The eye-witness letter transcribed below is
significant for several reasons.
First of all, it indicates that at his
trial Spruell had a friend in Court in the person of William Livingston who is
the author of this letter and who has clearly spoken to Spruell since at the
end of the letter Spruell enters as someone who “sends his remembrances” to the letter's recipient Andrew Russell, well-known in Rotterdam both as merchant
and for his prominence in the affairs of the Kirk there which served about a thousand Scottish emigres.This mutual
acquaintance is unsurprising insofar as Spruell is known to have fled to
Rotterdam in 1677 returning to Scotland in 1680 supposedly and perhaps really to
take his wife over to Holland. The acquaintance is clearly a cordial and
significant one.
Second, I note that Livingston - who
was Russell’s brother-in- law and fellow merchant - leaves the letter unsigned
and concludes with greeting to friends “…. as if named”. This is no doubt out
of prudence: he must have thought it possible that the letter would be opened
and read by an agent of government at some point on its journey from Edinburgh
via London to Rotterdam. That Livingston is the author is indicated by
what I take to be Russell’s docketing note added to the letter in a different
ink and hand and by the fact that Livingston addresses Russell as "Brother".
Third, it gives central place to
Spruell’s advocate, Sir George Lockhart, who is depicted as putting up a very
robust defence of his client which contributed significantly to securing a “Not
Proven” verdict from a jury which – as indicated in the letter – was being
pressed to convict. Livingston provides no suggestion that he knows or has
spoken to Lockhart. The letter also records that the Privy Council authorities
had prepared against the possibility of the prosecution failing and were ready
with a new set of charges which prevented Srpuell's release at the end of this trial
and eventually led to his long imprisonment in the Bass Rock prison out in the Firth of Forth, north east of Edinburgh.
Fourth, it provides support for the idea which has several times been advanced that James, Duke of York, had singled out Spruell as an especially dangerous opponent who menaced him personally. James was very conscious of the fact that Covenanters had assassinated the Archbishop of St Andrews, John Sharp, in 1679. The letter provides detail of a supposed verbal exchange between Spruell and the Duke of York in the presence of the Lord Chancellor (John Leslie) but I am unclear if this exchange took place during Spruell’s first interrogation without torture or his second interrogation under torture, though “in council” suggests the former. It is recorded that the Duke of York was present at the torture but the Lord Chancellor may have been absent. Either way, it is unclear how Livingston has come to know the detail of this exchange: Did Spruell tell him? Was it court or other gossip? Had it already appeared in print in the six months which elapsed between the torture and the trial?
Here is the passage; the "principalls" used to mean what we would call "principles" is a best guess for a heavily abbreviated word ; the double "ll" at the end repeats a double "ll" in the preceding "Jesuiticall" which helps the interpretation:
"The main thing incensed [th][e]m :ag[ain]st John Spruell was that in councell [th]e D of York asked him if he thought it lawfull to Kill the king and he turned from him to [th]e Chanceller and said my L[ord] I abhor all popish and Jesuiticall bloodie prin[cipa]lls], this was thought such an affront to [th]e questioner who is [th][ei]r God that all vowed vengence yet have not nor cannot win at his life bot they will do q[uha]t ill they can He desyers to be remembred to you all …."
