dated 30 May 1661. The document recounts allegations of encounters with the devil, renunciation of God and baptism, and attendance at several alleged meetings with other named women.
The concluding authentication states that the confession was taken from Margaret’s own mouth without violence or compulsion and names four witnesses. One of them was James Gottray in Over Boltoun.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Scots
“Confession of Margaret Ker takin from her awne mouth, 30 May, 1661.
“Margaret Ker declairit that, about ane half or quarter of ane yeir syne or thairby, thair come to hir house after shoe was in bed ane dog and did pull af the cloathes of the bed, and schoe arose, put on hir cloathes and went up throw the loane from hir house to the west syd of Boltounmore, and in the way goeing thither the divell, as said is, first lyk a dog appeirit a man and then desyrit hir to be his servant quhich schoe promist to be and then he kist her and desyrit hir renunce God and hir baptisme, quhich schoe did, laying hir ane hand on hir head, the uther on her feit, gave saul and body to him, and he callit her Elisabeth and lay with her quhen he had throwin hir downe to the ground and suspect hirself wrong quhen schoe fand his nature cold, and quhen he kist her his breath was unpleasant.
He then desyrit her to be a good servant. Againe he come to hir house and was caried to a meitting in Sammilstoun hauche, wairned be Jeane Deanes, and saw thair Helen Deanes, Issobell Cathie, Jonet Wast, Jonet Kempe, Issobell Smyth, Anna Kempe, Bessie Todrig, Bessie Dawson, Jonet Baigbie and Satan with them. They did dance thair and he spak with them and with hir and againe bad hir be a good servant.
Item, declairit schoe was at ane meitting besyd Pilmore, wairned be Elspeth Baillie, quhair schoe saw many persones but knew non of them bot the said Elspeth Baillie, Issobell Richardson and Margaret Maislet, and was wairned againe be hir to ane uther meitting but went not.
Farder, declairit schoe was at ane meitting first in the Backburne of Boltoun, and from thence went to Baigbie mure and thair [saw] many persones, with the divell amongst them, but knew non of them save the saids Elspeth Baillie, Issobell Richardson, Margaret Maislet, Bessie Todrig, Bessie Dawson, Jonet Baigbie, and was wairned to that meitting be the divell, and schoe wairneit Anna Kempe and Issobell Smyth.
This takin from hir awne mouth without violence or compulsion usit in any maner befor thir witnesses, George Baigbie and James Gottray in Over Boltoun, Johne Cantlie, servitour to the Erle of Lawderdail, and Thomas Makcoull.”
Modern English Rendering
Confession of Margaret Ker, taken from her own mouth, 30 May 1661.
Margaret Ker declared that approximately three to six months earlier, after she had gone to bed, a dog came into her house and pulled the bedclothes from her. She got up, dressed and went along the lane from her house toward the west side of Bolton Moor.
On the way, she said that the devil—who had first appeared like a dog—appeared as a man and asked her to become his servant. She promised that she would. He kissed her and asked her to renounce God and her baptism, which she said she did, placing one hand on her head and the other on her feet and giving her soul and body to him. She said he gave her the name Elisabeth and had sexual relations with her. She described his body as cold and his breath as unpleasant.
She said that he then told her to be a good servant. On another occasion he came to her house and she was carried to a meeting at Samuelston Haugh after being warned by Jeane Deanes. She named Helen Deanes, Issobell Cathie, Jonet Wast, Jonet Kempe, Issobell Smyth, Anna Kempe, Bessie Todrig, Bessie Dawson and Jonet Baigbie as being there, together with Satan. She said they danced and that he again told her to be a good servant.
Margaret further declared that she attended a meeting near Pilmore after being warned by Elspeth Baillie. Although she said many people were present, she claimed to recognize only Elspeth Baillie, Issobell Richardson and Margaret Maislet. She was invited to another meeting but said she did not attend it.
She also said that she had first attended a meeting at the Backburn of Bolton and from there went to Baigbie Moor. She claimed that many people and the devil were present, but that she recognized only Elspeth Baillie, Issobell Richardson, Margaret Maislet, Bessie Todrig, Bessie Dawson and Jonet Baigbie. She said the devil had summoned her to that meeting and that she herself warned Anna Kempe and Issobell Smyth to attend.
The document concludes by stating that the confession was taken from Margaret Ker’s own mouth without violence or compulsion in the presence of George Baigbie, James Gottray in Over Boltoun, John Cantlie, servant to the Earl of Lauderdale, and Thomas McCoull.
For Guthrie research, the significant evidence is the final witness clause. It places James Gottray at Over Boltoun on 30 May 1661 and associates him with the formal taking or authentication of a witchcraft confession.
The spelling Gottray should be preserved. It belongs within the wider range of seventeenth-century Guthrie surname forms, but the source itself does not give James a normalized “Guthrie” spelling.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Takin from her awne mouth: recorded as the accused person’s own oral declaration.
- Without violence or compulsion: formula asserting that the statement was not coerced.
- Wairned: warned, summoned or invited.
- Hauche: haugh; low-lying meadow or riverside ground.
- Mure: moor.
- Servitour: servant or attendant; depending upon context it may also describe a clerk or subordinate officer.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), pp. 648–649, “Confession of witchcraft by Margaret Ker,” dated 30 May 1661.
April 1662 · Mr William Guthrie, Writer in Edinburgh, Attests the Sufficiency of a Cautioner
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 657 · Miscellaneous Paper 36
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Miscellaneous Papers preserve a bond of caution by George Nairne of Greens for James Gordon, brother-german of Sir George Gordon of Geight.
The bond was intended to protect Mr Alexander Gregorie of Netherdaill, his family, tenants and servants from injury or molestation, especially in connection with possession of the lands and baronies of Frendraught and Netherdaill.
Mr William Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, appears at the procedural end of the document, formally attesting that the cautioner was financially sufficient.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
36. Bond of caution by George Nairne of Greens for James Gordoun, brother german to Sir George Gordoun of Geight, that Mr Alexander Gregorie of Netherdaill and his family, tenants and servants shall not suffer injury or molestation from him, especially in their possession of the lands and baronies of Frendraught and Netherdaill; with clauses of relief and registration.
The bond was written by the said George Nairne, and dated at Aberdeen, 21st April 1662; witnesses, Patrick Innes and Robert Mairnes, servitors to James Crichtoun of Kinardie.
The sufficiency of the cautioner is attested by Mr William Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh; and the cautioner is received, 28th April 1662.
Modern English Rendering
George Nairne of Greens entered into a bond as surety for James Gordon, the full brother of Sir George Gordon of Geight.
Nairne guaranteed that Mr Alexander Gregorie of Netherdaill, together with his family, tenants and servants, would not be injured or harassed by Gordon, particularly in connection with their possession of Frendraught and Netherdaill.
The bond included the usual clauses allowing the surety to recover any loss from the principal and permitting formal registration of the obligation.
George Nairne himself wrote the bond at Aberdeen on 21 April 1662. Patrick Innes and Robert Mairnes, servants of James Crichton of Kinardie, witnessed it.
Mr William Guthrie, a writer in Edinburgh, formally certified that George Nairne possessed sufficient means to act as surety. The cautioner was accepted on 28 April 1662.
This entry establishes William Guthrie in a specific professional setting in Edinburgh. His task was not merely to witness a signature: he certified the financial sufficiency of a cautioner, a function requiring professional credibility.
His designation as “Mr William Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh” provides a strong identifier for tracing him through other legal instruments.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bond of caution: legally enforceable surety for another person’s conduct.
- Brother german: full brother sharing both parents.
- Cautioner: surety or guarantor.
- Sufficiency of the cautioner: adequacy of the surety’s financial means to meet the penalty if required.
- Clause of relief: provision allowing the surety to recover losses from the person for whom he stood guarantee.
- Writer: legal practitioner engaged in preparation and handling of legal documents.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 657, Miscellaneous Paper 36. Bond dated Aberdeen, 21 April 1662; cautioner received 28 April 1662.
22 April 1663 · Alexander Ord, Servitor to Richard Guthrie, W.S., Attests a Cautioner
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 662 · Miscellaneous Paper 80
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This miscellaneous paper concerns a bond of caution by Arthur Dalgarno, merchant in Peterhead, for Alexander Hay of Strathtodlie. The bond was intended to indemnify Mr William Rires, minister at Lonmay.
Richard Guthrie does not personally attest the bond. Instead, the printed record identifies Alexander Ord as his servitor, and Ord certifies the sufficiency of the cautioner.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
22nd April 1663.
80. Original of bond of caution by Arthur Dalgarno, merchant in Peterhead, for Alexander Hay of Strathtodlie, to indemnify Mr William Rires, minister at Lonmay (as noted ante, p. 356).
It states that the bond was written by Mr William Dalgarno, writer in Edinburgh, and one of the witnesses is Mr William Robertsone, advocate.
The cautioner’s sufficiency is attested by Alexander Ord, servitor to Richard Guthrie, W.S.
Modern English Rendering
This was the original bond by Arthur Dalgarno, merchant in Peterhead, who stood as surety for Alexander Hay of Strathtodlie.
The bond was intended to protect or indemnify Mr William Rires, minister at Lonmay. The volume notes that the matter had previously been discussed on p. 356.
Mr William Dalgarno, writer in Edinburgh, prepared the bond, and Mr William Robertson, advocate, was among its witnesses.
The financial adequacy of the cautioner was certified by Alexander Ord, servant or legal clerk to Richard Guthrie, Writer to the Signet.
The designation W.S. is a strong professional identifier. It places Richard Guthrie within the Edinburgh legal profession and distinguishes him from the more generally styled writers and notaries appearing elsewhere in the volume.
The record also names a member of his professional establishment: Alexander Ord, his servitor. Such clerk-and-master relationships can be useful when following legal practitioners through deeds and other instruments.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- W.S.: Writer to the Signet, a recognized class of Scottish legal practitioner.
- Servitor: here, a clerk or subordinate working in the office or service of the named legal practitioner.
- Indemnify: protect against loss, damage or legal liability.
- Sufficiency of the cautioner: certification that the surety had adequate means to answer financially for the bond.
- Ante: earlier in the volume; the editor refers back to p. 356.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 662, Miscellaneous Paper 80, dated 22 April 1663.
20 August 1664 · John Guthrie, Notary, Assists William Geddes in Executing a Bond
Third Series · Volume 1 · p. 691 · Miscellaneous Paper 241
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This miscellaneous paper records a bond by William Geddes, as principal, with James Geddes of Kirkurd acting as his cautioner.
William was required to remove himself and his family from the place where he had most recently lived, remain at least five miles away, answer for the slaughter of Patrick Porteous, and keep the peace, particularly toward William Porteous of Glenkirk.
The Council had already ordered Geddes released from the Edinburgh tolbooth once sufficient caution was provided. Because the principal could not execute the document in the ordinary manner, he signed by the aid of two notaries: Andrew Young and John Guthrie.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
241. Bond by William Geddes, as principal, and James Geddes of Kirkurd, his cautioner, that he will remove himself and his family from the place where he last dwelt and not reside within five miles thereof, and will also answer for the slaughter of Patrick Porteous, and keep the peace with the lieges, especially William Porteous of Glenkirk, under a penalty of £500 Scots if he fail herein; on his finding of which caution the Lords on 18th instant ordained him to be liberated from the tolbooth of Edinburgh.
There is a clause of registration; and the bond is written by Hew Stevenson, servitor to Sir Peter Wedderburn of Gosfurd, and dated at Edinburgh, 20th August 1664; witnesses to the subscription of the principal, John Geddes, oy to the said James, James Somervell, Henry Monteith and Robert Greir, servants in the tolbooth of Edinburgh; and to the cautioner’s subscription, the said Hew Stevenson and Robert Serveis, writer in Edinburgh.
The principal has to sign by aid of the notaries, Andrew Young and John Guthrie.
Modern English Rendering
William Geddes entered into a formal bond, with James Geddes of Kirkurd acting as his surety.
William promised to remove himself and his family from the place where he had most recently lived and not to reside within five miles of it. He was also bound to answer for the killing of Patrick Porteous and to keep the peace toward the King’s subjects, especially William Porteous of Glenkirk.
Failure to observe the conditions carried a penalty of £500 Scots. The Privy Council had already ordered on 18 August that William could be released from the Edinburgh tolbooth once this caution was provided.
Hew Stevenson, servant to Sir Peter Wedderburn of Gosford, wrote the bond at Edinburgh on 20 August 1664.
Several witnesses attended the subscriptions of William Geddes and his cautioner. Because William Geddes could not sign the instrument in the ordinary way, he executed it with the formal assistance of the notaries Andrew Young and John Guthrie.
The entry provides a clear professional identification: John Guthrie was functioning as a notary in Edinburgh in August 1664.
His role is not merely that of an ordinary witness. He and Andrew Young supplied the formal notarial assistance necessary for a principal who could not sign the bond himself.
This adds another distinct Guthrie to the group of legal practitioners appearing in Volume I alongside Mr William Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, and Richard Guthrie, Writer to the Signet.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Principal: the person primarily bound by the obligation.
- Cautioner: the surety guaranteeing the principal’s performance.
- Lieges: the King’s subjects.
- Clause of registration: provision allowing the bond to be formally registered and enforced.
- Oy: grandson.
- Notary: authorised legal practitioner who could authenticate instruments and assist with formal execution when a party was unable to sign normally.
- Tolbooth: burgh prison; here, the Edinburgh tolbooth.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 691, Miscellaneous Paper 241. Bond dated Edinburgh, 20 August 1664; related Council liberation order dated 18 August.
Volume 1 — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Third Series Volume 1 brings together several very different strands of Guthrie evidence between 1661 and 1664. The records range from the national political consequences of the trial and execution of Rev. James Guthrie of Stirling to local witchcraft proceedings in Angus, direct sibling evidence for a Dundee–Montrose family, ecclesiastical careers, burgh government, and a cluster of Guthries working within Scotland’s legal and documentary professions.
Read together, the entries show why surname references cannot be treated as a single family group without supporting evidence. The volume contains several unrelated or not-yet-connected Guthrie individuals distinguished by locality, occupation, territorial designation and office.
The opening records show that the political importance of Rev. James Guthrie’s prosecution did not end with his execution. His Parliamentary trial became the standard against which the Crown examined the conduct of the Earl of Tweeddale.
The documentary sequence moves from the King’s September order for Tweeddale’s imprisonment at p. 37, through instructions for a detailed examination of his conduct at the several Parliamentary votes at pp. 53–54, to the formal report at pp. 60–61.
Councillors who had themselves been present during the Parliamentary proceedings recalled that Tweeddale had not joined the affirmative votes on the relevant articles that passed against Guthrie.
This evidence is especially valuable when read beside the surviving Parliamentary process itself, which preserves Guthrie’s indictment, written defences, replies and rejoinders, findings on the principal articles, and the decreet of forfeiture and sentence.
Genealogical caution: Volume 1 greatly expands the political and biographical context of James Guthrie, but none of these RPCS entries supplies independent evidence identifying his parents. They therefore do not resolve the separate question of his proposed connection to William Guthrie of Memus and Isabella/Isobel Fenton.
The volume introduces a substantial witchcraft-related Guthrie cluster, particularly in and around Forfar.
Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun, Alexander Guthrie of Carsbank and Thomas Guthrie, baillie of Forfar appear among commissioners authorised to conduct the trial of Issobell Syrie.
Alexander of Carsbank and Thomas the bailie later recur in the December commission concerning several accused women, including Helen Guthéry and Elspeth Guthrie.
The surviving Forfar papers provide important additional context, including the identification of Helen Guthrie as the wife of James Houat in Forfar.
The volume then introduces another, distinct case: Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie of Montrose, whose prolonged imprisonment continued despite repeated Privy Council orders requiring either a lawful trial or release.
The clearest genealogical statement in Volume 1 occurs at p. 222.
James Guthry, writer in Dundee, expressly petitions on behalf of Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie, his sisters, who are identified as indwellers in Montrose.
This establishes a contemporary three-sibling group:
James Guthry — Margaret Guthrie — Elizabeth Guthrie
James’s professional designation and the sisters’ Montrose residence create unusually strong search points for Dundee and Montrose burgh records, legal instruments, sasines, testaments and parish material.
Identifying their parents should remain a priority research objective.
Volume 1 preserves several Guthries associated with legal work, but they should not be merged merely because their professions overlap.
They include:
- James Guthry — writer in Dundee;
- William Guthry — writer in Edinburgh;
- Richard Guthrie, W.S. — Writer to the Signet;
- John Guthrie — notary;
- Thomas Guthrie — burgess of Edinburgh and witness to a bond.
Their appearances demonstrate a substantial Guthrie presence in seventeenth-century documentary and legal networks, while the different occupational descriptions provide essential tools for distinguishing the individuals.
Two additional clerical Guthries require careful separation from Rev. James Guthrie.
John Gutherey of Tarbolton was summoned in 1663 to answer allegations described by the Council as turbulent and seditious conduct. Independent ecclesiastical evidence identifies him as a son of James Guthrie of Pitforthie and brother of Rev. William Guthrie of Fenwick and Rev. Alexander Guthrie of Stracathro.
Hary/Henry Guthrie of Kilspindie, meanwhile, had an earlier ministerial connection with Stirling and later became Bishop of Dunkeld. His career overlaps the same Restoration period but belongs to a completely separate clerical identity.
These overlapping names and places make precise ministerial identification especially important whenever a secondary source refers simply to “Mr Guthrie.”
John Guthery, late provost of Irvine, remained a trusted civic figure in 1664 and was authorised to help conduct a new municipal election.
Major John Guthry appears in a completely different context as an Edinburgh prisoner seeking release after his accuser failed to proceed to trial.
James Gottray in Over Boltoun appears as a witness to Margaret Ker’s 1661 confession and provides a useful locality-based search point in Haddingtonshire.
Finally, the Kirk of Guthrie at p. 333 is a place-name reference rather than evidence for an individual surnamed Guthrie.
Documentary Connections within Volume 1
Several entries that appear separately in the printed volume are actually stages of the same underlying proceedings.
- James Guthrie / Tweeddale: p. 37 → pp. 53–54 → pp. 60–61, with additional contextual references identified in the editor’s Introduction.
- Issobell Syrie: p. 57 records the direction that a commission be issued; p. 74 is the resulting formal commission.
- Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie: the surviving sequence includes Council interventions of 22 May, 12 June, 8 August and 16 September 1662. The September petition shows that repeated orders for trial or release had not been obeyed.
- William Guthry, writer in Edinburgh: p. 190 records the chronological Council registration, while p. 657 prints the related surviving bond among the Miscellaneous Papers.
- A summons, commission to try, imprisonment order or accusation is not a conviction.
- A document stating that an accused person confessed records the procedural claim made by that source; surviving confession documents should be examined separately whenever possible.
- Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie of Montrose are not the same women as Helen Guthéry and Elspeth Guthrie of Forfar.
- Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun appears in the Issobell Syrie commission, but the later p. 122 entry prints Gideon Murray of Halkertoun. The latter wording should not be silently changed.
- Release upon caution is not an acquittal; it preserves the possibility of future lawful proceedings.
- Similar occupation, locality or surname spelling does not establish that two Guthrie references concern the same individual.
Individuals Who Must Remain Distinct
The following identities should remain separate unless later evidence establishes a connection:
- Major John Guthry — prisoner in Edinburgh;
- John Gutherey — minister at Tarbolton;
- John Guthery — late provost of Irvine;
- John Guthrie — notary in Edinburgh;
- Thomas Guthrie, baillie of Forfar — witchcraft commissioner;
- Thomas Guthrie, burgess of Edinburgh — bond witness;
- James Guthry, writer in Dundee — brother of Margaret and Elizabeth;
- James Gottray in Over Boltoun — witness to Margaret Ker’s confession.
Priority Research Questions
- Rev. James Guthrie: continue testing the proposed Memus parentage against the 1659 sasine and any newly discovered contemporary records. Nothing in Volume 1 independently resolves that question.
- James, Margaret and Elizabeth Guthrie: identify the parents and wider family of the Dundee writer and his two Montrose sisters.
- Helen Guthrie of Forfar: pursue the newly useful identification as wife of James Houat through Forfar parish, burgh, sasine and testament records.
- Elspeth Guthrie of Forfar: determine whether any surviving local record identifies her spouse, parents or household.
- Alexander Guthrie of Carsbank and Thomas Guthrie, baillie of Forfar: reconstruct their repeated judicial activity and test any proposed relationship to one another or to the accused Guthrie women independently.
- Gideon Guthrie / Gideon Murray of Halkertoun: investigate the differing surname readings rather than assuming they represent one man.
- Major John Guthry: identify his military service and determine whether Edinburgh, army or pension records can establish his family background.
- William Guthry, writer in Edinburgh: investigate the difference between the 1 April 1662 dating at p. 190 and the 21/28 April dates preserved with the Miscellaneous Paper at p. 657.
- Edinburgh legal Guthries: determine whether William Guthry, Richard Guthrie W.S., John Guthrie the notary and Thomas Guthrie the burgess had any family or professional relationships beyond their overlapping legal environment.
- James Gottray of Over Boltoun: use the territorial designation to search Haddingtonshire records for a Gottray/Gotrey/Guthrie family cluster.
Companion Sources Worth Following
- Records of the Parliaments of Scotland: the complete 1661 Parliamentary process against Rev. James Guthrie.
- Forfar witchcraft papers: surviving examinations, confessions and commissions associated with the 1661 Forfar prosecutions.
- Survey of Scottish Witchcraft: useful case-level indexing for Helen Guthery, Elspeth Gutherie, Margaret Guthrie and Elizabeth Guthrie.
- Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae: independent identification and family context for John Guthrie of Tarbolton and other Guthrie ministers.
- Burgh and professional records: Dundee, Montrose, Edinburgh, Irvine and Forfar records may provide the strongest path to occupations, marriages, parentage and family relationships absent from the RPCS.
Volume summary: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume I, A.D. 1661–1664, ed. P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh, 1908). This synthesis draws together the Guthrie-bearing Council acts, Miscellaneous Papers, editorial context and identified companion sources represented in the Volume 1 records above.
Volume 2
Volume 2 carries the Third Series into the years immediately following the first Restoration settlement. The Guthrie material is unusually varied, ranging from religious and political proceedings to witchcraft, local judicial commissions, public office, maritime transportation, craft regulation and legal witnessing.
The most important family sequence concerns Rev. James Guthrie of Stirling. Five years after his execution, his widow Jean Ramsay and daughter Sophia Guthrie were brought before the Privy Council over possession of a book which the government described as seditious. Their subsequent confinement, petition for mitigation, and Jean’s later temporary licence to visit her seriously ill son preserve unusually valuable evidence about James Guthrie’s immediate family after 1661.
Other records identify Margret Guthry of Carnbie in a Fife witchcraft commission, Alexander Guthry of Carsbank as a local criminal commissioner, Mr Jon Gutherey in the governmental aftermath of the Pentland Rising, and Sir Henry / Harry Guthrie of Collistoun in excise and justice-of-peace appointments.
A separate maritime sequence concerns the ship The Ewe and Lamb. Some acts name Captain Guthrie directly as its master, while related acts name only the vessel. Those ship-only records are retained as contextual evidence but are clearly distinguished from direct Guthrie appearances.
The later Miscellaneous Papers add occupational evidence for William Guthrie, weaver in Dundee, and James Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh. These later-printed records remain in printed-page order even where the dates of the underlying documents are earlier.
Read Volume 2 Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown, M.A., LL.D. Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909.
Pagination: Citations below use the volume’s printed page numbers rather than the image numbers assigned by an online viewer.
Guthrie Finding Aid
Finding Aid note: The legacy Volume 2 inventory has been reconciled with its detailed entries. The corrected list restores the omitted p. 202 Ewe and Lamb context record, consolidates the two legacy rows representing the single p. 588 source unit, corrects that record’s broken legacy anchor, and expands the Dundee weavers item to pp. 662–663.
Pale-blue rows identify contextual acts in which no Guthrie surname is printed in that specific source unit. They are retained only where the act forms part of the documented Ewe and Lamb sequence surrounding the directly named Captain Guthrie.
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 138–139 | 8 Feb 1666 |
Jean Ramsay; Sophia Guthrie; late Mr James Guthrie |
Jean Ramsay, widow of the executed minister Mr James Guthrie, and their daughter Sophia were called before the Council regarding a book which the government described as seditious. After they refused to declare on oath from whom it had been received, the Council ordered them confined in Zetland and meanwhile kept as close prisoners. |
| 148–149 | Feb 1666 |
Mrs Guthrie — Jean Ramsay; Sophia Guthrie |
Petition asking that their confinement in Zetland be altered so that they might reside on the Continent. The Council remitted the decision about changing the place of confinement to the Lord Commissioner. |
| 165 | 9 May 1666 | Margret Guthry in the parish of Carnbie | Imprisoned at Anstruther Wester on suspicion of witchcraft. The Council commissioned a local assize to try her. This is a Fife case, not Forfarshire. The commission required either a voluntary judicial confession obtained without torture or indirect means, or legally proved malefices, before a death sentence could be executed. The commission itself does not establish conviction. |
| 201 | 9 Oct 1666 | Alexander Guthry of Carsbank | One of the local commissioners empowered to try Agnes Kid, imprisoned at Forfar on allegations of incest and child murder. The act establishes Alexander’s appointment to the commission, not the ultimate result of the prosecution. |
| 202 | 9 Oct 1666 | Ewe and Lamb Context only — no Guthrie named | James Hamilton petitioned for himself and the other owners of the Ewe and Lamb for a transportation warrant. Restored to the Finding Aid because the same vessel is later directly associated with Captain Guthrie. |
| 230–231 | 4 Dec 1666 | Mr Jon Gutherey | A royal proclamation following the Pentland Rising listed Mr Jon Gutherey among persons whom the government described as rebels and prohibited subjects from harbouring, supplying, corresponding with, hiding or concealing. |
| 284 | 18 May 1667 | Sir Hary Guthry of Collistoun | Added as a commissioner of excise and justice of peace for Aberdeenshire, subject to the requirement that the appointees be Protestants. This May appointment was later revisited and annulled with the other additions at pp. 382–383. |
| 345 | 8 Oct 1667 | Mr Jon Gutherey | Named among persons specifically excluded from a royal indemnity offered after the 1666 rising. Exclusion records his status under the act but does not independently prove every allegation made in the surrounding governmental proceedings. |
| 348–349 | 9 Oct 1667 | Mr Jon Gutherey | A further formal indemnity record again excepted Mr Jon Gutherey from the pardon. This is a separate documentary stage of the same post-Pentland governmental process. |
| 358 | 7 Nov 1667 | Ewe and Lamb Context only — no Guthrie named | General transportation warrant involving the Good Intent and the Ewe and Lamb. This proceeding is expressly referenced by the later Captain Guthrie petition at p. 446. |
| 382–383 | 19 Dec 1667 | Sir Hendry Guthry of Collistoun | Sir Hendry appears among the commissioners added by the May 1667 act. The Council annulled that later act and adhered instead to its earlier July 1665 appointments. This record therefore documents the annulment of his May Aberdeenshire appointment, not its confirmation. |
| 446 | 7 May 1668 |
Captain Guthrie, master of the Ewe and Lamb |
Direct named appearance. Captain Guthrie and merchants associated with the vessel petitioned for authority to receive persons for transportation to Virginia, Barbados and other plantations. The order was granted for three months on the model of the earlier warrant at p. 358. |
| 512–513 | 5 Aug 1668 | Ewe and Lamb Context only — no Guthrie named | Council officers were ordered to search the Convertin and Ewe and Lamb at Leith and release anyone who had neither freely consented to transportation nor been sentenced to it by a judge. |
| 515 | 5 Aug 1668 | Sir Henry Guthrie of Collistoun | Appointed commissioner of excise and justice of peace for the shire of Banff. This is a distinct appointment from the Aberdeenshire commission annulled in December 1667. |
| 588 | 15 Jan 1669 |
Jean Ramsay; late Mr James Guthrie; their unnamed only son |
Jean Ramsay petitioned for temporary relief from her confinement because her only son was seriously ill in Edinburgh. Supported by a medical certificate, she was licensed to reside there until 15 February. The two legacy Finding Aid rows for p. 588 represent this single source unit and are consolidated here. |
| 662–663 | 14 Nov 1667 |
William Guthrie, weaver in Dundee Miscellaneous Papers |
Named among a large body of Dundee weavers in a collective bond of caution concerning parliamentary weaving regulations. The act creates potential liability for fines if the parties were found liable; it does not itself establish that William Guthrie had already been fined. |
| 680 |
5 Mar 1669; receipt 8 Mar |
James Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh Miscellaneous Papers |
Witness, with other Edinburgh writers, to James Dunlop of Houshill’s receipt for money paid under a Council precept relating to his service as sheriff-depute of Renfrew. The record identifies James Guthrie’s occupation but supplies no parentage or family relationship. |
The printed spellings Guthry, Gutherey, Hary, Hendry and Henry will be preserved exactly inside the detailed transcriptions. Normalized forms may be used in editorial explanation.
The records concerning Mr Jon Gutherey form a connected governmental sequence after the Pentland Rising. Proclamation, exclusion from indemnity and forfeiture-related language will remain legally distinct rather than being collapsed into a single statement of guilt.
The Ewe and Lamb records likewise form one documentary sequence, but ship-only acts will not be presented as though Captain Guthrie were personally named in them.
8 February 1666 — Jean Ramsay & Sophia Guthrie
Third Series, Volume 2 • Pages 138–139
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Council was attempting to suppress circulation of Ane apologetik relation of the suffering ministers of the Kirk of Scotland since August, 1660. The official record characterizes the work as “seditious”; that is the Council’s description and is retained here as attributed language rather than adopted as an independent assessment.
Jean Ramsay, widow of the executed minister Rev. James Guthrie of Stirling, and Sophia Guthrie were brought before the Council and required to state under oath from whom the copy in their custody had been received. They refused to comply.
The Council consequently ordered Jean and Sophia to be sent to Zetland — Shetland and confined there during the Council’s further pleasure. Until they could be sent north, they were to remain close prisoners.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 8th February 1666.
The Lords of his Majesties Privy Councill, considering that there are severall copies of a seditious book, called Ane apologetik relation of the suffering ministers of the Kirk of Scotland since August, 1660, vented and dispersed within this kingdome, and that one of these books was found with [Mrs Guthrie, relict of] umquhile Mr James Guthrie, and that she and Sophia Guthrie, her daughter, being called before the Councill to declare upon oath from whom they received the same, did refuse to give obedience therein, doe therefore ordain the said Ramsay and Sophia Guthrie to be sent to Zetland there to be confyned during the Councills farder pleasure, and ordaines them to be keipt close prisoners till they be sent thither.
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 8 February 1666.
The Lords of the Privy Council considered that several copies of a book entitled An Apologetical Relation of the Suffering Ministers of the Church of Scotland since August 1660, which the Council characterized as seditious, were being distributed throughout the kingdom.
One copy had been found in the possession associated with Mrs Guthrie, widow of the late Mr James Guthrie. She and her daughter, Sophia Guthrie, were called before the Council and ordered to state under oath from whom they had received the book. They refused to comply.
The Council therefore ordered Jean Ramsay and Sophia Guthrie to be sent to Shetland, where they were to remain confined until the Council ordered otherwise. Until they could be sent there, they were to be kept as close prisoners.
This is direct contemporary evidence for the family of Rev. James Guthrie of Stirling after his execution in 1661. It places his widow Jean Ramsay and Sophia Guthrie together before the Privy Council in February 1666 and expressly identifies Sophia as Jean’s daughter.
The record is also important because James Guthrie remained politically consequential after his death. The Council proceeding did not concern a new act by James himself; rather, his surviving household was drawn into the government’s continuing effort to control religious literature associated with opposition to the Restoration settlement.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Umquhile — deceased or late.
- Relict — widow.
- Vented and dispersed — circulated or distributed.
- Declare upon oath — give sworn information before the Council.
- Zetland — Shetland.
- Confyned — placed under a legal restriction requiring residence in a specified place.
- Close prisoners — prisoners kept under stricter confinement rather than ordinary freedom within the prison.
- Farder pleasure — until the Council should make a further order.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), pp. 138–139. View digitized volume .
2 March 1666 — Jean Ramsay & Sophia Guthrie Petition to Alter Their Confinement
Third Series, Volume 2 • Pages 148–149
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This petition is the next documentary stage in the proceeding that began on 8 February 1666. Jean Ramsay and her daughter Sophia did not simply disappear into the sentence imposed upon them. They returned to the Council seeking alteration of the place in which they were to be confined.
Their petition specifically referred back to the sentence of 8 February ordering confinement in Zetland. They argued that another location would allow them more conveniently to manage the household activity upon which their livelihood depended.
The Council referred the matter to the Lord Commissioner and authorized him to change their place of confinement if he thought appropriate. The printed act does not record his eventual decision.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
“The Lords of his Majesties Privy Councill, having considered a petition presented be Mrs Guthrie and Sophia Guthrie, her daughter, humbly craveing that the Councill will mitigat their sentence of the eight of February last ordaining them to be confyned to Zetland and that they may have some place within the Continent allotted to them for the more convenient managing their houshold vertue, the only mean of their lyvliehood, doe remitt to the Lord Commissioner his Grace to alter and change the place of the petitioners confynment as his Grace shall think expedient.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords of the Privy Council considered a petition presented by Mrs Guthrie and her daughter, Sophia Guthrie.
They asked the Council to mitigate the sentence passed on 8 February, which had ordered them to be confined in Shetland, and to assign them some place within what the record calls “the Continent,” where they could more conveniently manage the household work or industry that provided their livelihood.
The Council referred the matter to the Lord Commissioner, authorizing him to alter and change the petitioners’ place of confinement as he considered appropriate.
The petition prevents the 8 February order from being read as the complete story. Jean Ramsay and Sophia immediately used formal Council procedure to seek a less burdensome place of confinement, and the Council left open the possibility that their destination would be changed.
It also adds a small but valuable glimpse of their economic circumstances. Their petition described their “houshold vertue” as their only means of livelihood, indicating dependence upon domestic work or household industry rather than simply presenting them as passive dependants of the deceased minister.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Mitigat their sentence — lessen or modify the terms of the sentence.
- Confyned — legally required to remain in a designated place.
- Within the Continent — the wording of the printed act for the alternative location requested by the petitioners; no specific country or town is named.
- Houshold vertue — household activity, industry or domestic work represented as the petitioners’ means of livelihood.
- Remitt — refer or delegate a matter to another authority for decision.
- Lord Commissioner — the monarch’s principal commissioner in Scotland, to whom the Council here delegated discretion over the place of confinement.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), pp. 148–149. View digitized volume .
Companion chronology: Robert Wodrow, The History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to the Revolution, later recounts the February proceeding and dates the petition for alteration of confinement to 2 March 1666.
9 May 1666 — Margret Guthry of Carnbie — Witchcraft Commission
Third Series, Volume 2 • Page 165
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Margret Guthry of the parish of Carnbie had been apprehended and imprisoned in the tolbooth of Anstruther Wester on suspicion of witchcraft. The Privy Council did not itself pronounce her guilty. Instead, it issued a commission authorizing named local men to convene a court and place her before an assize.
The wording of the commission is especially important because it expressly limited the evidence upon which a death sentence might follow. Guilt had to rest either upon a voluntary judicial confession obtained without torture or indirect means, or upon legally established and proven malefices.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 9th May 1666.
“Charles, etc. Forsameikle as Margret Guthry in the parish of Carnbie is apprehendit and imprisoned in the tolbuith of Anstruther Wester as suspect guilty of witchcraft, and to the effect she may be putt to a legall tryall, we, with advyce of the Lords of our Privy Councill, doe hereby commissionat Jon Malcolm of Balbedy, Sir Philip Anstruther of that Ilk, William Scot of Ardrose, Sir James Lumsdean of Innergelly, Sir William Bruce of Balcaskie, Mr William Ord of Carnby, Jon Carstairs of Cassingray, Patrik Lindsey of Wormistoun and Sir Patrik Murray of Kincraig, or any fyve of them, to meitt at such tymes and places as they shall think expedient, to affix and hold courts, creat clerks, etc., call ane assyse, etc., and in the saids courts to call the said Margret Guthry and to put her to the tryall and knowledge of ane assyse; and, if she shall be found guilty upon voluntar confessions judicially made, without any sort of torture or indirect meanes used to bring her to confession or that malifices be legally instructed and proven, that then and no otherwayes they cause the sentence of death to be execute upon her. Subscribitur, Mortoun; Perth; Kelly; Weymes; Home; Primrose; Jo. Nisbett; Ch. Maitland; Wauchope.”
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 9 May 1666.
Because Margret Guthry of the parish of Carnbie had been arrested and imprisoned in the tolbooth of Anstruther Wester on suspicion of witchcraft, the Crown and Privy Council authorized a group of named local commissioners — any five of whom could act — to meet when and where they considered appropriate, establish a court, appoint clerks, summon a jury, and bring Margret before that jury for trial.
If she were found guilty upon a voluntary confession formally made before the court, provided that no torture or indirect means had been used to obtain it, or if acts of malefice were otherwise legally established and proved against her, the commissioners could have a sentence of death carried out. Only under those conditions was execution authorized.
This record adds another Guthrie woman to the connected series of seventeenth-century witchcraft proceedings identified in the Third Series. Unlike the earlier Forfar and Montrose cases in Volume I, however, Margret Guthry’s case belongs to Fife. Carnbee and Anstruther Wester place the proceeding on the eastern Fife coast.
The commission also supplies unusually explicit procedural language. It distinguishes suspicion and arrest from trial, and trial from a legally sufficient basis for execution.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Forsameikle as — forasmuch as; whereas.
- Apprehendit — arrested or taken into custody.
- Tolbuith — tolbooth; a burgh building that commonly included prison accommodation.
- Commissionat — formally commissioned or empowered.
- Assyse — jury.
- Voluntar confessions judicially made — confessions formally made before the judicial authority and represented as voluntary.
- Malifices — harmful acts attributed to witchcraft.
- Legally instructed and proven — established through legally accepted proof.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), p. 165. View digitized volume .
9 October 1666 — Alexander Guthry of Carsbank — Criminal Commission
Third Series, Volume 2 • Page 201
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council reported that it had received information concerning Agnes Kid of the parish of Lochlee, then imprisoned in the tolbooth of Forfar. The allegations concerned incest with Alexander Law, described in the source as her father in law, and the killing of a child after birth.
Rather than try the case directly at Edinburgh, the Council commissioned four local men to convene a court. Alexander Guthry of Carsbank was one of those commissioners. Any two could act, but the sheriff-depute, Sir James Keith of Powburn, was always required to be one of the quorum.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 9th October 1666.
“Charles, be the grace of God, etc. Forsameikle as the Lords of our Privy Councill are informed that Agnes Kid in the paroch of Lochlie is apprehendit and imprisoned in the tolbuith of Forfar as suspect guilty of the most horrid and cruell cryme of incest and murther in bringing furth a chyld to Alexander Law, her father in law, and after the birth most cruelly murthering the same, and, to the effect justice may be done upon her conform to the lawes of this our realme, wee, with advyce of the Lords of our Privy Councill, give and grant our full power and commission to Sir James Keith of Powburn, shireff deputt of Forfar; Alexander Guthry of Carsbank, Patrik Cairncroce of Balmashener and David Hunter of Burnsyd, or any tuo of them, the shireff deputt being alwayes one of the number, with power to them to meit at such tymes and places as they shall think expedient and then and there to affix and hold courts, etc., and to try and judge, in the common termes of a commission. Sic subscribitur, Hamiltoun; Linlithgow; Weymes; Sinclair; Bellenden; Jo. Gilmour; Primrose; Wauchop; Nidry.”
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 9 October 1666.
The Privy Council had been informed that Agnes Kid of the parish of Lochlee had been arrested and imprisoned in the tolbooth of Forfar on suspicion of incest and murder. The allegations stated that she had borne a child to Alexander Law, described in the record as her father-in-law, and had killed the child after its birth.
To allow the matter to be tried according to the laws of the kingdom, the Council granted full power to Sir James Keith of Powburn, sheriff-depute of Forfar; Alexander Guthry of Carsbank; Patrick Cairncroce of Balmashanner; and David Hunter of Burnside. Any two of them could act, provided that the sheriff-depute was always one of the commissioners present.
They were authorized to meet at suitable times and places, constitute and hold a court, and try and judge the case under the ordinary terms of such a commission.
Alexander Guthry of Carsbank had already appeared repeatedly in Volume I as a commissioner in Forfar-area witchcraft proceedings. This 1666 record broadens the evidence for his local judicial role: the Council also entrusted him with a serious criminal commission unrelated to witchcraft.
The territorial designation “of Carsbank” is particularly useful for identity control because it distinguishes this Alexander from other contemporary Guthries of the same forename.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Forsameikle as — whereas; forasmuch as.
- Apprehendit — arrested.
- Shireff deputt — sheriff-depute, the officer exercising the sheriff’s judicial authority locally.
- Father in law — the source’s wording for Alexander Law’s relationship to Agnes Kid; seventeenth-century usage of the expression can differ from modern usage.
- Or any tuo of them — any two of the named commissioners could constitute the acting body, subject to the additional quorum condition.
- The shireff deputt being alwayes one of the number — Sir James Keith had to be one of the acting commissioners.
- Affix and hold courts — constitute and convene the judicial court authorized by the commission.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), p. 201. View digitized volume .
9 October 1666 — Early Transportation Warrant for the Ewe and Lamb
Third Series, Volume 2 • Page 202 • Context-only record
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This act appears immediately after the Carsbank commission but is an entirely separate proceeding. James Hamiltoun, merchant, petitioned for himself and the other owners of the ship Ewe and Lamb, which was bound for Virginia.
The petition referred to the practice of using outward-bound ships to transport categories of people whom the government sought to remove from Scotland. The Council granted authority to sheriffs, justices of peace and burgh magistrates to apprehend and deliver qualifying persons for transportation aboard the vessel.
Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 9th October 1666.
“Ament a petition presented be James Hamiltoun, merchant, for himself and in name of the rest of the owners of the ship called the Ewe and Lamb, bound for Virginia, shewing that it being ordinary to take occasion of ships bounding to Virginia and other remote islands to disburden the kingdom of strong and idle beggars, Egyptians, common and notorious whores and theives and other dissolute and louse persons banished and stigmatizat for grosse crymes, and for that effect to give order and command to shireffes, justices of peace and magistratts of burghs to apprehend their persons and to delyver them for transportation…”
The Lords grant warrant to all shireffes, justices of peace and magistratts of burghs to apprehend and delyver to the petitioner such persons … to be transported be the forsaid vessell …
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 9 October 1666.
James Hamilton, merchant, petitioned for himself and on behalf of the other owners of the ship called the Ewe and Lamb, which was bound for Virginia.
The petition stated that ships sailing for Virginia and other distant plantations had commonly been used to remove from the kingdom people placed by the authorities within various categories of poverty, vagrancy or criminality. It therefore requested orders to sheriffs, justices of peace and burgh magistrates to apprehend qualifying persons and deliver them for transportation.
The Council granted a warrant directing those local authorities to apprehend and deliver such persons to the petitioner for transportation aboard the vessel.
No Guthrie surname occurs in this act, so it is not counted as a direct Guthrie appearance. Its value is documentary continuity. Later in the same volume, Captain Guthrie is explicitly named as master of the Ewe and Lamb.
Restoring p. 202 to the Finding Aid therefore allows the later Captain Guthrie records to be understood as part of a longer sequence involving the same vessel rather than as isolated appearances.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Ament — concerning or regarding.
- Bounding to Virginia — bound or sailing for Virginia.
- Disburden the kingdom — the source’s phrase for removing people whom the authorities classified as unwanted or criminal.
- Egyptians — a historical Scottish legal term used in statutes and official records for people identified as Gypsies/Roma; retained here only because it appears in the source wording.
- Stigmatizat — branded or formally marked as a punishment or sign of infamy.
- Warrant — formal authority or order permitting the action described.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), p. 202. View digitized volume .
4 December 1666 — Mr Jon Gutherey Named in Proclamation Against Reset
Third Series, Volume 2 • Pages 230–231
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
After the armed rising of November 1666 had been suppressed, the Crown and Privy Council issued a proclamation prohibiting subjects from sheltering or assisting a number of specifically named people.
Mr Jon Gutherey appears in that list alongside Lieutenant-Colonel James Wallace, Major Learmonth, Mr John Welsh, Mr Samuel Arnot and others.
The proclamation used strongly political language, describing those involved as “disloyal and seditious persons” engaged in “rebellion.” Those descriptions are the language of the government source and are preserved here as such.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 4th December 1666.
Proclamation against reset of rebels.
“Charles, be the grace of God, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland… Forsasmuch as upon the first notice given to our Privy Councill of the rysing and gathering of these disloyal and seditious persons in the west who have of late appeared in armes in a desperat and avowed rebellion against us… wee have therefore, be the advyce of our Privy Councill, thought fitt againe herby to discharge and inhibit all our subjects that none of them offer or presume to harbour, resett, supply, correspond with, hyd or conceall the persons of Leivtenent Collonell James Wallace, Majour Lermonth, Mr Jon Gutherey, Mr Jon Welsh, Mr Samuell Arnott… or any others who concurred or joyned in the late rebellion…”
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 4 December 1666.
After receiving news of the armed rising in western Scotland, the Crown and Privy Council issued another proclamation forbidding all subjects from sheltering, receiving, supplying, corresponding with, hiding or concealing certain named persons.
Among those specifically named was Mr Jon Gutherey. The proclamation also applied to others whom the government regarded as having joined or participated in the recent rising.
This record begins a connected three-part sequence for Mr Jon Gutherey in Volume II: the December 1666 proclamation, followed by two indemnity records in October 1667.
The spelling Gutherey is preserved exactly as printed. Independent ecclesiastical evidence identifies the man in this sequence as Rev. John Guthrie, minister of Tarbolton, a younger son of James Guthrie of Pitforthie.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Reset — to receive, harbour or shelter a person whom the authorities regarded as a fugitive or rebel.
- Supply — provide material assistance.
- Correspond with — maintain communication or dealings with the named person.
- Hyd or conceall — hide or assist in concealing someone from the authorities.
- Discharge and inhibit — formally forbid.
- Proclamation — a public royal or governmental order intended for publication and enforcement throughout the country.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), pp. 230–231. View digitized volume .
Independent identification: Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, Volume 3, p. 75, identifies John Guthrie, minister of Tarbolton and Barnweil, as the youngest son of James Guthrie of Pitforthie and records his connection with the 1666 rising. Compare the Fasti research entry .
18 May 1667 — Sir Hary Guthry of Collistoun — Aberdeenshire Appointment
Third Series, Volume 2 • Page 284
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Council had been informed that vacancies had arisen among Aberdeenshire’s commissioners of excise and justices of peace because some former officeholders had died or removed from the shire.
A substantial list of replacement officials was therefore named. Among them was Sir Hary Guthry of Collistoun. The act authorized the new appointees to sit and act with the existing commissioners and justices.
The grant included an explicit religious qualification: those appointed were to be Protestants.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 18th May 1667.
Having been informed of the death or removal from the shire of some commissioners of excise and justices of peace in Aberdeenshire, the Lords appoint in their stead the Earl of Aboyne, Adam Urquhart of Meldrum, Sir Hary Guthry of Collistoun, George Gordone of Rothnie, Elphingstoun of Glack, Leslie, younger of Warthill, John Gordon of Artloch, John Hamiltoun of Corse, Gordoun of Talpersie, Alexander Bisset of Lessindrum, Alexander Gordon of Kinguidie, Francis Cheyne of Feinzies, Hew Gordon of Auchtyre, Ross of Auchclosin, George Seatoun of Minnis and Richard Maitland of Auchincreive, “provyding alwayes that the saids persons be Protestants and not otherwise” ; with power to them to sit and act with the rest of the commissioners and justices as accords.
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 18 May 1667.
Because several commissioners of excise and justices of the peace in Aberdeenshire had died or moved out of the shire, the Privy Council appointed replacements.
Among the new appointees was Sir Hary Guthry of Collistoun. The newly named men were authorized to sit and act together with the existing commissioners and justices.
The appointment was conditional upon the persons named being Protestants.
The entry places Sir Hary Guthry in Aberdeenshire public administration by May 1667 and helps document the northern development of the Collistoun / King Edward line.
Independent family records already place this Sir Hary as the eldest son of John Guthrie, Fiar of Colliston and grandson of the older Harie Guthrie of Colliston. That generational distinction is important because several Henry / Harie / Hary Guthries occur within the Colliston reconstruction.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Commissioner of excise — local official involved in administration of excise taxation.
- Justice of Peace — local magistrate entrusted with administrative and judicial responsibilities.
- Removed from the shire — no longer resident within the county and therefore unavailable for the local office.
- Provyding alwayes — provided always; introducing a legal condition attached to the appointment.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), p. 284. View digitized volume .
8 October 1667 — Mr Jon Gutherey Excepted from the Act of Indemnity
Third Series, Volume 2 • Page 345
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Nearly a year after the December 1666 proclamation, the Crown issued an indemnity intended to pardon many people connected with the recent rising.
The pardon was not universal. A named group was expressly excluded, and Mr Jon Gutherey appears among those exceptions.
This represents a later legal stage than the December proclamation: rather than merely prohibiting others from assisting him, the government now specifically withheld the benefit of the general indemnity from him.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 8th October 1667.
Act of Indemnity in favour of persons concerned in the late rebellion.
“Charles, be the grace of God… Forasmuch as alwayes it hes bein our greatest care that our good subjects may live in peace and happiness under our government… wee doe by thir presents grant our full and frie pardon and indemnity to all persons who were ingaged in the said rebellion or who had accession therto from all payne or punishment… excepting alwayes from this pardon the persons and fortunes of Collonell James Wallace, Majour Lermonth, Maxuell of Monreiff, younger; MᶜClellan of Barscob, Gordon of Parbrek, MᶜClellan of Balmagechan, Cannon of Burnshalloch, younger; Cannon of Borley, younger; Welsh of Skar, Welsh of Cornley, Gordon in Garrery of Kells… Mr Jon Gutherey, Mr Jon Welsh, Mr Samuell Arnot… and of all others who are forfaulted and who are under proces of forfaltur…”
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 8 October 1667.
The Crown granted a general pardon and indemnity from punishment to many people whom the government regarded as having been engaged in, or connected with, the recent rising.
The pardon expressly excluded a named group of people and their estates. Mr Jon Gutherey was among those excluded.
The act also excluded more generally those who had already been forfeited or were still undergoing forfeiture proceedings.
This is the second major RPCS stage in the Volume II sequence for Mr Jon Gutherey. The December 1666 proclamation had prohibited subjects from assisting or concealing him; this October 1667 act shows that he was also specifically denied the benefit of the general royal indemnity.
A further act on the following day, pp. 348–349, again names him among the exceptions. The two indemnity records should be retained separately because they are distinct documentary acts.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Act of Indemnity — a formal pardon protecting specified persons from punishment for past conduct.
- Accession therto — participation in or involvement with the event described.
- Excepting alwayes — expressly excluding the persons who follow from the benefit of the grant.
- Persons and fortunes — the individuals and their property or estates.
- Forfaulted — forfeited; deprived of legal or property rights following the relevant legal process.
- Proces of forfaltur — proceedings seeking forfeiture; not necessarily a completed forfeiture.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), p. 345. View digitized volume .
Independent identification: Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, Volume 3, p. 75, identifies John Guthrie of Tarbolton and records his later prosecution and royal pardon. Compare the Fasti research entry .
9 October 1667 — Mr Jon Gutherey Again Excepted from Indemnity
Third Series, Volume 2 • Pages 348–349
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This is the next formal stage in the Volume II sequence concerning Mr Jon Gutherey. On the preceding day another indemnity had expressly excepted him from pardon. The act printed at pp. 348–349 again granted indemnity broadly while reserving a named group from its benefit.
Mr Jon Gutherey appears again among those exceptions. The repetition is important documentary evidence, but the two acts should remain distinct rather than being collapsed into a single record.
Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 9th October 1667.
Act of Indemnity to persons concerned in the late rebellion, with the names of those who are exempted from it.
“Charles, by the grace of God, King of Scotland, England, France and Ireland… wee doe by thir presents grant our full and frie pardon and indemnity to all persons who were ingaged in the said rebellion or who had accession therto… excepting alwayes from this pardon the persons and fortunes of Collonell James Wallace, Majour Lermonth, Maxuell of Monreiff, younger; MᶜClellan of Barscob, Gordon of Parbrek, MᶜClellan of Balmagechan, Cannon of Mordroget, younger; Welsh of Skarr, Welsh of Cornley, Gordon in Garery of Kells… Mr Jon Gutherey, Mr Jon Welsh, Mr Samuell Arnot… and of all others who are forfaulted and who are under proces of forfaultour…”
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 9 October 1667.
The Crown granted a full pardon and indemnity to many people whom the government regarded as having taken part in, or been connected with, the recent rising.
A specified list of people and their estates was excluded from that pardon. Mr Jon Gutherey was among the named exceptions.
The act also excluded generally anyone who had already been forfeited or was still under proceedings for forfeiture.
This completes the three-record political sequence presently identified for Mr Jon Gutherey in Volume II: the prohibition against harbouring or assisting him in December 1666, the indemnity exception of 8 October 1667, and this further indemnity act of 9 October.
The sequence is valuable because it traces changing governmental action over time rather than reducing the evidence to a single description such as “rebel.”
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Indemnity — formal protection from punishment for specified past conduct.
- Accession therto — involvement in or connection with the event described.
- Excepting alwayes — expressly reserving named persons from the benefit of the pardon.
- Persons and fortunes — individuals and their property or estates.
- Forfaulted — forfeited.
- Proces of forfaultour — legal proceedings seeking forfeiture, not necessarily a completed forfeiture.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), pp. 348–349. View digitized volume .
7 November 1667 — Transportation Warrant Involving the Ewe and Lamb
Third Series, Volume 2 • Page 358 • Context-only record
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
John Scott, master of the Good Intent, together with merchants James Currie, Patrick Fyf and James Hamiltoun, petitioned for themselves and the remaining owners of the vessels involved.
Their application concerned the use of ships sailing for Virginia, Barbados and other overseas destinations to transport people whom the authorities had placed within specified categories of vagrancy, poverty or criminal punishment.
The Council issued the requested order to local officials. This act later became an explicit precedent for the named Captain Guthrie petition at p. 446.
Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 7th November 1667.
Supplication by John Scott, master of the ship called The Good Intent, and James Currie, Patrick Fyf and James Hamiltoun, merchants, for themselves and in name of the remanent owners of the said ships, as follows:—
“It hath been in use to take occasion of ships bounding for Virginia, Barbadoes and other remote islands to disburden the kingdome of strong and idle beggars, vagabounds, Egyptians, comone and notorious whores, theeves and other dissolute and louse persons banished or stigmatizat for grosse crymes…”
The Lords give order to sheriffs and others to deliver such persons… to be transported be the forsaid ships…
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 7 November 1667.
John Scott, master of the Good Intent, and the merchants James Currie, Patrick Fyf and James Hamilton petitioned on behalf of themselves and the other owners of the vessels.
They stated that ships sailing to Virginia, Barbados and other distant destinations had been used to transport people whom the authorities categorized as able-bodied beggars, vagrants, “Egyptians,” prostitutes, thieves and other persons who had been banished or formally stigmatized for serious offences.
The Council ordered sheriffs and other local authorities to deliver qualifying persons for transportation aboard the ships.
No Guthrie is named here. The record is retained because the later p. 446 petition by Captain Guthrie, master of the Ewe and Lamb, expressly refers back to the Council’s former order at p. 358.
The two pages therefore create a documentary connection between this general transportation warrant and Captain Guthrie’s later direct appearance.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Supplication — formal petition.
- Remanent owners — the remaining owners.
- Bounding for — bound or sailing for.
- Egyptians — a historical Scottish legal term used for people identified as Gypsies/Roma; retained here only as source wording.
- Stigmatizat — formally branded or marked as punishment.
- Transportation — compulsory removal to an overseas destination under legal or administrative authority.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), p. 358. View digitized volume .
19 December 1667 — Sir Hendry Guthry of Collistoun — May Appointment Annulled
Third Series, Volume 2 • Pages 382–383
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The commissioners of excise for Aberdeenshire petitioned the Privy Council concerning competing additions made to their body. An earlier Council act of July 1665 had added a limited number of commissioners to replace men who had died or removed from the shire.
A later act in May 1667 added a further list of men, including Sir Hendry Guthry of Collistoun. The Council was informed that those later appointees had not yet been admitted or received.
After considering the petition and both acts, the Council adhered to the earlier July 1665 arrangement and annulled the subsequent May 1667 additions.
Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 19th December 1667.
“Ament a petition presented in name of the commissioners of excyse of the shyre of Aberdein shewing that in July, 1665, there being ane addresse made for adding certan commissioners to the said shyre in place of some dead or removed that were nominat by the act of Parliament, the Councill did adde a few in their place…
the Lords of his Majesties Privy Councill, having at lenth heard and considered the forsaid petition, with the act of Councill in July, 1665, adding certan commissioners of excyse for the said shyre in place of some deceased or removed, together with a posterior act in May also adding the persons underwrytten, viz., Charles, Earle of Aboyne; Adam Urquhart of Meldrum, Sir Hendry Guthry of Collistoun, George Gordon of Rothnie… and, being informed that the saids persons are not yet admitted nor receaved, doe herby adhere to their first act past in July, 1665, and annulles and discharges the said last act obtained in May last bypast…”
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 19 December 1667.
The Aberdeenshire excise commissioners explained that in July 1665 the Council had added a small number of replacement commissioners because some of those originally appointed by Parliament had died or moved away.
A later Council act in May 1667 had made additional appointments. Among the men named in that later act was Sir Hendry Guthry of Collistoun.
The Council was informed that the people named in the May act had not yet been formally admitted or received. After reviewing the earlier and later acts, it upheld the July 1665 arrangement and cancelled the May 1667 act.
This record materially changes the interpretation of Sir Hendry’s earlier appearance at p. 284.
The May 1667 act did appoint Sir Hary/Hendry Guthry of Collistoun as an Aberdeenshire commissioner of excise and justice of peace. The December act, however, states that the later appointees had not yet been admitted or received and annuls the May act.
It therefore should not be described as confirming Sir Hendry’s Aberdeenshire appointment. Instead, it documents the cancellation of that particular appointment.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Addresse — formal request or representation.
- Commissioners of excyse — local officials concerned with administration of excise taxation.
- Posterior act — a later act or decision.
- Admitted nor receaved — not yet formally accepted into exercise of the appointment.
- Adhere to their first act — uphold or continue the earlier Council decision.
- Annulles and discharges — cancels and declares the later act no longer operative.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), pp. 382–383. View digitized volume .
7 May 1668 — Captain Guthrie, Master of the Ewe and Lamb
Third Series, Volume 2 • Page 446
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This is the first direct Guthrie appearance in the Ewe and Lamb sequence in Volume II. The act identifies Captain Guthrie explicitly as master of the vessel.
He petitioned together with James Currie, Patrick Fyf and James Hamiltoun, merchants, on behalf of themselves and the remaining owners of the ship.
They sought delivery of persons falling within the categories then used by the Council for overseas transportation. The Council granted an order on the same basis as an earlier warrant printed at p. 358, with the authority to remain in force for three months.
Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 7th May 1668.
Supplication by Captain Guthrie, master of the ship called The Ewe and Lamb; James Currie, Patrick Fyf and James Hamiltoun, merchants, for themselves and the rest of the owners of the said ship, as follows:—
“The vessel is ready to transport vagabonds, idle beggars and other criminals to Virginia, Barbadoes and other remote islands, and they crave delivery of such according to the intention and custom of the Council.”
The Lords give order as formerly (ante, p. 358); to endure for three months.
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 7 May 1668.
Captain Guthrie, master of the ship The Ewe and Lamb, together with the merchants James Currie, Patrick Fyf and James Hamilton, petitioned for themselves and the other owners of the vessel.
The ship was ready to carry people selected for transportation to Virginia, Barbados and other distant plantations. The petitioners asked that such persons be delivered to them under the Council’s established practice.
The Council granted the requested order on the same terms as its previous warrant recorded at p. 358. The authorization was to remain valid for three months.
Unlike the earlier context-only records at pp. 202 and 358, this act directly identifies a Guthrie: Captain Guthrie is expressly styled master of the Ewe and Lamb.
It therefore supplies the documentary link that explains why the earlier and later ship-only records are retained in the Guthrie Finding Aid as contextual evidence.
It also adds a maritime and transatlantic occupational setting to the range of Guthrie evidence in the Privy Council records.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Supplication — formal petition to the Council.
- Master — the person commanding or responsible for the vessel.
- Ante — “before”; an editorial cross-reference to an earlier page in the volume.
- Transportation — removal overseas under criminal, judicial or administrative authority.
- To endure for three months — the authority granted by the Council was expressly time-limited.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), p. 446. View digitized volume .
5 August 1668 — Council Orders Search of the Ewe and Lamb
Third Series, Volume 2 • Pages 512–513 • Context-only record
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Three months after the Council granted Captain Guthrie and the owners of the Ewe and Lamb a transportation warrant, the Council ordered officials to board and search that vessel together with another Virginia ship, the Convertin.
The purpose was explicit: anyone aboard who had neither voluntarily agreed to be carried to the plantations nor been legally sentenced to transportation by a judge was to be brought ashore and released.
Complete Printed Item
Edinburgh, 5th August 1668.
“The Lords of his Majesties Privy Councill doe hereby give order and command to Mr Jon Stewart of Ketlestoun, admirall deputt, and any one of the baylies of Edinburgh, with one of the macers of Councill, immediately upon sight hereof, to goe aboard the tuo Virginia ships, the one called the Convertin and the other the Ewe and Lamb, lying in the road of Leeth, and to search the same, and, if they find any persons there who are not of their oune consent and frie will content to be caryed to the saids plantations or are not condemned therto by the sentence of a judge, that they bring them ashore and dismisse them…”
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 5 August 1668.
The Privy Council ordered Mr John Stewart of Ketlestoun, admiral-depute, together with one Edinburgh bailie and one Council macer, immediately to board two Virginia-bound ships lying in the roadstead of Leith: the Convertin and the Ewe and Lamb.
They were to search both ships. If they found anyone aboard who had not freely and voluntarily agreed to be carried to the plantations, and who had not been sentenced to transportation by a judge, they were to bring that person ashore and release them.
Although Captain Guthrie is not named in this act, the Ewe and Lamb had been directly identified as his ship at p. 446 only three months earlier.
The entry therefore adds an important legal counterpoint to the transportation warrants: Council authorization to transport certain people did not amount to unrestricted permission to carry anyone overseas.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Admirall deputt — deputy admiral exercising maritime jurisdiction.
- Baylie — burgh magistrate.
- Macer of Council — officer of the Privy Council responsible for executing and serving official orders.
- Road of Leeth — the roadstead or anchorage off Leith.
- Oune consent and frie will — the person’s own voluntary consent.
- Condemned therto by the sentence of a judge — legally sentenced by judicial authority to transportation.
- Dismisse them — release them.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), pp. 512–513. View digitized volume .
5 August 1668 — Sir Henry Guthrie of Collistoun — Banffshire Appointment
Third Series, Volume 2 • Page 515
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Banffshire commissioners of excise petitioned the Council because vacancies had arisen among the shire’s commissioners and justices of peace through death or removal.
The Council appointed six replacements, including Sir Henry Guthrie of Collistoun, with the ordinary powers of those offices once formally admitted.
This is distinct from the Aberdeenshire sequence at pp. 284 and 382–383. The May 1667 Aberdeenshire addition was annulled; the present act is a new appointment for Banffshire.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 5th August 1668.
The Lords, having considered a petition by the commissioners of excise of the shire of Bamff for the filling up of vacancies caused by the death or removal out of the shire of former commissioners and justices of peace, do hereby appoint George, Lord Bamff; Sir James Baird of Auchmedden, Sir Henry Guthrie of Collistoun, Alexander Sutherland of Kinminnetie, Walter Stewart of Boig and Mr Robert Irwing, tutor of Troup, to be commissioners of excise and justices of peace for the said shire, with full powers, being admitted thereto in the usual and accustomed manner.
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 5 August 1668.
The Privy Council considered a petition from the commissioners of excise for Banffshire asking that vacancies among the commissioners and justices of peace be filled because earlier officeholders had died or left the shire.
The Council appointed George, Lord Banff; Sir James Baird of Auchmedden; Sir Henry Guthrie of Collistoun; Alexander Sutherland of Kinminnetie; Walter Stewart of Boig; and Mr Robert Irwing, tutor of Troup.
Once formally admitted in the customary manner, they were to exercise the full powers belonging to commissioners of excise and justices of peace for Banffshire.
This act gives clear evidence of Sir Henry Guthrie’s service in northeast Scottish local government in 1668.
More importantly, it resolves a potential chronology problem. His earlier May 1667 addition to the Aberdeenshire commission was annulled in December of that year. The present Banffshire appointment is therefore not merely a continuation of that cancelled commission; it is a separate and later appointment.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Commissioner of excise — local official involved in administering excise taxation.
- Justice of Peace — local magistrate with judicial and administrative responsibilities.
- Removal out of the shire — departure from residence in the county, creating a practical vacancy.
- Tutor of Troup — the legal tutor or guardian administering the Troup interest or estate.
- Admitted thereto — formally received into exercise of the office.
- Full powers — the ordinary authority attached to the offices named in the commission.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), p. 515. View digitized volume .
15 January 1669 — Jean Ramsay Licensed to Attend Her Only Son
Third Series, Volume 2 • Page 588
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Almost three years after the 1666 proceedings involving Jean Ramsay and her daughter Sophia, Jean was still subject to confinement.
She now petitioned the Privy Council because her only son was seriously ill in Edinburgh. A medical certificate signed by Doctor Burnett accompanied the petition.
The Council allowed Jean to come to Edinburgh and remain there temporarily, until 15 February 1669, so that she could attend her son.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 15th January 1669.
Licence to Jean Guthrie, relict of Mr James Guthrie, to come to Edinburgh to attend her son, who is in sickness.
“The Lords of his Majesties Privy Council, haveing considered a petition presented be Jean Ramsay, relict of umquhile Mr James Guthrie, shewing that her only sone being in Edinburgh under a sad distemper to the hazard of his lyfe, and therfor supplicating that, notwithstanding of her confinement, she might be licensed for some tyme to come to Edinburgh and waite upon her sone, upon consideration of quhich petition and testificat produced subscryved be Doctour Burnett, the saids Lords allow the petitioner to come to Edinburgh and to reseid therein untill the fyfteenth day of February nixt to the effect abovementioned.”
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 15 January 1669.
The Privy Council considered a petition presented by Jean Ramsay, widow of the late Mr James Guthrie. She explained that her only son was in Edinburgh suffering from a serious illness that threatened his life.
Although Jean herself remained under confinement, she asked for permission to come to Edinburgh for a time so that she could care for her son.
The Council considered both her petition and a medical certificate signed by Doctor Burnett and granted her permission to come to Edinburgh and remain there until 15 February 1669 for that purpose.
This is one of the most genealogically important James Guthrie family records in the Third Series. It expressly states that Jean Ramsay had an “only sone” living in January 1669.
The son is not named. His identity should therefore remain unresolved unless another contemporary source securely connects a named son with this record.
The wording does not mean that James and Jean had only one child: Volume II already directly identifies Sophia Guthrie as Jean’s daughter. It means that the record describes this young man as Jean’s only son.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Relict — widow.
- Umquhile — late or deceased.
- Sad distemper — serious illness.
- To the hazard of his lyfe — sufficiently serious to threaten his life.
- Confinement — legal restriction requiring a person to remain within a specified place or area.
- Testificat — written certificate or attestation; here a medical certificate.
- Reseid — reside or remain.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), p. 588. View digitized volume .
14 November 1667 — William Guthrie, Weaver in Dundee
Third Series, Volume 2 • Pages 662–663 • Miscellaneous Papers
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This record appears among the volume’s Miscellaneous Papers rather than in the chronological Council proceedings. Its underlying document is dated 14 November 1667.
David Mylne, weaver and burgess of Edinburgh, stood as cautioner for a substantial group connected with the weaving trade in Dundee. Among the named Dundee weavers was William Guthrie.
The obligation concerned fines and confiscations that might become payable if the parties were found liable for breaches of the parliamentary legislation concerning weaving.
Printed Miscellaneous Paper — Editorial Abridgment
76. 14th November 1667.
Bond of caution by David Mylne, weaver, burgess of Edinburgh, for Alexander Mudie, present deacon of the weavers of Dundie, James Patersone, present boxmaster, David Midletoune, Henry Adame, William Guthrie, and a large number of other named weavers in Dundee and the liberty thereof, that, if found liable, they shall pay to David Weymes, merchant in Dundie, or his factors, the fines and confiscations incurred by them through breach of the act of Parliament anent weaving; with clause of registration.
The bond is written by James Kynneir, writer in Edinburgh, and dated at Edinburgh; witnesses, James Butchart, weaver in Caldtoune, and John Mudie, servitor to Adam Duncane, weaver, burgess of Cannogaitt, and James Kynneir, son of the said James Kynneir, and William Elder, weaver in Edinburgh.
John Clerk, present deacon of the weavers of Edinburgh, and William Reid, present boxmaster, attest the cautioner’s efficiency.
Modern English Rendering
On 14 November 1667 David Mylne, a weaver and burgess of Edinburgh, entered into a bond of caution on behalf of Alexander Mudie, deacon of the Dundee weavers; James Paterson, their boxmaster; David Midleton; Henry Adam; William Guthrie; and many other named weavers of Dundee and its liberties.
The bond provided security that, if those parties were found legally liable, they would pay David Wemyss, merchant in Dundee, or his agents, any fines and confiscations incurred through breaches of the parliamentary act concerning weaving. The bond included provision for formal registration.
James Kynneir, writer in Edinburgh, wrote the bond. Several witnesses are identified, and the current deacon and boxmaster of the Edinburgh weavers certified that David Mylne was financially sufficient to act as cautioner.
The entry gives William Guthrie a precise occupation and locality: he was a weaver in Dundee in 1667.
This is useful identity evidence because several William Guthries appear elsewhere in the Privy Council material in very different professional and social settings.
It also places William within a large network of Dundee craftsmen involved in a collective legal obligation connected with their trade.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bond of caution — formal surety by which a cautioner guaranteed another party’s financial or legal obligation.
- Cautioner — the person providing the security.
- Deacon of the weavers — principal officer of the craft organization.
- Boxmaster — officer responsible for the craft’s common funds or box.
- Liberty thereof — the area falling within the burgh’s jurisdiction or privileges.
- Anent weaving — concerning weaving.
- Clause of registration — provision allowing the bond to be formally registered and enforced.
- Efficiency of the cautioner — financial sufficiency of the person standing as surety.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), Miscellaneous Papers, No. 76, pp. 662–663. View digitized volume .
5–8 March 1669 — James Guthrie, Writer in Edinburgh
Third Series, Volume 2 • Page 680 • Miscellaneous Papers
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This Miscellaneous Papers item contains two connected stages: a Privy Council precept dated 5 March 1669 authorizing payment to James Dunlop of Houshill, followed by Dunlop’s receipt for the money on 8 March.
Dunlop had been employed as sheriff-depute of Renfrew for March through June. The payment was intended to meet the costs of himself, his procurator fiscal and his officer.
James Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, appears not in the Council’s original payment order but as one of the witnesses to Dunlop’s later receipt.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
142. Edinburgh, 5th March 1669.
Precept to Mr William Sharp, cash keeper, for paying 500 merks to James Dunlop of Houshill, whom the Lords of Council have employed to serve as sheriff-depute of Renfrew for the months of March instant, April, May and June ensuing, “for the outreik of himselfe, his procurator phischall and officer (who is to be a messenger) and ar to serve in the said court during the space forsaid, the whole fines therof being by the Councell allowed to them in consideration of ther interteenement, chairges and expenses time forsaid.”
Dated at Edinburgh, 5th March 1669. (Signed) Tweeddale, Kincardin, Cochrane, Bellenden.
Also receipt thereof by the said James Dunlop, dated at Edinburgh, 8th March 1669; witnesses, James Guthrie and John Cochrane, writers in Edinburgh, and John McPherson, writer in Edinburgh.
Modern English Rendering
On 5 March 1669 the Privy Council ordered Mr William Sharp, its cash keeper, to pay 500 merks to James Dunlop of Houshill.
Dunlop had been employed to serve as sheriff-depute of Renfrew for March, April, May and June. The payment was intended to equip and maintain Dunlop, his procurator fiscal and an officer who was to serve as a messenger in the court.
The Council allowed the court’s fines toward their maintenance, charges and expenses during that period.
On 8 March Dunlop issued his receipt for the money. The witnesses were James Guthrie and John Cochrane, both writers in Edinburgh, together with John McPherson, also a writer in Edinburgh.
The value of this entry is occupational rather than genealogical: it expressly identifies James Guthrie as a writer in Edinburgh and places him within the city’s professional legal-document network in March 1669.
His presence as a witness to an official financial receipt shows him functioning in precisely the documentary environment expected of an Edinburgh writer.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Writer — a professional legal clerk or document writer.
- Precept — written order or warrant authorizing an action or payment.
- Cash keeper — officer responsible for handling the relevant Council funds.
- Merk — Scottish unit of money equal to 13 shillings 4 pence Scots.
- Sheriff-depute — deputy exercising the sheriff’s local judicial authority.
- Procurator fiscal — public prosecutor attached to the court.
- Outreik — fitting out, equipment or provision for carrying out an office.
- Messenger — officer authorized to serve and execute legal process.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909), Miscellaneous Papers, No. 142, p. 680. View digitized volume .
Volume II — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume II, covering 1665–1669, preserves several unusually important Guthrie sequences rather than a collection of isolated surname appearances. The strongest family evidence concerns the household of the late Rev. James Guthrie of Stirling; the strongest political sequence concerns Mr Jon Gutherey; and the volume also follows Sir Henry / Harry Guthrie of Collistoun through changing local appointments in northeastern Scotland.
Alongside those connected records are a Fife witchcraft commission, continuing evidence for Alexander Guthry of Carsbank as a trusted local judicial commissioner, the transatlantic Ewe and Lamb sequence, and occupational evidence for Guthries working as a Dundee weaver and an Edinburgh writer.
Volume II substantially expands the contemporary evidence for the immediate family of the executed minister Rev. James Guthrie of Stirling. On 8 February 1666 the Council record places his widow Jean Ramsay and Sophia Guthrie together and expressly calls Sophia Jean’s daughter.
Jean and Sophia were examined concerning a book which the Council characterized as seditious. After refusing to identify under oath from whom it had been received, they were ordered to be confined in Zetland and meanwhile kept as close prisoners. Their later petition sought alteration of the place of confinement, and the final decision was delegated to the Lord Commissioner.
The family evidence becomes even more important on 15 January 1669. Jean Ramsay petitioned for permission to come to Edinburgh because “her only sone” was dangerously ill there. The Council allowed her to remain until 15 February after considering a medical certificate signed by Doctor Burnett.
The son is not named in this RPCS record. His identity therefore remains an important research question rather than a conclusion that can be supplied from inference.
References: pp. 138–139; pp. 148–149; and p. 588.
The volume provides strong evidence for James Guthrie’s surviving household after his execution: his widow Jean Ramsay, daughter Sophia, and an unnamed only son are all connected to him directly or through the wording of the related acts.
It does not provide new evidence identifying James Guthrie’s parents. Nothing in these Volume II acts resolves the separate research question raised by the 1659 sasine reference concerning a possible descent from William Guthrie of Memus and Isabella / Isobel Fenton.
Likewise, the phrase “only sone” should not be converted into the identity of a particular known or proposed son without additional contemporary evidence.
Volume II therefore strengthens the reconstruction of James’s immediate marital family while leaving his own proposed parentage unresolved.
Three RPCS records belong together. On 4 December 1666 the government named Mr Jon Gutherey in a proclamation prohibiting subjects from harbouring, supplying, corresponding with, hiding or concealing specified persons after the recent rising.
On 8 October 1667 he was expressly excluded from a royal indemnity. A separate act dated 9 October 1667 again included him among the named exceptions to pardon.
These acts record governmental action and legal status at successive stages. They should not be compressed into a generalized assertion that every allegation contained in the political proclamations was judicially proved.
Independent ecclesiastical evidence identifies this man as John Guthrie, minister of Tarbolton and Barnweil, youngest son of James Guthrie of Pitforthie and husband of Mary Haldane. Fasti also records his connection with the 1666 rising, later condemnation and royal pardon. Those biographical facts come from the independent ecclesiastical source rather than from these RPCS acts alone.
RPCS references: pp. 230–231; p. 345; and pp. 348–349. Independent comparison: Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae research page.
The three Collistoun references demonstrate why one appointment should not be read in isolation. On 18 May 1667 Sir Hary Guthry of Collistoun was added as a commissioner of excise and justice of peace for Aberdeenshire.
On 19 December 1667, however, the Council reviewed the competing Aberdeenshire commissions. The December act names Sir Hendry Guthry among the men added by the May act and states that those later appointees had not yet been admitted or received. The Council adhered to the earlier July 1665 arrangement and annulled the May 1667 additions.
His appearance on 5 August 1668 is therefore not confirmation of the cancelled Aberdeenshire commission. It is a new and separate appointment as commissioner of excise and justice of peace for Banffshire.
The source spellings Hary, Hendry and Henry have been retained in the detailed records rather than silently regularized inside the transcriptions.
References: p. 284; pp. 382–383; and p. 515.
Margret Guthry in the parish of Carnbie appears as an accused person on 9 May 1666. She was imprisoned at Anstruther Wester on suspicion of witchcraft, and the Council authorized local commissioners to place her before an assize.
The commission contains important safeguards: a death sentence could follow only if guilt rested upon a voluntary judicial confession obtained without torture or indirect means, or if malefices were otherwise legally established and proved. The act itself records authorization to try her; it does not record her eventual verdict or fate.
Alexander Guthry of Carsbank, by contrast, appears on the judicial side of Council business. In October 1666 he was one of the local commissioners appointed to try Agnes Kid on allegations of incest and child murder.
Together with Alexander’s repeated appearances in the Volume I witchcraft commissions, the record shows continuing Council reliance upon him as a local commissioner. It does not establish any family relationship between Alexander and Margret Guthry.
Volume II contains a connected maritime sequence concerning the ship Ewe and Lamb. The records at pp. 202 and 358 name the vessel but do not name a Guthrie. They have therefore been retained only as contextual records.
The direct identification comes on 7 May 1668, when the Council record expressly names Captain Guthrie as master of the Ewe and Lamb. He and merchants associated with the vessel sought authority to receive persons for transportation to Virginia, Barbados and other overseas destinations.
On 5 August 1668 the Council ordered officials to search the Ewe and Lamb and another Virginia ship and to bring ashore anyone who had neither freely consented to transportation nor been sentenced to it by a judge.
That later act is an inspection order, not proof that an unlawful transportation had occurred. It also supplies a valuable contemporary statement of the legal distinction the Council expected between voluntary passage and transportation under judicial sentence.
Volume II itself calls the master only “Captain Guthrie.” A forename should not be inserted into these Volume II transcriptions without separately cited evidence.
References: p. 202; p. 358; p. 446; and pp. 512–513.
The Miscellaneous Papers add two Guthries from professional settings quite different from the landed, ministerial and political records.
William Guthrie is explicitly identified as a weaver in Dundee in a collective bond of caution dated 14 November 1667. The bond secured possible fines and confiscations arising from breaches of weaving legislation.
The wording matters: William was one of the parties covered by the security if found liable. The item does not itself prove that he had already been fined, despite the compressed wording of the legacy index description.
James Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, appears in March 1669 as a witness to James Dunlop of Houshill’s receipt for Council funds. The precept was dated 5 March; James Guthrie appears only in the receipt dated 8 March 1669.
Neither occupational record supplies parentage or other direct kinship evidence.
References: pp. 662–663 and p. 680.
Volume II repeatedly illustrates the importance of separating documentary stages. A proclamation is not the same thing as a conviction; exclusion from indemnity is not proof of every alleged act; a commission to try an accused person is not the resulting verdict; and an order to search a ship is not proof that the search uncovered a violation.
Brown’s edition also contains both chronological Council material and later Miscellaneous Papers. For that reason the records at pp. 662–663 and p. 680 appear late in the printed volume even though their documents date from 1667 and early 1669.
The detailed cards preserve that printed-page order rather than artificially rearranging the volume into a modern chronology.
Where Brown prints an editorial abridgment, the record has been labelled accordingly rather than represented as a complete verbatim manuscript transcription.
The strongest genealogical discovery in this volume is the continuing family evidence for Rev. James Guthrie of Stirling. Jean Ramsay and Sophia Guthrie are directly linked in 1666, and the 1669 licence supplies the additional statement that Jean had an unnamed only son.
The volume also gives clear identity markers for several unrelated or not-yet-connected Guthries: Alexander Guthry of Carsbank; Margret Guthry of Carnbie; Sir Hary / Hendry / Henry Guthry of Collistoun; William Guthrie, weaver in Dundee; James Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh; and Captain Guthrie of the Ewe and Lamb.
Those records supply place, occupation, territorial designation, public office or documentary role, but they should not be joined into family relationships unless independent evidence actually establishes the connection.
Who was Jean Ramsay’s “only son”? The January 1669 act proves the existence of a son but does not name him. Identifying him from independent contemporary evidence is now a significant research priority for the James Guthrie family.
Where were Jean Ramsay and Sophia ultimately confined? The February 1666 sentence ordered Zetland; their later petition resulted in authority for the Lord Commissioner to change the place. The RPCS entries reviewed here do not state the final destination.
What happened to Margret Guthry of Carnbie? The Council authorized a trial but this volume entry does not record a later verdict, sentence or release.
Who exactly was Captain Guthrie? Volume II establishes his office as master of the Ewe and Lamb but gives no forename or family connection in the direct named entry.
Does Volume II advance James Guthrie’s proposed Memus parentage? No. The family records here concern his widow and children. The proposed identification of James as a son of William Guthrie of Memus and Isabella / Isobel Fenton remains dependent upon the separate 1659 sasine evidence and associated research.
Evidence to Carry Forward
Government terms such as rebel, seditious and related political descriptions have been preserved as source language and attributed to the government records that use them.
The Margret Guthry witchcraft record is a Fife proceeding centered on Carnbie and Anstruther Wester. It should not be relocated to Forfarshire simply because the earlier Third Series witchcraft cluster involved Forfar-area Guthries.
The December 1667 Collistoun act corrects the older interpretation that Sir Hendry’s Aberdeenshire appointment was confirmed. The source instead annuls the May additions.
The editorial heading at p. 588 calls the petitioner Jean Guthrie, while the act itself identifies her as Jean Ramsay, relict of umquhile Mr James Guthrie. That difference has been preserved rather than silently standardized.
Finally, the three ship-only Ewe and Lamb records remain contextual evidence. Only p. 446 in Volume II directly names Captain Guthrie.
Basis of synthesis: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume II, A.D. 1665–1669 (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1909). The linked record cards preserve the relevant printed wording, editorial abridgments, source spellings and legal distinctions. View digitized Volume II .
Independent comparison for John Guthrie of Tarbolton: Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, Volume 3, p. 75. Compare the Fasti research entry .
Volume 3
Volume 3 continues several Guthrie threads established in the preceding volumes while introducing new civic, legal, occupational and publishing evidence. The most sustained sequence concerns the ship Ewe and Lamb, already documented in Volume 2 as a vessel used in transatlantic transportation.
A particularly important identity problem emerges in this volume. The printed entry at p. 98 names Captain James Guthrie as skipper of the Ewe and Lamb, while the later entry at p. 407 expressly names Captain John Guthrie as skipper of the same vessel. The two readings are preserved rather than silently harmonized. The wider documentary sequence will be examined in the detailed records before any final identity conclusion is stated.
Other records include the posthumous publishing history of Rev. William Guthrie of Fenwick, an allegation involving David Guthry during a violent Forfar disturbance, Thomas Guthrie in Forfar civic administration, Mr William Guthrie, W.S. in the Edinburgh legal profession, an Arbroath cluster of Guthrie craftsmen and witnesses, and Sir Herie Guthrie of Collistone in a later Aberdeenshire justice-of-peace list.
The later Miscellaneous Papers are retained in printed-page order even when their underlying documents pre-date records printed earlier in the volume. Allegations, petitions, commissions, appointments, bonds and later outcomes are kept evidentially distinct.
Read Volume 3 Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume III, A.D. 1669–1672. Edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown, M.A., LL.D., Historiographer Royal for Scotland. Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1910.
References on this page use the volume’s printed page numbers. Image or sequence numbers assigned by a digitized viewer may therefore be higher than the printed page cited.
Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 98 | 20 Nov 1669 |
Captain James Guthrie skipper of the Ewe and Lamb Identity issue: later record names Captain John Guthrie |
Petition by Edinburgh merchants and the shipmaster for authority to receive persons sentenced to banishment or condemned as vagabonds and transport them to Virginia or other plantations. The printed p. 98 reading “James” is retained pending full comparison with the later John Guthrie records. |
| 306 | 2 Mar 1671 |
Mr William Guthrie deceased author of The Christian’s Interest |
George Swintoun and James Glen, printers in Edinburgh, obtain an eleven-year exclusive printing privilege covering sermons of Mr Andrew Gray and Guthrie’s devotional work. Independent biographical evidence identifies the author as Rev. William Guthrie of Fenwick; that identification will be distinguished from the wording of the Council record itself. |
| 407 | 16 Nov 1671 |
Captain John Guthrie skipper of the Ew and Lamb |
Laurence Trent, merchant, and Captain John Guthrie petition for authority to receive specified classes of persons for transportation to the plantations. This direct John Guthrie identification is central to evaluating the anomalous “James” reading at p. 98. |
| 469 |
22 Feb 1672 incident: 25 Jul 1671 |
David Guthry associated in the record with Over Bargilloe |
Named among men accused in a counter-complaint arising from a violent disturbance during the proclamation of the St James Day fair at Forfar. The complete act must be read through its complaint, defence and Council outcome; inclusion among the accused is not itself proof of guilt. |
| 523 | 2 May 1672 |
Ew and Lamb Context only — no Guthrie named in this act |
Barbara Finnick and Jean Browne, prisoners in the Edinburgh tolbooth, are ordered delivered to the master of the Ew and Lamb for transportation to the plantations. Retained only as part of the documented vessel sequence. |
| 619 | 7 Apr & 25 May 1669 |
Thomas Guthrie provost of Forfar |
Appears among Angus lairds and burgh officials convened in local administrative proceedings. This Miscellaneous Papers material is printed late in the volume despite its 1669 date. |
| 620 | 25 May 1669 | Thomas Guthrie for Forfar | Appears among the existing Forfarshire commissioners while the Council appoints replacements for deceased commissioners of excise and justices of peace. The detailed record will preserve the distinction between his existing status and the newly named replacements. |
| 681 | 23 Jan 1671 | Mr William Guthrie, W.S. | John Paip, servitor to Mr William Guthrie, Writer to the Signet, wrote a bond of caution. Paip is the direct document writer; William Guthrie is identified through their professional relationship and should not be described as a party to the bond without further evidence. |
| 690 | 10 Jul 1671 | David Guthrie in Arbroath | Witness to a bond of caution executed at Arbroath. His locality makes this record useful when compared with the Guthrie craftsmen appearing two pages later, but no kinship is inferred. |
| 692–693 | 14 Jul 1671 |
John Gutherie William Gutherie glovers in Arbroath |
Named among parties protected by a substantial bond of caution concerning threats or molestation in Arbroath. The occupational designation “glovers” and the source spelling “Gutherie” are important identity markers. |
| 704 | 1671 | Sir Herie Guthrie of Collistone | Listed among justices of peace for the Presbytery of Turriff in Aberdeenshire. This is a later documented JP listing and should not be represented as proof that his annulled May 1667 Aberdeenshire appointment simply continued uninterrupted. |
20 November 1669 — Captain James Guthrie and the Ewe and Lamb
Third Series, Volume III • Page 98
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 20 November 1669 James Johnstone, James Currie and Patrick Fyfe, merchants in Edinburgh, joined Captain James Guthrie, skipper of the Ewe and Lamb, in petitioning the Privy Council concerning transportation to Virginia.
The Council authorized delivery to the petitioners of persons in the Edinburgh tolbooth who had been sentenced to banishment, as well as persons legally condemned as vagabonds by competent magistrates. The petitioners were required to provide financial security that those delivered to them would actually be carried overseas rather than released or put ashore prematurely.
The warrant was temporary, remaining in force for three months.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 20th November 1669.
Supplication by James Johnstone, James Currie, Patrick Fyfe, merchants in Edinburgh, and Captain James Guthrie, skipper of the Ewe and Lamb, bound for Virginia, in the former accustomed terms (cf. p. 21).
The Lords ordain all such persons as are within the tolbooth of Edinburgh and are by sentence banished this kingdom to be delivered to the supplicants, who are to find caution to carry them to the plantations under a penalty of 1000 merks for each one whom they shall put ashore or suffer to escape for their liberation before they shall be landed in Virginia or others of his Majesty’s foreign plantations; and also ordaining all who already are or shall be condemned as vagabonds by any judge or justice of peace to be delivered to them; and that within the three months during which this order is valid.
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 20 November 1669.
James Johnstone, James Currie and Patrick Fyfe, merchants in Edinburgh, together with Captain James Guthrie, skipper of the ship Ewe and Lamb, which was bound for Virginia, submitted a petition in the same general form as an earlier petition cited by the editor at p. 21.
The Privy Council ordered that persons confined in the Edinburgh tolbooth who had been legally sentenced to banishment from Scotland could be delivered to the petitioners for transportation. The petitioners first had to provide financial security guaranteeing that they would carry those people to the overseas plantations.
For every person whom they put ashore, allowed to escape, or otherwise released before reaching Virginia or another of the king’s overseas plantations, the petitioners would incur a penalty of 1,000 merks.
Persons already condemned, or later condemned, as vagabonds by a legally competent judge or justice of the peace could likewise be delivered to the petitioners. The Council’s authority under this order lasted for three months.
This record directly places a Guthrie shipmaster in the Scotland-to-Virginia transportation system in November 1669 and identifies his vessel as the Ewe and Lamb.
It also shows that transportation was not simply a private arrangement between merchants and passengers. In this instance the Council authorized delivery of specifically defined classes of prisoners and vagabonds, required the transporters to provide financial security, imposed a substantial penalty for premature release or escape, and limited the warrant to three months.
Genealogically, however, the record is most important because of the forename. Brown’s printed abridgment says Captain James Guthrie. That reading must remain visible even though later evidence in the same volume identifies the skipper of the same vessel as Captain John Guthrie.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Supplication: A formal petition presented to the Privy Council requesting an order, licence or other remedy.
- Tolbooth: A burgh building that could serve as court, council chamber and prison; here the Edinburgh tolbooth is functioning as a place of confinement.
- Banished this kingdom: Formally sentenced to leave Scotland. This record concerns people already under such sentences rather than treating mere accusation as sufficient.
- Find caution: Provide a surety or financial guarantee for performance of an obligation.
- 1,000 merks: The stated financial penalty for each transported person released, put ashore or allowed to escape before lawful arrival overseas.
- Vagabond: A legal and administrative category applied to persons judged under contemporary poor-law and vagrancy provisions. The Council order requires condemnation by a judge or justice of the peace; it does not authorize the petitioners simply to designate people as vagabonds themselves.
- Plantations: Contemporary term for overseas colonies. Virginia is named specifically in this record.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume III, A.D. 1669–1672, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1910), p. 98. Open Volume III at HathiTrust .
2 March 1671 — Mr William Guthrie and The Christians Interest
Third Series, Volume III • Page 306
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
George Swintoun and James Glen, printers in Edinburgh, petitioned the Privy Council concerning works by two deceased ministers: Mr Andrew Gray and Mr William Guthrie.
According to the petition, some years earlier the printers had reached an agreement with the men’s relicts and paid a considerable sum for the first copies of Gray’s sermons and Guthrie’s small book called The Christians Interest.
The petitioners had printed the works, but subsequent reprinting by others had prejudiced their commercial interest. With copies now nearly exhausted, they sought exclusive authority to print the works for a further period.
The Council granted Swintoun and Glen the sole privilege of printing Gray’s thirty-seven sermons and Guthrie’s book for eleven years.
Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 2nd March 1671.
Monopoly of printing the sermons of Mr Andrew Gray and Mr William Guthrie’s Christians Interest granted to George Swintoun and James Glen, printers in Edinburgh.
“The Lords of his Majesties Privy Councill, having considered a petition presented to them be George Swintoun and James Glen, printers in Edinburgh, bearing that diverse years since, upon agrielment with the relicts of Mr Andro Gray and Mr William Guthrie, and payment to them of a considerable soume, they purchased the first copy of some sermons wrytten be Mr Gray and Mr Guthrie his little book, called the ‘Christians Interest,’ which the petitioners did accordingly print …”
The petition further represented that the works had since been reprinted to the petitioners’ prejudice, but were now nearly worn out of print, and asked for the sole privilege of printing them for a competent period.
The Lords grant George Swintoun and James Glen the “sole and only priviledge” of printing the said Mr Gray his 37 sermons and Mr Guthries little book, called the “Christians Interest,” for the space of eleven years.
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 2 March 1671.
The Privy Council considered a petition from George Swintoun and James Glen, printers in Edinburgh.
They explained that several years earlier they had made an agreement with the widows of Mr Andrew Gray and Mr William Guthrie and had paid them a substantial sum to acquire the original or authorized copies of certain writings: sermons by Gray and Guthrie’s small book called The Christians Interest.
Swintoun and Glen had printed the works, but other printing had subsequently damaged their commercial interest. The existing supply was now almost exhausted, so they asked the Council to give them an exclusive right to print the works for an appropriate period.
The Council granted them the sole privilege of printing Gray’s thirty-seven sermons and Guthrie’s Christians Interest for eleven years.
This entry provides unusually direct evidence for the commercial history of William Guthrie’s writings within only a few years of his death.
It shows that the work already had sufficient demand to possess measurable publishing value. Swintoun and Glen had paid a “considerable soume” for rights associated with the original copy, had already printed the work, complained of competing reprints, and successfully obtained an eleven-year exclusive privilege.
The record also preserves evidence involving Guthrie’s surviving household after his death: the transaction had been made with the relicts of Mr Andro Gray and Mr William Guthrie. In seventeenth-century usage this identifies the men’s widows, although the RPCS entry does not name either woman.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Relict: A widow; literally the surviving spouse of a deceased husband in the usage of these records.
- First copy: In this publishing context, the copy or literary property from which authorized publication rights were derived; it should not automatically be understood as meaning the first physical copy ever printed.
- Soume: Sum of money.
- Sole and only privilege: An exclusive legal authorization to print the specified works during the stated period.
- Printing privilege: A government-granted exclusive right protecting the production of a specified work for a limited term, an important predecessor of later statutory copyright systems.
- Eleven years: The duration of the exclusive privilege granted by the Council in this act.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume III, A.D. 1669–1672, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1910), p. 306. Open Volume III at HathiTrust .
16 November 1671 — Captain John Guthrie and the Ew and Lamb
Third Series, Volume III • Page 407
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 16 November 1671 merchant Laurence Trent and Captain John Guthrie, skipper of the Ew and Lamb, petitioned the Privy Council for a transportation warrant.
Their petition invoked the Council’s established practice of using ships sailing for the plantations to remove persons whom contemporary law and administration classified as “strong and idle beggars,” vagabonds, “Egyptians,” and other persons falling within the categories described in the petition.
The petitioners also sought authority to receive prisoners in and around Edinburgh who were themselves willing to leave the kingdom.
The Council granted the request, but the order included an important procedural safeguard for prisoners volunteering for transportation: the Lord Advocate or Justice Clerk first had to be informed of their names and consent to their removal. The warrant remained valid for four months.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 16th November 1671.
Supplication by Laurence Trent, merchant, and Captain John Guthrie, skipper of the ship called the Ew and Lamb, as follows:—
“Their Lordships have been in use to take advantage of ships bounding for the plantations to disburden the country of strong and idle beggars, vagabonds, Egyptians and other undesirable persons; and, as the country now abounds with such, it is craved that warrant may be issued to sheriffs and magistrates to deliver such to the supplicants for transportation, also such prisoners in and about Edinburgh who may be willing themselves to go out.”
The Lords grant warrant as craved, and ordain the magistrates of Edinburgh, Leith and Cannongate to deliver any prisoners in their tolbooths who are willing to be transported, the Lord Advocate or the Justice Clerk being always first acquainted with the names of such and their consent obtained. The order is to endure for four months.
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 16 November 1671.
Laurence Trent, merchant, and Captain John Guthrie, skipper of the ship Ew and Lamb, petitioned the Privy Council.
They stated that the Council had previously made use of ships sailing to the overseas plantations as a means of transporting people whom contemporary Scottish law and government classified as able-bodied beggars, vagabonds, “Egyptians,” and other persons targeted by the poor-law and vagrancy system.
Because, according to the petition, the country currently had many people falling within those categories, Trent and Guthrie asked the Council to direct sheriffs and magistrates to deliver such persons to them for transportation.
They also asked permission to receive prisoners held in and around Edinburgh who voluntarily wished to leave Scotland.
The Council granted the petition. Magistrates in Edinburgh, Leith and the Canongate were authorized to deliver prisoners from their tolbooths who were willing to be transported. Before any such voluntary prisoner was removed, however, the Lord Advocate or Justice Clerk had to be told the person’s name and give approval.
The authority granted by the Council was to remain in force for four months.
This is the clearest Volume III identification of the master of the Ew and Lamb: Captain John Guthrie.
The record also names one of his commercial associates, Laurence Trent, giving us an important additional identifier for tracing the captain in maritime, mercantile, customs, court and testamentary sources.
It demonstrates that the Ew and Lamb was not appearing accidentally in isolated transportation records. By late 1671 its master was actively petitioning the Privy Council for a continuing role in the system.
The act is also useful because it differentiates two routes into transportation: persons delivered under contemporary vagrancy administration and prisoners who were willing themselves to go out. The latter group was subject to a specific consent and oversight requirement.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Supplication: A formal petition requesting action or authority from the Privy Council.
- Bounding for the plantations: Bound or sailing for overseas colonies.
- Plantations: Contemporary term for overseas colonial settlements.
- Strong and idle beggars / vagabonds: Legal categories created and regulated under contemporary Scottish poor-law and vagrancy legislation. They should not be read as neutral modern social descriptions.
- “Egyptians”: Historical Scottish legal and governmental terminology applied to people now generally discussed in the context of Gypsy/Traveller history. The term is retained here because it appears in the historical record.
- Disburden the country: The petition’s governmental language for removing persons whom contemporary authorities placed within the targeted legal and social categories.
- Tolbooth: A burgh building serving judicial and civic functions and, commonly, as a prison.
- Lord Advocate: Senior Crown law officer in Scotland.
- Justice Clerk: Senior judicial officer associated with Scotland’s criminal justice administration.
- Four-month warrant: The Council’s authorization was temporary rather than an indefinite licence.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume III, A.D. 1669–1672, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1910), p. 407. Open Volume III at HathiTrust .
22 February 1672 — David Guthry and the Forfar Fair Disturbance
Third Series, Volume III • Page 469
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This record concerns a dispute arising from events in Forfar on 25 July 1671, during the public proclamation of the St James Day fair.
The proceeding printed under 22 February 1672 is described as a counter-complaint brought by Sir John Nisbett of Dirltoun, His Majesty’s Advocate, together with the current bailies and councillors of Forfar.
Their complaint was directed against William Gray of Inverieghty and a substantial company of other men, among whom David Guthry was named.
The complainants alleged that the opposing party arrived on horseback and armed, disrupted the customary proclamation of the fair, assaulted burgh officers and burgesses, and used swords, pistols and firearms.
These statements are the allegations of the counter-complainers. Naming David Guthry among the accused does not establish that he personally committed every act described, or that the Council ultimately found the accusation proved.
Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment, Verified Portion
Edinburgh, 22nd February 1672.
Counter-complaint by Sir John Nisbett of Dirltoun (his Majesty’s Advocate), and the present bailies and councillors of Forfar, against William Gray of Inverieghty and a large group of armed men, including David Guthry there, for invading and assaulting the magistrates and others during the proclamation of the St. James Day fair on 25th July last.
The complaint describes how William Gray and a company of three or four score men on horseback, “armed with swords, pistols and other weapons invasive,” came in a tumultuous manner, assaulted the bailie and other burgesses, beat them, struck and invaded them with drawn swords, fired pistols and shot guns, to the effusion of their blood and peril of their lives.
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 22 February 1672.
Sir John Nisbett of Dirleton, the King’s Advocate, together with the current bailies and councillors of Forfar, brought a counter-complaint against William Gray of Inverieghty and a large group of other men. David Guthry was one of the men named.
The complaint concerned events of 25 July 1671, when the magistrates were carrying out the public proclamation associated with the St James Day fair.
According to the complainants, William Gray came with roughly sixty to eighty mounted men carrying swords, pistols and other weapons. They alleged that the group approached in a disorderly manner, attacked a bailie and other burgesses, beat and struck them with drawn swords, and discharged pistols and guns, causing bloodshed and placing lives in danger.
These are allegations contained in the complaint. The surviving extract available for this rebuild does not preserve enough of the later pleading and Council ruling to state a final legal outcome for David Guthry.
This record places a David Guthry within the civic and social world of Forfar in the early 1670s and associates him with a significant local dispute serious enough to reach the Privy Council.
It also illustrates why Privy Council complaints must be read through to their outcomes. The allegations are vivid and detailed, but they represent one side of contested litigation. A genealogical abstract that simply describes David as a participant in a violent attack would therefore state more than the surviving evidence presently proves.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Counter-complaint: A complaint brought in response to, or as the opposing side of, an existing dispute. It signals that the event was contested.
- Bailie: A burgh magistrate exercising civic and judicial authority.
- Three or four score: Approximately sixty to eighty persons.
- Weapons invasive: Weapons carried or used for attack rather than merely ordinary defensive equipment.
- Effusion of their blood: Contemporary legal phrasing indicating bloodshed or bodily injury.
- Riding and proclaiming the fair: The ceremonial and official public proclamation of the burgh fair by the magistrates or their representatives.
- Asssoilzie: To absolve or acquit a defender from a complaint. The term appears in the legacy material associated with this entry, but its precise application cannot safely be assigned to David Guthry from the surviving extract alone.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume III, A.D. 1669–1672, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1910), p. 469. Open Volume III at HathiTrust .
2 May 1672 — The Ew and Lamb: Transportation of Barbara Finnick and Jean Browne
Third Series, Volume III • Page 523 • Context Only
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 2 May 1672 the Privy Council ordered Barbara Finnick and Jean Browne, prisoners in the tolbooth of Edinburgh, to be delivered to the master of the ship called the Ew and Lamb for transportation to the overseas plantations.
No Guthrie is named in this source unit. Its value to the Guthrie project is contextual: it shows that the same vessel associated directly with Captain John Guthrie in the November 1671 petition continued to be used in the Council’s transportation system in May 1672.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 2nd May 1672.
The Lords ordain Barbara Finnick and Jean Browne, prisoners in the tolbooth of Edinburgh for heinous crimes, to be delivered to the master of the ship called “The Ew and Lamb” to be transported to the plantations.
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 2 May 1672.
The Privy Council ordered that Barbara Finnick and Jean Browne, who were being held in the Edinburgh tolbooth for serious offences, were to be handed over to the master of the ship Ew and Lamb.
They were then to be transported aboard that vessel to the overseas plantations.
Although no Guthrie is named, this entry materially extends the documented history of the Ew and Lamb.
Only about five and a half months earlier, on 16 November 1671, the Council had expressly named Captain John Guthrie as skipper of this vessel. The May 1672 act therefore confirms that the ship itself remained active in the same transportation system shortly afterward.
That continuity is useful when reconstructing Captain Guthrie’s maritime career, but the distinction between ship evidence and personal evidence must be preserved.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Tolbooth: A burgh civic building commonly serving as a prison as well as a court and council venue.
- Heinous crimes: The editor’s description of the offences for which the women were confined. The act excerpt does not specify those offences.
- Delivered to the master: Transferred from civic custody into the custody of the shipmaster for transportation.
- Plantations: Contemporary term for overseas colonial settlements.
- Context-only record: An editorial category used on this Guthrie Genealogy page for a source that materially documents a Guthrie-associated vessel, place or sequence without directly naming a Guthrie.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume III, A.D. 1669–1672, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1910), p. 523. Open Volume III at HathiTrust .
7 April & 25 May 1669 — Thomas Guthrie, Provost of Forfar
Third Series, Volume III • Page 619
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This late-printed Miscellaneous Papers item records meetings at Forfar involving a broad cross-section of the county’s nobility, landed proprietors and burgh officers.
Among the burgh representatives is Thomas Guthrie, who is expressly styled “proveist” of Forfar. David Dickesone appears with him as a bailie for the same burgh.
The list also includes officials or representatives from Dundee, Arbroath and Brechin, alongside numerous Forfarshire lairds. The Laird of Fintrie was nominated to preside.
Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Forfar, 7th April and 25th May 1669.
“Conveined, the Earles of Kingorne, Southesk, Panmuir, the Lord Ogilwie, the Lairds of Powrie, wester and easter, Balmamoon, Inveraritie, Bonytoune, Auldbar, Fintrie, younger, Cossinis, Newgrainge, Pitmoues, Duntroon, Monorgend, Logiefort, Guind, Lantoune, Inverightie, Newgait, Balmachie, Ardounie, Kingennie, Kirkbuddo, Strickmairtein, Ogill Wester, Dryburgh, Dennon Easter, Kirktoune; George Forrester, baillie for Dundie, Thomas Guthrie, proveist, and David Dickesone, baillie for Forfar, David Ochterlouny, baillie for Aberbrothik, George Steill and Jamesone for Brechin. The Laird of Fintrie nominat preses…”
Modern English Rendering
Forfar, proceedings dated 7 April and 25 May 1669.
A large group assembled, including the Earls of Kinghorn, Southesk and Panmure, Lord Ogilvie, numerous Forfarshire lairds, and representatives of several royal burghs.
George Forrester appeared as bailie for Dundee; Thomas Guthrie appeared as Provost of Forfar, together with David Dickesone, bailie of Forfar; David Ochterlouny represented Arbroath as bailie; and George Steill and another representative appeared for Brechin.
The Laird of Fintrie was nominated to act as president or chairman of the meeting.
This is direct evidence that Thomas Guthrie was serving as Provost of Forfar in 1669. It places him among the senior civic and landed officials participating in county-level administration.
The record is particularly useful because Thomas is not identified merely by surname or residence. His municipal office is stated expressly, giving a strong identity marker for comparison with earlier and later Forfar records.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Conveined: Convened or assembled.
- Proveist: Provost — the chief magistrate of a Scottish royal burgh.
- Baillie: A burgh magistrate serving beneath or alongside the provost.
- Preses: President or chairman of a meeting.
- Nominat preses: Nominated or appointed to preside.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume III, A.D. 1669–1672, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1910), p. 619. Additional identity evidence: National Records of Scotland, GD176/519, Burgess Ticket of Lachlan Mackintosh of Torcastle, Forfar, 16 April 1668.
25 May 1669 — Thomas Guthrie “for Forfar”
Third Series, Volume III • Page 620
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 25 May 1669 another Forfar meeting assembled a group including the Earls of Southesk and Northesk, Sir David Ogilvie of Clova, Sir John Carnegie of Boysack, numerous lairds, and Thomas Guthrie “for Forfar.”
The Earl of Northesk was nominated to preside.
The Council then addressed vacancies among the Commissioners of Excise and Justices of Peace for Forfarshire. Because a number of those commissioners had died, replacement members were appointed so that royal administration would not be delayed.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Forfar, 25th May 1669.
“Conveened, the Earles of Southesk and Northesk, Sir David Ogilwie of Clovy, Sir John Carnegie of Boysock, James Carnegie of Balmamoon, John Lindsay of Edzell, the Lairds of Dun, Bonytoune, Monorgond, Powrie Wester, Lantoune, Pitmoues, Guind, Ardounie, Dryburgh, Innerightie, Logiefort, Thomas Guthrie for Forfar. The Earle of Northesk nominat preses.”
The Lords of his Majesties Privie Counsell, considering that sundrie of the commissioners of excyse and justices of peace within the shyre of Forfar ar deceased, and, leist his Majesties service might be retardit throw the want of fitt persons to supplie their places, they doe nominat and appoint the Earl of Southesk, the Lord Ogilwie, John Grahame of Claverhous… to be commissioners of excyse and justices of peace in the said shyre in place of these deceased…
Modern English Rendering
Forfar, 25 May 1669.
A group of county officials and landholders assembled, including the Earls of Southesk and Northesk, Sir David Ogilvie of Clova, Sir John Carnegie of Boysack, James Carnegie of Balmamoon, John Lindsay of Edzell, numerous lairds, and Thomas Guthrie representing Forfar.
The Earl of Northesk was chosen to preside.
The Privy Council noted that several Commissioners of Excise and Justices of Peace in Forfarshire had died. To prevent the King’s administrative business from being delayed for lack of suitable officials, the Council appointed named replacements to fill the vacant places.
Page 620 reinforces Thomas Guthrie’s position within the administrative network of Forfarshire, but it should be read precisely.
The record does not appoint Thomas Guthrie to a new office. He is already present in the assembled body before the Council names replacements for deceased Commissioners of Excise and Justices of Peace.
Together with p. 619, the record shows the Provost of Forfar participating alongside leading county landholders and royal-burgh representatives in local administration during 1669.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Commissioner of Excise: An official involved in administration of excise taxation.
- Justice of Peace: A locally appointed magistrate exercising administrative and judicial functions within the shire.
- Shyre of Forfar: The county or sheriffdom of Forfar, later commonly called Angus.
- Leist his Majesties service might be retardit: Lest the King’s service or administration be delayed.
- Supplie their places: Fill the vacant offices of those who had died.
- Nominat preses: Nominated to preside over the meeting.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume III, A.D. 1669–1672, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1910), p. 620. Additional identity evidence: National Records of Scotland, GD176/519, Forfar Burgess Ticket, 16 April 1668; Alexander Nisbet, A System of Heraldry, account of Thomas Guthrie, sometime Provost of Forfar.
23 January 1671 — Mr William Guthrie, Writer to the Signet
Third Series, Volume III • Page 681
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This Miscellaneous Papers item records a bond of caution dated at Edinburgh on 23 January 1671.
James Ogilvie of Logie and Thomas Ogilvie of Channallie each bound himself for the other that they would not molest William Wilson at the Bridgend of Earn, his household, or those covered by the obligation.
The security was backed by a penalty of 3,000 merks.
The Guthrie connection is documentary rather than substantive: the bond was written by John Paip, servitor to Mr William Guthrie, W.S.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 23rd January 1671.
177. Bond of caution by James Ogilvie of Logie and Thomas Ogilvie of Channallie, each for the other, that they will not molest William Wilson at the Bridgend of Eairn, nor his household, etc., directly or indirectly, under the penalty of 3000 merks.
The bond, which was written by John Paip, servitor to Mr William Guthrie, W.S., is dated at Edinburgh, 23rd January 1671; witnesses, John Dundass of Wester Bondairge, and John Chalmeris, servitor to the said James Ogilvie.
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 23 January 1671.
James Ogilvie of Logie and Thomas Ogilvie of Channallie entered into a formal bond of caution, each giving security for the other.
They undertook that they would not directly or indirectly harass, disturb or interfere with William Wilson at the Bridgend of Earn, his household, or others protected by the bond.
Breach of the obligation carried a penalty of 3,000 merks.
The document was written by John Paip, who is identified as a servitor to Mr William Guthrie, Writer to the Signet. The witnesses were John Dundass of Wester Bondairge and John Chalmeris, servitor to James Ogilvie.
The record supplies a precise professional identification for Mr William Guthrie: he was a Writer to the Signet in Edinburgh by January 1671.
It also identifies one member of his working household or legal office, John Paip, whose description as Guthrie’s servitor may help trace additional deeds, bonds and legal instruments prepared within the same professional network.
The entry is therefore more valuable for documenting William Guthrie’s legal practice and associates than for the substance of the dispute recorded in the bond.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- W.S. / Writer to the Signet: A member of the established Scottish legal profession associated with preparation and authentication of formal legal instruments and with practice connected to the royal signet.
- Servitor: A servant, clerk or assistant attached to another person’s household or professional office. Here John Paip was attached to William Guthrie’s legal practice.
- Bond of caution: A formal obligation backed by financial security guaranteeing specified conduct.
- Each for the other: Each Ogilvie undertook responsibility as security for the other’s compliance.
- Molest: To trouble, harass, threaten or interfere with a person.
- 3,000 merks: The financial penalty attached to breach of the obligation.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume III, A.D. 1669–1672, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1910), p. 681, Miscellaneous Papers, item 177. Open Volume III at HathiTrust .
10 July 1671 — David Guthrie in Arbroath, Witness to a Bond of Caution
Third Series, Volume III • Page 690
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 10 July 1671 a bond of caution was executed at Arbroath. John Mudie, flesher and burgess of Arbroath, stood caution for John Davidstone, described as a brabner and burgess there.
The bond was written by Michael Benny. Among the witnesses were Patrick Brokus, writer in Arbroath; William Butchart, cordiner and burgess; William Stevinsone; and David Guthrie.
David Peirsone and John Dalgety, notaries public, signed on behalf of parties who could not write.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Arbroath, 10th July 1671.
210. Bond of caution by John Mudie, flesher, burgess of Arbrothok, for John Davidstone, brabner, burgess there, to the same effect; with clause of registration.
The bond is written by Michael Benny, and dated as above; witnesses, Patrick Brokus, writer in Arbroth, and the said Michael Benny, William Butchart, cordiner, burgess there, and William Stevinsone and David Guthrie there. David Peirsone and John Dalgety, notaries public, sign on behalf of the said John Mudie, John Davidstone and William Stevensone, who cannot write. “Jo. Aikman” attests the sufficiency of the cautioner.
Modern English Rendering
Arbroath, 10 July 1671.
John Mudie, a butcher and burgess of Arbroath, entered into a bond as surety for John Davidstone, a weaver and burgess of the same burgh.
Michael Benny wrote the bond. The witnesses included Patrick Brokus, a writer in Arbroath; Michael Benny; William Butchart, a shoemaker and burgess; William Stevinsone; and David Guthrie of Arbroath.
Because John Mudie, John Davidstone and William Stevinsone could not write, the notaries David Peirsone and John Dalgety signed on their behalf. John Aikman certified that the cautioner was sufficient.
This is a direct dated appearance of David Guthrie in Arbroath within a documented legal and occupational network.
His role is limited but useful: he was a witness to a formal bond executed among Arbroath burgesses and craftsmen. The source does not supply his occupation, family relationships or civic status.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bond of caution: A formal surety agreement guaranteeing conduct or performance.
- Flesher: Butcher.
- Brabner: Weaver.
- Cordiner: Shoemaker or worker in leather footwear.
- Burgess: A formally admitted member of a burgh community possessing defined civic and trading rights.
- Notary public: A legally authorized official who could prepare, authenticate and subscribe instruments.
- Attests the sufficiency of the cautioner: Certifies that the surety was regarded as financially or legally adequate for the obligation.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume III, A.D. 1669–1672, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1910), p. 690, Miscellaneous Papers, item 210. Open Volume III at HathiTrust .
14 July 1671 — John and William Gutherie, Glovers in Arbroath
Third Series, Volume III • Pages 692–693
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 14 July 1671 James Carnegie, W.S., gave a bond of caution for Robert Carnegie of Newgait.
The bond guaranteed that Robert Carnegie, together with his wife, children, men, tenants and servants, would not harm, molest or trouble a long list of persons in Arbroath.
Those protected included the provost and bailie, the burgh clerk, craft deacons, merchants, maltmen, bakers, tailors, shoemakers, weavers, wrights and other inhabitants.
Near the end of this extensive list appear John and William Gutherie, glovers. The same protection extended to the wives, children, men, tenants and servants of the listed protected parties.
The bond carried a penalty of 3,000 merks.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 14th July 1671.
233. Bond of caution by James Carnegie, W.S., for Robert Carnegie of Newgait that neither he nor his wife, children, men, tenants and servants shall harm, molest or trouble John Aickman, provost, John Ramsay, bailie, and the rest of the magistrates of Aberbrothock, David Person, clerk, Andrew Wallace, deacon of the shoemakers, David Reid, George Strachan, John Hood and James Strachan, shoemakers, William Auchterlony, baker, Henry Black, deacon of the weavers, David Watson, Alexander Simsone, weavers, Alexander Pyot, deacon of the smiths, William Dall, gunsmith, John Caswall, saddler, Henry Anderson, indweller in Aberbrothock, William Buchart and Daniel Rind, officers, John Anderson, deacon of the tailors, David Espline, tailor, William Yong, button weaver, John Forrester, litster, John Ranie and John Mudie, fleshers, William Wishart, indweller in Aberbrothock, John Oliphant there, Mr John Auchterlony, son of the deceased John Auchterlony, sometime provost of the said burgh, John Reid and William Espline, merchants, Patrick Steven and William Espline, maltmen, James Hailles and James Garden, bakers, Lowpar, smith, James Jafferson, tailor, Thomas Reid, David Rany, William Rany, David and James Grant, shoemakers, James Davidstone and Alexander Mudie, weavers, James and Andrew Mudie, wrights, John and William Gutherie, glovers, and Mr James Frazer of Kirktoun, sometime town minister, all in Aberbrothock, nor their wives, children, men, tenants and servants, under the penalty of 3000 merks.
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 14 July 1671.
James Carnegie, Writer to the Signet, acted as surety for Robert Carnegie of Newgait.
Robert Carnegie was bound to ensure that neither he nor his wife, children, men, tenants or servants harmed, harassed or troubled a long list of Arbroath magistrates, craftsmen, burgesses and other residents.
Among those specifically protected were John and William Gutherie, both glovers in Arbroath.
Protection under the bond extended not only to each listed person but also to their wives, children, men, tenants and servants.
Breach of the bond carried a penalty of 3,000 merks.
This entry gives unusually useful identifying information for two Arbroath Guthries: John Gutherie and William Gutherie were both glovers.
Their shared surname, occupation and place make them an obvious pair for further family research, while the record itself stops short of stating their relationship.
The long list also places them within a clearly documented network of Arbroath craftsmen and civic figures, potentially opening additional routes through burgh, guild, burgess and testamentary records.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Glover: A craft worker who made or sold gloves, commonly working with leather.
- Deacon: Head or elected officer of an incorporated burgh craft.
- Indweller: Resident or inhabitant.
- Litster: Dyer.
- Flesher: Butcher.
- Wright: Carpenter or woodworker.
- Maltman: Person engaged in preparing or trading malt.
- Bond of caution: A formal security obligation backed by a financial penalty.
- Men, tenants and servants: Standard broad language extending the peace obligation beyond the principal named individual to persons under or associated with the household or estate.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume III, A.D. 1669–1672, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1910), pp. 692–693, Miscellaneous Papers, item 233. Open Volume III at HathiTrust .
1671 — Sir Herie Guthrie of Collistone, Justice of Peace
Third Series, Volume III • Page 704
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Among the Miscellaneous Papers printed late in Volume III is a 1671 list of Justices of Peace for the sheriffdom of Aberdeen.
The list begins with leading noblemen for the sheriffdom and then organizes additional justices geographically by presbytery.
Under the heading “For the Presbitrie of Turuff”, the published list includes Sir Herie Guthrie of Collistone, together with Bisset of Lessendrum, Sir Alexander Forbes of Tolquhon, Meldrum of Hatton and other local justices.
Printed Item — Original List Extract
1671.
“A list of the justices of peace within the shereffdome of Aberdein.—Marq[uis of] Huntly, E[arl of] Erroll, E[arl of] Marshall, E[arl of] Marr, E[arl of] Dumfermleing, E[arl] of Aboyne, Viscount of Frendraught, Lo[rd] Pitsligo, Lo[rd] Fraser, Master of Forbes, Master of Saltoune.
For the Presbitrie of Turuff.— Bisset of Lesindrume, Sir Herie Guthrie of Collistone, Sir Alexander Forbes of Tolquhone, Meldrum of Hattoune…”
Modern English Rendering
In 1671 a list was compiled of the Justices of Peace serving within the sheriffdom of Aberdeen.
After naming the principal nobles associated with the county, the list groups other justices by presbytery district.
For the Presbytery of Turriff, Sir Herie Guthrie of Collistone is named among the local Justices of Peace, alongside Bisset of Lessendrum, Sir Alexander Forbes of Tolquhon, Meldrum of Hatton and others.
This entry provides direct evidence that Sir Herie Guthrie of Collistone was included in an Aberdeenshire Justice of Peace list in 1671.
It is particularly important because his administrative history in the preceding volume is not straightforward. Volume II records both his addition to an Aberdeenshire commission in May 1667 and the later annulment of those May additions.
The 1671 list therefore establishes a later documented position for Sir Herie, but it should not be used to rewrite the cancelled 1667 appointment as though it had remained continuously in force.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Justice of Peace: A locally commissioned magistrate exercising judicial and administrative responsibilities within a shire.
- Shereffdome: Sheriffdom — the territorial jurisdiction administered through a sheriff.
- Presbitrie of Turuff: Presbytery of Turriff. In this list the presbytery serves as a convenient geographic subdivision for organizing local Justices of Peace.
- Collistone: Printed territorial form of Colliston associated with Sir Herie Guthrie.
- Listed versus appointed: Inclusion in an official list proves recognized status at the time represented by the list. It does not, without additional wording, identify the date or instrument by which the office was conferred.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume III, A.D. 1669–1672, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1910), p. 704. Open Volume III at HathiTrust .
Volume III — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Third Series • Volume III • A.D. 1669–1672
Volume III brings together several very different kinds of Guthrie evidence: maritime transportation, religious publishing, burgh and county administration, legal practice, craft occupations, bonds of caution, and a later Justice of Peace list. Its strongest contribution is not a single family reconstruction, but a series of well-defined documentary identities that can now be kept separate and compared across other record groups.
Captain Guthrie & the Ewe and Lamb
The transportation sequence is the most important identity problem in this volume.
On 20 November 1669, p. 98 prints Captain James Guthrie as skipper of the Ewe and Lamb. On 16 November 1671, p. 407 expressly identifies Captain John Guthrie as skipper of the Ew and Lamb.
The later record makes John the best-documented forename for the shipmaster, but it does not authorize silent correction of the earlier printed “James.” The discrepancy remains part of the evidence and should be resolved, if possible, by comparison with the underlying register or another contemporary source.
The ship itself appears again on p. 523 in May 1672 when Barbara Finnick and Jean Browne were ordered delivered to its unnamed master for transportation. That entry extends the vessel’s history but is properly retained as context only because no Guthrie is named.
Captain John Guthrie Is Not Automatically the Middlesex John
The records examined here place Captain Guthrie in a Scottish maritime and transportation network: Privy Council warrants, voyages to the plantations, merchant associates, and the Ewe and Lamb.
That evidence does not establish that he was the John Guthrie who became a resident planter in Middlesex County, Virginia. Virginia appearances of men called “Capt. Guttrey,” “Guttery,” or similar variants may be relevant to the shipmaster, but each requires its own documentary bridge.
A separate testament-index reference dated 29 September 1687 for Captain John Guthrie, merchant in Brechin remains an especially promising research lead. The combination of name, title, mercantile description, Scottish location and chronology is suggestive, but the testament itself must be examined before it can be identified with the master of the Ewe and Lamb.
Rev. William Guthrie After Death
Page 306 documents the commercial afterlife of Mr William Guthrie’s devotional work, The Christians Interest.
George Swintoun and James Glen stated that they had purchased the literary rights from the relicts of Mr Andrew Gray and Mr William Guthrie and had already printed the works. The Council then granted them an eleven-year exclusive printing privilege.
Independent evidence identifies this author as Rev. William Guthrie of Fenwick, but that biographical identification remains editorial context rather than wording supplied by the Privy Council act itself.
The record is especially useful because it shows continued economic value in Guthrie’s writings only a few years after his death and preserves evidence of his unnamed widow’s involvement in an earlier publishing-rights transaction.
Thomas Guthrie in Forfar Civic Government
Pages 619–620 provide a strong civic profile for Thomas Guthrie.
Page 619 expressly calls him Provost of Forfar and places him among major Forfarshire landholders and burgh representatives. Page 620 records him again as “Thomas Guthrie for Forfar” in an administrative meeting concerning Commissioners of Excise and Justices of Peace.
These records fit the earlier Third Series evidence for a Thomas Guthrie serving as bailie of Forfar in 1661, including the local witchcraft commissions. The continuity of name, place and civic progression is substantial, although the later acts do not explicitly say that the bailie of 1661 and the provost of 1669 were the same man.
Independent evidence naming Thomas Guthrie as Provost in 1668 strengthens that civic chronology. Later heraldic evidence linking the sometime Provost to the Guthries of Halkerton remains a useful lineage lead rather than a relationship proved by RPCS.
David Guthry & the Forfar Disturbance
Page 469 is a reminder that vivid allegations should not be turned into genealogical fact.
David Guthry was named among men accused in a counter-complaint arising from the disturbance at the proclamation of the St James Day fair in Forfar on 25 July 1671.
The complaint alleged an armed mounted company, assaults, drawn swords and discharged firearms. Those descriptions belong to the complainants’ case unless the Council’s later ruling proves them.
The legacy extract does not preserve enough of the complete act to determine securely the defenders’ response, the Council’s final ruling, or whether the phrase “asssoilzie the defenders” applies to David Guthry’s party.
Likewise, the wording “David Guthry there” was previously expanded as “of Over Bargilloe,” but the antecedent needs confirmation from the complete printed passage.
Edinburgh Legal Practice
Page 681 identifies Mr William Guthrie, Writer to the Signet through his professional office.
The direct actor is his servitor, John Paip, who wrote a bond of caution. William Guthrie was neither the cautioner nor one of the parties whom the bond protected.
The record therefore documents a legal office and a clerk or servitor attached to it, not William Guthrie’s personal involvement in the underlying dispute.
This William must remain separate from Rev. William Guthrie of Fenwick and from other Edinburgh Guthries involved in legal writing unless independent evidence proves a connection.
The Arbroath Guthrie Cluster
Three Guthries occur in Arbroath within only four days in July 1671.
On 10 July, David Guthrie witnessed a bond of caution among Arbroath burgesses and craftsmen.
On 14 July, John and William Gutherie, both expressly identified as glovers, appeared among a long list of Arbroath people protected under another bond of caution.
Shared locality and occupational context make these records useful for reconstructing a local Guthrie network. They do not establish that David, John and William were related, nor does the shared occupation of John and William itself prove that they were brothers.
Burgh registers, craft-guild material, burgess admissions, testaments and sasines offer the best pathways for testing those relationships.
Sir Herie Guthrie of Collistone
Page 704 places Sir Herie Guthrie of Collistone in a 1671 list of Justices of Peace for the Presbytery of Turriff within Aberdeenshire.
The wording is important because Volume II recorded a more complex administrative sequence. Sir Herie had been included among May 1667 additions to the Aberdeenshire commission, but those additions were later annulled. He then appeared in a separate Banffshire appointment in 1668.
Page 704 therefore supplies later evidence of recognized JP status in 1671. It does not prove uninterrupted continuation of the cancelled May 1667 appointment or tell us which later commission restored or conferred the office.
What Volume III Demonstrates About Evidence
This volume repeatedly shows why identity, legal stage and source wording must be controlled carefully.
- Printed James ≠ automatically John: preserve the Captain Guthrie discrepancy until independently resolved.
- Accused ≠ convicted: David Guthry’s p. 469 appearance begins with an allegation.
- Ship evidence ≠ personal evidence: the p. 523 Ew and Lamb act does not name its master.
- Employer ≠ document writer: John Paip, not William Guthrie, wrote the p. 681 bond.
- Listed ≠ newly appointed: Sir Herie’s p. 704 appearance documents status in a later list without identifying the commissioning instrument.
- Shared place ≠ kinship: the Arbroath cluster is a research network, not a proven family.
Open Research Questions
- Does the underlying register for p. 98 actually read James Guthrie, or was the anomalous forename introduced during transcription, abridgment or indexing?
- What exactly appears at the p. 98 cross-reference to p. 21, and does that earlier transportation precedent name the Ewe and Lamb or a Guthrie?
- Can the full p. 469 act establish the precise locality attached to David Guthry and the final legal outcome of the Forfar counter-complaint?
- Can the 1687 testament of Captain John Guthrie, merchant in Brechin be obtained and compared with the Ewe and Lamb shipmaster?
- Can customs, port, maritime or Virginia records connect the Scottish Captain John Guthrie directly to individual colonial appearances of “Capt. Guttrey” or “Guttery”?
- Can contemporary burgh or family records establish the ancestry of Thomas Guthrie, Provost of Forfar and test the later Halkerton descent?
- Were David Guthrie and the glovers John and William Gutherie of Arbroath members of the same family?
- What later commission or administrative instrument explains Sir Herie Guthrie of Collistone’s inclusion in the 1671 Aberdeenshire JP list after the annulled 1667 additions?
Volume 4
Volume 4 covers the Privy Council records from January 1673 through June 1676. The Guthrie material presently identified in the volume is unusually compact, but the two surviving source units concern very different legal situations: a criminal prosecution arising in Aberdeenshire and a later group of temporary protections that includes two members of the Halkertoun family.
On 19 June 1673, James Guthrie appears among seven prisoners confined in the Aberdeen tolbooth in connection with the slaughter of Andrew Keith in Cairnbulg. The Privy Council did not determine James Guthrie’s guilt. Its order concerns the prisoners’ guarded transportation from Aberdeen to Edinburgh, where they were to remain securely imprisoned until brought to justice. Accordingly, this record is evidence of accusation, imprisonment and transfer for trial, not evidence of conviction.
Near the end of the volume, Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkartoune appear together among several men granted protections lasting until 1 June 1676. The brief printed notice does not itself explain the underlying business or state a family relationship between the two Guthries. Their identities and the legal scope of the protection therefore require the surrounding record and independent family evidence to be kept distinct.
Later Privy Council records continue the Halkertoun protection matter into Volume 5. The Volume 4 notice is therefore treated here as part of a developing documentary sequence rather than as an isolated reference.
Read Volume 4 Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume IV, A.D. 1673–1676. Edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown, M.A., LL.D. Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1911.
References on this page use the volume’s printed page numbers. The sequence or image number displayed by a digitized viewer will therefore be higher than the printed page number.
Source note: The HathiTrust copy is the 1911 Third Series Volume IV used for this rebuild. The legacy Guthrie Genealogy inventory has been treated as a finding aid rather than an authority: legal status, identity and relationships are rechecked against the printed record and independent evidence before being carried into the rebuilt entries.
Volume 4 — Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62 | 19 June 1673 |
James Guthrie Prisoner / accused person |
One of seven people imprisoned in the Aberdeen tolbooth in connection with the slaughter of Andrew Keith in Cairnbulg. The Council orders their guarded relay from sheriff to sheriff to Edinburgh for secure custody and trial. The act records accusation and transport; it does not record a conviction. |
| 577 | Early 1676 |
Gideon Guthrie of Halkartoune Henry Guthrie of Halkartoune |
Named together in one printed item among several recipients of protections lasting until 1 June 1676. The brief notice does not state the cause of the protection or define a relationship between Gideon and Henry. The matter continues in later Privy Council proceedings in Volume 5. |
19 June 1673 — James Guthrie: Prisoner Ordered Transported from Aberdeen to Edinburgh
Third Series, Volume IV • Page 62
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Seven prisoners were being held in the tolbooth of Aberdeen in connection with the slaughter of Andrew Keith in Cairnbulg. They were William Ferguson, sergeant; George Morison; Jon Peirie; William Gordon; Jon Cruikshank; James Guthrie; and William Kennet.
The Privy Council ordered the sheriff principal of Aberdeen, or his deputies, to move the prisoners toward Edinburgh under sufficient guard. Responsibility for them was to pass from sheriff to sheriff along the route until they were delivered to the magistrates of Edinburgh.
The Edinburgh magistrates were then to keep the men securely imprisoned until they could be brought to justice. The legal stage represented by this act is therefore accusation → imprisonment → transfer for trial. It is not a verdict on the alleged homicide.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 19th June 1673.
Charge to the sheriff of Aberdeen to transport William Ferguson, serjant, George Morison, Jon Peirie, William Gordon, Jon Cruikshank, James Guthrie and William Kennet, who are imprisoned in the tolbuith of the burgh of Aberdein for the slaughter of Andro Keith in Cairnbulg.
The Lords ordain them to be brought prisoners to the tolbuith of Edinburgh; and for that effect ordain the sherriff principall of Aberdein or his deputs with a sufficient guard to convey the saids prisoners to the nixt sherriff upon the road to Edinburgh, and so furth to be transported sufficiently guardit from sherriff to sherriff untill they be delyvered to the magistratts of Edinburgh, who are hereby ordered to receave and keep them in sure firmance untill they be brought to justice.
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council ordered the sheriff of Aberdeen to arrange the transportation of William Ferguson, a sergeant, George Morison, John Peirie, William Gordon, John Cruikshank, James Guthrie, and William Kennet. All were imprisoned in the Aberdeen tolbooth in connection with the killing of Andrew Keith at Cairnbulg.
The prisoners were to be taken to the Edinburgh tolbooth. The sheriff principal of Aberdeen, or his deputies, was to provide an adequate guard and convey them to the next sheriff along the road toward Edinburgh. Each successive sheriff was then to receive the prisoners and transport them onward under sufficient guard.
When the prisoners reached Edinburgh, the city magistrates were ordered to receive them and keep them securely imprisoned until they could be brought before the appropriate court for trial.
Why This Record Matters
The entry establishes the presence of a James Guthrie in the Aberdeen criminal-justice system in 1673 and connects him specifically with the prosecution arising from the death of Andrew Keith at Cairnbulg.
It also illustrates the practical method used to transport prisoners over a long distance in seventeenth-century Scotland. Instead of one escort travelling the entire route, custody passed from one sheriff to the next until the prisoners reached Edinburgh.
Genealogically, however, the record gives James no residence, occupation, territorial designation, parentage or other family relationship. He should therefore remain unidentified beyond this proceeding unless independent evidence supplies those details.
Evidence in Perspective
The p. 62 act records accusation and procedure, not guilt. James Guthrie was already imprisoned and was being sent to Edinburgh so that the criminal proceedings could continue. Phrases such as “for the slaughter” and “until they be brought to justice” identify the alleged offence and the purpose of the transfer; they do not constitute a conviction.
Independent evidence from the Edinburgh prison and Justiciary records allows the case to be followed beyond this Privy Council order. The Old Tolbooth material preserves a corresponding warrant naming James Gutherie with the same group of prisoners and the same alleged slaughter of Andrew Keith in Cairnbulg.
The subsequent criminal trial was held on 5–6 February 1674. Five of the accused — William Ferguson, William Gordon, George Morison, John Cruikshank and John Peirie — were found guilty. James Guthrie and William Kennedy/Kennett were assoilzied, or acquitted. James Guthrie should therefore be described in the Guthrie Genealogy evidence trail as accused, tried and acquitted, not as a murderer or convicted homicide offender.
There is also a source-date issue worth preserving. The RPCS printed entry is dated 19 June 1673, whereas the corresponding warrant reproduced from the Edinburgh Old Tolbooth records bears the date 19 July 1673. Because the parties and substance agree, the difference may represent a transcription, copying or publication discrepancy. Until the underlying manuscripts are compared directly, neither date should be silently substituted for the other.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Slaughter / slauchter — Killing or homicide. In an accusation or custody record, the word identifies the alleged offence and does not itself prove guilt.
- Tolbuith / tolbooth — A burgh building commonly serving civic, judicial and prison functions.
- Sherriff principall — The principal sheriff exercising royal judicial and administrative authority within the sheriffdom.
- From sherriff to sherriff — A relay system of prisoner transportation in which successive sheriffs assumed custody along the route.
- Sure firmance — Secure custody or imprisonment.
- Brought to justice — Brought before the proper court for criminal proceedings; the phrase does not mean that guilt had already been decided.
- Assoilzied — Absolved or acquitted in a legal proceeding.
Source:
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland,
Third Series, Volume IV, A.D. 1673–1676,
edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown
(Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1911),
p. 62, 19 June 1673.
Follow-up evidence:
Edinburgh Old Tolbooth records preserve the corresponding
prisoner-transfer warrant, while the later Justiciary proceedings
record the February 1674 trial and the acquittal of James Guthrie.
Early 1676 — Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkartoune: Temporary Protections
Third Series, Volume IV • Page 577
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Near the end of Volume IV, the Privy Council records a group of temporary protections granted to several named men. Among them are Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkartoune, together with Thomas Meldrum of Strocharie, Hugh St. Clair of Binnie and Thomas Boyd of Penkill, elder.
Their protections were to remain in force until 1 June 1676. The brief printed notice does not specify the precise cause for which the protections were sought, identify particular creditors, or describe the underlying legal actions.
The wording is nevertheless important because it documents Gideon and Henry acting in the same legal context and begins a sequence that continues in the following volume.
Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Protections are likewise granted to Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkartoune, Thomas Meldrum of Strocharie, Hugh St. Clair of Binnie, and Thomas Boyd of Penkill, elder, till 1st June next.
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council also granted temporary legal protections to Gideon Guthrie and Henry Guthrie of Halkartoune, Thomas Meldrum of Strocharie, Hugh St. Clair of Binnie, and the elder Thomas Boyd of Penkill.
These protections were to remain effective until 1 June 1676.
The printed notice does not explain the particular debts, claims or other civil proceedings that caused Gideon and Henry Guthrie to seek protection.
Why This Record Matters
This short entry is significant because it places Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkartoune together in a Privy Council proceeding in 1676 and marks the beginning of a recurring protection sequence that extends into Third Series Volume V.
The territorial designation is also valuable for identification. Earlier records already place Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun within the Forfarshire administrative and judicial network, including the 1661 witchcraft commissions. The present record therefore provides later evidence for the same Halkertoun family during the Restoration period.
Independent charter evidence strengthens the genealogical value. A Great Seal confirmation dated 3 March 1662 identifies Henry Guthrie as the eldest lawful son of Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun and records Henry’s marriage to Margaret Sibbald, only lawful daughter of Mr David Sibbald of Kair.
Evidence in Perspective
The protection should not be treated as evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Nothing on p. 577 accuses Gideon or Henry of a crime or records a criminal prosecution. A protection was a temporary legal safeguard, commonly relevant to civil diligence and arrest.
The precise legal basis is not supplied on p. 577. Although later Privy Council proceedings explicitly describe protections obtained by Gideon and Henry in connection with civil debts, that later description should not automatically be projected backward onto this earlier protection without qualification.
The father-son relationship comes from independent evidence. The Privy Council wording merely says “Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkartoune.” It does not call Henry Gideon’s son. The relationship is securely supplied by Registrum Magni Sigilli, Volume XI, charter no. 221, which expressly identifies Henry as Gideon’s eldest lawful son.
The documentary sequence continues in Volume V. On 3 August 1676, Gideon and Henry again appear among persons granted protection, this time until 10 November. On 12 October 1676, the Council considered a petition by Alexander Sibbald of Kair, Anna Douglas his mother, and Mr Robert Douglas, Dean of Hamilton, concerning the effect of protections obtained by Gideon and Henry.
That October act expressly describes protection “for civill debits” and rules that it cannot prevent legal process requiring delivery of writs and evidents. The petitioners were permitted to continue personal execution against Henry for production of those documents.
A further protection granted on 4 April 1677 again names Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halcartoune together. The repeated appearances demonstrate that p. 577 is not an isolated mention but the opening surviving RPCS evidence of a continuing civil-protection issue.
The appearance of the Sibbald of Kair family in the October 1676 dispute is especially noteworthy because the 1662 Great Seal charter records Henry Guthrie’s marriage to Margaret Sibbald, daughter of David Sibbald of Kair. The exact relationship of Alexander Sibbald of Kair to Margaret should, however, be established independently before any further kinship conclusion is drawn.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Protection — A temporary legal safeguard granted by authority of the Privy Council. Depending on its terms, it could suspend or restrict arrest or other civil diligence for a specified period.
- Civil debts — Financial obligations pursued through civil rather than criminal proceedings.
- Diligence — The collective term for Scottish legal procedures used to enforce judgments, debts and obligations.
- Letters of caption — Authority for the arrest of a person who had failed to comply with specified legal process.
- Exhibition of writs and evidents — Production or delivery of legal documents, titles and other documentary evidence when required in a proceeding.
- Personal execution — Enforcement directed against the person rather than merely against property or goods.
- Till 1st June next — In this Volume IV entry, the protection expired on 1 June 1676.
Source:
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland,
Third Series, Volume IV, A.D. 1673–1676,
edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown
(Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1911),
p. 577.
Genealogical cross-reference:
Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum,
Volume XI, charter no. 221, 3 March 1662:
Henry Guthrie is identified as the eldest lawful son of
Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun and husband of Margaret Sibbald,
only lawful daughter of Mr David Sibbald of Kair.
RPCS continuation:
Third Series, Volume V, pp. 31 and 48, and p. 156,
documenting further protections and the later clarification
of their legal scope.
Volume IV — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume IV, covering 1673–1676, contains only two confirmed Guthrie source units, but each becomes substantially more informative when followed beyond the isolated index reference. The first concerns James Guthrie, an accused prisoner transferred from Aberdeen to Edinburgh in connection with the death of Andrew Keith. The second brings together Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkartoune as recipients of temporary legal protection.
These records illustrate two recurring principles of the RPCS project: a Privy Council act must be read according to the legal stage it actually records, and genealogical relationships should be added only when independent evidence securely establishes them.
On 19 June 1673, James Guthrie was one of seven prisoners held in the Aberdeen tolbooth in connection with the slaughter of Andrew Keith in Cairnbulg. The Privy Council ordered the prisoners transported under guard from sheriff to sheriff until they reached Edinburgh, where they were to remain in secure custody until brought to justice.
The RPCS act therefore establishes accusation, imprisonment and transfer for trial. It does not establish guilt.
The later criminal proceedings resolve the issue that the Privy Council record leaves open. At the trial of 5–6 February 1674, five of the accused were found guilty, but James Guthrie and William Kennedy/Kennett were assoilzied — acquitted.
The evidentiary sequence should therefore remain: accused → imprisoned → transferred to Edinburgh → tried → acquitted.
Volume IV reference: p. 62.
The RPCS printed entry dates the transfer order 19 June 1673. A corresponding copy preserved among the Edinburgh Old Tolbooth records names the same group of prisoners and the same alleged slaughter but bears the date 19 July 1673.
Because the wording and parties closely correspond, the records appear to concern the same warrant or its execution. The one-month discrepancy should nevertheless remain visible rather than being silently normalized.
Comparison with the underlying Privy Council manuscript and the original prison record would be required to determine whether the difference reflects a copying error, an editorial error, or a later administrative stage.
Volume IV reference: p. 62.
Near the end of the volume, Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkartoune are named together among several people granted protections lasting until 1 June 1676. The brief RPCS notice itself does not identify their relationship.
Independent Great Seal evidence supplies that relationship securely. A charter confirmed on 3 March 1662 identifies Henry Guthrie as the eldest lawful son of Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun. It also identifies Henry’s wife as Margaret Sibbald, only lawful daughter of Mr David Sibbald of Kair.
This allows the RPCS entry to be placed confidently within the documented Halkertoun family while keeping the charter evidence distinct from what the Privy Council act itself says.
Volume IV reference: p. 577.
Page 577 is the beginning of a continuing Privy Council sequence, not an isolated legal event. On 3 August 1676, Volume V again records protections for Gideon and Henry, this time extending to 10 November.
A more revealing act dated 12 October 1676 describes protections obtained in relation to civil debts. Alexander Sibbald of Kair and others complained that messengers would not execute letters of caption against the Guthries because of those protections, even though the legal process concerned the production of writs and evidents.
The Council ruled that the protection did not prevent legal action requiring the delivery of documents and permitted further personal execution against Henry. Gideon and Henry appear together yet again in another protection granted on 4 April 1677.
Those later records clarify the nature and limits of the Halkertoun protections, but they belong to Volume V and should remain cross-references rather than being absorbed into the Volume IV transcription.
Volume IV reference: p. 577. Continuation: Third Series, Volume V, pp. 31, 48 and 156.
Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun is not new to the Third Series. Earlier Privy Council records place a man of that name and designation among local commissioners involved in the 1661 Forfar witchcraft proceedings.
The 1676 protection therefore provides later evidence for the Halkertoun laird within the wider Forfarshire documentary network. The territorial designation, chronology and independent family evidence provide strong continuity, while the records themselves should still be cited separately for the particular roles they document.
Nothing in the protection act should be read as evidence of criminal misconduct. The later records show that the relevant protection issue involved civil legal process.
The James Guthrie of the Cairnbulg prosecution remains genealogically unidentified. Volume IV gives him no occupation, residence, territorial designation, parentage or kinship. His acquittal can be established, but his family cannot yet be assigned from this evidence.
By contrast, the territorial designation “of Halkartoune” and the independent Great Seal evidence permit Gideon and Henry to be placed securely within the Halkertoun family.
These contrasting cases demonstrate why a shared surname alone cannot establish identity, while contemporary territorial and parentage evidence can materially strengthen an identification.
The confirmed Guthrie material in Volume IV is represented by two source units: the James Guthrie prisoner-transfer act at p. 62 and the joint Halkertoun protection notice at p. 577. The legacy table listed Gideon and Henry separately, but because both names occur in the same printed act they are correctly treated as one documentary unit in the rebuilt Finding Aid.
External evidence has been used only where it answers a specific question left unresolved by the RPCS text: the Justiciary proceedings supply James Guthrie’s acquittal, while the Great Seal charter supplies the father-son relationship between Gideon and Henry. The Volume V records are used as forward cross-references to the continuation of the Halkertoun legal sequence.
James Guthrie: no identifying occupation, residence or family relationship has yet been recovered. The underlying Justiciary and prison records should be examined further for any description omitted from the printed summaries. The June/July 1673 date discrepancy in the transfer warrant also remains unresolved.
Andrew Keith and Cairnbulg: additional Aberdeen and Justiciary material may further reconstruct the circumstances of Keith’s death and explain why this group of prisoners was transferred to Edinburgh.
Halkertoun: Volume V should be treated as a direct continuation of the present evidence. Particular attention should be given to Alexander Sibbald of Kair, Anna Douglas and the documentary dispute involving the production of writs, especially in light of Henry Guthrie’s marriage to Margaret Sibbald of Kair.
The legal stages remain distinct: accusation is not conviction; protection is not immunity from every form of diligence; territorial designation supports identity but does not by itself prove an unstated relationship.
Basis of synthesis: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume IV, A.D. 1673–1676, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1911), especially pp. 62 and 577; supplemented where expressly identified by the later Justiciary proceedings, the Edinburgh Old Tolbooth record, the Great Seal charter of 3 March 1662, and the continuation of the Halkertoun protection proceedings in Third Series Volume V.
Volume 5
Volume 5 continues directly from the closing records of Volume 4 and covers the Privy Council material published for 1676–1678. Its Guthrie evidence is more varied than the preceding volume, encompassing civil protections, religious-conformity proceedings, food regulation and scarcity, brewing regulation, civic peace bonds and a brief administrative memorandum.
The opening records continue the affairs of Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun and his eldest lawful son, Henry Guthrie. Their temporary protection, already seen in Volume 4, was renewed on 3 August 1676. On 12 October the Council was required to define the limits of that protection when creditors sought the production of writs and evidents. Gideon and Henry appear together once more in April 1677 when another temporary protection was granted.
Another family cluster appears at Prestwick in November 1676. George Gotrey, his son John Gotrey, and Alexander Gotrey petitioned after being fined in connection with meal carried from William Seller at Troon. Their petition linked the incident to scarcity and their efforts to obtain food for poor inhabitants, and the Council remitted the fine in consideration of their poverty. The printed surname Gotrey is preserved in the detailed record rather than silently replaced.
Volume 5 also preserves a two-stage proceeding involving Margaret Hadden, widow of the deceased Mr John Guthrie. On 16 November 1676 she appears in proceedings arising from an unauthorized Presbyterian meeting associated with her house. The following day she executed a formal bond while imprisoned in the Edinburgh tolbooth, undertaking to leave the city and remain more than six miles from it until the specified date. The two records are therefore treated separately but read together.
Later records identify Patrick Guthrie among brewers proceeded against under regulations governing the price and quality of ale and beer; John Guthrie, burgess of Peebles, among subscribers to a collective bond for the peace; and “Wm Guthrie” on a short memorandum concerning the transportation of a prisoner to the Edinburgh tolbooth. William’s precise capacity is not stated and will not be inferred from the memorandum alone.
The corrected Finding Aid below contains nine documentary source units. Persons appearing together in the same act are grouped into one row rather than counted as separate records. Late pages of the volume contain bonds and miscellaneous material whose dates fall earlier than some records printed before them, so the Finding Aid follows printed page order rather than strict chronological order.
Read Volume 5 Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume V, A.D. 1676–1678, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown, M.A., LL.D. Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1912.
HathiTrust identifies two complete digitized copies of this volume, from the University of California and the University of Michigan. Printed page numbers, rather than viewer-image numbers, are used throughout the Guthrie Genealogy records.
Source-review note: The legacy Guthrie Genealogy Volume 5 inventory has been used as a starting point rather than as an unquestioned authority. Duplicate person-rows belonging to one act have been consolidated, the Margaret Hadden proceeding preceding her bond has been restored to the documentary sequence, and legal outcomes will be checked against the printed record before each detailed card is posted.
Volume 5 — Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | 3 Aug 1676 |
Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoune Henry Guthrie of Halkertoune |
Joint recipients of another temporary Privy Council protection, this time extending until 10 November 1676. Continues the protection sequence recorded in Volume 4, p. 577. |
| 48 | 12 Oct 1676 |
Gideon Guthrie of Halkartoun Henry Guthrie of Halkartoun |
Council defines the limits of their protection. A protection obtained in relation to civil debts does not prevent proceedings requiring the exhibition and delivery of writs and evidents; further personal execution against Henry is permitted for that purpose. |
| 52 | 16 Nov 1676 |
Margaret Hadden widow of Mr John Guthrie |
Proceeding arising from an unauthorized Presbyterian meeting associated with Margaret Hadden’s house. Margaret is detained until caution is found for her removal from Edinburgh and the prescribed six-mile radius. Her formal bond follows on p. 604. |
| 56 | 16 Nov 1676 |
George Gotrey in Prestwick John Gotrey, his son Alexander Gotrey in Prestwick |
Petitioners seeking remission of a fine connected with meal carried from William Seller at Troon. They plead ignorance of its prohibited Irish origin and describe local scarcity and distribution among poor inhabitants; the Council remits the fine in consideration of their known poverty. |
| 156 | 4 Apr 1677 |
Gideon Guthrie of Halcartoune Henry Guthrie of Halcartoune |
Again named together among persons granted temporary protections, this time until 1 June 1677. Continues the Halkertoun civil-protection sequence documented in Volume 4 and earlier in this volume. |
| 185–186 | 5 Jul 1677 | Patrick Guthrie, brewer | Named among brewers in Forfarshire and Montrose proceeded against under regulations governing the price and quality of ale and beer. Other defenders confess specific contraventions and are fined; Patrick belongs to the remainder put to the horn. The detailed record will keep nonappearance or procedural horning distinct from proof of the substantive allegations. |
| 604 | 17 Nov 1676 |
Margaret Hadden widow of Mr John Guthrie |
While a prisoner in the Edinburgh tolbooth, Margaret gives bond with Robert Cuninghame as cautioner that she will leave Edinburgh before 1 January 1677 and not come within six miles of the city, under a penalty of 1,000 merks. Follow-up to the Council proceeding of 16 November. |
| 655 | 22 Mar 1678 | John Guthrie, burgess of Peebles | One of numerous Peebles burgesses and inhabitants subscribing a collective bond obliging them to keep the peace and observe the laws. |
| 658 | 12 Jul 1678 | “Wm Guthrie” | Name or subscription appearing on a brief memorandum directing that a warrant be written for the transport of Ninian Tait, apprentice to a Leith wheelwright, to the Edinburgh tolbooth. William Guthrie’s precise official or clerical capacity is not stated. |
Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkertoun are independently documented as father and eldest lawful son, but that relationship will be identified as external genealogical evidence whenever the RPCS act itself merely names them together. The spelling Gotrey at Prestwick will likewise be preserved in source transcription even when the surname is discussed under Guthrie.
Legal stages will remain distinct throughout the volume. A complaint is not proof of its allegations; being put to the horn is not automatically a finding on the underlying charge; a bond records an obligation rather than proof of every allegation that preceded it; and the name “Wm Guthrie” on an administrative memorandum does not by itself establish his office or identity.
3 August 1676 — Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkertoune: Protection Renewed
Third Series, Volume V • Page 31
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 3 August 1676, the Privy Council granted temporary protections to a substantial group of petitioners. Among them were Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkertoune.
Their protection was to continue until 10 November 1676. The act states that the protections were granted according to the recipients’ respective petitions, but the printed entry does not reproduce the petitions or explain the particular circumstances of each person named.
For Gideon and Henry, this was not an isolated occurrence. Volume IV had already recorded a protection extending until 1 June 1676. The present act therefore documents a renewal or further grant of protection only two months after the earlier protection expired.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 3rd August 1676.
The Lords grant protection to the following persons, according to their respective petitions, till 10th November next, viz. Sir James Keith of Powburne, Sir Robert Murray alias Creichtoune, William Fullartoune of that Ilk, the Master of Mordingtoun, John Hay of Baro, Ralph Dundas of that Ilk, James Hamiltoun of Manor Elleistoun, Robert Grahame of Morphie, John Grahame of Fintry, Sir Mungo Murray, Alexander Home of Mandersone, nephew to Sir Alexander Home, deceased, Sir William Kerr, Director of Chancery, Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkertoune, Mr Robert Hay of Dronlaw, John Maxwell, merchant in Paisley, Mr James Windrame, advocate, Archibald Dowglas of Lummisdean, Sir William Ruthvein of Dunglas, Francis Semple of Beltrees, David Strachan, son of the Tutor of Thorntoune, now residenter in Leith, Agnes Rowe, Lady Mouswald, Hugh Sinclair of Binnie, Thomas Boyd, elder of Penkill, Sir John Whytfoord of Milntoune, George Shaw of Sauchie, Walter Innes of Skaill, Captain Arnot of Capledrae, and Thomas Meldrum of Strocharie.
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council granted temporary legal protection, in accordance with their individual petitions, to Sir James Keith of Powburne; Sir Robert Murray, also called Crichton; William Fullarton of that Ilk; the Master of Mordington; John Hay of Baro; Ralph Dundas of that Ilk; James Hamilton of Manor Eliston; Robert Graham of Morphie; John Graham of Fintry; Sir Mungo Murray; Alexander Home of Manderston, nephew of the deceased Sir Alexander Home; Sir William Kerr, Director of Chancery; Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkertoune; Mr Robert Hay of Dronlaw; John Maxwell, merchant in Paisley; Mr James Windram, advocate; Archibald Douglas of Lumsden; Sir William Ruthven of Dunglass; Francis Semple of Beltrees; David Strachan, son of the Tutor of Thornton and then resident in Leith; Agnes Rowe, Lady Mouswald; Hugh Sinclair of Binnie; the elder Thomas Boyd of Penkill; Sir John Whiteford of Milnton; George Shaw of Sauchie; Walter Innes of Skaill; Captain Arnot of Capledrae; and Thomas Meldrum of Strocharie.
Each protection was to remain effective until 10 November 1676.
Why This Record Matters
This act provides the next documented stage in the Halkertoun protection sequence. Volume IV, p. 577, recorded protection for Gideon and Henry until 1 June 1676. The present act grants them another period of protection extending from August until November.
Their repeated appearance together is genealogically useful because independent Great Seal evidence securely identifies Henry Guthrie as the eldest lawful son of Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun. The RPCS act itself, however, simply names “Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkertoune” and does not state that relationship.
The long list is also useful for understanding the nature of the act. Gideon and Henry were not singled out for a special criminal proceeding; they were two among many petitioners receiving temporary legal protection by Council authority.
Evidence in Perspective
The act does not explain the underlying petitions. Page 31 says that protection was granted according to the persons’ respective petitions, but those petitions are not reproduced here. The precise circumstances behind Gideon and Henry’s August protection therefore cannot be reconstructed from this act alone.
The later October proceeding clarifies the legal setting. On 12 October 1676, the Council considered a complaint that legal messengers would not execute letters of caption against Gideon and Henry because of protection obtained from the Council for civil debts. That later act makes the nature of the protection much clearer.
It would nevertheless be too strong to say that the p. 31 act itself expressly identifies a particular debt, creditor or civil action. The October proceeding supplies that later context and should remain separately cited.
The protection was limited, not absolute immunity. The October act will show that the Council’s protection did not prevent proceedings requiring production of writs and evidents. Protection from civil diligence therefore did not bar every form of legal enforcement.
Gideon and Henry were father and son. This relationship comes from independent charter evidence, not from the wording of p. 31. A Great Seal charter confirmed on 3 March 1662 identifies Henry as the eldest lawful son of Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun and records Henry’s marriage to Margaret Sibbald, only lawful daughter of Mr David Sibbald of Kair.
That Sibbald connection becomes particularly relevant in the next Halkertoun act, because the October petition challenging the effect of the protection was brought by Alexander Sibbald of Kair, together with Anna Douglas and Mr Robert Douglas, Dean of Hamilton.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Protection — A temporary legal safeguard granted by authority of the Privy Council. Its precise effect depended upon the wording and circumstances of the grant.
- According to their respective petitions — The individuals had separately petitioned the Council for protection; the published act records the resulting grants rather than reproducing each underlying petition.
- Till 10th November next — The protections granted on 3 August were temporary and expired on 10 November 1676.
- Of that Ilk — A territorial designation indicating that a family bore the same name as its principal estate or territorial seat.
- Director of Chancery — An officer associated with the Scottish Chancery and the preparation or administration of royal writs and charters.
- Residenter — A person residing in a particular place.
Source:
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland,
Third Series, Volume V, A.D. 1676–1678,
edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown
(Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1912),
p. 31, Edinburgh, 3 August 1676.
Earlier RPCS cross-reference:
Third Series, Volume IV, p. 577 — Gideon and Henry Guthrie
of Halkartoune granted protection until 1 June 1676.
Genealogical cross-reference:
Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum,
Volume XI, charter no. 221, 3 March 1662 — Henry Guthrie
identified as eldest lawful son of Gideon Guthrie of
Halkertoun and husband of Margaret Sibbald.
12 October 1676 — Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkartoun: Protection Limited
Third Series, Volume V • Page 48
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This act provides the clearest explanation yet of the legal protections repeatedly granted to Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkartoun.
Alexander Sibald of Kare, Anna Dowglas, his mother, and Mr Robert Dowglas, Dean of Hamiltoun, his overseer, petitioned the Privy Council because legal messengers would not execute letters of caption against Gideon and Henry Guthrie. The messengers were relying upon a protection that the Guthries had obtained from the Council for civil debts.
The petitioners argued that their own process was different: it sought the exhibition of writs and evidents — the production and delivery of legal documents — rather than payment of an ordinary civil debt.
The Council agreed that the protection could not be used to prevent that documentary process. It declared that the protection did not extend against the delivery of the writs and permitted further personal execution against Henry Guthrie for their exhibition and delivery.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 12th October 1676.
Declaration that the protections granted to Gideon and Henry Guthrie are not to extend to the delivery of writs.
The Lords, having considered a petition by Alexander Sibald of Kare, Anna Dowglas, his mother, and Mr Robert Dowglas, Dean of Hamiltoun, his overseer, “representing that no messengers will execute letters of caption against Gideon and Hendry Guthries of Halkartoun upon pretext of a protection procured by them from the Councill for civill debits, albeit the caption raised at their instance be only for exhibition of wryttes and evidents,” they declare that the protection formerly granted by them to the said Gideon Guthrie is not to be extended against the delivery of writs, and that the petitioner may proceed to use further personal execution against the said Henry for exhibition and delivery of writs notwithstanding of the said protection.
Modern English Rendering
Alexander Sibbald of Kair, his mother Anna Douglas, and Mr Robert Douglas, Dean of Hamilton and Alexander’s overseer, petitioned the Privy Council about legal process against Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkartoun.
They explained that legal messengers were refusing to execute warrants of arrest against the Guthries because Gideon and Henry had obtained protection from the Privy Council in connection with civil debts.
The petitioners argued that the warrant they were seeking to enforce was not simply for recovery of a civil debt. Its purpose was to compel the Guthries to produce and deliver writs and evidents — legal documents and title evidence.
The Council therefore declared that its earlier protection was not to prevent the delivery of those documents. The petitioners were permitted to proceed with further personal enforcement against Henry Guthrie in order to compel him to exhibit and deliver the writs, despite the protection.
Why This Record Matters
This is the first record in the continuing Halkertoun protection sequence to state explicitly that the Guthries’ protection concerned civil debts.
It also demonstrates that Privy Council protection was limited in scope. Gideon and Henry could not use a protection intended to restrain civil-debt enforcement as a blanket defence against every type of legal process. The Council distinguished between debt-related diligence and an order compelling the production of legal documents.
Genealogically, the identity of the parties is especially interesting. Independent Great Seal evidence identifies Henry Guthrie as the eldest lawful son of Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun and records Henry’s marriage to Margaret Sibbald, daughter of Mr David Sibbald of Kair. The appearance here of Alexander Sibbald of Kair therefore creates an important research connection between the legal dispute and Henry’s wife’s family.
Evidence in Perspective
The protection concerned civil debts. Unlike the shorter protection notices at Volume IV p. 577 and Volume V p. 31, this act expressly says that Gideon and Henry had obtained protection from the Council “for civill debits.” That wording materially clarifies the earlier records.
The protection was not cancelled altogether. The Council did not revoke every benefit of the earlier protection. It ruled that the protection could not extend so far as to obstruct proceedings for the production and delivery of legal documents.
The wording distinguishes Gideon and Henry at the enforcement stage. The printed entry refers to the protections of Gideon and Henry collectively and says that messengers would not execute letters of caption against both men. In the Council’s ruling, however, the text first refers specifically to the protection formerly granted to Gideon Guthrie and then authorizes further personal execution specifically against Henry.
That change in wording should be preserved rather than flattened into a statement that exactly the same order was directed against both men. The published act does not explain why Henry was the person against whom further personal execution for the documents was particularly required.
The Sibbald connection deserves follow-up, but not assumption. The 1662 Great Seal charter establishes that Henry’s wife Margaret was the only lawful daughter of Mr David Sibbald of Kair. This 1676 petition is brought by Alexander Sibbald of Kair.
The shared territorial designation strongly suggests that the dispute may involve the same Sibbald family network, but this RPCS act does not state Alexander’s exact relationship to Margaret. That kinship should therefore be established from independent Sibbald records rather than inferred here.
The documentary sequence now reads: protection to 1 June 1676 → renewed protection to 10 November 1676 → challenge to its scope → Council allows document-enforcement proceedings against Henry. Gideon and Henry will nevertheless receive another temporary protection in April 1677.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Protection — A temporary legal safeguard granted by the Privy Council. Here the later act expressly associates the Guthries’ protection with civil debts.
- Civil debts — Financial obligations enforceable through civil legal proceedings rather than criminal prosecution.
- Letters of caption — Letters authorising arrest or apprehension for failure to comply with legal process.
- Messenger — A legally authorised officer responsible for serving letters and carrying out forms of judicial execution.
- Exhibition — Formal production of a document or other item when required by legal process.
- Writs and evidents — Deeds, charters, titles and other documentary evidence relevant to legal rights or property.
- Personal execution — Enforcement directed against the person, including measures intended to compel compliance with a legal order.
- Overseer — In this context, a person entrusted with supervision or management of another person’s affairs.
Source:
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland,
Third Series, Volume V, A.D. 1676–1678,
edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown
(Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1912),
p. 48, Edinburgh, 12 October 1676.
Earlier RPCS sequence:
Third Series, Volume IV, p. 577 — protection to
1 June 1676; Third Series, Volume V, p. 31 —
further protection to 10 November 1676.
Genealogical cross-reference:
Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum,
Volume XI, charter no. 221, 3 March 1662 —
Henry Guthrie identified as eldest lawful son of
Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun and husband of
Margaret Sibbald, only lawful daughter of
Mr David Sibbald of Kair.
16 November 1676 — Margaret Hadden, Widow of Mr John Guthrie: Conventicle Proceeding
Third Series, Volume V • Page 52
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 16 November 1676, the Privy Council dealt with several women in connection with a Presbyterian conventicle held earlier that month in the house of Mrs Margaret Hadden.
The proceeding was brought at the instance of Sir John Nisbet of Dirletoun, King’s Advocate. The published account identifies Bessie Muir, widow of Mr Alexander Dunlop, and others as having been proceeded against for attendance at a conventicle in Margaret Hadden’s house, where Mr Patrick Anderson had preached on 5 November 1676.
Margaret Hadden and Bessie Muir refused to provide the evidence required of them. They were ordered to remain in prison until they found sufficient caution, each under a penalty of 1,000 merks, that they would leave Edinburgh before 1 January 1677 and would not come within six miles of the city without permission.
Margaret’s formal bond implementing this order was executed the following day, 17 November 1676, and is printed later in the volume at p. 604.
Printed Entry — Recovered Published Wording
Edinburgh, 16th November 1676.
At the instance of the King’s Advocate, Sir John Nisbet, proceedings were taken against Bessie Muir, relict of Mr Alexander Dunlop, and others “for being at a conventicle keeped in the house of Mrs. Margaret Hadden”, at which Mr Patrick Anderson preached on 5 November.
Margaret Hadden and Bessie Muir, refusing to depone, were ordered “to continow in prison until they find caution”, each under a penalty of 1,000 merks, to leave Edinburgh before 1 January next and not come within six miles thereof without permission.
Modern English Rendering
Sir John Nisbet of Dirleton, the King’s Advocate, prosecuted Bessie Muir, widow of Mr Alexander Dunlop, and other persons for taking part in an unauthorized Presbyterian religious meeting held in the home of Margaret Hadden.
The meeting had taken place on 5 November 1676, when Mr Patrick Anderson preached there.
Margaret Hadden and Bessie Muir refused to give the evidence demanded of them. The Council therefore ordered them to remain in prison until each provided adequate security guaranteeing that she would leave Edinburgh before 1 January 1677 and would not come within six miles of the city without official permission.
The financial penalty securing each obligation was 1,000 merks Scots.
Why This Record Matters
This act supplies the missing first stage of the documentary sequence represented in the legacy page only by Margaret Hadden’s later bond at p. 604.
It establishes why she was imprisoned and why the Council required her to leave Edinburgh. The following day’s bond was not an isolated agreement: it implemented the 16 November Council order.
The record is also genealogically important because Margaret is identified elsewhere in this volume as the widow of Mr John Guthrie. Contemporary RPCS evidence therefore places the widow of a John Guthrie within the Presbyterian nonconformist community of Edinburgh in late 1676.
Evidence in Perspective
This record concerns refusal to give evidence, not a finding that Margaret preached. The meeting was held in Margaret Hadden’s house and Mr Patrick Anderson is identified as the preacher. Margaret’s documented legal difficulty in this proceeding arose from the conventicle and from her refusal to provide the evidence required by the authorities.
The imprisonment and later bond form one legal sequence. The Council ordered Margaret to remain in prison until caution was found. On 17 November, while still described as a prisoner in the Edinburgh tolbooth, she executed the bond printed at p. 604 with Robert Cuninghame, apothecary and burgess of Edinburgh, serving as her cautioner.
The contemporary surname in these RPCS records is Hadden. The p. 604 bond calls her “Margaret Hadden, widow of Mr John Guthrie.” Later ecclesiastical and family sources identify the wife of Rev. John Guthrie of Tarbolton as Mary Haldane.
Some later historical accounts explicitly equate Margaret Hadden or Haldane with the widow of the Presbyterian minister John Guthrie of Tarbolton, who had been deprived in 1662 and was associated with the Pentland Rising. That identification is plausible and may be correct, but the difference between Margaret Hadden in the contemporary RPCS record and Mary Haldane in later ecclesiastical sources should remain visible until the underlying marriage and family evidence is reconciled.
If the two names do refer to the same woman, the record would connect this proceeding directly with Rev. John Guthrie, minister of Tarbolton and youngest son of James Guthrie of Pitforthie. That genealogical placement comes from external family and ecclesiastical evidence, however, and is not stated on p. 52.
The date of the conventicle and the date of the Council proceeding are different. The meeting was held on 5 November 1676; the Council proceeding occurred on 16 November 1676; Margaret’s formal bond followed on 17 November.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Conventicle — A religious meeting held outside the worship authorized by the Restoration government; Presbyterian conventicles were subject to statutory and Privy Council enforcement.
- Lybell / libel — The formal written allegations or charge on which a proceeding was brought.
- Depone — To give sworn testimony or evidence.
- Caution — Security given to guarantee performance of an obligation.
- Cautioner — The person standing as surety for another person’s performance of the obligation.
- 1,000 merks — The financial penalty securing Margaret’s obligation to leave Edinburgh and remain outside the prohibited radius.
- Remove out of Edinburgh — To leave the city under the terms imposed by the Council.
- Not come within six miles — A territorial restriction barring return to Edinburgh and its immediate surrounding area without permission.
Source:
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland,
Third Series, Volume V, A.D. 1676–1678,
edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown
(Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1912),
p. 52, Edinburgh, 16 November 1676.
Source-verification note:
The presently accessible published extracts of p. 52 preserve
the wording concerning the conventicle in Margaret Hadden’s
house, the refusal to depone, continued imprisonment and the
requirement to find caution. The following day’s bond at
p. 604 independently confirms the Council act of the
16th instant, the 1,000-merk penalty, the 1 January deadline
and the six-mile restriction.
Next documentary stage:
Third Series, Volume V, p. 604 —
Margaret Hadden’s formal bond dated 17 November 1676.
16 November 1676 — George, John and Alexander Gotrey of Prestwick: Fine Remitted
Third Series, Volume V • Page 56
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 16 November 1676, George Gotrey in Prestwick, John Gotrey, his son, Alexander Gotrey there, and David Neill there petitioned the Privy Council for remission of a financial penalty.
The commissioners of Council had fined them £100 Scots on their own confession that each had used a horse to carry a boll of meal from the house of William Seller at Troon to Prestwick.
The petitioners offered to swear that they did not know the meal had been imported from Ireland. They further represented that they and their neighbours had been in danger of starving for lack of bread and that Seller had supplied the meal on trust so that it could be distributed among poor inhabitants.
After considering the supplication and the report of a committee, the Council accepted their plea for relief and remitted the fine because of their known poverty.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 16th November 1676.
Remission of similar fine in the case of George Guthrie in Prestwick and others.
Supplication by George Gotrey in Prestwick, John Gotrey, his son, Alexander Gotrey there, and David Neill there, as follows:—
They are fined by the commissioners of Council on their own confession in £100 Scots, because “each of them had a horse carrying a boll of meall from William Seller at Trune his house to Prestwick,” and they offered to depone that they knew not the meal was imported from Ireland, and at that time “the petitioners and their neighbours were in hazard to starve for want of bread when the said William Seller offered them the said meall upon trust to be distribut amongst the poor inhabitants, which they accordingly did…”
They crave a remission. The Lords, considering this petition, and a report of their committee, do, in respect of the petitioners’ known poverty, remit the fine of £100 Scots imposed on them.
Modern English Rendering
George Gotrey of Prestwick, his son John Gotrey, Alexander Gotrey of Prestwick, and David Neill of Prestwick petitioned the Privy Council to cancel a fine imposed on them by Council commissioners.
Each man had admitted using a horse to carry one boll of meal from William Seller’s house at Troon to Prestwick. They had therefore been fined £100 Scots.
The petitioners offered to swear that they did not know the meal had been imported from Ireland. They explained that at the time they and their neighbours were in danger of starving because they lacked bread.
According to their petition, William Seller had offered the meal to them on trust so that it could be distributed among the poor inhabitants of the locality, and they said that this was what they had done.
The Privy Council considered their petition and a committee report. Because the petitioners were known to be poor, the Council cancelled the £100 Scots fine.
Why This Record Matters
This record securely places George Gotrey, his son John Gotrey, and Alexander Gotrey in Prestwick, Ayrshire, in November 1676.
It supplies one explicit family relationship: John is identified as George’s son. The printed entry does not state Alexander’s relationship to either George or John, so no additional kinship should be inferred from the shared surname and residence alone.
The case also gives unusually vivid evidence of local hardship. The petitioners represented themselves and their neighbours as being in danger of starvation for want of bread and described the meal as intended for distribution among poor inhabitants.
Evidence in Perspective
The printed surname is Gotrey. The legacy index and heading regularize these men under Guthrie, but the printed supplication names George Gotrey, John Gotrey and Alexander Gotrey. That source spelling should be preserved in transcription.
Their confession concerned the carrying of the meal. The entry says that the men were fined on their own confession because each had a horse carrying a boll of meal from William Seller’s house at Troon to Prestwick.
They separately offered to swear that they did not know the meal had been imported from Ireland. Their admission to transporting the meal should therefore not be rewritten as an admission that they knowingly violated an import restriction.
The claim of scarcity comes from the petitioners. They represented that they and their neighbours were in danger of starving and that the meal had been supplied for distribution among poor inhabitants. The published entry records this as part of their supplication rather than as an independently proven factual finding by the Council.
The final Council action is clear. Whatever the merits of every part of their explanation, the Council expressly relied upon the petitioners’ known poverty and remitted the £100 Scots fine.
The record therefore preserves several distinct evidentiary stages: admission that the meal was carried → claim of ignorance of its Irish origin → explanation based on scarcity and poor relief → Council remission of the fine because of poverty.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Supplication — A formal petition requesting relief or favourable action from the Privy Council.
- Remission / remit the fine — Cancellation or forgiveness of a financial penalty.
- Depone — To give evidence or make a statement under oath.
- Boll — A traditional Scottish dry measure used for grain and meal; its exact capacity varied by commodity and locality.
- Meall — Meal or ground grain used as a staple food.
- Trune — Troon, on the Ayrshire coast.
- Upon trust — Supplied on credit or on an understanding that payment or settlement would follow.
- £100 Scots — The monetary penalty imposed by the commissioners and later remitted by the Privy Council.
Source:
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland,
Third Series, Volume V, A.D. 1676–1678,
edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown
(Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1912),
p. 56, Edinburgh, 16 November 1676.
Identity note:
The printed source uses the surname
Gotrey for George, John and Alexander.
John alone is explicitly identified as George’s son.
No relationship between Alexander and the other two men is
stated in this act.
4 April 1677 — Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halcartoune: Further Protection
Third Series, Volume V • Page 156
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 4 April 1677, the Privy Council granted temporary protections to a group of named individuals, including Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halcartoune.
Most of the people in the list, including Gideon and Henry, received protection until 1 June 1677. Two others — David Sinclair of Rysay and Samuel Meikle, described as “grave of the Mint” — received protection until 1 July.
This is the fourth surviving Privy Council stage in the Halkertoun protection sequence identified in the present rebuild: Volume IV p. 577, followed in Volume V by pp. 31, 48 and now 156.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 4th April 1677.
Protections are granted to the persons following, until 1st June next:—
Thomas Boyd of Pinkill, Peter Maill, merchant burgess of Edinburgh, James Johnstoune of Corhead, Andrew Skein, factor at Campheir, Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halcartoune, Mr Robert Hay of Dronlaw, Hugh Sinclair of Bining, Sir James Keith, Mr James Wynrahame, advocate, William Johnstoune of Wamphray, Sir William Ruthven of Dunglass, John Maxwell, merchant in Paisley, John Slusch, confitmaker, and burgess of Edinburgh, Robert Grahame of Morphie, and George Craw of Easter stream; as also to David Sinclair of Rysay and Samuel Meikle, “grave of the Mint,” till 1st July next.
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council granted temporary legal protection until 1 June 1677 to Thomas Boyd of Pinkill; Peter Maill, merchant burgess of Edinburgh; James Johnstone of Corhead; Andrew Skein, factor at Campvere; Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halcartoune; Mr Robert Hay of Dronlaw; Hugh Sinclair of Binning; Sir James Keith; Mr James Wynram, advocate; William Johnstone of Wamphray; Sir William Ruthven of Dunglass; John Maxwell, merchant in Paisley; John Slusch, confectioner and burgess of Edinburgh; Robert Graham of Morphie; and George Craw of Easter Stream.
David Sinclair of Rysay and Samuel Meikle, described as an officer of the Mint, received similar protection for a slightly longer period, until 1 July 1677.
Why This Record Matters
This entry confirms that Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halcartoune continued to seek and receive Privy Council protection into 1677.
Their repeated joint appearances create an unusually clear documentary sequence. They were protected until June 1676, received another protection in August 1676, had the legal limits of that protection tested in October, and were again granted protection in April 1677.
Independent Great Seal evidence identifies Henry as the eldest lawful son of Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun. The father-son relationship is therefore secure, although the present RPCS act itself merely names them together.
Evidence in Perspective
This act does not state why the new protection was granted. It is a collective protection list and gives no individual petition, creditor, debt amount or underlying action for Gideon and Henry.
The earlier act of 12 October 1676, however, explicitly described protection obtained by the Guthries from the Council for civil debts. That earlier evidence supplies important context, but the p. 156 notice should not be expanded into a statement about a specific debt or creditor that it does not name.
The April grant demonstrates that the October limitation did not permanently end their eligibility for protection. In October 1676 the Council ruled that protection could not obstruct proceedings for the production of writs and evidents. Six months later Gideon and Henry were nevertheless again included in a new protection list.
The distinction is important. The October decision concerned the scope of protection in a particular form of enforcement; it was not a declaration that Gideon and Henry could never again receive Council protection.
The sequence now stands: protection to 1 June 1676 → protection to 10 November 1676 → protection limited as to production of writs → new protection to 1 June 1677.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Protection — A temporary legal safeguard granted by authority of the Privy Council. Its precise effect depended upon the terms and legal context of the particular protection.
- Factor — A person acting as an agent or manager for another, often in commercial or property affairs.
- Merchant burgess — A merchant who held the rights and obligations of a burgess within a royal or other burgh.
- Advocate — A member of the Faculty of Advocates entitled to plead before Scotland’s higher courts.
- Confitmaker — A confectioner or maker of preserved and sweetened foods.
- “Grave of the Mint” — The occupational or official description printed for Samuel Meikle. The source wording is retained rather than silently assigning a more specific modern office without further verification.
- Until 1st June next — For Gideon and Henry, the protection expired on 1 June 1677.
Source:
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland,
Third Series, Volume V, A.D. 1676–1678,
edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown
(Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1912),
p. 156, Edinburgh, 4 April 1677.
RPCS sequence:
Third Series, Volume IV, p. 577;
Third Series, Volume V, pp. 31, 48 and 156.
Identity note:
Independent Great Seal evidence identifies Henry Guthrie as
the eldest lawful son of Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun.
The p. 156 RPCS act itself names them jointly but does not
state the relationship.
5 July 1677 — Patrick Guthrie, Brewer: Ale and Beer Regulation Complaint
Third Series, Volume V • Pages 185–186
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 5 July 1677, Sir John Nisbet of Dirletoune, King’s Advocate, pursued a complaint against a number of brewers associated with the shire of Forfar and burgh of Montrose. Patrick Guthrie was among the persons named.
The complaint concerned observance of government regulations governing the price and quality of ale and drinking bear. According to the published account, the best rough bear was then selling for £6 per boll, below the £8 level contemplated by the regulatory scheme. At that grain price, ale and beer were to be sold at the prescribed rate of 12 pence per pint plus 2 pence excise.
The brewers were accused of charging more than the authorized price while producing drink of insufficient strength. The complaint further alleged that some of the ale was unwholesome and capable of causing illness.
Alexander Stewart and Alexander Neilson confessed that they had purchased bear below the stated threshold yet charged more than the permitted price per pint. They were fined individually. The remaining defenders, including Patrick Guthrie, were put to the horn.
Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 5th July 1677.
Complaint by Sir John Nisbet of Dirletoune, King’s Advocate, against Alexander Stewart and others, brewers in the shire of Forfar and burgh of Montrose, including Patrick Guthrie, for contravening the Act regulating the prices of ale and drinking bear.
The complaint states that while the best rough bear was at £6 the boll, well below £8, at which price the pint of ale and bear should be sold at 12d. plus 2d. excise, the accused brewers have been selling ale and bear of insufficient strength and at higher prices than allowed. They are also accused of producing unwholesome ale that could cause disease.
Upon the confession of Alexander Stewart and Alexander Neilson that they bought bear below £7 and yet exacted above 12d. the pint, the Lords fine Alexander Stewart in 200 merks and Alexander Neilson in 100 merks. The rest are put to the horn.
Modern English Rendering
The King’s Advocate brought proceedings against a group of brewers connected with Forfarshire and Montrose, including Patrick Guthrie.
Government regulations linked the permitted selling price of ale and beer to the current price of the barley used to brew it. The complaint stated that good rough barley was selling for £6 Scots per boll, which was below the £8 level relevant to the regulation.
At that price, the brewers were expected to sell a pint of ale or beer for 12 pence, with an additional 2 pence excise. They were accused of charging more than that amount while selling drink that was weaker than required.
The complaint also alleged that the drink was of such poor quality that it was unwholesome and might cause disease.
Alexander Stewart and Alexander Neilson admitted that they had bought barley for less than £7 per boll but had charged more than 12 pence per pint. The Council fined Stewart 200 merks and Neilson 100 merks.
The remaining defenders, including Patrick Guthrie, were put to the horn under the legal process recorded in the act.
Why This Record Matters
This record identifies Patrick Guthrie as a brewer and places him within a government enforcement proceeding involving the brewing trade in Forfarshire and Montrose in 1677.
Occupational identifications of this kind are especially valuable for separating otherwise unidentified Guthrie namesakes. The record does not, however, supply Patrick’s residence, parentage, spouse, territorial designation or other family relationship.
The entry also provides a useful example of the Privy Council’s regulation of ordinary economic life. The case combined grain prices, retail drink prices, excise taxation, product strength and public-health allegations.
Evidence in Perspective
Patrick Guthrie is named in the complaint, but the printed account does not record a confession by him. The only defenders expressly said to have confessed the specified pricing conduct are Alexander Stewart and Alexander Neilson.
Their confessions led directly to individual monetary fines: 200 merks for Stewart and 100 merks for Neilson. Patrick Guthrie belongs instead to the remaining group described collectively as being put to the horn.
That distinction matters. The act should not be rewritten as though Patrick personally confessed to charging an excessive price or producing unwholesome drink. The published record preserves the allegations against the group but records specific admissions only for Stewart and Neilson.
Horning is a procedural legal consequence and should not be confused with proof of every allegation in the complaint. The entry establishes that Patrick became subject to that process; it does not provide a separate evidentiary finding proving that he personally committed each alleged pricing or quality violation.
The geographic wording also deserves care. The complaint concerns brewers described collectively in connection with the shire of Forfar and burgh of Montrose. The surviving legacy extract does not assign Patrick a more precise town or residence. He should therefore be described as a brewer appearing in that regional proceeding rather than given an unsupported specific domicile.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bear — Barley, especially the type of barley commonly used for brewing.
- Boll — A Scottish dry measure used for grain. Its exact capacity could vary according to locality and commodity.
- Pint — A Scottish liquid measure. It should not be assumed to be identical in volume to a modern Imperial or U.S. pint.
- Excise — A tax imposed on particular commodities, including alcoholic drink.
- Drinking bear — Beer or ale produced from barley and intended for consumption.
- Exacted — Charged or demanded as payment.
- Merk — A Scots unit of account worth 13 shillings 4 pence Scots.
- Put to the horn — Subjected to letters of horning and formally denounced as a rebel for failure to comply with legal process. The procedural status should not automatically be treated as proof of the substantive accusations that gave rise to the proceeding.
Source:
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland,
Third Series, Volume V, A.D. 1676–1678,
edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown
(Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1912),
pp. 185–186, Edinburgh, 5 July 1677.
Evidence note:
The published account expressly records confessions by
Alexander Stewart and Alexander Neilson and individual fines
against those two men. Patrick Guthrie is among the remaining
defenders who are collectively put to the horn; no separate
confession by Patrick is stated in the source extract.
17 November 1676 — Margaret Hadden, Widow of Mr John Guthrie: Bond to Leave Edinburgh
Third Series, Volume V • Page 604
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 17 November 1676, Margaret Hadden, widow of Mr John Guthrie, was still a prisoner in the Edinburgh tolbooth when she executed a formal bond implementing the Privy Council’s order of the previous day.
Margaret acted as principal in the bond. Robert Cuninghame, apothecary and burgess of Edinburgh, stood as her cautioner.
The bond required Margaret to leave Edinburgh before 1 January 1677 and not return within six miles of the city. The obligation was secured by a penalty of 1,000 merks.
The document expressly states that it was given in accordance with the Council’s act of 16 November, linking this bond directly to the preceding proceeding concerning the conventicle held in Margaret Hadden’s house.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 17th November 1676.
No. 30. Bond by Margaret Hadden, widow of Mr John Guthrie, indweller in Edinburgh, at present prisoner in the tolbooth of Edinburgh, as principal, with Robert Cuninghame, apothecary, burgess of Edinburgh, as cautioner for her, that between this and 1st January next she will remove out of Edinburgh and not come within six miles thereof under a penalty of 1000 merks, in accordance with the Council’s act of 16th instant; with clauses of relief and registration.
The bond is written by George Rae, servitor to Hugh Stevensone, writer in Edinburgh, and dated at Edinburgh; witnesses, Patrick Vause, keeper of the tolbooth of Edinburgh, James Lockhart, merchant there, indweller at Leith, Archibald Mure, merchant in Edinburgh, and the said George Rae.
Modern English Rendering
Margaret Hadden, widow of Mr John Guthrie and a resident of Edinburgh, was then being held prisoner in the Edinburgh tolbooth. She entered into a formal bond as the person principally responsible for its terms.
Robert Cuninghame, an apothecary and burgess of Edinburgh, acted as her surety.
Margaret promised that before 1 January 1677 she would leave Edinburgh and thereafter would not come within six miles of the city. If the obligation were breached, the stipulated penalty was 1,000 merks.
The bond was entered into in fulfilment of the Privy Council’s order of 16 November 1676. It contained the customary provisions allowing the cautioner relief and permitting formal registration and enforcement of the obligation.
George Rae, servant to Hugh Stevenson, writer in Edinburgh, wrote the bond. The witnesses were Patrick Vause, keeper of the Edinburgh tolbooth; James Lockhart, a merchant connected with Edinburgh and residing at Leith; Archibald Mure, merchant in Edinburgh; and George Rae himself.
Why This Record Matters
This bond provides a particularly useful combination of marital, residential and legal information. Margaret is explicitly identified as the widow of Mr John Guthrie and as an indweller in Edinburgh.
It also proves that she remained a prisoner on 17 November 1676 and records the precise terms imposed before she could satisfy the Council’s requirement for caution.
Because the bond cites the Council act of the preceding day, the two records form a continuous legal sequence rather than unrelated mentions: conventicle proceeding → continued imprisonment → requirement for caution → execution of bond.
Evidence in Perspective
The bond itself does not restate the conventicle allegations. It refers back to the Council’s act of 16 November rather than reproducing that proceeding. The preceding p. 52 record therefore supplies the context for why Margaret was imprisoned and required to leave Edinburgh.
The bond establishes an obligation, not a new finding of guilt. What it directly proves is that Margaret was a prisoner, that Robert Cuninghame stood as cautioner, and that she formally undertook to leave the city and observe the six-mile restriction under the stated financial penalty.
“Widow of Mr John Guthrie” is explicit contemporary evidence. The bond securely establishes Margaret’s marital status and the name and style of her deceased husband, but it does not further identify him by parish, occupation or parentage.
Later historical and ecclesiastical sources have associated Margaret Hadden with the family of Rev. John Guthrie of Tarbolton, but the RPCS item itself does not make that identification. Any linkage to the Tarbolton minister should therefore remain clearly identified as external evidence until the naming variation Hadden/Haldane and the marriage evidence are fully reconciled.
The chronology is unusually precise. The conventicle was held on 5 November; the Council acted on 16 November; and Margaret executed this bond on 17 November. The sequence provides a close view of how Privy Council religious enforcement moved from investigation to imprisonment and then to conditional release or removal.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bond — A formal written legal obligation enforceable according to its terms.
- Principal — The person primarily bound by the obligation.
- Cautioner — A surety who guaranteed another person’s compliance and could become liable if the principal failed to perform.
- Indweller — A resident or inhabitant.
- Tolbooth — A burgh building used for civic administration, court business and imprisonment.
- Remove out of Edinburgh — To leave the city under the conditions imposed by the Council.
- Not come within six miles thereof — A geographic exclusion preventing Margaret from returning to Edinburgh or its immediate surrounding area.
- Clauses of relief — Provisions allowing a cautioner to recover from the principal any loss incurred because of the guarantee.
- Registration — Formal registration of the bond so that it could be enforced through legal diligence without requiring a new action to establish the obligation.
- 1,000 merks — The monetary penalty stipulated for breach of the bond.
Source:
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland,
Third Series, Volume V, A.D. 1676–1678,
edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown
(Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1912),
p. 604, no. 30, Edinburgh, 17 November 1676.
Immediate RPCS cross-reference:
Volume V, p. 52, 16 November 1676 —
proceeding concerning the conventicle in Margaret Hadden’s
house and the Council’s requirement that she remain in prison
until caution was found.
Documentary sequence:
16 November 1676 Council act → 17 November 1676 formal bond.
22 March 1678 — John Guthrie, Burgess of Peebles: Bond for the Peace
Third Series, Volume V • Page 655
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 22 March 1678, a large group of officials, burgesses and inhabitants of Peebles entered into a collective bond for the peace. Among the subscribers was John Guthrie, identified in the volume’s index as a burgess of Peebles.
The principal men named at the beginning of the printed item include William Horsbrugh of that Ilk, sheriff depute of Tweeddale; Gavin Thomson, provost of Peebles; and William Plenderleith, bailie there. They were joined by a much larger body of burgesses and inhabitants, including John Guthrie.
The subscribers undertook to keep the peace and observe the laws. The printed entry further records the witnesses to the bond and notes that some subscribers signed with the assistance of notaries public.
Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Peebles, 22nd March 1678.
No. 122. Bond in similar terms, by William Horsbrugh of that Ilk, sheriff depute of Tueeddale, Gavin Thomson, provost of Peebles, William Plenderleith, bailie there, and a large number of other burgesses and inhabitants of Peebles, including John Guthrie, that they will keep the peace and observe the laws.
The bond is dated at Peebles, 22nd March 1678; witnesses, Walter Scott, commissary depute of Tueeddale, Mr Theodore Hay, vicar of Peebles, Alexander Veitch, sheriff officer there, and James Tueddie, writer in Edinburgh.
Signatures follow, and in addition those of James Sheill and John Hecfur. All those named from William Cranston to the end of the list sign by the aid of John Lowes and William Williamsone, notaries public.
Modern English Rendering
William Horsbrugh of that Ilk, sheriff depute of Tweeddale; Gavin Thomson, provost of Peebles; William Plenderleith, a bailie of the burgh; and a large number of other burgesses and residents of Peebles entered into a formal bond.
John Guthrie was among those included in the bond. The subscribers undertook to maintain the peace and obey the laws.
The document was executed at Peebles on 22 March 1678. Its witnesses were Walter Scott, commissary depute of Tweeddale; Mr Theodore Hay, vicar of Peebles; Alexander Veitch, sheriff officer; and James Tueddie, writer in Edinburgh.
The printed account states that signatures followed. It also notes additional signatures by James Sheill and John Hecfur and explains that the persons named from William Cranston onward signed with the assistance of the notaries public John Lowes and William Williamsone.
Why This Record Matters
This entry securely identifies John Guthrie as a burgess of Peebles in March 1678 and places him among a substantial group of local townsmen participating in a formal civic peace bond.
Unlike records in which a Guthrie appears only as a witness to someone else’s obligation, John appears here as one of the people bound by the instrument itself.
The description burgess of Peebles provides an important locality and civic-status marker for future identification. The record does not, however, state John’s occupation, parentage, spouse or other family relationships.
Evidence in Perspective
This is a collective obligation, not an individual accusation against John Guthrie. His presence in the bond should not be interpreted as evidence that he had personally committed a prior offence. What the record establishes is that he joined the other subscribers in undertaking to keep the peace and observe the laws.
The printed edition describes the bond as being “in similar terms.” The p. 655 item therefore does not restate every clause of the governing form in the passage preserved here. The detailed record should not invent or expand those omitted provisions beyond what the printed notice actually supplies.
John’s burgess status is useful but does not by itself identify his family. The designation places him within the civic community of Peebles, but no kinship or occupational information is supplied. He should not be merged with another John Guthrie solely on the basis of name and chronology.
The notarial note should also be read carefully. The edition says that those named from William Cranston to the end of the list signed with the aid of John Lowes and William Williamsone, notaries public. Without the complete subscriber list before us, this notice should not be used to assert whether John Guthrie personally signed in his own hand or by notarial assistance unless his exact position within that list is established from the printed page.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bond for the peace — A formal obligation by which subscribers undertook to maintain peaceful conduct and observe the law.
- Burgess — A person formally admitted to the civic community of a burgh, with rights and obligations defined by burgh law and local practice.
- Sheriff depute — An officer exercising judicial and administrative duties on behalf of the sheriff principal.
- Provost — The principal civic magistrate of a Scottish burgh.
- Bailie — A burgh magistrate with administrative and judicial duties.
- Commissary depute — A deputy official in a commissary court jurisdiction.
- Sheriff officer — An officer responsible for serving and executing legal process within a sheriffdom.
- Notary public — A legally qualified person who prepared, witnessed or authenticated instruments and could assist a person in subscribing a document when required.
Source:
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland,
Third Series, Volume V, A.D. 1676–1678,
edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown
(Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1912),
p. 655, no. 122, Peebles, 22 March 1678.
Source-form note:
The printed item describes this as a bond
“in similar terms” and summarizes the obligation
rather than restating every clause. The reconstructed record
therefore preserves the scope of the published abridgment and
does not supply unstated terms.
12 July 1678 — “Wm Guthrie”: Memorandum for the Transport of Ninian Tait
Third Series, Volume V • Page 658
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
A short memorandum dated at Holyrood House on 12 July 1678 directs that a warrant be written for the transportation of Ninian Tait, apprentice to Robert Walker, wheelwright in Leith, to the Edinburgh tolbooth.
The memorandum is followed by the name “Wm Guthrie.” The printed item also preserves the words “Kincowsie and Hary Dove” and notes that figures appear on the document.
Because the source does not explain the function of the names, William Guthrie should not be assigned an administrative, clerical or legal office solely from his appearance on this memorandum.
Complete Printed Item
Holyrood House, 12th July 1678.
Memorandum, to wryt a warrand to transport Ninian Tait, aprentice to Robert Walker, wheillwright in Leith, to the tolbooth of Edinburgh.
“Wm Guthrie.” “Kincowsie and Hary Dove.” Also some figures.
Modern English Rendering
A memorandum was made at Holyrood House directing that a formal warrant be prepared to transfer Ninian Tait, who was apprenticed to Robert Walker, a wheelwright in Leith, to the Edinburgh tolbooth.
The name “Wm Guthrie” appears on the memorandum. The words “Kincowsie and Hary Dove” and several figures also appear on the document.
The printed item does not explain whether William Guthrie wrote the memorandum, approved it, endorsed it, witnessed it, or was named for some other reason.
Why This Record Matters
This is a small but potentially useful appearance of a William Guthrie in material connected with Privy Council administration in July 1678.
Unlike many Guthrie entries in this collection, however, the memorandum provides no territorial designation, occupation, family relationship or explicit office. Identification with another contemporary William Guthrie would therefore require independent evidence.
The record is also useful for illustrating the documentary material preserved in the later portions of the printed RPCS volumes. Not every Guthrie appearance comes from a full Council act; some survive only in brief administrative memoranda or endorsements.
Evidence in Perspective
The source does not identify William Guthrie’s office. The legacy interpretation described him as having a minor administrative role and suggested that he may have been a signatory or note-taker. Those are possibilities, but the printed item itself does not choose among them.
The safest description is therefore that the name “Wm Guthrie” appears on the memorandum. Until the original document or a fuller archival description is examined, no more specific documentary capacity should be assigned.
The memorandum concerns Ninian Tait, not William Guthrie. Tait is the person whose transportation to the Edinburgh tolbooth is ordered. William Guthrie is not described as prisoner, prosecutor, cautioner, messenger or custodial officer.
The relationship of “Kincowsie and Hary Dove” to William Guthrie is also unstated. The printed item simply preserves those words after “Wm Guthrie.” They should not be converted into colleagues, witnesses, co-signatories or other defined participants without further source evidence.
This entry therefore has a deliberately narrow evidentiary value: William Guthrie’s name is present on a dated administrative memorandum at Holyrood House on 12 July 1678. His identity and function remain open research questions.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Memorandum — A brief written note or instruction recording something to be done or remembered.
- Wryt a warrand — Write or prepare a formal warrant authorizing the specified action.
- Warrand — A warrant or formal written authority.
- Transport — In this context, physically transfer a prisoner from one place of custody to another; it does not mean overseas penal transportation.
- Aprentice — Apprentice.
- Wheillwright — Wheelwright, a craftsman who made or repaired wheels.
- Tolbooth — A burgh building used for civic, judicial and prison functions.
Source:
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland,
Third Series, Volume V, A.D. 1676–1678,
edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown
(Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1912),
p. 658, Holyrood House, 12 July 1678.
Identity note:
The printed item supplies only the form
“Wm Guthrie.” No occupation, office,
residence, territorial designation or family relationship
is attached to the name, and no identification with another
William Guthrie is made here.
Volume V — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Third Series Volume V, covering 1676–1678, brings together nine Guthrie-related source units ranging from civil debt protection and Presbyterian religious enforcement to food scarcity, brewing regulation, civic peace obligations and brief administrative memoranda.
Several entries form continuing legal sequences rather than isolated references. The most substantial are the repeated protections involving Gideon and Henry Guthrie of Halkertoun and the two-stage proceeding involving Margaret Hadden, widow of Mr John Guthrie. Elsewhere the volume supplies explicit father-son evidence at Prestwick, an occupational identification for Patrick Guthrie, civic status for John Guthrie of Peebles, and a still-unidentified William Guthrie appearing on an administrative memorandum.
Volume V continues the Halkertoun material directly from Volume IV. On 3 August 1676, Gideon and Henry received another temporary protection, this time extending until 10 November.
The act of 12 October 1676 is substantially more informative. It expressly says that the Guthries had obtained protection from the Council for civil debts, but the protection was being relied upon to prevent execution of letters of caption concerning the exhibition of writs and evidents.
The Council ruled that the protection did not extend so far. It permitted further personal execution against Henry for the production and delivery of those documents.
On 4 April 1677, Gideon and Henry nevertheless appear again among people granted protection, showing that the October ruling had limited the scope of an earlier protection rather than permanently ending their eligibility for protection.
The Privy Council acts repeatedly name Gideon and Henry together but do not state their relationship. Independent Great Seal evidence identifies Henry Guthrie as the eldest lawful son of Gideon Guthrie of Halkertoun.
That charter also identifies Henry’s wife as Margaret Sibbald, only lawful daughter of Mr David Sibbald of Kair.
This becomes particularly interesting in the October 1676 proceeding, where the petitioners include Alexander Sibbald of Kair. The shared Kair designation suggests an important family context, but the RPCS act does not state Alexander’s exact relationship to Margaret.
The Sibbald connection therefore remains a strong research lead rather than a relationship to be supplied by assumption.
The 16 November 1676 petition places George Gotrey, his son John Gotrey, and Alexander Gotrey at Prestwick. David Neill of Prestwick joined them in seeking remission of a £100 Scots fine.
Their admitted conduct was the carrying of meal from William Seller’s house at Troon to Prestwick. They separately offered to swear that they did not know the meal had been imported from Ireland.
Their petition described severe local scarcity and claimed that the meal had been supplied on trust for distribution among poor inhabitants. The Council ultimately remitted the fine because of the petitioners’ known poverty.
Genealogically, only one relationship is explicit: John is George’s son. Alexander’s relationship to them is not stated and should not be inferred merely from surname and residence.
Reference: p. 56.
Two records preserve a continuous legal sequence concerning Margaret Hadden, widow of Mr John Guthrie.
On 16 November 1676, the Council dealt with a Presbyterian conventicle held in Margaret’s house on 5 November. Margaret and Bessie Muir refused to depone and were ordered to remain imprisoned until sufficient caution was found for their removal from Edinburgh.
On the following day, while still described as a prisoner in the Edinburgh tolbooth, Margaret formally bound herself to leave Edinburgh before 1 January 1677 and not return within six miles of the city. Robert Cuninghame, apothecary and burgess of Edinburgh, stood as cautioner.
The bond is especially valuable genealogically because it explicitly identifies Margaret as the widow of Mr John Guthrie. It does not, however, identify her deceased husband by parish, parentage or other family connection.
The contemporary Privy Council bond uses the name Margaret Hadden. Later ecclesiastical and historical material concerning Rev. John Guthrie of Tarbolton uses the surname Haldane and sometimes a different given name for his wife.
Later writers have associated the woman in these 1676 RPCS records with the widow of Rev. John Guthrie of Tarbolton. That identification may ultimately prove correct, but the contemporary RPCS record itself does not supply the ministerial identification.
The safest current treatment is therefore to preserve Margaret Hadden, widow of Mr John Guthrie exactly as recorded and keep the proposed Tarbolton identification as an external research question pending reconciliation of the naming evidence.
Patrick Guthrie appears among brewers proceeded against on 5 July 1677 in connection with regulations governing the price and quality of ale and drinking bear in Forfarshire and Montrose.
The complaint alleged excessive pricing, insufficient strength and unwholesome drink. But the source expressly records confessions only from Alexander Stewart and Alexander Neilson, who were individually fined.
Patrick belongs to the remaining defenders who were put to the horn. That procedural result should not be rewritten as though Patrick personally confessed to every substantive allegation in the complaint.
The record securely identifies his occupation as brewer, but supplies no parentage, spouse or precise individual residence.
Reference: pp. 185–186.
On 22 March 1678, John Guthrie appears among the burgesses and inhabitants of Peebles subscribing a collective bond to keep the peace and observe the laws.
The entry establishes both his Peebles locality and his burgess status. It does not accuse John individually of prior misconduct and should not be interpreted as evidence that he had personally breached the peace.
The bond gives no occupation, spouse, parentage or other relationship by which this John can yet be securely connected to another Guthrie family.
Reference: p. 655.
The final Guthrie item in the volume is a brief memorandum dated at Holyrood House on 12 July 1678. It directs that a warrant be written to transport Ninian Tait, apprentice to a Leith wheelwright, to the Edinburgh tolbooth.
The memorandum contains the name “Wm Guthrie”, followed by the words “Kincowsie and Hary Dove” and some figures.
The source does not say whether William wrote, approved, endorsed, witnessed or was merely named upon the memorandum. His office and identity must therefore remain unresolved.
This is a useful reminder that a name appearing on official paperwork does not automatically prove an official title or occupational role.
Reference: p. 658.
The rebuilt Finding Aid contains nine documentary source units. Several acts name more than one Guthrie, so the number of named individuals is larger than the number of independent records.
The late pages of the printed volume contain bonds and miscellaneous papers whose dates fall earlier than some material printed before them. For that reason the rebuilt records follow printed source order while preserving each document’s actual date.
The Volume V evidence ranges from direct kinship and civic status to proceedings where a Guthrie appears only through a spouse or through an unexplained name on administrative paperwork. Those different evidentiary strengths should remain visible rather than being treated as equivalent genealogical proof.
Halkertoun: the exact relationship of Alexander Sibbald of Kair to Henry Guthrie’s wife Margaret Sibbald remains to be established. The underlying civil process concerning the writs and evidents may contain additional property and kinship evidence.
Prestwick: John is explicitly George Gotrey’s son, but Alexander Gotrey’s relationship to them is unstated. Local burgh, kirk-session, testament and land records may clarify the family group.
Margaret Hadden: the proposed identification with the wife or widow of Rev. John Guthrie of Tarbolton should be tested against contemporary marriage, family and ecclesiastical evidence, particularly the Hadden/Haldane naming difference.
Patrick Guthrie: the brewing proceeding supplies an occupation but not a precise residence or family. Burgh and excise records for Forfarshire and Montrose may provide additional identification.
John Guthrie of Peebles: his burgess status is secure, but no family identification is yet supplied by the RPCS record.
William Guthrie: the original memorandum behind p. 658 remains the best prospect for determining whether “Wm Guthrie” was a writer, clerk, councillor, signatory, endorser or person named for another reason.
Across the volume, the central evidentiary rule remains: allegation is not confession; horning is not proof of every underlying charge; protection is not immunity from all legal process; and a name on official paperwork does not by itself establish office or identity.
Basis of synthesis: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume V, A.D. 1676–1678, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1912), especially pp. 31, 48, 52, 56, 156, 185–186, 604, 655 and 658. The linked detailed record cards preserve the legal stage, source spelling and identity limits of each entry. External genealogical evidence is distinguished from statements made directly by the Privy Council records.
Volume 6
Volume 6 carries the surviving Privy Council record from September 1678 through December 1680. The Guthrie material is relatively compact but unusually varied, placing members of the surname in county government, guardianship and education, Edinburgh legal practice, execution of judicial process, and provincial legal work.
Two entries concern Sir Hary / Henry Guthrie of Kingedward. In 1679 he appears among the newly appointed Justices of the Peace for Aberdeenshire; in March 1680 Henry Guthrie of Kingedward is one of the Protestant gentlemen appointed to supervise the upbringing and education of the young Viscount of Frendraught. The printed forms Hary and Henry are preserved in the individual records.
The remaining entries identify Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, in a disputed land action; James Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh, in a substantially more serious proceeding ending in a finding of riot and imprisonment; and Robert Guthrie, writer in Dumfries, as witness to a bond of submission.
These records require careful attention to legal status. Being named as a participant in another man’s misconduct is not the same as being found guilty, while the November 1680 proceeding against James Guthrie does contain an express Council finding. Those distinctions are retained throughout the detailed records.
Read Volume 6 Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VI, A.D. 1678–1680, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1914).
Source note: Volume VI covers September 1678 through December 1680. Finding-Aid references below use the printed pagination of Third Series, Volume VI, not digitized image numbers. The HathiTrust copy contains 856 page scans; its image numbers therefore should not be treated as equivalent to printed page numbers.
Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 311-312 | 1679 | Sir Hary Guthrie of Kingedward | Named among the new Justices of the Peace for Aberdeenshire when the Council filled vacancies caused by death, inability to serve, or removal from the shire. |
| 414 | 4 March 1680 | Henry Guthrie of Kingedward | One of the Protestant noblemen and gentlemen appointed, with advice of the Bishop of Aberdeen, to oversee the place and manner of the young Viscount of Frendraught’s education. |
| 426 | March 1680 | Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh | Accompanied Adam Hepburn of Humbie when disputed ground was ploughed despite a previous Council restraint. The Council’s finding of contempt was against Hepburn; Guthrie is named as a participant or associate in the incident, not separately adjudged guilty. |
| 586–588 | 23 November 1680 | James Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh | Proceeding concerning violent interference with the execution of letters of poinding. The Council found the libel proved against James Guthrie and William Strachan, found them guilty of riot, and ordered Guthrie to remain in the tolbooth during the Council’s pleasure. |
| 660 | 9 August 1679 | Robert Guthrie, writer in Drumfreis | Witness at Dumfries to Robert McMillan’s bond of submission. Although earlier in date than several entries above, the item appears later in the printed volume and is retained here in printed page order. |
1679 — Sir Hary Guthrie of Kingedward Appointed Justice of the Peace for Aberdeenshire
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series, Volume VI • pp. 311–312
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council records that a number of the existing Justices of the Peace for Aberdeenshire had died, while others could no longer attend to royal service because of incapacity or removal from the shire. To fill the resulting vacancies, the Council appointed a substantial new body of local landholders, officeholders and noblemen’s bailies.
Among those expressly nominated is Sir Hary Guthrie of Kingedward. The appointment empowered him, with the other persons named, to sit, vote and act with the same authority as the other Justices of the Peace of Aberdeenshire.
The act begins on printed p. 311 and concludes at the top of p. 312.
Complete Printed Entry — Original Register Text
“Forasmuch as the Lords of his Majesties Privy Councell, understanding that many of the justices of peace of the shire of Aberdeen are deceassed and others through inability and removeall out of the said shire cannot attend his Majesties service therein, have thought fitt for supplying thereof hereby to nominate and appoint Alexander Irving of Drum; John Skeen of that Ilk; Mr Alexander Menzies of Kinmundie; Mr Alexander Patone of Kinnadie; Alexander Cumine of Culters; George Skeen of Fintray; Sir John Forbes of Craigivar; James Gordon, younger of Lesmoir; James Gordon of Terpersie; Patrick Lesley of Kincraigie; William Forbes of Camphill; Alexander Ferquharson of Innercald; Alexander Burnet of Craigmyle; Alexander Forbes of Balogie; . . . Ross of Auchlessan; . . . Dewgat of Auchinhove; Adam Urquhart of Meldrum; John Forbes of Leslie; Sir John Forbes of Monymusk; Alexander Bannerman of Elsick; William Erskin of Pitodrie; John Elphingstoun, younger of Glack; John Lesley of Auchorsk; Sir Hary Guthrie of Kingedward; Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Boyn; George Morieson of Bogney; Walter Forbes of Blacktoune; William Thores of Muresk; Sir William Keith of Ludquhairne; . . . Gordon of Pitlurg; Thomas Frazer of Streechen; James Baird, younger of Auchmedden; George Keith of Knock; Mr Alexander Hay of Blairmormonth; Sir George Gordon of Haddo; Alexander Udney of that Ilk; Sir Richard Maitland of Pitreitchie; Mr Alexander Forbes of Airdo; James Keith of Tilligonie; Robert Udney of Auchterallane; Patrick Dune of Taartie; David Tyrie of Collothie; Sir William Gordon, elder of Lesmoir; . . . Gordon of Cocklarachy; . . . Gordon of Artloch, and Gordon of Knockaskpick, baillies to the Marques of Huntly; William Forbes of Skellator, baillie to the Earle of Mar; . . . Cuming and . . . Lindsay, baillies to the Earle of Erroll; John Hamptoun, Andrew Withen and Andrew Hay, baillies to the Earle of Marischall; Adam Pittendreich, William Logie and John Tulloch, bailzies to the Earle of Kintore; William Dumbar of Perthnick, bailie to the Earle of Dumfermline; James Innes of Drumgask, baile to the Earle of Aboyne; . . . Dalgarno and . . . Mitchell, baillies to the Lord Forbes; William Forbes of Auchlin, bailie to the Lord Pitsligo, and John Midletoun, bailie to the Lord and Master of Saltoun, to be justices of peace in the said shire of Aberdeen, with power to them to sitt, vote and act als fully and freely as any other justices of peace of the said shire have done or may doe; and appoints them to be admitted and received in the usuall and accustomed manner.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords of the Privy Council, understanding that many of the Justices of the Peace for Aberdeenshire had died and that others, because of incapacity or removal from the county, could no longer attend to the King’s service, decided to fill the vacancies by appointing a new group of Justices.
They therefore appointed Alexander Irving of Drum; John Skeen of that Ilk; Mr Alexander Menzies of Kinmundie; Mr Alexander Patone of Kinnadie; Alexander Cumine of Culters; George Skeen of Fintray; Sir John Forbes of Craigivar; James Gordon, younger of Lesmoir; James Gordon of Terpersie; Patrick Lesley of Kincraigie; William Forbes of Camphill; Alexander Ferquharson of Innercald; Alexander Burnet of Craigmyle; Alexander Forbes of Balogie; Ross of Auchlessan; Dewgat of Auchinhove; Adam Urquhart of Meldrum; John Forbes of Leslie; Sir John Forbes of Monymusk; Alexander Bannerman of Elsick; William Erskin of Pitodrie; John Elphingstoun, younger of Glack; John Lesley of Auchorsk; Sir Hary Guthrie of Kingedward; Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Boyn; George Morieson of Bogney; Walter Forbes of Blacktoune; William Thores of Muresk; Sir William Keith of Ludquhairne; Gordon of Pitlurg; Thomas Frazer of Streechen; James Baird, younger of Auchmedden; George Keith of Knock; Mr Alexander Hay of Blairmormonth; Sir George Gordon of Haddo; Alexander Udney of that Ilk; Sir Richard Maitland of Pitreitchie; Mr Alexander Forbes of Airdo; James Keith of Tilligonie; Robert Udney of Auchterallane; Patrick Dune of Taartie; David Tyrie of Collothie; Sir William Gordon, elder of Lesmoir; Gordon of Cocklarachy; Gordon of Artloch; and Gordon of Knockaskpick.
The Council also appointed the named bailies serving the Marquis of Huntly, the Earls of Mar, Erroll, Marischal, Kintore, Dunfermline and Aboyne, and the Lords Forbes, Pitsligo and Saltoun.
All of these men were constituted Justices of the Peace for Aberdeenshire, with authority to sit, vote and act as fully and freely as the existing Justices of the Peace. The Council ordered that they be formally admitted and received into office in the customary manner.
This is direct contemporary evidence placing Sir Hary Guthrie of Kingedward among the Aberdeenshire landed and administrative elite in 1679. His inclusion in a county-wide commission establishes a formal public office rather than merely social association with the other local lairds.
The printed index reinforces the identification under “Guthrie (Gutherie) of Kingedward, Sir Harry” and directs the reader both to this Justice of the Peace appointment on p. 311 and to his later appearance on p. 414 as an overseer of a pupil.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Justice of the Peace — a locally appointed magistrate exercising judicial and administrative responsibilities within the county.
- Shire — county; here the shire of Aberdeen.
- For supplying thereof — for filling the vacant offices.
- Nominate and appoint — formally name and constitute a person in office.
- Baillie — an officer or administrator acting for a landholder or jurisdiction; several noblemen’s bailies are included in this commission.
- Admitted and received — formally installed or accepted into the office according to established procedure.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VI, pp. 311–312, “Appointment of new justices of peace for the shire of Aberdeen,” Acta, Sept. 1678–August 1682, fol. 118b; edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1914). HathiTrust scan images 353–354 of 856. Open Volume VI at HathiTrust .
4 March 1680 — Henry Guthery of Kingedward Appointed to Oversee the Education of the Viscount of Frendraught
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series, Volume VI • p. 414
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Christian, Viscountess of Frendraught, petitioned the Privy Council concerning the upbringing of her son, the young Viscount. She stated that she had taken particular care that he should be raised as a Protestant because the remainder of the family was Catholic, but feared that this purpose would be defeated if his uncle, Louis Crichtone, whom she described as a declared and committed Catholic, were allowed to continue as tutor.
The petition relied on statutes excluding Catholics from offices of trust, particularly those involving the education of young people and church patronage. Christian asked that Louis Crichtone be declared incapable of acting as tutor in law or exercising presentations to church patronage belonging to the young Viscount.
The Council did not decide every part of her request, but appointed a group of Protestant noblemen and gentlemen, including Henry Guthery of Kingedward, to take charge of the place and manner of the Viscount’s education, with the advice of the Bishop of Aberdeen.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Supplication by Christian, Viscountess of Frendraught, as follows:—She has been very careful to get her son, the Viscount, bred Protestant, because all the rest of the family are popish, which may very much influence that corner of the country; yet her design is like to be frustrated if Lues Crichtone, uncle to the said Viscount, a declared and bigoted papist, whose name is given up as such by the Bishop of Murray to the Council, is allowed to continue tutor. And, since by act 5, Parl. 1. of K. James VI., and act 71, Parl. 6 of K. James VI., and act 1, Parl. 16 of K. James VI., no papist can enjoy any trust or employment, especially relating to the education of youth and patronage of kirks, in which religion is more immediately concerned, she craves that the said Lues Crichtone may be declared incapable of being tutor in law to the said Viscount, or of presenting to any patronage belonging to him, which will greatly encourage the orthodox clergy in that country, and that upon his removal the Council, as representing his Majesty (who is universal tutor to all his subjects and Pater patriæ), will nominate “such of the said Viscount his nearest Protestant friends contained in the list produced to be tutors to him ad negotia as the Councill shall think fitt,” and discharge the Bishop of Aberdeen from granting collation upon any presentation subscribed by the said Luis.
The Lords authorise and appoint William, Lord Forbes, John, Lord Elphingstoune, William, Master of Forbes, Sir William Gordon, elder, of Lismore, James Gordon, younger thereof, Adam Urquhart of Meldrum, and Henry Guthery of Kingedward, or any three of them, with advice of the Bishop of Aberdeen, to take care of the education of the Viscount of Frendraught both as to the place and manner thereof; and they forbear to give answer to the other desire of the petition anent the presentation, in regard that point is already determined by the Lords of Session.
Modern English Rendering
Christian, Viscountess of Frendraught, told the Council that she had taken great care to have her son, the young Viscount, brought up as a Protestant because the rest of the family were Catholics, whose influence could affect that part of the country.
She feared that this would be frustrated if Louis Crichtone, the Viscount’s uncle, continued as his legal guardian. She described him as an openly committed Catholic whose name had been reported to the Council by the Bishop of Moray.
Christian cited several statutes of James VI excluding Catholics from positions of trust, especially offices involving the education of children and the patronage of churches. She therefore asked the Council to declare Louis Crichtone incapable of acting as the Viscount’s legal tutor or exercising church patronage in his name.
She further asked the Council, acting on behalf of the King as guardian of his subjects, to appoint suitable Protestant relatives or friends to conduct the young Viscount’s affairs.
The Council appointed William, Lord Forbes; John, Lord Elphinstone; William, Master of Forbes; Sir William Gordon, elder of Lismore; James Gordon, younger thereof; Adam Urquhart of Meldrum; and Henry Guthery of Kingedward. Any three of them, acting with the advice of the Bishop of Aberdeen, were authorised to determine both where and how the Viscount of Frendraught should be educated.
The Council declined to rule on the separate question concerning church presentations because the Lords of Session had already determined that issue.
The appointment places Henry Guthery of Kingedward within a select group of Protestant noblemen and landed gentlemen trusted by the Privy Council with the upbringing of a young nobleman whose religious education carried wider political and ecclesiastical significance.
It also provides a second Volume VI appearance for the Kingedward Guthrie. The printed index groups this p. 414 entry with the p. 311 Justice of the Peace appointment under “Guthrie (Gutherie) of Kingedward, Sir Harry.”
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Supplication — a formal petition presented to the Privy Council.
- Tutor in law — a legally recognised guardian responsible for a minor.
- Ad negotia — appointed for the conduct of business or affairs.
- Patronage of kirks — the right to present a person to a church benefice.
- Collation — ecclesiastical admission or institution to a benefice after presentation.
- Pater patriæ — “father of the country”; here used of the King in his protective or guardian role.
- Lords of Session — the judges of Scotland’s supreme civil court.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VI, p. 414, Edinburgh, 4 March 1680; Decreta, February 1678–September 1681, p. 346; edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1914). HathiTrust scan image 456 of 856. Open Volume VI at HathiTrust .
1680 — Mr John Guthery, Writer in Edinburgh: Disputed Ploughing at Easter Crichtone
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series, Volume VI • pp. 426–427
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The King’s Advocate and James Justice of Easter Crichtone complained that Adam Hepburne of Humbie had disregarded an earlier Privy Council prohibition concerning a piece of ground in front of Justice’s house.
According to the complaint, on 11 March Adam Hepburne came to the ground accompanied by Mr John Guthery, writer in Edinburgh, together with tenants, colliers and servants. The company ploughed the green. When two of James Justice’s servants attempted a civil interruption, Hepburne allegedly threatened to run them through with a sword.
The complaint sought restoration of the turf and damages of 2,000 merks. After appearance of the parties, the Council found “the defender” guilty of contempt of its earlier sentence, required him to ask the Council’s pardon, and postponed consideration of damages until the underlying question of property right had been determined by the ordinary judge.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by his Majesty’s Advocate, and by James Justice of Easter Crichtone, as follows:—In contravention of the prohibition issued by their Lordships on 18th December last to Adam Hepburne of Humbie regarding the breaking up of the complainer’s piece of ground in front of his house, the said Adam has so far vilipended the said act as that on 11th March instant he came with Mr John Guthery, writer in Edinburgh, and divers others his tenants, colliers and servants, to the said green, and ploughed up the same, and, on William Whigham and Janet Blair, spouse to Thomas Thomson, the complainer’s servants, endeavouring to make civil interruption, he threatened to run them through with a sword.
The said Adam Hepburne and Mr John Guthery ought therefore to replace the turf and pay the damage sustained by the pursuer amounting to 2000 merks. Charge having been given to them, and both parties compearing personally, the Lords find the defender guilty of contempt of the Council’s sentence in ploughing up the said green, and ordain him to crave the Council’s pardon therefor (which he did accordingly), and they supersede to determine anent the pursuer’s damage until the point of right is discussed by the judge ordinary.
Modern English Rendering
The King’s Advocate and James Justice of Easter Crichtone complained that Adam Hepburne of Humbie had violated an order issued by the Privy Council on 18 December forbidding him from breaking up a piece of ground lying in front of Justice’s house.
They alleged that on 11 March Hepburne went to the disputed green with Mr John Guthery, a writer in Edinburgh, as well as several of Hepburne’s tenants, coal workers and servants, and ploughed the ground.
When William Whigham and Janet Blair, servants of James Justice, attempted formally and peacefully to object to the action, Hepburne was alleged to have threatened to run them through with a sword.
The complaint maintained that Adam Hepburne and Mr John Guthery should restore the turf and compensate James Justice for damages estimated at 2,000 merks. They were formally charged, and the parties appeared.
The Council found “the defender” guilty of contempt for ploughing the green contrary to its earlier order and required him to ask the Council’s pardon, which he did. The Council postponed a decision about damages until the ordinary civil court had determined who actually possessed the legal right to the disputed ground.
The entry securely identifies Mr John Guthery as a writer in Edinburgh and places him personally with Adam Hepburne of Humbie during a contested act involving land at Easter Crichtone. It is therefore useful evidence for locating John within Edinburgh’s legal-professional community in 1680.
The occupation is particularly valuable for identity control because several contemporary men named John Guthrie appear in Scottish records. Here the source itself supplies both occupation and city.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Writer — a Scottish legal professional engaged in preparing documents and conducting legal business.
- Vilipended — treated with contempt or disregard.
- Civil interruption — a formal, peaceful objection intended to interrupt an act and preserve a party’s legal rights.
- Charge having been given — formal legal notice requiring appearance or compliance.
- Compearing — appearing before the court or Council.
- Crave the Council’s pardon — formally ask forgiveness for contempt of the Council’s authority.
- Supersede — postpone or defer a determination.
- Point of right — the underlying legal question of entitlement or property right.
- Judge ordinary — the regular court having ordinary jurisdiction over the civil dispute.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VI, pp. 426–427; complaint by the King’s Advocate and James Justice of Easter Crichtone concerning Adam Hepburne of Humbie; Decreta, February 1678–September 1681, p. 364; edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1914). HathiTrust scan images 468–469 of 856. Open Volume VI at HathiTrust .
23 November 1680 — James Guthery, Messenger in Edinburgh: Riot at Bogie and Reciprocal Complaints
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series, Volume VI • pp. 586–588
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The proceeding records two opposing complaints arising from an attempt to execute letters of poinding at the manor-place of Bogie.
Lord Bruntisland, Anna Aitoun, Lady Bogie, and James Weemes, her husband, complained that William Strachan of Leith, accompanied by James Guthery and other messengers, entered Bogie under colour of executing legal diligence, seized livestock, crops and household property, forced open the dwelling house, and violently assaulted Lady Bogie while removing her personal jewels and money.
A reciprocal complaint was then pursued by the King’s Advocate, William Strachan and James Guthery, messenger in Edinburgh. They alleged that when Guthery later went to execute the poinding, James Weemes and a large armed company violently resisted and deforced him.
After witnesses had been heard for both sides, the Council found the complaint brought by Lord Bruntisland, Lady Bogie and James Weemes sufficiently proved against William Strachan and James Guthery. Both were found guilty of riot. Strachan was ordered to restore property, pay a fine and enter prison; Guthery was ordered to remain in the Edinburgh tolbooth during the Council’s pleasure. Lady Bogie and the other defenders were acquitted of the counter- complaint.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Complaint by [blank], Lord Bruntisland, Anna Aitoun, Lady Bogie, and James Weemes, her spouse, for his interest, as follows:—The said Lord Bruntisland and Lady Bogie being in peaceable possession of the manor-place of Bogie, houses, parks and meadows thereof, corn, cattle, plenishing and others, true it is that on 1st October last, or thereabout, William Strauchane, indweller in Leith, accompanied by James Guthery, John William Williamson and William Strauchan, messengers, and others, came to the manor-place of Bogie under pretence of executing letters of poinding against the said James Weemes, although he had obtained a suspension against all his creditors, William Strachan being therein particularly named, and there seized and drove and took away the corn, cattle and other goods in and about the said place, parks and meadows, conform to an inventory produced, and also broke open the doors of the dwelling-house of Bogie and removed therefrom the whole furniture and plenishing, as contained in another inventory produced, although Henry Landells, Strachan and John Willson, servitor to Lord Bruntisland, did at that time declare that his (sic) master was tacksman of the said house and lands and that the whole furnishing and goods and corn and cattle belonged to him, and produced the said tack and an acknowledgment signed by the said James Weemes and Anna Aitoun, dated several months before, that they brooked the said house, lands, plenishing and cattle by tolerance from the deceased Earl of Weems and now from Lord Bruntisland, and that the same did not belong to them but they had only the use thereof;
and the said persons allowed their rudeness and barbarity to proceed so far that they beat and wounded the said Lady Bogie by violently throwing her to the ground, tearing her clothes and pulling from her bosom a little casket or box wherein were her rings and jewels, and took from her pockets her purse and pursepennies, she declaring that these were her own proper goods and the ornaments of her body. They ought therefore to be decerned to restore the said property, or the value thereof, being 2000 merks, with 500 merks of damages, and the messengers ought to be deprived of office.
Complaint is also made by Sir George M‘Kenzie of Rosehaugh, knight, his Majesty’s Advocate, and by William Strachan, indweller in Leith, and James Guthery, messenger in Edinburgh, as follows:—The convocation of the lieges to deforce his Majesty’s officers and messengers-at-arms is a heinous offence, yet, whereas the deceased [blank] Weemes of Bogie and James Weemes of Balfarge were debtors to the said William Strachan by bonds for 2000 merks of principal, and the said William having raised horning and poinding for payment of the same with the annualrents, and having employed the said James Guthery, messenger, who on 4th October last went to the lands of Bogie possessed by the said James Weems and his lady, and at the desire of the said James Weemes and upon his faithful promise to give satisfaction by security or payment having procured a delay to him for two days, and the said James Guthery having written to the said James Weemes for performance of his promise and received only a defiant letter for answer, and so going to the ground of the said lands to do his duty,
true it is that there were there convocated at the direction of the said James Weems, John Weemes, his brother german, David Moreis, coalgrieve in Bogie, John and Andrew Broune, colliers there, John Baines there, John Wilson there, Walter Goodwillie in Burtrebush, Robert Dalrymple, tailor in Milnetoune of Stark, his own servant, and several others to the number of fourscore, who were all armed, and who violently opposed and deforced the said messenger and threatened him and beat and abused him, “and vilipendingly said they cared not for the King’s lawes and would by strong hand detaine the goods,” and not only provoked him to fight them but swore that, if he and his assistants had been there the day before, they would have seen his heart’s blood.
Yet the said James Weems and Anna Aitoun, his lady, have had the confidence to palliate their crime and raise action against the complainers and others as if they had been guilty of gross riot in executing the said letters.
Charge having been given by parties hinc inde to each other, and both parties compearing personally on 18th November instant, when witnesses were received, and this day the complaints being also called, the Lords, upon the depositions of witnesses on both sides, find the libel at the instance of the Lord Bruntisland, the Lady Bogie and her husband, sufficiently proven against the said William Strachan and James Guthery, who are thereby found guilty of a riot, and they therefore ordain the said William to deliver back to the said Lady Bogie her jewels, rings and other personal property unwarrantably poinded by him, and to deliver to the Lord Bruntisland the rest of the goods, he making faith that these goods did properly belong to him, and they further fine the said William Strachan in 300 merks to be paid to the said Lady Bogie as expenses of plea, and to enter prison in the tolbooth of Edinburgh until he make payment and perform the rest of the sentence.
They also ordain James Guthery, messenger, to remain in the said tolbooth during the Council’s pleasure. They assoilzie the said Lady Bogie and other defenders from the complaint made against them; and grant letters of horning on a charge of 48 hours in respect of the premises.
Modern English Rendering
Lord Bruntisland, Lady Bogie and her husband James Weemes complained that they were in peaceful possession of Bogie manor, its buildings, parks, meadows, crops, livestock and household furnishings. They alleged that around 1 October William Strachan of Leith arrived there with James Guthery, two other messengers and additional men, claiming authority to execute letters of poinding against James Weemes.
According to the complaint, Weemes had obtained a legal suspension against his creditors, specifically including Strachan. Nevertheless, the company seized crops, livestock and other goods, broke open the house, and removed its furnishings.
Persons present objected that the house, lands, goods, crops and cattle belonged to Lord Bruntisland and that James Weemes and Anna Aitoun possessed them only by his tolerance. Documents were produced in support of that position.
The complaint further alleged that Lady Bogie was thrown violently to the ground, beaten and wounded, that her clothing was torn, and that a small box containing her rings and jewels was pulled from her bosom. Her purse and money were also taken. The pursuers sought restoration of the property or its value, assessed at 2,000 merks, an additional 500 merks in damages, and removal of the messengers from office.
A counter-complaint was brought by the King’s Advocate, William Strachan and James Guthery, messenger in Edinburgh. They stated that James Weemes owed Strachan 2,000 merks plus interest and that lawful horning and poinding had been obtained for payment.
Strachan employed Guthery to execute the diligence. Guthery went to Bogie on 4 October, but at Weemes’s request agreed to delay execution for two days after Weemes promised either security or payment. Guthery later wrote seeking fulfilment of that promise and received what the complaint describes as a defiant response.
When Guthery returned to perform his duty, the counter-complaint alleged that James Weemes had assembled his brother and a company of local workers, tenants and servants numbering about eighty, all armed. They were accused of violently resisting and deforcing Guthery, beating and threatening him, declaring that they did not care for the King’s laws, and threatening his life.
Both sides therefore accused the other of unlawful and violent conduct. Formal charges were served in both directions, and the parties personally appeared on 18 November, when witnesses were heard.
On 23 November the Council considered the testimony from both sides. It found the complaint brought by Lord Bruntisland, Lady Bogie and James Weemes sufficiently proved against William Strachan and James Guthery, and found both men guilty of riot.
Strachan was ordered to return Lady Bogie’s jewels, rings and other personal property, to restore the remaining goods to Lord Bruntisland if he swore they belonged to him, to pay Lady Bogie 300 merks in legal expenses, and to enter Edinburgh tolbooth until he complied.
James Guthery was ordered to remain in the Edinburgh tolbooth for as long as the Council pleased. Lady Bogie and the other defenders were acquitted of the counter-complaint.
This is unusually detailed evidence for James Guthery, messenger in Edinburgh. It identifies his occupation, names the person who employed him, describes a specific execution of legal diligence, and records the Council’s final judgment against him.
Unlike many RPCS references that preserve only an accusation or procedural stage, this proceeding reaches a clear evidentiary conclusion: after depositions from both sides, the Council expressly found the libel proved against William Strachan and James Guthery and found both men guilty of riot.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Messenger / messenger-at-arms — an officer authorised to serve writs and execute formal legal diligence.
- Poinding — seizure of moveable property in satisfaction of debt.
- Horning — formal diligence following non-compliance with a legal charge, historically involving denunciation as a rebel.
- Suspension — legal process stopping or suspending enforcement of another writ or diligence.
- Tacksman — holder of land or property under a lease or tack.
- Brooked — possessed or enjoyed the use of property.
- Deforce — violently resist or obstruct an officer in lawful execution of duty.
- Convocation of the lieges — assembling a body of people, especially where the gathering itself formed part of an alleged disturbance.
- Hinc inde — “on both sides”; here indicating reciprocal legal charges.
- Libel — the formal written allegations constituting the case.
- Riot — unlawful violent or disorderly collective conduct.
- Assoilzie — acquit or absolve from the complaint.
- During the Council’s pleasure — detention for an indefinite period subject to later order of the Privy Council.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VI, pp. 586–588, Edinburgh, 23 November 1680; Decreta, February 1678–September 1681, pp. 463–467; edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1914). HathiTrust scan images 628–630 of 856. Open Volume VI at HathiTrust .
9 August 1679 — Robert Guthrie, Writer in Drumfreis: Witness to Robert M‘Milland’s Bond
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series, Volume VI • p. 660
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Robert M‘Milland of Dalry parish had been apprehended for participation in the recent rebellion and subsequently released in accordance with the King’s command. As a condition recorded in this bond, he promised that he would not again rise in arms against royal authority.
The bond was executed at Drumfreis on 9 August 1679. Robert Guthrie, writer in Drumfreis, witnessed it together with William Edgar, another writer there, and John Sharp, sheriff clerk of Drumfreis.
The item appears in the volume’s later Miscellaneous Papers section rather than in the chronological position it would occupy within the principal Register.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
9th August 1679.
67. Bond by Robert M‘Milland in Dalry parish, apprehended for being in the late rebellion, and liberated in pursuance of his Majesty’s command, that hereafter he will not rise in arms against authority. Dated at Drumfreis, 9th August, 1679; witnesses, Robert Guthrie, writer in Drumfreis, William Edgar, writer there, and John Sharp, sheriff clerk of Drumfreis.
Modern English Rendering
Robert M‘Milland of Dalry parish had been arrested for involvement in the recent rebellion but was released in accordance with the King’s instructions.
He therefore entered into a bond promising that in future he would not take up arms against royal authority.
The bond was dated at Dumfries on 9 August 1679. Its witnesses were Robert Guthrie, a writer in Dumfries; William Edgar, also a writer there; and John Sharp, sheriff clerk of Dumfries.
The entry supplies a particularly useful occupational and geographic identifier: Robert Guthrie, writer in Drumfreis. Unlike a bare witness name, the combination of surname, profession and place provides a strong basis for distinguishing him from other contemporary Robert Guthries.
His presence alongside another local writer and the sheriff clerk also places him within the legal and administrative environment of Dumfries in 1679.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bond — a formal written obligation by which a person bound himself to perform, or refrain from, specified conduct.
- Late rebellion — the recent armed rising referred to in contemporary government records; the present item does not itself provide a narrative of M‘Milland’s participation.
- Liberated — released from custody.
- Rise in arms against authority — take part in armed opposition to the government.
- Writer — a legal or documentary professional engaged in preparing writings and conducting legal business.
- Sheriff clerk — the principal clerk responsible for the records and administrative business of the sheriff court.
- Drumfreis — the spelling used in the printed item for Dumfries.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VI, p. 660, Miscellaneous Papers, item 67, bond by Robert M‘Milland in Dalry parish, dated Drumfreis, 9 August 1679; edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1914). HathiTrust scan image 702 of 856. Open Volume VI at HathiTrust .
Volume VI — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Third Series Volume VI preserves a small but unusually useful group of Guthrie records between 1679 and 1680. Rather than forming one family narrative, the five source units place Guthries in several distinct spheres: county government in Aberdeenshire, oversight of a noble minor’s education, Edinburgh legal practice, execution of formal diligence, and provincial legal witnessing in Dumfries.
The records are particularly valuable for identity control. Territorial designation, occupation and place repeatedly distinguish individuals who might otherwise be confused. At the same time, the volume demonstrates why allegations, participation, formal judgment and mere witnessing must be kept separate.
Two records concern the Kingedward Guthrie. On pp. 311–312, the Council appoints Sir Hary Guthrie of Kingedward as one of the new Justices of the Peace for Aberdeenshire, with authority to sit, vote and act as fully as the existing justices.
On p. 414, the source prints Henry Guthery of Kingedward among the Protestant noblemen and gentlemen authorised to take care of the place and manner of the young Viscount of Frendraught’s education. Any three of the appointees could act with advice from the Bishop of Aberdeen.
The printed index places both references beneath the single heading for “Guthrie (Gutherie) of Kingedward, Sir Harry.” That provides strong internal editorial evidence that the two entries concern the same Kingedward officeholder, while the individual record cards preserve the different spellings actually printed in the text.
Neither act, however, supplies parentage or another Guthrie relationship. The RPCS evidence establishes office, territorial designation and public standing; connections to differently styled Guthries must come from independent genealogical records.
References: pp. 311–312; p. 414.
The proceeding on pp. 426–427 identifies Mr John Guthery, writer in Edinburgh, accompanying Adam Hepburne of Humbie when disputed ground at Easter Crichtone was ploughed contrary to an earlier Council prohibition.
Guthery is therefore securely placed within an Edinburgh legal-professional setting and is expressly included in the charge. The Council’s final wording requires greater caution: it finds “the defender” guilty of contempt and orders “him” to seek pardon. The operative finding is framed around Hepburne’s violation of the earlier prohibition and does not separately pronounce John Guthery guilty.
This distinction is important genealogically and legally. The record establishes Guthery’s identity, occupation, presence and involvement in the proceeding without supplying authority for converting that involvement into a separate conviction.
Reference: pp. 426–427.
The most detailed Guthrie proceeding in the volume occurs on pp. 586–588. James Guthery, messenger in Edinburgh, appears first among the men accused by Lord Bruntisland, Lady Bogie and James Weemes of unlawful and violent conduct while attempting to execute letters of poinding at Bogie.
Guthery then appears on the opposite side as a complainer, together with the King’s Advocate and William Strachan. Their counter-case alleged that a large armed company had violently resisted and deforced Guthery while he attempted to carry out his duties as messenger.
The final judgment resolves the evidentiary question. After receiving witnesses for both sides, the Council found the complaint of Lord Bruntisland, Lady Bogie and her husband sufficiently proved against William Strachan and James Guthery and found both guilty of riot. Guthery was ordered to remain in Edinburgh tolbooth during the Council’s pleasure.
The judgment should not be rephrased as a conviction of Guthery for deforcement. Deforcement belonged to Guthery’s counter-allegation against the opposing party, whose members were ultimately acquitted of that complaint.
Reference: pp. 586–588.
The final indexed Guthrie reference appears on p. 660 among the Miscellaneous Papers. Robert Guthrie, writer in Drumfreis, witnessed a bond made by Robert M‘Milland of Dalry parish on 9 August 1679.
M‘Milland had been apprehended for involvement in the late rebellion and, after release, promised not to rise again in arms against authority. The political conduct belongs to M‘Milland. Robert Guthrie appears solely as one of the witnesses, alongside another writer and the sheriff clerk of Dumfries.
The combination of occupation and locality makes this a useful identifying record for Robert Guthrie. Its late position in the printed volume reflects its placement among Miscellaneous Papers rather than its chronological date.
Reference: p. 660.
Volume VI illustrates the importance of preserving source spellings. The records use Guthrie, Guthery and the index form Gutherie. The Kingedward references also move between Hary and Henry.
Occupations provide equally important controls: Mr John Guthery is a writer in Edinburgh; James Guthery is a messenger in Edinburgh; and Robert Guthrie is a writer in Drumfreis. Nothing in these acts establishes that the three professional men were related.
The volume likewise contains no new evidence here identifying these men with Rev. James Guthrie of Stirling, the Halkertoun Guthries, or another established Guthrie pedigree. Such connections should remain separate research questions unless supported by additional records.
Kingedward: independent sasines, testaments, land records and other governmental commissions may clarify the full identity and family placement of Sir Hary / Henry Guthery of Kingedward and his relationship, if any, to other territorial Guthrie lines.
Edinburgh writers: legal-professional records may help distinguish Mr John Guthery from other contemporary John Guthries and establish whether he appears elsewhere under a variant spelling.
James Guthery, messenger: later Council or messenger-at-arms records may reveal how long his imprisonment lasted, whether he was restored to practice, and whether the Bogie proceeding had further consequences.
Robert Guthrie of Drumfreis: sheriff-court, notarial and burgh records may provide further evidence for the writer identified as witness to M‘Milland’s 1679 bond.
Basis of synthesis: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VI, A.D. 1678–1680 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1914). The detailed record cards preserve the printed source wording, variant spellings, legal stages and documentary limits. HathiTrust — Volume VI .
Volume 7
Volume 7 covers 1681–1682, a period in which enforcement of the statutory Test became a major part of Privy Council business. For the Guthrie evidence, that policy creates an unusually concentrated body of records naming legal professionals and public officers who subscribed the Test.
Four distinguishable Guthrie professionals emerge from the surviving material: Jo. / Mr John Guthrie, writer and agent; Francis Guthrie, notary and keeper of the register of sasines for Forfarshire; James Guthrie, writer and notary; and a different James Guthrie, messenger.
The occupational distinctions are essential. The James Guthrie who appears among writers and notaries subscribing the Test should not be merged merely by name with James Guthrie, messenger, who also subscribed the Test and later appears executing university summonses.
The printed material also requires a correction to the older Guthrie Genealogy inventory. Several Guthries occur within the same Test-subscription document. Following the collection-wide rule that one source unit receives one Finding-Aid row, those shared documents are consolidated below rather than divided into artificial separate entries.
Read Volume 7 Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VII, A.D. 1681–1682, edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1915).
Source note: Volume VII contains xxxii preliminary pages and 967 numbered text pages. Finding-Aid references use the printed pagination of Third Series, Volume VII, not HathiTrust image numbers. Where a Test list or other source item continues across several printed pages, the complete source span is used.
Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 720–721 | 1681 |
Jo. Guthrie
(indexed as John Guthrie, writer / agent);
Francis Guthrie, notary and keeper of the register of sasines in Forfarshire |
Shared Test-subscription source unit containing Guthrie legal professionals. Francis is specifically identified by his notarial office and custody of the Forfarshire sasine register. |
| 722–723 | 1681 | J. Guthrie (indexed as James Guthrie), writer and notary | Test subscribed by advocates’ servants and others employed in writing and legal agency. This James is identified with the writer / notary profession. |
| 723–724 | 7 November 1681 | James Guthrie, messenger | Extract of the Test sworn and subscribed by the Lord Lyon’s officers, heralds, pursuivants and messengers. James Guthrie appears in his distinct official capacity as messenger. |
| 743 | 2 February 1682 | Mr James Guthrie, messenger | Notes of execution on copies of a summons involving officials of the University of Glasgow record Guthrie serving the process upon Mr James Young and Mr Mathew Brisbane. |
| 803–807 | 24 February 1682 |
Francis Guthrie, notary and keeper of the
Forfarshire sasine register;
Mr John Guthrie, writer and agent; James Guthrie, notary and writer |
Report of members and associated legal professionals of the College of Justice who had subscribed the Test. One source unit names three distinguishable Guthrie legal professionals. |
| 809–811 | 28 February 1682 | Francis Guthrie, notary and keeper of the register of sasines in the shire of Forfar | Certificate that the named notaries had sworn and signed the Test upon their knees before the Lords of Session. Francis Guthrie appears again in his Forfarshire sasine office. |
5 November 1681 — Jo. Guthrie and Fra. Guthrie: Legal Professionals Subscribing the Test
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series, Volume VII • pp. 719–721
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Papers item 116 preserves a copy, also recorded as being on vellum, of the Test subscribed on 5 November 1681 by a large body of Scottish legal professionals.
Although the marginal heading describes it as the Test subscribed by the Writers to the Signet, the printed list itself includes a much broader range of legal occupations: Writers to the Signet, notaries, writers, agents, clerks, keepers of registers and servants or assistants working in advocates’ and clerks’ chambers.
Two Guthrie entries occur within this single source unit. On p. 720 the source names “Jo. Guthrie, writer and agent”. Near the end of the list on p. 721 appears “Fra. Guthrie, notar and keeper of the register of sasins, etc., of Forfar.”
The printed index subsequently identifies the first as Jo. / John Guthrie, writer and law agent and the second as Francis Guthrie, notary and keeper of the Forfarshire Sasines.
Complete Printed Item — Editorially Printed Subscription List
116. Copy of the Test (also on vellum) subscribed by the Writers to the Signet. (Signed) William Sharp; Jo. Cunynghame; Ja. Cheyne; H. Patersone, as Keeper of the Signet; W. Thomsone; Johne Alexander; J. Muire; Ed. Wallace, wrytter to his Majesties signet and nottar; Ja. Carnegie; Ja. Winram, wryter to the signet; Jo. Lutfutt; Will. Forrester, wryter to the signet; Tho. Gordone; G. M‘Kenzie; Ja. Hamiltone, wryter and nottar; Alexr Ord; Lau. Oliphant, as writter to the signet, nottar publict and clerk to the admission of nottars; Ro. Burnett; Tho. Aikman, wrytter and agent; J. Keith, writer to the signet and nottar; Ja. Charteris; Wa. Stewart; John Alexander; Jo. Lyone, wreiter to the signet; Pet. Arbuthnet; R. Watsone, writer to the signet and notar; Rot Richardsone, writer to the signet and notar; Jo. Grahame; An. Acheson; J. Watson, agent; G. Colquhoune; J. Hay, as writer to the signet and keeper of the registre of seasins in Fyffe; N. Hardie; A. Home, wryter to the signet and nottar publict; Alr Chaplane; Jon Hamilton; Wm. Stirling; Jo. Sempill; Wil. Cheislie, writer to the signet and notar; Geo. Dallas, as wryter, keeper of the privie seale and nottar; Rob. Innes, as writer, nottar and deput to the writer to the privie seale; Will. Innes, as wreitter to the signet; Wil. Russell, as wreitter to the signet and notar; W. Thomsone, as writer to the signet and notar; Ja. Elphinstone, as writer to the signet and notar; Jo. Campbell, wryter to the signet, deput clerke in the Chancellarie office and nottar publict; Hen. Grahame, wryter to the signet and notar; J. Douglas, writer to the Privie Seall;
H. Patersone, as wreater and notar; Rot Bell; Hew Wallace; Ja. Peter; Alexr Aikinhead; John Knox, wrytter to the signet; Ja. Johnston, wryter to the signet and notar publict; Ja. Weir, writtar to the signet; R. Young, noter in Berwickshyre, keeper of the registre [of seasines] of Berwick and clerk to the commissariot; Mr Da. Watson, wrytter to his Majesties signet and notar publict; H. Kane, wryter to his Majesties signett and nottar publict; A. Young; Ja. Henrysone; An. Baillie; Ro. Hay; Ja. Cuninghame; Will. Pantoun; Jo. Marschell; J. M‘Farlane; J. Scott; Ro. Keill; Wm Paton, wryter to the signet and notar; Da. Lyon, wryter to his Majesties signet; T. Williamsone; Jo. Robertoune, shereff clerk of Lanerk; Jo. Cuninghame, writer to the signet; H. Patersone, younger, as wryter to his Majesties signet; Wm. Hoge; J. Nicoll; A. Dunbar; Wm. Laing, agent; Jo. Frank, wryter to his Majesties signet; W(?) Aikman; Jon Hamilton, wryter to the signet, and notar; Rot Hamilton, agent; G. Drummond, notar, agent; Wm Calderwood, agent and notar; Will. Watsone, agent; Jo. Clark, agent and nottar; John Jaffrey, agent and notar; J. Home, notar and wryter in Mr Ja. Dalrymples chamber; Tho. Fender, agent and notar; Da. Cairnes, agent and nottar; Pat. Williamsone, agent; Will. Fischer, notter; W. Govane, herald and notter; Robert Carstairs, nottar and agent; H. Bousie, agent and wryter; Ja. Nicoll, nottar and agent; Jo. Rae, younger, notar and wryter; Dav. Mayne, wryter and agent; Alexr Edward, agent; P. Mowbray, nottar, wrytter; Rot Kennedy; H. Patersone, younger, nottar, agent and wryter, and als as deputt to Mr James Douglass, wryter to the privie seall; Robert Hume; Ja. Baird; Pa. Anthon, nottar publict and agent; Ja. Murray, nottar and agent; J. Arnott, keeper of the register of seasines of Perthschyre; Jo. Bayne, shereff clerk of Berwickshyre and nottare publict; Wm Gordoune; J. Craigie; James Rollo; A. Gray, nottar; A. Stewart; Geo. Adamson, notar and agent; John Knox, nottar and agent; J. Strachan, agent; Da. French, nottar and agent; Will. Wilson, nottar and agent and servant to Sir Alexander Gibsone; J. Nicoll, nottar and agent; Ja. Hay, servant to Mr David Cunynghame, advocat and wryter and agent; G. Nicolson, nottar and writer; J. Lausone; Archibald Kerr, writter; Ro. Mylne, notar, wryter; R. Maitland, writer in the Chancellarie; Ja. Winrame, notar, agent and wryter; Wm Robertson, nottar and agent; Mr Charles Ross, wryter and agent; W. Wallace, agent; W. Haly, nottar and agent; Pat. Cunynghame, agent; Jo. Monro, wreiter to the signet; E. Snow, factor and agent; A. Robertson, advocats servand; Jo. Morisone, advocats servant and adjuent; T. Hamilton, advocats servant; G. Mackie, advocats servand and agent; Jo. Broun, notar and writer in the Chancellary office; J. Park, nottar; A. Drummond; Jo. Guthrie, wryter and agent; Mr Chas. Sinclair, notar and agent; Ard. Nisbet, wryter and notar; Jo. Johnstoune, agent; Hen. Reid, notar and writer;
Ro. Urquhart, wreater and agent; Alexr Gray, notar public; Hen. Lyon, notar publick; Jon Smart, as nottar; Tho. Borthwick, notar public; Will. Duntrip (Bouldkip?); Alexr Traill, notar; J. Halyburtoun, notar; Alexr Lockhart, notar; Ja. Lausone, nottar and agent; W. Kilgour, N.P.; Hugh Durie, notarius; M. Murray, writter and nottare and agent; William Forbes, wryter and agent; T. Williamsone, notar; Jon Hug, notar; Jo. Ballerden; J. Davidsone, nottar and agent; J. Clerk, notar, agent; W. Maxwell, agent; Tho. Haliday, agent; John May, wryter and agent; H. Pearne (?), agent; Ja. Smyth, notar; Mr A. Balfoure, wreiter and agent; James Irving, notar, collector and writer; John Forrest, nottar; Mathew Murray, writer and agent; Fra. Guthrie, notar and keeper of the register of sasins, etc., of Forfar; Charles Hay, wryter and agent; A. Kellie, servitor to Mr Rot Stewart, junior, advocat; A. M‘Dermett, wryter and agent.
Modern English Rendering
This document is a copy of the Test subscribed on 5 November 1681 by a large body of legal practitioners and associated officials. The list records each man by name and, in many cases, by occupation or office.
Among those subscribers was Jo. Guthrie, expressly described as a writer and agent. The printed index identifies this subscriber as John Guthrie and describes him as a writer and law agent.
Later in the same subscription list appears Fra. Guthrie, who is expressly styled notary and keeper of the register of sasines, etc., of Forfar. The index identifies him as Francis Guthrie, notary and keeper of the Forfarshire Sasines.
The remaining names comprise Writers to the Signet, notaries, agents, clerks, register keepers and other persons employed in Scottish legal administration. Their appearance together records their formal subscription to the Test rather than a shared family, business or property relationship.
The source provides unusually specific occupational evidence for two contemporary Guthries. Jo. Guthrie is directly styled a writer and agent, while Fra. Guthrie held the more specialized office of notary and keeper of the Forfar sasine register.
Francis’s description is especially valuable because it supplies both profession and territorial jurisdiction. The custody of the Forfarshire sasine register places him directly within the machinery that recorded land transactions and heritable property rights.
The record also supplies a baseline for identifying these men in the later February 1682 Test material, where both professional descriptions recur.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- The Test — the statutory oath and declaration required during this period of persons holding public, legal and other offices.
- Writer — a Scottish legal practitioner engaged in drafting, documentation and legal business.
- Agent — a person conducting legal or administrative business on behalf of another.
- Writer to the Signet — a member of the senior Scottish legal body associated with preparation of royal and court writings under the Signet.
- Notar / nottar — notary; a legally authorised professional who authenticated instruments and transactions.
- Register of sasines — the public register recording instruments evidencing transfer or possession of heritable property.
- Keeper of the register — the official responsible for maintaining and recording material in the relevant sasine register.
- Vellum — prepared animal skin used as a durable writing surface for formal documents.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VII, pp. 719–721, Miscellaneous Papers, item 116, “Copy of the Test (also on vellum) subscribed by the Writers to the Signet,” 5 November 1681; edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1915). HathiTrust scan images 757–759 of 1016. Open Volume VII at HathiTrust .
November 1681 — J. Guthrie, Writer and Notary: Subscription to the Test
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series, Volume VII • pp. 721–723
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Item 117 is a copy, preserved on vellum, of the Test subscribed by a broad group described as “Advocats servants and others imployed in wryteing and agenting.”
The list includes writers, notaries, agents, clerks, advocates’ servants and other legal assistants. Among them, on printed p. 722, appears “J. Guthrie, writer and notar.”
The printed index expands the initial and identifies this subscriber as James Guthrie, writer and notary, referring to pp. 722, 806 and 809.
Complete Printed Item — Editorially Printed Subscription List
117. Copy (on vellum) of the Test subscribed by “Advocats servants and others imployed in wryteing and agenting.” (Signed) “Ro. Lauder, as agent for the good toun and notar publique; P. Johnstoune, agent; A. Docher, nottar, writer and agent; Rot Carnegie, nottar, writer and agent; J. Mansone, agent and writer; Pat. Syme, as nottar and wryter; A. Dunbar, writter and agent; R. Innes, writer and agent; An. Baillie, nottar and wryter; Wm Brown, as wryter and agent; Jo. Gourlay, notar and wryter; B. M‘Kenzie, advocat servant and agent; Ard. Kinloch, notar and wryter; Jo. Nasmith, servitor to Sir John Lauder, advocat; A. Logie, servitor to Master George Alexander, advocat; Tho. Brownlie, servitor to Mr Thomas Skein, advocat; W. Crawfurd; And. Cuning; Ad. Gordone; Will. Pettendreich; M. R . . . (torn); Jon Rodger, agent; Jo. Buchanan, agent; Wm Allane, wryter and agent; W. Lythgow, nottar and wryter in Sir James Dalrymples chamber; W(?) Wilson, wryter and agent; Arch. Black, wryter and agent; Tho. Clapertoun, advocats servant and agent; G. Abercrombie, notar and agent; J. Richardsone; Pa. Olyphant, writter and agent; Ja. Henrysone, wreter and notar; R. Colvill, wryter and agent; Da. Plenderleth, wryter and agent; Jo. Rutherfurd, servitor to Dewar; Alexr Edgar, wryter and nottar; Jo. Somervell, wryter and nottar; D. Farmor, wryter in Edinburgh; Al. Forbes; Jo. Nisbit, wryter and nottar; J. Lowes, nottar; G. Keith, writer; Malc Alexander, notar; Alexr Somervaill, wryter and nottar; D. Farmor, wreter in Edinburgh; Al. Forbes; Jo. Nisbit, wryter and nottar; J. Lowes, nottar; G. Keith, writer; Malc Alexander, notar; Alexr Somervaill, wryter and nottar; D. Farmor, wreter in Edinburgh; Al. Forbes; Jo. Nisbit, wryter and nottar; J. Lowes, nottar; G. Keith, writer;
Malc Alexander, notar; Alexr Somervaill, wryter and nottar; D. M‘Phersone, notar, and servitor to Mr Rorie M‘Kenzie; . . . . . . [in Mr Ro]rie M‘Kenzie’s [chamber]; Robert . . . . . . [in Mr James Dalrymples chamber] (two large holes occur here in the parchment); Jo. Murray, wreater in Mr Rodrik M‘Kenzies chalmer; J. Grant, writer, agent and clerks servant; Ja. Hamiltoun, wryter, agent and clerks servant; Jo. Hay, wryter in Mr James Dalrymple’s chamber; Da. Lyone, nottar and agent; Geo. Gollan, as agent and advocats servant; Jo. Monro, wreiter in the Cancellarie; Hu. Paipe, agent and advocats servant; Jo. Kemptie, nottar publick; Ja. Sinclair; Will. Eccles; Ard. Cowand, messr; Arch. Turnor, nottar; Ro. Newall, nottar; Jo. Morison, keeper of the Inner House rolls; D. Ross; A. Leslie, N.P.; W(?) Archibald; Al. Monro; Jo. Maxwell (?); Nicoll Somervill; Ja. Ogilvie, notar and agent; Robert Bartan, writer in Edinburgh, agent and notar; Ja. Binning, wryter; Jo. Burdon; Geo. Monro, clerk depute to the register of seasings; Jo. Dallas, as clerk to the registratione of benefices within this kingdome; Robert Kennedy; Ard. Stewart, notarius; Joannes Smyth, notarius; J. Measone, notarius publicus, and clerk to the regallitie off Culrois; Ja. Purves, servant to Sir Alexr Gibson, clerk; Jo. Morisone, servant to Mr Roderick M‘Kenzie, clerk.”
Modern English Rendering
This document records a copy of the Test subscribed by a large body of men employed in the Scottish legal profession, particularly advocates’ assistants, writers, notaries and legal agents.
The individual subscribers are listed with their occupations, employers or chambers where those details were supplied. The parchment itself contained damaged or missing sections, represented in the printed edition by blanks and editorial notes.
Among the subscribers is J. Guthrie, expressly described as a writer and notary. The printed index identifies him as James Guthrie.
His presence establishes him as one of the legal professionals who formally complied with the Test requirement in 1681.
The record gives a clear professional designation for J. Guthrie: he was both a writer and a notary.
That combination provides an important identity control for later Volume VII records, especially the February 1682 report in which James Guthrie, notary and writer appears again.
It also distinguishes him from the contemporary James Guthrie, messenger, whose office and later documented activity belong to a different professional category.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- The Test — the statutory oath and declaration required of many persons holding public and professional offices.
- Advocats servants — clerks, assistants or other persons employed by advocates.
- Writing and agenting — documentary and legal agency work undertaken for clients.
- Writer — a legal practitioner engaged in preparing documents and conducting legal business.
- Notar / nottar — notary; an officer authorised to authenticate legal instruments and transactions.
- N.P. / notarius publicus — notary public.
- Servitor — servant or professional assistant, often employed in a lawyer’s chamber.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VII, pp. 721–723, Miscellaneous Papers, item 117, copy of the Test subscribed by “Advocats servants and others imployed in wryteing and agenting,” November 1681; edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1915). HathiTrust scan images 759–761 of 1016. Open Volume VII at HathiTrust .
7 November 1681 — James Guthrie, Messenger: Subscription to the Test
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series, Volume VII • pp. 723–724
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Papers item 118 preserves an extract from the records of the Lyon Office recording subscription to the Test by the Lord Lyon, his deputies and clerk, heralds, pursuivants and a substantial body of messengers.
The formal gathering took place at Edinburgh on 7 November 1681. The extract explains that Sir Alexander Areskine of Cambo, Lyon King of Arms, his deputies, heralds, pursuivants and other officers, together with a considerable number of messengers from Edinburgh and other sheriffdoms, solemnly took and subscribed the Test. Remaining messengers subscribed on subsequent days.
Among the named subscribers on p. 724 is “James Guthrie, messr”. The printed index likewise identifies James Guthrie, messenger, as subscribing the Test on p. 724 and later executing a summons on p. 743.
Complete Printed Item — Lyon Office Extract as Printed
118. “Extract of the Test sworne and subscryved be the Lord Lyon, his deputs, clerk, heraulds, pursivants and messengers, and given in the 16 of February, 1682.”—“Att Edinburgh, the seventh day of November jmvjc and eightie one years, the which day Sir Alexander Areskine of Cambo, knight and baronet, Lyon King of Armes, his deputs and his brethren heraulds and pursivants, clerk, fiscall and officer of court, being convened judiciallie with ane considerable number of messengers within the shirrefdome of Edinburgh and other shirrefdomes within this kingdome, did solemnlie take and subscryve the Test, conforme to the late act of Parliament and proclamation of his Majesties Privie Counsell following therupon made theranent, and, upon certain other dayes shortlie thereafter, the wholl remanent messengers within this kingdome, whose names are theirto subscryveing, did take and subscryve the samen Test conforme to the saids acts of Parliament and Privie Counsell.
[Here follows the Test itself.]
Sic subscribitur, Alexr Areskin, Lyon; W. Thomsone, Lyon Deput; Rob. Innes, Lyon Deput; Ro. Smyth, Lyon clerk; Joseph Stacy, herauld; G. Porteous, herauld; Wm Glover, herauld; Wm Govan, herauld; Geo. Ogilvie, Albany herauld; Ja. Spens, pursivant; J. Dale, pursivant; J. Dunbar, pursevant; Pat. Wilson, pursevant; John Hog, pursevant; Wm Kilgour, fiscall and messr;
W. Robertson, officer and messr; G. Lumsden, messr; W. Hume, messr; Ja. Ainslie; W. Ainslie; Jo. Burne; Jo. Gourlay; James Guthrie, messr; Jo. M‘Kenzie; Ro. Wallace, messr; John Don, messr; William Cochburne; D. Cameron; J. Campbell; Wm Ewing; H. Mader; Pat. Anderson; Doug. M‘Alaster; H. Trotter; Gilbert Mair; Alexr Barbour; Hugh Scott; Ja. Syme; James Patersone; W. Strachan; Alexr Kerr; Alexr Caithnes; R. Heart; Tho. Hog; Ja. Henrysone; James Cleland; John Lennox; Tho. M‘Brair; W. Reid; Jo. Pollock; Jo. Haggart; Ma. M‘Cleish; Ja. Pringle; Fr. Armstrong; Will. Whyte; Will. Laurie; Ro. Morvin; Jo. Leper; Sam. Paterson; William Ancrum; A. Thrupe; Ro. King; Jo. Watson; An. Malloch; Wm M‘Krinkine; Ja. Fleeming, messr; Ro. Wilsone; Jo. Richardson; Francis Doig; Jo. Dick; J. Lowes; And. Sym; Cha. Merser; Jo. Archibald; Jo. Duff; A. Pickman; A. George; Alexr Spens; Jo. Leckie; Ro. Sommervaill; Jeremie Cowper; Da. Elliot; Jo. Moscrop; Jon Milne; Ja. Maitland; W. Graham; Wm Dowglas; Fergus Wallace; Da. Allan; Tho. Wilson; Ro. Leidhouse; Wm Hastie; T. Fraser; Ro. Greive; W. Gladstones; Alexr Waldrope; William Smyth; John Rayning; Tho. Ramsay; J. Mitchelsone; An. Maden; Ja. Reoch; Ro. Listoun; Ja. Auchinleck; Adam M‘Cubie, messr; Geo. Lumsden; Ro. M‘Brair, messr; Geo. Watson, messr; Ja. Fergusson, messr; Jo. Finlasone; He. Cunynghame, messr; W. Ritchardsone; Tho. Niesmyth; John Marshell; W. Drummond; W. Strachan; G. Bruce; An. Chrystie; Ste. Smyth; Al. Gilchryst; John Barr; J. Williamson; Michael Benny; Da. Williamsone; W. Smyth; M. Hendersone; Tho. Jack; Da. Plenderlaith; J. Renkine; John Johnstoune; Jo. Clerk; Andrew Thomas; J. Presho; Da. Black; D. Erskine; Robert Cunynghame; Andrew Cay; J. Phenisone; Da. Veitch; G. Stewart; Ja. Paull; A. Keill; An. Jamesone; Wm Wood; Jo. Murray; Al. Mushett; Pa. Reid; R. Syme; N. Laying; T. Buchanan; Patt. Cockburne; Ninian Gelly; Ro. Cathro; Patrick M‘Ilroy; Donald M‘Bayne; A. M‘Bain; J. Monro; James Mudly; J. Mann; Geo. Clessone; Tho. Forbes; Rob. Andersone; Ja. Lauderdale; Thomas Johnstoune; J. Dickie, younger; Ja. Patoun; J. Carmichaell; Ja. Smyth; John Hope; A. Ferquhar; Ch. Manson; James Troup; Ro. Scott; J. Petrie; G. Troup; Tho. Law; Ro. Stewart; A. Ross; John Tulloch; Alexr Patersone; G. Charteris; Tho. Corbie; Wm Dowall; George Ross; A. Ion; Francis Stewart; Ro. Robertson; W. Davidsone; J. Campbell; [Jame]s Browne; Jo. George; Jo. Strachan; John Elliot; John Wilsone; W. M‘Kinley; W. Connan; Wil. Harvy; Tho. [Scott]; G. Onnand; Tho. Urquhart; Al. Dunbar; John Blackwood; A. Buchan.
Extracted furth of the records of this Lyon Office by me, Ro. Smith, Lyon Clerk.”
Modern English Rendering
This document is an extract from the Lyon Office records certifying the taking of the Test by the Lord Lyon and the officers attached to or associated with his office.
On 7 November 1681 Sir Alexander Erskine of Cambo, Lyon King of Arms, assembled with his deputies, heralds, pursuivants, clerk, fiscal, officer of court and a considerable number of messengers from Edinburgh and other Scottish sheriffdoms.
They formally took and signed the Test in accordance with the relevant parliamentary act and Privy Council proclamation. Messengers who were not present at that first gathering subscribed it on later days.
The edition omits repetition of the wording of the Test itself but prints the extensive list of subscribers. Among those subscribers was James Guthrie, expressly styled a messenger.
Robert Smith, Lyon Clerk, certified that the extract had been taken from the records of the Lyon Office.
The entry provides direct occupational identification: James Guthrie was serving as a messenger by November 1681.
This designation distinguishes him from the separate James Guthrie, writer and notary appearing in the preceding Test list.
The same occupational description also supplies a strong link to the February 1682 source in which Mr James Guthrie, messenger, executed summonses against officials associated with the University of Glasgow.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Lyon King of Arms — Scotland’s chief heraldic officer.
- Herald — an officer of arms serving within the Scottish heraldic establishment.
- Pursuivant — a junior officer of arms.
- Fiscal — an official responsible for prosecutorial or financial duties within the relevant jurisdiction.
- Messenger — a legal officer authorised to serve formal process and execute writs or other judicial diligence.
- Sheriffdom — the territorial jurisdiction administered through a sheriff.
- Subscribe — formally sign a document or declaration.
- Sic subscribitur — “thus it is signed,” introducing the list of subscribers.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VII, pp. 723–724, Miscellaneous Papers, item 118, extract of the Test sworn and subscribed by the Lord Lyon, his officers and messengers, Edinburgh, 7 November 1681; extract presented 16 February 1682; edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1915). HathiTrust scan images 761–762 of 1016. Open Volume VII at HathiTrust .
2 February 1682 — James Guthrie, Messenger: Executes University of Glasgow Summonses
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series, Volume VII • p. 743
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Papers items 147 and 148 preserve two copies of the same summons issued at the instance of Arthur, Archbishop of Glasgow and Chancellor of the College of Glasgow.
The summons was directed against the Rector, Principal, Dean of Faculty and certain regents of the College, with orders that they appear before the Privy Council on 9 February 1682.
Each surviving copy bears a note of execution. The first records service upon Mr James Young by Mr James Guthrie, messenger. The second records service by James Guthrie upon Mr Mathew Brisbane, doctor of medicine.
The two items therefore document James Guthrie actively performing the ordinary professional work of a messenger by formally serving Council process.
Complete Printed Items — Editorial Abridgment
147. Copy of Summons at the instance of Arthur, Archbishop of Glasgow and Chancellor of the College thereof, against the Rector, Principal, Dean of Faculty and some regents thereof as narrated ante, p. 335. They are to compear before the Council on the 9th February. There is a note at the foot of the execution of this summons against Mr James Young by Mr James Guthrie, messenger.
148. Another copy of the same Summons with note of execution thereof at the foot by James Guthrie against Mr Mathew Brisbane, doctor of medicine.
Modern English Rendering
Arthur, Archbishop of Glasgow and Chancellor of the College of Glasgow, had obtained a summons against the Rector, Principal, Dean of Faculty and several regents of the College. They were required to appear before the Privy Council on 9 February 1682.
One surviving copy of the summons contains a formal note recording that Mr James Guthrie, messenger, executed or served it upon Mr James Young.
A second copy of the same summons contains another note of execution by James Guthrie, this time recording service upon Mr Mathew Brisbane, doctor of medicine.
This entry moves beyond the earlier Test-subscription list and shows James Guthrie actually exercising the office of messenger.
His work can be tied to two specific executions of process, two named recipients and a dated Council proceeding involving the College of Glasgow.
Together with his appearance as James Guthrie, messenger among the Test subscribers on pp. 723–724, this record provides a coherent occupational profile extending from November 1681 into February 1682.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Summons — formal legal process ordering named persons to appear before a court or other authority.
- Compear — appear formally before a court or tribunal.
- Execution of a summons — formal service of the summons upon the person to whom it was directed.
- Note of execution — written certification recording that legal process had been served, commonly naming the officer and recipient.
- Messenger — a legal officer authorised to serve writs and execute formal judicial or administrative process.
- Ante — “before” or “earlier”; the editor directs the reader to p. 335 for the earlier narrative of the underlying summons.
- College — here the College or University of Glasgow.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VII, p. 743, Miscellaneous Papers, items 147–148, copies of a summons at the instance of Arthur, Archbishop of Glasgow and Chancellor of the College thereof, Edinburgh, 2 February 1682; edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1915). HathiTrust scan image 781 of 1016. Open Volume VII at HathiTrust .
24 February 1682 — John, James and Francis Guthrie: College of Justice Test Report
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series, Volume VII • pp. 803–807
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 24 February 1682 the Lords of Council and Session prepared a report for transmission to the Privy Council concerning the administration of the Test to advocates, clerks, Writers to the Signet, macers and the wider body of persons dependent upon or employed within the College of Justice.
The report explains that the advocates, clerks, Writers to the Signet and macers had taken the Test before 1 January 1682, while advocates’ and clerks’ servants, notaries, writers, agents and others employed in writing or agency had taken it before either the whole Lords or specially empowered members of the court.
Three distinct Guthries appear within this extensive list. On p. 805 is Mr John Guthrie, writer and agent. On p. 806 appears James Guthrie, notary and writer. On p. 807 appears Francis Guthrie, notary and keeper of the register of sasines in the shire of Forfar.
The repeated occupational designations correspond closely with their earlier Test-subscription appearances and provide strong identity controls within the volume.
Complete Printed Item — Report as Printed
188. “Edinburgh, the twenty fourth day of February, 1682. The whilk day the Lords of Councell and Sessioun having conforme to the act of Parliament ordained a report to be givin in to his Majesties Privy Councell under the hand of the Clerk of Register concerning their takeing the oath or Test appointed by the said act, and their administering of the same to the rest of the members of the Colledge of Justice within the tyme prescryved therby, together with extracts of the Test taken by the saids Lords and of the Test taken by the remanent members of the Colledge of Justice, bearing the names of these who tooke and subscryved the same; followes the tennour of the Test taken befor the first of January last, 1682, by the advocats, clerks, wrytters to the signet and maissers, being administered to them by the Lord President in presence of the whole Lords; and by the servants of advocats and clerks, nottars and uther persones depending on the Colledge of Justice, imployed in wryting or agenting, some of them befor the whole Lords, and others befor two of the Lords impowered by the rest to that effect, who did all swear the said Test upon their knees, repeating and pronouncing the whole words therof as is appointed by the act of his Majesties Privy Councell, and did lykewayes subscryve the same.”
[Here follow the words of the Test.]
“Subscryved by the advocats efternamed, viz., Sir George M‘Kenzie, his Majesties Advocate, Sir John Maitland, Sir William Purves, Sir William Patersone, Mr David Thoirs, Mr Alexander Bernie, Mr John Gordoune, Mr James Grant, Mr Alexander Dunlope, Sir Patrik Lyon, Mr William Aikman, James Grahame, Mr Colline M‘Kenzie, Mr James Falconer, Sir George Lockhart, Mr James Huntar, Mr William Beaton, James Balfour, Mr Robert Buchanan, Mr Robert Deans, Mr John Menzies, Mr Thomas Skeen, Mr George Alexander, Sir John Dalrymple, Mr William Fletcher, John Hay, Mr Alexander Malcome, Mr Michaell Lumsdaine, Mr Charles Gray, Mr Patrik Home, Mr David Forbes, Mr James Birbaine, Mr James Deans, Mr Robert Colt, Mr William Clerk, Mr Andrew Burnet, Sir John Lauder, Mr William Monypenny, Mr David Dinmure, Mr Thomas Lermont, Mr Richart Dowglas, Mark Lermont, Mr Robert Stewart, Mr Robert Mayne, Mr John Wishart, Mr David Cuninghame, Mr George Niccolsone, Mr John Stewart, Mr George Bannerman, Mr Patrik Lyon, Mr Patrik Smyth, Mr James Boyes, Mr William Gordoun, Mr John Fergusone, Mr William Hoge, Mr James Anstruther, Mr William Moir, Mr Edward Wright, Mr David Dewar, Mr Robert Stewart, younger, Walter Pringle, Mr James Alexander, Mr Archbald Hope, Mr Arthur Hamiltoune, Mr Nathaniell Fyfe, Sir William Wallace, John Lindsay, Mr Hugh Dalrymple, Mr William Baillzie, Mr John M‘Kenzie, Sir William Baird, Mr James Cheape, and Mr George Dickson.
Subscryved by the clerks efternamed, viz., Sir Alexander Gibsone, Mr Roderick M‘Kenzie, and Mr James Dalrymple, Clerks of the Sessioune, Charles Oliphant, John Hay, Alexander Gibsone, Alexander Monro, Adam Chrystie, and Mr Duncan Forbes, under-clerks; Sir William Bruce, Clerk to the Bills, James Anstruther, Clerk to the Bills, in whose favours Sir William Bruce demitted, Walter Riddell, deput under the Clerk of the Bills, James Nicolson and Mr Henry Oliphant, servants in the Bill Chamber; Sir John Foulls, Clerk to the Generall Register of Seasings; George Robertson, Clerk to the Generall Register of Hornings; Sir William Ker, Director of the Chancellary; Franceis Scott, keeper of the minut-book.
Subscryved by the maissers following, Alexander Maitland, Alexander Hamiltoun, Adam Cuninghame, John Wauchop and Charles Maitland, who was admitted conjunct with his father.
Subscryved by Sir William Sharpe, keeper of the Signet under the Lord Secretary, and by the wryters to the signet efternamed, viz., Mr James Cheyne, John Cuninghame, John Muir, John Alexander, elder, Mr William Thomson, elder, Walter Stewart, John Alexander, younger, James Carnagie, James Charteris, John Luitfoot, Robert Burnet, Mr Thomas Gordoune, Alexander Ord, George M‘Kenzie, Mr Petter Arbuthnet, Laurence Oliphant, Robert Watsone, Andrew Atchesone, James Hay, Nicoll Hardie, Alexander Chaplaine, John Hamiltoun, younger, Mr William Stirling, Mr John Sempill, Mr David Watsone, Andrew Young, Mr James Cuninghame, James Allane, Robert Hay, William Panton, William Paton, John Marishall, John M‘Farlane, James Scott, Robert Kyle, Mr James Elphingstoun, John Campbell, Henry Grahame, Hugh Patersone, Robert Bell, Hugh Wallace, George Colquhoune, James Petter, Alexander Aikinhead, James Johnstoune, Mr James Weir, Mr James Keith, George Dallas, Mr Robert Innes, Mr William Innes, William Russell, Mr William Thomson, younger, and Mr James Dowglas, wryter to the privy seall.
Subscryved by the advocats servants, clerks servants, nottars and persones imployed in wryting and agenting as followes, viz., James Rollo, Mr James Craigie, William Gordoun, Alexander Stewart, George Adamsone, John Strachan and David French, persones imployed in wryting and agenting, Henry Nicoll and William Wilson, nottars, Gilbert Nicolson, servitor to Sir William Sharp in the signet office, and Alexander Lawsone, servitor to Sir John Foulls in the office of the generall register of seasings, William Layng and Robert Hamiltoune, imployed in agenting, George Drumond, nottar and agent, William Calderwood, nottar and agent, William Watson, agent, John Clerk and John Jaffray, nottars and agents, James Home, nottar, Thomas Fendar, nottar and agent, David Cairnes, nottar and agent, Patrick Williamson, agent, William Fisher, nottar, William Govane, herauld and nottar, Robert Carstairs, nottar and agent, Henry Bowssie, agent, James Nicoll, nottar and agent, Mr Charles Ross, wryter, James Winrahame, nottar, William Robertson, nottar, Egertoun Snow, and Mr Patrik Cuninghame, agents, Archbald Robertson, servant to Mr William Monypenny, advocate, William Haly, nottar, George M‘Kie, agent, John Morison, ane advocats servant, Thomas Hamiltoun, ane advocats servant, John Broun, nottar and wryter in the Chancellary chamber, Mr David Mayne, agent, John Rae and Mr Alexander Edward, wrytters in Mr Roderik M‘Kenzies chamber, Hugh Paterson, younger, nottar, Mr Patrick Mowbray, nottar, Robert Kennedy, wrytter, Alexander Gray and Henry Lyon, nottars, John Smart, [blank], Thomas Borthwick, [blank], William Doull, [blank], Mr James Lawsone, [blank], Alexander Traill, nottar, Robert Home and James Baird, agents, James Halyburtoune, nottar, Patrik Anthon, nottar and agent, Mr Hugh Durry and Alexander Lockhart, nottars, John Ballendaine, keeper of the advocats barn, Mr William Forbes, imployed in agenting, John Hoge, Thomas Williamsone, James and William Murrayes and William Kilgour, nottars, Mr John Guthrie, wryter and agent, John Watson, agent, James Park, James Davidsone, and John Clerk, nottars, William Maxwell, agent, Thomas Haliday and John May, wrytters and agents, Robert Mill, nottar, William Wallace, wrytter and agent, Mr Charles Sinclair and Henry Reid, nottars, John Johnstoun, ane advocats servant, Archibald Ker, wrytter, Alexander Gray, nottar, Mr Robert Lauder, nottar and imployed in agenting, Patrik Johnstoun, agent, Alexander Docher, nottar and agent, Robert Carnegie, nottar and agent, James Manson, agent, Patrik Syme, nottar, Mr Alexander Dunmbar, agent, Robert Innes, agent, Andrew Baillie, nottar and wrytter, John Gowrlay, nottar, Bartholomew M‘Kaine, servitor to Mr Colline M‘Kenzie, advocate, Archibald Kinloch, nottar, John Naismyth, servitor to Sir John Lauder, advocate, Alexander Logie, servitor to Mr George Alexander, advocate, Thomas Brounlee, servitor to Mr Thomas Skeen, advocate, David Fairnie, agent, William Crawfoord, servitor to his Majesties Advocate, Andrew Cuning, servitor to Mr David Dinmure, advocate, Adam Gordoun, servitor to Mr David Thoirs, advocate, Mr William Pittindrich, agent, Mr Duncan Robertsone, wrytter, John Rodger, agent, Alexander Neilsone, servitor to Mr John Stewart, advocate, Thomas Clappertonne, servitor to Mr Thomas Leirmont, advocate, Archibald Black, servitor to Mr Richard Dowglas, advocate, William Lythgow, nottar and servant in Mr James Dalrymples chamber, William Allan, servitor to Mr Walter Pringle, advocate, Gilbert Abercrombie, nottar and agent, Patrik Oliphant, servant in Mr Roderik M‘Kenzies chamber, Mr John Richardson, agent, Mr James Henderson, nottar and wryter, Robert Colvill, agent, David Plenderleith, servant in Mr Roderik M‘Kenzies chamber, John Rutherfoord, servitor to Mr David Dewar, advocate, Alexander Edgar and John Somervaill, servants in Mr Roderik M‘Kenzies chamber, David Fermour, agent, Mr Alexander Forbes, servitor to Sir William Purves, Mr John Nisbet, wryter and nottar, John Lowis, nottar, George Keith, wryter, Malcome Alexander, nottar, Alexander Somervaill and William Fouller, servitors in Sir Alexander Gibsons chamber, James Aikinhead, wryter, John Arnot, keeper of the register of seasings in the shyre of Pearth, Robert Smyth, Lyon Clerk and nottar, David Forrester, nottar and keeper of the register of seasings in the shyre of Wigtoune, Andrew Syme, nottar in Aberdeen, Robert Somervaill, nottar in the shyre of Lanerk, William Wallace, nottar, Robert Ross, wrytter and agent, William Young, nottar and wryter, Robert Penman, wryter and agent, William Fullartoun, Mr Robert Swintoune, Alexander Dowglas, Robert Innes, John Trotter, James Law, and William Blaikwood, servants in Sir Alexander Gibsone, Clerk, his chamber, and William Hutcheson, servant in Mr James Dalrymple, Clerk, his chamber, Mr James Scott, sheriff clerk of Edinburgh and nottar, Mr James Lauder, sheriff clerk of Haddingtoune and nottar, John Walker, servitor to Mr Walter Pringle, advocate, and nottar, Robert Cuninghame, servitor to Mr James Dalrymple, clerk, William M‘Clellane, nottar and servant to Mr William M‘Culloch, advocate, George Scott, nottar and agent, Hugh Crawfoord, servitor to Mr James Grahame, advocate, Mr Franceis Naper, wrytter and agent, Edward Bryce, wryter and agent, Gilbert Gowrlay, nottar and agent, Mr Thomas Huntar, nottar and wryter, Mr James Forbes, Donald M‘Fearson, Alexander Wordie, and John Murray, servants in Mr Roderik M‘Kenzie, Clerk, his chamber, Mr John Dollas, John Murray, Robert Carstairs, John Grant, and James Hamiltoune, servants in Mr James Dalrymple, Clerk, his chamber, John Hay, servant in that chamber, James Mitchell, Robert Blair, and James Muir, servants in Sir Alexander Gibsone, Clerk, his chamber, Alexander Moir, servant in Mr James Dalrymple, Clerk, his chamber, Mathew Lindsay, servitor to Mr Alexander Dunlope, advocate, James Freiland, wryter and agent, William Crombie, sheriff clerk of Roxburgh and nottar and keeper of the register of seasings in the shyre of Selkirk, Robert Chisholme, sheriff clerk of Selkirk and nottar, Thomas Fraser, nottar in the shyre of Ross, John Hope, nottar in Peibles, Archbald Young, Colline Campbell, Mr Walter Gladstaines, toun clerk of Hawick and nottar, William Forrester, nottar and servant in Sir Alexander Gibson, Clerk, his chamber, Robert Laurie, nottar and agent, James Guthrie, nottar and wryter, Mr Charles Stewart, agent for the Duke of Lennox, Mathew Colvill, nottar and agent, William Strachane, nottar in the shyre of Kincardine, John Smyth, toun clerk of Hadingtoune and nottar, Robert Smyth, servant in Sir Alexander Gibson, Clerk, his chamber, Mr Andrew Hay, nottar and agent, Mr Patrick Falconer, nottar and wryter in Edinburgh, Alexander Stewart, nottar and agent, Andrew Young, nottar in Hadingtoune, George Kilgowr, nottar in Aberdeen, Mr James Hamiltoun, wryter and agent, Patrik Young, nottar in Hadingtoune, James Inglis, wrytter in Dowglas, John Weild, nottar in Coldingham, William Williamson, nottar in Peibles, Andrew Sympsone, nottar and toun clerk of Anstruther, John Hutton, nottar, and toun clerk of Queensferry, John Hepburne, nottar, and toun clerk of North Berwick, John Baine, shireff clerk of the shyre of Berwick and nottar, Robert Young, keeper of the register of seasings of the said shyre and nottar, Thomas Walkar, nottar in Dumbartoune, Andrew Crawfoord, nottar in Linlythgow, David Callander, nottar in Edinburgh, Alexander Martine, Robert Whillas and Thomas Whytefoord, nottars in Dunse, Mr John Broun, wryter in the Chancellary chamber, Mr John Falconer, servant in Mr Roderik M‘Kenzie, Clerk, his chalmer, James Smyth, nottar in Hadingtoune, Mr Andrew Balfour, wryter and agent, James Irving, nottar in the Cannongate, John Forrest, nottar in Dunbar, Franceis Guthrie, nottar and keeper of the register of seasings in the shyre of Forfar, Mr David Lyon, nottar, Mr John King, wrytter in Edinburgh and nottar, William Kirkwood, nottar in Dunbar, Mr Patrick Brown, nottar there, John Robertson, sheriff clerk of Lanerk and nottar.
Extracted out of the bookes of Councell and Sessioun. (Signed) GEO. M‘KENZIE, Cler. Regr.”
Modern English Rendering
On 24 February 1682 the Lords of Council and Session recorded compliance with the parliamentary requirement that a report be sent to the Privy Council concerning administration of the Test throughout the College of Justice.
The report explains that the advocates, principal clerks, Writers to the Signet and macers had taken and signed the Test by the required date. Other persons dependent upon the College of Justice — including advocates’ and clerks’ servants, notaries, writers and agents — had likewise sworn and subscribed it, either before the full court or before two specially authorised Lords.
All were required to take the Test on their knees, repeat and pronounce its complete wording and then sign it.
The lengthy return names each subscriber according to his professional category and, frequently, office or employer. Among these were three distinct Guthrie legal professionals:
Mr John Guthrie is described as a writer and agent.
James Guthrie is described as a notary and writer.
Francis Guthrie is described as a notary and keeper of the register of sasines in the shire of Forfar.
George Mackenzie, Clerk Register, certified that the report had been extracted from the books of Council and Session.
This is one of the strongest occupational sources in Volume VII because a single official report identifies three different Guthrie legal professionals by distinct offices.
Mr John Guthrie is again identified as a writer and agent, closely matching the Jo. Guthrie, writer and agent listed in the November 1681 Test material.
James Guthrie is again identified as a notary and writer, matching the separate J. Guthrie of item 117. His occupation continues to distinguish him from James Guthrie, messenger.
Francis Guthrie retains the particularly specific designation of notary and keeper of the Forfarshire register of sasines, creating continuity with his earlier p. 721 appearance.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- College of Justice — the institutional body surrounding Scotland’s supreme civil court, including judges, advocates, clerks and associated legal practitioners.
- Test — the statutory oath and declaration required of many public and professional officeholders.
- Lord President — presiding judge of the Court of Session.
- Writer to the Signet — member of the senior Scottish legal profession associated with preparation of writings passing the Signet.
- Macer / maisser — court officer responsible for ceremonial, judicial and administrative duties.
- Notary — legally authorised practitioner responsible for authenticating instruments and transactions.
- Agent — practitioner conducting legal business on behalf of clients.
- Register of sasines — public register recording instruments connected with transfer and possession of heritable property.
- Clerk Register — senior record officer responsible for major national registers and official documentation.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VII, pp. 803–807, Miscellaneous Papers, item 188, report of the names of advocates and other members of the College of Justice who had subscribed the Test, Edinburgh, 24 February 1682; edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1915). HathiTrust scan images 841–845 of 1016. Open Volume VII at HathiTrust .
28 February 1682 — Francis Guthrie: Notary and Keeper of the Forfarshire Sasine Register Subscribes the Test
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series, Volume VII • pp. 809–811
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Papers item 191 records a formal certification that a large body of Scottish notaries had sworn and signed the Test before the Lords of Session within the period prescribed by Parliament.
The certificate states that the notaries took the oath upon their knees, repeating and pronouncing the complete words of the Test before signing it. Sir Alexander Gibson acted as clerk, and the list of subscribers was delivered to Laurence Oliphant, Writer to His Majesty’s Signet and clerk to the admission of notaries.
Among the first group of subscribers, continuing from p. 809 onto p. 810, appears Francis Guthrie, notary and keeper of the register of sasines in the shire of Forfar.
This is the third Volume VII source to preserve Francis’s distinctive office, following his appearances in the November 1681 Test list and the comprehensive College of Justice report of 24 February 1682.
Complete Printed Item — Original Certificate as Printed
191. “These are testifieing that the nottars underwritten have sworne and signed the Test upon their knees in presence of the Lords of Session within the tyme prescryved be the act of Parliament, repeating and pronouncing the wholl words thereof, Sir Alexander Gibson being clerk and who gave in ane list of them subscrybed with his hand to me, Laurence Oliphant, Writer to his Majestys Signet, clerk to the admission of nottars, conforme to the Lords of Session their act and ordinance made theranent, viz.,
Hary Nicoll, William Wilson, George Drummond, William Calderwood, John Clerk, John Jaffrey, James Home, Thomas Fender, David Cairnes, William Fisher, William Govean, Robert Carstairs, James Nicoll, James Winrahame, William Robertson, William Haly, John Brown, Hugh Paterson, younger, Mr Patrick Mowbray, Alexander Gray, nottar in Edinburgh, Henry Lyon, Alexander Traill, James Halyburtone, Patrick Anthone, Mr Hugh Durie, Alexander Lockhart, John Hog, Thomas Williamson, James Murray, William Murray, William Kilgour, James Park, James Davidson, John Clerk, Robert Milne, Mr Charles Sinclair, Hary Reid, Alexander Gray, Mr Robert Lawder, Alexander Docher, Robert Carnegie, Patrick Sime, Andrew Bailzie, John Gourlay, Archibald Kinloch, William Lithgow, Gilbert Abercrombie, Mr James Henderson, Mr John Nisbet, John Lowis, Malcome Alexander, Robert Smyth, Lyon Clerk and nottar, David Forrester, nottar and keeper of the register of seaseings in the shyre of Wigtoune, Andrew Syme, nottar in Aberdein, Robert Somervell, nottar in the shyre of Lanerk, William Wallace, William Young, Mr Robert Swintoune, William Fullartoune, Mr James Scott, sheriff clerk of Edinburgh and nottar, Mr James Lawder, sheriff clerk of Hadingtoune and nottar, John Walker, William M‘Clelan, George Scott, Gilbert Gourlay, Mr Thomas Hunter, William Crombie, sheriff clerk of Roxburgh and nottar, Robert Chisholme, sheriff clerk of Selkirk and nottar, Thomas Fraser, nottar in the shyre of Ross, John Hope, nottar in Peibles, Archbald Young, Colline Campbell, Mr Walter Gladstaines, toun clerk of Hawick and nottar, William Forrester, Robert Lawrie, James Guthrie, Mathew Colvill, William Strachan, nottar in the shyre of Kincardin, John Syme, nottar in Haddingtoune, Mr Andrew Hay, Mr Patrick Falconer, Alexander Stewart, Andrew Young, nottar in Haddingtoune, George Kilgour, nottar in Aberdein, Patrick Young, nottar in Haddingtoune, James Inglis, nottar in Douglass, John Weild, nottar in Coldingham, William Williamson, nottar in Peibles, Andrew Sympson, town clerk of Anstruther and nottar, John Huttone, nottar in Queensferrie, John Hepburne, nottar in North Berwick, John Bayne, shereff clerk of the shyre of Berwick and nottar, Robert Young, keeper of the register of seaseings of the said shyre and nottar, Thomas Walker, nottar in Dumbartane, Andrew Crawfurd, nottar in Linlithgow, David Callander, nottar in Edinburgh, Alexander Martine, Robert Whillas and Thomas Whytefoord, nottars in Dunse, James Smyth, nottar in Haddingtoune, James Irvine, nottar in Cannongate, John Forrest, nottar in Dumbar, Francis Guthrie, nottar and keeper of the register of seaseings in the shyre of Forfar, Mr David Lyon, nottar, Mr John King, wrytter in Edinburgh and nottar, William Kirkwood, nottar in Dumbar, Mr Patrick Brown, nottar there, John Robertson, shereff clerk of Lanerk and nottar.
Lykeas the nottars underwritten have sworne and signed the Test upon their knees in presence of the Lords of Session, repeating and pronuncing the wholl words therof, I, the said Laurence Oliphant, being clerk; viz., Andrew Edmistoune, toun clerk of Selkirk, Mungo Strachan, writer in Edinburgh, James Bell, writter there, David Callendar, writer in Edinburgh, Mr Andrew Petrie at Kinfawnes, William Reid, nottar in Meldrum in Aberdeinshyre, James Smyth, nottar in Haddingtoune in Tranent, James Henderson, nottar in Nithisdaillshyre, David Knight, nottar in Briechen, William M‘Morran, nottar in Lanerk, William Whyte, nottar in the shyre of Dumfries, Henry Dow, nottar in Edinburgh, Mr James Gray, keeper of the register of seaseings at Aberdeen, Thomas Wilkieson, nottar in Melros, Robert Robertson, nottar in Dunkeld, Mr Alexander Urie, nottar in Edinburgh, William Gordone, nottar and shereff clerk of Aberdeen, James Gordone, nottar and commissar clerk of Aberdeen, Mr John Frank, nottar in Edinburgh, Mathew Lindsay, nottar and keeper of the register of seaseings at Dumbartane, John Lutfutt, writer to the signet, nottar publick, James Smith, nottar in Balvenie in Bamfshyre, Hugh Falconar, nottar and commissar clerk of Inverness, John Monro, nottar and messenger in Inverness, Mr Alexander Crawfurd, nottar and writer in Edinburgh, John Dickie, nottar in Kilmarnock within the shirefdome of Air, John Robertoune, nottar and shereff clerk of Lanerk, William Stewart, servitor to Mr William Fletcher, advocat, and nottar in Edinburgh, John Pitcairne, nottar in St. Andrewes, Robert Robertson, nottar in Glasgow, Alexander Farquhar, nottar in Tayne, Mr George Inglis, nottar in Kirklistoune, Mr Hugh Davidson, nottar and writer in Edinburgh, Gustavus Brown, nottar in Dalkeith in the sheriffdome of Edinburgh, George Troup, nottar and messenger in Elgin, Patrick M‘Ilroy, nottar in Wigtoune, Alexander Ross, nottar in Tayne, James Bailzie, nottar in Inverness, Thomas M‘Nab, nottar in Logierate in the sheriffdom of Perth,
Robert Paterson, nottar in Edinburgh and commissar clerk of Peibles, William Brown, nottar and clerk to the hammermen in Edinburgh, John M‘Cuir, writer in Glasgow, John Daes, nottar in Ochtergaven in the shirefdome of Perth, Mr Alexander Grant, nottar and shereff clerk of Elgin, David Stewart, nottar publick, shereff clerk of Bute, William M‘Clellan, writer in Edinburgh, nottar publick, Mr Robert Morum, nottar at Dinbug in the shirefdome of Fyffe, John Lithgow, nottar in Melross within the shirefdome of Roxburgh, and Thomas Ker, nottar and schoolmaster in West Gordone within the shirefdome of Berwick.
In witness wherof thir presents are subscryvit at Edinburgh the twentie eight day of February jmvjc fourscore two yeares by me. (Signed) Lau. Oliphant.”
Modern English Rendering
Laurence Oliphant, Writer to the Signet and clerk responsible for admission of notaries, certified that the named notaries had sworn and signed the Test before the Lords of Session within the period required by Parliament.
The ceremony required the subscribers to swear the Test on their knees, repeat and pronounce its complete wording, and then sign it. Sir Alexander Gibson acted as clerk and provided Oliphant with the signed list.
The certificate records a very large body of notaries practising throughout Scotland, many identified by town, sheriffdom or additional office.
Among them was Francis Guthrie, expressly styled notary and keeper of the register of sasines in the shire of Forfar.
A second group of notaries is then certified in the same manner. The entire certificate was subscribed at Edinburgh on 28 February 1682 by Laurence Oliphant.
This is the clearest formal Test certificate for Francis Guthrie in Volume VII. His office is again stated in full: notary and keeper of the register of sasines in the shire of Forfar.
The repetition of this unusually specific designation across several independent printed items provides strong continuity for his professional identity.
It also places Francis directly within the public machinery for recording heritable property transactions in Forfarshire, making him potentially important when evaluating contemporary sasines involving Guthrie and other Angus families.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Notary / nottar — legally authorised professional empowered to prepare, witness and authenticate instruments and transactions.
- Test — the statutory oath and declaration imposed on many public and professional officeholders.
- Lords of Session — judges of Scotland’s supreme civil court.
- Upon their knees — the physical posture specifically recorded for the formal administration of the Test.
- Writer to the Signet — member of the senior Scottish legal profession associated with formal writings passing under the Signet.
- Clerk to the admission of notaries — officer concerned with formal admission and registration of notarial practitioners.
- Register of sasines — public register containing instruments recording transfer and possession of heritable property.
- Keeper of the register — official charged with maintaining the relevant sasine register and receiving or recording instruments.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VII, pp. 809–811, Miscellaneous Papers, item 191, certificate of the notaries who swore and signed the Test before the Lords of Session, Edinburgh, 28 February 1682; edited and abridged by P. Hume Brown (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1915). HathiTrust scan images 847–849 of 1016. Open Volume VII at HathiTrust .
Volume VII — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Third Series Volume VII, covering 1681–1682, produces a particularly concentrated group of Guthrie records from Scotland’s legal and administrative professions. Most of the evidence survives in the volume’s Miscellaneous Papers and concerns subscription to the statutory Test, while one separate record shows a Guthrie messenger actively executing legal process.
Four professionally distinguishable Guthries emerge: Jo. / Mr John Guthrie, writer and agent; Francis Guthrie, notary and keeper of the Forfarshire register of sasines; James Guthrie, writer and notary; and James Guthrie, messenger. Their occupational descriptions are the principal means of keeping these contemporaries separate.
The November 1681 Test list on pp. 719–721 names “Jo. Guthrie, wryter and agent.” The comprehensive College of Justice report on pp. 803–807 later names “Mr John Guthrie, wryter and agent.”
The printed index groups these references under John Guthrie, writer and law agent, pointing to pp. 720 and 805. That editorial treatment, reinforced by the repeated occupation, provides strong internal evidence that the two entries concern the same legal professional.
Neither document supplies parentage, residence or a family relationship. The evidence securely establishes occupation and participation in the Test process, but not pedigree.
References: pp. 719–721; pp. 803–807.
Francis Guthrie has the most distinctive and repeatedly documented office in the volume. In the November 1681 subscription list he appears as “Fra. Guthrie, notar and keeper of the register of sasins, etc., of Forfar.”
The 24 February 1682 College of Justice report identifies Franceis Guthrie as notary and keeper of the register of sasines in the shire of Forfar, and the formal certificate dated 28 February again names Francis Guthrie with essentially the same office.
This repeated description establishes unusually strong professional continuity. Francis was not merely a notary: he held responsibility for a public register recording instruments connected with heritable property in Forfarshire.
His office makes him potentially significant when comparing RPCS evidence with surviving Forfarshire sasines, but these Volume VII records themselves do not identify his parents, spouse or Guthrie branch.
References: pp. 719–721; pp. 803–807; pp. 809–811.
Miscellaneous Papers item 117 names “J. Guthrie, writer and notar” among advocates’ servants and others employed in writing and legal agency. The printed index expands this initial as James and associates him with pp. 722, 806 and 809.
The February 1682 College of Justice report then expressly prints James Guthrie, notary and writer, providing the occupational wording needed to reinforce the index identification.
His professional designation must remain distinct from that of the contemporary James Guthrie, messenger. Same surname, forename, chronology and participation in the Test are not sufficient reasons to merge the two men.
References: pp. 721–723; pp. 803–807; contextual recurrence in pp. 809–811.
A separate James Guthrie appears among the Lyon Office officers and messengers subscribing the Test on pp. 723–724. There the source itself prints “James Guthrie, messr.”
His identity becomes still clearer on p. 743, where two copies of a summons involving officers of the College of Glasgow preserve notes of execution by Mr James Guthrie, messenger. One was served upon Mr James Young and another upon Mr Mathew Brisbane, doctor of medicine.
This second record is particularly useful because it shows him actually performing the work implied by his office, rather than merely appearing in a subscription list.
The printed index groups the p. 724 and p. 743 references under James Guthrie, messenger, strengthening the identification across the two records.
References: pp. 723–724; p. 743.
In genealogical terms, the Test records are valuable less for family relationships than for the detailed professional descriptions attached to subscribers.
They identify writers, agents, notaries, Writers to the Signet, clerks, messengers and keepers of public registers, often with territorial or institutional jurisdictions. That information helps separate men sharing common given names and surnames.
Subscription to the Test records formal compliance with the legal requirement imposed upon the relevant officeholder. It should not, without additional evidence, be converted into a broader claim about an individual’s private religious beliefs or political motives.
The rebuilt Volume VII Finding Aid corrects an important structural weakness in the legacy page. The older table separated individual Guthries appearing within the same large Test document into separate rows.
The source itself shows that pp. 803–807 constitute one report, despite naming John, James and Francis Guthrie at different places within its long subscription list.
Following the collection-wide rule one source unit = one Finding-Aid row, the rebuilt inventory therefore contains six documentary units rather than nine artificial Guthrie entries.
Volume VII repeatedly demonstrates why editorial expansion must remain distinguishable from the wording of the source. The body text prints Jo. Guthrie, Fra. Guthrie and J. Guthrie in several places.
The printed index expands these to John, Francis and James. Those index identifications are useful and often reinforced by repeated occupational descriptions, but the original abbreviated forms remain preserved in each transcription.
No Volume VII Test record states that John, Francis, James the writer/notary and James the messenger were relatives. Their presence together reflects their professional involvement in Scotland’s legal administration.
Francis Guthrie: the repeated Forfarshire sasine office creates a strong lead for investigation in the surviving registers of sasines, notarial material and records relating to the administration of land registration in Angus.
John Guthrie: legal and professional records may clarify the career of the writer and agent and test whether other Edinburgh references belong to the same man.
James Guthrie, writer and notary: the printed index links his recurring Test appearances, but further legal records are needed for residence, family and professional affiliations.
James Guthrie, messenger: additional executions of process, messenger records or Lyon Office material may extend the professional profile documented by the November 1681 Test and February 1682 Glasgow summonses.
Basis of synthesis: P. Hume Brown, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VII, A.D. 1681–1682 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1915). The detailed record cards preserve the printed occupational descriptions, abbreviated names, source spans and evidentiary limits. HathiTrust — Volume VII .
Volume 8
Volume VIII carries the Privy Council record through 1683 and 1684. The Guthrie material is especially useful for tracing several distinct kinds of public and professional service: local judicial office, legal writing and witnessing, service within a landed household, and the formal execution of legal process.
Sir Henry Guthery of Kingedward appears among the newly appointed justices of peace for Banffshire. Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, is named in a dispute over the charter-chest and papers of the deceased Sir Robert Hepburn of Keith. A second John Guthrie, writer in Dundee, witnesses a regulatory bond, while John Guthery, servitor to Alexander Innes of Coxtoune, witnesses a bond of caution connected with repairs to the kirk of Longbryde.
The most repeated Guthrie in the volume is James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant. Several miscellaneous papers preserve his executions of summonses and letters in Edinburgh. Here Dingwall is the title of his heraldic office, not evidence that he was a landed proprietor “of Dingwall.” The several Johns in this volume likewise remain separate unless independent evidence establishes an identity between them.
Source Access
P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume VIII, A.D. 1683–1684 (Glasgow: printed under the authority of His Majesty’s Stationery Office by J. Hedderwick & Sons Limited, 1915).
The printed page numbers used below are the volume’s own pagination and should be used when citing the records.
Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 199–200 | 26 Jul 1683 | Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh | Named in the Earl of Findlater’s supplication among those alleged to have intermeddled with the late Sir Robert Hepburn of Keith’s charter-chest and papers; the Council orders production and inventory of the documents. |
| 200 | 26 Jul 1683 | Sir Henry Guthery of Kingedward | Appointed a justice of peace for the shire of Banff. |
| 592 | 9–10 Jan 1683 | James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant | Miscellaneous Paper no. 3: executes a summons at the instance of His Majesty’s Advocate against numerous persons in Edinburgh; execution signed by Guthrie. |
| 619 | 4–7 Aug 1683 | James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant | Miscellaneous Paper no. 49: executes a summons at the instance of the Lord Advocate against Edinburgh merchants; execution signed by Guthrie. |
| 669–670 | 9 Feb 1684 | John Guthrie, writer in Dundee | Witness to a bond by maltsters, brewers and vintners concerning licensed games and the Master of the Revels. |
| 687 | 28 Mar 1684 | John Guthery, servitor to Alexander Innes of Coxtoune | Witness to a bond of caution connected with the use of vacant stipends for repairs to the kirk of Longbryde. |
| 692–693 | 1–2 Apr 1684 | James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant | Miscellaneous Paper no. 154: executes a summons at the instance of Thomas Adair and John Cuninghame requiring witnesses to compear in an Edinburgh action. |
| 692–693 | 1–2 Apr 1684 | James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant | Miscellaneous Paper no. 155: executes letters at the same instance against Mr Robert Blackwood and others to answer the complaint; execution signed by Guthrie. |
26 July 1683 — Mr John Guthrie and the Charter-Chest of Sir Robert Hepburn of Keith
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume VIII • pp. 199–200
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
James, Earl of Findlater, petitioned the Privy Council following the death of Sir Robert Hepburn of Keith. According to the Earl, Sir Robert had managed his affairs, held many of the title deeds relating to his estate, and had arranged for much of his fortune to pass to the Earl’s second son, Mr James Ogilvie.
The Earl alleged that news of Sir Robert’s illness had been withheld from him and that, after Sir Robert’s death, several people had interfered with his charter-chest and papers. Among those named was Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh.
Findlater feared that documents favouring himself and his son might be abstracted, cancelled, altered or destroyed. He therefore asked the Council to compel the named persons to produce Sir Robert’s charter-chest, cabinets, boxes, writs and evidents.
The Council granted coercive process requiring production of the material. Lord Collingtoun and Lord Castlehill were to supervise the opening and inventory of the papers and examine the persons concerned under oath regarding their handling of them.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 26th July 1683.
Supplication by James, Earl of Findlater, as follows:—
Sir Robert Hepburn of Keith, now deceased, had the trust of the petitioner’s affairs and the custody of most of the evidents of his estate, and has entailed his fortune or the most part thereof to Mr James Ogilvie, the petitioner’s second son; but the petitioner being at a distance, and the said Sir Robert’s friends having suppressed the news of his sickness so that the petitioner got no notice thereof, the Laird of Congaltoune has meddled with his charter-chest and papers, and the Laird of Ormistoune, Cockburne of Piltoun, Alexander Eliot in …, Robert Hepburn, writer in Edinburgh, and the said Robert’s lady, David Chalmers, his servant, Mr John Carstaires, minister of the gospel, Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, and James Davie in …, have also meddled with the papers conceived in favour of the petitioner and his son, in order to frustrate the will of the deceased, and they will destroy the same.
He therefore craves order to be given as follows. The Lords ordain letters of horning on six days’ charge to be issued against the foresaid persons to exhibit upon oath in the hands of the clerks of Council the charter-chest, cabinets and boxes in which any of the deceased Sir Robert Hepburn’s writs or papers are or were at the time of his death, with all the writs and evidents, to be opened up and inventoried at the sight of Lord Collingtoun and Lord Castlehill, who are to take the persons’ oaths anent their intromission with, abstracting, cancelling, vitiating or anyway destroying any of the said writs.
Modern English Rendering
James, Earl of Findlater, submitted a petition concerning the papers of the recently deceased Sir Robert Hepburn of Keith.
Sir Robert had been entrusted with Findlater’s affairs and had possession of most of the title deeds and other legal documents relating to the Earl’s estate. He had also arranged for all or most of his own fortune to pass to Mr James Ogilvie, Findlater’s second son.
Findlater stated that he had been some distance away when Sir Robert became ill and that Sir Robert’s friends had concealed news of the illness from him. He alleged that the Laird of Congaltoune had subsequently interfered with Sir Robert’s charter-chest and papers.
The Earl further alleged that several other people had handled papers made in favour of himself and his son. Those named included the Laird of Ormistoune; Cockburne of Piltoun; Alexander Eliot; Robert Hepburn, writer in Edinburgh, and Robert’s wife; David Chalmers, Sir Robert’s servant; Mr John Carstaires, minister; Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh; and James Davie.
Findlater claimed that this interference was intended to defeat the wishes of the deceased Sir Robert and expressed concern that relevant documents might be destroyed.
The Privy Council therefore ordered letters of horning to be issued on a six-day charge against the persons named. They were required to produce, under oath and into the custody of the clerks of Council, the charter-chest, cabinets and boxes in which Sir Robert’s papers were kept at the time of his death, together with his writs and title deeds.
Lord Collingtoun and Lord Castlehill were appointed to supervise the opening and inventory of the material. They were also to take the sworn statements of the persons concerned regarding whether they had handled, removed, cancelled, altered or otherwise destroyed any of Sir Robert’s documents.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Charter-chest: A chest or other secure repository holding title deeds, charters and important family or estate papers.
Evidents: Documentary evidence of legal rights, especially deeds, charters and other writings proving title to property.
Letters of horning: Formal royal process used to compel a person to perform a legal obligation. Failure to obey the charge could lead to denunciation as a rebel.
Six days’ charge: The period allowed after formal service within which the persons charged were required to comply.
Intromission: Handling, possessing, administering or interfering with property or documents.
Abstracting: Removing or taking away a document from its proper custody.
Vitiating: Altering, damaging or corrupting a document so as to impair its validity or evidentiary value.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. VIII, A.D. 1683–1684 (Glasgow: printed under the authority of His Majesty’s Stationery Office by J. Hedderwick & Sons Limited, 1915), pp. 199–200. HathiTrust full-view copies: University of California and University of Michigan.
26 July 1683 — Sir Henry Guthery of Kingedward Appointed a Justice of Peace for Banffshire
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume VIII • p. 200
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 26 July 1683 the Privy Council considered the condition of the commission of the peace in Banffshire. Several existing justices had died, while others were described as infirm and unable to exercise the office.
To restore the local commission, the Council named a substantial group of additional justices. Among them was Sir Henry Guthery of Kingedward.
The entry is therefore a direct contemporary record of Sir Henry’s participation in county government. Unlike the preceding charter-chest record on the same printed page, this is a separate Council act and is treated as its own source unit.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 26th July 1683.
Appointment of justices of peace for the shire of Banff.
The Lords, understanding that several of the justices of peace in the shire of Banff are deceased and others infirm and unable to exercise that office, nominate and appoint George, Lord Banff, Sir John Gordon of Park, Sir Henry Guthery of Kingedward, George Abercrombie of Skeeth, William Gordon of Faisken, Alexander Gordon of Glengerack, John Ramsay of Melrous, John Urquhart of Whytehill, Mr William Joss of Collynaart, James Ogilvie of Baldavie, William Dumbar of Durne, Alexander Abercrombie, younger of Glassach, Alexander Hay of Airnbuith, Patrick Ogilvie of Halyards, Thomas Ogilvie in Boigtoun, Patrick Stewart of Tannachie, David Gregory of Kinnairdy, Frederick Ogilvie of Dallachie, James Gordon of Ardmellie, John Innes of Edengheith, Alexander Duff of Braco, John Gordon, elder of Achynaile, John Lesly of Kinninvie, James Anderson of Westertoun, Grant of Badindalloch, Mr Thomas Law of Newtoune, Sir Robert Innes of Kinnermonie, John Stewart of Killimauchlie, Thomas Stewart, younger of Drummine, and Alexander Ogilvie, younger of Kempkairnie, to be justices of peace in the said shire and to be admitted as is usual.
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council noted that several of the existing justices of peace for Banffshire had died and that others were infirm and no longer able to perform the duties of the office.
The Council therefore appointed a new group of men to serve as justices of peace for the county. The appointees included George, Lord Banff; Sir John Gordon of Park; Sir Henry Guthery of Kingedward; George Abercrombie of Skeeth; William Gordon of Faisken; Alexander Gordon of Glengerack; John Ramsay of Melrous; John Urquhart of Whytehill; Mr William Joss of Collynaart; James Ogilvie of Baldavie; William Dumbar of Durne; and numerous other local landholders and officeholders.
The men named were to serve as justices of peace for the shire of Banff and were to be formally admitted to office in the customary manner.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Justice of peace: A local magistrate appointed to assist with county-level judicial and administrative business. Seventeenth-century Scottish commissions of the peace commonly included substantial landholders and other locally prominent men.
Shire: County. Here the jurisdiction is the shire of Banff, or Banffshire.
Nominate and appoint: Formally name persons to exercise an office under the authority of the Council.
Admitted as is usual: The men named were to complete the customary formalities required before exercising the office.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. VIII, A.D. 1683–1684 (Glasgow: printed under the authority of His Majesty’s Stationery Office by J. Hedderwick & Sons Limited, 1915), p. 200.
9–10 January 1683 — James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, Executes a Summons in Edinburgh
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume VIII • p. 592
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This miscellaneous paper preserves the formal execution of a summons by James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, on 9 and 10 January 1683.
The summons had been raised at the instance of His Majesty’s Advocate against a large group of people in Edinburgh. Guthrie records that most were personally apprehended and served. Copies were left at the dwelling places of two persons who were not personally found, and public proclamation was also made at the market cross of Edinburgh.
The execution concludes with the names of witnesses and Guthrie’s own subscription as pursuivant, directly documenting him carrying out the procedural duties of his heraldic office.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 9th January 1683.
3. Execution by James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, on 9th and 10th January, 1683, of a summons at the instance of his Majesty’s Advocate against John Duncane, George Potts, James Loch, Alexander Frog, William Forrester, Margaret Clerk, spouse to William Cockburne, Violet Cameron, Archibald McKennie, Robert Scot, James Boyd, Mr Robert Blackwood, Robert Blackwood, Duncan McIntosh, George Home, David Huisone, Robert Campbell, James Grahame, Mungo Wood, James Rou, Beattie Ker, his spouse, William Knox, tailor, Broune in Forresters Wynd, widow of John Kinkead, merchant, Alexander Herriot, James Edmonstoune, Andrew Bruce, James Braidfoott, William Blackwood, Helen Miller and McPherson, her spouse, Hugh Blair, James Clieland and his spouse, James Reid, James Alstoune and John Chancellor, all personally apprehended except the two last named, at whose dwelling places copies were left and also proclamation was made at the market cross of Edinburgh; witnesses, Robert Wallace, messenger in Edinburgh; James Tennant, merchant there; James Lermonth, tailor there, George Jardine, indweller there, and William Cuninghame, servitor to Mr James Cuninghame, writer there, with several others. (Signed) “James Guthrie, pursevant.”
Modern English Rendering
On 9 and 10 January 1683, James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, formally served a summons raised by the King’s Advocate against a large number of people in Edinburgh.
The persons named were John Duncane, George Potts, James Loch, Alexander Frog, William Forrester, Margaret Clerk, wife of William Cockburne, Violet Cameron, Archibald McKennie, Robert Scot, James Boyd, Mr Robert Blackwood, Robert Blackwood, Duncan McIntosh, George Home, David Huisone, Robert Campbell, James Grahame, Mungo Wood, James Rou, Beattie Ker and his wife, William Knox, tailor, Broune in Forrester’s Wynd, the widow of John Kinkead, merchant, Alexander Herriot, James Edmonstoune, Andrew Bruce, James Braidfoott, William Blackwood, Helen Miller and her husband McPherson, Hugh Blair, James Clieland and his wife, James Reid, James Alstoune and John Chancellor.
Guthrie reported that everyone except James Alstoune and John Chancellor was personally found and served with the summons. Because those two could not be personally apprehended, copies were left at their homes.
Public proclamation of the summons was also made at the market cross of Edinburgh.
Witnesses to Guthrie’s execution included Robert Wallace, messenger in Edinburgh; James Tennant, merchant; James Lermonth, tailor; George Jardine, resident of Edinburgh; and William Cuninghame, servant to Mr James Cuninghame, writer, together with several others.
James Guthrie signed the execution in his official capacity as pursuivant.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Pursuivant: A junior officer of arms. In addition to heraldic functions, Scottish heralds and pursuivants could formally serve legal process and make required public proclamations.
Dingwall Pursuivant: The official title held here by James Guthrie. “Dingwall” is the name of the office.
Execution of a summons: The formal act of serving legal process and recording how, where and upon whom service was made.
Personally apprehended: In this procedural context, personally encountered or reached for service of the summons; it does not mean that each person was arrested and imprisoned.
Market cross: The customary public location in a Scottish burgh for official proclamations and certain forms of legal notification.
Servitor: A servant or assistant, often employed in a professional or clerical capacity.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. VIII, A.D. 1683–1684 (Glasgow: printed under the authority of His Majesty’s Stationery Office by J. Hedderwick & Sons Limited, 1915), p. 592, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 3.
4–7 August 1683 — James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, Executes a Summons Against Edinburgh Merchants
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume VIII • p. 619
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This miscellaneous paper records another execution of legal process by James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant. On 4, 6 and 7 August 1683 he served a summons raised at the instance of the Lord Advocate against a substantial group of Edinburgh merchants and civic figures.
Guthrie states that most of those named were personally served. For three men who were not personally found, copies were left at their houses. On 7 August the summons was also publicly proclaimed at the market cross of Edinburgh.
The paper is numbered 49 in the printed miscellaneous papers and preserves Guthrie’s continuing activity in the same official capacity documented earlier in January 1683.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 4th August 1683.
49. Note of execution by James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, on 4th, 6th and 7th August, 1683, of a summons at the instance of the Lord Advocate against Mr John Duncane, Robert Campbell, Robert Blackwood, Alexander Herriot, James Loch, George Potts, William Blackwood, Alexander Frog, Mr Robert Blackwood, Robert Scot, Duncan McIntosh, James Braidfoot, James Alstoune, James Clieland, Thomas Douglas, bailie, Andrew Irving, George Clerk, Hugh Cuninghame, Patrick Johnstone, Thomas Gordoune, John Ker, James Niccolsone, bailie, William Menzies, George Drummond, younger, Alexander Brand, Robert Hamiltone, Andrew Duff, John Kellie, Lues Bissett, William Gordoune, Archibald Hamiltone, younger, Edward Marjoribanks, Thomas Smith, and George Drummond, bailie, all merchants in Edinburgh, to compear on 9th August.
They were all personally apprehended except William Blackwood, Edward Marjoribanks and Thomas Smith, at whose houses copies were left, and also on 7th August proclamation was made at the market cross of Edinburgh. Witnesses to the execution are William Hume, pursuivant, Robert Wallace and John Gourlay, messengers, John Douglas and George Jardine, indwellers in Edinburgh, and others. (Signed) “James Guthrie, pursevant.”
Modern English Rendering
On 4, 6 and 7 August 1683, James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, formally served a summons issued at the instance of the Lord Advocate.
The persons summoned were Mr John Duncane, Robert Campbell, Robert Blackwood, Alexander Herriot, James Loch, George Potts, William Blackwood, Alexander Frog, Mr Robert Blackwood, Robert Scot, Duncan McIntosh, James Braidfoot, James Alstoune, James Clieland, Thomas Douglas, bailie, Andrew Irving, George Clerk, Hugh Cuninghame, Patrick Johnstone, Thomas Gordoune, John Ker, James Niccolsone, bailie, William Menzies, George Drummond the younger, Alexander Brand, Robert Hamiltone, Andrew Duff, John Kellie, Lues Bissett, William Gordoune, Archibald Hamiltone the younger, Edward Marjoribanks, Thomas Smith and George Drummond, bailie. They were described collectively as merchants in Edinburgh and were required to appear on 9 August.
Guthrie reported that all of them were personally encountered and served except William Blackwood, Edward Marjoribanks and Thomas Smith. Copies of the summons were therefore left at the houses of those three men.
On 7 August Guthrie also caused the summons to be publicly proclaimed at the market cross of Edinburgh.
Witnesses to the execution included William Hume, pursuivant; Robert Wallace and John Gourlay, messengers; and John Douglas and George Jardine, residents of Edinburgh, together with others.
James Guthrie subscribed the execution in his official capacity as pursuivant.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Pursuivant: A junior officer of arms who could perform heraldic duties as well as execute summonses, letters and other formal legal process.
Dingwall Pursuivant: The title of James Guthrie’s heraldic office. “Dingwall” here is an office designation rather than a territorial description of Guthrie.
Execution: The formal carrying out and certification of service of legal process.
Compear: To appear before a court or other competent authority when formally cited.
Bailie: A burgh magistrate with judicial and administrative responsibilities.
Messenger: An officer authorized to serve and execute judicial documents and other formal process.
Market cross: A recognized public place in a Scottish burgh where proclamations and certain legal notices could formally be made.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. VIII, A.D. 1683–1684 (Glasgow: printed under the authority of His Majesty’s Stationery Office by J. Hedderwick & Sons Limited, 1915), p. 619, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 49.
9 February 1684 — John Guthrie, Writer in Dundee, Witnesses a Regulatory Bond
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume VIII • pp. 669–670
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This document is a bond entered into by a group of maltsters, brewers and vintners associated principally with Dundee and Edinburgh. They undertook not to hold games or similar public entertainments without licence from James Fountaine, Master of the Revels.
The instrument was written by Mr George Gray, writer in Dundee, and dated there on 9 February 1684. Among the witnesses was John Guthrie, writer.
Because the document expressly identifies Guthrie as a writer and was executed at Dundee, it supplies secure occupational and geographical evidence for a John Guthrie, writer in Dundee. He should not be assumed to be the Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, who appears earlier in this volume.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Dundee, 9 February 1684.
Bond by George Crokatt, Thomas Dog, John Wallentine, William Jacksone, Patrick Mathew, Patrick Jacksone, Grisel Ramsay, Alexander Broune, Walter Kid, James Roger, William Haliburtoune, and others, maltsters, brewers, and vintners in Edinburgh and Dundee, that they will not hold games, etc., without licence from James Fountaine, master of the revels; with clause of mutual relief and clause of registration.
The bond is written by Mr George Gray, writer in Dundee, and dated at Dundee, 9th February, 1684; witnesses, William Andersone, glazier, William Gib, servitor to the said Agnes Gib, John Guthrie, writer, and David Watsone, son of the deceased Andrew Watsone, maltman in the said burgh. Many of the granters sign, and for the rest Mr George Gray, notary, signs.
[On the back] “14 February, 1684, cautioner received and act extracted accordingly.”
Modern English Rendering
A group of maltsters, brewers and vintners in Edinburgh and Dundee entered into a formal bond concerning public games and entertainments.
The granters included George Crokatt, Thomas Dog, John Wallentine, William Jacksone, Patrick Mathew, Patrick Jacksone, Grisel Ramsay, Alexander Broune, Walter Kid, James Roger, William Haliburtoune and others.
They promised that they would not hold games or similar entertainments unless they had obtained the required licence from James Fountaine, Master of the Revels. The bond also contained provisions requiring the parties to protect one another against loss and allowing the obligation to be formally registered and enforced.
Mr George Gray, writer in Dundee, prepared the document. It was executed at Dundee on 9 February 1684.
The witnesses were William Andersone, glazier; William Gib, servant to Agnes Gib; John Guthrie, writer; and David Watsone, son of the deceased Andrew Watsone, maltman in Dundee.
Many of the persons granting the bond signed it themselves. For those who did not sign personally, Mr George Gray acted in his capacity as notary.
An endorsement dated 14 February 1684 records that a cautioner had been received and that the formal act was then extracted.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Writer: A professional legal or administrative clerk who prepared deeds, bonds and other formal writings.
Bond: A formal written obligation binding one or more parties to perform, or refrain from, specified acts.
Master of the Revels: An office associated with the regulation and licensing of public entertainments, games and performances.
Clause of mutual relief: A provision allowing parties who were compelled to satisfy more than their proper share of an obligation to recover from the other bound parties.
Clause of registration: A provision permitting the bond to be registered so that it could acquire direct enforceable effect without the need for a fresh lawsuit.
Cautioner: A surety who guaranteed performance of another person’s obligation.
Act extracted: A formally authenticated copy of the recorded act was issued for use by the parties.
Maltman: A person engaged in producing or dealing in malt, an important component of brewing.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. VIII, A.D. 1683–1684 (Glasgow: printed under the authority of His Majesty’s Stationery Office by J. Hedderwick & Sons Limited, 1915), pp. 669–670.
28 March 1684 — John Guthery, Servitor to Alexander Innes of Coxtoune, Witnesses a Bond of Caution
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume VIII • p. 687
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This miscellaneous paper records a bond of caution by John Gordon of Rothemay for Alexander Innes of Coxtoune.
An earlier Privy Council act of 20 March 1684 had authorized Alexander Innes to collect £100 sterling from the vacant stipends of the diocese of Murray for repairs to the ruinous kirk of Longbryde. The bond guaranteed that Innes would exercise proper diligence in collecting the money and account for any surplus.
The bond was prepared by Mr John Gray, writer in Edinburgh, and witnessed by Gray together with John Guthery, servitor to Alexander Innes.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 28th March 1684.
148. Bond of caution by John Gordon of Rothemay for Alexander Innes of Coxtoune, narrating that upon his supplication the Lords allowed the said Alexander Innes, by their act of 20th March instant, to uplift 100l. sterling from the vacant stipends of the diocese of Murray for repairing the kirk of Longbryde, which is ruinous, and that therefore he will doe exact diligence in uplifting the same and make account for any surplus; with clauses of relief and registration.
The bond is written by Mr John Gray, writer in Edinburgh, and dated 28th March, 1684; witnesses, the said Mr John Gray, and John Guthery, servitor to the said Alexander Innes.
Modern English Rendering
John Gordon of Rothemay acted as surety for Alexander Innes of Coxtoune. The bond explains that Innes had previously petitioned the Privy Council and, by an act dated 20 March 1684, had received permission to collect £100 sterling from vacant church stipends in the diocese of Murray.
The money was to be used to repair the kirk of Longbryde, which was described as ruinous.
Under the bond, Innes was required to use proper diligence in collecting the authorized sum and to account for any money remaining after the repairs. The instrument also contained clauses protecting the cautioner and allowing the bond to be formally registered.
Mr John Gray, writer in Edinburgh, prepared the bond, which was dated at Edinburgh on 28 March 1684.
The witnesses were Mr John Gray and John Guthery, servant or attendant to Alexander Innes of Coxtoune.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Bond of caution: A formal surety obligation in which one person guaranteed that another would properly perform a specified duty.
Cautioner: The person acting as surety or guarantor. Here John Gordon of Rothemay stood caution for Alexander Innes.
Vacant stipends: Stipend money associated with vacant ecclesiastical charges and available, under proper authority, for approved church purposes.
Uplift: To collect or receive money legally authorized to be taken up.
Make account: To provide a financial accounting showing how money had been collected and spent.
Clause of relief: A provision protecting the cautioner by allowing recovery from the principal if the surety became liable.
Clause of registration: A provision permitting registration of the bond so that its obligations could be formally enforced.
Servitor: A servant or attendant; depending on context the term could also describe a trusted assistant or clerical subordinate.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. VIII, A.D. 1683–1684 (Glasgow: printed under the authority of His Majesty’s Stationery Office by J. Hedderwick & Sons Limited, 1915), p. 687, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 148.
1–2 April 1684 — James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, Summonses Witnesses in the Edinburgh Tailors’ Action
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume VIII • pp. 692–693 • Miscellaneous Paper no. 154
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 1 and 2 April 1684 James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, executed a summons at the instance of Thomas Adair, present deacon of the tailors of Edinburgh, and John Cuninghame, late deacon convener.
The summons was directed to a long group of Edinburgh merchants, tailors and servants. These persons were required to appear as witnesses in an action against Mr Robert Blackwood and other merchants.
The execution was witnessed by John Douglas, Robert Hall and George Jardine, inhabitants of Edinburgh, and others. Guthrie subscribed the execution in his official capacity as pursuivant.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 1 April 1684.
154. Note of execution by James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, on 1st and 2nd April, 1684, of a summons at the instance of Thomas Adair, present deacon of the tailors of Edinburgh, and John Cuninghame, late deacon convener there, against Robert Campbell, merchant in Edinburgh, Matthew Bayllie, tailor there, George Gardner, tailor there, George Livingtoune, James Kirkpatrick, William Cowane, Andrew Broune, Alexander Weir, William Seattoune, Thomas Prestoune, Andrew Purdie and Robert Lindsay, tailors there, Patrick Johnstone, merchant there, Robert Hamiltoune and Thomas Reu, servitors to Hugh Blair, merchant there, John Thomson, tailor there, John Wilkie, tailor there, John Somervell, Robert Murray, Andrew Aitkin and William Grahame, servitors to William Menzies, merchant there, Alexander Duncane, Walter Scott and John Biggar, servitors to Mr John Duncane, merchant there, Archibald Reu, servitor to James Reu, merchant, William Tosh, servitor to Duncan McIntosh, merchant, Alexander Home, tailor in the Canogate, James Miller, George Fleeming, Robert Bannatyne, Hugh Galloway, John Makeane, Gilbert Somervell, William Douglas, Monsieur La Perlie, William Tayleour, George Watsone, Patrick Tailiefer, Lachlan McPherson, James Robertsone, James Patterson, George Turpie and Robert Naismith, tailors there, to compear as witnesses in the action against Mr Robert Blackwood and other merchants; witnesses, John Douglas, Robert Hall and George Jardine, indwellers in Edinburgh, and others. (Signed) “James Guthrie, pursevant.”
Modern English Rendering
On 1 and 2 April 1684, James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, formally served a summons on behalf of Thomas Adair, the current deacon of the Edinburgh tailors, and John Cuninghame, formerly deacon convener there.
The summons was directed against a large group of men connected with Edinburgh’s merchant and tailoring communities. Those named included merchants, tailors and servants employed by several merchants.
They were not being summoned here as the principal defenders in the action. Rather, they were required to appear as witnesses in proceedings against Mr Robert Blackwood and other merchants.
Among those cited were Robert Campbell, merchant; Matthew Bayllie and George Gardner, tailors; Patrick Johnstone, merchant; servants of Hugh Blair, William Menzies, Mr John Duncane, James Reu and Duncan McIntosh; Alexander Home, tailor in the Canongate; and numerous other Edinburgh tailors.
John Douglas, Robert Hall and George Jardine, all inhabitants of Edinburgh, together with others, witnessed Guthrie’s execution of the summons.
James Guthrie signed the document in his official capacity as pursuivant.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Pursuivant: A junior officer of arms who could execute summonses, letters and other formal legal process in addition to heraldic duties.
Execution: The formal service and certification of legal process by an authorized officer.
Compear: To appear before a court or other authority when formally cited.
Deacon of the tailors: The elected head of the incorporated craft of tailors within the burgh.
Deacon convener: The officer representing or presiding over the incorporated crafts of a royal burgh.
Servitor: A servant or assistant in another person’s employment.
Indweller: A resident or inhabitant of a place.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. VIII, A.D. 1683–1684 (Glasgow: printed under the authority of His Majesty’s Stationery Office by J. Hedderwick & Sons Limited, 1915), pp. 692–693, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 154.
1–2 April 1684 — James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, Executes Letters Against Edinburgh Merchants
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume VIII • pp. 692–693 • Miscellaneous Paper no. 155
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This paper immediately follows the witness summons recorded as Miscellaneous Paper no. 154, but it is a separate execution of legal process.
On 1 and 2 April 1684, James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, executed letters at the same instance of Thomas Adair, present deacon of the tailors of Edinburgh, and John Cuninghame, late deacon convener.
Here the persons named were required to appear on 3 April to answer the complaint. Guthrie again subscribed the execution in his capacity as pursuivant.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
155. Note of execution by the same on 1st and 2nd April, 1684, of letters at the same instance against Mr Robert Blackwood, John Jollie, James Niccolsone, George Home, Robert Blackwood, Samuel McLellane, Duncan McIntosh, James Alstoune, William Menzies, George Drummond, John Hay, Hugh Blair, James Bradfoot, William Blackwood, Mr John Duncane, James Reu and James Boudoune, to compear on 3rd inst. to answer to the complaint; witnesses, John Douglas and Robert Hall, indwellers in Edinburgh, and others. (Signed) “James Guthrie, pursevant.”
Modern English Rendering
On 1 and 2 April 1684, James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, formally served letters in the same action brought by Thomas Adair and John Cuninghame.
The letters were directed against Mr Robert Blackwood, John Jollie, James Niccolsone, George Home, Robert Blackwood, Samuel McLellane, Duncan McIntosh, James Alstoune, William Menzies, George Drummond, John Hay, Hugh Blair, James Bradfoot, William Blackwood, Mr John Duncane, James Reu and James Boudoune.
These men were required to appear on 3 April to answer the complaint.
John Douglas and Robert Hall, residents of Edinburgh, together with others, witnessed Guthrie’s execution of the letters.
James Guthrie signed the execution in his official capacity as pursuivant.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Letters: Formal written legal process issued under authority and served upon persons required to perform or answer a legal obligation.
Execution: Formal service of the letters and certification by the officer of how that service was performed.
Compear: To appear before the competent court or authority when formally cited.
Answer the complaint: To appear as a party and respond to the allegations or demands contained in the complaint.
Pursuivant: A junior officer of arms who could perform formal service of legal process as well as heraldic duties.
Indweller: A resident or inhabitant of a place.
Source: P. Hume Brown, ed. and abr., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. VIII, A.D. 1683–1684 (Glasgow: printed under the authority of His Majesty’s Stationery Office by J. Hedderwick & Sons Limited, 1915), pp. 692–693, Miscellaneous Papers, no. 155.
Volume VIII — Guthrie Research in Perspective
The Guthrie evidence in Volume VIII is concentrated in public office, professional legal work, household service and the execution of formal process. Eight separate source units document five Guthrie identities or identity profiles between 1683 and 1684. None of the records states a direct parent-child, sibling or spousal relationship among the Guthries named here, so occupational, territorial and household descriptions remain the principal tools for distinguishing them.
The Privy Council’s appointment of Sir Henry as a justice of peace for Banffshire provides direct evidence of his continuing place within county administration. The record identifies him by the territorial style “of Kingedward” and uses the surname spelling Guthery.
The appointment establishes public office, but it does not identify when Sir Henry first became active as a justice or how often he subsequently exercised the office.
James is the most frequently documented Guthrie in this volume. Four separate papers record him executing legal process in Edinburgh: a summons in January 1683, another in August 1683, a witness summons in April 1684, and separate letters against the defenders in the related April action.
His repeated title, duties and signed executions create a strong documentary chain for his professional activity. Dingwall is the title of his heraldic office and should not be interpreted as a territorial designation.
Volume VIII presents three John Guthrie references that should remain separate unless further evidence connects them: Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh; John Guthrie, writer in Dundee; and John Guthery, servitor to Alexander Innes of Coxtoune.
Shared surname and close chronology are not sufficient grounds for merging them. The records instead provide different occupational, geographical and household identifiers.
Two of the John Guthrie references place Guthries within the professional world of seventeenth-century legal documentation. Mr John Guthrie of Edinburgh appears in the dispute surrounding Sir Robert Hepburn of Keith’s charter-chest, while John Guthrie, writer in Dundee, witnesses a professionally drafted regulatory bond.
Neither appearance establishes kinship with another Guthrie, but both provide occupational evidence that may be pursued through burgh, notarial and legal-professional records.
The legal posture of each record matters. Mr John Guthrie of Edinburgh was named in an allegation concerning estate papers; the record does not establish that he destroyed or altered them. John Guthrie of Dundee and John Guthery, servitor to Alexander Innes, appear as witnesses to documents, not as principals bound by the obligations.
James Guthrie executed process but was not a party to the disputes he served, while Sir Henry’s appearance is an appointment to public office rather than evidence of attendance at a particular sitting.
The volume preserves both Guthrie and Guthery. The latter occurs for Sir Henry of Kingedward and for John, servitor to Alexander Innes. These variants belong within the Guthrie search net but should remain visible in transcription rather than being silently modernized.
Variant spellings are especially important when searching indexes, sasines, burgh records, professional registers and household papers for the same individuals.
None of these source units supplies direct parentage, marriage, sibling relationships or a stated connection between the various Guthries. The volume therefore contributes more to identity, occupation, office and chronology than to a formal pedigree.
In particular, the three John Guthrie profiles should not be combined simply because two are associated with legal writing or because all three appear within a short period.
James Guthrie’s repeated service as Dingwall Pursuivant suggests further investigation in Lyon Office and officer-of-arms material. Mr John Guthrie of Edinburgh may be traceable through Edinburgh writers, notaries and estate-document records, while the Dundee writer may recur in burgh and local legal instruments.
John Guthery’s service to Alexander Innes invites examination of Coxtoune and Innes household or estate records. Sir Henry’s Banffshire appointment can be compared with the wider documentary record for Kingedward and his other known public roles.
Volume VIII in summary: the strongest connected sequence is the continuing official career of James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant. The remaining records broaden the picture of Guthrie participation in local government, legal writing, documentary witnessing and household service. The volume is particularly valuable for identity control precisely because its several John Guthries cannot safely be assumed to represent one man.
Volume 9
Volume IX is devoted entirely to the year 1684 and marks an editorial transition in the Third Series. From this volume the register was edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay.
The Guthrie evidence is unusually varied. It includes a Berwickshire fugitive, adult male parish residents in East Lothian, Ayrshire parish elders and deponents, a minister in Dumfriesshire, and several records involving officers engaged in the execution and administration of legal process in the Borders.
James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, continues the official career already documented in Volume VIII, but Volume IX also contains references to a James Guthrie described as “shireff” and another James Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh. Those descriptions are preserved separately unless the records themselves or independent evidence establish that they refer to the same man.
Source spellings are especially important in this volume. Alexander Gotrie / Gottrie of Broomdykes and two references to George Gottray belong within the Guthrie surname search but retain their printed forms below.
Source Access
Henry Paton, ed. and abr., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume IX, A.D. 1684 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1924).
Citations below use the printed pagination of Volume IX rather than HathiTrust image numbers.
Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 406 | 25 Sep 1684 | Alexander Gotrie in Broomdycks, Edrom | Named in instructions for reporting upon rebels and fugitives; reported as having fled into England. |
| 447 | 15 Oct 1684 | James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant | Certifies execution of summonses and letters against persons cited in proceedings in the Jedburgh area. |
| 450 | 16 Oct 1684 | James Guthrie, pursuivant | Awarded twenty rex dollars toward expenses for diligence and service in executing letters in the Borders. |
| 481 | 1684 | Alexander Gottrie in Broomdykes | Appears in an official roll of fugitives; connected with the earlier Broomdycks report on p. 406. |
| 504 | c. 1684 | James Guthrie; William Guthrie, in Stentoune | Both appear in the same parish roll of males above sixteen years of age in Stentoune parish, East Lothian. |
| 539 | 15 Oct 1684 | George Gottray in Broadyairds | Named among the elders and deacons associated with the parish of Craige during the Ayrshire parish examinations. |
| 541 | 15 Oct 1684 | George Gottray in Farrewalls | Personally deposes under oath; described as about forty years old and married. Kept distinct from George of Broadyairds. |
| 675 | Oct 1684 | James Guthrie — “shireff” | Name appears, in places deleted, in administrative lists concerning persons to be delivered to an officer in the Abbotrule, Kirkton and Jedburgh Forest area. |
| 675–676 | 4–6 Oct 1684 | Mr Guthrie, minister at Keir [Alexander Guthrie] | Mentioned in a sworn deposition concerning a letter directed to the minister by the sheriff depute. The RPCS passage gives the office only; independent clerical evidence identifies the minister as Alexander Guthrie. |
| 676 | 3 Oct 1684 | James Guthrie — “shireff” | Named at the end of a list concerning persons who pledged themselves to appear before the Commissioners of Justiciary. |
| 682 | 7 Oct 1684 | James Guthrie, pursuivant | Certifies delivery of the Eckfoord, Roxburgh, Stitchell, Ednam and Kelso rolls to Lancellot Broune, messenger. |
| 683 | 4 Oct 1684 | James Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh | Witness to Alexander Loraine’s bond for payment of a fine. This occupational description is retained independently from the pursuivant references. |
| 711 | 1684 | James Guthrie | His name was entered and subsequently deleted beside several Roxburghshire parish assignments in an administrative list. The deletions are evidence of revision, not proof of completed examination by Guthrie. |
25 September 1684 — Alexander Gotrie of Broomdycks Reported Fled into England
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume IX • p. 406
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Among notes made at Duns on 25 September 1684 concerning persons requiring further report, the record calls for information about Alexander Gotrie of Broomdycks in Edrom parish.
The reason given is concise: Alexander was reported to have “fled into England.” The entry therefore places him geographically in Edrom parish before or during 1684 and records his absence across the English border by late September.
Complete Printed Guthrie Item
Duns, 25th September 1684.
“To make report anent Alexander Gotrie in Edrum parish in Broomdycks, who is fled into England.”
Modern English Rendering
A report is to be made concerning Alexander Gotrie, who lived at Broomdycks in Edrom parish and who was reported to have fled into England.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Anent: Concerning or regarding.
Fled into England: A statement that the person had crossed from Scotland into England. The phrase itself does not state the reason for departure.
Edrum: The contemporary spelling used here for Edrom parish in Berwickshire.
Gotrie: The surname spelling printed in this entry; retained as documentary evidence rather than normalized within the transcription.
Source: Henry Paton, ed. and abr., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. IX, A.D. 1684 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1924), p. 406, Duns, 25 September 1684.
15 October 1684 — James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, Executes Summonses in the Jedburgh District
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume IX • p. 447
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 15 October 1684 James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, certified his execution of legal process against several persons in the Jedburgh district.
The letters were executed at the instance of Mr Charles Gray, advocate. Guthrie personally delivered copies to Adam Taitt, John Falla, John Turnbull, Robert Whyte, Mark Young and John Haire in Oxnamraw.
John Olipher, merchant in Jedburgh, and John Moscrip, messenger there, witnessed the execution. The printed material also preserves related attestations involving additional persons, including George Hymores.
Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
15th October 1684.
Attestation by James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, that he has served summonses on Adam Taitt and others, charged with religious irregularities, to appear at Jedburgh on the appointed day.
He executed letters at the instance of Master Charles Gray, advocate, and delivered copies personally to Adam Taitt, John Falla, John Turnbull, Robert Whyte, Mark Young, and John Haire in Oxnamraw.
The execution was made in the presence of John Olipher, merchant in Jedburgh, and John Moscrip, messenger there. Similar attestations follow for other individuals, including George Hymores.
Modern English Rendering
On 15 October 1684 James Guthrie, serving as Dingwall Pursuivant, formally certified that he had served legal summonses upon a number of people in the Jedburgh area.
The proceedings concerned persons accused of religious irregularities who were required to appear at Jedburgh. Guthrie acted under letters raised at the instance of Mr Charles Gray, advocate.
Guthrie personally delivered copies of the legal process to Adam Taitt, John Falla, John Turnbull, Robert Whyte, Mark Young and John Haire at Oxnamraw.
John Olipher, a merchant in Jedburgh, and John Moscrip, a messenger there, witnessed his execution of the letters. Related attestations on the same occasion concerned additional persons, including George Hymores.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Pursuivant: A junior officer of arms who could execute royal and judicial letters, serve summonses and perform other formal legal duties.
Attestation: A formal certification or statement verifying that an act, such as service of legal process, had been carried out.
Execute letters: To carry out the formal service required by legal letters and certify how that service was made.
Messenger: An officer authorized to execute judicial process. John Moscrip appears here as a witness to Guthrie’s execution.
Oxnamraw: The place associated in this execution with John Haire and the personal delivery of process.
Source: Henry Paton, ed. and abr., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. IX, A.D. 1684 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1924), p. 447, 15 October 1684.
16 October 1684 — James Guthrie, Pursuivant, Awarded Twenty Rex Dollars for Official Service
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume IX • p. 450
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 16 October 1684 at Jedburgh, the Lords considered the care and diligence of James Guthrie, pursuivant, in executing official letters against persons described in the record as delinquents.
Guthrie had travelled from Edinburgh and had remained in the Borders at his own expense. The record states that he had been employed several times both locally and in Berwickshire without receiving an allowance or advance for that work.
The Lords therefore ordered Mr Alexander Forbes to pay Guthrie twenty rex dollars from money collected in fines. The payment represented only part of the sum due to him for his service.
Complete Printed Entry
Jedburgh, 16th October 1684.
The Lords, taking into consideration the care and diligence that James Guthrie, pursuivant, had taken to serve his Majestie in executing letters against delinquents, and that he has attended since his coming from Edinburgh upon his own expenses, and has been employed several times against the said delinquents here and in Berwick shyre without any allowance or advance, they ordain Mr Alexander Forbes to pay to him out of the money received off fynes twentie rex dollars in part of what is due to him for his said service.
(Signed) “BELCARRES.”
Modern English Rendering
The Lords took into account the care and diligence shown by James Guthrie, pursuivant, in the King’s service while executing legal letters against persons described as delinquents.
Since coming from Edinburgh, Guthrie had remained in the area at his own expense. He had repeatedly been employed in this work both around Jedburgh and in Berwickshire without receiving either an allowance or an advance toward his costs.
The Lords therefore ordered Mr Alexander Forbes to pay Guthrie twenty rex dollars from money collected as fines.
The payment was expressly described as only part of what was owed to him for his service.
The order was signed by Belcarres.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Pursuivant: A junior officer of arms who could execute summonses, letters and other formal legal process in addition to heraldic functions.
Executing letters: Formally serving and carrying out legal process issued under competent authority.
Delinquents: The administrative term used in this record for persons against whom the relevant legal process was being executed. It should not be treated by itself as proof of a final conviction.
Rex dollar: A silver dollar used as a recognized monetary unit in seventeenth-century Scotland.
Money received off fines: Funds collected from monetary penalties and available here for payment of official expenses.
Source: Henry Paton, ed. and abr., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. IX, A.D. 1684 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1924), p. 450, Jedburgh, 16 October 1684.
1684 — Alexander Gottrie of Broomdykes Listed Among the Fugitives
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume IX • p. 481
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This record places Alexander Gottrie of Broomdykes within a formal 1684 roll of fugitives covering Berwickshire, Roxburghshire and surrounding districts.
It is the second Volume IX reference to Alexander. The earlier entry on p. 406 records that Alexander Gotrie in Broomdycks, Edrom parish, had fled into England. The present list records him again under the slightly different surname spelling Gottrie.
Complete Printed Guthrie Item
1684.
“List of the fugitives in Berwickshyre, Roxburgh, etc.”
… Alexander Gottrie in Broomdykes; …
Modern English Rendering
A formal list of fugitives in Berwickshire, Roxburghshire and neighbouring areas includes Alexander Gottrie of Broomdykes.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Fugitive: A person formally regarded as absent from the jurisdiction while being sought or proceeded against by the authorities. The term itself does not identify the underlying offence.
Roll: An official administrative list compiled for governmental or judicial use.
Gottrie: The surname form printed in this entry; treated as a Guthrie spelling variant but preserved exactly in the transcription.
Source: Henry Paton, ed. and abr., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. IX, A.D. 1684 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1924), p. 481, “List of the fugitives in Berwickshyre, Roxburgh, etc.”
c. 1684 — James Guthrie and William Guthrie in the Stentoune Parish Roll
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume IX • p. 504
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Page 504 contains a parish roll headed “A list of the names of men within the paroch of Stentoune above sixtine years of age.”
Among the men entered in the roll are James Guthrie and William Guthrie. Both are associated with Stentoune, but the surviving printed wording cited here supplies no occupation, estate designation or family relationship for either man.
Because both Guthries occur within the same parish roll, they belong together as a single source unit rather than being divided into two separate records merely because the printed index gives each man his own surname entry.
Printed Guthrie Entries
“A list of the names of men within the paroch of Stentoune above sixtine years of age.”
… James Guthrie ther; … William Guthrie ther; …
Modern English Rendering
This is a list of the men within the parish of Stentoune who were more than sixteen years old.
Among those named are James Guthrie and William Guthrie, both recorded as being there in Stentoune.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Paroch: Parish.
Above sixtine years of age: More than sixteen years old; the age threshold stated by the document itself.
Ther: “There,” indicating that the person was associated with the place under which he was listed.
Stentoune: The historical spelling used for Stentoun/Stenton in East Lothian.
Source: Henry Paton, ed. and abr., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. IX, A.D. 1684 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1924), p. 504, “A list of the names of men within the paroch of Stentoune above sixtine years of age.”
15 October 1684 — George Gottray of Broadyairds Named Among the Elders and Deacons of Craige
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume IX • p. 539
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 15 October 1684 at Ayr, parish officers and ministers were being examined in connection with the wider governmental inquiry into conditions within the local parishes.
Mr John Ardbuckle, minister at Craige, gave evidence concerning the elders and deacons of his parish. Among the men he named was George Gottray in Broadyairds.
The record therefore places George within the local parish structure at Craige and supplies the residence Broadyairds as an important identity marker.
Complete Printed Guthrie Passage
Air, 15 October 1684.
Mr John Ardbuckle, minister at Craigie, depones that his elders and deacons include: “… George Gottray in Broadyairds, John Nimmo [and] John Duncan, [both] in the barronie of Carnell.”
Modern English Rendering
Mr John Ardbuckle, minister of Craige, gave sworn evidence concerning the elders and deacons connected with his parish.
Among those he named was George Gottray of Broadyairds, together with John Nimmo and John Duncan, the latter two associated with the barony of Carnell.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Depone: To give evidence or make a statement under oath.
Elder: A lay parish officer involved in local church governance and discipline.
Deacon: A parish officeholder whose duties could include assistance with charitable, financial and congregational administration.
Barony: A territorial jurisdiction or estate held under baronial tenure.
Gottray: The surname form printed in this record and treated within this collection as a Guthrie spelling variant.
Source: Henry Paton, ed. and abr., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. IX, A.D. 1684 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1924), p. 539, Ayr, 15 October 1684.
15 October 1684 — George Gottray of Farrewalls Gives Evidence Under Oath
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume IX • p. 541
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 15 October 1684 at Ayr, George Gottray in Farrewalls appeared personally during the examination of elders and deacons connected with the parish of Craige.
Unlike the George Gottray of Broadyairds named by the minister on p. 539, this George personally gave evidence under oath. The record supplies two useful identifying details: he was about forty years of age and married.
His deposition states that he gave the same evidence as the preceding witness and concludes with a solemn affirmation of its truth. The printed entry also preserves his subscription as “Georg Gottray.”
Complete Printed Guthrie Entry
Air, 15 October 1684.
“George Gottray in Farrewalls, present, upon oath, of the age of 40 yeires or therby, maried, depones idem with the former, quhich is the treuth, as he shall answer to God. (Signed) Georg Gottray.”
Modern English Rendering
George Gottray of Farrewalls was present and gave evidence under oath.
He stated that he was about forty years old and was married. He gave the same answers as the preceding witness and declared that this was the truth, as he would answer to God.
George personally signed the deposition as “Georg Gottray.”
Terms & Scottish Practice
Depone: To give evidence formally, usually under oath.
Idem with the former: The same as the preceding witness or deponent; here George adopts the preceding answers.
Or therby: Or thereabout; an indication that the stated age was approximate.
Upon oath: Evidence formally given under a sworn obligation to tell the truth.
Gottray: The surname spelling printed and signed in this record; retained as a Guthrie spelling variant.
Source: Henry Paton, ed. and abr., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. IX, A.D. 1684 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1924), p. 541, Ayr, 15 October 1684.
1684 — James Guthrie Named in Borders Administrative Lists as “Shireff”
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume IX • p. 675
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Page 675 contains administrative lists relating to persons in several Borders parishes or districts, including Abotrule, Kirktonne and Jedburgh Forrest.
The name James Guthrie appears in association with the word “shireff”. In at least some places his name was subsequently deleted, while the office-description or notation remained.
The material concerns the delivery of named persons to the designated official and belongs to the wider body of enforcement and examination papers preserved in Volume IX.
Printed Guthrie References
1684.
Lists of persons in various parishes who were to be delivered to James Guthrie, “shireff.”
In Abotrule: James Guthrie [deleted]; shireff.
In Kirktonne: shireff.
In Jedburgh Forrest: James Guthrie [deleted]; shireff.
Modern English Rendering
The administrative lists identify people in several Borders districts who were to be delivered to an official described as the “shireff.”
James Guthrie’s name appears beside that designation in the entries for Abotrule and Jedburgh Forrest, although his name was later deleted in those places.
The Kirktonne entry retains only the designation “shireff.”
Terms & Scottish Practice
Shireff: The spelling appearing in the record. Its precise functional meaning in these abbreviated working lists should be interpreted from the fuller documentary context rather than expanded automatically.
Delivered to: Transferred into the custody or charge of the designated official.
Deleted entry: A name or assignment subsequently struck from the working document; the deletion is part of the evidence and may reflect revision or reassignment.
Abotrule: Abbotrule, in the Borders.
Jedburgh Forrest: The district associated with Jedburgh Forest in Roxburghshire.
Source: Henry Paton, ed. and abr., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. IX, A.D. 1684 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1924), p. 675.
4–6 October 1684 — Mr Guthrie, Minister at Keir, Referenced in a Dumfries Deposition
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume IX • pp. 675–676
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
During justiciary proceedings at Dumfries in October 1684, Thomas Hiddlestone gave evidence concerning events involving persons described in the proceedings as rebels.
Hiddlestone stated that, after rebels entered his house, he left it and disowned them. In the course of his deposition he also referred to the breaking open of a letter that had been directed by the sheriff depute to “Mr Guthrie, minister att Keir.”
The RPCS passage itself supplies only Guthrie’s surname and ministerial office. Independent clerical evidence identifies the minister of Keir at this date as Alexander Guthrie, formerly minister at Terregles and translated to Keir before 11 September 1681.
Complete Printed Guthrie Passage
Dumfries, 4–6 October 1684.
In his deposition Thomas Hiddlestone states that he left his house after rebels entered it and disowned them. He further declares that he knew of the breaking up of a letter directed from the shireff depute to Mr Guthrie, minister att Keir.
Modern English Rendering
Thomas Hiddlestone testified that, after people described as rebels entered his house, he left the house and denied any connection with them.
He also stated that he knew about a letter sent by the sheriff depute to Mr Guthrie, the minister at Keir, which had been broken open.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Justiciary: Proceedings before the criminal judiciary, including circuit proceedings held outside Edinburgh.
Shireff depute: The sheriff’s deputy, who exercised judicial and administrative authority within the sheriffdom.
Resetting rebels: Harbouring, sheltering or assisting persons formally treated by the authorities as rebels or fugitives.
Deposition: Sworn testimony given by a witness or person under examination.
Breaking up a letter: Opening or interfering with correspondence before it reached its intended recipient. The precise circumstances are not supplied in this excerpt.
RPCS Source: Henry Paton, ed. and abr., with an
Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay,
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland,
Third Series, Vol. IX, A.D. 1684
(Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1924), pp. 675–676,
Dumfries justiciary depositions, 4–6 October 1684.
Identification Source:
Fasti Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ, Vol. II, p. 296:
Alexander Guthrie, M.A., minister of Terregles in 1678,
translated to Keir before 11 September 1681.
3 October 1684 — James Guthrie, “Shireff,” Named with a Dumfries Justiciary Appearance List
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume IX • p. 676
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
A Dumfries paper dated 3 October 1684 records persons who pledged themselves to appear before the Commissioners of Justiciary.
At the conclusion of the list appears the notation “James Guthrie: shireff.”
This provides a second Volume IX association between a James Guthrie and the description “shireff”, following the administrative material on p. 675.
Printed Guthrie Notice
Dumfries, 3rd October 1684.
List of persons who pledged themselves to appear before the Commissioners of Justiciary at Dumfries.
At the end of the list: “James Guthrie: shireff.”
Modern English Rendering
The document contains a list of people who gave security or pledged that they would appear before the Commissioners of Justiciary at Dumfries.
At the end of that list is the notation “James Guthrie: sheriff.”
Terms & Scottish Practice
Commissioners of Justiciary: Commissioners exercising criminal judicial authority, including proceedings held on circuit outside Edinburgh.
Pledged themselves to appear: Undertook, with whatever security the proceeding required, to present themselves before the designated court or commissioners.
Shireff: The form recorded beside James Guthrie’s name. The precise function intended by the notation should be determined from fuller context rather than assumed.
Source: Henry Paton, ed. and abr., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. IX, A.D. 1684 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1924), p. 676, Dumfries, 3 October 1684.
7 October 1684 — James Guthrie, Pursuivant, Delivers Parish Rolls at Jedburgh
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume IX • p. 682
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
At Jedburgh on 7 October 1684, James Guthrie, pursuivant, certified that he had delivered copies of five local rolls to Lancellot Broune, messenger.
The rolls related to Eckfoord, Roxburgh, Stitchell, Ednam and Kelso. The certificate documents the movement of official papers between two officers engaged in the administrative and legal work then being carried out in the Borders.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Jedburgh, 7th October 1684.
Certificate by James Guthrie, pursuivant, that he delivered copies of Eckfoord, Roxburgh, Stitchell, Ednam and Kelso Rolls to Lancellot Broune, messenger.
Modern English Rendering
James Guthrie, acting as a pursuivant, formally certified that he had delivered copies of the rolls for Eckford, Roxburgh, Stitchell, Ednam and Kelso to Lancellot Broune, messenger.
The certificate was made at Jedburgh on 7 October 1684.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Certificate: A written attestation confirming that a particular official act had been performed.
Pursuivant: A junior officer of arms who could execute and transmit formal legal and administrative process as part of his official duties.
Messenger: An officer authorized to execute judicial process, serve documents and perform related legal duties.
Roll: An official list or schedule compiled for administrative or judicial use. The abbreviated entry does not specify the full contents of each roll.
Source: Henry Paton, ed. and abr., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. IX, A.D. 1684 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1924), p. 682, Jedburgh, 7 October 1684.
4 October 1684 — James Guthrie, Messenger in Edinburgh, Witnesses a Bond at Duns
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume IX • p. 683
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This document is a bond granted by Alexander Loraine, notary in Duns, for payment of a fine imposed upon him by the Commissioners of Council at Duns on the previous day.
Loraine bound himself to pay £100 Scots to Mr Alexander Forbes, writer in Edinburgh, for His Majesty’s use.
The bond was dated at Duns on 4 October 1684 and witnessed by James Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh, together with William Strauchan, writer.
Complete Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Duns, 4th October 1684.
Bond by Alexander Loraine, notary in Dunss, for payment to Mr Alexander Forbes, writer in Edinburgh, for his Majesty’s use, of 100l. Scots as the fine imposed on him by the Commissioners of Council at Dunss on 3rd October instant.
The bond is dated at Dunss, 4th October, 1684; witnesses, James Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh, and William Strauchan, writer there.
Modern English Rendering
Alexander Loraine, a notary in Duns, entered into a formal bond for payment of £100 Scots.
The money was to be paid to Mr Alexander Forbes, writer in Edinburgh, for the King’s use. It represented the fine that the Commissioners of Council at Duns had imposed upon Loraine on 3 October 1684.
The bond itself was executed at Duns the following day, 4 October.
Its witnesses were James Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh, and William Strauchan, writer.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Messenger: A legal officer authorized to serve and execute judicial process. Here James Guthrie is identified by that occupation but appears specifically as a witness.
Bond: A formal written obligation binding a person to make payment or perform another specified duty.
Notary: A legal professional authorized to authenticate and prepare formal instruments.
£100 Scots: One hundred pounds Scots, the amount of the fine secured by the bond.
For His Majesty’s use: Payable on behalf of the Crown rather than as a private debt to Alexander Forbes.
Source: Henry Paton, ed. and abr., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. IX, A.D. 1684 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1924), p. 683, Duns, 4 October 1684.
1684 — James Guthrie’s Name Entered and Deleted in a Roxburghshire Parish List
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland • Third Series • Volume IX • p. 711
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Page 711 contains an administrative “List of parioches in Roxburghshyre.” The list records the handling or examination of various parishes, with names of officials entered beside some of them.
James Guthrie was entered beside several parish names, including Hopkirk, Abbotroull and Sudan. In each of the cited examples his name was later deleted.
Other parish entries in the same working list are associated with men such as Lancelot Broune and John Moscrope, showing that responsibilities were being distributed among different officers or agents.
Printed Guthrie References
1684.
“List of parioches in Roxburghshyre.”
Hopkirk — James Guthrie [deleted].
Abbotroull — James Guthrie [deleted].
Sudan — James Guthrie [deleted].
Other parishes in the list are associated with Lancelot Broune, Jo. Moscrope, and others.
Modern English Rendering
An administrative list was compiled for parishes in Roxburghshire.
James Guthrie’s name was initially written beside the entries for Hopkirk, Abbotrule and Sudan, but his name was later struck out in those places.
Other men were entered beside other parishes, indicating that the document was being used to distribute or record local administrative responsibilities.
Terms & Scottish Practice
Parioches: Parishes.
Deleted: Text entered in the working record and subsequently struck through or cancelled. The deleted wording remains evidence that the entry was once contemplated or recorded.
Administrative list: A working schedule used to organize, record or allocate official activity rather than a narrative judicial act.
Abbotroull: Historical spelling of Abbotrule in Roxburghshire.
Source: Henry Paton, ed. and abr., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Vol. IX, A.D. 1684 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1924), p. 711, “List of parioches in Roxburghshyre.”
Volume IX — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume IX concentrates an unusually varied body of Guthrie evidence within the single year 1684. The records range from fugitive rolls and parish population lists to sworn depositions, ministerial correspondence, legal bonds, justiciary administration and the work of officers executing and transmitting official process.
The strongest recurring theme is identity control. Several records concern men named James Guthrie who were engaged in legal or administrative work, but the volume does not always provide enough information to prove that every occupational description belongs to one man. Similar caution is necessary with the two George Gottrays connected with Craige parish.
Two separate records document Alexander of Broomdykes. On p. 406, Alexander Gotrie of Broomdycks in Edrom parish was reported as having fled into England. On p. 481, Alexander Gottrie of Broomdykes appears in a formal roll of fugitives.
The shared residence provides a strong identity control despite the changing surname spelling. The two entries represent different documentary stages: first a report concerning his flight, then his inclusion in an official fugitive list.
Several records document a James Guthrie performing official work as a pursuivant. On p. 447 he is explicitly styled Dingwall Pursuivant while executing process in the Jedburgh district. On p. 450 the Council recognizes the expense and diligence of James Guthrie, pursuivant and awards him twenty rex dollars toward sums due for his service.
On p. 682 another James Guthrie, pursuivant certifies the delivery of the Eckfoord, Roxburgh, Stitchell, Ednam and Kelso rolls to Lancellot Broune, messenger. Together these records show sustained official activity in the Borders during autumn 1684.
Volume IX also contains a James Guthrie described as “shireff” on pp. 675–676, a James Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh on p. 683, and an untitled James Guthrie whose name was entered and deleted beside several Roxburghshire parish assignments on p. 711.
These records occur within the same broad Borders enforcement network, but shared name, chronology and professional environment do not prove that they all concern Dingwall Pursuivant. Each occupational description should remain attached to the record in which it actually appears until stronger evidence connects them.
On p. 675 James Guthrie’s name appears with the notation “shireff” in administrative lists involving Abotrule, Kirktonne and Jedburgh Forest. On p. 676 the compact notation “James Guthrie: shireff” follows a Dumfries list of persons pledged to appear before the Commissioners of Justiciary.
The abbreviated records do not define the precise function intended by “shireff.” It should therefore not automatically be expanded to sheriff officer, sheriff depute or another more specific office unless additional evidence establishes that meaning.
The Stentoune parish roll on p. 504 names James Guthrie and William Guthrie among men above sixteen years of age.
Because both names occur within the same source document they are treated as one source unit, but the record supplies no relationship between them. Their common surname and residence do not establish that they were brothers, father and son, or otherwise related.
On p. 539 the minister of Craige names George Gottray in Broadyairds among the parish elders and deacons. George himself is not the deponent in that entry.
On p. 541 a George Gottray in Farrewalls personally gives evidence under oath. He is described as about forty years old and married and signs the deposition as “Georg Gottray.”
The different residences require the two references to remain separate unless another source proves that Broadyairds and Farrewalls identify the same man or household.
The Dumfries justiciary material on pp. 675–676 refers only to “Mr Guthrie, minister att Keir”. He appears as the intended recipient of a letter from the sheriff depute that had reportedly been broken open.
Independent clerical evidence identifies the minister at this date as Alexander Guthrie, M.A., formerly minister of Terregles and translated to Keir before 11 September 1681. Later RPCS volumes explicitly name Alexander Guthrie as minister at Keir.
The identification is therefore strong, but the distinction between what the 1684 RPCS passage actually says and what independent sources establish should remain visible.
Page 711 preserves James Guthrie’s name beside several Roxburghshire parish entries — including Hopkirk, Abbotroull and Sudan — but the name was subsequently deleted.
Those deletions show that Guthrie was at some stage associated with the proposed assignments, but they do not prove that he actually completed the examinations or duties contemplated by the working list. Revision and cancellation are part of the documentary evidence and should not be ignored.
Several Volume IX records arise from intense governmental enforcement activity, but procedural distinctions remain essential. Being listed as a fugitive does not identify the underlying offence; receiving a summons does not prove an accusation; an accusation does not establish guilt; and appearing in an administrative list does not prove that an assigned action was completed.
Likewise, James Guthrie’s role in executing or transmitting process is evidence of his official employment, not evidence that he shared the alleged religious or political conduct of the people against whom the process was directed.
Volume IX preserves several important surname forms: Gotrie, Gottrie and Gottray, alongside the familiar Guthrie.
These variants should be preserved in transcription and included in future searches of parish, court, sasine, testamentary and administrative records. Normalizing every occurrence too early can hide useful patterns of place, household and identity.
Alexander Gotrie of Broomdykes warrants further investigation in Edrom and Berwickshire records to identify his family, occupation and the circumstances of his flight into England.
The various James Guthrie office descriptions deserve comparison with Lyon Office records, messenger-at-arms material, sheriff-court records and later RPCS entries to determine whether Dingwall Pursuivant, the Edinburgh messenger and the man styled “shireff” can ever be securely linked.
The two George Gottrays invite local Ayrshire research into Broadyairds, Farrewalls and Craige parish, while the Stentoune parish roll provides a starting point for tracing James and William Guthrie through East Lothian church, testamentary and land records.
The volume does not supply direct kinship among the Guthries it names. It does not show that James and William of Stentoune were related, that the two George Gottrays were one man, or that every James Guthrie involved in Borders administration was the same official.
Its principal genealogical value lies instead in residence, occupation, approximate age, marital status, ministerial office, administrative role and chronology — evidence that can be combined with other record groups without forcing premature family connections.
Volume IX in summary: the records provide a detailed snapshot of Guthries caught up in the administrative machinery of 1684 — fugitives, parish inhabitants, church officers, a minister and professional legal officers. The recurring James Guthrie references form the volume’s most important identity problem, while Alexander Gotrie of Broomdykes and George Gottray of Farrewalls provide some of its strongest geographically anchored individual evidence.
Volume X
Volume X carries the Third Series from the intensive enforcement activity of the autumn of 1684 into the opening months of 1685. Its Guthrie records are unusually useful for following several individuals through legal, clerical, administrative and local community settings.
The largest documentary cluster concerns James Guthrie, repeatedly appearing in official service as pursuivant, Dingwall pursuivant or messenger. The records place him serving citations and summonses in the Borders, preparing and witnessing legal bonds, petitioning the Privy Council for reimbursement of his expenses, and, by March 1685, reporting that he had been violently assaulted while attempting to execute Council letters in Argyllshire.
Other records identify Mr A. Guthrie, minister at Keir—securely identifiable as Alexander Guthrie; James Guthrie and his wife Mary Nevoy in Linlithgow; Robert Guthrie, writer in Dumfries; Walter Guthrie; and James and William Guthrie in Stenton. Similar names are kept distinct unless the record itself, occupational continuity, or other secure evidence supports an identification.
The Finding Aid below contains 15 separate Guthrie-bearing source units, arranged in printed-page order. Where two distinct documents occur on the same printed page, each is retained as its own source unit rather than being merged merely because the same Guthrie appears in both.
Read Volume X Online
Henry Paton, editor and abridger, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, A.D. 1684–1685 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927).
Citations on this page use the printed page numbers of Volume X. Original spellings, occupational descriptions and legal terminology are preserved in the detailed source records.
Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 170 | 3 Mar 1685 | James Guthrie, pursuivant | Petitions the Council after being assaulted and deforced while attempting to execute Council letters against Campbell of Airds in Argyllshire. |
| 234 | 10 Oct 1684 | James Guthrie, pursuivant | Executes citations against persons in several Roxburghshire parishes. |
| 255 | 12 Oct 1684 |
Mr A. Guthrie, minister at Keir
Independently identifiable as Alexander Guthrie |
Certifies that a royal proclamation was publicly read and published in his church after divine service. |
| 260 | 14 Oct 1684 | James Guthrie and Mary Nevoy, his wife | Named in a Linlithgow list of persons officially classified as not observing the prescribed ordinances of religion. |
| 270–271 | 16–17 Oct 1684 | James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant | Petitions for reimbursement of expenses incurred in official service; the Council grants twenty rex dollars, followed by Guthrie’s signed receipt. |
| 274 | 17 Oct 1684 | James Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh | Item 74. Witness to the bond of James Scott of Thirlestaine to appear before the Council when required. |
| 274 | 17 Oct 1684 | James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant | Item 75. Executes a summons at the instance of Mr Charles Gray against James Curle and John Turnbull, prisoners in Jedburgh tolbooth. |
| 279–280 | 18 Oct 1684 | James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant | Writes and witnesses Alexander Riddell’s bond of caution at Jedburgh. |
| 305 | 24 Oct 1684 | Robert Guthrie, writer in Dumfries | Witness to a bond of caution executed at Dumfries. |
| 314 | 25 Oct 1684 | James Guthrie, pursuivant | Named in a list of persons cited by him in Ettlstoune, Traquhair, Innerleithane and Peebles. |
| 316 | 25 Oct 1684 | Robert Guthrie, writer in Dumfries | Witness to John Greirson of Barjarg’s bond of caution for Charles Maxwell in Nether Keir. |
| 316 | 25 Oct 1684 | Robert Guthrie, writer | Witness to the separate bond of caution by Andrew Corbett younger for John Corbet elder, John Corbett younger and Margaret Corbett. |
| 339–340 | 15 Nov 1684 | James Guthrie and Mary Nevoy, his wife | Included among Linlithgow inhabitants entering a bond concerning regular attendance at the parish church; their signatures are made at their command because they cannot write. |
| 455 | 27 Jan 1685 | Walter Guthrie | Named among those taking the Oath of Abjuration. |
| 550–551 | 24 Feb 1685 | James Guthrie and William Guthrie, in Stenton | Named in the Stenton parish list of persons who took the Oath of Abjuration. The record does not state a relationship between them. |
3 March 1685 — James Guthrie, Pursuivant: Assaulted and Deforced in Argyllshire
Third Series, Volume X • Page 170
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
James Guthrie petitioned the Privy Council after suffering a violent attack while employed to execute Council letters against Campbell of Airds. The underlying order concerned delivery of the castle of Island Stalker.
Guthrie reported that, while returning home, he was intercepted by Campbell of Airds, Duncan Fisher and their associates, beaten and wounded, and deprived of the effective use of his official trumpet. His petition stressed that other messengers could not safely approach the parties involved.
Rather than require another ordinary messenger to undertake the same hazardous service, the Council directed the sheriff of Argyll or his deputies to execute the letters.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Edinburgh, 3rd March 1685.
Supplication by James Guthrie, pursuivant, as follows:—
Being employed to execute Council letters against Campbell of Airds for delivering up the castle of Island Stalker, in his return home he was waylaid and assaulted by the said Laird of Airds, Duncan Fisher and others, their accomplices, “who fell upon and did most cruelly beat, bruise and wound the petitioner and broke his trumpet, off which wounds he is not like to recover,” as is at more length contained in a complaint raised before the Council with concurrence of his Majesty’s Advocate; and seeing there is not tutus accessus to these persons, and that messengers without hazard of their life will not undertake to execute the letters, and it will tend to the great discouragement of his Majesty’s servants if such gross abuses committed against them are not redressed, he craves order to be given as follows.
The Lords ordain the Sheriff of Argyle or his deputies to cause execute the above letters against Campbell of Airds and others and return them so executed to the Clerks of Council before a certain day, in regard there is not tutus accessus to any Lowland messenger, the petitioner himself being deforced.
Modern English Rendering
Edinburgh, 3 March 1685.
James Guthrie, a pursuivant, petitioned the Privy Council. He had been employed to serve Council letters against Campbell of Airds requiring the delivery of the castle of Island Stalker.
On his way home Guthrie was intercepted by the laird, Duncan Fisher and other associates. They severely beat, bruised and wounded him and broke his trumpet. Guthrie stated that his injuries were so serious that his recovery was doubtful. A separate complaint concerning the assault had already been raised before the Council with the concurrence of the King’s Advocate.
Guthrie explained that there was no safe access to the accused men and that other messengers would not risk their lives by attempting service of the letters. Failure to protect royal officers from such violence, he argued, would discourage the King’s servants from performing their duties.
The Council therefore ordered the sheriff of Argyll or his deputies to execute the letters against Campbell of Airds and the others and return the executed process to the Council clerks. The order expressly recognized that an ordinary Lowland messenger could not safely approach the parties and that Guthrie himself had already been forcibly obstructed.
This is one of the most personal records yet found for the official James Guthrie. Instead of merely recording his name at the end of a summons or bond, it describes the physical dangers attached to his work and records an attack directed against him while he was carrying out Council business.
The broken trumpet is especially significant. The instrument was connected with the public ceremonial functions of an officer of arms, so its destruction formed part of the attack upon Guthrie in his official capacity, not simply a private quarrel.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Pursuivant — a junior officer of arms who could perform heraldic and ceremonial functions and execute official legal process.
- Deforcement — forcible obstruction or resistance directed against an officer carrying out lawful authority.
- Tutus accessus — Latin for safe access or safe approach.
- Execute letters — formally serve or carry out the process commanded by official letters.
- Trumpet — an instrument associated with the public proclamation and ceremonial duties of officers of arms.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, p. 170, Edinburgh, 3 March 1685; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
10 October 1684 — James Guthrie: List of Delinquents Cited in the Border Parishes
Third Series, Volume X • Pages 234–235
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This miscellaneous paper records persons who had been cited in a series of Border parishes by 10 October 1684. The printed heading identifies James Guthrie as the officer by whom the citations were made.
The underlying list is extensive and records numerous people from several parishes, with accusations or procedural notes concerning such matters as communication with rebels, resetting fugitives, refusal of the Test and withdrawal from prescribed religious ordinances.
The later annotations concern the listed persons and their respective proceedings. Guthrie’s evidentiary role in this document is established by the heading: he is the officer who had cited them.
Complete Printed Guthrie Passage
10th October 1684.
“Ane List of the delinquents citted in the severall paroches to the tenth day of October instant be James Guthrie.”
Modern English Rendering
10 October 1684.
A list of the persons regarded as delinquents who had been formally cited in the various parishes up to 10 October by James Guthrie.
The heading gives direct evidence of James Guthrie carrying out a substantial body of official citation work across several Border parishes. It therefore adds geographic and occupational detail to the cluster of records documenting a James Guthrie repeatedly engaged in service of legal process during 1684.
The record is also useful because it separates the officer executing process from the people accused. Guthrie’s presence in a list dominated by religious and political enforcement does not make him one of the delinquents; he is the person who cited them.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Citted — cited or formally summoned to appear or answer legal proceedings.
- Delinquents — the administrative label applied in the document to persons proceeded against; it does not by itself establish final guilt.
- Resetting — knowingly sheltering, receiving or assisting a person regarded as a fugitive or rebel.
- The Test — the statutory religious and political oath imposed upon specified persons under the Test Act.
- Instant — the current month; thus “the tenth day of October instant” means 10 October 1684.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, pp. 234–235, 10 October 1684; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
12 October 1684 — Mr A. Guthrie, Minister at Keir: Publication of the Royal Proclamation
Third Series, Volume X • Page 255
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The printed item is a copy of the royal proclamation of 8 July 1684 requiring subjects to report unlawful convocations, traitors and fugitives and to assist in their apprehension.
The Guthrie evidence appears in the endorsement written on the back of the copy. It records that on 12 October the proclamation was publicly read immediately after divine service before the congregation at Keir.
The endorsement identifies the minister as M. A. Guthrie, minr. of Keir. Independent clerical evidence permits his identification as Alexander Guthrie, but the original RPCS wording is retained below.
Complete Printed Endorsement — Original Text
“Upon the twelfth of October, 1684 … the within written proclamatione immediatly after divine service was openly read and published in the audience of all the congregation by M. A. Guthrie, minr. of Keir.”
Modern English Rendering
On 12 October 1684, immediately after divine service, the royal proclamation written within this document was read aloud and publicly proclaimed before the whole congregation by Mr A. Guthrie, minister of Keir.
This is a direct record of a Guthrie minister functioning as a local channel for royal government. Public reading from the parish church was one of the principal means by which national proclamations were formally communicated to local populations.
It also provides a useful bridge from Volume IX, where the minister at Keir appears in another Privy Council context. Taken together, the records help establish the chronology of Alexander Guthrie’s ministry there without altering the wording of either RPCS source.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Minr. — abbreviation for minister.
- Proclamatione — proclamation; an official public declaration issued under royal or governmental authority.
- Published — formally made public, here by oral reading before the parish congregation.
- Divine service — the parish worship service after which the proclamation was read.
- Endorsement — a note written on the back of a document recording an action taken in connection with it.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, p. 255, endorsement dated 12 October 1684 to a copy of the royal proclamation of 8 July 1684; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
14 October 1684 — James Guthrie and Mary Nevoy in the Linlithgow Parish List
Third Series, Volume X • Page 260
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The document is a parish list submitted to the Bishop of Edinburgh on 14 October 1684. Its heading describes those named as “disorderly persons not observing the ordinances of religione” in the parish of Linlithgow.
Among the names are Ja. Guthrie and Mary Nevoy. The printed index identifies them more fully as James Guthrie in Linlithgow and Mary Nevoy, his wife.
This record should be read narrowly. It documents their inclusion on the parish list, but does not itself explain the particular conduct, belief or incident that led to their names being entered.
Complete Printed Guthrie Passage
“A List of disorderly persons not observing the ordinances of religione in the parish of Linlithgow, exhibit to the Lord Bishop of Edinburgh, 14 of October, 1684; there being no papists there.”
Among the persons named: “… Ja. Guthrie, Mary Nevoy, …”
Modern English Rendering
A list of persons in the parish of Linlithgow reported as failing to observe the required religious ordinances was presented to the Bishop of Edinburgh on 14 October 1684. The document states that there were no Roman Catholics in the parish.
Among those listed were James Guthrie and Mary Nevoy.
The record provides a dated Linlithgow reference for James Guthrie and his wife Mary Nevoy. Their appearance together is particularly useful because the printed index supplies the marital relationship rather than leaving the two adjacent names to genealogical inference.
They appear again later in Volume X in the Linlithgow bond of 15 November 1684, providing a second documentary stage for the same couple.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Ordinances of religion — the prescribed public religious observances expected within the established church.
- Disorderly persons — an official administrative description used for persons reported as failing to conform to required religious practice.
- Exhibit — presented or submitted officially.
- Ja. — abbreviated form of James.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, p. 260, parish list exhibited 14 October 1684; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
16–17 October 1684 — James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant: Expenses and Twenty Rex Dollars
Third Series, Volume X • Pages 270–271
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
While serving the Lords Commissioners at Jedburgh, James Guthrie petitioned for an allowance toward the expenses he had incurred in official work.
His duties included travelling to charge or cite persons described as delinquents in Berwickshire and elsewhere. He represented that he had borne expenses for himself, his horse and the employment of guides without having received payment.
The Lords granted him twenty rex dollars as part payment. On the following day, 17 October 1684, Guthrie acknowledged receipt of the money from Mr Alexander Forbes.
Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Jedburgh, 16th October 1684.
Petition by James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, for an allowance toward his expenses while serving the Lords Commissioners at Jedburgh. He had been employed in charging delinquents in Berwickshire and other places and had received no payment for his own expenses, his horse, or the guides employed in the service.
The Lords grant him “twentie rex dollars” in part payment of what was due for his service.
On 17 October 1684, James Guthrie acknowledged receipt of twenty rex dollars from Mr Alexander Forbes.
Modern English Rendering
At Jedburgh on 16 October 1684, James Guthrie, holding the office of Dingwall Pursuivant, asked the Commissioners to reimburse part of the money he had spent while carrying out their orders.
He explained that he had travelled through Berwickshire and other districts citing persons on official business, while paying the costs of his own maintenance, his horse, and local guides.
The Commissioners awarded him twenty rex dollars toward the amount due for his service. On 17 October Guthrie signed an acknowledgment that he had received that sum from Mr Alexander Forbes.
This entry gives an unusually practical view of James Guthrie’s work as Dingwall Pursuivant. His duties required travel, horses and local guides, and the resulting expenses were substantial enough to require a formal petition for reimbursement.
The signed receipt is also significant because it moves the evidence beyond a mere Council authorization. The record documents both the grant and Guthrie’s acknowledgment that the twenty rex dollars were actually received.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Dingwall Pursuivant — a named Scottish pursuivant office within the heraldic establishment; “Dingwall” here is the title of the office.
- Charging delinquents — formally serving persons with legal process requiring appearance or obedience.
- Rex dollar — a silver dollar used as a monetary unit in contemporary transactions.
- Allowance — money authorized toward expenses or remuneration incurred in official service.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, pp. 270–271, Jedburgh, 16–17 October 1684; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
17 October 1684 — James Guthrie, Messenger in Edinburgh: Witness to James Scott’s Bond
Third Series, Volume X • Page 274 • Miscellaneous Paper no. 74
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper no. 74 records a bond by James Scott of Thirlestaine undertaking to appear before the Privy Council when required.
The witnesses include James Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh, and William Strachan.
A second, separately numbered paper on the same printed page—no. 75—also concerns James Guthrie, but in a different capacity. It is retained as the next independent source unit rather than being merged with this bond.
Printed Miscellaneous Paper — Guthrie Passage
74. Bond by James Scott of Thirlestaine to compear before the Council when required; witnesses, James Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh, and William Strachan.
Modern English Rendering
James Scott of Thirlestaine entered into a bond requiring him to appear before the Privy Council whenever he was ordered to do so.
James Guthrie, described specifically as a messenger in Edinburgh, and William Strachan witnessed the bond.
The occupational wording is important. Here James Guthrie is expressly called “messenger in Edinburgh”, whereas other records in the same documentary sequence call a James Guthrie “pursuivant” or “Dingwall pursuivant.”
The record therefore contributes to the identity problem surrounding the various James Guthrie references while preserving the title actually supplied by this document.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bond — a formal written obligation binding a person to perform a specified duty or condition.
- Compear — appear formally before a court or governing body when summoned.
- Messenger — an officer authorized to execute and serve legal process.
- Witness — a person attesting execution or subscription of the document; witnessing does not make that person a party to its obligation.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, p. 274, Miscellaneous Paper no. 74, Jedburgh, 17 October 1684; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
17 October 1684 — James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant: Execution of Summons at Jedburgh
Third Series, Volume X • Page 274 • Miscellaneous Paper no. 75
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper no. 75 records James Guthrie’s execution of a summons at Jedburgh on 17 October 1684. The process was raised at the instance of Mr Charles Gray.
The persons against whom the summons was directed were James Curle in Watt Carrick and John Turnbull, both described as prisoners in the tolbooth of Jedburgh.
Guthrie is expressly styled Dingwall pursuivant in the note of execution and signs the document as “James Guthrie, pursuivant.”
Printed Miscellaneous Paper — Editorial Abridgment
75. Note of execution by James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, on 17th October 1684, of a summons at the instance of Mr Charles Gray against James Curle in Watt Carrick and John Turnbull, prisoners in the tolbooth of Jedburgh.
Signed: “James Guthrie, pursuivant.”
Modern English Rendering
On 17 October 1684 James Guthrie, holding the office of Dingwall Pursuivant, formally executed a summons issued at the instance of Mr Charles Gray.
The summons was directed against James Curle of Watt Carrick and John Turnbull, who were then prisoners in Jedburgh tolbooth. Guthrie certified the execution and signed the document as “James Guthrie, pursuivant.”
This document gives particularly strong occupational evidence because both the editorial description and Guthrie’s own subscription connect him with pursuivant service.
It also follows immediately after Miscellaneous Paper no. 74, where a James Guthrie is styled messenger in Edinburgh. The two papers therefore create an important same-day identity question without requiring the records themselves to be merged.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Note of execution — formal certification recording that legal process had been served or otherwise executed.
- Summons — formal process requiring a person to answer or appear in legal proceedings.
- At the instance of — brought or pursued at the request of the named party.
- Tolbooth — burgh building serving, among other functions, as a prison.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, p. 274, Miscellaneous Paper no. 75, Jedburgh, 17 October 1684; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
18 October 1684 — James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant: Writer and Witness of a Bond of Caution
Third Series, Volume X • Pages 279–280
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The record concerns a bond of caution by Mr Alexander Riddell, described as brother german to Walter Riddell of Neuhous, for Thomas Turnbull of Tofts.
The bond obliged Turnbull to appear before the Privy Council on 6 November. The document was written at Jedburgh by James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant.
Guthrie also witnessed the bond along with Mr Alexander Forbes, writer in Edinburgh.
Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Jedburgh, 18th October 1684.
Bond of caution by Mr. Alexander Riddell, brother german to Walter Riddell of Neuhous, for Thomas Turnbull of Tofts, to compear before the Council on 6th November next.
The bond is written by James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, and dated at Jedburgh, 18th October, 1684; witnesses, Mr. Alexander Forbes, writer in Edinburgh, and the said James Guthrie.
Modern English Rendering
On 18 October 1684 Mr Alexander Riddell, the full brother of Walter Riddell of Neuhous, entered into a bond of caution for Thomas Turnbull of Tofts.
The bond required Turnbull to appear before the Privy Council on 6 November.
James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, wrote the bond at Jedburgh. He also witnessed its execution together with Mr Alexander Forbes, writer in Edinburgh.
This entry expands James Guthrie’s documented activities beyond the physical service of summonses. The printed record expressly states that he wrote this formal bond as well as witnessing it.
It therefore shows that his work could include the preparation of legal paperwork associated with the Council’s proceedings, not merely travel and execution of process.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bond of caution — a formal surety undertaking securing another person’s appearance or conduct.
- Brother german — a full brother, traditionally meaning a brother sharing both parents.
- Compear — formally appear before a court or governing body.
- Writer — in the phrase “written by James Guthrie,” the word describes his act of preparing this document; it is not an occupational title assigned to him in this record.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, pp. 279–280, Jedburgh, 18 October 1684; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
24 October 1684 — Robert Guthrie, Writer in Dumfries: Witness to the Bell Bond
Third Series, Volume X • Page 305
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The document is a bond by George Bell of Goatsbridge for his eldest lawful son, also named George Bell.
The undertaking concerned the younger Bell’s future conduct: he was not to reset or converse with rebels, fugitives or disorderly persons.
The bond was written by William Edgar, writer in Dumfries. Its witnesses were Robert Guthrie, writer in Dumfries, and Edgar himself.
Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Dumfries, 24th October 1684.
Bond by George Bell of Goatsbridge for his eldest lawful son, George Bell, that the latter will not reset or converse with rebels and fugitives or disorderly persons.
The bond is written by William Edgar, writer in Drumfreis, and dated at Drumfreis, 24th October, 1684; witnesses, Robert Guthrie, writer, in Dumfries, and the said William Edgar.
Modern English Rendering
On 24 October 1684 George Bell of Goatsbridge entered into a bond concerning the future conduct of his eldest legitimate son, also named George Bell.
The younger Bell was not to shelter or associate with rebels, fugitives or persons officially regarded as disorderly.
William Edgar, a writer in Dumfries, prepared the bond. Robert Guthrie, likewise described as a writer in Dumfries, witnessed it together with Edgar.
This entry gives a clear occupational and geographic identifier for Robert Guthrie: he was a writer in Dumfries in October 1684.
That description provides a strong identity control for comparison with the two further bonds on p. 316, where a Robert Guthrie appears again in Dumfries only one day later.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Writer — a professional involved in drafting and handling legal documents; the source explicitly applies this occupational term to Robert Guthrie.
- Reset — harbour, receive or shelter, especially a person regarded as a rebel or fugitive.
- Converse with — associate or maintain dealings with.
- Eldest lawful son — eldest son born within a legally recognized marriage.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, p. 305, Dumfries, 24 October 1684; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
25 October 1684 — James Guthrie, Pursuivant: Persons Cited in Four Peeblesshire Parishes
Third Series, Volume X • Page 314
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This record is another large citation list documenting James Guthrie’s work in the autumn enforcement campaign of 1684.
Its heading states that the persons named had been cited by James Guthrie, pursuivant, by 25 October.
The extensive underlying roll is arranged by parish and includes persons from Ettlstoune, Traquhair, Innerleithane and Peibles. Because Guthrie’s evidentiary role is contained in the heading rather than repeated throughout the long list, the Guthrie-bearing passage is presented here rather than reproducing the entire roll.
Complete Printed Guthrie Passage
“Ane list of the persones citted to the 25 of October, 1684, be James Guthrie, pursevant.”
The ensuing list is arranged under the parishes of Ettlstoune, Traquhair, Innerleithane and Peibles.
Modern English Rendering
A list of the persons formally summoned by James Guthrie, pursuivant, up to 25 October 1684.
The persons are grouped under the parishes of Ettlstoune, Traquhair, Innerleithane and Peebles.
This is another direct record of James Guthrie carrying out official field work across multiple parishes. Combined with the earlier October records, it documents sustained rather than isolated service.
It also extends the geographic picture of his work from the Roxburghshire and Berwickshire material into the Peeblesshire district.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Citted — formally cited or summoned.
- Pursevant — spelling variant of pursuivant.
- Parroch — parish.
- Execution of process — formal service or carrying out of legal letters or summonses.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, p. 314, 25 October 1684; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
25 October 1684 — Robert Guthrie, Writer in Dumfries: Witness to the Greirson–Maxwell Bond
Third Series, Volume X • Page 316
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
John Greirson of Barjarg entered into a bond of caution for Charles Maxwell in Nether Keir.
The undertaking required Maxwell and his family to live orderly, refrain from resetting rebels, and deliver such persons to justice rather than sheltering them.
William Edgar, writer in Dumfries, prepared the bond. Its witnesses were Robert Guthrie, writer in Dumfries, and Edgar.
Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Dumfries, 25th October 1684.
Bond of caution by John Greirson of Barjarg for Charles Maxwell in Nether Keir that he and his family shall live orderly and not reset rebels but deliver them up to justice.
The bond is written by William Edgar, writer in Drumfreis, and dated at Drumfreis, 25th October, 1684; witnesses, Robert Guthrie, writer in Drumfreis, and the said William Edgar.
Modern English Rendering
On 25 October 1684 John Greirson of Barjarg became surety for Charles Maxwell of Nether Keir.
Maxwell and his household were required to behave lawfully and not shelter rebels. If such persons came into their power, they were expected to deliver them to the authorities.
William Edgar, writer in Dumfries, prepared the bond. Robert Guthrie, also described as a writer in Dumfries, witnessed it with Edgar.
The record reinforces the professional profile established for Robert Guthrie on p. 305. Within one day he appears again at Dumfries, again expressly styled a writer, and again witnessing a formal bond.
The repetition of name, occupation, place and association with William Edgar provides strong identity continuity for this Robert Guthrie.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bond of caution — formal surety undertaking in which one party guarantees another’s conduct or appearance.
- Reset rebels — shelter, receive or assist persons legally regarded as rebels.
- Writer — legal professional engaged in preparing and handling written instruments.
- Drumfreis — contemporary spelling of Dumfries.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, p. 316, Dumfries, 25 October 1684; bond of caution by John Greirson of Barjarg for Charles Maxwell in Nether Keir; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
25 October 1684 — Robert Guthrie, Writer: Witness to the Corbett Bond
Third Series, Volume X • Page 316
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This is a second, distinct bond printed on p. 316. Andrew Corbett younger in Mossyde of Kellwood provided caution for members of the Corbett family.
Those named were John Corbet elder, John Corbett younger, his son, and Margaret Corbett, his daughter.
The bond required them to keep the laws, live orderly and refrain from resetting rebels. Among the witnesses was Robert Guthrie, writer.
Printed Item — Editorial Abridgment
Dumfries, 25th October 1684.
Bond of caution by Andrew Corbett, younger, in Mossyde of Kellwood for John Corbet, elder, and John Corbett, younger, his son, and Margaret Corbett, his daughter, that they shall keep the laws and live orderly and not reset rebels.
Witnesses include: Robert Guthrie, writer, Robert Doune, merchant, John Lighbodie in Rigsyde, and William Edgar.
Modern English Rendering
On 25 October 1684 Andrew Corbett younger of Mossyde of Kellwood entered into a surety bond for John Corbet elder, John Corbett younger—his son—and Margaret Corbett—his daughter.
The Corbetts were required to obey the laws, behave orderly and refrain from sheltering rebels.
Robert Guthrie, described as a writer, was one of the witnesses, together with Robert Doune, John Lighbodie and William Edgar.
This is not merely another mention within the preceding Greirson bond. It is a separate legal instrument with different principals and therefore requires its own source unit.
Robert Guthrie’s appearance in two bonds at Dumfries on the same date, in the same professional capacity and alongside William Edgar, considerably strengthens the identification of a locally active legal professional.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Cautioner — person acting as surety for another’s conduct or obligation.
- Younger — designation distinguishing a younger namesake, often from an elder relative.
- Reset — shelter or receive a person, especially one legally regarded as a rebel or fugitive.
- Live orderly — conform to the laws and prescribed standards of public conduct.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, p. 316, Dumfries, 25 October 1684; separate bond of caution by Andrew Corbett younger for John Corbet elder, John Corbett younger and Margaret Corbett; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
15 November 1684 — James Guthrie and Mary Nevoy: Linlithgow Church-Attendance Bond
Third Series, Volume X • Pages 339–340
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This bond was entered into by burgesses and inhabitants of Linlithgow on 15 November 1684.
Those bound undertook that they and members of their households would regularly attend the parish church on the Lord’s Day, have their children baptized by the recognized clergy, and live in conformity with the prescribed religious order.
On p. 340, among the people declaring that they could not write, appear James Guthrie and Mary Nevoy, his spouse. William Bell subscribed for them at their command.
Complete Printed Guthrie Passage
Linlithgow, 15th November 1684.
Bond by the burgesses and inhabitants of the burgh of Linlithgow that they and all in their family shall frequent their parish church every Lord’s day, have their children baptised by the orthodox clergy, and live regularly.
Among those who declare that they cannot write and have William Bell subscribe for them appear James Guthrie and Mary Nevoy, his spouse.
Modern English Rendering
On 15 November 1684 burgesses and inhabitants of Linlithgow entered into a formal bond concerning religious observance.
They promised that they and the members of their households would attend the parish church each Sunday, have their children baptized by the recognized clergy, and live according to the required religious order.
James Guthrie and his wife, Mary Nevoy, were among the people who stated that they could not write. William Bell therefore subscribed the bond for them at their direction.
This is the second Volume X document naming James Guthrie and Mary Nevoy together in Linlithgow. The earlier parish list of 14 October records them among persons reported as not observing the prescribed religious ordinances; this later document places the same couple within a formal conformity bond one month later.
It also supplies an unusually useful literacy detail: the document records that they could not write and that another person subscribed for them.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Frequent their parish church — attend the established parish church regularly.
- Orthodox clergy — the clergy recognized by the established church under the contemporary government settlement.
- Subscribed — formally signed.
- At their command — signed by another person on their express instruction because they could not write.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, pp. 339–340, Linlithgow, 15 November 1684; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
27 January 1685 — Walter Guthrie: Oath of Abjuration
Third Series, Volume X • Page 455
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The document records administration of the Oath of Abjuration on 27 January 1685.
Those taking the oath formally repudiated the recently posted declaration of war referred to in the oath and swore that they would not take up arms against the King or royal authority.
Walter Guthrie appears among the persons recorded as taking the oath.
Complete Printed Guthrie Passage
27 January 1685.
Oath of Abjuration in which the subscribers “abhorre, renounce and disowne” the pretended declaration of war lately affixed at several parish churches and solemnly swear that they shall never take up arms against the King or his authority.
Among the persons named: Walter Guthrie.
Modern English Rendering
On 27 January 1685 a group of people took the Oath of Abjuration.
By doing so they formally rejected the declaration of war that had recently been posted at various parish churches and swore that they would not take up arms against the King or royal government.
Walter Guthrie was one of the persons recorded as taking the oath.
The record establishes a precisely dated appearance of Walter Guthrie in the government’s early-1685 oath material.
It is also useful as an identity lead because the entry supplies a personal name but, in the surviving extraction, no occupation, residence, age, parentage or territorial designation.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Oath of Abjuration — formal oath repudiating specified declarations and armed resistance against royal authority.
- Abhorre, renounce and disowne — emphatic legal language formally rejecting the cause or declaration identified in the oath.
- Subscriber — person entering into or formally assenting to the oath.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, p. 455, 27 January 1685; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
24 February 1685 — James and William Guthrie in Stenton: Oath of Abjuration
Third Series, Volume X • Pages 550–551
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This source is a parish list recording persons in Stenton who had taken the Oath of Abjuration by 24 February 1685.
The Guthrie index references divide the two names across the page break: James Guthrie is indexed at p. 550 and William Guthrie at p. 551. They belong to the same Stenton oath list and are therefore treated as one documentary source unit.
The source records both men taking the oath, but states no family relationship between them.
Complete Printed Guthrie Passage
24 February 1685.
List of persons in the parish of Stenton who have taken the oath of abjuration.
Among those listed are: James Guthrie and William Guthrie.
Modern English Rendering
On 24 February 1685 a list was made of people in the parish of Stenton who had taken the Oath of Abjuration.
James Guthrie and William Guthrie were both included among those recorded as having taken the oath.
The record establishes the presence of James Guthrie and William Guthrie within the same Stenton parish oath list in February 1685.
It also corrects the legacy presentation by recognizing that the Guthrie references fall across pp. 550–551, rather than treating p. 551 alone as the source for both names.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Oath of Abjuration — formal oath renouncing specified declarations and resistance against royal authority.
- Stenton / Stentoune — variant forms of the East Lothian parish name found in contemporary records.
- Parish list — locally organized return recording persons within a defined parish for the administrative purpose stated in the document.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume X, pp. 550–551, Stenton parish, 24 February 1685; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1927). Open Volume X at HathiTrust .
Volume X — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume X, covering 1684–1685, brings several previously developing Third Series themes into sharper focus. The strongest documentary cluster concerns James Guthrie in royal process service, while additional records identify a married couple in Linlithgow, a legal professional in Dumfries, the minister at Keir, and Guthries appearing in the government’s oath returns. The reconstructed Finding Aid contains 15 separate source units, including documents that the earlier page had combined because they occurred on the same printed page.
Volume X greatly strengthens the occupational profile of the James Guthrie repeatedly employed in official process work. On 10 October 1684 he is named as the officer who cited delinquents across several Border parishes. Six days later, expressly styled Dingwall pursuivant, he petitioned at Jedburgh for reimbursement of the expenses of his service and received twenty rex dollars in part payment.
On 17 October he executed a summons against prisoners in Jedburgh tolbooth, signing himself “James Guthrie, pursuivant.” On 18 October he wrote and witnessed Alexander Riddell’s bond of caution, and on 25 October another list records persons cited by “James Guthrie, pursevant” in the parishes of Ettlstoune, Traquhair, Innerleithane and Peibles.
The later 3 March 1685 petition adds a striking personal dimension. While attempting to execute Council letters in Argyllshire, Guthrie reported that he had been attacked, severely beaten and wounded and had his trumpet broken. The Council recognized that he had been deforced and transferred execution of the letters to the sheriff of Argyll or his deputies.
References: 170; 234–235; 270–271; 274, no. 75; 279–280; 314.
The James Guthrie records form a strong occupational sequence, but the source descriptions must still be preserved exactly. Miscellaneous Paper no. 74 on p. 274 calls James Guthrie “messenger in Edinburgh”. The immediately following Paper no. 75, dated at the same place on the same day, calls James Guthrie “Dingwall pursuivant”.
The chronological proximity, shared personal name, location and compatible process-serving roles make comparison highly relevant. Other Volume X records repeatedly show a James Guthrie performing closely related work. Nevertheless, the page retains the occupational wording of each individual document rather than silently replacing “messenger in Edinburgh” with “Dingwall pursuivant.”
The same principle applies where the record says only “pursuivant” or “pursevant.” The fuller office title is used only where the printed item supplies it.
References: 274, no. 74; 274, no. 75; 279–280; 314.
Two records establish a useful married-couple profile in Linlithgow. The parish return of 14 October 1684 includes James Guthrie and Mary Nevoy among persons reported as not observing the prescribed religious ordinances. The printed index identifies Mary as James’s wife.
One month later, on 15 November 1684, the couple appear in the Linlithgow bond requiring regular parish-church attendance, baptism of children by the recognized clergy and orderly religious practice. This document expressly calls Mary Nevoy James Guthrie’s spouse.
It also records that James and Mary could not write and that William Bell subscribed the bond for them at their command. That literacy evidence is unusually specific, but it does not establish their ages, occupations, parentage or wider Guthrie lineage.
Three separate bonds within two days establish a compact professional profile for Robert Guthrie, writer in Dumfries. On 24 October he witnesses George Bell of Goatsbridge’s bond concerning the conduct of Bell’s eldest lawful son.
On 25 October Robert appears in two separate bonds on p. 316. The first is John Greirson of Barjarg’s bond for Charles Maxwell in Nether Keir. The second is Andrew Corbett younger’s bond for members of the Corbett family. Robert witnesses both.
The combination of name, profession, place, date and repeated association with William Edgar, writer in Dumfries provides strong continuity. The records establish Robert’s legal-professional activity, but they do not give parentage, age, property ownership or a connection to a particular Guthrie lineage.
References: 305; 316 — Greirson / Maxwell bond; 316 — Corbett bond.
The endorsement on the royal proclamation records that on 12 October 1684 the document was publicly read after divine service before the congregation by “M. A. Guthrie, minr. of Keir.”
Independent ecclesiastical evidence securely identifies the minister as Alexander Guthrie, M.A., formerly minister of Terregles and translated to Keir before September 1681. Earlier RPCS material also places the minister at Keir within the administrative events of 1684.
The identification may therefore be used in metadata and interpretation, while the transcription continues to preserve the wording actually printed in the document. His publication of the proclamation demonstrates performance of an official ministerial duty; it does not establish his private political opinions or motives.
Reference: 255.
The early months of 1685 place several Guthries in government oath returns. Walter Guthrie appears among those taking the Oath of Abjuration on 27 January. The record supplies no residence, occupation, parentage or territorial designation sufficient to identify him further.
On 24 February 1685, James Guthrie and William Guthrie occur in the Stenton parish list of persons who had taken the same oath. The index places James on p. 550 and William on p. 551, but they belong to the same continuous parish document.
Volume IX had already recorded James and William Guthrie together in Stentoune in a parish roll of males above sixteen. That repeated pairing is an important research lead, but neither volume states that they were brothers, father and son or otherwise related. Shared residence and surname remain evidence for investigation, not proof of kinship.
The Volume X reconciliation required two important structural corrections. Page 274 contains two separately numbered Miscellaneous Papers: no. 74, the Scott bond witnessed by James Guthrie, and no. 75, Guthrie’s execution of a summons. They are distinct source documents and therefore receive separate Finding Aid rows and record cards.
Page 316 likewise contains two separate bonds witnessed by Robert Guthrie. One concerns John Greirson and Charles Maxwell; the other concerns Andrew Corbett and the Corbett family. Their shared date, page and witness do not turn them into a single source unit.
Conversely, James and William Guthrie in the Stenton oath return remain one source unit because their two indexed page references belong to a single continuous parish list.
References: 274, no. 74; 274, no. 75; 316 — first bond; 316 — second bond; 550–551.
Volume X does not establish the parentage or wider pedigree of James Guthrie the pursuivant, Robert Guthrie the Dumfries writer, Walter Guthrie, or the two Guthries of Stenton.
It does not prove that every occupationally described James Guthrie in the volume is necessarily one man, although the pursuivant sequence provides substantial evidence for continuity. Nor does the source allow the title “Dingwall pursuivant” to be inserted into records that call him only “pursuivant” or “messenger in Edinburgh.”
Religious conformity records also require caution. Inclusion on a “disorderly persons” list, entry into a church-attendance bond, or taking the Oath of Abjuration records a specific administrative or legal act. None of these sources alone establishes a person’s private convictions, motives or political identity.
The rebuilt Volume X Finding Aid contains 15 separate Guthrie-bearing source units. The inventory was reconciled against the printed volume, its index and surname variants rather than simply reproducing the legacy table. Separately numbered papers and separate bonds remain independent source units, while continuous documents spanning more than one printed page remain together.
Where a very large parish or citation roll contains Guthrie only in its heading or among a long series of names, the detailed card presents the complete Guthrie-bearing passage and enough document context to preserve its evidentiary meaning rather than reproducing unrelated pages of names.
Volume XI should continue watching for the same James Guthrie pursuivant / messenger, particularly records that may clarify whether the occupational forms “messenger in Edinburgh,” “pursuivant” and “Dingwall pursuivant” consistently refer to one officer. Any further account of the Argyllshire assault, his expenses, signatures or associates would be especially useful.
Further Dumfries records may help identify Robert Guthrie, writer and his professional network with William Edgar. Later clerical references may extend the record of Alexander Guthrie at Keir. Linlithgow material should be checked for additional appearances of James Guthrie and Mary Nevoy, while Stenton returns may eventually provide enough evidence to distinguish or connect James and William Guthrie.
Throughout the continuation, occupation, residence, explicit relationship and documentary role remain the controlling identity evidence. Shared surname, shared parish, adjacent names or similar political and religious circumstances do not independently prove kinship or identity.
Basis of synthesis: The conclusions above are drawn from the fifteen detailed Volume X source units linked from this section and from the corrected source-unit boundaries established during reconciliation of the Volume X index and printed records. External identification is used only where separately noted, most notably for Alexander Guthrie, minister at Keir.
Volume XI
Volume XI carries the Third Series through the political and administrative aftermath of the 1685 rising associated with the Earl of Argyll and into the opening months of 1686. Its Guthrie material ranges across legal process, heraldic service, local government, landed obligations, military returns and the taking of the Test.
The most continuous professional record belongs to James Guthrie. Two entries print his surname as Guthery in civil processes during 1685, while December documents explicitly identify James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, executing process upon prisoners. The printed index groups the two legal processes separately from the pursuivant entries, so identity between those documentary profiles will not be assumed without further evidence.
A second important sequence concerns John Guthrie. James Duff’s deposition states that he remembered “one John Guthery aboard” Argyll’s ship. Later government instructions name John Guthrie in connection with Borrowstouness and include him in a list of persons described by the document as having been in the rebellion with Argyll. Another official list names John Guthrie among those indicted in connection with Argyll. The printed index groups these appearances with the John Guthrie who took the Test as a lesser baron of Forfarshire in January 1686.
Other records identify Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh; Walter Guthrie in an Edinburgh Test return; David Guthrie of Carsebank; Robert Guthrie in Eyemouth; and the Laird of Guthrie. The final Justice-of-Peace return contains both Guthrie of Carsbank and a separate bare Guthrie; the printed index identifies these respectively with David of Carsebank and the Laird of Guthrie.
The fully reconciled Finding Aid below contains 14 separate Guthrie-bearing source units. Source units are defined by document boundaries rather than by individual page numbers or the number of Guthries appearing within one document.
Read Volume XI Online
Henry Paton, M.A., editor and abridger, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, LL.D., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, A.D. 1685–1686 (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929).
Citations use the printed pagination of Volume XI. The printed Guthrie/Guthery index on pp. 690–691 has been reconciled against the searchable body text and the legacy Guthrie Genealogy inventory. Variant spellings were searched separately before the Finding Aid was finalized.
Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18–19 | Early 1685 | Laird of Guthrie | Contextual landlord reference in a warrant concerning alleged conventicle activity in Forfarshire: David Nucall is described as tenant to the Laird of Guthrie. The Laird himself is not one of the persons accused in the warrant. |
| 282 | 7 May 1685 | James Guthery | Pursuer in a process against Campbell of Airds; certification granted against Airds and others for non-compearance. |
| 283 | 9 Jul 1685 or shortly before | James Guthery | Party in a separate process with Mr Robert Deanes; the matter is remitted to the President of Session. |
| 305–306 | 22–23 Jun 1685 | John Guthery | James Duff, a teenage cook boy from Borrowstouness who had been aboard Argyll’s ship The Ann, states in his deposition that he remembers “one John Guthery aboard.” This source unit was omitted from the legacy Finding Aid. |
| 331 | 28 Jul 1685 | Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh | Named among persons summoned at the instance of Dame Anna Raitt. None were personally apprehended, so copies of the letters were affixed to their dwelling places. |
| 345–346 | 8 Oct 1685 | John Guthrie | Named in instructions to the herald executing treason process following Argyll’s rising. The herald is directed to inquire about Guthrie in connection with Borrowstouness; he is also named in the accompanying list of persons described by the source as having been in the rebellion with Argyll. |
| 377 | 3 Dec 1685 | James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant | Executes a summons at the instance of the King’s Advocate upon multiple prisoners in the Canongate tolbooth and signs as “James Guthrie, pursuivant.” |
| 383 | 8 Dec 1685 | James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant | Executes an order charging John Andersone, prisoner in Edinburgh tolbooth, to appear before the Council; signs as “James Guthrie, pursuivant.” |
| 428–429 | 1685 | John Guthrie | Named as no. 19 in the official list headed “Highland Laird[s] indy[t]ed for being with Argyll, rebell, 1685.” His name appears on printed p. 428; the list continues onto p. 429. |
| 458 | 12 Jan 1686 |
John Guthrie
Printed index groups him with the John Guthrie linked to Argyll |
Named among the lesser barons of Forfarshire taking the Test during the election of a commissioner to Parliament. |
| 468 | 12 Jan 1686 | Walter Guthrie | Named among subscribers to the Test in the Edinburgh return covering three quarters of the town. |
| 535–536 | 30 Jan 1686 | David Guthrie of Carsebank | Named in the Forfarshire list of heritors recorded as having taken the Test. |
| 599–601 | 16 Feb 1686 | Robert Guthrie, Eyemouth | Named under Eyemouth in the return of Berwickshire heritors and liferenters absent from the troop of heritors. |
| 612–613 | 18 Feb 1686 |
Guthrie of Carsbank;
Guthrie
Printed index identifies these respectively with David Guthrie of Carsebank and the Laird of Guthrie |
Both appear in the same Justice-of-Peace list for the presbyteries of Angus: Guthrie of Carsbank under Forfar, and a separate bare Guthrie under Dundee. The Council’s approval of the appointments continues onto p. 613. |
The printed Guthrie/Guthery index on pp. 690–691 has been checked against the body of the volume and against the legacy Guthrie Genealogy page. Full-text searches found substantive body matches under Guthrie and Guthery. No body results were found for the additional searched variants Gottray, Gottrie, Gotrie, Guthre, Guthere, Gutherie, Guthry or Guthrey.
The audit recovered the omitted John Guthery deposition on pp. 305–306 and corrected several page spans that the legacy page had reduced to single-page references.
1685 — The Laird of Guthrie Named as Landlord in a Forfarshire Conventicle Warrant
Third Series, Volume XI • Pages 18–19
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Council records information that allegedly seditious and itinerant preachers had entered Forfarshire, where field and house conventicles were being held. A lengthy list names ministers, tenants and other persons said to have been present at those meetings or associated with the places where they were held.
Near the end of the list, David Nucall is described as “tennent to the Laird of Guthrie.” The Laird of Guthrie is therefore present in this document only through the territorial relationship attached to Nucall.
The warrant continues onto p. 19, where the Council authorizes the Earl of Southesk, sheriff of Forfar, and his deputies to search for and apprehend the persons named and others found to have attended the conventicles.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
The Lords being informed “that some seditious and vagrant preachers have lately creept into the shire of Forfar, where they have keept feild conventicles, these rendezvouses of rebellion, and house conventicles, to the great disturbance of his Majesties peace and to the debauching of his Majesties good subjects there from their allegiance and obedience, and particularly that the persones underwritten, viz., Mr John Reid alias [blank], a vagrant preacher, Alexander Miln in Newbigging, William Fleeming there, Thomas Watson, cotter there, Thomas and David Rennies, tennents there, Isobel Donaldson, a cotters relict there, Thomas Machane, tennent to the Laird of Pourie, liveing in the West March of Brigty, [blank], Laird of Teilling, Alexander Milne, Nicolas Miln, his daughter, Andrew Kingo, William Fleeming, Thomas Watson, all liveing in Newbigging, tennents to the Lady New Teilling, [blank], Lady Newteilling, Mauld Machane, David Storack, Thomas Kyle, William Nicoll, Thomas Hendry, George Farqharson, Hellen Fentoun, Janet Niccoll, George Kyle, Barbara Fleeming, Andro Mill, Thomas Ramsay, Anna and Jean Smiths, all liveing in the lands of Brigtie under the Laird of Pourie, Margret Baxter, Thomas Baxter, John Ewing, Matilda Smith, Christian Killar, Matilda Falconer, Gilbert Fleeming, Gilbert Falconer, Patrick Justice, Margret Blyth, Margret Scott, Agnes Galloway, Thomas Kyle, Isobel Johnston, Janet Watt, William Nuccall, Hellen Fentoun, Janet Nuccall, Elizabeth Haining, spous to Thomas Miller, Jean Milne, Thomas Ramsay, William Craig, and James Rennie, all tennents to the Laird of Pourie, David Nuccall, tennent to the Laird of Guthrie, Thomas Kyle and John Ramsay, tennents to Gilbert Ramsay of Easter Gaigie, John Kyle, servant to David Steven, liveing upon the lands belonging to the Laird of Fintrie, wer present at the saids meetings, at least the same wer keept upon the ground of their lands and was known to them, and no advertisement given thereof by them conforme to the severall proclamations of Councill,”
they grant warrant to the Earl of Southesque, sheriff of Forfar, and his deputes, immediately to search for and apprehend these persons and such others who shall be found to have been present at these conventicles, wherever they can be found within or without the shire, and to forward them as prisoners to Edinburgh from sheriff to sheriff, and they ordain the magistrates of Edinburgh to receive and detain them in their tolbooth; and they require and command the colonels of foot and captains of horse of the militia of the said shire to allow the sheriff and his deputes such parties as they require, and the adjacent sheriffs and militia are to assist if the persons aforesaid be within their shires, as they will be answerable.
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council had been informed that ministers described as seditious and wandering preachers had recently entered Forfarshire and were holding outdoor and indoor conventicles. The government regarded these meetings as disturbances of royal authority and alleged that they encouraged subjects to withdraw from their allegiance and obedience.
The document then lists numerous people said to have attended these meetings, or to have known that the meetings were being held on their lands without reporting them. Among the people listed is David Nucall, tenant of the Laird of Guthrie.
The Council authorized the Earl of Southesk, sheriff of Forfar, and his deputies to search for and arrest the listed persons and anyone else discovered to have attended the conventicles. Prisoners were to be forwarded from sheriff to sheriff to Edinburgh and detained in the Edinburgh tolbooth. Local militia officers and neighboring sheriffs were ordered to assist where necessary.
This passage explains the otherwise misleading index entry “Guthrie (Guthery), Laird of, 18.” The Laird of Guthrie does not appear here as an accused participant, commissioner or Justice of the Peace. He appears solely because David Nucall is identified as his tenant.
That distinction is essential for both genealogy and legal interpretation. The document supplies evidence of a tenancy relationship connected with the Guthrie estate, but it does not accuse the Laird himself of attending or supporting the conventicles.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Conventicle — an unauthorized religious meeting, often associated in this period with Presbyterian worship outside the established church structure.
- Field conventicle — an outdoor religious gathering prohibited by contemporary government policy.
- Tennent — tenant.
- Relict — widow.
- Tolbooth — burgh building serving, among other functions, as a prison.
- From sheriff to sheriff — transfer of prisoners through successive local jurisdictions until reaching the required destination.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, pp. 18–19, Decreta, January–December 1685, printed register reference p. 117; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929). Open Volume XI at HathiTrust .
7 May 1685 — James Guthery against Campbell of Airds
Third Series, Volume XI • Page 282
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Among the miscellaneous process notes for 7 May 1685 is a short entry concerning litigation brought by James Guthery against Campbell of Airds.
When the process was called, Airds and the other defenders did not appear. The Council therefore granted certification for their failure to compear.
Complete Printed Item
“The proces, James Guthery against Campbell of Airds, being called, certification granted against Airds etc. for not compeirance.”
Modern English Rendering
The legal process brought by James Guthery against Campbell of Airds was called before the Council.
Because Airds and the other defenders failed to appear, certification was granted against them for their non-appearance.
The record establishes James Guthery as the pursuer in a process against Campbell of Airds, rather than as an officer merely serving someone else’s process.
Campbell of Airds is also the person against whom James Guthrie the pursuivant had attempted to execute Council letters in the Volume X record describing his assault in Argyllshire. That overlap creates an important identity and litigation question for further research.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Proces — legal action or proceeding.
- Pursuer — party bringing the legal action.
- Compeirance — appearance before the court or Council.
- Certification — procedural consequence formally following failure to obey a citation or appear as required; the exact legal effect depends on the process.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, p. 282, miscellaneous process note, 7 May 1685; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929). Open Volume XI at HathiTrust .
9 July 1685 — Mr Robert Deanes and James Guthery: Process Remitted to the President of Session
Third Series, Volume XI • Page 283
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Among the miscellaneous Council notes recorded with the business of 9 July 1685 is a brief process entry involving Mr Robert Deanes and James Guthery.
The Council did not determine the dispute in this note. Instead, the process was remitted to the President of Session.
Complete Printed Item
“The proces betuixt Mr Robert Deanes and James Guthery remitted to the Pressident of Session.”
Modern English Rendering
The legal proceeding between Mr Robert Deanes and James Guthery was referred to the President of the Court of Session for further handling.
This is a second 1685 legal-process reference to James Guthery, but it concerns a different opposing party from the Campbell of Airds proceeding.
The printed index deliberately groups pp. 282 and 283 under “James, processes by him”, confirming that the editor treated both as Guthrie references worthy of separate indexing.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Betuixt — between.
- Remitted — referred or transferred to another judicial authority for consideration.
- President of Session — presiding judge of Scotland’s supreme civil court, the Court of Session.
- Proces — legal action or proceeding.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, p. 283, miscellaneous process note, 9 July 1685; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929). Open Volume XI at HathiTrust .
22–23 June 1685 — John Guthery Remembered Aboard Argyll’s Ship The Ann
Third Series, Volume XI • Pages 305–306
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper no. 30 contains declarations by prisoners sent from Glasgow and is dated across 22–23 June 1685.
One deponent was James Duff, aged about fifteen and born in Borrowstouness. Duff said he had been cook boy aboard Argyll’s ship The Ann. His evidence describes the vessel’s preparations and voyage and names several people he remembered aboard.
The deposition begins on p. 305 and continues onto p. 306, where Duff states that he “remembers of one John Guthery aboard.” This Guthery reference was absent from the legacy Volume XI Finding Aid and was recovered during the full-volume audit.
Complete Printed Deposition — James Duff
“James Duff, aged about 15 yeirs of age or therby, born in Borowstounes, who wes cook boy in Argyles ship called The Ann, declares taken on be James Wishart, skiper in the said ship, to goe to Norroway and that they lay fourtein dayes befor Amsterdam before she wes fullie riggd out and the armes were brought in as is mentiond by the other declarators, and being come to Orkney Mr Spense and Mr Blacketter went ashoar out of Argyles own ship and did not return; declares there wes some ministers aboard but does not know any of their names save one Forrester and the skipers brother, Mr George Wishart, and one Mr Alexander Huistic; declares that one Miln wes surgion to the ship and remembers of one John Guthery aboard; declares that Rumbold, Sir John Cochran and Polwart were aboard of the said ship and that one John Roger, who wes a guner and lived at Borowstounes, and Walter Broun were seamen in the ship and left it and came a good way with the declarant and that he left the ship one Munday wes sennight; declares he owns the Kings authoritie and keeps the church and went not abroad out of no principle of phanatisme and hade noe other designe but to win his livliehood and is content to give his oath that he knew nothing of their designe of comeing to Scotland.”
(Signed) “James Duff; Ja. Foulis.”
“This declaration is to be read after the four Dutchmens.”
Modern English Rendering
James Duff, about fifteen years old and born in Borrowstouness, stated that he had served as cook boy aboard Argyll’s ship called The Ann. He said James Wishart, the ship’s skipper, had taken him on for a voyage to Norway.
Duff said the ship lay for about fourteen days near Amsterdam before it was fully rigged and that arms were brought aboard. When they reached Orkney, Mr Spence and Mr Blacketter went ashore from Argyll’s own ship and did not return.
He remembered ministers aboard, including a man named Forrester, the skipper’s brother Mr George Wishart, and Mr Alexander Huistic. A man named Miln was surgeon to the ship, and Duff specifically remembered John Guthery aboard.
Duff also named Rumbold, Sir John Cochrane and Polwart as being aboard. John Roger of Borrowstouness had served as a gunner, and Walter Brown as a seaman. Duff said he later left the ship and maintained that he acknowledged the King’s authority, attended church, had not gone abroad from religious fanaticism, and had known nothing of the plan to come to Scotland.
This is the earliest verified Volume XI source directly placing John Guthery aboard Argyll’s ship. It is therefore central to understanding the later John Guthrie references connected with the 1685 rebellion.
The witness also supplies an important geographical clue: Duff himself came from Borrowstouness and later names other Borrowstouness men associated with the ship. The later October instructions specifically direct inquiry at Borrowstouness concerning John Guthrie and several other men.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Declarant — person giving a formal declaration or deposition.
- Borrowstouness — modern Bo’ness, West Lothian.
- Phanatisme — “fanaticism”; contemporary political-religious language used by the deponent.
- Sennight — a week.
- Cook boy — Duff’s stated shipboard role.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, pp. 305–306, Miscellaneous Paper no. 30, declarations of prisoners sent from Glasgow, 22–23 June 1685; deposition of James Duff; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929). Open Volume XI at HathiTrust .
28 July 1685 — Mr John Guthrie, Writer in Edinburgh: Summons Served at His Dwelling Place
Third Series, Volume XI • Page 331
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper no. 46 is a note of execution by George Affleck, messenger, dated 28 July 1685.
The summons was raised at the instance of Dame Anna Raitt, spouse of Sir Francis Ogilvie of Newgrange, against William Raitt of Halgreen, James Mudie of Arbeikie, George Ogilvie in Lunan and Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh.
None of the persons was personally apprehended. Copies of the letters were therefore affixed to the doors of their respective dwelling places.
Complete Printed Item
“46. Note of execution by George Affleck, messenger, of summons at the instance of Dame Anna Raitt, spouse to Sir Francis Ogilvie of Newgrange, against William Raitt of Halgreen, James Mudie of Arbeikie, George Ogilvie in Lunan, Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, to compear before the Council on 28th July instant; but none being apprehended personally, copies of the letters were affixed to the doors of their dwelling-places. Witnesses, Alexander Grahame in Gourden, and William Rattray, servitor to the said William Raitt.”
(Signed) “Geo. Auchinleck, messr.”
Modern English Rendering
George Affleck, messenger, formally executed a summons raised by Dame Anna Raitt, wife of Sir Francis Ogilvie of Newgrange.
The summons was directed against William Raitt of Halgreen, James Mudie of Arbeikie, George Ogilvie in Lunan and Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, requiring them to appear before the Privy Council on 28 July.
None was found and personally served. Copies of the letters were therefore affixed to the doors of their dwelling places. Alexander Grahame in Gourden and William Rattray witnessed the execution.
This entry provides an explicit professional and geographic identifier: Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh.
It should therefore remain distinct from the unqualified John Guthrie appearing in the Argyll material unless independent evidence establishes an identity between them.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Writer — legal professional engaged in drafting and handling legal instruments.
- Execution of summons — formal legal service of the summons.
- Compear — appear formally before the court or Council.
- Affixed to the doors — form of service used when direct personal service could not be made.
- Servitor — servant or professional assistant.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, p. 331, Miscellaneous Paper no. 46, note of execution dated 28 July 1685; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929). Open Volume XI at HathiTrust .
8 October 1685 — John Guthrie in the Instructions for Treason Process Following Argyll’s Rising
Third Series, Volume XI • Pages 345–346
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper no. 68, dated 8 October 1685, gives detailed instructions to the herald appointed to execute treason summonses following Argyll’s rising.
The herald was directed to work with the sheriff depute of Argyll, verify names, identify dead or executed persons, execute process at market crosses and dwelling houses, maintain proper witnesses and keep a journal of his diligence.
On p. 346, the herald is specifically instructed to inquire while passing through Borrowstouness concerning John Guthrie and several other named men. Immediately afterward, Guthrie is again included in a “List of persons who were in the rebellione with Argyle.”
Complete Printed Item — Miscellaneous Paper no. 68
“68. Instructions to the herauld who is appointed to execut the summonds of treasone against the rebells, heritors in the shyre of Argyle.
“Yow are upon your aryvell at Argyleshyre to mett with the shereff deput and produce your letters, and the shereff deput and yow are to peruse the list of the rebells names in the letters to sie that they be all rightly desygned, and in caice of any ommissione that the same be rectified accordingly.
“(2°) Yow are to gett ane accompt of such in the list as are dead or wer execut and to gett a list of the names of the nearest of kine of these who most lykewayes be cited to the same dyet with the other rebells.
“(3°) Yow are to execut the letters of treasone at the mercat croces of the head burgh of Argyle and Tarbet and such other croces as wpon informatione from the shereff deput legall diligence uses to be done.
“(4°) Yow are to execut your letters at the respective dwelling housses of the rebells and all with the useywell solemnities and a trumpet and your coat displayed and quhat else is requisite in lyke caices belonging to your office.
“(5°) Yow are to have tuo witnesses besydes the trumpet allongst with yow all the way, quho are not only to subscryve your executione bot most be present at the day of compearance to verifie the executiones, becaus the tryall is to proceed in absence of the pannells.
“(6°) Yow are to keep ane exact abreviat and journall in the procedour of your dilligence, that in caice ther be any omission in your executione the same upon perusewell at your returne may be helped.
“(7°) Yow have a list of some of the rebells names heirto subjoyned against whom the probation is not so clear and yow are to try at the shereff deput if he can affoord 2 ore 3 witnesses against these who are to be sent in befor the tryall.
“The haill diligence is to be execut 40 dayes befor the day of compearance in the letters and yow are to be very exact in the haill affair both as to the poynt of forme, the veritie of your executiones and quhat els may concerne this proces, and to returne als speidilie as ye can so as yow may be heir at least a fournight befor the day of tryall.
“Yow are to give full doubles of the letters and affixe the same at the respective mercat croces and at the dwelling house of every rebell and to everie copie the list of assysers and witnesses is to be subjoyned, and if the shereff deput condescend upon any material witnesses against these in the list heirto added these most be also insert in your copies.
“Yow shall lykewayes leave a double of the letters containeing the haill rebells names of Linlithgow, Inverary, Tarbet, and Glasgow.
“Yow are lykewayes as to the haill rebells contained in the letters to execut the same only at the mercat croces of Linlithgow, Glasgow and at the mercat croces of Argyle and Tarbet and at the dwelling housses of such of the rebells as lyves within the saids shyres.
“As to Archibald Campbell of Dana, Alengreg, elder and younger, these being prisoners, ther neids no double given to them till the herauld returne in respect they are to be adduced as witnesses, and that it is fitt in the meantime to cite them as pairties.
“Yow are to inquyre one your way throw Borrowstouness as to John Guthrie, John Rodger, Walter Brown, John Nisbet, [blank] Fleyming and John Jamesone if they had lived in Borrowstouness and to leave a copie ther accordingly and to inquyre for them and all others at the shereffs as aforsaid.”
“List of persons who were in the rebellione with Argyle against quhom the shereff is to furnish probatione.
“Colin Campbell of Blairintibert, elder, quho keept the castle of Allengreg; Mr George Wisheart, preacher; John Guthrie; John Rodger, somtyme in Borrowstouness, who wes guner to the late Argyle; Walter Brown; Captain [blank] Hendrie, captain of the man of war called The Anna; [blank] Campbell of Sonachan; Donald McIlvernock of Armakick; Alexander Forrester of Knockmabreck; John Nisbet; [blank] Fleyming; [blank] Jamesone in Borrowstouness; Archibald Campbell of Auchtemoir, John Gibsone, sone to Andrew Gibsone, merchant in Glasgow; Donald Campbell of Balinabie.”
“Sir, It is expected yow will furnish what probatione yow can against those in the abovementioned list. This from your humble servant. Sic subscribitur, Ro. Coult. For the shereff deput of Argyle.”
Modern English Rendering
The herald appointed to serve the treason summonses was instructed to meet the sheriff depute upon arrival in Argyllshire and check the names of the accused carefully. Errors or omissions in their descriptions were to be corrected.
He was to identify people already dead or executed and determine their nearest kin where necessary. The treason process was to be formally proclaimed at the appropriate market crosses and served at the rebels’ dwelling houses with all required ceremonial formalities, including the herald’s trumpet and displayed coat.
Two witnesses were to accompany him and later verify the executions because trials could proceed in the absence of the accused. He was to maintain an exact written journal of his work and investigate whether sufficient witnesses could be found against people for whom the existing proof was considered unclear.
Copies of the letters and witness lists were to be left at the designated places. Special directions were given for prisoners who might later be used as witnesses.
On his way through Borrowstouness, the herald was specifically ordered to investigate John Guthrie, John Rodger, Walter Brown, John Nisbet, a man named Fleyming and John Jamesone to determine whether they had lived there, and to leave copies of the legal process as appropriate.
John Guthrie was also included in the accompanying list of persons described in the document as having been in the rebellion with Argyll and against whom the sheriff was expected to supply proof.
This document connects the earlier shipboard deposition to the government’s later treason process. In June, James Duff remembered a John Guthery aboard Argyll’s ship. In October, the authorities specifically directed an inquiry concerning John Guthrie at Borrowstouness and included him in the accompanying Argyll-rebellion list.
The Borrowstouness connection is particularly important because Duff himself was born there and named other Borrowstouness men from the ship.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Herauld — herald, here the officer instructed to execute the treason process.
- Letters of treason — formal legal process used in treason proceedings.
- Mercat cross — market cross, a customary place for formal public proclamation.
- Double — copy of a legal document.
- Assysers — assize or jury members.
- Probation — proof or evidence.
- Panel — accused person or defendant in criminal proceedings.
- Diligence — formal execution of legal process and the steps taken in carrying it out.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, pp. 345–346, Miscellaneous Paper no. 68, “Instructions to the herauld who is appointed to execut the summonds of treasone against the rebells, heritors in the shyre of Argyle,” 8 October 1685; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929). Open Volume XI at HathiTrust .
3 December 1685 — James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant: Summons Served in the Canongate Tolbooth
Third Series, Volume XI • Page 377
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper no. 140 records the execution of a summons by James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, on 3 December 1685.
The summons was raised at the instance of His Majesty’s Advocate against thirteen named men and women who were required to appear before the Privy Council that day to answer a complaint.
The individuals were personally served while imprisoned in the Canongate tolbooth. Andrew Ker and James Johnstoune, keepers of the tolbooth, witnessed the execution.
Complete Printed Item
“140. Note of execution on 3d December 1685, by James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, of a summons at the instance of his Majesty’s Advocate against Thomas Wyllie, Robert Montgomrie, Robert Smith, John Hogg, John Gemmell, John Hunter, William Hunter, William Walker, Christian Gemmell, Marion Gemmell, Agnes Howie, Margaret Wyllie, and Margaret Hoge, to compear this day before the Council to answer to a complaint. They were personally served in the Canongait tolbooth, witnesses being Andrew Ker and James Johnstoune, keepers there and others.”
(Signed) “James Guthrie, pursevant.”
Modern English Rendering
On 3 December 1685 James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, formally served a summons issued at the request of the King’s Advocate.
The summons was directed against Thomas Wyllie, Robert Montgomerie, Robert Smith, John Hogg, John Gemmell, John Hunter, William Hunter, William Walker, Christian Gemmell, Marion Gemmell, Agnes Howie, Margaret Wyllie and Margaret Hoge. They were required to appear before the Privy Council that day to answer a complaint.
All were personally served while in the Canongate tolbooth. Andrew Ker and James Johnstoune, keepers of the prison, witnessed the service. Guthrie signed the execution as “James Guthrie, pursuivant.”
This entry gives direct occupational evidence for James Guthrie as Dingwall Pursuivant in December 1685 and preserves his own abbreviated subscription as “pursevant.”
It continues the professional sequence documented in Volumes IX and X, where Guthrie repeatedly appears serving summonses, citations and other Council process.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Dingwall Pursuivant — a named office within the Scottish heraldic establishment.
- Note of execution — formal certification that legal process had been served or carried out.
- Compear — appear formally before a court or council.
- Personally served — legal process delivered directly to the named individual.
- Canongate tolbooth — prison and civic building in the Canongate of Edinburgh.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, p. 377, Miscellaneous Paper no. 140, note of execution dated 3 December 1685; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929). Open Volume XI at HathiTrust .
8 December 1685 — James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant: Order Served on John Andersone
Third Series, Volume XI • Page 383
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper no. 153 records another execution by James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, five days after the Canongate service recorded on p. 377.
The order charged John Andersone, then a prisoner in the Edinburgh tolbooth, to appear before the Council on 9 December.
Andersone was personally apprehended in the tolbooth for service of the order. John Blaickie and George Watsone, indwellers in Edinburgh, acted as witnesses.
Complete Printed Item
“153. Note of execution by James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, on 8th December 1685, of an order charging John Andersone, prisoner (personally apprehended in the tolbooth of Edinburgh), to compear before the Council on 9th inst.; witnesses, John Blaickie and George Watsone, indwellers in Edinburgh.”
(Signed) “James Guthrie, pursevant.”
Modern English Rendering
On 8 December 1685 James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, formally served an order upon John Andersone, who was a prisoner in the Edinburgh tolbooth.
Andersone was personally served and ordered to appear before the Privy Council on 9 December. John Blaickie and George Watsone, both inhabitants of Edinburgh, witnessed the execution.
Guthrie signed the document as “James Guthrie, pursuivant.”
Together with the p. 377 execution, this record supplies two independently numbered December papers documenting James Guthrie actively performing the duties of Dingwall Pursuivant.
His repeated signature form also provides a useful occupational continuity marker for comparison with other Guthrie process records.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Inst. — instant; the current month.
- Indweller — resident or inhabitant.
- Personally apprehended — physically encountered for direct execution of the process; here Andersone was already in custody.
- Pursuivant — junior officer of arms, here carrying out formal legal process.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, p. 383, Miscellaneous Paper no. 153, note of execution dated 8 December 1685; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929). Open Volume XI at HathiTrust .
1685 — John Guthrie, No. 19 in the List of Highland Lairds Indicted in Connection with Argyll
Third Series, Volume XI • Pages 428–429
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper no. 271 is an official numbered list headed “Highland Laird[s] indyted for being with Argyll, rebell, 1685.”
The list begins on p. 428 and continues onto p. 429. John Guthrie appears on p. 428 as no. 19, immediately followed by John Rodger, sometime in Borrowstouness.
This corrects the legacy page, which had cited p. 429 even though Guthrie’s name is actually printed on p. 428. The full source unit nevertheless spans pp. 428–429.
Complete Printed Guthrie Passage
“271. ‘Highland Laird[s] indyted for being with Argyll, rebell, 1685.’”
“1, Sir Duncan Campbell of Auchinbreck; 2, Archibald Campbell, sone to the Lord Neill Campbell; 3, Donald Campbell elder of Parbreck; 4, John Campbell younger of Melfort; 5, Archibald Campbell of Dana, prisoner [this entry deleted]; 6, John Campbell of Knap; 7, Mr Alexander Campbell, advocat; 8, Dougall Campbell of Kilberrie, younger; 9, the deceist Alexander McMillan of Dunmoir; 10, Donald McNeill of Crier; 11, Colin and Duncan Campbells, elder and younger of Blairintibert, prisoners; 12, [blank] Campbell of Carridell, elder; 13, Alexander Campbell of Ottar; 14, Major Henrysone (at Inverary croce); 15, Captain John Fullartoun (at the same croce); 16, Mr [blank] Forester, minister [this entry deleted]; 17, Mr George Wishart, preacher (at the croce as aforesaid); 18, Mr Alexander Haistie (at the croce); 19, John Guthrie; 20, John Rodger, somtyme in Borrowstounes, gunner, Borrowstounes; 21, Walter Brown; …”
The numbered list continues through the remaining names on pp. 428–429.
Modern English Rendering
This document is a numbered government list of people described in its heading as Highland lairds indicted for having been with Argyll in the 1685 rebellion.
John Guthrie is listed as number 19. Immediately after him appears John Rodger, identified as formerly of Borrowstouness and as a gunner.
The list continues across the next printed page with additional named persons.
This is a later documentary stage in the John Guthrie sequence surrounding Argyll’s 1685 rising.
The earlier June deposition remembers John Guthery aboard Argyll’s ship, while the October instructions direct inquiry concerning John Guthrie and Borrowstouness and place him in an accompanying rebellion list. This later numbered paper records a John Guthrie within an official indictment list.
The printed index itself links pp. 306, 346, 428 and 458 under one John Guthrie entry, making the sequence a particularly important research trail within Volume XI.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Indyted — indicted; formally proceeded against by accusation in criminal process.
- Rebell — source wording describing Argyll as a rebel and the rising as rebellion.
- Laird — Scottish landed-proprietor designation; the collective heading does not itself provide John Guthrie with a named estate.
- Croce — cross, here a market cross used for public legal proclamation.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, pp. 428–429, Miscellaneous Paper no. 271, “Highland Laird[s] indyted for being with Argyll, rebell, 1685”; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929). Open Volume XI at HathiTrust .
12 January 1686 — John Guthrie Takes the Test with the Lesser Barons of Forfarshire
Third Series, Volume XI • Page 458
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper no. 324 records the Test taken by the lesser barons of Forfarshire during the choosing of a commissioner to the current Parliament in place of the late Sir David Falconer.
The document is dated at Forfar on 12 January 1686. Among the subscribers appears “Jo. Guthrie.”
Complete Printed Guthrie Passage
“324. Test takin be the small barones att ther choosing of ane commissioner to this present current Parliament in place of Sir David Falconer, ther late commissioner, now deceased,” dated at Forfar, 12th January 1686, and signed “D. Haliburton, presiss; Ja. Carnegie of Finneren; S. Jo. Ogilvy; Johne Wood; G. (?) Auchinleck off that Ilk; J. Carnegy; Wm Durham; Ro. Gardyne; Ja. Ogilvy; J. Gardyne; John Turnbull; D. Hunter; Jo. Ogilvy; R. Young; D. Scott; F. Raitt; J. Dundas; Jon Foulertoun; Jo. Guthrie; Will. Nicolson, clk.”
Modern English Rendering
On 12 January 1686 the lesser barons of Forfarshire took the Test while choosing a commissioner to the current Parliament to replace the deceased Sir David Falconer.
Among the men listed as taking the Test was John Guthrie, printed in abbreviated form as “Jo. Guthrie.”
This record places a John Guthrie among the lesser barons of Forfarshire in January 1686 and records his formal taking of the Test.
The printed index groups this p. 458 appearance with the John Guthrie connected to Argyll on pp. 306, 346 and 428. That editorial grouping creates a significant research connection between the 1685 rebellion material and this later act of formal conformity.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- The Test — statutory oath requiring political and religious declarations of allegiance.
- Lesser barons — smaller landed proprietors entitled to participate in shire political business.
- Commissioner to Parliament — elected shire representative to the Scottish Parliament.
- Presiss — preses; presiding officer.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, p. 458, Miscellaneous Paper no. 324, Test taken by the lesser barons of Forfarshire, Forfar, 12 January 1686; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929). Open Volume XI at HathiTrust .
12 January 1686 — Walter Guthrie Takes the Test in Edinburgh
Third Series, Volume XI • Page 468
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper no. 344 is a copy of the Test associated with a return concerning three quarters of the town of Edinburgh.
The endorsement states that the Test was taken there in January 1686, and the paper is dated 12 January 1686.
Among the long list of subscribers appears Walter Guthrie.
Complete Printed Guthrie Passage
“344. Copy of the Test.
[Endorsed] ‘Report anent three quarters [of the] toune of Edinburgh their taking [the] Test; given in tuelt of January 1686.’”
Among the subscribers: “… John Galbreth; Jo. Somervill; James Booe; James Pringill; Walter Guthrie; Hugh Makculloch; Ja. Cuninghame; John Gairdine; Patrick Stiell; …”
Modern English Rendering
This document is a copy of the Test with a report concerning its administration in three quarters of Edinburgh.
The return was submitted on 12 January 1686. Walter Guthrie appears among the people who subscribed the oath.
The entry gives a firmly dated Edinburgh appearance for Walter Guthrie and records him participating in a civic Test return.
Volume X had already named a Walter Guthrie among persons taking the Oath of Abjuration on 27 January 1685. The shared name and later Edinburgh context make comparison worthwhile, although identity between the two appearances should not be assumed from name alone.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Test — statutory loyalty oath containing political and religious declarations.
- Subscriber — person whose name is entered as formally subscribing the document.
- Quarter — administrative division of the burgh used in organizing the return.
- Endorsed — information written upon or attached to the document identifying its administrative purpose.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, p. 468, Miscellaneous Paper no. 344, copy of the Test and Edinburgh return, 12 January 1686; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929). Open Volume XI at HathiTrust .
30 January 1686 — David Guthrie of Carsebank Takes the Test
Third Series, Volume XI • Pages 535–536
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper no. 443 begins on p. 535 and contains a list of the heritors within the shire of Forfar who had taken the Test in conformity with the thirteenth act of Parliament.
The list continues onto p. 536, where David Guthrie of Carsebank appears near its conclusion.
The paper is dated at Forfar on 30 January 1686 and is signed by Jo. Lyone, clerk.
Complete Printed Guthrie Passage
“443. ‘A list of the heretores etc. within the shire of Forfar who have taken the Test conforme to the thretteinth act of his Majesties Parliament …’”
The list continues onto p. 536: “… Thomas Fothringhame of Powrie, younger; David Grahame of Fintrie, younger; David Lyndesay of Pitscandley; John Clayhills off Innergowrie; Patrick Hay of Baldovie; David Guthrie of Carsebank. Att Forfar the penult day of January on thousand sex hundred four score sex years.”
(Signed) “Jo. Lyone, Cls.”
Modern English Rendering
This paper lists heritors in the shire of Forfar who had taken the Test in accordance with the thirteenth act of Parliament.
Among the landowners named is David Guthrie of Carsebank.
The return was completed at Forfar on 30 January 1686 and signed by the clerk, John Lyon.
This source explicitly combines David Guthrie’s personal name with the territorial designation of Carsebank, making it a strong identification record.
It also establishes his standing among the Forfarshire heritors and creates a direct documentary bridge to the Justice-of-Peace list of 18 February 1686, where “Guthrie of Carsbank” appears under the Forfar section.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Heritor — landed proprietor with a heritable interest in property.
- Carsebank — territorial designation attached directly to David Guthrie in the source.
- Penult day — second-last day of the month; here 30 January.
- Conforme — in conformity with or according to.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, pp. 535–536, Miscellaneous Paper no. 443, list of Forfarshire heritors who had taken the Test, Forfar, 30 January 1686; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929). Open Volume XI at HathiTrust .
16 February 1686 — Robert Guthrie of Eyemouth in the Berwickshire Absentee Return
Third Series, Volume XI • Pages 599–601
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper no. 551 is headed “Ane list of the heritors and lyfrenters that wer absent from the troope of heritores in the shyre of Berricke.”
The return begins on p. 599 and is arranged by parish. It continues through p. 600, where Robert Guthrie appears under the heading “Eymouth.” The document continues through p. 601 with additional Berwickshire parishes.
The source therefore establishes Robert Guthrie’s inclusion among the persons returned under Eyemouth as absent from the troop of heritors on 16 February 1686.
Complete Printed Guthrie Passage
“551. Ane list of the heritors and lyfrenters that wer absent from the troope of heritores in the shyre of Berricke.”
“Eymouth.”
“Alexander Home of Linthill; James Crau of Whittfeild; James Hood; Walter Steuart; James Moeben; George Boumaker; James Cockburne; Robert Guthrie; James Allone; John Andersone; Thomas Broun; Thomas Robertsone; Samuell Lauder his aires.”
The return continues with additional parish sections through printed p. 601.
Modern English Rendering
This document lists landholders and life-rent holders in Berwickshire who were absent from the troop of heritors.
Under the parish heading Eyemouth, Robert Guthrie appears among the persons reported absent.
The record does not state in Robert’s individual line whether he held his interest as an heritor or as a liferenter; those two categories belong to the collective heading of the return.
The entry provides a firmly dated and geographically specific reference for Robert Guthrie in Eyemouth in February 1686.
Unlike a bare surname entry, the parish heading supplies a useful locality for distinguishing this Robert Guthrie from other men of the same name elsewhere in Scotland.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Heritor — proprietor holding a heritable interest in land.
- Lyfrenter / liferenter — person holding the use or income of property for life.
- Troop of heritors — body of landed men required for military or governmental service.
- Berricke — Berwickshire.
- Eymouth — Eyemouth.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, pp. 599–601, Miscellaneous Paper no. 551, “Ane list of the heritors and lyfrenters that wer absent from the troope of heritores in the shyre of Berricke,” 16 February 1686; Robert Guthrie under Eymouth; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929). Open Volume XI at HathiTrust .
18 February 1686 — Guthrie of Carsbank and the Laird of Guthrie in the Angus Justice-of-Peace List
Third Series, Volume XI • Pages 612–613
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper no. 574 is headed “A List of the justices of peace in the presbyteries of the shire of Angus.” It is dated 18 February 1686.
The list is organized by presbytery. Under FORFAR appears “Guthrie of Carsbank.” Under DUNDEI appears a separate bare “Guthrie.”
The printed index resolves the editorial identification: Guthrie of Carsbank is indexed under David Guthrie of Carsebank, while the separate bare Guthrie is indexed under Guthrie (Guthery), Laird of.
At the bottom of p. 612 the Council’s approval begins, and p. 613 completes the act by approving the persons proposed by the Earl of Southesk and appointing them Justices of the Peace for Forfarshire.
Complete Printed Guthrie Passages and Council Approval
“574. A List of the justices of peace in the presbyteries of the shire of Angus:—”
“FORFAR.—Sir John Ogilvie of Innercaretie; Robert Fletcher of Ballinshoe; Pitscandlie; Ballmadies; Dod; Carsgowny; James Ogilvie of Inshewan; John Ogilvie of Kinlatrie; Robert Ogilvie of Wester Auchleuchrie; William Lyon of Eister Oglle; Thomas Ogilvie of Torfachie; Brigtoune; Cairne; Guthrie of Carsbank; Lyon of Wester Oglle; Lyon of Whytwall; Lyell of Murthle; Thomas Brown of Lackway; Bower of Kinetles; Lambie of Dunkenie; John Burne of Dunoon.”
“DUNDEI.—Auchinleck, younger; Grainge; Guthrie; Balgillo; Eister Powrie; Duntroon; Craigie; Innergowrie; Creichie; Lundie; Balbeuchlie; Fintrie, younger; Powrie, younger; Balgeth; Thomas Nairne of Baldovan; Winton of Strickmairten; Scrimsour of Kirktoun; Zeaman of Drybrugh.”
“Edinburgh the [blank] day of [blank] 1686. The Lords of his Majesties Privy Councill, having considered the forgoing list of persons desyred by the Earle of Southesk to be made justices of peace in the shyre of Forfar, doe approve thereof and hereby nominate and appoynt the persons therein mentioned to be justices of peace in the said shyre, with power to them to sitt, vote, act and doe as fully and freely as any other justices of peace of the said shire has done or may doe; and appoynts them to be receaved by the former justices of peace of the said shyre in the ordinar and accustomed maner.”
Modern English Rendering
This document lists people proposed as Justices of the Peace within the presbyteries of Angus.
In the Forfar section appears Guthrie of Carsbank. The printed index identifies this reference with David Guthrie of Carsebank, who had already appeared in the Test return of 30 January.
In the Dundee section appears a second entry consisting simply of Guthrie. The printed index assigns the p. 612 Justice-of-Peace reference under the heading for the Laird of Guthrie.
After reviewing the Earl of Southesk’s proposed list, the Privy Council approved it and formally appointed the persons named to serve as Justices of the Peace in Forfarshire, with the ordinary authority of that office.
This single source document contains two distinct Guthrie references and demonstrates why document boundaries and identity controls are both essential.
The Carsebank entry creates strong continuity with David Guthrie of Carsebank on pp. 535–536. The bare Dundee “Guthrie” is separately associated by the printed index with the Laird of Guthrie.
It also corrects the legacy interpretation of p. 18. The p. 18 reference did not document the Laird’s Justice-of-Peace appointment; this pp. 612–613 document is the actual source for that indexed appointment.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Justice of the Peace — local magistrate appointed to assist in maintaining order and carrying out specified administrative and judicial duties.
- Presbytery — ecclesiastical territorial division used here to organize the shire list.
- Shire of Angus / Forfar — Angus and Forfarshire are historical territorial names used in overlapping administrative contexts.
- Nominate and appoint — formal Council language establishing the office.
- Received by the former justices — admitted into office in the customary manner by those already serving.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XI, pp. 612–613, Miscellaneous Paper no. 574, “A List of the justices of peace in the presbyteries of the shire of Angus,” 18 February 1686, with Council approval and appointment continuing onto p. 613; edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1929). Open Volume XI at HathiTrust .
Volume XI — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume XI, covering 1685–1686, contains fourteen verified Guthrie-bearing source units. The records range from a contextual tenancy reference and civil processes to the aftermath of Argyll’s 1685 rising, heraldic service, Test subscriptions, military absentee returns and appointments to local office. The volume is especially valuable because several individuals recur across multiple documentary stages, while others must remain carefully separated despite sharing the same surname.
The printed index gives two references for the Laird of Guthrie, but they arise from entirely different contexts. On pp. 18–19 the Laird appears only because David Nucall is described as his tenant in a warrant concerning alleged conventicle activity in Forfarshire.
That record does not accuse the Laird himself of attending or supporting the conventicles. The actual Justice-of-Peace appointment belongs to the separate document on pp. 612–613, where a bare “Guthrie” appears in the Dundee section of the Angus list and the printed index assigns that reference to the Laird of Guthrie.
This distinction corrects the legacy page, which had treated the p. 18 reference as the Justice-of-Peace appointment.
Two brief entries in 1685 identify James Guthery in legal proceedings. On 7 May he appears as the pursuer in a process against Campbell of Airds, where certification was granted for the defenders’ non-compearance.
A later entry records a separate process between Mr Robert Deanes and James Guthery that was remitted to the President of Session. The source does not say whether Guthery was pursuer or defender in that second matter.
The printed index groups these under “James, processes by him, 282, 283.” Neither entry gives Guthery an occupation or territorial designation.
The Volume XI index distinguishes the two civil processes from the later entries for James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant. In December 1685 the latter is explicitly named in two separate notes of execution and signs himself “James Guthrie, pursuivant.”
The earlier Campbell of Airds process is particularly suggestive because Volume X had recorded a James Guthrie, pursuivant, being attacked while attempting to execute Council letters against Campbell of Airds. That overlap makes the two profiles highly relevant to one another.
Even so, Volume XI itself does not explicitly say that James Guthery the litigant and James Guthrie the Dingwall Pursuivant are the same man. The distinction therefore remains open pending stronger identifying evidence.
The December records continue the professional sequence already established in earlier Third Series volumes. On 3 December 1685 James Guthrie served a summons upon multiple prisoners in the Canongate tolbooth at the instance of the King’s Advocate.
On 8 December he served another order upon John Andersone in the Edinburgh tolbooth. Both documents explicitly identify him as Dingwall pursuivant, and both preserve his signature in the shorter form “James Guthrie, pursuivant.”
These are separate legal executions and therefore remain separate source units even though they document the same officer performing closely related duties only five days apart.
The full-volume audit recovered an important source missing from the legacy Finding Aid. In the deposition spanning pp. 305–306, fifteen-year-old James Duff states that he “remembers of one John Guthery aboard” Argyll’s ship The Ann.
By October, government instructions direct inquiry at Borrowstouness concerning John Guthrie and several other men. The same document also includes him in a list of persons described by the source as having been in the rebellion with Argyll and against whom the sheriff was expected to furnish evidence.
A later numbered list places John Guthrie as no. 19 among persons indicted in connection with Argyll’s rising. The printed index explicitly groups the references on pp. 306, 346 and 428 under one John Guthrie heading.
The John Guthrie sequence demonstrates the importance of distinguishing one legal stage from another. James Duff’s June statement is witness testimony that he remembered John Guthery aboard ship.
The October document is an instruction to investigate and execute treason process. It explicitly acknowledges that proof against some people required further inquiry.
The later pp. 428–429 document describes John Guthrie within an indictment list. None of those stages should be silently converted into a final conviction or judgment unless another record supplies that result.
On 12 January 1686 a Jo. Guthrie appears among the lesser barons of Forfarshire taking the Test while choosing a commissioner to Parliament.
The body text gives no territorial designation for this man, but the printed index places p. 458 beneath the same John Guthrie heading as the Argyll references on pp. 306, 346 and 428.
That editorial grouping is significant and should be preserved as part of the evidence. It does not alter the narrower wording of the individual source, which records only “Jo. Guthrie” among the Test subscribers.
Reference: 458.
The p. 331 summons provides a clear occupational identifier: Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh.
He was one of several people summoned at the instance of Dame Anna Raitt. Because the persons could not be personally served, copies of the legal letters were affixed at their dwelling places.
Nothing in this record links the Edinburgh writer to the John Guthrie associated with Argyll. The professional designation should therefore remain attached to a separate identity profile unless independent evidence proves otherwise.
Reference: 331.
Walter Guthrie appears among the subscribers to the Test in the Edinburgh return of 12 January 1686.
The printed index describes him as “Walter, in Edinburgh, takes the Test, 468.” The record supplies no occupation, parentage or family connection.
Volume X had recorded a Walter Guthrie taking the Oath of Abjuration in January 1685. The recurrence of the name makes comparison appropriate, but Volume XI does not itself establish that the two appearances belong to the same person.
Reference: 468.
Two records provide unusually strong continuity for David Guthrie of Carsebank. On 30 January 1686 he appears by full name and territorial designation among the Forfarshire heritors who had taken the Test.
On 18 February, “Guthrie of Carsbank” appears in the Forfar section of the Justice-of-Peace list. The printed index explicitly places both references under David of Carsebank.
Together the documents establish a landed Forfarshire identity, formal Test subscription and appointment to local governmental office within a period of less than three weeks.
Robert Guthrie appears under Eyemouth in the Berwickshire list of heritors and liferenters absent from the troop of heritors on 16 February 1686.
The parish heading provides valuable geographic evidence, but the record does not state whether Robert was individually an heritor or liferenter, why he was absent or whether any sanction followed.
His absence therefore should not be interpreted as political disaffection or refusal of service without another source explicitly making that connection.
Reference: 599–601.
The Volume XI audit demonstrates why printed-page verification must precede the Finding Aid. Several legacy citations represented only the page on which the Guthrie name appeared rather than the complete source document.
The correct spans are: pp. 18–19 for the Forfarshire conventicle warrant; pp. 305–306 for James Duff’s deposition; pp. 345–346 for the Argyll treason-process instructions; pp. 428–429 for the indictment list; pp. 535–536 for the Forfarshire Test return; pp. 599–601 for the Berwickshire absentee return; and pp. 612–613 for the Justice-of-Peace list and Council approval.
The audit also recovered the previously omitted pp. 305–306 John Guthery source, bringing the verified Volume XI total to fourteen source units.
The printed Guthrie index on pp. 690–691 proved essential for resolving several identities and correcting the legacy page.
It identifies the p. 18 contextual reference under “Guthrie (Guthery), Laird of”, links the same heading to the p. 612 Justice-of-Peace appointment, groups David of Carsebank’s pp. 536 and 612 appearances, and groups the John Guthrie references on pp. 306, 346, 428 and 458.
Those index groupings are useful editorial evidence, but they do not authorize silently rewriting the wording of the underlying documents. Each detailed record therefore preserves the source designation actually printed in the body.
The Volume XI rebuild is based on the printed title page, printed body pages, the Guthrie/Guthery index on pp. 690–691, HathiTrust full-text search results and comparison with the legacy Guthrie Genealogy page.
Full-text searches produced substantive body matches under Guthrie and Guthery. No results were found for the additional searched variants Gottray, Gottrie, Gotrie, Guthre, Guthere, Gutherie, Guthry or Guthrey.
Fourteen separate Guthrie-bearing source units were confirmed. One source unit—James Duff’s pp. 305–306 deposition naming John Guthery aboard Argyll’s ship—was missing from the legacy Finding Aid and has now been restored.
The strongest unresolved identity question concerns James Guthery in the civil processes and James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant. The Campbell of Airds connection makes the comparison particularly compelling, but a direct identifying source is still needed.
The John Guthrie sequence should also be followed into later volumes. Volume XI’s printed index itself links the shipboard, Borrowstouness, indictment and Test references, but further evidence is needed for his estate, parentage, residence and ultimate legal outcome following the Argyll proceedings.
Further records may clarify the unnamed Laird of Guthrie in these documents, the identity of Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, the family context of Walter Guthrie, and the landed background of Robert Guthrie of Eyemouth.
Throughout the continuation, witness testimony, investigation, indictment, summons, oath-taking, absence from a muster and appointment to office must remain distinct evidentiary categories. None should be converted into a broader conclusion that the source itself does not state.
Basis of synthesis: The conclusions above derive from the fourteen verified Volume XI record cards and the reconciled printed index on pp. 690–691. Editorial index identifications are distinguished from the wording of the underlying source documents wherever the two differ.
Volume XII
Volume XII covers proceedings from 19 February to the end of November 1686, during the reign of James VII. Its Guthrie references chiefly concern the service of legal process and the witnesses who accompanied the executing officers.
James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, and Mr Gideon Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh, appear repeatedly. Other records name Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh; John Guthrie, identified in the printed index as James Guthrie’s son; Alexander Gowthry (?), an Aberdeen goldsmith indexed under Guthrie; and Sergeant John Gwthrie, a petitioner for relief.
Source & Access
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XII, A.D. 1686. Edited and abridged by Henry Paton, M.A., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, LL.D. Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1930.
Nature of the source: Robert Kerr Hannay explains that the formal Acta and Decreta registers cease at Christmas 1685 and do not resume until 1689. Apart from a short section drawn from the register of the Commissioners for Pacifying the Highlands, Volume XII consists principally of Miscellaneous Papers, including draft minutes or “journals.” The surviving record is incomplete, and separate papers may preserve different stages of the same proceeding.
Pagination: References below use the volume’s printed page numbers. Digital viewer image numbers differ from the printed pagination and may vary between copies.
Guthrie Finding Aid
The eleven documents below follow printed page order. A document continuing across two pages appears in one row. The two separately signed notes printed together under Miscellaneous Paper 97 are treated as separate source documents.
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 28 | 23 February 1686 | James Guthrie | Paper 33. Dingwall pursuivant; serves the summons against Mr Edward Wright in proceedings brought by the King’s Advocate and Thomas Henderson. |
| 82 — first note | 3 March 1686 | James Guthrie | Paper 97, first note. James is named as master of John Keith, who witnesses John Sluss’s service of a witness summons on Mr Robert Coult. |
| 82 — second note | 24 February; 1–2 March 1686 | James Guthrie | Paper 97, second note. Dingwall pursuivant; serves witness summonses in the Henderson–Wright proceedings. |
| 84–85 |
19 February 1686; Council decision 4 March 1686 |
Mr John Guthrie | Paper 99. Writer in Edinburgh; named among witnesses summoned in proceedings against Mr Edward Wright concerning alleged forgery, debt, imprisonment, and destruction of an assignation. The later marginal decision refers the civil matters to the Lords of Session. |
| 232–233 | 31 May 1686 | Mr Gideon Guthrie | Paper 385. Messenger; serves a summons on Lewis Nisbet of Drumenie at Allan Glen’s dwelling in Jackson’s Close, Edinburgh, in proceedings brought by Mr Patrick Lyon. |
| 273–274 | 18, 19 & 21 June 1686 |
James Guthrie; Mr Gideon Guthrie |
Paper 462. James executes summonses in John Johnstoune’s complaint against Arthur, Archbishop of St Andrews; Gideon is among the witnesses to the executions. |
| 299–300 | 21 June 1686 |
James Guthrie; Mr Gideon Guthrie; John Guthrie |
Paper 518. James summons Alexander, Archbishop of Glasgow, as a witness. Gideon and John Guthrie witness the execution. The body calls John “the messenger’s son”; the printed index identifies him as the son of James Guthrie. |
| 488 | 13 October 1686 | Alexander Gowthry (?) | Paper 900. Goldsmith at Aberdeen, indexed under Guthrie; named among the parties in Sir Alexander Forbes of Tolquhone’s suspension and relaxation process. |
| 523 | 17 November 1686 |
James Guthrie; Mr Gideon Guthrie; John Guthrie |
Paper 970. James serves a summons against Edinburgh’s provost and other officials. Gideon and John Guthrie witness the execution. John is again called “the messenger’s son” in the body and is identified in the printed index as James Guthrie’s son. |
| 537 | 23 November 1686 | James Guthrie | Paper 997. Dingwall pursuivant; serves a summons on Christian, Viscountess Dowager of Frendraught, and her husband George Moriesone of Bognie at the instance of Lues Crightoune, Viscount of Frendraught. |
| 554 | [25 November 1686] | Sergeant John Gwthrie | Paper 1024. Indexed as John Guthrie; named among the signatories to a collective petition by former officers and soldiers seeking subsistence relief. |
John Guthrie, the witness. On pp. 300 and 523 the body describes John as “the messenger’s son.” In both documents James Guthrie is the officer executing and signing the note, while Gideon Guthrie is one of the witnesses. The printed index explicitly identifies John as son of James Guthrie. The wording of the original record is preserved, while the index supplies the edition’s more specific identification. Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, and Sergeant John Gwthrie are treated separately because these records do not establish that either was the same man.
Editorial dating and name forms. Square brackets preserve the editor’s supplied date for the soldiers’ petition. The question mark after “Gowthry” belongs to the printed edition. The spellings Gowthry and Gwthrie are retained in their respective entries.
23 February 1686 — James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant
Third Series, Volume XII • Page 28 • Miscellaneous Paper 33
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 23 February 1686 James Guthrie, described as Dingwall pursuivant, personally served Mr Edward Wright, advocate, with a summons requiring him to appear before the Privy Council on 4 March. The summons had been raised by the King’s Advocate and Thomas Henderson, merchant in Stirling.
John Dowglas of Edinburgh and John Keith, whom James described as “my servant,” witnessed the execution. The printed note ends with James Guthrie’s name and office.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Modern English Rendering
This record establishes James Guthrie actively performing the duties of a royal pursuivant in February 1686. It also identifies John Keith as his servant, providing a useful occupational association that reappears in the Henderson–Wright proceedings on page 82.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Pursuivant — a heraldic officer who could also be employed in the formal execution and service of royal or judicial process.
- Execution — here, the formal carrying out or service of legal process, not a sentence of death.
- Personally apprehended — personally reached or encountered for purposes of serving the legal document; it does not mean that Wright was arrested in the modern criminal-law sense.
- Compear — to appear formally before a court, council, or other legal authority.
- Indweller — a resident or inhabitant of the place named.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XII, A.D. 1686, ed. and abridged by Henry Paton, p. 28, Miscellaneous Paper 33.
3 March 1686 — John Keith, Servant to James Guthrie
Third Series, Volume XII • Page 82 • Miscellaneous Paper 97, First Note
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This is the first of two separately signed notes printed under Miscellaneous Paper 97. On 3 March 1686 John Sluss, messenger, served Mr Robert Coult, advocate, with a summons requiring him to appear as a witness in the continuing action brought by the King’s Advocate and Thomas Henderson against Mr Edward Wright.
James Guthrie did not execute this particular summons. His connection to the document is through John Keith, one of the witnesses, who is specifically described as servant to James Guthrie, pursuivant.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Modern English Rendering
Although James Guthrie was not the executing officer in this particular note, the record independently confirms his association with John Keith. Keith had already witnessed James’s execution of the summons against Edward Wright on 23 February and was then described by James as “my servant.” Here, another officer describes Keith explicitly as servant to James Guthrie, pursuivant.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Messenger — an officer authorized to serve and execute legal process.
- Witness summons — process requiring a person to appear and give evidence in another proceeding.
- Personally apprehended — personally found and served with the process; the expression does not by itself signify criminal arrest.
- Servant — a service or employment designation. The word does not establish a family relationship.
- Mesengr. — printed abbreviation for messenger.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XII, A.D. 1686, ed. and abridged by Henry Paton, p. 82, Miscellaneous Paper 97, first note of execution.
24 February & 1–2 March 1686 — James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant
Third Series, Volume XII • Page 82 • Miscellaneous Paper 97, Second Note
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The second note printed under Paper 97 records James Guthrie’s execution of the same witness summons on several individuals on 24 February and 1–2 March 1686. Those served included three advocates, two legal servants, and Alexander Monro of Bearecrofts.
All were required to appear before the Privy Council on 4 March and give evidence in the proceedings involving Thomas Henderson and Mr Edward Wright. The note uses the same witnesses as the preceding execution and ends with James Guthrie’s name and office.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Modern English Rendering
Together with the execution of 23 February, this record shows James Guthrie repeatedly engaged over several days in serving process connected with the Henderson–Wright dispute. It gives considerably more occupational detail than a single isolated appearance and demonstrates his continuing function as Dingwall pursuivant in Privy Council business.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Dingwall pursuivant — James Guthrie’s heraldic office title; it should not be read as a statement that he resided at Dingwall.
- Servitor — a servant, assistant, or person acting in another’s service; in legal records it can identify a professional or occupational relationship.
- Bear witness — to attend and give evidence concerning the matter before the Council.
- Witnesses, as in the last — the witnesses were those named in the immediately preceding note: John Dowglas, indweller in Edinburgh, and John Keith, servant to James Guthrie, pursuivant.
- Pursevant — the spelling used in the printed subscribed form of James Guthrie’s office.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XII, A.D. 1686, ed. and abridged by Henry Paton, p. 82, Miscellaneous Paper 97, second note of execution.
19 February 1686 — Mr John Guthrie, Writer in Edinburgh
Third Series, Volume XII • Pages 84–85 • Miscellaneous Paper 99
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This lengthy summons sets out Thomas Henderson’s allegations against Mr Edward Wright concerning a disputed debt, an allegedly forged assignation, imprisonment, and the later destruction of the disputed document. Henderson alleged that Wright attempted to make him liable for a debt owed principally by the late Mr Alexander Wright, used an assignation to obtain caption against him, and later destroyed that assignation.
Mr John Guthrie, identified as a writer in Edinburgh, appears near the end of the summons among those ordered to appear as witnesses. The summons is dated 19 February 1686 and required appearance before the Council on 4 March. A marginal endorsement records the Council’s action on 4 March, when the Lords referred the civil questions to the Lords of Session while reserving matters competent to the Council.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
The complainer raised suspension and relaxation, and also improbation of the said assignation as forged, with concurrence of his Majesty’s Advocate, and being obliged to consign the money, the said Mr Edward took up the consigned money, and in order to prevent the complainer pursuing the improbation took him with caption for the very same sum that he had uplifted, and after seven weeks’ imprisonment the complainer procured a new suspension in regard of the improbation and that Mr Edward had taken up the consigned money.
“But the proces of improbation haveing notwithstanding bein persued by the said Thomas Hendersone, and the Lords of Session having compared the said false assignation which was made holograph because witnesses could not be gotten to so false a deed, with severall other holograph papers under the said Mr Alexander his owne hands, the saids Lords did enclyne then immediatly to improve, but some persone having advertised the said Mr Edward he desyred up the proces to sie and told he should be ready against the nixt calling, whereupon he did immediatly employ severall advocats and others to deall with the complainer, and with John Woordie his friend, who hade lent him money, to take away the said proces, which the said John Woordie accordingly did without the complainers consent, and thereupon the said Mr Edward gave band to the said John Woordie, for one thousand merks, and he the said Mr Edward Wright took up the assignation and having torne it threw it in the fyre and sett his foot upon it and swore with a great oath that it should never ryse in judgement against him any more.”
For this crime he ought to pay to the complainer 10,000 merks of damage and interest, he being not only put to great expense but having lost his trade, he being at the time a trafficking merchant, and his credit being absolutely broken beyond recovery.
Charge is therefore given to Mr Edward Wright to compear before the Council on 4th March; and also to Mr John . . . art, advocate, Mr William Baillie, advocate, Mr Alexander Monro of Beircrofts, advocate, Mr William Hoge, advocate, Mr Robert Coult, advocate, John Woodrie, commissary of Stirling, Thomas Trotter, servitor to the said Mr Edward, Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh, William . . . , town clerk of Stirling, and William Saidler, servitor to the said Mr William Hoge, to compear as witnesses; dated at Edinburgh, 19th February 1686.
(Signed) “COLIN McKENZIE, Cls. Sti. Concilii.”
(In the margin) Edinburgh, 4th March 1686, both parties present. The Lords, having heard the complaint and answers, do in the first place recommend to the Lords of Session to discuss summarily what is civil in this complaint and the reconvention, reserving to themselves thereafter to consider what is competent to be determined by the Council.
Modern English Rendering
After Alexander Wright’s death, Henderson alleged that Mr Edward Wright, advocate, created a false assignation in his own favour for the entire debt, even though only part remained owing. Henderson further alleged that Wright used that document to have him imprisoned and compelled him to grant a heritable bond for a substantially larger sum than was actually due.
Henderson challenged the assignation as forged before the Lords of Session. According to his complaint, comparison of the document with other papers written by Alexander Wright led the Lords toward finding the assignation false, but Edward Wright obtained possession of the disputed paper before the case was completed and destroyed it by tearing it up and throwing it into the fire.
Henderson sought substantial damages. Edward Wright was ordered to appear before the Privy Council on 4 March. A number of persons were also summoned as witnesses, including Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh. The summons was dated 19 February 1686.
On 4 March, with both parties present, the Council referred the civil questions in the complaint and counterclaim to the Lords of Session for summary determination, while reserving for itself whatever matters remained properly within Privy Council jurisdiction.
The entry supplies a clear occupational identification for Mr John Guthrie as a writer in Edinburgh and places him within a substantial legal dispute involving advocates, writers, merchants, and court process. He is not a party accused of the alleged forgery; he was summoned to appear as a witness.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Writer — a professional legal writer or scrivener; often a person engaged in preparing legal documents and conducting legal business.
- Assignation — a transfer or assignment of a right, debt, or claim from one person to another.
- Caption — legal authority for apprehension or imprisonment following specified procedural steps.
- Suspension — a process seeking to suspend or halt enforcement of another legal process.
- Relaxation — release from the legal effects of horning or related process.
- Improbation — a legal action challenging a document as false or forged.
- Holograph — a document written entirely in the handwriting of the person by whom it purports to have been made.
- Reconvention — a counterclaim or reciprocal action raised by the opposing party.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XII, A.D. 1686, ed. and abridged by Henry Paton, pp. 84–85, Miscellaneous Paper 99.
31 May 1686 — Mr Gideon Guthrie, Messenger
Third Series, Volume XII • Pages 232–233 • Miscellaneous Paper 385
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 31 May 1686 Mr Gideon Guthrie, messenger, personally served Lewis Nisbet of Drumencie with a summons in Edinburgh. The process was raised by Mr Patrick Lyon, minister of Rosscobie, and required Nisbet to appear before the Privy Council on 8 June.
The service took place in the dwelling house of Allan Glen, cook and burgess of Edinburgh, in Jackson’s Close. The note continues onto p. 233 with the names of the witnesses and Gideon Guthrie’s subscribed name and office.
The printed marginal heading calls the pursuer Mr Patrick Logan, while the body of the entry reads Mr Patrick Lyon. Both forms are preserved as printed rather than silently harmonized.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Modern English Rendering
Nisbet was personally found in Edinburgh in Allan Glen’s house in Jackson’s Close and was required to appear before the Privy Council on 8 June. The execution was witnessed by Mr Gilbert Piggat, another Edinburgh messenger, and by Andrew Broune and John Carmichell, writers in Edinburgh. Gideon Guthrie’s name and abbreviated office appear at the end of the printed note.
This is a direct occupational record for Mr Gideon Guthrie as a messenger and places him executing formal Privy Council process in Edinburgh. The witnesses also locate him within a professional network of messengers and legal writers.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Messenger — an officer authorized to serve summonses and carry out other forms of judicial process.
- Personally apprehended — personally encountered and served with the legal process in this context.
- Burgess — a person admitted to the civic privileges and obligations of a burgh.
- Writer — a legal writer or scrivener engaged in professional legal and documentary work.
- Messr. — abbreviated printed form of messenger.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XII, A.D. 1686, ed. and abridged by Henry Paton, pp. 232–233, Miscellaneous Paper 385.
18, 19 & 21 June 1686 — James Guthrie and Mr Gideon Guthrie
Third Series, Volume XII • Pages 273–274 • Miscellaneous Paper 462
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Paper 462 records a series of executions carried out by James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, on 18, 19 and 21 June 1686. He served summonses on a number of prospective witnesses in the complaint of John Johnstoune, provost of Glasgow, against Arthur, Archbishop of St Andrews.
The entry also records service on Provost Johnstoune himself on 21 June, requiring him to appear that day and see the witnesses received and further proceedings taken.
Mr Gideon Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh, appears not as an executing officer in this paper but as one of the witnesses to James Guthrie’s execution of the process.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Modern English Rendering
Some of the men were personally encountered; others were served at their dwelling places. Those named included servants of advocates, legal writers, a Writer to the Signet, a Glasgow bailie, and advocates.
On 21 June James also personally served Provost Johnstoune in Edinburgh, requiring him to appear that same day to see the witnesses received and the proceedings continued.
The executions were witnessed by John Clerk, notary in Edinburgh; Andrew Malcolme, his servant; Gilbert McCoull, merchant in Edinburgh; Mr Gideon Guthrie, messenger there; and James Hunter, an Edinburgh resident. James Guthrie signed the note as pursuivant.
This paper places James Guthrie and Gideon Guthrie together in the same legal execution record, but in distinct roles. James is the executing pursuivant; Gideon is one of the witnesses and is specifically identified as a messenger in Edinburgh.
The distinction is important for later records in which both men again appear together. Shared participation in the same professional setting does not itself establish a family relationship.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Pursuivant — a heraldic officer who could carry out formal service of royal or judicial process.
- W.S. — Writer to the Signet, a member of an established body of Scottish legal practitioners.
- Bill Chamber — an office associated with the processing of certain forms of judicial applications and legal writs.
- Bailie — a burgh magistrate or civic judicial officer.
- Personally apprehended — personally found and served with the legal process in this context.
- At their dwelling places — process was executed at the residences of those persons rather than by direct personal service as separately stated for others.
- Servitor — servant or professional assistant.
- Indweller — resident or inhabitant.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XII, A.D. 1686, ed. and abridged by Henry Paton, pp. 273–274, Miscellaneous Paper 462.
21 June 1686 — James Guthrie, Mr Gideon Guthrie & John Guthrie
Third Series, Volume XII • Pages 299–300 • Miscellaneous Paper 518
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 21 June 1686 James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, served Alexander, Archbishop of Glasgow, with a summons requiring him to appear that same day as a witness in the complaint brought by John Johnstoune, provost of Glasgow, against Arthur, Archbishop of St Andrews.
The witnesses to James Guthrie’s execution were Mr Gideon Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh, James Anderson and John Douglas, indwellers there, and John Guthrie, “the messenger’s son.” In the wording of this entry, “the messenger” refers naturally to the immediately preceding Mr Gideon Guthrie.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Modern English Rendering
The execution was witnessed by Mr Gideon Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh; James Anderson and John Douglas, residents there; and John Guthrie, described as the messenger’s son. In this sentence, that description refers to Gideon Guthrie, the man immediately identified as the messenger. James Guthrie signed the execution note in his separate capacity as pursuivant.
This entry is especially valuable because it places three Guthries in a single execution record and preserves a direct relationship statement: John Guthrie is described as the messenger’s son, with Mr Gideon Guthrie immediately preceding him as the named messenger.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Pursuivant — a heraldic officer who could also execute formal legal process.
- Messenger — an officer authorized to serve summonses and other judicial writs.
- Personally apprehended — personally found and served with the summons in this context.
- Indweller — resident or inhabitant.
- Calumnious complaint — wording used in the source for the complaint; it should not be treated as an independent modern judgment on the merits of the allegations.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XII, A.D. 1686, ed. and abridged by Henry Paton, pp. 299–300, Miscellaneous Paper 518.
13 October 1686 — Alexander Gowthry (?), Goldsmith in Aberdeen
Third Series, Volume XII • Page 488 • Miscellaneous Paper 900
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 13 October 1686 John Duff, messenger, executed letters of suspension and relaxation raised at the instance of Sir Alexander Forbes of Tolquhone against several named men, including Alexander Gowthry (?), goldsmith in Aberdeen.
The note then records a formal act of relaxation at the market cross of Aberdeen by delivery of the wand of peace in the name of the person being relaxed. The printed wording is not entirely clear as to which of the preceding parties the pronoun “him” refers to, so the entry should not be expanded into a claim that every named person was individually relaxed.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Modern English Rendering
The note also records that one of the parties was formally relaxed at the market cross of Aberdeen by delivery of the wand of peace to William Mil, messenger in Aberdeen, acting in that person’s name. The printed sentence uses only the pronoun “him,” so this record should not be used to assert without qualification that Gowthry himself was necessarily the person relaxed.
John Duff’s lawful son, also named John Duff, and Thomas Mortimer, writer in Aberdeen, witnessed the execution.
This entry identifies Alexander Gowthry (?) as a goldsmith in Aberdeen, a valuable occupational and geographic marker. The printed index groups the name under Guthrie, while preserving the variant form Gowthry.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Suspension — a process seeking to suspend or halt the effect or enforcement of another legal proceeding.
- Relaxation — formal release from the legal consequences of horning or related process.
- Wand of peace — a ceremonial instrument used in formal acts of relaxation or restoration from outlawry.
- Market cross — a public civic location where proclamations and formal legal acts could be carried out.
- Lawful son — legitimate son.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XII, A.D. 1686, ed. and abridged by Henry Paton, p. 488, Miscellaneous Paper 900.
17 November 1686 — James Guthrie, Mr Gideon Guthrie & John Guthrie
Third Series, Volume XII • Page 523 • Miscellaneous Paper 970
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 17 November 1686 James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, executed a summons at the instance of the King’s Solicitors against Sir Thomas Kennedie of Kirkhill, provost of Edinburgh, several named bailies, the dean of guild, the burgh treasurer, and the masters of the Edinburgh tolbooth.
They were required to appear before the Privy Council on 18 November to answer a complaint. The execution was witnessed by Mr Gideon Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh, John Douglas, indweller there, and John Guthrie, “the messenger’s son.” The wording repeats the same relationship structure seen on p. 300.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Modern English Rendering
They were required to appear before the Privy Council on 18 November to answer a complaint.
The witnesses were Mr Gideon Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh; John Douglas, resident there; and John Guthrie, described as the messenger’s son. As on p. 300, the messenger immediately named is Gideon Guthrie. James Guthrie signed the execution in his separate office as pursuivant.
This second occurrence of the same wording materially strengthens the identification of John Guthrie as the son of Mr Gideon Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh. It is not an isolated grammatical inference from a single document; the same relationship formula appears again in a separate execution note several months later.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- King’s Solicitors — officers acting in legal matters on behalf of the Crown.
- Bailie — a municipal magistrate or civic judicial officer.
- Dean of guild — a senior burgh officer with responsibilities connected with merchants, guild affairs, and aspects of civic administration.
- Masters of the tolbooth — officials responsible for administration or oversight of the burgh prison or tolbooth.
- Indweller — resident or inhabitant.
- Pursevant — the printed spelling of pursuivant in James Guthrie’s subscribed office.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XII, A.D. 1686, ed. and abridged by Henry Paton, p. 523, Miscellaneous Paper 970.
23 November 1686 — James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant
Third Series, Volume XII • Page 537 • Miscellaneous Paper 997
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 23 November 1686 James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, executed a summons at the instance of Lues Crightoune, then Viscount of Frendraught, against Christian, Viscountess Dowager of Frendraught, and her husband, George Moriesone of Bognie.
Both were personally served and required to appear before the Privy Council on 25 November to answer the proceeding. The execution was witnessed by Mr William Gordone, advocate, Thomas Seattone of Brounhill, and James Gray, an Edinburgh resident.
Complete Printed Entry — Editorial Abridgment
Modern English Rendering
Both were personally encountered and required to appear before the Privy Council on 25 November to answer the proceeding. Mr William Gordone, advocate, Thomas Seattone of Brounhill, and James Gray, an Edinburgh resident, witnessed the service.
The printed note concludes with James Guthrie’s name and office as pursuivant.
This is another direct record of James Guthrie performing his official duties as Dingwall pursuivant. Taken together with his earlier appearances in Volume XII, it shows him repeatedly serving Privy Council process across much of 1686.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Pursuivant — a heraldic officer who could be employed in the formal execution of royal or judicial process.
- Dowager — a widow retaining the title associated with her deceased husband.
- For his interest — indicating that the husband had a legal interest in proceedings involving his wife.
- Personally apprehended — personally encountered for purposes of service of process.
- Compear — to appear formally before a court, council, or other legal authority.
- Indweller — resident or inhabitant.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XII, A.D. 1686, ed. and abridged by Henry Paton, p. 537, Miscellaneous Paper 997.
[25 November 1686] — Sergeant John Gwthrie
Third Series, Volume XII • Page 554 • Miscellaneous Paper 1024
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This petition, editorially dated [25 November 1686], was submitted by a group of former officers and soldiers seeking financial support from the Privy Council.
The petitioners collectively described themselves as men who had served the late kings and the reigning monarch and who were now unable to support themselves because of age, infirmity, wounds, imprisonment, banishment, and resulting poverty.
Among the named signatories is “(Sergant) John Gwthrie.” The printed index normalizes his surname under Guthrie.
The endorsement on the petition reads: “For some of the invalid soudiers.” The item does not record a specific allowance to John Gwthrie or establish that money was actually paid to him.
Complete Printed Item
In respect wherof it is hwmbli craved that yowr Lordships wowld bee grasiowslie pleased to tak yowr petitioners sad and deplorabll condition to yowr seriows consideration, being not any longer abll to swbsist, hwmbli craving swch alement as his Majestie and yowr Lordships of his Majesties most honorabll Privie Counsell shall think fitt to apoynt, and yowr Lordships petitioners shall ever pray.
(Signed) (Capt.) Wil. Blair; (Capt.) Ja. Rwssell; (Capt.) Ja. Brown; (thes thre raid in the kings gawrd); (Sergant) J. Ramsey; (Sergant) John Pollock; (Sergant) Ja. Simpson; (Serjant) Dan. Gibsone; (Sergant) Pat. Verter; (Sergant) Johne Grahame; (Sergant) John Gwthrie; (Sergant) Neill Monro; (Cornonet) John Mitchell; (Capt.) John Morisone; (Captean George Monro.”
(On the back) “For some of the invalid soudiers.”
Modern English Rendering
They said they understood that the king intended, from royal bounty and clemency, to provide them with an allowance. They therefore asked the Privy Council to take their condition into consideration and grant whatever support the king and Council thought appropriate.
Among the named petitioners was Sergeant John Gwthrie.
The endorsement indicates consideration “for some of the invalid soldiers,” but this item does not identify which individual petitioners qualified, what sum was authorized, or whether John Gwthrie personally received any payment.
The petition provides a military designation for John Gwthrie as a sergeant and places him among a group of former soldiers seeking government relief in November 1686.
The distinctive spelling Gwthrie is preserved in the printed list, while the volume’s index places him under Guthrie.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Aliment / alement — financial maintenance or subsistence support.
- Sergeant — a non-commissioned military rank; the printed petition spells the designation in several variant forms.
- Cornet — a junior commissioned officer, particularly associated with cavalry.
- King’s Guard — the petition specifically states that the first three captains named had ridden in the king’s guard; that statement should not be extended automatically to every signatory.
- Invalid soldiers — contemporary wording for former servicemen considered disabled or otherwise unable to maintain themselves through ordinary service or labour.
- Editorial date — the date [25 November 1686] appears in square brackets in the printed edition, indicating that it was supplied by the editor rather than appearing in that exact form in the petition itself.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XII, A.D. 1686, ed. and abridged by Henry Paton, p. 554, Miscellaneous Paper 1024.
Volume XII — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume XII is particularly valuable for tracing Guthries working within the legal machinery of Edinburgh in 1686. James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, and Mr Gideon Guthrie, messenger in Edinburgh, recur in several execution notes, sometimes in the same document. The volume also identifies Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh; Alexander Gowthry (?), goldsmith in Aberdeen; Sergeant John Gwthrie; and John Guthrie, described twice in the body text as “the messenger’s son.”
The evidence is strongest when office, document role, relationship language, and later editorial indexing are kept distinct. Several entries that appear superficially similar actually preserve different kinds of evidence.
James appears repeatedly as the officer executing Privy Council process: on p. 28, p. 82, pp. 273–274, pp. 299–300, p. 523, and p. 537. His work includes serving defendants, prospective witnesses, a provost, bishops, civic officials, and members of titled families.
These records show occupational continuity across much of 1686. They do not establish residence at Dingwall. “Dingwall pursuivant” is his office title.
Gideon first appears as the executing messenger in Paper 385, where he personally serves Lewis Nisbet of Drumencie in Edinburgh. He later appears as a witness to executions carried out by James Guthrie.
His repeated styling as messenger in Edinburgh is an important identity control. The records place Gideon and James in the same professional network but consistently distinguish their offices.
John appears as a witness in two separate notes of execution, on pp. 299–300 and p. 523. Both use essentially the same wording: Mr Gideon Guthrie is identified as messenger in Edinburgh, followed by another witness and then John Guthrie, “the messenger’s son.”
In both passages, the body text naturally identifies John as son of Mr Gideon Guthrie. James Guthrie is separately styled Dingwall pursuivant and signs each execution note in that capacity.
The printed index instead calls John “son of James G.” The repeated syntax of the two body passages conflicts with that index entry, so the index identification should be treated as an editorial discrepancy rather than allowed to override the body evidence.
Paper 99 identifies a different John Guthrie as Mr John Guthrie, writer in Edinburgh. He is one of the witnesses summoned in the Henderson–Wright dispute concerning allegations of forgery, debt, imprisonment, and destruction of an assignation.
The record does not print his testimony and does not identify him as a party to the alleged wrongdoing. Nothing in Volume XII establishes that this writer was the same man as Gideon Guthrie’s son.
Reference: 84–85.
Paper 900 names Alexander Gowthry (?), goldsmith in Aberdeen, among the parties in legal process raised by Sir Alexander Forbes of Tolquhone. The volume’s index places the variant Gowthry under Guthrie.
The editor’s question mark should remain attached to the surname. The sentence recording relaxation uses the pronoun “him,” whose antecedent is not explicit enough to prove that Alexander was necessarily the person formally relaxed at the market cross.
Reference: 488.
Paper 1024 names Sergeant John Gwthrie among former officers and soldiers petitioning for subsistence support. The spelling Gwthrie is retained in the printed list, while the index regularizes him under Guthrie.
The hardships described in the petition are collective. The source does not prove that John personally suffered every stated condition, nor does it document a specific award or payment to him.
The following Paper 1025 is a separate draft with a different name list and does not include John Gwthrie. Its additional hardship claims should not be imported into his entry.
Reference: 554.
John Keith appears in the Henderson–Wright execution material as James Guthrie’s servant. On p. 28 James calls him “my servant”; on p. 82 the separate John Sluss execution note identifies Keith as servant to James Guthrie, pursuivant.
These two references reinforce an employment or service relationship. They do not establish kinship.
Paper 122, pp. 99–100, lists Easter Memus among Forfarshire heritors, liferenters, wadsetters, and freeholders absent from royal military service in 1685. The printed index describes the entry as the laird of Easter Memus.
The body, however, gives neither a personal name nor the surname Guthrie. The entry therefore remains a territorial research lead rather than a confirmed Guthrie record for the Finding Aid.
Separate archival evidence concerning the Guthries of Easter Memus may eventually identify the holder securely, but that identification should come from independent contemporary records, not from assumption based on the place-name alone.
Research lead: Volume XII, pp. 99–100, Miscellaneous Paper 122.
The formal Acta and Decreta registers cease at Christmas 1685 and do not resume until 1689. Volume XII therefore depends largely on Miscellaneous Papers, draft minutes or journals, together with a small contribution from the register of the Commissioners for Pacifying the Highlands.
This affects how the volume should be read. Separate surviving papers may preserve different stages of the same proceeding, while a single numbered paper may sometimes contain more than one distinct document, as occurs with the two separately signed execution notes under Paper 97.
The most significant genealogical issue produced by Volume XII is the relationship between Mr Gideon Guthrie and John Guthrie. Two body entries independently use the wording “the messenger’s son” immediately after identifying Gideon as messenger in Edinburgh. Future research should look for additional legal, sasine, testament, burgess, marriage, or occupational records naming Gideon with a son John.
The printed index’s contrary identification of John as son of James should be retained as an editorial discrepancy and tested against additional primary evidence rather than silently discarded.
Alexander Gowthry’s Aberdeen occupation offers another strong research avenue. Goldsmith, burgess, guild, testamentary, and civic records may help identify him and determine whether the uncertain printed surname can be tied securely to a known Guthrie family.
Sergeant John Gwthrie likewise warrants comparison with military and Treasury records, especially if surviving pension, allowance, muster, or invalid-soldier records can establish his service history and whether relief was actually granted.
Easter Memus remains deliberately unresolved. The RPCS territorial reference should be compared with independent land and sasine evidence before assigning the unnamed holder to a specific Guthrie.
Basis of synthesis: The linked record cards reproduce and interpret the confirmed Guthrie source units in The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XII, A.D. 1686, edited and abridged by Henry Paton. The synthesis distinguishes body text, printed index identifications, occupational designations, relationship wording, and unresolved territorial evidence.
Volume XIII
Volume XIII carries the surviving record from December 1686 through July 1689, spanning the closing years of James VII’s reign and the political transition of 1688–1689. The surviving documentary base is unusually important to understand before using individual entries because much of the ordinary Privy Council minute record has been lost.
The confirmed Guthrie evidence is unusually compact. The volume identifies James Guthrie, macer to the Council of Trade, in a detailed 1688 inventory of seized goods, while the Introduction’s Treasury summary records payment in 1689 for the fifty dragoons commanded by Major John Guthrie. These are distinct men appearing in different administrative and military contexts.
Source & Access
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XIII, A.D. 1686–1689. Edited and abridged by Henry Paton, M.A., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, LL.D., Fraser Professor of Scottish History and Palaeography in the University of Edinburgh and H.M. Historiographer in Scotland. Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1932.
Nature of the source: Hannay emphasizes the exceptional importance of the Treasury Register for these years because of the almost complete loss of ordinary Council minutes. Treasury material, Miscellaneous Papers, surviving warrants, and the registers that resume in 1689 therefore have to be read together to reconstruct government activity during this period.
The Treasury record is continuous through 7 January 1689 and resumes on 21 March 1689 under the authority of the Convention of Estates. The Introduction presents that material continuously through the end of July 1689, the terminal point of this volume.
Pagination: References below use the volume’s printed pagination. Roman-numbered Introduction pages and Arabic-numbered body pages form separate sequences. Digital viewer image numbers should not be substituted for the printed citations.
Guthrie Finding Aid
The two confirmed Guthrie references below are arranged in their printed-source order. The first occurs in Hannay’s Introduction and summarizes a Treasury payment record; the second is a complete Miscellaneous Paper in the body of the volume.
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| lviii | 20 June 1689 | Major John Guthrie | Treasury Register summary. A Hamilton precept provides payment for the 50 dragoons of Major John Guthrie. The same passage also records payments for other garrisons and dragoon units during the military reorganization of 1689. |
| 310 | 19 September 1688 | James Guthre / James Guthrie | Miscellaneous Paper 463. James Guthrie, macer to the Council of Trade, inventories a substantial group of seized goods and declares that all except a gun, one pair of pistols, and two swords were delivered into the Council’s office chamber. The heading prints the surname as Guthre; the declaration and subscription use Guthrie. |
Two different source types. Major John Guthrie’s appearance is preserved in the Introduction’s summary of the Treasury Register rather than as a numbered Miscellaneous Paper in the main body. James Guthrie’s record is a complete numbered paper reproduced on p. 310. The two entries should therefore retain their different documentary character in the detailed records.
Name forms. Paper 463 is headed “Seazed be James Guthre,” but the body twice prints James Guthrie, including the concluding “JAMES GUTHRIE, maicer.” Both forms are retained because they occur within the same printed source unit.
Office terminology. James is described as a maicer, the Scots form of macer, to the Council of Trade. Major John Guthrie’s entry is military and identifies his unit through the fifty dragoons for whom payment was authorized. Nothing in Volume XIII establishes a relationship between the two men.
20 June 1689 — Major John Guthrie and His Dragoons
Third Series, Volume XIII • Introduction, Page lviii • Treasury Register Summary
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Robert Kerr Hannay’s Introduction summarizes a Treasury precept dated 20 June 1689 authorizing payment to several military bodies. Among them were the 50 dragoons of Major John Guthrie.
The same entry also concerns the garrison of Ardmillan and the dragoons of Lieutenant-Colonel John Erskine. Major Guthrie therefore appears within a broader sequence of Treasury payments for military units during the first months of the new regime following the Convention of Estates.
Complete Printed Guthrie Passage — Introduction / Treasury Summary
Modern English Rendering
This entry supplies a clear military identification: John Guthrie held the rank of Major and commanded a dragoon unit numbering fifty men in June 1689.
The combination of rank, troop type, unit strength, and date provides a strong basis for searching muster rolls, Treasury payment records, commissions, military correspondence, and later service records.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Precept — an order or warrant authorizing payment or another administrative act.
- Dragoons — mounted troops who could operate on horseback and, historically, also fight dismounted.
- Mustered — formally assembled and recorded for military inspection, strength, or pay purposes.
- Major — a field officer rank, here identifying John Guthrie as commander of the unit associated with his name.
Source: Robert Kerr Hannay, Introduction to The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XIII, A.D. 1686–1689, ed. and abridged by Henry Paton (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1932), p. lviii, Treasury Register summary under 20 June 1689.
19 September 1688 — James Guthrie, Macer to the Council of Trade
Third Series, Volume XIII • Page 310 • Miscellaneous Paper 463
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper 463 records a detailed inventory of goods seized by James Guthrie in his capacity as macer to the Council of Trade.
The printed heading uses the form James Guthre, while the declaration below gives his surname as Guthrie. James states that all of the listed property, except a gun, one pair of pistols, and two swords, had been delivered into the office chamber of the Council of Trade.
The inventory includes furniture, weapons, clothing, textiles, buttons, personal articles, and sealed papers. The item concludes with James Guthrie’s printed name and office designation.
Complete Printed Item
“Six cane chairs, tuo pices midlen lore, i ps. silk creep, a gun, ane pair pistols, a whip, a push, four pair stokins, 1 bottle Hungrys water, halfe a pund snuff, a cabinet, tuo swords, a hat, a table, a large looking glass with an hat cover, twentie three ells of dyed cloath, 19 ells of cloath coloured baze, 59 ells blue ditto, 5 ells ditto, an ell ¾ of Irish freeze, 19 ell ¼ of sarge denneem in 2 peices, 3 peices of green and white drogat, 13 ells of fine busle, 8 ells ½ coloured sarge, 9 ells ¼ of flowr’d silk and worsted (?) stine, eight ell ¼ of fine white sarge, 3 ells ½ of flannen, 17 ells of fingram sarge red, 34 ells ¼ of black cloath, 9 ells ½ of tweele, 6½ ditto finer, ane pair silk stockings, 28 dussan hair buttons, 5 dussan coloured buttons, a gross coloured ditto, five gross stoun grey buttons, hair, 20 dussan small black silk, 10 dussan gold buttons, 4 dussan colourd hair buttons, some letters in a paper seald, an ell black cloath.”
“I, James Guthrie, maicer to the Councell of Trade, do declair that all the abovewritten goods except the gun, ane pair of pistolls and tua sword[s] is all delyvered in to the office chalmer of the said councell, as witnes my hand at Edinburgh this nynteen day of Spetember jmvjc eightie eight yeirs.
JAMES GUTHRIE, maicer.”
Modern English Rendering
The goods included six cane chairs; various pieces and lengths of cloth and textiles; a gun; a pair of pistols; a whip; a pouch; stockings; a bottle of Hungary water; snuff; a cabinet; two swords; a hat; a table; a large looking glass with a cover; silk stockings; large quantities of several kinds of buttons; sealed letters; and additional cloth.
James Guthrie declared that all of the listed property, except the gun, one pair of pistols, and two swords, had been delivered into the office chamber of the Council of Trade. He dated his declaration at Edinburgh on 19 September 1688 and is identified at the end as the Council’s macer.
The entry supplies a precise occupational identification for James Guthrie as macer to the Council of Trade and places him at Edinburgh on 19 September 1688 performing an official custodial and administrative function.
The internal use of both Guthre and Guthrie within the same source unit is also useful evidence for surname variant searching.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Macer / maicer — an officer attached to a court or governmental body who could perform ceremonial, custodial, messenger, enforcement, or administrative duties.
- Council of Trade — the governmental body with which James Guthrie is expressly associated in this document.
- Office chamber — the official room or chamber into which James states the seized goods were delivered.
- Ell — a traditional unit of length used especially for measuring cloth.
- Hungary water — a scented preparation or perfume historically made with alcohol and aromatic herbs.
- Dozen / gross — several quantities in the inventory are expressed in older phonetic spellings such as dussan; a gross equals twelve dozen.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XIII, A.D. 1686–1689, ed. and abridged by Henry Paton (Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1932), p. 310, Miscellaneous Paper 463.
Volume XIII — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume XIII contains only two confirmed Guthrie references, but they are unusually useful because each supplies a clear occupational or military context. One belongs to the administrative world of the Council of Trade in 1688; the other places a Major John Guthrie in command of fifty dragoons during the military reorganization of 1689.
The small number of references also makes this volume a useful example of why the audit process matters. The printed index, full-text searches, variant searches, office-title headings, Introduction, and body text all reconcile without requiring additional speculative Guthrie entries.
Miscellaneous Paper 463 identifies James Guthrie as macer to the Council of Trade and records his handling of a detailed inventory of seized goods at Edinburgh on 19 September 1688.
His declaration states that nearly all of the listed property had been delivered into the Council’s office chamber, with the gun, one pair of pistols, and two swords excepted.
The document is also valuable for surname work because the heading reads James Guthre, while the declaration itself twice uses James Guthrie. The two spellings occur within the same continuous source unit and unquestionably identify the same man.
Reference: 310, Miscellaneous Paper 463.
The Introduction’s Treasury Register summary records a 20 June 1689 precept for payment of the fifty dragoons of Major John Guthrie.
This establishes John’s rank and command at a precise date during the military reorganization following the Convention of Estates. It does not identify his parentage, residence, regiment, or date of commission.
Because the reference comes from Hannay’s summary of the Treasury Register rather than from a numbered Miscellaneous Paper, the underlying Treasury entry remains an important target for further research. It may preserve additional details about muster, command, pay, or service.
Reference: Introduction, lviii.
Nothing in Volume XIII connects James Guthrie, macer, with Major John Guthrie. Their records arise in different institutional settings and in different years.
James is identified through an administrative office associated with the Council of Trade. John is identified through military command. The shared surname alone is not evidence of kinship.
Hannay explains that the Treasury Register becomes especially valuable because of the near-total loss of ordinary Council minutes for this period. Administrative and personal evidence can therefore survive in Treasury accounts and warrants even when no corresponding Council minute remains.
Major John Guthrie’s appearance is a good example: his military command is visible through a payment record summarized in the Introduction rather than through a conventional Council act.
The volume’s index headings for Heralds and pursuivants and Messengers were reviewed because earlier RPCS volumes sometimes identify Guthries only by office or title.
In Volume XIII, those headings point to other named officers and do not reveal an additional Guthrie reference. The two confirmed Guthrie entries therefore remain the complete reconciled inventory on the evidence reviewed.
The confirmed body record itself demonstrates the value of variant searching through the paired forms Guthre and Guthrie.
Searches reported for Guthrey, Guthry, Guthery, Guthere, Gutherie, Gutterie, Guttrie, Gutrie, Gotry, Gottry, and Gothray produced no additional results. The printed Guthrie index likewise identifies only James Guthrie and Major John Guthrie.
Volume XIII spans a period in which the surviving governmental record is uneven. Hannay’s Introduction therefore relies heavily on Treasury material and related administrative records to supplement the surviving Council papers.
The Treasury record is continuous through 7 January 1689 and resumes on 21 March under the Convention of Estates. This documentary break and political transition should be kept in mind when comparing entries from 1688 with those from the spring and summer of 1689.
For Major John Guthrie, the strongest next targets are the underlying Treasury precept, military pay books, muster rolls, commissions, and correspondence relating to the dragoon forces of 1689. These may establish the unit’s muster place, command structure, earlier service, and John’s identity beyond his rank and surname.
For James Guthrie, macer, Council of Trade papers, official commissions, Edinburgh administrative records, and other macer appearances may determine how long he held the office and whether the seizure on 19 September 1688 can be connected to a larger legal or commercial proceeding.
Neither record supplies a genealogical relationship to another Guthrie. Future identification should therefore proceed from occupation, military command, date, place, and independent primary records rather than from surname alone.
Basis of synthesis: The linked record cards reproduce and discuss the two confirmed Guthrie references in The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XIII, A.D. 1686–1689, edited and abridged by Henry Paton, with Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay. The printed index, variant searches, body text, Introduction, and office-title headings reconcile to these two confirmed references.
Volume XIV
Volume XIV continues the Council record through the unsettled year 1689, when Privy Council business repeatedly intersects with Major General Hugh Mackay’s military operations and the movement, provisioning and payment of troops. The Guthrie evidence falls into three distinct settings: John Guthrie of that Ilk acting within the public administration of Forfarshire, John Guthrie named among disabled dragoons receiving financial support, and Major John Guthrie appearing within the Aberdeen magistrates’ account of military communications and expenses.
John Guthrie of that Ilk appears twice in different capacities. A Council missive directs him, with other Angus noblemen and lairds, to receive instructions and cooperate with Major General Mackay; a later wartime damage assessment records him acting with Alexander Carnegie as one of the commissioners for the Forfarshire cess. These are separate records and are therefore retained as separate Finding Aid entries.
Read Volume XIV Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XIV, A.D. 1689. Edited and abridged by Henry Paton, M.A., with an Introduction by Robert Kerr Hannay, LL.D. Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1933.
Volume XIV — Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | 13 September 1689 | John Guthrie of that Ilk Council missive | The Laird of Guthrie is named with the Earl of Strathmore, Lord Glamis and the lairds of Phinhaven and Edzell. They are directed to repair to Edinburgh to receive the Council’s commands and to coordinate local armed men with Major General Mackay. |
| 267–268 | 13 September 1689 | John Guthrie Dragoon • invalid’s payment | Named with James Ramsay as one of two dragoons awarded £29 8s Scots apiece in the Council’s distribution of funds among qualified military invalids. |
| 626–632 |
24 June–20 November 1689 Guthrie item: 20 November |
Major John Guthrie Military correspondence • Article 77 | Within the Aberdeen magistrates’ account of expenses incurred for Major General Mackay’s forces, Hendrie Spence is paid for carrying two expresses from Sir Thomas Livingstone to Sir James Leslie and Major Guthrie at Elgin. |
| 709–710 | 28 August 1689 | John Guthrie of that Ilk Forfarshire cess commissioner • apprising | Acts with Alexander Carnegie, sheriff depute of Forfar, as one of the commissioners for the Whitsunday cess. They receive sworn evidence supporting an assessment of crop damage caused by horses belonging to Colonel Cannon’s forces in Menmuir parish. Guthrie subscribes the record as “Jo. Guthrie of that Ilk.” |
Finding-aid source: Henry Paton, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XIV, A.D. 1689 (Edinburgh, 1933), printed index p.842, checked against the Guthrie-bearing material at pp.14, 267–268, 626–632 and 709–710.
13 September 1689 — John Guthrie of that Ilk and the Angus Military Response
Third Series • Volume XIV • p.14
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Council read a letter directed to the Earl of Southesk and others in Angus. It instructed Southesk to come to Edinburgh with the Earl of Strathmore, Lord Glamis and the lairds of Phinhaven, Edzell and Guthrie to receive further commands.
Southesk was also to notify other noblemen and gentlemen who had been considered suitable at a meeting in Forfar to take up arms. Those men were to join Major General Mackay and follow his orders for the security of the country.
Complete Printed Entry
“The letter underwrittin from the Councill directed to the Earle of Southesk and others therin named read and subscryvit by the President, of quhilk letter the tenor followes:—My Lord, Yours of the second current to the Earle of Craufurd was by him communicat to the Councill, who think fitt that your Lordship with the Earle of Strathmore, the Lord Glames and the Lairds of Phinhaven, Edzell and Guthrie upon sight heirof repair to this place to receive the Councills commands.
Your Lordship is desyred to acquaint the other noblemen and gentlemen heirwith, and to give orders to such gentlemen or others whom your Lordship and the rest of that meeting at Forfarr thought fitt to put under armes on this occasione, that they joyne themselves to Major Generall M’Kay and follow such orders as he shall think fitt to give them from tyme to tyme for the securitie of your countrie and thes Lords (sic) will find to be conforme to what the Duke of Hamilton signified in his last to your Lordship in name of the Councill, by whose warrand also this is signed by your Lordships humble servant. Sic subscribitur, HAMILTONE.”
Modern English Rendering
The Council read and approved a letter sent to the Earl of Southesk. The letter explained that Southesk’s recent communication to the Earl of Crawford had been shown to the Council.
The Council directed Southesk, together with the Earl of Strathmore, Lord Glamis and the lairds of Phinhaven, Edzell and Guthrie, to come to Edinburgh as soon as they saw the letter so that they could receive the Council’s instructions.
Southesk was also to inform the other noblemen and gentlemen concerned and order those whom the Forfar meeting had judged suitable to take up arms to join Major General Mackay. They were thereafter to obey Mackay’s directions as necessary for the security of the country. The instructions were stated to accord with what the Duke of Hamilton had already communicated in the Council’s name.
This entry places John Guthrie of that Ilk among a small group of Angus noblemen and lairds whom the Privy Council expected to participate directly in regional military organization during the crisis of 1689. He is not merely included in a general county list: the named men were specifically ordered to receive Council commands and help bring locally raised forces under Major General Mackay’s direction.
Evidence in Perspective
The wording establishes John Guthrie’s participation in a governmental and military coordination network in Angus. It does not state that Guthrie himself commanded a troop, nor does it record that he personally fought in an engagement.
A later record in this same volume, at pp.709–710, independently shows John Guthrie of that Ilk acting as a commissioner for the Forfarshire cess. Together, the records document more than one aspect of his public responsibilities in 1689, but each remains a separate documentary act.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Of that Ilk: a territorial designation indicating that the bearer’s surname and principal estate shared the same name — here, Guthrie of Guthrie.
- Repair to this place: to come or proceed to the place from which the government was issuing its instruction, in this context Edinburgh.
- Put under arms: to mobilize or prepare men for armed service. The phrase does not by itself establish that every person so designated subsequently fought.
- Sic subscribitur: “thus subscribed,” introducing the signature as it appeared in the underlying document.
Source: Henry Paton, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XIV, A.D. 1689 (Edinburgh, 1933), p.14.
13 September 1689 — John Guthrie, Dragoon, Receives Invalid’s Pay
Third Series • Volume XIV • pp.267–268
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The Privy Council had ordered the magistrates of Edinburgh to provide Captain Thomas Windrame with £2,150 Scots, representing one year’s annualrent on money owed by the burgh to the Invalids. Windrame was charged with distributing the money proportionally among men previously examined and approved as qualified invalids.
After hearing Windrame’s report, the Council allocated different sums to several groups. Ten gentlemen of the guard received the largest individual payments. Two horsemen received £42 Scots each. John Guthrie and James Ramsay, identified specifically as dragoons, received £29 8s Scots apiece. A further fifty-four soldiers received £18 18s Scots each, with the remaining balance assigned to John Banantyne of the guard.
Complete Printed Entry
“The Lords of his Majesties Privy Councill considering that they have ordained the magistrats of Edinburgh to pay in to Captane Thomas Windrame in name and for the use and behoove of the Invalids the soume of two thousand ane hundreth and fiftie pund Scots as a years annualrent of the soume of threttie six thousand punds due by the towne of Edinburgh to the Invalids from Lambes jmvic eightie eight to Lambes jmvic eightie nyne, and that they hade remitted to the said Captane Windrame to make a distributione therof equally and proportionally amongst the severall invalids which are found qualified and approven off by ane act of Councill of the date the sixt day of September last by past;
and the saids Lords haveing this day heard the report of the said Captane Windrame, they ordaine the said Captan Windrame to pay to each of the ten gentlemen in the guard, viz.; Williame Blair, James Russell, George Monro, George Douglas, David Cunninghame, Robert Murray, George Home, Captain Alexander Innes, Livtenant William Hay, and Captain James Collvill, the soume of nyntie four punds ten shilling extending to the soume of nyne hundreth fourtie five punds;
item, to two horsmen in other troops, to witt, James Browne and William Herries, at fourtie two punds apeice being in all the soume of eightie four pund; and to John Guthrie and James Ramsay, dragoones, the soume of twentie nyne punds and eight shilling Scots apeice being in haill the soume of fiftie eight pund sixtien shilling;
and sicklyke to pay the soume of eighteen punds eighteen shilling Scots apeice to each of the fiftie four souldiers afternamed, viz.; Patrick Vertue, Neill Monro, Patrick Rattra, William Grame, Daniall Gibsone, Thomas Darling, Thomas Wilson, Thomas Erskine, James Scot, William Sympsone, John Duff, David Darling, Alexander Gordone, Duncan Campbell, William Hutchesone, James Duff, Walter Reid, John Thomsone, John Abrouch, John Lindsay, James Miller, James Wishart, Alexander Carroch, James Hoge, James Wilsone, James Beattie, Hector M’Lean, John Dumbar, and William Cranstoune, Robert Jack, Andrew Airdes, Robert Douglas, John Bruce, Cuthbert Cullie, Richard Halden, Alexander Archibald, Robert Keltnie, Andrew Andersone, Angus M’Intosh, John Forest, William Forest, John Low and William Waidchope (sic), John M’Lae, Elizabeth Jamesone, relict of Serjant Grame, Isobell Murray, relict of James Dunlope, William Smith, Thomas Darling, William Murray, James Young, John Stevensone, William Allan, William Meldrume and John Thomsone, extending to the soume of ane thousand and twentie punds twelve shilling money forsaid;
amounting the saids soumes abovementionit in the haill to the soume of two thousand ane hundred and eight punds eight shilling; and the saids Lords of Privy Councill doe ordain the said Captain Thomas Windrame to pay the remaineing superplus of the said years annualrent being the soume of fiftie on punds twelve shilling to John Banantyne, on of the gentlemen of the guard.”
Modern English Rendering
The Privy Council noted that it had ordered the Edinburgh magistrates to pay Captain Thomas Windrame £2,150 Scots for the benefit of military invalids. The money represented one year’s interest on £36,000 owed by Edinburgh to the Invalids, covering the period from Lammas 1688 to Lammas 1689.
Windrame had been instructed to distribute the money fairly among invalids who had already been examined and approved by the Council on 6 September. After hearing his report on 13 September, the Council approved the distribution.
Ten gentlemen of the guard were each to receive £94 10s Scots. Two horsemen serving in other troops, James Browne and William Herries, were each to receive £42 Scots. John Guthrie and James Ramsay, described as dragoons, were each to receive £29 8s Scots.
Fifty-four additional soldiers were each to receive £18 18s Scots. Those allocations amounted to £2,108 8s Scots, and the remaining £51 12s Scots from the annual payment was to be paid to John Banantyne, one of the gentlemen of the guard.
The entry identifies a John Guthrie specifically as a dragoon and places him among soldiers formally recognized by the Privy Council as qualified to receive support from the Invalids fund. The monetary award therefore supplies more than a bare military name: it records his military category and his inclusion in an officially approved invalid-support distribution.
Evidence in Perspective
The record does not identify John Guthrie’s troop, birthplace, residence, age or family. Nothing in this entry alone establishes a relationship between this dragoon and Major John Guthrie, who appears later in Volume XIV, or with John Guthrie of that Ilk.
The term “invalid” should also be read in its contemporary military context. The Council had previously determined which applicants were “qualified and approven,” and this entry records the resulting financial distribution. It does not describe the nature, cause or permanence of Guthrie’s incapacity.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Dragoon: a mounted soldier who could travel on horseback and fight either mounted or dismounted.
- Invalid: in this record, a soldier formally approved for financial support because of military incapacity or disability; the entry does not state the individual medical condition.
- Annualrent: interest or annual return payable on a principal sum of money.
- Lammas: 1 August, traditionally used as a term date in Scotland.
- Pounds Scots: Scottish currency. Amounts in this record should not be read as pounds sterling.
Source: Henry Paton, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XIV, A.D. 1689 (Edinburgh, 1933), pp.267–268.
20 November 1689 — Express Sent to Major John Guthrie
Third Series • Volume XIV • Paper 66 • pp.626–632 • Article 77 at p.632
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Paper 66 is an account of money spent by the magistrates of Aberdeen between 24 June and 20 November 1689 on horses, expresses, ammunition, provisions and other military necessities connected with Major General Hugh Mackay’s forces.
The surviving account contains eighty-three numbered articles. Article 77, dated 20 November, records payment to Hendrie Spence for travelling to Elgin with two expresses from Sir Thomas Livingstone. The messages were directed to Sir James Leslie and Major Guthrie.
The printed index identifies the officer named simply as “Major Guthrie” in the account as Major John Guthrie.
Complete Printed Item
“77. Item to Hendrie Spence for goeing to Elgine with tuo expresses from Sir Thomas Livingstoune to Sir James Leslie and Major Guthrie as per accompt is 06 : 06 : 0”
Modern English Rendering
Hendrie Spence was paid £6 6s for travelling to Elgin carrying two express messages from Sir Thomas Livingstone. The messages were intended for Sir James Leslie and Major Guthrie.
This entry places Major John Guthrie within the active military communications network operating in northern Scotland late in 1689. He appears not merely in a retrospective list of officers, but as the intended recipient of current correspondence from Sir Thomas Livingstone.
Evidence in Perspective
The account itself prints only “Major Guthrie.” The personal name John is supplied from the volume’s printed index, which indexes this p.632 occurrence as Major John Guthrie. The distinction should be preserved: the body text supplies the rank and surname; the editor’s index supplies the forename.
Volume XIII had already referred to a Major John Guthrie commanding dragoons in June 1689. The Volume XIV entry is compatible with that identification and shows a Major Guthrie still involved in military affairs in November, but this record does not itself describe his command, regiment or location beyond the fact that an express was being carried to Elgin for him.
The £6 6s payment was made to Hendrie Spence for carrying the messages. It was not a payment to Major Guthrie.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Express: a specially dispatched messenger or communication sent with urgency.
- Accompt: account; a statement of expenditure or money due.
- Article: an individual numbered entry within the larger account.
- Lib. s. d.: pounds, shillings and pence, the monetary columns used in the printed account.
Source: Henry Paton, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XIV, A.D. 1689 (Edinburgh, 1933), Paper 66, pp.626–632, Article 77 at p.632. Printed index, p.842, identifies “Major Guthrie” as Major John Guthrie.
28 August 1689 — John Guthrie of that Ilk Attests Wartime Crop Losses
Third Series • Volume XIV • Miscellaneous Paper 152 • pp.709–710
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Miscellaneous Paper 152 records an assessment made in the parish of Menmuir of grain and fodder lost when horses serving with military forces ate and trampled crops during the summer of 1689. The assessment was made under orders associated with Major General Mackay’s army.
After the individual losses were valued, several tenants appeared before Alexander Carnegie, sheriff depute of Forfar, and John Guthrie of that Ilk. The record expressly describes Carnegie and Guthrie as two commissioners of the sheriffdom for the Whitsunday cess. The witnesses swore that the crops had been eaten and trampled as stated, and Carnegie and Guthrie subscribed the certification.
Complete Printed Entry
“152. ‘The tuentie eight of Agust 1689, in the shierefdom of Forfar and pairochin of Menmoor, aprysed be Robert Sime in Chapelltoun, George Hutcheon in the Maines of Balrounie, Alexander Nevay, Andrew Cobe, John Blacke, William Mustard, Thomas Skair, John Wood, David Sampsone, James Bearne, dwellers in the ground of Balnamoone, of cornes which was eaten and trod doune by the Inglish horses under the comand of Collonell Cannine, Major Generall.
This apprysing don conforme to Generall M’Kayes ordor daitit 23 August 1689.
Item, to James Donne and Margaret Smart three aikers of infeild oats and three rude of outfeild oats which was estimat to tuentie and on bolls ane firlott and two pecks with the fother.
Item, to John Fairweather and Elspet Hill ane aiker of outfeild which was estimat to four bolls two firlots, with the fother.
Item, to George Miller ane firlot with the fother.
Item, to Andrew Gurla ane boll and two pecks with the fother.
Item, to David Scott ane boll with the fother.
Item, to Robert Reid, three pecks with the fother. 28 : 1 : 3 : 0
All these wer tenants to the Laird of Balnamoone, and ther loss is in generall tuentie eight bolls ane firlot and three pecks, as witnesses ther hands who wer the aprysers and abovementioned undersubscrivers.
Aprysed be the same men above mentioned of cornes lykwayes eaten and trod doune be the forsaid horses att the same tyme.
Item, to Alexander Stott in the Maines of Balyordie four aiker three rude of outfeild oats which was estimat to tuentie four bolls with the fother.
Item, to Alexander Fairweather in Littell Cruake four aiker and ane half of oats which was estimat to tuentie seven bolls with the fother.
These wer tenants to Anna Barclay, relict to unquhile Robert Simmer of Balyordie, and ther loss is in generall fiftie and on bolls with the fother, as witnesses ther hands who wer the aprysers above mentioned. 51 : 0 : 0 : 0
(Signed) Robertt Syme, Androw Cobe, Alexr. Nevay, Thomas Skear, D. Sampsone, James Bearne, I.B. his marke, W.M. his mark, I.W. his mark, G.H. his marke.’
‘Thes are to testifie and declare that James Don, John Fairweather, Georg Milnar, Andrew Gowrlaw, David Scott, Robert Reid, tennents to the Laird of Balnamoon in the parochin of Menmuire, Alexander Stote in Maynes of Balyeordie and Alexander Fairweather in Litle Cruak, appeared befor ws Alexander Carnegi, shireff depute of the shirefdome of Forfar, and John Guthrie of that Ilk, tuo of the commissioners of the said shirefdome for the Witsundayes cess last past, and on ther oaths depond that they had apprysed as eatin and trod doune of ther cornes be the persones apprysers within named, the particular quantities within mentioned, witnesseth our subscriptions putt hierto. (Signed) Alex. Carnegy, Jo. Guthrie of that Ilk.’
(On the back) ‘Account and appretiatioune of what cornes wes eaten and destroyed be Sir John Leneirs redgiement and uthers to the particular tenents belonging to Balnamoone and Ballzordie within the pariochin of Menmuir and shireffdoom off Angus in the moneths of June, July, August and September and October 1689, ut intus.’”
Modern English Rendering
On 28 August 1689, a group of local men in the parish of Menmuir, Forfarshire, assessed crops that had been eaten or trampled by military horses. The assessment was made under an order issued by Major General Mackay on 23 August.
The assessors calculated losses suffered by tenants of the Laird of Balnamoon and by tenants associated with Balyeordie. The damage consisted principally of oats, other grain and fodder. The individual quantities were recorded and totalled for the affected holdings.
The tenants later appeared before Alexander Carnegie, sheriff depute of Forfar, and John Guthrie of that Ilk, who are expressly identified as two commissioners of the sheriffdom for the most recent Whitsunday cess. On oath, the tenants affirmed that the named assessors had valued the amounts of grain eaten and trampled as stated in the document.
Carnegie and Guthrie certified the evidence by subscribing the record. Guthrie signed as “Jo. Guthrie of that Ilk.”
A docket on the reverse describes the paper as an account and valuation of crops eaten and destroyed by Sir John Lanier’s regiment and other forces among tenants of Balnamoon and Balyeordie in Menmuir parish during the months June through October 1689.
This is unusually useful evidence for John Guthrie of that Ilk’s public activity. Rather than merely listing him among county commissioners, the document shows him actually exercising that authority: local tenants appeared before him, gave sworn evidence, and he subscribed the resulting certification.
Evidence in Perspective
The document identifies Guthrie as one of the commissioners “for the Witsundayes cess last past.” It therefore provides direct evidence that he was functioning in the fiscal and administrative machinery of Forfarshire during 1689.
His role here was not to assess the crops personally. The named local men performed the original apprising. Guthrie and Alexander Carnegie later received the sworn confirmation of those assessments and authenticated the resulting record.
The record also preserves several distinct stages of evidence: military damage was alleged and measured locally; named assessors valued the losses; tenants then swore before the commissioners that those valuations had been made; and Carnegie and Guthrie certified that sworn testimony. The document does not by itself establish that the government had already reimbursed the tenants.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Apprising / appretiation: an assessment or valuation of loss or damage.
- Cess: a public assessment or tax, particularly one levied for governmental or military purposes.
- Whitsunday: one of the traditional Scottish term dates; here used to identify the relevant cess assessment.
- Sheriff depute: the officer who exercised the sheriff’s judicial and administrative authority locally.
- Relict: widow.
- Unquhile: deceased; literally “late” or formerly.
- Fother: fodder.
- Ut intus: “as within,” indicating that the endorsement refers to the contents of the document.
Source: Henry Paton, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XIV, A.D. 1689 (Edinburgh, 1933), Miscellaneous Paper 152, pp.709–710.
Volume XIV — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume XIV places several Guthries within the governmental and military structures of Scotland in 1689. The records do not form a single family narrative, but together they document public service, military activity, financial support for soldiers, county administration and the practical consequences of campaigning in Angus and the north-east.
Two separate records show John Guthrie of that Ilk participating in county-level government. On p.14 he is among Angus lairds directed to receive Council commands and help coordinate local armed men with Major General Mackay. At pp.709–710 he appears in a different role, acting with Alexander Carnegie as a commissioner for the Forfarshire cess and receiving sworn evidence concerning wartime crop damage.
The John Guthrie named among the invalid dragoons at pp.267–268 is not identified by estate, residence or kinship. The record establishes that he was a dragoon formally approved to receive invalid-support money, but it does not support linking him to John Guthrie of that Ilk or to Major John Guthrie.
Paper 66 records an express sent from Sir Thomas Livingstone to Sir James Leslie and Major Guthrie on 20 November 1689. The body text names only “Major Guthrie,” while the printed index identifies him as Major John Guthrie. This continues the documentary trail of a Major John Guthrie already seen in Volume XIII, but Volume XIV should stand as separate evidence rather than as proof that every military reference belongs to one continuous episode.
The Menmuir apprising is particularly valuable because it preserves the local administrative aftermath of military movement. Crops were eaten and trampled, losses were assessed, tenants swore to the valuation, and commissioners authenticated the evidence. Guthrie’s role appears within that chain of civil procedure rather than within combat itself.
Source basis: Henry Paton, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XIV, A.D. 1689 (Edinburgh, 1933), Guthrie-bearing material at p.14, pp.267–268, Paper 66 at pp.626–632, and Miscellaneous Paper 152 at pp.709–710, checked against the printed index at p.842.
Volume XV
Volume XV preserves a particularly varied group of Guthrie records during the consolidation of William and Mary’s government. John Guthrie of that Ilk appears through imprisonment, accusation, release after taking the oath of allegiance, and later caution arrangements. Major Guthrie appears in evidence concerning both an arrest carried out by his dragoons and losses attributed to his troops.
Other entries document Mr Alexander Guthrie, minister at Hoddam; James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant; Mr John Guthrie, writer; and John Guthrie, notary public and town clerk of Anstruther Easter. Together these records distinguish several unrelated occupational and public roles rather than presenting a single Guthrie family group.
Read Volume XV Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XV, A.D. 1690. Edited by Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, D.Litt. Edinburgh: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1967.
Volume XV — Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62 | Early February 1690 | John Guthrie of that Ilk Complaint admitted to probation • imprisonment | Named with Durham of Omachie and others in a Crown complaint concerning drinking the late King James’s health at a bridal. The complaint was admitted to proof and the defenders were committed to prison pending examination of witnesses. |
| 64–65 | 6 February 1690 | John Guthrie of that Ilk Riot / sedition complaint • judgment | The Crown alleged that Guthrie and others had participated in a bridal gathering at which the late King James’s health was drunk. After considering the evidence, the Council found the charge proven against Durham of Omachie and William Grame, but the printed judgment does not record a finding against Guthrie. |
| 79 | 1690 | John Guthrie of that Ilk Petition for liberation • oath of allegiance | Guthrie and John Grame, son of the Laird of Duntruine, petition for release from the Edinburgh tolbooth. Having sworn and signed the oath of allegiance, they are ordered to be set at liberty. |
| 425 | 1690 | John Guthrie of that Ilk Caution arrangement | A Council committee considering persons under bail accepts Lindsay of Cairnie as cautioner for the Laird of Guthrie under a penalty of £500 sterling. |
| 604 | 1690 | Mr Alexander Guthrie, minister at Hoddam Ministerial stipend petition | Guthrie recounts his conformity to the government of William and Mary, his disturbance from Hoddam in March 1690, and his continuing claim to the parish stipend. The Council declares his right to the stipend for past and future terms during his incumbency. |
| 613 | Arrest: 8 March 1690 | Major Guthrie Military arrest order | Alexander Gordon of Auchintoul states that he was taken prisoner by a troop of dragoons acting under Major Guthrie’s order and carried first to Turriff and then to Aberdeen. |
| 631–632 |
Declaration: 10 February 1690 Event: late August 1689 |
Major Guthrie Military quartering • crop damage | John Strachan of Kincardine O’Neil declares that Major Guthrie’s troops, together with the Master of Forbes’s troop, quartered in the town several times and caused assessed losses to its crops. |
| 698 | 19 August 1690 | John Guthrie Notary public • town clerk of Anstruther Easter | Named among the magistrates, councillors and officers signing an extract assurance in the burgh court of Anstruther Easter. Guthrie, identified as notary public and town clerk, signs the extract. |
| 714 | 28 June 1690 | James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant Cautioner and lawburrows | Acts with Mr Alexander Craufurd as cautioner and lawburrows for members of the Holyday family and others. Guthrie’s own subscription is separately witnessed. |
| 728 | 16 August 1690 | Mr John Guthrie, writer Cautioner | Serves as cautioner for Mr John Fullertoune, chaplain to Viscount Oxenfoord, under a penalty of 500 merks. |
| 730 | 5 September 1690 | John Guthrie of that Ilk Bond of caution | John Guthrie of that Ilk gives bond with Henry Lindsay of Cairne as cautioner under a penalty of £500 sterling. A later marginal note records that the bond was given up by committee order concerning bails on 22 June 1692. |
Finding-aid source: Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XV, A.D. 1690 (Edinburgh, 1967), Guthrie index p.784 and Notaries Public index p.821, checked against the Guthrie-bearing records at pp.62, 64–65, 79, 425, 604, 613, 631–632, 698, 714, 728 and 730. No Guthrie references were found in the introductory sections, and the searched surname variants produced no additional records.
Early February 1690 — John Guthrie of that Ilk Committed Pending Proof
Third Series • Volume XV • p.62
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The King’s Advocate pursued a complaint against Durham of Omachie, the Laird of Guthrie and others arising from allegations concerning a bridal gathering and the drinking of the late King James’s health.
At this procedural stage the Privy Council did not determine the truth of the allegations. It admitted the complaint to proof, ordered the defenders to remain imprisoned until the evidence had been taken, and remitted the examination of witnesses to the Master of Burleigh and Sir Robert Sinclair.
This entry therefore records an accusation and an order for evidentiary proceedings, not a finding of guilt against John Guthrie of that Ilk.
Complete Printed Entry
“The lybell at the instance of their Majesties Advocat against Durham of Omachy, the Laird of Guthrie and others for drinking the late King James health at a brydell and for other things lybelled being called, the saids Lords admitted the said lybell to probatione and the defenders committed to prisone untill the probatione ware taken; and remitted to the Master of Burleigh and Sir Robert Sinclar to examine the witnesses; and after that John Chrystie is examined the saids Lords ordaines him to be sett at liberty.”
Modern English Rendering
The formal complaint brought by the King and Queen’s Advocate against Durham of Omachie, the Laird of Guthrie and others was called before the Council. The allegations included drinking the health of the late King James at a wedding celebration and other matters stated in the complaint.
The Council allowed the complaint to proceed to proof. The defenders were to remain in prison until the evidence had been taken, and the Master of Burleigh and Sir Robert Sinclair were appointed to examine the witnesses. John Christie, after being examined, was ordered released.
This is the first stage in the Volume XV sequence involving John Guthrie of that Ilk. It establishes that he was among the persons accused and imprisoned while the Council gathered evidence, but it does not establish that the allegation was proved against him.
Evidence in Perspective
The distinction between admission to probation and a final judgment is essential. In seventeenth-century Scottish legal usage, admitting a libel to probation meant allowing the allegations to be tested by evidence. It was not itself a determination that the defenders had committed the alleged acts.
The later judgment at pp.64–65 should therefore be read with this procedural entry. There the Council specifies against whom the evidence was actually found proven.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Libel / lybell: the formal written statement of accusation or complaint.
- Probation: proof; the evidentiary stage at which allegations were tested by witnesses or other evidence.
- Defenders: the persons against whom the complaint was brought.
- Bridal / brydell: a wedding celebration.
Source: Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XV, A.D. 1690 (Edinburgh, 1967), p.62.
6 February 1690 — Judgment in the Omachie–Guthrie Bridal Complaint
Third Series • Volume XV • pp.64–65
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 6 February 1690 the Privy Council considered the fuller Crown complaint arising from the alleged bridal gathering. William Durham of Omachie, Mr Alexander Grame, John and William Grames, and Guthrie of that Ilk were accused of conduct presented by the Crown as disloyal to William and Mary.
The libel alleged that the men had met at a bridal, deliberately drawn their swords, thrown down their hats or bonnets and drunk the late King James’s health, compelling others to do likewise. Witnesses had been examined by a committee before the Council considered the complaint and depositions.
The judgment expressly finds the case proved against the Laird of Omachie and William Grame, the Laird of Duntruine’s second son. It also expressly absolves Mr Alexander Grame. The printed disposition does not state a finding against John Guthrie of that Ilk.
Complete Printed Entry
“Anent a complaint raised and persewed before the Lords of Privy Councill at the instance of Sir John Dalrymple, his Majesties Advocat, for his Highnes interest in the matter underwritten, makand mentione that wher by the comon law and by the lawes and Acts of Parliament of this and every weell governed kingdome the owning, acknowledging or wishing weell to any other person as king then he who is established be law and the drawing of swords and other weapones in publict assemblies and forceing their Majesties leidges against their Majesties inclinations to doe acts contrary to the lawes of the land are crymes of a high nature and most severely punished;
and particularly by ane Act of the meeting of the Estates of the threttein day of Apryle last all the leidges are prohibited and discharged upon their highest perill to own or acknowledge the late King James as their King, and by the Act of this current Parliament the seventein of June jmvic eightie nyne years recognoscing their Majesties authoritie it is declaired high treason in any of the subjects of this kingdome by wryting, speaking or any other maner of way to quarell or impugne their Majesties authoritie and the right and title to the Crowne.
Nevertheles it is of verity that William Durham of Omachy, Mr Alexander Grame, brother to the Laird of Duntruine, John and William Grames, sones to the Laird of Duntruine, and Guthrie of that Ilk, shaiking off all fear of God and the just obedience and alledgance they ow to their Majesties, their government and lawes, being upon the [blank] day of jmvic eightie nyne years or ane or other of the dayes of the monethes of the said year conveened within the house of [blank] at a brydell and in a most undutifull, disloyall and ryetous maner premeditatly and deliberatly drew their swords, and after throwing their hatts or bonnetts to the ground and useing all other possible solemnities, not only drank King James good health themselves, therby designeing the late King, but lykwayes compelled and forced all the rest of the company to drink the same, threatning to beat and assassinat them if they should refuse it, wherby they have committed and are guilty of most treasonable and seditious practises and high and manifest ryot and breach of the public peace, and therefore ought to be punished in their persone and goods to the terror of others to doe the lyke in tyme comeing.
And anent the charge given to the saids defendars to have compeired before the saids Lords at ane certaine day now bygone to have answered to the ground of the above complaint and to have heard and seen such order and course taken theranent as the saids Lords should think just, under the paine of rebellion etc., with certificatione etc., as the said warrant for citation and executions therof against the saids defendars and the witnesses more fully bears.
Which being called in presence of the saids Lords and the said persewar and haill fornamed persones defendars with Mr Thomas Aikman, advocat, procurator for the saids defendars, compeirand all personally in presence of the saids Lords, who haveing heard the above complaint with ane petitione given in to them be the saids defendars by way of answer to the said complaint, the saids Lords admitted the lybell to the persewars probatione and remitted to a commitie of their own number to examine the witnesses and ordained the defendars to be caried to prisone untill the probatione ware advysed;
and after John Chrystie, on of the witnesses, is examined the saids Lords granted warrant to the magistrats of Edinburgh to sett him at liberty furth of their tolbooth. And the said committee haveing accordingly mett and diverse and sundry famous witnesses haveing compeired in their presence, who being solemnly sworne, examined and interogate, deponed in maner mentioned in their oathes and depositions, as the samen extant in proces bears.
Which lybell abovewritten and depositions of the witnesses abovespecified being this day considered be the saids Lords of Privy Councill, they find it proven that the Laird of Omachie did not only drink the late King James his health at a brydell at the place and tyme lybelled, but also threatned and compelled others to doe the same, and that William Grame, the Laird of Duntruines second sone, went alongst with Omachy to press the said health.
And therfor they fyne and amerciat the said Laird of Omachie in the soume of ane hundred punds sterling and the said William Grame in the soume of fyve hundred merks, and ordaines them to ly in prison untill they make payment of their respective fynes to the generall receiver of the Crowne rents, and finds not the lybell proven against Mr Alexander Grame, brother to the Laird of Duntruine, and therefore they assolzivie him from the complaint and grants warrant to the magistrates of Edinburgh and the keeper of their tolbooth to sett the said Mr Alexander Grame at liberty furth therof.”
Modern English Rendering
The King’s Advocate alleged that William Durham of Omachie, Mr Alexander Grame, John and William Grame, and Guthrie of that Ilk had met at a wedding celebration during 1689 and behaved in a deliberately disloyal and riotous manner. The accusation claimed that they drew swords, threw down their hats or bonnets, drank the health of the deposed King James and compelled others to join them under threat.
The defenders appeared with counsel. The Council allowed the complaint to proceed to proof, appointed a committee to examine witnesses and kept the defenders imprisoned while the evidence was considered. Witnesses were sworn, examined and questioned, and their depositions were returned to the Council.
After reviewing that evidence, the Council found it proved that the Laird of Omachie had drunk King James’s health and threatened or compelled others to do likewise. It also found that William Grame had accompanied Omachie in pressing the toast.
Omachie was fined £100 sterling and William Grame 500 merks, and both were to remain imprisoned until their fines were paid. The complaint was expressly found not proved against Mr Alexander Grame, who was ordered released.
Although John Guthrie of that Ilk had been one of the persons named in the accusation, the printed judgment does not record a finding against him in this disposition.
The judgment prevents an important genealogical and historical error. John Guthrie of that Ilk was accused and imprisoned during the proceedings, but the surviving printed judgment does not state that the charge was proved against him. The men against whom findings are expressly recorded are Durham of Omachie and William Grame.
Evidence in Perspective
The political and criminal descriptions in the complaint — including “treasonable,” “seditious” and “riotous” — are the language of the Crown’s pleaded case. They should not be silently converted into editorial conclusions about every person named in the libel.
The dispositive portion matters most for assessing what the Council actually found. It identifies the conduct proved against Omachie and William Grame and expressly absolves Alexander Grame. It does not announce a finding against Guthrie.
Guthrie’s later petition at p.79 records that he remained a prisoner but was willing to swear allegiance to William and Mary; after doing so he was ordered released. That later release should not be retroactively described as a pardon for an offense that this judgment does not state was proved against him.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Assolzie: to absolve or acquit a defender from the complaint.
- Amerciate: to impose a monetary penalty or fine.
- Compear: to appear formally before a court or authority.
- Procurator: legal representative or attorney.
- Deponed: gave sworn testimony.
- Leidges: subjects of the Crown.
Source: Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XV, A.D. 1690 (Edinburgh, 1967), pp.64–65.
1690 — John Guthrie of that Ilk Released After Taking the Oath of Allegiance
Third Series • Volume XV • p.79
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
John Guthrie of that Ilk and John Grame, son of the Laird of Duntruine, petitioned the Privy Council while prisoners in the Edinburgh tolbooth.
They stated their willingness to demonstrate loyalty and submission to William and Mary’s government and asked to be permitted to take the oath of allegiance. The Council granted release after they had sworn and signed the oath in the presence of one of the Lords of Council.
Complete Printed Entry
“Anent a petitione given in to the Lords of his Majesties Privy Councill be John Guthrie of that ilk and John Grame, sone to the Laird of Duntruine, showing that wher the petitioners are prisoners by the saids Lords ordinance in the tolbooth of Edinburgh, to which they humbly submit, and being most willing and ready to testifie their loyalty to his Majestie and submission to the present government, they humbly craved the saids Lords would allow them the benefitt of the oath of alledgance and therupon to grant warrand to sett them at liberty, as the petitione bears.
The Lords of his Majesties Privy Councill haveing considered the above petitione, they ordaine the magistrats of Edinburgh and keeper of their tolbooth to sett the petitioners at liberty in respect that they have sworne and signed the oath of alledgance in presence of ane of the saids Lords number.”
Modern English Rendering
John Guthrie of that Ilk and John Grame, son of the Laird of Duntruine, were being held in the Edinburgh tolbooth under an order of the Privy Council.
They petitioned the Council, stating that they were willing to demonstrate their loyalty to the King and their submission to the existing government. They asked to be allowed to take the oath of allegiance and then to be released.
The Council granted their request. Because Guthrie and Grame had sworn and signed the oath of allegiance before one of the Lords of Council, the Edinburgh magistrates and tolbooth keeper were ordered to release them.
This entry supplies the final stage of John Guthrie of that Ilk’s imprisonment sequence in Volume XV: he was released after swearing and signing the oath of allegiance to the current government.
Evidence in Perspective
The record establishes the condition upon which Guthrie was released. It does not state that he confessed to the bridal allegations, nor does it characterize the oath as a pardon or remission of a proved offense.
Read with pp.62 and 64–65, the documentary sequence is therefore: accusation and imprisonment; evidentiary proceedings and judgment specifying findings against other named defenders; then Guthrie’s release after taking the oath of allegiance.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Tolbooth: a burgh building that could serve as court, administrative center and prison.
- Oath of allegiance: a formal declaration of loyalty to the reigning monarchs and established government.
- Warrant: formal authority or instruction for an official act, here Guthrie’s release.
Source: Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XV, A.D. 1690 (Edinburgh, 1967), p.79.
1690 — Caution Accepted for the Laird of Guthrie
Third Series • Volume XV • p.425
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
A committee considered the caution already found by persons under bail and whether those securities should be continued or replaced. The Earl of Sutherland, the Earl of Forfar, the lairds of Blackbarony and Leyes, and the Earl of Southerland’s representative are named in the sederunt.
Among numerous individual arrangements, the committee authorized the clerks of Council to receive Lindsay of Cairnie as cautioner for the Laird of Guthrie, under a penalty of £500 sterling.
Complete Printed Item
“Sederunt of the comittie to whom it was remitt to consider the cautione found by persones under baill and to cause them continow the same or find new cautione, viz. the Earles of Southerland [and] Forfar, the Lairds of Blackbarony and Leyes. Earl of Southerland, preces.
The said comittie grants warrand to the clerks of Councill to receive … Lindsay of Cairne as cautioner for the Laird of Guthrie under the penalty of fyve hundreth punds sterling money….”
Modern English Rendering
A Council committee met to review the security already provided by persons who were on bail and to determine whether their existing caution should continue or whether new cautioners should be supplied.
Among the arrangements approved, the committee authorized the clerks of Council to accept Lindsay of Cairnie as surety for the Laird of Guthrie. The financial penalty attached to the caution was £500 sterling.
This entry shows that John Guthrie of that Ilk remained subject to a formal bail or caution arrangement after the imprisonment sequence earlier in the volume. It identifies the person accepted as his cautioner and the substantial monetary penalty securing the obligation.
Evidence in Perspective
This p.425 entry is a committee authorization to receive the cautioner. It should be distinguished from the formal bond recorded later at p.730, where John Guthrie of that Ilk and Henry Lindsay of Cairne appear in the bond register under 5 September 1690.
The existence of caution does not itself establish a new criminal conviction. In this setting it records a security arrangement connected with continued liberty and appearance obligations.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Caution: legal security given to ensure a person’s compliance with an obligation.
- Cautioner: the surety who undertook financial responsibility if the principal failed to comply.
- Under bail: released or remaining at liberty subject to security and specified obligations.
- Preces: presiding over the meeting.
Source: Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XV, A.D. 1690 (Edinburgh, 1967), p.425.
1690 — Mr Alexander Guthrie, Minister at Hoddam, Claims His Stipend
Third Series • Volume XV • p.604
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Mr Alexander Guthrie petitioned the Privy Council concerning his right to the stipend of Hoddam. He stated that he had been lawfully settled in the parish, had complied with parliamentary and royal requirements under William and Mary, and had offered prayers for the reigning monarchs.
Guthrie further stated that he observed the public thanksgiving appointed by Parliament and continued exercising his ministry at Hoddam until March 1690, when a company of strangers from other parishes disturbed him against the wishes of his own parishioners.
Because he had never been formally deprived of the ministry by the Privy Council or another competent church court and remained willing to acknowledge the established government and church settlement, he maintained that he remained entitled to the parish stipend.
Complete Printed Entry
“Anent the petitione given in to the Lords of their Majesties Privy Councill be Mr Alexander Guthrie, minister att Hoddam, shewing that where the petitioner being actually placed att the church of Hoddam in Annandale he in obedience to the Act of Parliament the threttein of Apryll jmvic and eightie nyne and proclamatione issued therupon and in complyance therwith did offer up prayers to God Almighty for their present Majesties King William and Queen Mary and als did observe and keep att the said church the publict thanksgiving appoynted by Act of Parliament the tuentie sixth of Apryll jmvic and eightie nyne and continued in the exercise of his ministeriall functione att the said church till the moneth of March jmvic and nyntie
att which tyme he was disturbed by a company of strangers from other paroches against the inclinationes of his parochiners, with whom he lived with love, peace and concord, neither was the petitioner ever debarred from the exercise of his ministrie by their Lordships or any other church meeting or judicatory within the kingdome, but being alwayes willing and ready to acknowledge their Majesties authoritie and submitt to the church government now established by law, wherby the petitioner had undoubted right to the haill stipend due and payable by the heritors and parochiners of the said church,
there being no other persone claiming or pretending right to the said church or stipend therof, only the saids heritors and parochiners were desyrous for their own security to have their Lordships warrand and authoritie for payment of the same to him for bygones and in tyme comeing as being their present minister and incumbent att the said church.
And therfor humbly craveing the saids Lords in consideratione of the premisses to ordaine and give warrand to the saids heritors and parochiners to make payment to the petitioner of the usewall stipend due and payable by them to him for all yeers and terms bygone and tyme comeing during his incumbency and serving the cure att the said church, as the said petitione bears.
The Lords of their Majesties Privy Councill haveing considered the above petitione with the testificate produced therwith, they find and declair that the petitioner hes right to the stipend of the above kirk of Hoddam for all yeers and termes bygone resting since his entrie to the said church and in tyme comeing dureing his incumbencie att the same and ordaines him to be readily answered, obeyed and payed therof (etc., as at p. 511).”
Modern English Rendering
Alexander Guthrie, minister of Hoddam in Annandale, told the Council that he had been properly settled in the parish and had complied with the political and ecclesiastical requirements imposed after the accession of William and Mary. He prayed for the new monarchs and observed the parliamentary thanksgiving.
He continued serving as minister until March 1690, when people from other parishes disrupted his ministry. Guthrie stated that this was against the wishes of his own parishioners, with whom he had lived peacefully.
He had never been formally removed from office by the Privy Council or by a competent church court and remained willing to recognize the authority of William and Mary and submit to the church government established by law.
Because no other person claimed the church or its stipend, Guthrie asked the Council to authorize the heritors and parishioners to pay him both the unpaid stipend from previous terms and the stipend due in future while he remained incumbent. The Council accepted his claim and declared him entitled to payment.
This entry gives unusually detailed evidence about Mr Alexander Guthrie’s status as minister of Hoddam during the ecclesiastical and political transition of 1689–1690. It establishes that he claimed continued incumbency, had not been formally deprived, and obtained Privy Council recognition of his right to the parish stipend.
Evidence in Perspective
Much of the narrative describing Guthrie’s conduct and the circumstances of his disturbance comes from his own petition. Those statements represent the case he presented to the Council.
The Council’s dispositive action is firmer evidence: after considering the petition and accompanying certificate, it declared that Guthrie had right to the Hoddam stipend for arrears since his entry and for future terms during his incumbency.
The entry therefore supports his continuing legal and financial status as incumbent minister at this date, but it does not by itself identify his parentage, birthplace or wider Guthrie family connection.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Stipend: the income or salary payable to a parish minister.
- Heritors: principal landholders within a parish, who could bear responsibility for parish financial obligations.
- Incumbent: the person presently holding the ministerial charge.
- Serving the cure: exercising the pastoral and ministerial duties of the parish.
- Bygones: sums or obligations outstanding from earlier periods.
Source: Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XV, A.D. 1690 (Edinburgh, 1967), p.604.
8 March 1690 — Alexander Gordon Arrested by Dragoons on Major Guthrie’s Order
Third Series • Volume XV • p.613
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Alexander Gordon of Auchintoul petitioned the Privy Council for release after a lengthy imprisonment. In recounting how his confinement began, Gordon stated that on 8 March 1690 he had been seized by a troop of dragoons acting “by Major Guthrie his order.”
According to Gordon, he was taken first to Turriff and then to Aberdeen. Subsequent Council orders directed that he be sent south, returned to Dundee, and eventually brought to Edinburgh.
The Council ultimately granted Gordon liberty after he provided bond and caution to live peaceably and to appear again when called.
Complete Printed Entry
“Anent the petitione given in to the Lords of their Majesties Privy Councill be Alexander Gordone of Auchintoule, showing that wheras the petitioner haveing made it his business all this tyme bygone to live so peaceably and retired from the world that he did not midle with any thing that concerned the government and for obviating all jealousie and suspitione that might arise from his conversatione with his freinds and neighbours he did so confyne himselfe att home as hardly to goe about his necessary affairs, wherby he might presume to affirme that nothing could been proven or made out against him contrary to the government,
nevertheless upon the eight day of March last the petitioner was taken prisoner by ane troop of dragoones by Major Guthrie his order and brought doune to Turreff, from thence conveyed to Aberdein where he remained clos prisoner untill by their Lordships order he was comanded to be brought south, and being come the length of Kenaway was by their second order remitted back to Dundie where he did remaine prisoner till the sixteinth day of August last and then by their Lordships third order was brought to Edinburgh where the petitioner had still since remained prisoner to the irreparable loss of his health and the totall ruine of his affairs, his house haveing been thrice plundered and his lands waisted and to this day knew not for what cryme,
notwithstanding of severall applications made in the petitioners behalfe for his liberty with proffers of such reasonable bale for his peaceable behaviour as could been expected from any of so small a fortune.
And therfor humbly craveing the saids Lords in consideratione of the premises to order the petitioners liberatione upon such reasonable bale as the petitioner in his circumstances could find and if (upon misfortune) their be any thing scroupulous remaining with their Lordships, the petitioner earnestlie desyred to be examined that he might indeavour to satisfie the saids Lords, as the said petitione bears.
The Lords of their Majesties Privy Councill haveing considered the above petitione, they grant warrand to and ordain the comanding officer of the guairds of the Cannongate for the tyme under whose centenalls the petitioner is presently keept to sett him att liberty furth therof, in respect he hes given bond and found cautione to live peaceably (etc. in common form) and that he shall appear befor the Lords of Privy Councill when called for under the penalty of ten thousand merks scotts money.”
Modern English Rendering
Alexander Gordon of Auchintoul told the Council that he had tried to live quietly and avoid political involvement. Nevertheless, on 8 March 1690 he was arrested by a troop of dragoons acting on Major Guthrie’s order.
Gordon said that he was taken to Turriff and then to Aberdeen, where he remained closely confined until the Council ordered him south. After reaching Kenaway he was sent back to Dundee, where he remained until 16 August, and was then taken to Edinburgh.
He complained of damage to his health and affairs and claimed not to know the offense for which he had been detained. He asked to be released on reasonable bail.
The Council granted his request after he provided bond and caution to live peaceably and promised to appear before the Council when summoned, under a penalty of 10,000 merks Scots.
The entry documents Major Guthrie exercising operational military authority in March 1690. A troop of dragoons acted under his order to seize Alexander Gordon of Auchintoul and begin a chain of military and governmental detention extending through several Scottish towns.
Evidence in Perspective
The statement that the dragoons acted “by Major Guthrie his order” appears within Alexander Gordon’s petition. It is therefore Gordon’s account of how the arrest occurred, preserved in the Council record.
The Council’s decision to release Gordon on bond does not determine whether the original arrest was unlawful or whether Gordon’s claims of political innocence were correct. The petition and the Council’s disposition should remain distinct evidentiary stages.
A separate Privy Council Paper at pp.631–632 refers to “Major Guthries troupes” quartering at Kincardine O’Neil in late August 1689. Together the two records show a Major Guthrie associated with troops in north-eastern Scotland across the 1689–1690 period, while each record retains its own evidentiary context.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Close prisoner: a prisoner held under close or restrictive confinement.
- Caution: legal security guaranteeing future compliance with specified obligations.
- Bond: a formal written obligation.
- Dragoons: mounted soldiers capable of serving both on horseback and on foot.
- Warrant: formal authority issued for an official action, here Gordon’s liberation.
Source: Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XV, A.D. 1690 (Edinburgh, 1967), p.613.
Late August 1689 — Major Guthrie’s Troops Quarter at Kincardine O’Neil
Third Series • Volume XV • Privy Council Paper 20 • pp.631–632
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Privy Council Paper 20 preserves a declaration by John Strachan of Kincardine O’Neil detailing losses suffered by himself and the inhabitants of the town from successive bodies of government troops during 1689.
Strachan recounts several episodes involving Major General Mackay, Colonel Wauchope, Colonel Barclay, Colonel Hastings and others. Among these, he states that in the latter part of August 1689, Major Guthrie’s troops, together with the Master of Forbes’s troop, quartered in Kincardine O’Neil on several occasions.
According to the declaration, the troops consumed, destroyed or otherwise damaged crops. The loss attributed to this episode was reckoned at twenty bolls of good grain with fodder, valued at £106 13s 4d Scots.
Complete Printed Passage
“Item about the latter end of the said moneth of August last Major Guthries troupes with the Master of Forbes troup being quartering in the said town two severall tymes did eate, destroy and otherwayes abuse the cornes of the said town to such a degree that after sighting the skaith they did by severall honest men appoynted for that effect reckoned the loss in haill to be the quantity of twenty bolls good cornes with the fother, reckoning the same at the rate of eight merks for each boll, extends in haill to the sowme of ane hundreth and six punds thirtein shilling four penies money forsaid.”
“To quhich adding the whole particular sowmes of money abovewritten makes in haill the sowme acclamed to be six hundreth and thirty one punds six shilling and eight penies money forsaid, which I declair to be of verity by this my present declaratione, recommending to the honorable Commissioners of Aberdeenshyre to take the same into their serious consideration and give their attestation therof, whereby the Lords of their Majesties most honorable Privy Councill may order payment or give their finall determination therin, as they in their goodness shall think fitt.
In testimony of the haill premisses I have subscryved thir presents with my hand at Aberdein the tenth day of February jmvic and nyntie yeirs. Befor witnesses, Alexander Strachan, present dean of gild of the said burgh, and Thomas Strachan, merchant therein. (Signed) J. Strachane; Alexr. Straughan, witness; Tho. Strachane, witness.”
“Aberdeen day and place forsaid. The quhilk day in presence of us, two Commissioners of Aberdeenshyre, compeared the abovenamed John Strachan and gave his oath upon the whole forsaid sowme of money acclamed to be of verity which we hereby attest, as witnesseth our subscriptions. (Signed) Ro. Ross; Geo. Skene.”
Modern English Rendering
John Strachan stated that toward the end of August 1689, Major Guthrie’s troops and the Master of Forbes’s troop were quartered at Kincardine O’Neil on two separate occasions.
During those stays, the troops ate, destroyed or otherwise damaged the town’s crops. Local men appointed to inspect the damage assessed the loss at twenty bolls of good grain together with fodder. At eight merks per boll, that portion of the claim came to £106 13s 4d Scots.
Strachan’s full claim for all of the military losses described in his declaration amounted to £631 6s 8d Scots. He subscribed the declaration at Aberdeen on 10 February 1690.
He then appeared before two commissioners of Aberdeenshire and swore that the total amount claimed was true. The commissioners attested his oath so that the Privy Council could consider payment or otherwise determine the claim.
This record places Major Guthrie in command of, or at least directly associated with, a body of troops operating in Aberdeenshire in August 1689. The description “Major Guthries troupes” provides stronger military context than a bare rank-and-name reference.
Evidence in Perspective
The document is a sworn claim for compensation. John Strachan attributed the damage to several separate bodies of troops, including Major Guthrie’s. Local assessors valued the damage, and Strachan later swore to the aggregate claim before county commissioners.
The record therefore supports the existence of the claim, the assessment procedure and Strachan’s sworn attribution of this particular episode to Major Guthrie’s troops. It does not itself establish that the Privy Council ultimately paid the claimed sum.
The event occurred in late August 1689, although the declaration was made in February 1690. That distinction is important when constructing Major Guthrie’s chronology.
Read with p.613, the volume preserves evidence of Major Guthrie connected with mounted troops in the north-east in both 1689 and 1690: the earlier claim concerns troop quartering and crop damage, while the later petition attributes Alexander Gordon of Auchintoul’s arrest to Major Guthrie’s order.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Quartering: lodging troops among civilian communities, often with local responsibility for food, fodder and accommodation.
- Skaith: harm, damage or loss.
- Boll: a Scottish dry measure used for grain; its exact volume could vary by locality and commodity.
- Fother: fodder.
- Attestation: formal confirmation or certification of evidence.
Source: Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XV, A.D. 1690 (Edinburgh, 1967), Privy Council Paper 20, pp.631–632.
19 August 1690 — John Guthrie Signs the Anstruther Easter Assurance
Third Series • Volume XV • Privy Council Paper 42 • p.698
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Privy Council Paper 42 records an extract of the assurance signed in the burgh court of Anstruther Easter on 19 August 1690.
The signatories include three bailies, a councillor and several other local officials. John Guthrie is expressly identified as notary public and town clerk, and the printed record notes that he signed the extract.
Complete Printed Item
“42. Extract assurance signed in the burgh court of Anstruther Easter by James Lausone, Henry Smith and Thomas Halsone, bailies, James Halsone, councellor, George Maxwell, Alexander Patone, John King, John Lou, James Scot (by mark, J.S.), William Halsone, Henry Lamont (H.L.) and John Guthrie, notary public, town clerk (signs extract).”
Modern English Rendering
An assurance was entered and signed in the burgh court of Anstruther Easter on 19 August 1690. The participating local officials included the bailies, a councillor and other members of the burgh administration.
John Guthrie is identified specifically as the notary public and town clerk. He signed the official extract of the assurance.
The entry supplies a precise occupational identification for John Guthrie of Anstruther Easter: he was both notary public and town clerk. Those titles distinguish him from the several other contemporary John Guthries appearing elsewhere in the Privy Council registers.
Evidence in Perspective
This is an official-capacity record rather than a genealogical statement. It establishes Guthrie’s office and participation in producing the burgh-court extract, but it gives no parentage, spouse, age or other family information.
His inclusion in the printed index under Notaries Public independently reflects the occupational description printed in this source item. The index is therefore a cross-reference to the same evidence, not a separate record.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Notary public: an authorized legal officer who authenticated instruments, subscriptions and other formal acts.
- Town clerk: the principal record-keeping and administrative clerk of a burgh.
- Bailie: a burgh magistrate.
- Extract: an officially authenticated copy or abstract taken from a court or administrative record.
- Assurance: in this 1690 context, a formal declaration subscribed in accordance with government requirements.
Source: Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XV, A.D. 1690 (Edinburgh, 1967), Privy Council Paper 42, p.698.
28 June 1690 — James Guthrie, Dingwall Pursuivant, Acts as Cautioner and Lawburrows
Third Series • Volume XV • Privy Council Paper 45 • p.714
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Privy Council Paper 45 records a formal security dated 28 June 1690. Mr Alexander Craufurd, advocate, and James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, acted as cautioners and lawburrows for James Holyday younger of Tilliboill, John Holyday of Tilliboill elder, Henry Holyday, Robert Dowie, James Patton, William Reid and John Reid.
The obligation was made in favour of Mr Alexander Ireland, minister at Fososchie, and James Young, beadle at the kirk there. The two principal Holydays were bound under penalties of 3,000 merks each; the others under 1,000 merks each.
The printed item also identifies the witnesses to Guthrie’s own subscription, giving direct evidence that he personally subscribed the instrument.
Complete Printed Item
“45. Mr Alexander Crafurd, advocate, and James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, cautioners and lawburrows for James Holyday, younger of Tilliboill, John Holyday of Tilliboill elder, his father, Henry Holyday, brother german of said John Holyday, Robert Dowie in the Crook, James Patton there and William and John Reid there, to Mr Alexander Ireland, minister at Fososchie and James Young, beadle at the kirk there. Penalty, said John and James Holyday, 3,000 merks each, the others 1,000 merks each. Written by Thomas Forbes, servitor to William Wilsone, writer in Edinburgh. Witnesses, to the subscription of Alexander Crafurd, John Crafurd and Andrew Masson, writers in Edinburgh; to that of James Guthrie, the said Andrew Masson and Thomas Forbes. At Edinburgh. (Signatures.)
(On back) ‘Suspension expeid heiron and the 14 July to compeir and 29 July therafter.’”
Modern English Rendering
Mr Alexander Craufurd, advocate, and James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant, acted as sureties in a lawburrows obligation on behalf of members of the Holyday family and several other men.
The obligation was granted in favour of Mr Alexander Ireland, minister at Fososchie, and James Young, the church beadle there. John Holyday elder and James Holyday younger were each subject to a penalty of 3,000 merks, while the remaining men were each bound under penalties of 1,000 merks.
Thomas Forbes wrote the instrument. Andrew Masson and Thomas Forbes witnessed James Guthrie’s subscription. The document was executed at Edinburgh.
A later endorsement notes a suspension and dates of appearance on 14 July and 29 July.
The entry provides direct occupational evidence for James Guthrie as Dingwall pursuivant and places him in the practical legal work of providing caution and lawburrows. His own subscription is specifically witnessed, strengthening the identification beyond a mere index reference.
Evidence in Perspective
Dingwall pursuivant is an office title, not a statement that James Guthrie lived at Dingwall. Nothing in this item gives his residence, parentage or family relationship.
The legal role recorded here is also distinct from that of the persons whose conduct was secured. Guthrie appears as a cautioner and lawburrows, not as one of the men against whom the underlying obligation was directed.
The record is therefore strongest as evidence of office, legal capacity and participation in the execution of the bond.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Pursuivant: a junior officer of arms. “Dingwall” identifies the heraldic office, not necessarily residence.
- Cautioner: a surety who guaranteed another person’s compliance with a legal obligation.
- Lawburrows: a Scottish procedure requiring security against anticipated violence, harm or disturbance.
- Brother german: a full brother sharing both parents.
- Servitor: an employee, assistant or subordinate.
Source: Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XV, A.D. 1690 (Edinburgh, 1967), Privy Council Paper 45, p.714.
16 August 1690 — Mr John Guthrie, Writer, Serves as Cautioner
Third Series • Volume XV • Privy Council Paper 13 • p.728
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
In the Privy Council bond material for August 1690, Mr John Guthrie, writer, appears as cautioner for Mr John Fullertowne, chaplain to Viscount Oxenfoord.
The obligation is dated 16 August 1690, with a penalty of 500 merks.
Complete Printed Item
“Mr John Fullertowne, chaplain to Viscount Oxenfoord, and Mr John Guthrie, writer, cautioner; 500 merks.”
Modern English Rendering
Mr John Fullertowne, who served as chaplain to Viscount Oxenfoord, entered into an obligation for which Mr John Guthrie, writer, acted as his surety. The penalty securing the obligation was 500 merks.
The record identifies another contemporary Mr John Guthrie specifically by occupation as a writer. That occupational designation is important because Volume XV separately contains John Guthrie of that Ilk and John Guthrie, notary public and town clerk of Anstruther Easter.
Evidence in Perspective
The term writer denotes a professional legal or administrative occupation. The entry does not provide a residence, parentage or other identifying relationship for Mr John Guthrie.
He appears here only as cautioner. The record does not imply that he was accused of the matter for which Fullertowne required security.
No evidence in this item supports identifying this Mr John Guthrie with John Guthrie of that Ilk or with the Anstruther Easter town clerk. Those identities should remain separate unless supported independently.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Writer: a professional legal or administrative writer, often engaged in preparing formal instruments and other legal business.
- Cautioner: a person who became surety for another’s obligation.
- Merk: a Scottish money of account equal to 13 shillings 4 pence Scots.
Source: Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XV, A.D. 1690 (Edinburgh, 1967), Privy Council Paper 13, p.728.
5 September 1690 — John Guthrie of that Ilk Enters Bond with Henry Lindsay of Cairne
Third Series • Volume XV • Privy Council Paper 21 • p.730
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This bond formalizes the caution arrangement already authorized earlier in the volume. On 5 September 1690, John Guthrie of that Ilk entered bond with Henry Lindsay of Cairne as his cautioner under a penalty of £500 sterling.
The record therefore belongs to the continuing legal sequence surrounding Guthrie’s earlier imprisonment and release. It is a separate documentary act from the committee authorization at p.425.
A later marginal note records that the bond was eventually given up under committee authority in 1692.
Complete Printed Item
“John Guthrie of that Ilk, Henry Lindsay of Cairne, cautioner; £500 sterling.”
“Given up by order of the committee anent bails, 22 June 1692.”
Modern English Rendering
John Guthrie of that Ilk entered into a formal bond on 5 September 1690. Henry Lindsay of Cairne acted as his surety. The financial penalty securing the obligation was £500 sterling.
A later notation states that the bond was discharged or returned under authority of the committee dealing with bail arrangements on 22 June 1692.
This entry supplies the formal documentary counterpart to the earlier committee decision at p.425. It confirms that John Guthrie of that Ilk actually entered the required bond with Henry Lindsay of Cairne as cautioner and preserves the monetary penalty attached to it.
Evidence in Perspective
The p.425 and p.730 entries should be read together but not merged. The earlier record authorizes acceptance of the cautioner; this later entry records the formal bond itself.
The bond does not create evidence of a new criminal conviction. It records a continuing security arrangement connected with Guthrie’s liberty and future compliance.
The 1692 marginal note is later administrative evidence concerning the bond’s eventual discharge. It should not be treated as part of the events of September 1690.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bond: a formal written obligation binding the parties to specified conditions.
- Cautioner: the person acting as surety for another’s legal obligation.
- Penalty: the sum potentially forfeited if the obligation was breached.
- Given up: in this context, formally discharged or released from continuing effect.
Source: Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XV, A.D. 1690 (Edinburgh, 1967), Privy Council Paper 21, p.730.
Volume XV — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume XV preserves a broader range of Guthrie evidence than Volume XIV. Its records span political suspicion, imprisonment, release, bail, military command, parish ministry, burgh administration, heraldic office and legal suretyship. The surname appears repeatedly, but the evidence belongs to several distinct individuals and should not be collapsed into one family narrative.
The records at pp.62, 64–65, 79, 425 and 730 form a connected legal sequence. Guthrie was accused and imprisoned while evidence was gathered, but the surviving printed judgment records findings against Durham of Omachie and William Grame rather than against Guthrie. He was later released after taking the oath of allegiance and remained subject to caution arrangements afterward.
Two records illuminate Major Guthrie’s military activity. Alexander Gordon of Auchintoul states that dragoons arrested him on Major Guthrie’s order on 8 March 1690, while John Strachan’s sworn claim attributes crop damage at Kincardine O’Neil in late August 1689 to “Major Guthries troupes.” Together they show an officer exercising, or being credited with, operational authority over mounted troops.
Alexander Guthrie’s stipend petition records his claim to continuing incumbency at Hoddam during the church settlement following the Revolution. The Council’s decision is especially useful because it confirms his continuing right to the parish stipend after considering his petition and supporting certificate.
James Guthrie, Dingwall pursuivant; Mr John Guthrie, writer; and John Guthrie, notary public and town clerk of Anstruther Easter each appear with distinct professional titles. Those titles are valuable identifiers, but none of these records supplies evidence connecting them by kinship to one another or to Guthrie of that Ilk.
Source basis: Evan Whyte Melville Balfour-Melville, ed., The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XV, A.D. 1690 (Edinburgh, 1967), Guthrie-bearing records at pp.62, 64–65, 79, 425, 604, 613, 631–632, 698, 714, 728 and 730, checked against the printed Guthrie and Notaries Public indexes.
Volume XVI
Volume XVI closes the printed Third Series with a small but useful group of Guthrie references. The principal figure is Mr Alexander Guthrie, minister at Keir, whose records preserve a connected dispute over his ministry and parish stipend after his forcible removal from the manse in 1689. The Council first recognizes his claim to the 1689 stipend and later allows him to continue enforcement when payment is resisted.
Two additional ministers and officers appear in different settings. Mr Andrew Guthrie is identified as the newly placed minister at Edrom, while James Guthrie appears among the officers of the Court of Justiciary and is identified by the printed index as a macer of Justiciary. These men remain separate identities: nothing in the volume establishes a family relationship among them.
Read Volume XVI Online
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, Volume XVI, A.D. 1691. Edited by E. W. M. Balfour-Melville and M. R. Miller. Edinburgh: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1970.
Volume XVI — Guthrie Finding Aid
| Page | Date | Guthrie Reference | Role / Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 192–193 | 3 March 1691 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Minister at Keir • stipend petition | Guthrie recounts his forcible exclusion from his ministry and ejection with his wife and sick children from the Keir manse in February 1689. After considering his petition and supporting certificate, the Council allows him the Keir stipend for the whole crop and year 1689. |
| 329 | 11 June 1691 | Mr Andrew Guthrie Minister at Edrom • contextual reference | Henry Erskine’s petition explains that an earlier allowance from the Edrom stipend had become ineffective because the Whitsunday term was due to Mr Andrew Guthrie, “now placed minister ther,” together with expenditure for repair of Guthrie’s manse. |
| 675 | 16 July 1691 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Bill of suspension • Council-paper receipt | Mr John Carmont, writer in Edinburgh, records borrowing the bill of suspension produced for William Waugh in Bardanach and others against Mr Alexander Guthrie and others, together with all supporting papers, undertaking to reproduce them on demand. |
| 632 | 22 December 1691 | Mr Alexander Guthrie Minister at Keir • stipend enforcement | Parishioners resisting payment invoke a purported bill of suspension, but the Council clerks report that no such suspension has been formally expedited or presented. Guthrie is allowed to continue his legal diligence for collection of the stipend granted by the Council’s 3 March act. |
| 714 | Undated; endorsed 13 January 1690 (sic) | James Guthrie Macer of Justiciary • assurance subscriber | Signs an assurance with the Lord Justice General, Lord Justice Clerk, Lords and clerks of Justiciary, under-clerk and other officers. The printed index identifies James Guthrie as a macer of Justiciary. The source itself marks the paper “N.D.” and preserves the anomalous 1690 endorsement with sic. |
Finding-aid source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XVI, A.D. 1691 (Edinburgh, 1970), Guthrie index p.755, checked against the Guthrie-bearing material at pp.192–193, 329, 632, 675 and 714. The introductory section contains no Guthrie reference. Searches for Gottray, Guthery, Guthrey, Guttry, Guttrey, Guttery, Guthere and Gutherie produced no additional entries; the “Guthry” search result at p.632 is the heading variant for Mr Alexander Guthrie of Keir.
3 March 1691 — Mr Alexander Guthrie of Keir Petitions After Forcible Ejection
Third Series • Volume XVI • pp.192–193
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Mr Alexander Guthrie told the Privy Council that he had been in peaceful possession of the ministry of Keir for about ten years. He stated that the parish was in the patronage of the Earl of Nithsdale and that he continued exercising his ministry until late February 1689.
According to Guthrie’s petition, a group of strangers first prevented him from exercising his ministry and, on 23 February, forcibly ejected him, his wife and his sick children from the manse during severe rain, despite protests from the parish heritors. He further stated that he had never been cited or sentenced by any civil or ecclesiastical judicatory in Scotland.
Guthrie asked authority to collect the stipend of Keir for 1689 and 1690. After considering the petition and a supporting certificate from the principal heritors, the Council granted him the stipend for the whole crop and year 1689.
Complete Printed Entry
“Anent a petition given in to the Lords of their Majesties Privy Councill be Mr. Alexander Guthrie, minister at Keir, sheuing that the petitioner having been about the space of ten years bygone in the peaceable possession of his ministrie at the church of Keir (which at that tyme was of the Earle of Nithsdale his patronadge) untill the close of February jmvic eightie nyne, att which tyme he was not only by a company of straingers inhibited under the greatest hazard the exercise of his ministrie but also upon the tuentty third day of February therafter violentlie ejected with his wyfe and sick children out of the manse in a most stormy raine as well against the protestationes of the heretors of the said paroch as unto his great loss both of his forsaid sick children and furniture of his house.
Moreover, it being of verity that the petitioner having noe successor in the forsaid paroch and that he was never cited nor sentenced by any judicature civil or ecclesiastick within this kingdome, but having a certificat under the principall heretors hands of the forsaid paroch of Keir not only of the premises but also both of his conversation and doctrine while he served the cure amongst them, as also of their willingnes to pay the bygon stipend to the petitioner upon any order obtained from the saids Lords for that effect for their exoneration.
And therfor craving their Lordships out of their innate justice and charity to grant warrand to the petitioner to uplift the stipend of the said paroch of Keir from these that are lyable in payment therof for the years jmvic eightie [nine] and jmvic nyntie that so not only this great loss occasioned by his violent ejection may be repaired but also his poor family now living at Drumfres in great straits and want may be supported and releived, as the said petition bears.
The saids Lords of their Majesties Privy Councill having considered the above petition with the certificat produced therwith, they heirby allow to the petitioner, Mr. Alexander Guthrie, the stipend of the above kirk of Keir for the haill cropt and year of God jmvic eighty nyne and ordain payment in similar terms to p. 3.”
Modern English Rendering
Alexander Guthrie, minister of Keir, stated that he had served the parish peacefully for about ten years. He remained in possession of the ministry until the end of February 1689.
Guthrie said that outsiders then prevented him from conducting his ministry and that on 23 February he, his wife and his sick children were forcibly expelled from the manse during severe rain. He claimed that this occurred despite protests from parish heritors and caused serious loss to his family and household.
He also stated that no successor had been appointed and that he had never been formally cited or sentenced by any Scottish civil or ecclesiastical court. The principal heritors of Keir supplied a certificate concerning both the circumstances of his removal and his conduct and teaching while minister.
Guthrie asked the Council to authorize collection of the Keir stipend for 1689 and 1690 so that his losses could be repaired and his family, then living in Dumfries in difficult circumstances, could be supported.
After considering the petition and certificate, the Council granted Guthrie the stipend of Keir for the whole crop and year 1689 and ordered payment on the same terms used in comparable cases.
This is the fullest Volume XVI record for Mr Alexander Guthrie, minister at Keir. It preserves his own account of approximately ten years in the parish, the violent interruption of his ministry, his wife and sick children, his later residence with his family at Dumfries, and his continuing claim to ministerial income.
Evidence in Perspective
The narrative of the ejection, the condition of Guthrie’s family and the circumstances of his ministry comes from his petition and should therefore remain attributed to him.
The Council’s action is firmer evidence. After considering the petition and supporting certificate, it expressly awarded Alexander Guthrie the Keir stipend for the whole crop and year 1689.
The record also carefully distinguishes lack of formal deprivation from uninterrupted physical possession of the parish. Guthrie states that he had been forcibly excluded, while also asserting that no civil or ecclesiastical judicatory had formally removed him from office.
Later Volume XVI records show that collection of this stipend remained contested. A bill of suspension appears in the Council papers in July, and in December the Council again authorizes Guthrie to continue legal diligence for payment.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Heritor: a principal landholder within a parish.
- Manse: the parish minister’s residence.
- Serving the cure: exercising the pastoral duties of the parish ministry.
- Stipend: the income payable to the parish minister.
- Crop and year: the annual accounting period to which the stipend related.
- Exoneration: legal discharge from responsibility after making payment under proper authority.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XVI, A.D. 1691 (Edinburgh, 1970), Act, Mr Alexander Guthrie, pp.192–193.
11 June 1691 — Mr Andrew Guthrie Identified as Minister at Edrom
Third Series • Volume XVI • p.329
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
Mr Andrew Guthrie appears within an act concerning Mr Henry Erskine, minister at Chirnside. Erskine explained that the Privy Council had previously allowed him part of the stipend of Edrom.
That earlier allowance had become ineffective because the Whitsunday term of the Edrom stipend had to be paid to Mr Andrew Guthrie, “now placed minister ther,” and because funds were also required for repair of Guthrie’s manse.
The Council consequently granted Erskine a stipend from Chirnside instead. Guthrie is therefore not the petitioner in this act, but the passage supplies direct evidence of his recent placement as minister at Edrom.
Complete Printed Passage
“And seing that the allowance he had formerly from their Lordships of the stipend of Edrom for Martimes jmvic eighty nyne and Whitsunday jmvic and nyntie did prove ineffectuall in respect he quyte the said Whitsundayes terme to Mr. Andrew Guthrie, now placed minister ther, and for repairing of his manse and that the saids Whitsundayes terme is now vacant and may well (with their Lordships favour) be given to the petitioner for what he wants of Edrom and for his other late sufferings, which are sufficiently knowen….”
“The Lords of their Majesties Privy Councill having considered the above petitione given in to them be Mr. Henry Erskine abovedesigned, with the certificat produced therwith, they heirby allow to him the stipend of the church of Chirnsyde for the Whitsundayes tearme jmvic and nyntie and ordain payment in similar terms to p. 3.”
Modern English Rendering
Henry Erskine explained that an earlier Council grant from the Edrom stipend had not benefited him as intended.
The Whitsunday payment had instead been relinquished in favour of Mr Andrew Guthrie, who had now been installed as minister at Edrom, and money was also needed to repair Guthrie’s manse.
Because the previous arrangement had therefore proved ineffective, Erskine sought support from another available stipend. The Council ultimately allowed him the Whitsunday 1690 stipend of Chirnside.
The passage provides a concise but valuable chronological marker: by 11 June 1691, Mr Andrew Guthrie had been placed as minister at Edrom. It also associates his arrival with entitlement to a Whitsunday stipend payment and repair of the parish manse.
Evidence in Perspective
Andrew Guthrie is not a party to Henry Erskine’s petition and does not make any claim in this act. His appearance is contextual.
The wording “now placed minister ther” securely identifies his office at Edrom at the time of the petition, but the record does not state his exact date of admission or installation.
The passage also should not be read as saying Guthrie personally received all of the money previously intended for Erskine. It says that the Whitsunday term was relinquished to Guthrie and refers separately to expenditure for repairing his manse.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Placed minister: installed or admitted to the parish ministry.
- Whitsunday term: one of the traditional Scottish term dates used for payment and accounting obligations.
- Martimas: Martinmas, another traditional Scottish term date.
- Manse: the parish minister’s residence.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XVI, A.D. 1691 (Edinburgh, 1970), Act, Mr Henry Erskine, p.329.
22 December 1691 — Alexander Guthrie Allowed to Continue Enforcement of His Keir Stipend
Third Series • Volume XVI • p.632
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
On 22 December 1691, Mr Alexander Guthrie returned to the Privy Council because payment of the Keir stipend previously awarded to him had still not been completed.
The Council refers explicitly to its earlier 3 March 1691 act, which had granted Guthrie authority to collect the stipend of Keir for 1689. Some parishioners who were unwilling to pay had notified him that a bill of suspension had been raised at their instance and served upon him.
The Council clerks, however, reported that no such suspension had actually been expedited through their office and that they did not remember any such bill having been formally presented. The Council therefore allowed Guthrie to continue his legal diligence for recovery of the stipend.
Complete Printed Entry
“Petition by Mr. Alexander Guthrie, minister: The Lords by their act of 3rd March last (ante p. 192) granted warrant to him to uplift the stipend of the parish of Keir for the year 1689 and some of the parishioners, being unwilling to pay, intimated to him that there was a bill of suspension passed at their instance against him and cited him by delivering a duplicate, as has appeared by the copy under the hand of Robert Morrein, messenger.
The clerks tell him that there is no such suspension expeid at their office neither doe they remember that any such bill was presented. He entreats the Lords to grant warrant to him to put his letters and diligence to execution notwithstanding intimation of such petition.
The Lords allow the petitioner to go on in his diligence against the persons liable in payment of the stipend and allow letters to be directed at his instance for citing the messenger to compear before them.”
Modern English Rendering
Alexander Guthrie reminded the Council that on 3 March it had authorized him to collect the Keir stipend for 1689.
Some parishioners who did not wish to pay claimed that they had obtained a bill of suspension against him and had served him with a copy through the messenger Robert Morrein.
When Guthrie checked with the Council clerks, however, they reported that no such suspension had been formally processed through their office and that they did not remember any such bill being presented.
Guthrie therefore asked permission to continue enforcing the earlier Council warrant despite the claimed suspension. The Council agreed and allowed him to continue legal proceedings against those liable for payment. It also authorized letters summoning the messenger to appear before the Council.
This act completes the documentary arc begun on 3 March: Alexander Guthrie not only obtained recognition of his right to the 1689 stipend, but later secured Council authority to continue enforcing payment when parishioners attempted to obstruct it.
Evidence in Perspective
The distinction between an asserted suspension and a formally processed suspension is central to this record. Parishioners told Guthrie that a bill had been passed and served, but the Council clerks reported that no such suspension had been expedited through their office.
The Council therefore did not treat the purported suspension as stopping Guthrie’s right to proceed. Instead, it permitted him to continue his legal diligence against those liable to pay.
This later act should be read together with the 16 July miscellaneous-document receipt at p.675. That receipt proves that papers described as a bill of suspension against Alexander Guthrie and others were in circulation within the Council papers, but it does not by itself establish that the bill had become an effective suspension of his stipend enforcement.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Bill of suspension: a legal application seeking to suspend or halt enforcement of another legal process.
- Expedited / expeid: formally processed or issued through the proper office.
- Diligence: formal legal process used to enforce an obligation or recover payment.
- Letters: formal legal writs authorizing or directing procedural action.
- Compear: to appear formally before a court or authority.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XVI, A.D. 1691 (Edinburgh, 1970), Act, Mr Alexander Guthrie, p.632.
16 July 1691 — Bill of Suspension Against Mr Alexander Guthrie and Others Borrowed from the Council Papers
Third Series • Volume XVI • Miscellaneous Documents • p.675
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
This entry appears among receipts recording the temporary removal or borrowing of Privy Council papers.
On 16 July 1691, Mr John Carmont, writer in Edinburgh, recorded that he had borrowed a bill of suspension produced for William Waugh in Bardanach and others against Mr Alexander Guthrie and others.
Carmont also received the supporting instructions or papers produced with the bill and undertook to return the whole group of documents whenever required.
Complete Printed Item
“Edinburgh, 16 July 1691. Borrowed up be me, Mr. John Carmont, writer in Edinburgh, the bill of suspension produced for William Waugh in Bardanach and uthers against Mr. Alexander Guthrie and uthers which is past with the wholl instructiones produced therewith, quhich I oblise me to reproduce upon demand. (Signed) Jo. Carmont.”
Modern English Rendering
On 16 July 1691, John Carmont, a writer in Edinburgh, recorded that he had taken temporary custody of a bill of suspension produced on behalf of William Waugh in Bardanach and others against Alexander Guthrie and other persons.
The supporting documents submitted with the bill were borrowed at the same time. Carmont formally undertook to return all of the papers whenever they were demanded.
This entry independently confirms that a bill of suspension involving Alexander Guthrie was present among the Privy Council papers in July 1691. It therefore provides documentary context for the later December dispute over whether a suspension had actually been properly processed and could prevent enforcement of his stipend.
Evidence in Perspective
This is a document-custody receipt, not the text of the bill of suspension itself. It identifies the parties and records the movement of the papers but does not state the full legal grounds advanced against Guthrie.
The phrase “which is past” in this receipt should not be used by itself to override the Council clerks’ later December statement that no suspension had been formally expedited through their office. The two pieces of evidence concern different aspects of the paper trail and are best preserved together rather than artificially reconciled.
The later p.632 act is the stronger source for the Council’s final procedural position: Guthrie was permitted to continue enforcing the stipend award notwithstanding the claimed suspension.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Borrowed up: temporarily removed or checked out from official custody.
- Instructions: supporting papers or documentary material accompanying the principal legal application.
- Reproduce: return the borrowed documents to official custody when required.
- Writer: a legal or administrative professional engaged in drafting and handling formal documents.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XVI, A.D. 1691 (Edinburgh, 1970), Miscellaneous Documents, p.675.
Undated — James Guthrie Signs an Assurance as Macer of Justiciary
Third Series • Volume XVI • Oaths of Allegiance and Assurances • p.714
Open Record Details
Document Summary / Context
The volume’s section of Oaths of Allegiance and Assurances includes an undated assurance subscribed by the Lord Justice General, Lord Justice Clerk, Lords of Justiciary, clerks, under-clerk and macers of Justiciary.
Among the subscribers is James Guthrie. The printed index identifies him specifically as “James, macer of Justiciary”, supplying the office that explains his presence among the Court of Justiciary officers.
The editor prints the item as N.D. — no date — while preserving an endorsement on the reverse reading “13 January 1690 (sic)”. That anomalous endorsement should remain exactly as printed rather than being silently altered to 1691.
Complete Printed Item
“73. N.D. Assurance signed by the Lord Justice General, Lord Justice Clerk, Lords of Justiciary and clerk, under-clerk and macers of Justiciary. (Signed) ‘Lothian; G. Campbell; C. Campbell; David Home; A. Hope; Ja. Falconar; Jo. Lauder; Ja. Montgomerie; Jo. Anderson; Ja. Henrysone; (?) McKenzie; James Guthrie.’”
“(On back) ‘13 January 1690 (sic), given in be Lord Aberurqwhill.’”
Modern English Rendering
An assurance was signed by the senior judicial officers and staff of the Court of Justiciary, including the Lord Justice General, Lord Justice Clerk, Lords of Justiciary, clerks, under-clerk and macers.
James Guthrie appears among the subscribers. The volume’s index identifies him as a macer of Justiciary.
The document itself is not dated in the edited text. An endorsement on the reverse reads “13 January 1690,” which the editor marks with sic because of the apparent chronological anomaly.
The entry provides direct occupational evidence for James Guthrie as an officer of the Court of Justiciary. His subscription places him among the macers participating in an official assurance rather than merely appearing in an index or later editorial summary.
Evidence in Perspective
The body text prints only the list of subscribers. The specific identification of James Guthrie as macer of Justiciary comes from the volume’s printed index and is consistent with the document’s statement that the subscribers included the macers of the Court.
The source gives no residence, parentage, spouse or other family information for James Guthrie. His office should therefore be used as an occupational identifier, not expanded into unsupported genealogical relationships.
The dating must also remain cautious. The editor explicitly marks the record N.D., and the “13 January 1690” wording survives only as an endorsed date printed with (sic). The source does not justify replacing that uncertainty with a definite 1691 date.
Terms & Scottish Practice
- Macer: a court officer responsible for formal attendance, service of process and ceremonial or administrative duties before the court.
- Justiciary: the supreme criminal court jurisdiction in Scotland.
- Assurance: a formal declaration subscribed in accordance with governmental requirements.
- N.D.: no date supplied for the document in the edited volume.
- Sic: editorial indication that unusual wording or dating has been reproduced as it appears in the source.
Source: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XVI, A.D. 1691 (Edinburgh, 1970), Oaths of Allegiance and Assurances, no. 73, p.714; printed index p.755.
Volume XVI — Guthrie Research in Perspective
Volume XVI closes the Third Series with a small but unusually coherent group of Guthrie records. Most concern parish ministry and the financial consequences of Scotland’s recent ecclesiastical changes, while the final entry places a James Guthrie among the officers of the Court of Justiciary. The records illustrate why office, legal stage and documentary context must remain distinct even when the number of surname references is small.
The three Alexander Guthrie references form the clearest narrative in the volume. On 3 March 1691 he described approximately ten years as minister of Keir, his forcible exclusion from the ministry and manse in February 1689, and the hardship experienced by his family. The Council granted him the stipend for the whole crop and year 1689. Later records show that recovering that money was not straightforward.
The July receipt proves that papers described as a bill of suspension against Alexander Guthrie and others were among the Privy Council papers. By December, however, the Council clerks reported that no such suspension had been formally expedited or presented through their office. The Council consequently permitted Guthrie to continue his diligence for payment. The three records document separate stages and should not be collapsed into a single event.
Mr Andrew Guthrie appears only incidentally in Henry Erskine’s petition, but the wording is genealogically useful. By 11 June 1691 he was described as “now placed minister” at Edrom. The same passage associates his placement with the Whitsunday stipend term and repair of the minister’s manse, although it does not state his exact date of installation.
The final Guthrie entry belongs to the institutional world of the Court of Justiciary. James Guthrie signs an assurance with the senior judicial officers, clerks and macers, and the printed index identifies him as a macer of Justiciary. The record supplies a valuable occupational identification but no evidence of parentage or kinship.
Source basis: The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Third Series, XVI, A.D. 1691 (Edinburgh, 1970), Guthrie-bearing material at pp.192–193, 329, 632, 675 and 714, checked against the printed Guthrie index at p.755. No Guthrie reference was found in the introductory section. The variant “Guthry” at p.632 refers to Mr Alexander Guthrie of Keir rather than to an additional individual.
The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland — Guthrie Review Complete
With Volume XVI, the Guthrie Genealogy review of the Register of the Privy Council of Scotland reaches the end of the published collection covered on these pages. The First, Second and Third Series have been reviewed volume by volume for Guthrie references, including printed-index entries, surname variants, relevant introductory material and identifiable office- or title-based references.
The resulting records should be read as a documentary finding aid rather than as a single reconstructed family tree. Across the collection, Guthries appear as landholders, ministers, military officers and soldiers, writers, messengers, pursuivants, macers, burgesses, witnesses, cautioners, petitioners, commissioners and participants in many other aspects of Scottish public life.
Particular care has been taken to distinguish accusation from proof, summons from judgment, office from residence, contextual references from direct participation, and shared surname from demonstrated kinship. Where a Guthrie appears only by office or title, an identification is supplied only when the evidence securely supports it.