TRANSCRIPTION by Dr Richard Forty
Dear brother Tewsday 19 June 1681
According to my promise I am very glad that I have it to writt That John Spruell is brought in not guiltie by [th]e syse after many delays and much pains taken to procure testimonies ag[ain]st him and keeping of many witnesses for severall dayes in [th]e Castle Yeasterday all day was spent from ten in [th]e morning till after midnight, Sir George Lockhart and other advocats took very much pains for him bot all their disputs were repelled first they insisted upon a law and practise that no person can be indited on these heads for w[hi]ch he hath been tortured, this was repelled in respect the committie for tortur had not commission to question him on [th]e heads in his inditment bot for other things such as being accessorie to [th]e Excommunication and Airs moss and such like; after th[i]s his advocats produced [th]e councells commission to [th]e committie and in one article they ar ordained to interrogat him anent his being in rebellion and q[uha]t command he had and on what head it was he used violence to mr John Welsh & w[hi]ch are in [th]e indictment and offered to be proven were mainly insisted on yet [th][i]s defence was repelled Then it was debaited for him that no witnesses having formerly deponed in this cause (w[hi]ch they offer to prove all thir witnesses had) could be admitted now to a judiciall witnessing before a syse because such privat depositions was a preingageing and byassing the witness for w[hi]ch cause severall laws ar ag[ain]st it and their own practise to the contrar where in several causes witnesses have been cast on th[i]s head, This was repelled because the Lords sayd they would not make use of any former depositions bot cancell them, so 16 witnesses were examined Severall deponed their seeing him at Hamilton and on [th]e way and in Glasgow bot all purged him from being joyned in the rebellion any maner of way bot {?andiscended} upon some special privat busines he was about, Then they thought to have gained [th][ei]r poynt by proveing by [th]e oaths of [th]e Lords of Councell and Clarks his confession to [th][e]m of his being in rebellion w[hi]ch confession they had written and John Spruell in the time had declaired it was nothing that he spoke and refuised to subscrive it and it was offered him upon subscriveing ^of^ it, not to be tortured, bot he would never do it Sir George Lockhart on this head did so disput the gross illegalitie of it and gave such Law and practise of all nations and entered so many protestations that his disput may be keeped in publik record and that if this were gone over never an advocat should offer to appear in [th]e defence of the innocent and for [th]e benefit of all law, the strenth of reason and the emmenentest advocats in [th]e house joyning for [th]e Pannall made that far contrar to [th][ei]r intentions they could not repell this defence so after a most bloodie discourse pressing and menaceing the syse to find him guiltie (q[uhai]rof they had hopes being the worst men could be found) yet they with one voyce assoyled him; this day before [th]e verdict was read to [th]e pannell the councell mett and sent [th][ei]r commission to [th]e Justices to return [th]e prisoner bake to [th]e tolbouth untill they examine him farther and threaten that they will have him condemned for words he hath spoken, bot he as he doth nothing that may insinuat he fears their fead and would come in their reverence so he doth not give answers to any intangling questions bot potively refuses to satisfie [th][e]m; They ar mightily disappoynted and so is he for they had that character of him they were perswaded they could take away his life in form of law, and to make sure [th]e syse to serve [th][e]m they made a great noyse of a syse of error to sit on a syse [th][a]t had assoyled the heritors of Clidsdaill in march; Mr Riddell is put in prison again. This day a parli[amen]t is proclaimed here to sit [th]e 28 July The main thing incensed [th][e]m ag[ain]st John Spruell was that in councell [th]e D of York asked him if he thought it lawfull to Kill the king and he turned from him to [th]e Chanceller and said my L I abhor all popish and Jesuiticall bloodie {?per[d]u[e]ll[ion]s which would be Latin for treason/s}, this was thought such an affront to [th]e questioner who is [th][ei]r God that all vowed vengence yet have not nor cannot win at his life bot they will do q[uha]t ill they can He desyers to be remembred to you all We ar all here in health at present The long scorching drought here is an evident token of great Skearcity to follow [th]e corn is generallie {?quit lost} [th][a]t it is already {shot} and not a span long. Remember me to all friends as if named
References
Wikipedia: George Lockhart, Lord Carwath
Wikipedia: Covenanters
Wikipedia: John Spreul [alternative spelling] (apothecary)
Wikipedia: Battle of Bothwell Bridge
Wikipedia: James Sharp (bishop)
Wikipedia: Donald Cargill
Wikipedia: Richard Cameron (Covenanter)
Jardine's Book of Martyrs at https://drmarkjardine.wordpress.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment