©ENEAL-CCiY COL-L-ECTION
A HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
I I
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2018
https://archive.org/details/historyofbarclay00barc_1
URY
THE RESIDENCE OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY Taken down 1855
A HISTORY OF THE
BARCLAY FAMILY
WITH PEDIGREES FROM
I067 TO 1933
PART III
THE BARCLAYS IN SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND FROM 1610 to 1933
COMPILED BY
LIEUT. -COLONEL HUBERT F. BARCLAY
AND
ALICE WILSON-FOX
LONDON
THE ST. CATHERINE PRESS STAMFORD STREET, S.E. 1934
*
v
5
0
%
ra
1181228
FOREWORD TO PART III
In placing before the family this, the third and final Part of the Barclay History, I must express my regret that the completion of the work has been so long delayed. A short perusal will, however, inform the reader of the immense amount of research rendered necessary if the records were to be, as far as possible, complete, and of the impossibility of compressing the History into two Parts, as originally intended by my uncle, The Rev. Charles Wright Barclay, Compiler of Part I.
The work has been prolonged and arduous, and I have gladly availed myself of the assistance of Mrs. Wilson-Fox, author of the Life of Lord Halsbury and other books, herself a connection by marriage of the Barclays of Bury Hill. She has dealt in masterly fashion with such outstanding characters as Colonel David Barclay (Urie I) and his son, Robert, the famous “ Apologist ” for the Quakers. I take this opportunity of tendering to her my most grateful thanks.
I desire also to place on record my appreciation of the work of the Printers’ Readers, whose knowledge and care have been of the greatest help.
I cannot claim that the work is exhaustive : more infor¬ mation may be available to future historians extracted from charter chests of other families. Since the issue of Part II I have received extracts from sundry charters at Glamis Castle, which serve as additional proofs to statements already set forth. Recently two valuable deeds have been discovered by Messrs. Kinnear and Falconer, Solicitors, of Stonehaven, whose forebears were factors to the Urie estates. One of
v
FOREWORD
these original documents is the contract of the purchase of East New Jersey, in 1685, from the executors of Sir George Carteret, first owner. The other is the Fundamental Con¬ stitution of the Province, as laid down by the first proprietors under the Governorship of Robert Barclay “ the Apologist.” These deeds, with the original seals attached, are now at Bury Hill.
I desire once more to record my deep gratitude to my wife, who has been my devoted collaborator throughout.
Orchards,
Letty Green,
Hertford : December, 1933.
H.F.B.
vi
CONTENTS
Colonel David Barclay, 161 0-1686. Fighting in the Thirty Years War under Gustavus Adolphus. The Covenanters. Montrose. Purchase of Urie. Imprison¬ ment in Edinburgh Castle. Joins the Society of Friends. Trials and further imprisonment. Pages 1 to 97
Robert Barclay “ the Apologist ” for the “ Quakers,” 1648-1690. Friendship with Princess Elizabeth Palatine. Efforts on behalf of the Friends with Charles II. Governor of East New Jersey. King James II. Fox and Penn. Pages 98 to 191
The Urie Line (continued), 1690-1854. Robert Barclay (Urie III). Genealogical Account. Robert “ the Strong.” Robert Barclay- Allardice, M.P. Captain Barclay -Allar- dice, “ the Pedestrian.” Pages 192 to 233
David Barclay of Cheapside, second son of the Apologist. Marriage with Priscilla Freame of the Bank. Entertain¬ ment of George III . His son, David of Walthamstow. American War of Independence. Purchase of the Anchor Brewery. 1682-1809. Pages 235 to 247
The Barclays of the Bank. 1728-1933. Pages 249 to 270
The Senior Line (continued). The Barclays of Bury Hill, 1711-1933. Alexander Barclay of Philadelphia. Robert Barclay (Bury Hill I). Dr. Johnson and the Brewhouse. Charles Barclay, M.P. (Bury Hill II), Chief of the House of Barclay, and his descendants.
Pages 271 to 298 vii
CONTENTS
|
Memoria in Sterna, 1914 - 1918. |
Pages 299 to 301 |
|
List of Pedigrees. |
Pages 303 and 304 |
|
Index — |
|
|
Barclay Names. |
Pages 307 to 322 |
|
General Names. |
Pages 323 to 349 |
|
Place Names. |
Pages 350 to 367 |
|
List of Subscribers. |
Pages 369 to 371 |
Vlll
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Ury : The Residence of the Barclay Family
Robert Barclay-Allardice, M.P. (Urie V)
Captain Robert Barclay-Allardice (Urie VI)
Captain Robert Barclay-Allardice (Urie VI)
Royalty at David Barclay’s house in Cheapside
David Barclay of Walthamstow and Youngsbury
Robert Barclay of Clapham (Bank II) and his Wife Anne
Alexander Barclay of Philadelphia
Anne Hickman, Wife of Alexander Barclay of Philadelphia
Robert Barclay (Bury Hill I)
Bury Hill
Charles Barclay, M.P. (Bury Hill II)
Frontispiece facing page 215 facing page 219 facing page 222
facing page 238
facing page 243
facing page 252 facing page 271
facing page 272 facing page 273 facing page 275 facing page 278
IX
'
LIST OF PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES CONSULTED
FOR PART III
Genealogical Account of the Barclays of Urie, together with Memoirs of the life of Colonel David Barclay and of his eldest son, the late Robert Barclay of Urie. Robert Barclay. 1740.
The Court Book of the Barony of Urie. 1604-1747. Douglas Gordon Barron.
The Genealogy of the Earls of Sutherland and Gordon. Theological Review, 1874, “ The Great Laird of Urie.” Alexander Gordon.
Theological Review, 1875, The Marrow of Barclay.” Alexander Gordon.
History of the Carnegies, Earls of Southesk. William Fraser.
Earldoms of Strathearn, Menteith and Airth ; with a report on the claim of Robert Barclay-Allardice. Sir Harris Nicholson, G.C.M.G.
Pedestrianism, with a full account of Captain Barclay’s Public and Private Matches. Walter Thom.
The Memorials of Hope Park.
Life of Gustavus Adolphus. Chapman.
Life of Gustavus Adolphus. Spence.
Earl of Callender.
Gordon of Salleach.
Calder.
xi
PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES CONSULTED
The Thirty Years War. Anton Gindeley.
Civil War in Dorset. Robert Baillie.
Memorialls of the Trubles in Scotland. Spalding Club.
The Army and the Covenant, 1644-1645.
History of the Great Rebellion. Tout and Powell.
History of Scotland. Wishart.
Outline of Scottish History. Mackenzie.
Scotland and the Protectorate. Firth.
Historical Associations of My Native Country. David Scott.
The Pentland Rising.
The Black Book of Kincardineshire. James Anderson.
Trew and Perfyt Account.
East Coast of Scotland. Francis Douglas.
Dictionary of National Biography.
The Building of the Empire. Alfred Story.
Scottish Colonial Schemes. George Pratt Insh.
Pennsylvania Magazine, Volume V.
Pennsylvania Gazette, January 17th, 1771.
Agricultural Tour in the United States and Upper Canada.
Captain Robert Barclay-Allardice.
Life of Richard Blair.
Secretary’s Papers, Register House, Edinburgh, 1688.
The Lauderdale Papers, Camden Society, Edited by Osmond Airy.
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland.
Acta Parliamentorum Regni Scotiae.
Supplementary Parliamentary Papers, being Warrants of Parliament during the interregnum found subsequently. Original MSS. in the Register House, Edinburgh. Convention of Royal Burghs.
Clarendon State Papers.
Thurloe Papers, xii
PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES CONSULTED
Calendar of State Papers.
Fraser Papers.
Nicholas Papers. Camden Society.
Records of the Secretary’s Office, Windsor.
Sufferings of the Church in Scotland. Woodrow.
Sufferings of the Quakers. Joseph Besse.
History of the Friends. William Sewel.
Early Quakerism. W. C. Braith waite.
Story of Quakerism. Mrs. Emmott.
History of the Quakers. Gough.
Rise of Quakerism in Yorkshire. Rowntree.
The Quakers. Clarkson.
Memoirs of the Rise of the Quakers in the North of Scotland.
Life of William Penn, Prefixed to Penn’s Works. Joseph Besse.
Life of William Penn. William Sewel.
Life of Penn. Clarkson.
Life of William Penn. Graham.
Quaker and Courtier : the Life and Work of William Penn.
Mrs. Colquhoun Grant (one of his descendants).
Life of George Fox. Dr. Thomas Hodgkin.
The Journal of George Fox, Cambridge University Press. Diary of Alexander Jaffray, with Memoirs of the Rise, Progress and Persecutions of the People called Quakers. John Barclay.
Robert Barclay, his Life and Work. E. Christabel Cadbury.
A Short Account of the Life and Writings of Robert Barclay.
David Barclay (of Walthamstow).
The Letters of Lydia Ann Barclay, 1862.
Piety Promoted : A Quaker Record, 1701-1829, Reprinted Edition, 1854.
Xlll
PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES CONSULTED
A Man of Plain Speech. M. E.
Deeds and Letters at Bury Hill.
Manuscript Life of Robert Barclay, by Arthur Kett Barclay
(j843)-
Rachel Gurney of the Grove. Sir Alfred Pease, Bart. Barclay’s Bank, Limited. F. W. Mathews.
Annals of an East Anglian Bank. W. H. Bidwell.
xiv
PEDIGREE I
The Barclays of Urie
COLONEL DAVID BARCLAY, —Catherine, daughter of Robert Urie I. Bom 1610. Died 1686. I Gordon of Gordonstoun.
Robert Barclay, Urie II. — Christian, daughter
1 The Apologist.’ 1648. Died 1690.
Bom
of Gilbert Mollison of Aberdeen.
John Barclay, in=. ... of East East New Jersey. New Jersey. Died 1731. Had issue.
David Bar¬ clay. Died unmarried.
Lucy Bar¬ clay. Died unmarried.
Jean Bar- = Sir Euen clay. Cam eron
of Lochiel.
Robert Barclay, ^Elizabeth,
Urie III. Bom 1672. Author of “ The Genea¬ logical Account.” Died 1747.
daughter of John Braine of London.
David Barclay of Cheapside. Born 1682. Died 1769.
( 1 ) Anne, daughter o f James Taylor of London.
(2) Priscilla, daughter o f John Freame.
John Barclay of Dublin. Born 1687. Married Ann Strettle.
I I
Patience Barclay. Married Timothy Forbes.
Christian Barclay. Married Alexander Jaffray.
Catherine Barclay. Married James Forbes.
Jean Barclay. Married Alexander Forbes.
,/fs.
See Pedigree II, Barclays of London.
Robert Barclay, = Une, daughter
Urie IV. Born 1699. Died 1760.
of Sir Euen Cameron o f Lochiel.
David Barclay= Margaret of Cateaton Pardoe. Street, London.
Left no male issue.
John Barclay. Died young.
n
Mollison Barclay. Married John Doubleday.
Margaret Barclay.
Elizabeth Barclay. Married Sir William Ogilvie.
Catherine Barclay.
(1) Lucy, daughter of == Robert Barclay, M.P., = (2) Sarah
David Barclay London.
of
Urie V. Born Died 1797.
1731-
daughter A liar dice.
of
Ann,
James
David Barclay. Killed at the taking of Martinique, 1762, s.p.
Ewen Barclay. Died unmarried.
Alexander Barclay. Died s.p.
Lucy. Married Samuel Galton of Birmingham.
Captain Robert Barclay-= Mary Allardice, Urie VI. Born Delgarno. 1779. Died 1854. Last Laird. Left no male issue.
TT
James Barclay.
David Stuart Barclay.
Anne Barclay.
Une Cameron Barclay. Mar¬ ried John Innes.
Margaret Barclay. Married Hudson Gurney.
Mary Barclay.
Rodney Barclay.
All died unmarried.
THE BARCLAYS OF URIE
COLONEL DAVID BARCLAY Colonel
David
Colonel David Barclay, third son of David Barclay (Mathers ^^686, XI), was born in 1610 at Kirktounhill, on the estate of Urie i. Mathers, which had been in the possession of his line since the year 1351. This property was not yet sold to meet the family embarrassments, as related in Part II of this History.
Although in the seventeenth century the bitter ecclesiastical controversies of Tudor times had died down, and material prosperity was clearly increasing, great religious questions still held a dominant place in men’s minds both in England and Scotland.
In the year 1618 the Scottish nation was deeply stirred by the revolt of the Protestant nobles of Bohemia against their Catholic Ruler, the Emperor Mathias, and their refusal to accept as his successor his cousin Ferdinand of Styria, a rigid Catholic. They chose in his place, as their King, the Protestant Frederick V, Elector Palatine of the Rhine, son-in-law of James VI and I, the leader of the South German Calvinists, and the conflict was thus intensified between the German Protestants of the Evangelical Union and the Romanist Princes of the Catholic League.
King James, torn between his horror of religious war and his duty to support his son-in-law, was too cautious and niggardly to side openly with the spirited Elector, and when the Catholic forces of the Emperor Ferdinand overran and conquered the Palatinate in 1622, and the Elector and his wife had to take refuge at her father’s Court, all Protestants in England and Scotland were warmly indignant on their behalf.
His son-in-law’s loss of dominions roused James, however, and he gave permission for a force of 12,000 men to be raised III. — A I
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Genealogical Account, p. 27.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
in England to serve under the Protestant adventurer Count Mansfield, in an attempt to win back the Palatinate. The expedition was half-hearted and ill organised, and proved a complete failure. The King was unable to obtain further supplies from Parliament, and when he died in 1625 the matter was still in abeyance.
David Barclay went to King’s College, Aberdeen, to pursue his studies, in 1628, but his name does not appear among those who graduated there, and we read in the Memoir of his life by his grandson Robert (Urie III) : “ He no sooner went through his education in the schools than he went abroad on his travels in Germany, where he went a volunteer into the Swedish Army, under Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, in which he served and was made a Captain.”
Robert Barclay tells us that David’s commission as Captain was, in the Swedish language, still extant in the family when he wrote in 1740. The date of this commission appears to have been 1630.
Many younger members of Scottish and English nobility were at this time seeking useful employment and adventure in the standing armies of the Continent, and it may be that the financial embarrassments of his family turned the thoughts of David Barclay to a similar course. We may suppose also that the Protestant cause had been a subject of constant discus¬ sion in his home, and that there would have been a strong attraction for the brave and serious youth in the character of the young King of Sweden.
The eyes of Europe were focused upon Gustavus Adolphus, “the Lion of the North,” whose heroic stand, as upholder of Protestantism against the overwhelming Catholic forces of the Emperor Ferdinand, had raised the hopes and courage of the persecuted Protestants throughout Central Europe.
When he succeeded to the throne at the age of eighteen he found his kingdom worn out and demoralised by fifty years of civil war, and by his firm administration he had in a few years restored Sweden to her position as a power in the Councils of Europe.
2
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
He had been brought up in a strict Protestant school and when he was appealed to by his co-religionists in the “ Thirty Years War ” took up their cause with enthusiasm.
He was also stirred to bitter indignation by the cruelties committed, in the name of religion, by the Austrian troops. With a small force of 15,000 men he attacked the huge armies of Ferdinand and by the superiority of his discipline and the bravery of his soldiers soon turned the fortune of war and caused the Imperial troops to retreat before him.
No doubt he welcomed the accession to his forces of the English and Scottish volunteers, including David Barclay and his friends, as he had been disappointed by the hesitation of the German princes to throw in their lot with him, though fighting on their behalf. They were still under the terror inspired by the name of Wallenstein and Tilly, the two great Austrian Generals, whose military successes had raised the Catholic Emperor to a position of supremacy.
Nevertheless Gustavus continued to advance with unbroken successes. Tilly was utterly defeated at Breitenfeld in 1631, and died of wounds, and Wallenstein was reappointed Com- mander-in-Chief of the Imperial forces. After some pre¬ liminary engagements the armies met at Lutzen, where the Swedes were again victorious, but Gustavus Adolphus was killed, it was believed by treachery, in the moment of victory.
David Barclay took part in all this campaign, and showed such conspicuous courage that he was promoted to a Captaincy.
The strong religious principles of Gustavus influenced all ranks, and when the troops were assembled for prayer daily, and advanced to attack to the solemn strains of “Ein feste Berg ist unser Gott” we can imagine how the conviction of Divine support must have inspired the grave young Scottish officer.
The years during which Gustavus Adolphus commanded the Swedish army were an heroic epoch, and the King’s tragic death at the age of thirty-eight was a staggering blow to German Protestantism. Though the war continued it had
3
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Genealogical Account, p. 27.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1638.
The Building of the Empire, Alfred Story.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
lost its moving spirit and reverted to many of its old barbaric methods.
David Barclay, now promoted to the rank of Major, re¬ mained on the Continent for six years. It is thought probable that he transferred his services to the Prussian army after the death of Gustavus,but it is certain that he consistently espoused the cause of the Protestant Powers until 1638, when the serious civil commotions in England and Scotland summoned him home.
The names of several “Barckleis or Barklays” appear in the Swedish Military Archives during this period. Among them William Barclay, “son of the laird of ‘Sidgot’” [Seggatt], he was grandson of Walter Barclay (Towie XVI); and another David, stated to have been an ensign in Jacob Seton’s regiment in 1624, and afterwards in Alexander Leslie’s company of foot, but his identity cannot be established.
We must now review the sequence of events at home during the years of David Barclay’s absence.
King James the Sixth of Scotland and First of England had determined that the two countries should have a united Church, combining moderate Protestant doctrine with Epis¬ copal government. On his accession to the English throne he had declared “ I will have one doctrine and one discipline, one religion in substance and ceremony. I shall make them con¬ form themselves, or I will harry them out of the land, or do worse.”
The dour national character of the Scots, however, had been too deeply penetrated by the Presbyterian tenets for them to accept this compromise, and it was against the wish of the majority that, in 1612, Episcopacy had been forcibly estab¬ lished by law in Scotland. The King, a timid man, had been convinced by the Armada, and the Gunpowder Plot, that the Papists were secretly conspiring against him, and felt that a religious alliance and united Church between Protestant England and Presbyterian Scotland would add to the security of the Realm. He was the more desirous of this as certain negotiations had passed between Scotland and France with a
4
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
view to renewing their ancient alliance, which policy had, however, been checked by Cardinal Richelieu.
But when in 1618 the Five Articles had been adopted by the General Assembly at Perth, in which the King was declared to be the absolute Head of the Scottish Constitution, the smouldering flames of religious war were fanned. The devout and political instincts of the Scots began to gather strength, and by 1635 had come to a head. Consequently the introduc¬ tion of the Liturgy in St. Giles’s Church, Edinburgh, in that year, which seemed to indicate a slight deviation towards the Roman Catholic ritual, provoked an uproar initiated by Jenny Geddes, and her “ creepie stool,” which had not been equalled since the Reformation.
The Scottish nation rose in wrath. King Charles I, who suc¬ ceeded his father in 1625, held t0 King James’s policy, and was overwhelmed with supplications, petitions, and protests. Among these the chief was “The Covenant,” prepared by Alexander Henderson, the head of the ministers, and Johnston of Warriston, “For the Defence of the Reformed Religion” (as reformed from Popery). This was enthusiastically accepted by a large number of nobility and gentry, signed by three hundred Ministers, and a great multitude of the people, “many of whom signed it with tears, and so intense was the feeling, some in their own blood.”
After this the Covenanters held an Assembly in Glasgow, and declared their intention of prosecuting the Bishops, but the King challenged the mode of election to the Assembly, and absolutely forbade the prosecutions. Matters had reached this point when David Barclay was urgently summoned home by his relatives and friends in 1638. His reputation for courage and military skill was too well known for him to be spared to foreign service when events of such national importance were taking place in Scotland. He kept his rank as Major, and threw in his lot with the moderate Presbyterian party, at that time under the leadership of the young Marquis of Montrose, a nobleman of brilliant qualities, and one of the most accomplished gentlemen of his age. He was supported by all the great north-eastern families, Keiths,
5
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1618-1635.
1625.
Tout and Powell.
1638.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Acta ParL Scot, vi, hi, p. 684.
The Trubles in Scotland, Spalding Club, p. 81.
Civil War in Dorset,
Robt. Baillie.
1641.
1639.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Forbes, Frasers and Crichtons, many of whom were kin to the Barclays.
The Covenanters restored Presbyterian Church govern¬ ment, condemned the Service book, abjured Episcopacy, and put an army into the field, commanded by Alexander Leslie, a General trained in the service of Gustavus Adolphus, under whom he had risen to the rank of Field- Marshal.
He is described thus : “There came out of Germanie hame to Scotland, ane gentleman of base birth, born in Balveny, who had served long and fortunately in the German wars, and called to his name Felt Marschal Leslie, His Excellence.”
And “such was his wisdom and authorise,” writes another historian, “that all with ane incredible submission, from the beginning to the end, gave over themselves to be guided by the little old crooked soldier, as if he had been the great Solyman.”
He was seconded by another Leslie, called David, but no kinsman of his. He was a Fife man, son of Leslie of Pit- early, and was afterwards created Lord Newark. He had also served in the Swedish army and had become Major- General. Both these men were personal friends of David Barclay.
A somewhat strange welcome awaited David and the Scots officers with him, who had given up their posts in the Swedish army, and hastened home at the call of their country. Directly they reached the coast of Yorkshire in May 1639, they were attacked by a hostile force, who took from them much of their military gear and carried them off to Newcastle, where they were detained twenty days, and thence to London for three months, as prisoners of war.
This hostile force was most probably a privateer or “ pirat ” vessel, of which many were manned by Royalists living near the coasts, and haunted the seas near the ports to waylay incoming ships bearing munitions of war. The company of Scottish officers returning to take part in the Rebellion would be a rich prize, and their “ saidles and pistoles ” and so forth, most welcome booty to the impoverished Cavaliers.
6
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
The following petition was sent to King Charles, on September 28th, 1641 :
“ Laig Lotenant Colonell J Barclay, Lt Coll J Stewart, Robert Graem, J Urry, David Barclay.
“ Wee officers of Fortune within the countrie are forced now at last by reason of our great necessitie to have recourse unto yr Majestie, after so many petitions given in to severall Comtees appointed to that end, but no course as yet being taken for our satis¬ faction, we are necessitat to show our extreme want unto yr sacred Majestie.”
This appears to have been only one of several appeals, and is followed by a more detailed account on October 7th, addressed this time to the Committee of Estates (Scottish Parliament).
“ Supplication be these officers of War, imprisoned at Newcastle.
“ My Lords and others of the Committee of the Estates of Parliament vnto yr Lordships so humblie meanes and shawis [shows]
“ Wee your servitors vnder subscryving [under subscribing] That whereas after long and great expenses in comeing from Germanie to Or native Kingdome in May 1639 yeiris, wee were takin prisoneris upon the coist of England neir to Flamburro heid, Quhair we left the maist part of or gudes, saidles [saddles], pistoles, and other armes. And thairefter to Newcastle, quhair wee remained twentie days upon our owne charges. And from thence carried clois [close] prissoniers to London. And their were detained neir for the space of three mo upon our own chairges, paying fees of the severall prissones. And all other expensis to our utter loss. We humblie thairfor beseek [beseech] your Lo: to tak our foresaid lois to your consideracon. That we may be repayed and yor Lordships anser most humblie wee attend.”
Among eighteen signatures appear those of “ David Barclay, Lt Colonell,” and “ Alexander Barclay Lt Coll.”
The hostilities which broke out between the King and the Covenanters in 1639, on the question of Episcopacy, were at first known as “ the Bishops War.”
Charles resolved to coerce his rebellious subjects by an English army, and his plan was to advance to the Border, with
7
Colonel
David
Barclay,
1610-1686,
Urie I.
1641.
Acta Pari. Scot. V, p. 674.
Acta Pari. Scot. Vol. v, p. 708.
1641.
1639.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
See Part II, p. 248.
1640.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Hamilton and Huntly combining to attack the Scots in the rear. The Marquis of Hamilton, a weak, self-seeking courtier, had been appointed a special Commissioner to Scotland to deal with the malcontents, and George Gordon, second Marquis of Huntly, with the powerful and numerous Gordon clan at his back, was a valuable though somewhat independent ally.
The King soon found that his “ pressed men ” made a poor fight against the Scottish army, who had been well drilled and trained by Alexander Leslie. The Covenanters bore on their colours in gold letters “For Christ’s Crown and Covenant ” with the Royal Arms, maintaining that though against the King’s policy, they still supported the Monarchy.
Bothparties began ingloriously with aflight of the Covenanters before Huntly, called in derision “ The trot of Turriff,” and a stampede of Royalist Highlanders at Megray Hill. More serious fighting followed, and Montrose gained a victory at Brig o’ Dee, which he consolidated by the occupa¬ tion of the “prelatic” city of Aberdeen in the Covenanting interest.
The King found that his men would not stand fire, and it was useless to continue the campaign, so, on June 18th, 1639, he signed the Treaty of Berwick, by which it was agreed that the civil and religious grievances of Scotland should be settled by a Free Parliament and Assembly.
When the Assembly met, they declared once more for the abolition of Episcopacy, whereupon Charles broke his word, withdrew his promise, and once more resolved on War.
Scotland then became divided into three great parties — the uncompromising Royalists, the equally extreme Covenan¬ ters, of whom the Duke of Argyll had constituted himself leader, and the Moderate Party, under Montrose, with whom David Barclay identified himself.
For many years the people had submitted to the authority of the priesthood, without protest, but the resistance of the Scots to Laud’s Service Book was the spark that fired the 8
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
train, and as the King persisted in upholding it, all Scotland fell away from their obedience. The army, under Alexander Leslie, invaded England, crossing the Tweed at Coldstream, his Lowlanders in hodden-grey with blue caps, and his High¬ landers in their ragged plaids and home-dyed orange-coloured kilts, with bows and arrows, and defeated the English troops at Newburn. After which Leslie occupied Northumberland and Durham.
Charles entered into negotiations with him, and promised to leave those counties in the hands of the Scots as a security for the payment of £850 a day, which the King had to promise, to pay the troops until a permanent settlement was effected. This was at last arranged in 1641, and the Scots army then returned home.
Sir Robert Gordon says: “The Scots armie having stayed in England for the space of twelf months, they returned into Scotland with great honour and commendation, to the eternal glory of this nation, having settled religion and liberties to their own content, and also assisted England against the practice of the popish and prelatical faction, having at the time of their being abroad (as an English writter sayeth) behaved themselves ‘ rather like saints than soldiers.’ ”
So the discipline of General Leslie carried on the traditions of Gustavus Adolphus, and we may assume that the Scots officers who had returned with David Barclay were mainly responsible for this testimony.
In 1641 Montrose became dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Covenanting leaders, and resented the preference they showed to the Marquis of Argyll. Also, the Acts passed by the Edinburgh Parliament in that year, which substituted Presbyterian for Episcopal forms of worship, and con¬ stituted Church government by Burghs instead of Bishops, had been approved and ratified by the King. It seemed that Charles was prepared to act in a constitutional manner ; so Montrose gradually became alienated from the Covenanters and ultimately espoused the Royalist cause.
This came as a great blow to the Moderate Party, which hi. — B 9
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
August 28, 1640.
1641.
Gen. of Earls of Suther- landGordon, p. 508.
1641
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Acta Pari. Scot. (1644), Vol. vi, pp. 66-198 ; (1645), pp. 134,366-492; (1646), p.
628 ; (1647).
pp. 684, 687.
1641-1648.
Acta Pari. Scot. Vol. vi (1), pp.684-5.
The Army and the Covenant (1644-5),
p. XXX
(Intro) and p. 168.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
was now led by the Earl Marischal, Marr, Southesk, Sea- forth and Perth. David Barclay remained unshaken in his allegiance, though he must deeply have regretted the loss of his gallant leader.
Although David Barclay’s personal records have unfor¬ tunately not been preserved, there are abundant proofs of his active service in the archives of the Scottish Army. In “ Parliamentary Proceedings ” between the years 1641 and 1648, a large number of military orders are recorded, relating to movements of troops, pay of soldiers, promotion of officers, and alteration and remodelling of the Army under Cromwell’s system, which are full of references to David Barclay and his kinsmen.
He shared the difficulties of the officers in the matter of the payment of the troops, when the subsidy promised by the King failed to materialise, but he received later substantial sums in reimbursement of the money he had personally advanced when the New Model was organised in 1647.
The Committees of War for the Shires appointed in 1645 contain many names of the Barclay family.
David Barclay’s name appears in honourable mention more than once while he served with Lord Montgomerie’s regiment of “ Hors.” In the reorganisation of the forces to form Cromwell’s New Model Army, Barclay’s “ Dragowners ” (Dragoons) are often referred to.
When the Parliament made fair promises of repayment in December 1645, their communication was addressed to the Earl of Crawford, “ to write to Colonell David Barclay.”
Lord Montgomerie’s regiment of horse is mentioned as having been engaged at Philiphaugh in 1645, and as having been represented at the muster at Newark in January 1646, when Colonel Barclay’s troop is described as having been “ formed in Scotland.”
It was also engaged in the siege of Newcastle in 1644, and, after Philiphaugh, was sent to “ lie in Aberdeenshire,” while there are numerous entries relating to technical and 10
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Acta Pari. Scot. Vol. vi (1), p. 673.
1641-1648.
Genealogical
Account,
P- 32.
1642.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
responsible services entrusted to Major (afterwards Colonel)
David Barclay.
He was appointed “ Root-master ” to the regiment on January 9th, 1647. These officers appeared to hold the equivalent rank of colonels of foot and were nominated by the Committee of Estates.
His grandson, in his Memoirs, frequently refers to a note¬ book in Colonel David’s own handwriting, which related to this period, but which, it is greatly to be regretted, has not been preserved.
The Civil War in England, between the King and the Parliament, broke out when Charles I raised the Royal Standard at Nottingham on August 23 rd, 1642, and the campaign opened favourably for the Royalists at the battle of Edgehill.
After many varying fortunes, and a brilliant offensive by Montrose, now of course on the Royalist side, the Covenanters under General Leslie and General Fairfax besieged Newcastle and York, and threatened the north of England.
In both these sieges Lord Montgomerie’s regiment was engaged, and Major David Barclay’s name again appears in connection with delivery of arms for the regiment.
Montrose was now north of the Border, and the Marquis of Huntly was conducting a somewhat aimless rising in the Lochaber country. The Leslies were recalled from England to deal with the situation, and the following order was issued to the Scottish Army : —
“ Edinburgh, 16th April 1644.
“ Commn.to Earl Marischal to command the hors in the forces to Acta Pari, be sent for suppression of rebellion of Marquis of Huntlie and his pC°r0 V1 (l)’ adherents in the North.
“ The Marquis of Argylle to be Chief Commander of the whole forces of hors and foote to be so employed (w. consent of Earl of Callender commander in chief of all hors and foote in Kingdom).
“ A Committee to be appointed ‘ to go allongis with the forces.
These personis or any seven of the saide to be a Committee of the robales [rebels] to go towards the north, headed by the Earls of 1644.
II
Feb. 1644.
COLONEI. David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Murray and Sinclair, including the Lairds of Penmure, Morphie, Innes, Johnstoun, Barclay, and many more names.’ ”
It is not quite clear which Barclay is meant here, though David Barclay was certainly in command of his troop of horse in this expedition, and it may have been his kinsman, Sir David Barclay of Collairnie (XII).
Meanwhile things were not going well for the King in England, and on July 2nd was fought the battle of Marston Moor, where the Parliamentary Army, with Cromwell and his Ironsides, won a decisive victory over the Royalist forces. The battle was largely decided by a magnificent charge of the Scots horse, under David Leslie, with whom rode the tried and seasoned troopers of David Barclay’s command. They are said to have cut through Prince Rupert’s Cavaliers, who were scattered “ like a little dust,” and so settled the fate of the day. The King’s army was hopelessly defeated, and the whole of the north of England fell into the hands of “ the godly party.”
Cromwell’s resolution to reorganise the military forces opposed to the King had a direct bearing on the fortunes of the war at this time. He forced the New Model Ordi¬ nance on the Parliament, and by it the various armies were formed into a single whole, as a thoroughly professional and permanent body, under uniform command, stern discipline, and with regular pay, for which new taxes were imposed.
The officers were expected to sign the Covenant, and precedence was given where possible, to men of strict Puritan views. The Army thus formed soon became a practically irresistible machine, and among the first results the Parlia¬ ment was obliged to pay their long overdue arrears to the soldiers in Ireland, for on September 13th, 1644, in the Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Com¬ pounding with Delinquents, 1643-1669, we find this entry : —
“ Declaration by the Estates of Parliament of Scotland of the receipt by their Commissaries in London, Robert Barclay [Collairnie
12
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
XII] and John Campbell, from the Committee of Goldsmith’s Hall, of the balance in full of £30,000, due to the Scots army in Ireland,
. . . sent by ships in chests.”
And again on May 6th, 1645, by request of Robert Barclay, a further sum of £10,000 and in July 1645, £9>500 sent> “ by persons appointed to carry it ” for the Scottish army in Ireland.
The army in Scotland and England had reason to hope that their bill would also be met, though it was not for another two years that “ Leven’s treasure carts rolled over the Tweed,” bringing the necessary funds after the surrender of the King.
Montrose had been offered the post of Captain- General and Viceroy of Scotland by King Charles, but had declined it, preferring to be called the King’s Lieutenant-General, and leaving the higher sounding title to the King’s nephew, Prince Maurice, son of the Elector Palatine.
In September 1644, with a force of only 3,000 men, and no cavalry, Montrose swept the Covenanters before him at Tippermuir, and the city of Perth surrendered. After this he marched to Aberdeen and gained a second victory there, followed by a pitiless massacre of the defenceless townsmen. He then led the Clan Macdonald into the Campbell country, where they fought fiercely with their hereditary foes, and, joining with the great Gordon Clan under the Marquis of Huntly, he invaded the Eastern Lowlands and captured Dundee.
Sir Robert Gordon wrote : —
“ No man being able to withstand him, Montrose crossed the river Dee, and marched to Stonehyve [Stonehaven] which he caused burne, together with Cowie, Fetteroso, and divers other landes be¬ longing to the Earle Marischal, because he refused to joyne with him.”
We read also : —
“ His [the Earl Marischal] girnelles [meal granaries] sic as were left oncareit to Urie, were pillaged, with the Barronies of
*3
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1644-5.
Gen. of Earles of Sutherland Gordon, p. 522.
Trubles
Scotland,
Spalding.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1645.
1645.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Dunnotta and Fetteroso, and [Montrose] then merches to Urie,” where “ he fyres the place, burnis alle to the voltis [roofs] and haill lauche bigging, cornes and barn-yardis, and plunderis the haill grund.”
Included in these lands thus devastated was the estate of Urie, soon to become the property of Colonel David Barclay.
Montrose’s dashing and successful advance, darkened only by the siege and ruthless sack of Aberdeen which has been described as the only blot on his fair fame, and culminating with his victory at Kilsythe in August, 1645, very nearly recovered the whole of Scotland for the King. But his Highland allies deserted him to take back their booty to their native glens, after their wont, and a rapid move¬ ment by the Covenanting army, under David Leslie, down the Vale of Gala, resulted in his being taken by surprise, with but 500 Irish Foot, and about 1,200 cavalry from the Border country. On September 12th, 1645, Montrose found himself compelled to stand and give battle at Philip- haugh, “ on the long green meadow that lies beside Ettrick water.”
In this engagement, David Barclay had the grief of losing his youngest brother James, who was killed serving as Cap¬ tain in his Troop of Horse, which rode with Major Lord Middleton’s Regiment, and is specially mentioned in des¬ patches.
David Leslie’s army numbered 4,000, and the Covenanters won a notable victory which finally decided the fate of the Royalist cause in Scotland. On June 14th, 1645, Charles I had been defeated at the battle of Naseby, but his followers continued the gallant but hopeless struggle until the news of the disaster at Philiphaugh reached them, and the King realised that with the failure of Montrose, his last hope of success had vanished.
Though triumphant in the field, the Covenanting Army was still in difficulties as to the payment of the troops, and the soldiers were becoming very impatient.
14
1
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
The Parliament sent fair promises, and on December 23rd, 1645, the following entry was made in the records : —
“ The Estates on petn ” from the town of Brechin order John, Lord Crawford, Prext [President] of Parliament to write to Colonel David Barclay, to whom and to his regiment 2 months maintenance of October and November are assigned, to forbear exacting payment, which is to be supplied by Parliament.”
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Acta Pari. Scot. Vol. vi (1), p. 492.
We have no record that this was done, and it would seem that payment was being exacted from the towns where the troops were billeted.
David Barclay had other duties besides his regular military routine, and was occasionally made responsible for the care of important prisoners.
On March 25th, 1646, a warrant was sent to the Constable of Edinburgh Castle
for the delivery of Sir John Mure of Archindrane, and Sir Michael of Posso, to the keeping of Major David Barclay, until certain fines have been paid, and thereafter till security is given for their good behaviour.
“(Signed) Cassilis. P.T.D. Com:”
Again on April 1st, 1646.
1646.
Supplemen¬ tary Parlia¬ mentary papers, being Warrants of Parliament during the Interregnum, Found sub¬ sequently to the binding of the Parlia- mentaryWar- rants.
Orig. MSS. at Register House, Edin¬ burgh.
“ Warrant to David Barclay to apprehend and imprison James April 1. Murray of Romanno, Sir John Veitch of Danick, Robert Hunter of Polmood, Andrew Tweedie of Kingsdoors, William Govan of Car- drono, and William Johnstoun of Balmyre, until they pay their fynes, provided to the said David Barclay, for the use of Lord Montgomerie’s Regiment.
“ (Signed) Cassilis.”
This gives another sidelight on the methods employed to APril 2s>. support the cost of the Army.
After Philiphaugh, the Royalist army of the West capitu¬ lated to Cromwell’s general, Fairfax, and the King had to choose between flight and surrender. He chose the latter, and as Lord Leven (Alexander Leslie) was now again encamped at Newark, Notts, and had been created an Earl by Charles
*5
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Genealogical
Account.
1646.
March 16, 1646.
Gordon of Salleach.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
himself in order to placate the Covenanters, he decided to trust himself in his hands. He was received “ with all honour and courtesy ” by the old Field-Marshal, and was sent under honourable restraint to Newcastle.
In the next eight months, strenuous attempts were made to force Charles to accept the Covenant in extenso. He would not give way on the question of episcopal independence, both from personal conviction and hereditary instinct, and in the meanwhile the remnants of the Royalist party still continued to struggle with Fate, and David Leslie was despatched back to Scotland to deal with them. He shortly afterwards handed over this work to Lord Middleton, who appointed David Barclay as his second in command.
The first time that David Barclay is mentioned as having charge of an independent expedition is at this time, when we find him described as “ Crowner ” or Colonel of a Regiment of Horse, entrusted with the mission of punishing the Marquis of Huntly,* who had been keeping up a guerilla warfare, and had burnt Fraserburgh. Barclay encountered him in the neighbourhood of Banff, and defeated him with great slaughter. He retreated, closely pursued by Middleton and Barclay.
David Barclay was then sent to relieve the town of Inver¬ ness, besieged by the Earl of Seaforth and the Marquis of Montrose. He forced them to raise the siege and retire. In their pursuit of the enemy, after relieving Inverness, Middle- ton burnt Montrose’s own house, and so cut off his retreat in that direction.
The Marquis of Huntly, who was the chief landowner in those parts, had hitherto refused to support Montrose, but now wrote to say that as “ Middleton and Barclay had begun to oppress and ruin all the Gordon country,” he would “ joyne with him in putting an end to that business.” But he advised him to leave Inverness, “ as for the present he was
* The Genealogy erroneously speaks of the Earl of Crawford in this place, he was a Covenanter until 1648, and the Marquis of Huntly is clearly meant.
l6
But
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
forced to go and help his friends and tenants, that they were not altogether ruined and undone.”
Montrose, thus deserted by Huntly, unwillingly retired, and had “ confusedly ” crossed the Ness before Middleton arrived there. Middleton sent David Barclay with a Regiment of Horse to pass the ford above the town. They presently dispersed Montrose’s forces, and made him and Seaforth fly to the hills, “ broke the bagadge,” and took two cannon which had been sent to Montrose by the Queen. The fol¬ lowers took refuge in Chanrie of Rosse and in Seaforth ’s newly built castle at Fortrose.
By this time David Barclay had become full Colonel, but though honours and titles were freely bestowed on the vic¬ torious party, he cared nothing for them beyond his military promotion.
He besieged Fortrose for four days and compelled the surrender of the castle, together with the remainder of Montrose’s ammunition. In those rough days no doubt the inmates of the castle trembled for their safety, but Colonel Barclay showed Lady Seaforth the utmost courtesy and con¬ sideration, and restored the castle to her at once “ using her very discretely.”
Meanwhile Huntly, seeing Aberdeen but lightly defended, attacked and sacked the city, taking about twenty prisoners, among whom was Colonel Harrie Barclay, son of John Barclay of Johnston.
About this time a deputation from the Estates, consisting of Lords Lanark, Callender and Balmarino, went to Lord Leven’s camp at Newark, to hold a conference with the King, from which they returned with this letter to Montrose from Charles : —
“ You must disband your forces and go to France, where you shall receive any further instructions. This at first may justly startle you, but I assure you that if, for the present, I should offer to do more for you I should not do so much.”
Montrose (who was now on Speyside) called a council of his officers and laid the letter before them, but as Huntly and Sir Alexander Macdonald had received the same commands, hi— c 17
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686. Urie I.
1646.
Gordon of Salleach.
May 19,
1646.
Clarendon State Papers, Vol. ii, p. 224.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
September,
1646.
1647-
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
there was nothing to be done but obey, and on June 2nd Montrose replied : “I shall in all humility and obedience endeavour to perform your Majestie’s commands.”
A truce was therefore concluded between him and Middle- ton, and towards the end of July, they met on the banks of the Isla to arrange conditions of peace.
Middleton’s terms were not severe. He granted an amnesty to Montrose and all the Royalist leaders on condition that they left the country in a ship to be provided by the Estates. The ship was to sail from the town of Montrose, but hearing a rumour of treachery, the Marquis, in disguise, boarded a vessel bound for Bergen, in which several of his friends had sailed from Stonehaven.
While the Scottish army under Lord Leven lay at New¬ castle in January 1647, they became hopeless of success with the King, and being unable to bring him into Scotland in face of the refusal of the General Assembly to receive a Sovereign who would not swear to the Covenant, they accepted £400,000 in discharge of their claims, handed Charles over to a com¬ mission of the House, and marched back over the Border.
The Parliament then moved Charles to Holmby House, in Northamptonshire, and General Lord Leven was enabled, with the money received, to pay off the arrears due to the Army.
Though Montrose had obeyed the King’s orders, the Marquis of Huntly still refused to disband his forces, his excuse being that the King had acted under compulsion, and Middleton and David Barclay were dispatched again to the North to reduce him. In this they were entirely successful and took possession of his two principal strongholds, Middle- ton becoming governor of the Castle of Bog of Gight (after¬ wards Castle Gordon) and Colonel Barclay of the Castle of Strathbogie. So history reversed the friendship of previous centuries between the Gordons and the Barclays.
Though Middleton was still employed on active warfare, David Barclay, as governor of the Castle of Strathbogie, found himself in a more settled position, and began to con¬ sider the question of a home of his own. Although he had 18
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
seen so much service, he was but in his thirty-seventh year, Colonel a fine, stately figure, with modest and courteous manners. He gA™AY was no doubt received with civility by the gentry of the 1610-1686, district, in spite of his appearance among them having been Urie 1. somewhat violent and uninvited, and he shortly became attracted by a young lady of the Gordon family, whose admiration for him overcame her wounded family pride.
On Christmas Day 1647 a contract of marriage was con- December, eluded between him and Katherine Gordon, daughter of Sir 1 4 ’ Robert Gordon, of Gordonstoun, younger son of Alexander, twelfth Earl of Sutherland, and his wife Lady Jean Gordon, daughter of George, fourth Earl of Huntly. Lady Jean had previously been the wife of James Hepburn, Earl of Both well.
Sir Robert Gordon, the first Knight Baronet of Scotland, was a man of great parts and honour. He was second cousin to King James VI, his grandmother having been Lady Helen Stewart, sister of Matthew fourth Earl of Lennox, the father of the ill-fated Darnley. He was much esteemed at Court, was Vice-Chamberlain of Scotland, Privy Councillor and Gentleman of the Bedchamber both to King James and his son Charles I.
Though his forces had recently devastated the Gordon country and defeated their “ Chief,” it is interesting to note that Lord Middleton was an honoured guest at the wedding, and wrote his name as one of the “ cautioners ” and “ sure¬ ties ” in the contract of marriage. This document states that the Colonel was obliged to bestow for jointure to the said Katherine Gordon about five thousand pounds sterling to be settled by the advice of both their fathers. As David’s father’s estate was almost all sold off or embarrassed, he contracted with the Earl Marischal for the property of Urie. Baron Court, The estate was properly styled “ Urie and Monquich,” ®°JxofUrie “ situated in the county of Kincardineshire, and in the Parish of Fetteroso, and in the vicinity of Stonehaven, the County Town.”
Robert Barclay says in his Memoirs that : —
“ The half of the estate happening to be mortgaged, till that was cleared, David Barclay unluckily laid out the money in securities in
19
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Part II, p. 198.
1648.
BB. 37, 59.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Ireland, and the rest at interest. The persons he trusted almost all became insolvent, so he was obliged to rest satisfied with the Manor Place, and only the half of the Barony.”
The estate was not actually erected into a free barony until 1679.
It may be asked why Colonel David Barclay, returning from Germany with sufficient capital to buy an estate, did not repurchase the old family property of Mathers, just at that moment struggling under the financial difficulties which re¬ sulted in its sale. But it had practically all been parted with in small lots, under the agency of that John Barclay (Johnston III) to whom we find Colonel David writing with such severity on the occasion of his father’s funeral. Al¬ though the house itself was not sold until 1651, there was not enough left of the land to make it a profitable purchase.
It is generally accepted by the family that when the Earl Marischal’s estates were ravaged by Montrose in 1645, his own castle at Fetteroso was plundered and burnt, so that he was left in dire straits for funds. Colonel Barclay lent him money, and by way of security was “ infeft ” or made heir to the estate of Urie.
This is corroborated by the existence of two documents at Bury Hill, of which one is a “ Summons of poinding and apprising in Implement of Contract ” owing to failure to pay the sum agreed to be paid. The summons or writ is issued by “ Colonel Barclay of Urie, lawful son of David Barclay of Mathers (XI), and Catherine Gordon his wife,” and sets forth that a contract dated 29 July, 1648, was entered into between them and “ William Earl Marshall, Lord Keith and Altyre,” under which the sum of 23,000 merks Scots was “ borrowed by the said William Earl Marshall from the said Colonel David Barclay and Catherine Gordon, and that the said William Earl Marshall should convey his lands to them and the longest liver of them and their lawful heirs, whom failing, to Colonel David Barclay’s nearest lawful Heir, his lands of Urie, with Manor House, salmon fishing in the water of Cowie, the lands of Magray, Woodhead, Powbair, Balnagight and Glithnow, said lands within the parish of Fetteroso and 20
1646.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Sheriffdom of Kincardine, and should pay to the same Colonel Colonel David Barclay and Catherine Gordon his wife the sum of 1,840 merks yearly, together with the sum of 200 merks as 1610-1686, expenses.” Uriel.
This summons or writ was served because of the failure of William Earl Marischal to repay the 23,000 merks. Dated 29 July, 1652.
On the same day a second summons is issued. “ Summons of poinding and apprising issued by Colonel David Barclay of Urie and Katherine Gordon his wife, narrating that by contract dated 29 July 1648, between William Earl Marshall on the one part, and the said Colonel David Barclay of Urie and Katherine Gordon his wife, on the other part, of which the sum of 23,000 merks was borrowed by the said William Earl Marischall, and he conveyed in security the Lands mentioned in BB. 37. No. 59.” Dated 29 July, 1652.
[This is only a portion of the summons, but it makes clear that William Earl Marischal failed to repay the sum of 23,000 merks.]
Another fragment of an inhibition issued by Colonel David Barclay of Urie against “ William Earl Marshal, Principal, and John Keith of Quhitrigen, as Cautioners,” interdicting them from selling, alienating, or disponing certain lands, particulars of which are narrated in the missing 1648. portion, is also dated July 29th, 1652.
There are also in existence at Bury Hill several deeds and b.b. 38-39 summonses to prevent tenants from selling or alienating 4°,34_42'25- their lands, and to explain that the rents therefrom are now due to Colonel Barclay instead of to the Earl Marischal. It is not advisable to quote these in full, though they are inter¬ esting for their archaic wording. The originals are all at Bury Hill, Dorking. There are also “ Summons’ ” directed to the Earl Marischal himself, and his representatives and cautioners, warning them of the consequences of selling lands, which he seems disposed to do, in order to pay the yearly rent due to the Colonel. But these appear to be purely formal documents, and their lifelong friendship does not seem to have been impaired thereby. The only serious
21
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Genealogical
Account.
1648.
“ Memo- rialls of the trubles in Scotland.” Spalding Club.Vol. ii, p. 205.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
threat is one addressed to Sir Alexander Irving of Drum, who is warned that he will be “ put to the Horn ” for a similar offence.
No doubt the many absences of the Colonel left his tenants to do pretty much what they pleased, and as all the unlucky Royalist gentry were at their wits’ end to make both ends meet, they were not over scrupulous as to their methods of raising money.
The Colonel does not appear to have foreclosed this mortgage for some years, probably out of consideration for his old friend, though he was practically the owner of the property, while it was only technically in the Earl Marischal’s possession.
This made it the more unjust that his claim as a creditor should have been put aside on a mere legal quibble, as will be seen.
The details of negotiations entered into by Colonel David Barclay with William, seventh Earl Marischal, for the purchase of the estate and lands of Urie, will be of interest here.
He concluded the purchase on his own wedding day, January 26th, 1648, though, unfortunately for him, the final settlement was not signed until the following July, which caused a most serious complication and delay in his obtaining possession .
He is described in the deed as “ being designed in all the conveyances Colonel David Barclay of Mathers, as he is also in his own marriage contract dated at Bog of Gight (now Castle Gordon) and Gordonstoun, and likewise in his sister Anne’s contract of marriage with her last husband, Strachan afterwards Bishop of Brechin, when her father, David Barclay of Mathers, and her brother, Colonel David Barclay, were ‘ consenters ’ in 1649.”
The Earl Marischal had bought the property from the Earl of Errol, in 1647 “ for 2,000 merkes for ilk chalder of victual, and ilk hundreth merkes of silver” (equalling about £3,000 sterling).
He redeemed the wadset (mortgage) on the lands of Urie, and resold them in the following year to Colonel David 22
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Barclay, with a considerable part of his estates in the adjoin¬ ing parish of Dunnottar.
The property had been in the possession of the “ gryte Covenanter ” John Forbes, when it had been so ruthlessly plundered by the Royalist troops under Montrose. It is said that the Earl Marischal was a spectator of the destruction of his castle of Fetteroso from the tower of Dunnottar, but found small comfort in the pious consolations offered him by the minister of the parish on that occasion.
The great Covenanter, doubtless finding the lands of small value after the passing of the Royalist troops, left the country, and the property reverted to the over-lord, the Earl Marischal.
When David Barclay began to consider its purchase with the view of replacing his old family estate of Mathers, the place must have been practically a wilderness. Farms, cottages and buildings had been levelled to the ground. Growing crops had been ruthlessly trampled, and stores of hay and corn burned in their barns and granaries. Any of the wretched peasantry who had escaped the savagery of the soldiers, and crept back to their ruined homes, had had no spirit to till or plant the land, beyond the few roods necessary for their maintenance and that of their few sheep, or half-starved goats or cattle.
Plantations had been cut down, and where the rotting trunks of trees had fallen into the stream, they had dammed it so that it had spread into swamps, with here and there huddles of whitening bones of drowned beasts. The whole aspect of the country was deplorable, and may well have seemed hopeless.
But Colonel Barclay looked with a discerning eye on the gently undulating ground, the “ little hills ” from which the shire of the Meams derived its name, the sunny southern slopes where the young saplings were already beginning to spring again, the Cowie River with its fresh and salt water, and excellent salmon and trout fishing. We may conclude from the many references to the rights, that both the Colonel and his son were keen fishermen. The easy approach to the
23
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1648.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1 648.
Bury Hill Papers.
seaport of Stonehaven was also of great importance in those days, when the roads were but deeply furrowed tracks, quagmires in winter, and high ridges of baked clay with deep ruts between in summer, all the more impassable now for the military operations during the Civil War, when troops of horse and clumsy heavy camp wagons had cut them up. It was said that a regiment of Royalist Horse had been so hopelessly bogged in one of these so-called roads that they had been taken prisoners without striking a blow.
Sea transport was of the utmost value, which David thoroughly realised. He inspected the blackened rafters of the old house of the Hayes, which had been burnt down by Montrose, but considered a new site, facing southwards towards the bay which was less than two miles distant, and sheltered from the keen north winds by the remains of a belt of fir trees. It stood on the top of a steep bank, sloping down to a burn which still runs with musical chatter, though doubtless in less volume. The price was reasonable, with consideration of the state of the land, and as he rode in his weather-stained buff coat and great horseman’s boots over the wide, neglected fields, where the only signs of life were the gliding curlew and the plover circling overhead, and planned how to clear and restore the land, he may well have said to himself : “ Here will I build my home. Here shall be the abiding place of my race.”
David Barclay’s decisions, once made, were not easily overset.
It has always seemed perplexing that Colonel Barclay, who had left Scotland as a lad and joined the Swedish Army as a soldier of fortune with probably little or nothing besides his pay, had returned home in a position to purchase the Urie Estate, besides building the house, and also to be able to settle so large a sum on his wife. He was always open- handed. An acknowledgment of a loan to Sir John Innes of “ Two thousand merkes guid and usuall money of Scot¬ land in friendlie borrowing,” on January 28th, 1648, together with a list of names of creditors to whom he had advanced sums of varying amounts, show that not only was he a man 24
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
of substantial financial position, but that his friends and Colonel
were in need J?AVID
Barclay, 1610-1686,
The matter may be explained by reference to the terms of Urie 1- service at that time under Gustavus Adolphus. Anton Anton Gindeley, in his History of the Thirty Years' War , says : Th^Thkty
“ Adam von Waldstein, incorrectly called Wallenstein, gave splen- voi. ii, did rewards on behalf of the Emperor Ferdinand, to those who dis- p- x57- tinguished themselves at Liitzen and elsewhere. Several warriors received large sums of money, and one a Memorial Estate.”
neighbours knew where to apply when they of help.
What Ferdinand could do Gustavus was not likely to fail in, and he was in a position to be generous, as France, which was disturbed by the territorial ambitions of the Emperor of Austria, gave him considerable financial assistance. Gustavus undertook to enter Germany with an army to check the Austrian advance, if Louis would support him to the extent of 3,000,000 thalers annually. The amount was finally fixed at 1,000,000 francs a year, and the Swedish Army invaded Germany on May 20th, 1630, just after David Barclay had joined it.
Chapman says, “ If the temptation of booty added, as Life of doubtless it did, a spur to the valour of the soldier, the Adofphus, Imperial troops fighting against the Swedes could have chapman, little of this incentive, whereas to urge on the Swedish Army to conquer, they had before them camps filled with all manner of wealth, and armies rich with the spoils of Germany.”
And further, in Sir James Spence’s account, written in 1667, Spence’s Life
t of Gustavus
We read * Adolphus.
“ In the Swedish Army there were of colonels and other inferior officers above the rank of a sergeant, at that time, of English and Scottish 500 and more. No portion of the King’s troops were more conspicuous for their zeal and fidelity, and no portion received more signal testimonies of the approbation and confidence of their illustrious Chief.”
We can, therefore, assume that David Barclay accepted his share of the material benefits conferred by the generous Gustavus on those who, like David himself, as described hi. — D 25
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Colonel David Barclay 1610-1686, Urie I.
Acta Pari. Scot. Caroli I, Vol. vi, p. 98.
on his memorial stone, “ rose high in the favour of the Ring.”
Though the Colonel had been in occupation of Strathbogie for some time, his formal occupation was not “ ordained ” until June, 1648, as follows :
“Octavi Junii 1648
“ Item, the parliament ordaines that the charge of the hous of Bog of Geight be continewed with Major-General Middletone. And do thereby continew the same with him. And allowes 39 sojours and a Lewtenant keep1 pr in. And that Colonell David Barckley have the chairgeof the hous of Strathbogie, and allowis 50 souldiore [soldiers] and a Captain to be keep1 pr in, (both upon the publicke charge) And ordaines the rest of the soldiores in these two houses to goe to their Regimentis.
“ And the Estates declairis this article and ordinance above written, to be alwayes but without prejudice to any manis rightes to the forseidis [aforesaid] houses rexue prout de fine”
When David Barclay gave up the governorship of Strath¬ bogie Castle, he returned to live at his wife’s home, Gordonstoun, with her parents, and there his son Robert, afterwards famous as the Apologist for the Quakers, was born in 1648. Colonel David’s wife, who was known as “ The White Rose of Gordonstoun,” was greatly loved and respected, and her memory was long treasured in the country-side. In the unsettled state of the country it was doubtless well for her to have the protection and shelter of her father’s roof, and Gordonstoun was a real mediaeval stronghold, with walls eight feet thick, and full of secret passages and hidden stair¬ cases. It was a gloomy enough building seen from the outside, with small windows, high pitched roofs, and “ pepper-pot ” turrets, but it stood in a sheltered hollow, looking towards the blue ranges of the Grampian Hills, and David spent much of his free time there in his later years, while his children were growing up.
His wife bore him three sons, Robert, John, and David, and two daughters, Lucy and Jean. David and Lucy died unmarried, Jean married Sir Euan Cameron of Lochiel, to whom she bore eight children. John married in East New Jersey, and left children.
26
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Public events were now moving rapidly, and David Barclay was not long to be left to enjoy the peace he had hoped for, and so well earned.
When, in 1647, King Charles had been sent to Holmby House, under charge of the Parliament, Cromwell sent a force of cavalry under Cornet Joyce there, to secure the King’s person for the Army. It was a high-handed and illegal pro¬ ceeding, and the story is well known how, when the King asked to see the warrant for his arrest, the officer in charge merely pointed to the soldiers. Charles observed drily that the warrant was written in too legible characters to be mis¬ understood, and accompanied his captors without protest.
The Parliament was very angry at his abduction and, still being at odds with the soldiers, prepared to resist them by force, counting on the Scots Army and the London train- bands for support.
But the “ New Model ” Army, under Cromwell, marched up to London, occupied the capital, and had both King and Commons at their mercy.
The military leaders, however, still hoped to win Charles, and offered him better terms than the Presbyterians had suggested. He was offered freedom to worship in his own way, provided he allowed similar freedom to others. He rejected their offers, and escaped to the Isle of Wight, where, however, he was recaptured and imprisoned in Carisbrooke Castle.
Here he secretly “engaged ” with Commissioners sent from London to look after Scottish affairs and promised to be the Covenanted Monarch of a Presbyterian people. At the same time he rejected four Bills sent to him by Parliament, where¬ upon they passed a vote of “ No Addresses,” in which they solemnly renounced any further negotiations with him.
The famous “ Engagement ” was meanwhile accepted and ratified by the Moderate Party in Scotland, who thereupon commissioned an army to support the King.
Sir Robert Gordon thus describes the position :
“ In Merch one thousand six fourty eight, there was a parlament held at Edinburgh. ... It was then concluded that a warr should be undertaken against the parlament of England, for relief of our
27
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1648.
Genealogy of the Earles of Sutherland, Gordon, pp. 508-9.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1648.
1648.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
King. . . . Great armies of hors and foote were raised out of all the Shyres, and besydes five months maintenance was imposed upon this nation, ane insupportable burden. . . . This was mightilie opposed by the Church. ... so that State and Church now directlie stood opposed to each other.
“ This moved manie to be slow in advancing these levies . . . and many Commanders of the former Armie refused charges at this tyme, including the Earl of Sutherland, General Leslie (Leven), Lt General Leslie, and others.”
Had Lord Leven, that great soldier and most experienced general, accepted the post of Commander-in-Chief, the history of England might have been changed ; but “ Duke Hamilton ” was made General, and the Earl of Callendar Lieutenant-General of the Horse, and the army marched into England in July, 1648.
Sir Robert Gordon continues :
“ Att this Parlament the whole kingdome of Scotland for hors and foote, was devided among severall Colonels ; every one had his own particular devision for his regiment.
“ Collonell David Barclay (Att this tyme a Colonell of Hors) hade his devision for uplifting [recruiting] his hors-men in Sutherland, Cateynes [Caithness] and a part of Rosse.”
Thus David Barclay had to leave his newly-married wife and his newly-acquired estate and turn his attention to the administration and pacification of this large district, which must have exercised his experience and organising powers to the full.
In July his responsibilities were increased, for there was a rumour that the Prince of Wales was coming to Scotland from Holland, and disturbances might be expected in consequence.
“ A verie just and impartial historian ” says : “ So there was a new leavie of hors in this kingdome, to the number of fifteen hundred, pretended to be raised to guard the Prince’s person . . . and also pretendyn that these should keep our borders from incursions, whilst our armie [conducted by Duke Hamilton] was marching into England. But in effect these hors were appointed to stay at home, to keep this Kingdome from any stur in the Duke’s absence.
“ These hors were devided amongst three commanders.
28
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
The Earl of Lanark [Duke Hamilton’s brother] was to have five hundredth, Collonell David Barclay was to have the command of five hundredth, and the Laird of Garthland was to have five hundredth.”
“ Colonell Barclay his locality was appointed to be north¬ ward from Saint Johnstoun to Dungesby.”
“ Which Commission,” adds Sir Robert Gordon, “ those three Commanders executed with vigour and fidelitie.”
So began the second Civil War in 1648. On the approach of this large and menacing Scots force in aid of the King, the English Parliament and the Army agreed to sink their dif¬ ferences and unite to meet the common danger.
The Royalist Party found it impossible to excite fresh enthusiasm among the war-weary country folk, and could only depend on the Scots. Unfortunately, the Scottish coun¬ cils were divided. Churchmen and Presbyterians could not work together, and no common plan or unity of purpose ' existed among them. However, they joined with the northern insurgents in England and advanced in considerable force as far as Preston. But here Cromwell, with his New Model veterans, met and utterly defeated them. A desperate remnant held out a little longer, but eventually the leaders, including the Duke of Hamilton, were all taken and executed, and the triumphant soldiers believed that the special Pro¬ vidence of God was indeed with them.
When this attempt had completely failed, the eight Com¬ missioners for Scotland met and drew up an agreement which directly affected David Barclay’s fortunes as, though he had not taken up arms in the “ Engagement,” he had been employed in “ a publict place of trust ” and as such rendered himself liable to penalty.
Articles agreed upon by the Commissioners appointed by the noblemen, gentlemen, and burgesses who protested against the late “ Engagement ” : —
“ It is agreed that for easing the burdens of the Kingdome, and to prevent famine and desolation, all the forces under the respective commands of the Earls of Crawford and Lanerk, George Monro, and all forces having commission from any of the Committee of Estates,
29
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Gen. of Earles of Sutherland, P- 543-
1648.
August 17,
1648,
Preston.
1648.
Thurloe
Papers,
Vol. i, p. 99, Sept. 27.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
that were for the Engagement, and all others whom they can stop or lett, whether in the fields or garrisones of Berwicke and Carleil [Carlisle] or other garrisones within this kingdome, on this syde of Tay, be disbanded betwixt [now] and the first of October next, and that none of them be seene after the said day in troupes, companies, or regiments. . . .
“ That to prevent the imminent danger to religion, and a quarell with our neighbour nation, in the mean tyme until the meeting of a Parliament, that all such as have been employed in publict place or trust, and have been accessory to the late Engagement, shall forbear the exercise of their places, and not come to the Committee of Estates, to the end the Committee of Estates may only consist of such members of Parliament, as dis-assented from and protested in Parlia¬ ment against the said Engagement.
“ Subscribed at Edinburgh 27 Sept 1648.”
The reply to this was :
“ We agree to the above written Articles, and doe declare that most of our garrisones this syde Tay shall be disbanded betwixt [this day] and the 1st October next to come, and all of these on the other side of Tay, betwixt [this day] and the 10th day of the said month. “W. Keith. J. Hamilton. J. Lyone. J. Borth.
“ Subscribed at Stirling the 27th day of September 1648.”
The defeat and imprisonment of Duke Hamilton, followed by his execution, and Cromwell’s coming to Scotland after the battle of Preston, “ gave a turn and new face to all the affairs Genealogical there,” says Robert Barclay (Urie III), “ for all those who gave assistance, or by any manner of way favoured the Engagement, were by Oliver’s desire, turned out of all their posts, civil and military, and among others Colonel David Barclay ran the same fate, having his Regiment either broke or taken from him, and was never after that engaged in the military, which gives me an opportunity of contradicting as notoriously false, a piece of low, ignorant, as well as impotent malice, viz., a report that the Colonel served under Cromwell against the King, whereas it was at Oliver’s instance for that very service that he was turned out of his Regiment.”
David Barclay received his dismissal not only from his office but also from his Regiment, which must have been a serious blow to him. His grandson adds: “Neither had he afterwards any Command in the Army, which he thus lost for 30
1648.
Account.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
his loyalty in joyning with those who designed to free their distressed Sovereign.”
The year 1648 was a momentous one for David Barclay, but notwithstanding all his political business, and the vexations and disappointments consequent upon his loss of office, he never lost sight of the religious questions that guided his life. “ In the welter of ecclesiastical dogma at this time, earnest men were striving to fix standards to satisfy the uneasy minds of countless seekers after truth. But there were various schisma¬ tic forces at work within the Protestant camp. The sacer¬ dotalism of Archbishop Laud had roused the spirit of opposi¬ tion on both sides of the Tweed, and many new sects sprang to life. The Assembly of Divines at Westminster had, in 1645, drawn up the Confession of Faith, the longer and shorter Cate¬ chisms, the Directories for worship, and the form of Presby¬ terian Church Government.” David Barclay, in common with many other thinkers, felt they did not satisfy their aspirations nor answer their questions. They asked for bread, and he felt these official utterances were but a stony substitute.
But the tenets of a new sect, called in derision Quakers, appeared to satisfy most of David Barclay’s ideals, and when George Fox began his ministry in this year he heard him preach, and read and thought much on the subject. George Fox wrote in his Journal, “ Justice Bennett of Derby was the first to call us Quakers, because I bade him quake and tremble at the Word of the Lord.”
It seemed to David Barclay that the practice and principles of these people “ were most agreeable to the teaching of Jesus Christ, and that if He hath followers, disciples, or a visible Church on earth, these must be they.” Being himself a sincere and convinced Christian, he desired to join himself to a society of like-minded men, and weighed their conflicting claims “ with the utmost anxiety and earnestness, studying closely the New Testament as the ultimate source of information as to the foundations of Christianity.”
Meanwhile, great events had been taking place in England. When the second Civil War had come to its inglorious conclu¬ sion, Cromwell at last gave way to the insistent cry of the
3i
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1648.
History of the Great Rebellion, Tout and Powell.
1648.
Gough’s History of the Quakers.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1649.
Genealogical Account, r- 32.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Army, that Charles Stewart, “ that man of blood,” must be brought to justice. The Independent minority in the House of Commons were entirely under the domination of the sol¬ diers, and after the expulsion of the Presbyterian members by Colonel Pride, in 1648, voted that a High Court of Justice should be set up to bring the King to trial. Every legal and constitutional obstacle was set aside, and Charles was con¬ demned to death as a murderer and traitor to the Common¬ wealth. On January 30th, 1649, was beheaded at White¬ hall.
“ A treacherous, treasonable, and bloody act,” wrote the chroniclers, and though the nation recoiled, aghast and horror- stricken, it was helpless under the iron rule of Oliver Crom¬ well.
In April 1649 Montrose made one more desperate effort to restore the Monarchy, and returned to Scotland with about 1,500 men. David Leslie met and defeated him with much slaughter, at Carbisdell, after which the great Marquis was apprehended, hiding in the mountains, and conveyed to Edin¬ burgh, where he was barbarously executed on the charge of high treason, on May 21st, 1650.
David Barclay’s grandson quotes from the manuscript he so constantly refers to “ as wrote with the Collonell’s own hand, giveing account of his conduct, which I have by me,” that “ being rendered incapable of further service to my Prince in the Army, for having joyned Duke Hamilton,” he lived quietly for several years at Gordonstoun.
The wording of this phrase would certainly suggest that the Colonel was at heart a Royalist, which indeed his actions go far to prove ; but it would seem that it was with him as with Montrose, and many others of the leaders in the Rebellion, that he was torn between his faith and his loyalty. His reli¬ gious convictions, which inclined him strongly to Presbyteri¬ anism, and his dread of Episcopacy as a first step to “ Popery ” outweighed the personal devotion to “ his Prince,” though even so, as we shall see, his sympathy with the Royalist cause involved him in serious loss.
It was not until that cause was hopelessly defeated that he
32
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
threw in his lot with Cromwell, whose stern and fanatical religious views agreed in many points with his own, and whose statesmanlike conduct of affairs compelled his admiration.
In the meanwhile he proceeded with his own affairs, and entered into preliminary negotiations for taking possession of the estate of Urie.
Though the actual charter of the “ enfeoffment ” of the property to “ Colonell David Barclay of Mathers, and to Katherine his spouse, of the lands of Ury ” was signed on September ist, 1649, and R would have seemed probable that he would devote these peaceful years to rebuilding the house and restoring the land, an alarming and serious obstacle pre¬ vented his taking final possession of the property.
William Keith, seventh Earl Marischal, the over-lord, had been prominent amongst the Covenanting leaders. He had raised a regiment from his estates and, as we have seen, his lands had been devastated by the Royalist troops in 1645.
But he had joined with the Duke of Hamilton in the ill- fated Engagement to rescue Charles from the English Army, and openly welcomed Charles II on his arrival in Scotland in 1649, thus finally severing his connection with the Cove¬ nanters. He had escaped the fate of the other leaders in the army of the Engagement, and had evidently found a tem¬ porary refuge, but it must have been clear to everyone that if the Royalists were defeated in the field, retribution must fall upon him. The usual form of penalty was the forfeiture of estates, and David Barclay, though personally already pena¬ lised by the loss of his office and command, was probably well aware of possible complications in the matter of Urie as well, in which anticipation he was soon justified.
The actual blow fell in 1651, after the battle of Worcester, when Cromwell had defeated the Scottish Army and had all three kingdoms at his mercy. The Earl Marischal was engaged at a meeting of the Committee of Estates, described by Richard Blair as “a ragged body which professed to be the Govern¬ ment of Scotland,” at Alyth (Eliot), in the company of the Earl of Crawford, General Leslie, Lords Ogilvy and Bargeny, the lairds of Humby, Lees, Collington, Powie, and others, in.— E 33
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1649.
Bury Hill U, 55-
Calendar of State Papers, Vols. 1654, p. 283, and 1656, pp. 44, 360.
1651.
Life of Richard Blair
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Fraser Papers, P- 54-
Calendar of State Papers (Dom.), Vols. 1654-6.
Bury Hill Papers, No. 56.
1651.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
engaged in concocting measures for raising forces on behalf of the King, when the whole party was surprised and arrested by a troop of General Monk’s Scouts, who took them prisoners, with their clerks, attendants, and followers, and shipped them all off to London. The Earl Marischal was committed to the Tower, where, with occasional liberty en parole, he remained until the Restoration, doubtless thankful to have escaped execution.
He was one of those excepted from Cromwell’s Act of Grace in 1654. His whole estates, comprising eleven Baro¬ nies, “ of which David Barclay was wont to speak,” were forfeited, together with the lands of Urie, owing to the unfor¬ tunate delay in completing the legal transfer.
“ The Estates were vested in Trustees, under burden of his creditors rights, and of certain modest provision for his four daughters. Full advantage was taken of this provision. But a certain check was placed on the manufacture of claims by the provision that no debts incurred after April 18th, 1648, would be recognised.” Therefore David Barclay found himself excluded from the rights of the creditors and unable to establish his claim to the estate.
There is a contemporary document at Bury Hill, entitled “ The trew and perfyt relation of Colonell David Barclay’s deportment since the King’s Majestie’s coming to Scotland in anno 1649,” which sets forth that “ David Barclay having in 1648 lent the Earl Marischal a considerable soume upon ane improper wadset of the lands of Ury, was at muche truble, paines, and charge to get his annual rent payed. Manie precepts on merchands being given him, and few of them answerid until a great part of the annuall was expendit by him.
“ The Earl Marischal being taken prisoner at Eliot (1651) and thereafter impowering the Countess his mother, and the Laird of Morphie and others, to manage his Estate to the best advan¬ tage, the Colonell desyred of them to be possessed of the lands of Ury, for sattisfying his bygon and futour anwells, and of¬ fered to be accomptable for the superplus, unto those intrusted with the saide Earle’s affairs.
“ But was denyed by them.”
34
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
The document goes on to explain that “ the Earle Mari- schal’s estate (with manie others being sequestrat), whereon the said Colonell had ane improper wadset [mortgage] he caused his agent desyre libertie from the Commrs [Commissioners] for Sequestration at Leith to possess the wadset lands, which they had granted to manie, bot refused the same to the said Coll for being imployed in Duk Hamilton ’s Annie in the yeire 1 648 . ’ ’
It would therefore appear that the Dowager Countess and her co-trustees, under the terms of forfeiture, refused to grant Colonel David the possession of the lands of Urie, though the transaction had been a perfectly straightforward one, and they must have understood the position. The delay of the final signatures put it in their power to deprive him of his rights and withhold the property, though David had accepted it in lieu of the “ considerable soume ” advanced to the Earle Marischal, and was in all equity the real owner before the estate had been sequestrated. { J
His second application to the Sequestration Commissioners had no better fortune, though their refusal was more com¬ prehensible than that of his personal friends.
The “ considerable soume ” he had paid to the Earl Marischal was 23,000 merkes, equalling about £3,000, and the charter bound the Earl to “ enfeoff ” (give possession) to David and Katherine in return. The actual deed was not officially drawn up until 1652, and was doubtless intended to strengthen his position, as it was dated before his petition to Cromwell for restitution of his property had been granted.
The original charter and deed are still in the archives at Bury Hill.
This difficult position David Barclay dealt with in states¬ manlike fashion.
His wife, Katherine Gordon, had many influential friends and relations, and Robert Barclay (Urie III) says in his Memoirs : “ By advyce of the Earle and his other friends, he laid hold of the interest he had by his wife’s cousin germane, the Earle of Sutherland, and other relations there, and gott himself elected Member of Parliament for that shire, and in the next Parliament by his own interest, for the Shires of
35
Colonel
David
Barclay,
1 610- 1 686, Urie 1.
1649.
Bury Hill Papers,
No. Ua, 2C, 58.
%
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1649.
Wishart’s History of Scotland, p. 172.
Bury Hill Papers.
1651.
“ Historical Associations of My Native Country,” David Scott. From the Library at Urie, now at Bury Hill.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Angus and Mearns which was reckoned the only method to gett possession of his own estate.” He also adds that, in addition to the Colonel’s desire to get possession of his estate, he “ wished as well to doe service to his counntrey and friends, particularly to the family of Marischal, for whom he bore a great respect.”
The Scots, who had upheld Charles I to the. day of his death, proclaimed Charles II without delay at Edinburgh on February 3rd, 1649, and after a Committee of the Scottish Parliament had debated the matter they sent over Commis¬ sioners to the new King, who was then in the Isle of Jersey, to treat with His Majesty, and having produced a copy of the Proclamation, invited him to come over and take possession of his hereditary Kingdom of Scotland. Whereupon the King, after consultation with such as were about him, appointed three Commissioners to meet him at the Hague, where he was then invited by his brother-in-law, the Prince of Orange.
Wishart writes of this interview : “ When the Commissioners or Deputies of the States had first access to the King Charles II in Holland, to invite him home, their slow pace, grave habit, and dejected countenance had all the appearance imaginable of humility.” It was, of course, a serious occasion, but hardly an encouraging reception for the young King, who, however, decided to agree to the terms the Commissioners offered. He accepted both the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant, promised to do nothing without the goodwill of Parliament, and pledged himself to set up Presbyterianism. In June 1650 he landed at Spey- mouth and in January 1651 was crowned at Scone.
In February 1651 David Barclay took the precaution of procuring a Crown charter from King Charles II, “to Colonel David Barclay of Ury and spouse, of the lands of Ury and others,” which he doubtless hoped would secure his position in the event of the success of the Royalist party.
But “ att this time the Party who had murdered the King in England, having taken to themselves the title of the Common¬ wealth’s men, they by proclamation commanded :
“ That no person whatsoever should presume to declare or call
36
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Charles Stewart, son to the late Charles, commonly called Prince of Wales, or any other person, King or Chief Magistrate of England or Ireland, or any other Dominion belonging to them, by Pretence of Inheritance, Succession, or any right whatsoever, without the free consent of the People and Parliament, by a particular Act or Statute to that purpose.
And whosoever should, contrary to that Act, proclaim the said Charles Stewart, should be deemed and judged a Traitor, and suffer accordingly.”
This being the position, Colonel David saw small chance of the legal restitution of his property, and had to take the matter into his own hands.
His formal application for liberty to stand for Parliament was granted by the Commissioners of Assembly at Perth on November 23rd, 1650, as follows :
“ The Commission of Assembly being convinced of the evidence of the Repentance of John Lord Lister, Colonel David Barclay, and Colonel William Lockhart, for their accession to the late unlawful Engagement against the Kingdome of England, and having proof of their affection to the cause of God in former times, and being now verie confident that they shall hereafter cary themselves faithfully and zealously in the Cause, and give real evidence of the sincerity of their affection thereunto in all tyme coming.
“ Therefore they doe seriously recommend them to the Honour¬ able Estates of Parliament, or Committee of Estates, that they may be looked upon by their Lordships accordinglie.”
This annulled the sentence passed by the English Commis¬ sioners at Dalkeith in 1649, which had “ denyed him liberty to possess the wadset lands, for being imployed in Duk Hamilton’s Armie in 1648.”
If it had not been for the delay which had placed his claim beyond the date fixed for creditors, he might have entered into possession of Urie without further trouble, but that day was still postponed.
The Royalist cause was now hopelessly lost in Scotland. David Leslie, in command of the Scots Army, had made an ill-fated attempt to restore the monarchy at Dunbar in 1650, and had been defeated, but the next year had rallied his forces and invaded England, hoping to stir up a Royalist revolt. At
37
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1650.
Thurloe
Papers.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1651.
Mackenzie’s Outline of Scottish History.
1652.
Acta Pari. Scot. 1644-56, pp. 781-782.
1652.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Worcester on September 3rd, 1651, Cromwell had met and overwhelmed the Scots Army of 13,000 men, and with his trained troops had utterly routed them. Charles II, who had accompanied Leslie, only just escaped and, after many romantic adventures, got safely away into France.
After this, the first intention of the English Parliament was simply to annex Scotland and abolish the name ; but this idea was given up, and the country was placed under eight English Commissioners, and afterwards under a Council of State which included some Scots. In place of the Committee of Estates, Scotland was given thirty representatives in the House of Commons, among whom appears the name of David Barclay as Deputy for Sutherlandshire.
“ At the Committee of Parliament appoynted to conferre with the Deputies sent from Scotland, October 14, 1652, the Declaracon of Parliament intituled ‘ A Declaracon of the Parliament of England in order to the Uniting of Scotland into one Parliament,’ is read. It was resolved to informe them what Shires and Burroughs in Scot¬ land, have chosen to send Deputies to Edinburgh, and what Deputies have subscribed to the Union, according to the said Declaragon.”
“ The Committee are informed that of the said 30 Shires, twenty Shires only sent Deputies to Edinburgh who subscribed to the Union.”
The twenty Deputies who had subscribed to the Union, according to the Declaration of Parliament, therefore took their seats, and among them was David Barclay.
It was not long before he asserted his independence, for
“ An Order of Parliament committing a Bill for continuing severall Comissions granted by the Commissioners of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England, for ordering and managing affairs in Scotland, unto this Committee was voted.”
Among the names of the Deputies who signed to the Commission, Colonel David Barclay is noted alone as “ signed not,” with no excuse of “ sicknesse,” or “ poverty ” as many gave as their reasons for abstaining or non-attendance. A question being put to the Deputies as to their members who assented or refused to vote, they stated that “ for the Shire of Sutherlandshire it was represented by one Comr- (Colonel
38
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
David Barclay) who was fully impowered, and was at the Meeting, subscribed the tender, and voyced in the Election.”
“ So that there are 24 Shires who assent to the Commission. And by the Parks Declaration Warrant is given to the Deputies present by vote of the major part to elect 14 persons to represent the Shires.”
It was not altogether surprising that so many of the Depu¬ ties from Scotland should have failed to appear at the first meeting of Parliament at Westminster, for the travelling in those days was very difficult. In addition to the absence of any made roads outside the four great high roads, the country was infested with bands of masterless men, the result of the Civil War, who roamed in marauding parties ready to rob or even murder travellers.
The houses of call were few and far between, and often themselves without adequate means of entertainment for travellers. The distance from the north of Scotland to London took at least a fortnight to accomplish on horseback, and even if they went by sea, the coasts were rendered dangerous by the “ pirats ” or privateers, who were often dispossessed and desperate Royalists. No travellers dared to adventure alone, and armed parties were formed for mutual protection.
Colonel David Barclay was not one of the absentees. He was in his place at the meeting of Parliament and though, as in duty bound, he subscribed the all-important Act of Union, he alone among his colleagues stood out against the Commission for ordering and managing affairs in Scotland, though he was outvoted, and perforce had to acquiesce.
It was in this year that the deed was drawn up by the Notary Public, which legalised the charter of sasine of the lands of Urie. The attorney presented the charter to the bailiff of the Earl Marischal, who took it and handed it to the Notary Public to read to those present, but the Colonel had still a long time to wait before his ownership was acknow¬ ledged.
Ever since David Barclay had heard the great Quaker George Fox preach in 1648, he had been meditating on the religious problems of the day, and in 1653 he t0°k a definite
39
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1652.
1652.
Bury Hill Papers, No. U 2C, 58.
1653-
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1654-
Scotland and the Pro¬ tectorate, Firth, p. 329.
1654.
Scottish
History
Society,
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
step. Though he had not yet decided to adopt the tenets of the Friends, he made a frank admission that he was not con¬ vinced of the soundness of the doctrine and discipline of the Kirk of Scotland, and the Records of Moray have this entry :
“ David Barclay, sonne in law to Sir Robert Gordon, has professedlie declined from the doctrine and discipline of the Kirk, denying it to be a Kirk. The Synod orders him to be processed.”
We have no further record of this procedure, which was presumably the ecclesiastical form of prosecution, and no doubt the Colonel had many discussions and arguments to encounter, as so important a Kirk member would not be lightly relinquished ; but he was not to be shaken, and by preserving this independent outlook in ecclesiastical matters, he finally severed his connection with the Covenanting Party in the State.
The year 1654 saw the power of the Parliament of England vested in Oliver Cromwell, under the title of Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland ; and on May 4th, 1654, the Protectorate and the Union were proclaimed with fitting pomp at Edinburgh.
The Ordinance of April 12th, 1654, had again fixed Scot¬ land’s representation in the United Parliament at thirty members. It remained to determine how so small a number could be distributed among the Scottish constituencies. Upon June 2nd, General Lambert reported the re-grouping of twenty-nine constituencies, each, save Edinburgh, having a single member. The name of Colonel David Barclay of Ury appears first upon the list, as representing Forfar and Kincardineshire.
“ Save that the scheme of distribution made some effort to secure geographical symmetry, and, for the most part, every burgh that had secured the right to be represented in the Scottish Parliament was included in the Council’s scheme, Scotland had little cause to regard either the proportion of members allotted to her, or the way in which they were distri¬ buted, with particular favour. To the Council, however, the scheme presented itself as a reasonable if not the only way to 40
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
apportion thirty members among nearly three times that number of Constituencies.”
Colonel Barclay’s selection, therefore, points to the in¬ fluential position he had attained to in Scotland.
His arresting personality set him above ordinary men, as did his great height and dignity of manner. Fraser relates that he could appreciate these characteristics in others, as Barclay observed when he saw Robert Arbuthnot, the Earl Marischal, and Alexander Arbuthnot walking together, “ I never saw three such people for figure and stature.” As they were all intimate personal friends of his own, they must have looked a distinguished group when together.
The “ Trew and Perfyt Account ” gives a detailed descrip¬ tion of Colonel David Barclay’s actions in 1654. " That in 1654 in the beginning thereof the said Colonell Barclay heiring of acts of forfaultrie, and fynes comeing out from Cromwell and his then Counsell, with qualifications (excluding such creditors from that sattisfactione as had incumbrance on the forfaulted persons estates) for their accessione to the In- gadgement in 1648, did goe to London, to gett himself freed of forsaide qualifications. But was necessitat to retume re injecta , the saide Actes being past the Counsell before his arrival into the Citie. That the said Colonell was, without his desyre or knowledge, named in ane ordinance for settling of landes on the wyffes and childring of forfaulted persones, and satisfying their creditors. That he was necessitat to officiat, that he might get possession of his owne wadset he hade on the Earle Marshall’s estate, which was then, and still is all his livelihood.”
The statement of Robert Barclay (Urie III) here conflicts with that given us in the “ Trew and Perfyt Account,” as whereas that document maintains that the Colonel was “ without his desyre or knowledge,” named in the ordinance for settling of forfeited lands on the wives and children of the landowners, his grandson writes : “ David Barclay, main¬ taining all through one definite and consistent purpose, succeeded in securing for himself an appointment as T rustee for administering the Estates of those Noblemen and Gentle- 111— F 41
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie 1.
1654.
Fraser
Papers, p. 81.
Bury Hill Papers.
1654
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Acta Pari. Scot.Vol. vi, p. 821.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
men whose property had been forfeited for their participation in the Engagement.”
The appointment was so obviously the most direct method, both of recovering his own property, and also of befriending the family of the Earl Marischal, and many more Royalist friends, that it seems hardly probable that he was entirely unaware that it was to be offered to him.
It is dated April 12th, 1654, and is headed : “ An Ordinance for settling the Estates of severall excepted Persons in Scotland in Trustees to the uses herein expressed.”
After the usual long preamble, it sets forth : —
“ Whereas . . . diverse persons and their Estates are excepted and reserved out of the said Ordinance, and all benefits thereof, and yet nevertheless the Estates of the said diverse persons are thereby left subject to diverse debts, charges, and Incumbrances . . . and lykewise several proportions of lands, Tenements, and Heredita¬ ments are by the said Ordinance appointed to be settled for a Pro¬ vision for their wives and children. . . . And it is ordained by His Highness the Lord Protector that with the advice and consent of his Council, that all and every the Honours, Manors, etc., etc., which upon the 18th of April 1648 did belong to
[Here follows the long list of names]
and were lawfully used and enjoyed by them, are hereby invested and settled on
[Names of Commissioners, including David Barckly, Esq.]
and the survivors of them, their heirs and assigns, for the Uses, Purposes, etc., hereafter in and by this Ordinance expressed, untill the Sale, disposition, and Conveyance thereof, or of such part thereof as shall be requisite for the Purposes aforesaid, . . . and the Remainder to the use of His Highness the Lord Protector and his successors for the benefit of the Commonwealth.”
[Here follow detailed instructions as to the methods to be pursued.]
It might appear inconsistent with the policy of the Protector to appoint a man of David Barclay’s known Royalist sympa¬ thies to a post giving him power to improve the conditions of the suffering Cavaliers ; but Carlyle says in his “ Cromwell ” :
42
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
“ Little over a year before, Cromwell, a man of a magna¬ nimity far greater than that of his associates — when criticising the Rump’s arbitrary rule, had spoken with indignation of the victimisation of Royalist squires. * Poor men,’ he said, ‘ under this arbitrary power, were driven like flocks of sheep by forty in a morning, to the confiscation of goods and estates, without any man being able to give a reason why two of them had deserved to forfeit a shilling.’ ”
We can therefore understand that Colonel Barclay’s accept¬ ance of the appointment was not unwelcome to Oliver Cromwell.
After this matter had been settled we find a petition from David Barclay to the Protector, which deals in a brief, business¬ like way with his personal grievance.
“Aug.2, 1654
“ I am a Creditor to the Earl Marshall (of Scotland) for £1,500 borrowed by him in July 1648, to pay debts contracted before 1648, but he being one of the persons exempted from pardon, his estate is not to be charged with anything done by him since April 1648, there¬ fore this sum being the most of my subsistence, 1 shall be in a worse case than most of the excepted persons, which I have not deserved by any opposition to the Parliament or you, since 1648, for though frequently urged, I refused to engage in the late War.
“ In 1652 I was a Commissioner for electing the Deputies to perfect the Union of the Nations, I have always been ready to pro¬ mote the Parliament’s interests, applying both to Major-General Deane, and Colonel Lilburne, when Commander-in-Chief.
“ I beg your order to the Commissioners for determining the claims on the Estates of exempted persons to allow this debt, though claimed beyond the date allowed by the rules.”
With this petition a reference in the Protector’s own hand was sent to the Council, in charge of Major-General Lambert, “ to take care of it,” as follows : —
“ Order in Council that the Commissioners at Leith examine the matter, and if they find the Petitioner had no hand in the late war against the Commonwealth, and that the rest of the petition is true, they are to order the debt to be paid.”
As Colonel Barclay’s Commission had been only to keep
43
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Cal. of State Papers,
P- 361, August 2, 1654.
1654.
Cal. State
Papers
(Dom.),
1654-5-6.
Also Thurloe State Papers, Vols. iv-v (Scottish).
Holograph
Reference,
Cal. State
Papers
(Scottish),
August 2,
1654.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1654.
Scotland and the Protec¬ torate, Firth, p. 164.
1654-
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
order in Scotland while the Army marched into England to rescue the King, he could not be said to have taken part in the war, and Cromwell accepted his statement, adding at the end of the order : —
“ The Committee for determining claims on Scotch Estates to observe what the Leith Committee shall order.”
This put the matter beyond a doubt, and the petition was, therefore, fully successful.
As is related in the Baron Court Book of Urie, “ This done, infeftment in the lands of Ury followed readily, though not till 1679 did he obtain that formal Charter which, combining the various subjects he had purchased from the Earl Marischal, erected them into Ane haill and free Barony, called ‘ The Barony of Urie.’ ”
Thus, after nearly six years of injustice, Colonel Barclay obtained his own property.
Some of the Royalist party appear to have been disturbed at what they called “ David Barclay’s Capitulation to the Protector,” but they awaited the result with anxiety, being by now themselves despairing of success, and only desirous of a peaceful conclusion to their hopeless opposition.
A letter from the Earl of Glencairne shows this feeling. He was* one of the King’s most loyal supporters, lost his whole fortune in his service and at the Restoration was appointed High Chancellor of Scotland.
It is addressed to the Earl of Atholl : —
“ lie of Inchmerrin,
“Aug. 28, 1654.
“ My Lord,
“ I have bin since I parted with you most part bed-fast, and am so still, els I had not been so long in writing to you. . . .
“ My Lord, I finde wee are not the firste who hes capitulated, for Middletone has sent Colonel David Barclay to Cromwell to make his peace. This is sent me from England from one [who] spoke with David Barclay.
“ This is so much trouble, but I hope you will forgive it among the rest of the troubles [which] hes been occasioned you by Your Lord¬ ship’s humble servant
“ Glhncairne.”
44
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
As we have seen, Colonel Barclay had gone to England entirely on his own affairs, and not to negotiate for Middleton ; indeed, Lord Middleton never actually capitulated, but he escaped to the Continent in 1654, where he remained till the Restoration in 1660.
Another letter from the Earl of Glencaime to the Earl of Atholl was written from his sick bed, in great depression of spirits, two days later :
“My Lord, “Aug. 30, 1654.
“ I find Lieutenant-General Middletone is put to begin the play anew, and hee says hee hopes to see it shortly in a better condition than ever it was since hee came to Scotland. I wish it may be so, but it is none of my beleife. ... I pray God direct you arighte : my great respects to you makes mee thus dash out my opinion to you, and now poore Sir Arthur Forbes is beatt, it makes busyness hope¬ less, nay I feare so much of hope as that Colonel David Barclay will obtayne a capitulation for the General. . . .
“ I make it my last suite to you that you will wreate to me and let me know your resolutions and intentions that I may bless them the best prayers of, my Lord,
“ Your faithfull obedient servant and cousen,
“ Glencairne.”
“ My opinion is your lordship hasten one quickly to Middletone that he may know the true condition of busyness here, lest he (be) abused with fancying forces to be heire whilst their is none.
“ Directed for the Right HonbIe The Earl of Atholl.”
When this rumour reached Charles II in Holland it disturbed other Royalists in exile there, who, it is observed, by now regarded David Barclay as one of themselves, and one Captain Peter Mews writes to Mr. Secretary Nicholas, ex¬ pressing incredulity in it : —
“ Honourable Sir, “ Rotterdam, Jan. 28, 1655.
“ I finde a sad and an uncomfortable account of our affaires in general, and more particular in Scotland : but I must profess I doe no more beleive anything of Middletone ’s capitulation now than I did of my Lord Glencairne’s story about David Barclay’s making his Peace. Whatever it is, I am resolved to see the uttermost, and give His Majesty a just and faithfull account so far as I am able to advance, which shall bee (if my endeavours feyle not) as farr as he hath a man in Arms.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Scotland and the Protec¬ torate,
Firth, p. 165.
1655-
Nicholas Papers, pub¬ lished for the Camden Society, 1652-8.
1655-
45
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Bury Hill Papers, No. 76.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
“ Sir, I have no tyme to see what I desyred, and perhaps it is wel I have not, but pray beleive my passion. My designes, my interest, are all at His Majestie’s commands, and I cannot doe anything which may make mee otherways than his subject, and, Sir,
“Your servant,
“Peter Mews.”
In October 1655 we find the respect and esteem in which David Barclay was held testified to by this Commission on behalf of the leading men in his constituency : —
“ At Conveth the twentie twa day of October, in the yeir of God 1655, the whilk day the noblemen, barones, gentilmen and heretores of the Sheir of Kincardin, being mett and convenient, and finding it necessar to have ane of their number as Commissioner for them and their sheir, at the Councill of State upon the second day of November instant, to represent their grievances and just desyres to the Honour¬ able Councill, and wheris in powar have w* unanimous consent nominat, electit, and choysen Colonel David Barclay, Commissioner for them, and in behalf of the said sheir to compeir for them and in their names, before the said Honourable Councill, to the effect above w’rin [written], and to joyne w* Commissioners of uther sheiris in the leik caices, to [voyte] vote, treat, rasone, and review uther things neidfull to doe for the good weill and behowe [behoof] of the said sheir wlk they might doe themselffis if they were personally present, or qlk [which] is knawin to appertaine to Commissioner or com” of sheirs in the leik conditions.
Promitten firme and stable to hould all and qt somewir [whatso¬ ever] laws ther said Commissioner shall doe in the premisses.
Arbuthnott Harie Barclay William Naper J. Grahame Halcartoune
In witness of
Ar Carnegy Pittars G. Ramsay Jo Barclay W. Rait of Halgrein — Raitt
William Ramsey.
[Colonel Harie or Harrie Barclay of Johnston and John, his son.]
In David Barclay’s official position as Trustee of confiscated estates, he produced businesslike and convincing arguments against the wholesale forfeiture of properties. The so-called “ Malignants ” had been gradually stripped of all their posses¬ sions, the luckiest of them only preserving part of their lands by paying heavy compositions which drained their 46
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
resources, and left their unfortunate creditors unpaid. So effective was his mediation that the Report from the Leith Committee, so anxiously awaited, was wholly favourable to his claims on behalf of the distressed Royalists, and reported from the Commissioners in Scotland to the Protector : —
“ It is our duty to present to you the charges, by debts and donatives on forfeited Estates in Scotland, that you may consider it when applications are made.
“On April 12, 1654, you ordered that what came short to pay lawful creditors from one estate, by reason of donatives, should be paid from another, after its debts and incumbrances were satisfied, but many estates then forfeited are since discharged by capitulation with General Monck, e.g. Earls seaforth, Lowdoun, Athol, Glen- cairn, Lords Kenmure, Lome, Macklin, and the Laird of Womatt, whose estate would have afforded great relief to creditors. If particular persons receive grants out of the forfeited estates, the creditors will be great sufferers.
“ 1. That the estates will not answer the intended objects, which were three : —
“(1) To pay the creditors of each estate, and provide for the wives and children of excepted persons.
“ (2) To do the same for other estates, which are overburdened with donatives.
“ (3) The overplus to His Highness.
“ But overplus is impossible, as by reason of donatives estates hardly bear their own incumbrances, and those that should have yielded relief are released from forfeiture.
“ 2. That the Commissioners should have full release as to the disposal of those estates discharged from forfeiture, or the creditors may complain with reason of prejudice. . . .
“We would be far from restraining your favour, or disputing your commands, yet as the condition of the forfeiture stands we leave it to you.
“ Leith, 16 December 1655.”
Even General Monck, to whom Cromwell had given the chief command in Scotland, was glad to avail himself of David Barclay’s services, and writes on February 12th, 1656, to Major-General Lambert : —
“ Edinburgh.
“ My Lord
“ Understanding that Collonel David Barclay is gone up to London, to Move His Highnesse and Council about the forfeited
47
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1656.
Cal. State Papers (Dom.), 1656, p. 1.
1656.
1656.
I
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1656.
Cal. State Papers, June 10, 1656.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
lands heere, (for sattisfying of creditors) I desire your Lordship will be pleased that before any order be given concerning them by His Highness and Council that there may be consideracion taken of the lands that were given to some officers by the Parliament, and since sould to other people. As for mine in particular which Captain Bressie bought of mee, and since Collonel Cooper, Mr. Bilton, Mr. Saltonshall and some others have taken the land for as much moneys more as it is worth for their debts (with Capt Bressie’s consent) soe that I cannot see how His Highnes and Council can well take off all those engagements from that estate, which I thought fitt to acquaint your Lordship withall that you might prevent further trouble to the Councill in case they should not be rightly informed in it (and I shall desire your lordship to stand my friend, that in case the Councill shoulde thinke fitt to dispose of the land for debts, that both my own engagements to make it good to him, and the engagements made to others since, may be discharged, and those that have now bought it may receive satis¬ faction for what they have disburst for itt, before they part with the land)
“ I have one thing more to trouble your Lordship withall, that wee are quite out of moneyes, and unless the Treasurers please to give orders to their Deputies heere to return moneyes, we shall suddenly bee in want, which I thought fitt to acquaint your Lordship withall.
“ For news heere is none. All things are quiette. The Lord Cranston is now bringing in his officers to give engagement for their peacable deportment and for raising men for the King of Sweden which are to be shipt in March. I remaine your Lordshippe’s most humble servant.
“ George Monck.”
Although the Leith Committee had issued its report on December 16th, 1655, there appears to have been some delay in carrying out its enactments, for on June 10th, 1656, we find Colonel Barclay presenting two more petitions to Crom¬ well, one dealing with the question of the forfeited estates, and the other on his own behalf.
Petition of Colonel Barclay to the Protector : —
“ The Commissioners entrusted by you with the estates of the excepted persons in Scotland, finding by the release of so many of them, that the remnant will not answer the ends for which they were invested in them, represent the condition thereof to you, by me, and request your speedy order.”
48
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Annexing Instructions by the said Commissioners in Scotland to Colonel Barclay, to be presented to His Highness.
Petition of Colonel David Barclay to the Protector : —
“ In 1648 I paid large sums to the creditors of the Earl Marshall in Scotland, who had lands made over to them by mortgage, which they thereupon conveyed to me, but by the Ordinance of Grace and Pardon to the people of Scotland, it is provided that no deeds on the estates shall be allowed unless made before 18 April 1648, wherefore the Commissioners for allowing] claims on forfeited estates refuse to allow mine.
“ I beg an order for allowance, as the moneys were not paid to the Earl Marshall, but to the creditors who had the lands before the said 18 April 1648.”
Annexing two forms of proposed letters to the said Com¬ missioners for the allowance.
The reply to these petitions and the reference thereon by Council to the Committee for Scotland, to report July 24th,
1656.
President Lawrence to the Council in Scotland, “ Council on considering Colonel Barclay’s Petition wishes you to examine the case, and what sums have been paid for redemp¬ tion of any of the Earl Marshall’s lands, and whether the debts were contracted before April 18, 1648, and to certify meanwhile as much of the Estate as will pay Barclay, and he is to hold what is now in his possession.”
We learn from his grandson (Urie III) that Colonel David Barclay’s efforts on his own behalf and that of the distressed Royalists were successful.
“ In the end he got the Government then in power to 1656. restore all the Nobility and Gentrey to their fortunes, which made him so popular in the Countrey that he was again in the year 1656 elected Member of Parliament for the two Shires, from whom he had their publick thanks signified by their letter to him, still in my custody, subscribed by the Vicount of Arbuthnott, the Lord Halcarton, and the principall Bury Hiii Gentlemen, for his great services done the Country.”
Conspicuous among those who benefited by his disinte¬ rested advocacy were the Countess Marischal and her chil- iii. — G 49
Papers, No. 77.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Genealogical
Account
1656.
Letter in possession of Sir Patrick Keith Murray.
Fraser
Papers, p. 51.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
dren, who had so far appealed in vain for payment of the allowance granted them by the Commissioners for their sup¬ port, and had been reduced to penury by the Earl’s forfeiture.
Consequently, by the Colonel’s good offices, the Countess was given “ Ane easy tack of the whole Estate and good pro¬ vision for the children so that there was little or nothing made by that forfeiture, or the others.”
When the Dowager Countess Marischal had received the good news that her son’s old friend Colonel Barclay had been successful on his behalf, she wrote to a friend of her own.
“To my verie loving freind Patrick Rankine advocat, dualling [dwelling] at the foot of the Kirkheughe in Edinburgh.
“ I did not intend to have sent this bearer until I had heard from you. But having within these two nights receaved a letter from David Barklay showing that severall claimes on my sone’s estate are cleared, and it is his advyce that I shall enter my childrine’s claimes, and also that some adresses be maid to the Trustes for allowance to my grandchildrine, I resolve to send the bearer with the best instructions I could give him. Trewlie, Colonell Barclay writes verie kindlie, and promises all the assistance that is within his reatch. Soe that I have derected the bearer that after he has spoken with Maister John Nesbit and you, he shall goe to him with my letter, and ask his advyce.”
A strong personal friendship as well as the tie of kinship had existed for generations between the two families, and in the Fraser Papers two anecdotes are related which show the pleasant and familiar terms they were on.
During the interregnum the care and concealment of the Regalia of Scotland had fallen to the Earl Marishal by right of his hereditary office, and the secret of their whereabouts was only divulged to a very few of his most intimate friends. They were called “ The Honours of Scotland,” and consisted of the Crown, the Sceptre, and the Sword. In the Fraser letters there is an account of how David Barclay was privileged to see them.
“ David Barclay, along with several others, accompanied from Fetteroso, the Earl Marshall with his visitor Earls, Seaforth and Sunderland, to see the Regalia (called The Honours of Scotland) which were kept in a Vault in the Tower of Dunottar Castle, cut out
5°
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
of the solid rock, and cased or lined with lead, and also mahogany, in which they were kept on a table covered with fine linen, and hung with tapestry.
“ The Governor of the Castle first opened two locks, and the Earl Marshall a third, with a key taken from a bag hung from his neck by a silver tripet, on which the door of the Regalia was opened, and the Earls kneeled on cushions to view it, after which the attendants got leave by sixes to go and do the same, when the door was locked, and a salute fired from the Castle.”
When the Committee of Estates was seized at Alyth in 1651 the Earl Marischal was in possession of this important key, which he wore in the bag round his neck, and must have been extremely anxious lest it should fall into the wrong hands. In the confusion consequent upon the arrest and transhipment of so large a number of people, he was able secretly to send the key to his wife, by a trusty messenger. She managed to save the Honours, and only just in time, as the castle was already surrounded, and was taken by Cromwell a few months later.
The Countess Marischal arranged with the wife of the Rev. James Grainger, minister of Kinneff, a small parish church within a few miles of the castle, to remove these precious relics. Mrs. Grainger had been obliged to leave her horse in the besieging camp when she was permitted to enter the castle, approach being only possible on foot. On her return she carried the crown, rolled up in some linen, and must have had an anxious moment when the English General in charge of the blockading Army courteously helped her to mount, and she took the crown in her lap. Her maid followed her on foot, bearing the sword and sceptre concealed in bundles of lint, which Mrs. Grainger pretended were to be spun into thread. They passed safely through the English army, and arrived at Kinneff, when her husband took charge of them, and wrote to the Countess :
“ I, Mr. James Grainger, minister of Kinneff, grant me to have in my custody the Honours of the kingdom, viz., the Crown, Sceptre and Sword. For the Crown, and Sceptre, I raised the pavement stone just before the pulpit (in the church of Kinneff) in the night tyme, and digged under it ane hole, and layed down
51
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Black Book of Kincar¬ dineshire,
P- IS-
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Fraser
Papers, p. 54.
1656.
Thurloe Papers, p. 322-
Life of Robert Blair, P- 327.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
the stone just as it was before, and removed the mould that remained, that none would have discerned the stone to have been raised at all, the Sword again at the west end of the church amongst some common seits that stand there. . . . and if it shall please God to call me by death before they be called for, your Ladyship will find them in that place.”
Here they remained till the Restoration, safe in their obscure place of concealment, and visited from time to time by the faithful Graingers to renew the cloths in which they were wrapt.
In consideration of their services, an Act of Parliament was passed on January n, 1661, appointing that they should receive two thousand merks Scots from the King’s Treasury ; but it is feared that the payment of this sum remained, as did so many of the debts of Charles II, on paper only.
Another anecdote illustrates the cordial terms existing between David Barclay and the Earl Marischal.
“ Once when the Earl was hunting with David Barclay in company, he, on exhausting his firegun colfin (wadding), drew out of his pouch a commission from Charles II for raising the Mearns Militia, which, on getting some colfin from Barclay, he threw at him.”
Another time, hunting with General James Keith, the Colonel got a present of a powder horn richly carved. Both the commission and the powder horn came later into the hands of John Napier, formerly tenant of Mains of Allardice, afterwards merchant in Stonehaven, who married a descen¬ dant of David Barclay’s, and were by him presented to Lord Keith.
The elections were held throughout Scotland for the most part on August 20, 1656, and the second Parliament of the Protectorate was summoned for September 17.
“ Great efforts were made to secure the return of English¬ men, or at least Scotsmen on whom the Government might rely. The Protector was likely to require ‘ friends,’ and the Scottish Council, almost to a man, offered itself for re-elec¬ tion.” Colonel Barclay was re-elected for Angus and Mearns.
The representatives elected were described by Monk as 52
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
“ honest and peaceable Scotsmen, and I believe will be all right for my Lord Protector.”
In the beginning of 1656 a list of Justices of the Peace was drawn up, and the name of Colonel Barclay appears for Kincardineshire.
In June we find a further testimonial to his public services.
“ For Coll David Barclay. [Endorsed]
“ Sir,
‘ * Having so much experience of yor former favours, and great paines you [have] taken manie tymes in promoteing the good of the Shyr of whereof wee are verie sensible Qr uponn [whereupon] we have maid bold to put you to a furder trouble in recommending to you these inclosed imperfect instructionnes to be better digested and rectified by yor selff as you shall finde convenient efter deliberat.
“ We are Sr Your very faithfull friends and servantes,
Arbuthnott H. Carnegy Pitcarrn Grame of Morphie
G. Ramsay J° Barclay (?) Stuardes
Robertt Douglas Harie Barclay
Conveth. Junii 1656.
“ Anie farder we would say in further busyness of the shyr we remitted to ye Laird of Glenfargt for his further information.”
A letter written by General Monk, who had been appointed a member of the Council of State and had assumed supreme authority in Scotland, is another testimony to David Barclay’s influence.
He writes on behalf of the Protector’s Council in Scotland, to Colonel Ralph Cobbett, Military Governor of Dundee, on December 3, 1656.
The letter deals with a bond given by the collector of the monthly assessments in the Shire of Kincardineshire, “ for the payment of the moneys exacted from the said shire, to the persons authorized by the Council to dispose of these moneys in defraying the public engagements of the Shire. Colonell David Barclay being satisfied on behalf of the Shire with the security offered, and desiring the release of the Collector, the Council have set him at liberty.”
Notwithstanding David Barclay’s military record in the past, he was always a strong advocate for peace in the realm, whatever Government was in power, and after having been
53
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Bury Hill Papers.
1656.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
Acts and Ordinances of the Inter¬ regnum.
1656.
Thurloe Papers, Vol. v, p. 322.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
appointed to protect the person of the Prince of Wales in 1649, in 1656 we find him in a similar position towards the Lord Protector.
On Nov. 27, 1656, “ An Act for the Security of His Highness The Lord Protector His Person, and Continuance of the Nation in Peace and Safety ” was passed, and an order “ to guard against Divers wicked Plots and meanes that have of late been devised and laid, as well in Foreign parts beyond the seas, as also within this Nation. . . . The Lord Chancellor, Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal of England,” are authorized to issue Commissions to. . . a long list of names, including that of David Barclay, “ who shall by virtue of this Act have authority to examine, hear, and determine, all the matters, crimes, and offences aforesaid, and . . . also to hear and determine all Misprisons of the Treasons in this Act mentioned, and to take order for charging the Offender or Offenders with all or any of the crimes, etc., and to take examination of persons upon Oath (which the said Commissioners are hereby authorized to administer), and to proceed to Conviction and final sentence.”
Among the Commissioners appears the name of “ David Barckley,” who was always called upon when any important public duty was needed — as we have seen — by both parties in the State.
When David Barclay was re-elected to Parliament in 1656 for Angus and Mearns, there are several indications that he was an active and influential member.
Lord Broghill, writing to Secretary Thurloe on August 19, 1656, says, “ Since my last, Colonell Nath Wetham is chosen for all the burroughes of Fife, and Sr John Weems for the Shire. Sr Jas. McDowell (one of our Commissioners for excise and customs) is chose for Galloway, and Col. Barcklay for Angus. All the rest will be chosen to-morrow, and so will be all stanch men.”
In this year Colonel Barclay invested the sum of £100 sterling on “ store and stocking ” of land in Ireland. Robert Barclay (Urie III) speaks of the mortgage on the Baronie of Ury not being quite cleared, and that he “ unluckilie lay’d out the money upon securities in Ireland.” which does not seem to have been a wise investment, and reduced the value of the estate.
54
1
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
Although Cromwell had been so complaisant in the matter of the forfeited estates, David Barclay retained his indepen¬ dence of opinion, and was one of the four members who “ vigorously opposed and voted against Cromwell’s being made King.”
Thurloe writes to Lockhart on March 2, 1657 : “ Debates in Parliament on the proposal about Cromwell ; the House is most desirous of the Kingship. . . .”
In the debates four of their countrymen dissented from the rest, viz : Lord Cradell (?), Newton Carr, Sir James McDou- gall, and Colonell Barclay.”
It must have required considerable moral courage to run counter to the opinion of 396 members, who were convinced that Cromwell’s best policy for securing permanent power lay in his assuming hereditary rank, and presented “ane humble Petition and Advyce ” strongly urging that course upon him.
The City also were anxious that Cromwell should assume royal rights, and went so far as to set up his portrait, crowned and sceptred, in the London Exchange, with the inscription :
“ Ascend three thrones great Captain and Divine I’ th’ Will of God, old Lion, they are thine.”
The poet Waller wrote in fulsome style,
“ Let the rich ore forthwith be melted down And the State fixed by making him a crown.
With ermine clad, and purple, let him hold A royal sceptre made of Spanish gold.”
But though Cromwell allowed himself to be installed, in 1657, in something approaching Waller’s description of royal state, he was more influenced by the Republican Army, who were horrified at the idea of his accepting the abhorred title, and he eventually declined the advice of his Parliament and remained the Lord Protector.
There were certain people, probably disappointed Royalists, who criticised David Barclay’s action in entering Cromwell’s Parliament, and his grandson warmly defends him.
He says :
“ If any object it as a Reflection upon the Colonell to have been a Member of Parliament during the Usurpation, let them remember
55
Colonel
David
Barclay,
1610-1686,
Urie I.
Genealogical
Account.
1657-
1657-
Genealogical
Account.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1658.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
that many have got themselves elected to serve their own ends only in such times, and always voted as directed, whereas he, as hath been observed, laid himself out both to serve it [the country] and his friends the oppressed Loyalists as well as himself, as is evident by what he did, and his directly voting against Cromwell’s being made King. Which, if it had taken effect, as Clarendon observes in his history, it would have pulled up by the roots all hopes from the Royalist Cause, this noble author mentioning, ‘ that none were att first more forward to have Cromwell crowned, than some who were supposed to have a warm side to the Royal Family,’ but the more thinking trembled at such ane overturn, foreseeing that if the Kingly Government was again established, though out of the right line, yet, it being agreeable to the antient Constitution, people being already wearied out with so many unsuccessful attempts and hard oppressions, would sit down contented. Of which mind the Colonell was, as plainly appears by his voting as he did.”
In 1658 Colonel Barclay had to apply for the refunding of certain expenses he had incurred on his public business. So a meeting was called at Drumlithie by his “ affectionate freinds and servantes,” who sent him this reply :
“ For the Right Honble Coll David Barclay of Urie thees.”
Conveth the 16th 1658. [No month given.]
“Sir,
“The Meeting at Drumlithie did order that yor concernement should bee discussed, and determined heir this day. And thees heir convened have concludit and ordered that thair be thrittie thrie pund sterling raised of the scheir, for peyment of yor laitt parliament charges, and for the expenses you are to be att for the laitt commissiones you have from the schyre, the twentie pairt of ane monies being thairwith includit. You shall also receave ane summondes here inclosit, anent the Laird of Morphie’s fischings, whereby the collector is citted to compeir befor the Comr for administration of justice, wch we entreatt you may attend and gett ane sight of the Laird of Morphie his wreitte [writ] where his seasing is taken, and in what schyre it is locallie lying. We remitt it to your consideracione to do yairinto [hereunto] as you think fitt, either to bring before the Counscll or Sessione.
“Which is all Sir, from yor affectionate freinds and servantes
Arbuthnott.
Halcartoune
Carnegy Pitarro (?)
Stratton of that Ilk.”
56
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
There is no further record of Colonel Barclay having taken Colonel any prominent part in politics. His name does not appear in the House of Commons list for 1658, and he evidently gave 1610-1686, up his Parliamentary work now that his double object had Urie 1. been achieved, and returned to his home and family. 1658.
On September 3rd, 1658, Oliver Cromwell died, and his eldest living son, Richard, was proclaimed Lord Protector.
The Parliament were on the whole friendly to him, hoping to form an alliance with him against the Army, but the soldiers did not wish for a civilian leader, and were mutinous and restless. Richard, who had no ambition and could not control them, resigned his office in May 1659. The Army, under General Lambert, assumed authority, expelled the Rump Parliament, and attempted, unsuccessfully, to govern the country.
Whereupon General Monk, who had kept Scotland in sub¬ mission, and had of old served with the Royalist forces in Ireland, marched upon London with his troops, receiving a cordial welcome from the City, and declared a free and full Parliament to settle the destiny of the nation. This Parlia¬ ment not being summoned by Royal Writ, after the lawful fashion, was called The Convention of Estates. When it met, it voted that “ According to the Ancient and Fundamental laws of this Kingdom, the government is, and ought to be by King, Lords and Commons,” and decided to invite Charles II to return and resume his birthright.
While these great events were impending, David Barclay continued quietly in his work for his county, and took no part in public affairs.
In March 1659 the Convention of Royal Burghs resolved i6S9. to oppose a claim pursued by certain noblemen and gentlemen for repayment from the public purse of £30,000 advanced by them in respect of public obligations, and drew up a document empowering Colonel Barclay to approach Richard Cromwell on their behalf.
“ The present Commissioners taking to consideration the damnage Convention the borrowis ar in by the persuit of the thertie thousand pund gfur^hsal sterling perserved by some noblemen and wthers who have payed the p. 483/ III.— H 57
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
July, 1659.
Bury Hill Papers, No. 56.
“ Trew and
Perfyt
Account.”
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
publict debt to be levied off the natione, which the general conven- tione did find themselves oblidged to oppose by thair act of dait the 13 day of July last, and now being informed that at the next sessione it is probable the bussienes may be discussed befoir the judgis to thair great prejudice, except cours be takin to procuir from His Hienes [Highness] and Parliament some warrant for interrupting the said proces, and wnderstanding that the gentlemen of the several schyres have maid choyse of Colonell David Barclay to repair to London for that effect, and the Commissioners being weall satisfied with the fidelitie and abilitie of the said gentleman, concurred in his election, and impowered him to act for the Burghs, allowing him £50 sterling as their proportion of his charges.
“Anent £1600. 10.
“ Ordained the Burghs to send to next general convention their shares of £1000 Scots disbursed by the agent, and of £50 sterling advanced to Colonell Barclay, conform to the preceding Act.
In July following, Colonel Barclay desired to have his commission renewed, “ in respect of the alteration in the Government,” but the Restoration changed many things, and the matter seems to have been dropped.
There appears to have arisen a decided coolness between the Dowager Countess Marischal and the Colonel, notwith¬ standing all his efforts and “ straining of his trust,” to obtain for her daughter-in-law a lease of her husband’s lands in 1652. She must have been an autocratic dame to venture to dispute a point of law with so redoubtable an adversary, but it was not the first time she had disputed David Barclay’s claims, as we have seen. She endeavoured, having estab¬ lished her position (presumably as trustee for the estate) “ to remove all creditors that have been posest by the Trusties, or any part of it, for payment of their interests.”
The Colonel endeavoured to persuade her to forbear from this injustice, “ bot she persisting, he was forced to get ane order from the trusties, discharging her from troubling the said creditors.”
This angered both the Dowager Countess and her co¬ trustee the Laird of Morphie, and both of them were “ pleased to aspersse (most unjustlie) the said Colonell, as if he had not endeavoured to do them service.” Colonel Barclay was naturally hurt and annoyed, and returned to the Countess “a 58
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
ring, set with five diamonds, which shee was pleased to send him for obtaining unto her the Laice on her sonne’s estate.”
There may have been other reasons for this quarrel, and the old friendship between the families was interrupted for a time, when the following letter from the Earl Marischal appears to have restored their friendly relations.
“ Directed for the Right Hon David Barclay.
“ Bervie. March 12th, 1659.
" Cousin,
“ I have received so many favours from you, especially the late evidence ye have given of your kindness and respects to me at this time, before your Committee at Leith, engages me to return my hearty acknowledgements for the same. And that I may in some measure express it, and make a difference of my respects to you and others, I have thought fit to signify that I shall be very willing to strengthen your conveyance by all that is in my power, as ye shall desire the same, with jovial heartiness. And I do intreat, that when anything relating to me shall come before you, that you will own the same for my interest and good, and in special I desire that the tack- duty of Boddam, which is but three pounds sterling, may not be disponed to any, it being a thing so much concerning me, or if it shall be assigned to a creditor that I may know to whom it is, that I may know how to recover. Something I have desired Arbuthnott to write to you, which I desire you will advert to, and any letters ye send to me, send them still to my son at Bervie. My wife remembers her service to you, and we both to your lady and little Robin.
“ I am, Your faithfull Friend and servant
“ Marischal.”
Alexander Gordon, in the Theological Review of 1874, saYs “ the ‘ little Robin ’ whom his father’s courtly correspondents found room to include in their complimentary remembrances became the great and celebrated Apologist of the Quakers.”
In 1 660 David Barclay’s father, the old Laird of Mathers, died at the age of 80. As has already been related in Part II, he was interred in the church in the Canongate, Edinburgh.
On May 29, 1660, Charles II was received with extra¬ ordinary enthusiasm by the whole country.
He had issued on April 4th the Declaration of Breda, which by its full acknowledgment of the dependence of the Crown on Parliament, cleared the way to the Restoration, and was
59
Colonel
David
Barclay,
1610-1686,
Urie I.
1659.
Bury Hill Papers, No. 80.
1660.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1663.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
eagerly welcomed by both Houses. It had become inevitable, as the only alternative to military tyranny. The people were tired of the rule of “ Saints or Soldiers,” and the one great break in the continuity of modern English History came to an end by the return of the Monarchy.
Shortly after the Restoration, David Barclay “ disen¬ tangled himself from all public affairs, living very private, sometimes at Edinburgh, and sometimes at Gordonstoun with his mother-in-law, Lady Lucie Gordon, much to his ease and satisfaction, until the month of March 1663, when he suffered the loss of his excellent wife, Catherine Gordon, aged 43 years.”
Her last desire had been to bring home her eldest son, Robert (then in Paris with his uncle, the Rector of the Scots Theo¬ logical College there), which request Colonel Barclay most religiously performed.
In this resolve he was strengthened by the warm support of his mother-in-law, the Lady Lucie Gordon. She was a woman of remarkable character and strong religious con¬ victions. Her father, the Dean of Sarum, was descended from a long line of distinguished and scholarly divines, and the affection and respect that she inspired is testified to by the name universally bestowed upon her of “ Auld Maa ” or “ Auld Maman.”
A letter from her, which has fortunately been preserved, expresses her satisfaction with his decision to bring back his son Robert from Paris, in accordance with the wish of his wife.
“ The Lady Gordonstoune to David Barclay of Urie.
Dear Son, “ Gordonstoune, July 17, 1663.
“ I receaved yours from London the 13 Aprill. I was exceedingly glad to hear that you were well, for I did long much to hear from you, all the things that you have sent to Edinborough, I shal use the best means 1 can to bring them hear. Both your little boys have had the pox, but very favourably. David was not sick at all with them, but John had three days a fever, but it has done him much good, for he is now very lusty, and beginns to find his tongue.
“ I bless God for the resolution you have taken to fetch your son, although your brother would not send him to you to the Rhine, 60
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
yet I cannot believe he will keep him against your will. You shal do well to walk wisely to get your son with the consent of his uncle, but if he will not then you were better want his kindnes than buy it with the loss of your son. Lett not therefore the hope of worldly gain perswade you, but remember who hath said, I will never leave nor forsake you, which certainly He will make good to all that walk in His Commandments.
“ I am old, and although 1 praise God in health for the present, yet I know not wherever I shall see you. I desire you to see your little ones bread in the ways of God, and I shall pray the Lord to continue you to them and that they may be comforts to you. This is the prayer of Your affectionate Mother to serve you
“ Luci Gordon.”
David Barclay therefore took the long journey to Paris, the account of which follows in the Life of his son Robert, and brought him home.
In the year 1665 a sudden and most unjust blow fell upon Colonel David, when he was, “ att the instigation of malicious persons, committed to the Castle of Edinburgh, by order of the Government.”
This must have been a great shock to him and his friends, for it might have been expected that the services he had rendered to the Royalists who had suffered for their devotion to Charles I would at least have been acknowledged with gratitude by Charles II.
But, though Robert Barclay in his Memoirs denies warmly that the Colonel ever supported Cromwell against the King, and points out how he had voted against his assumption of Royal Honours, and moreover how he had had his posts cancelled, and his estate withheld from him for many years by the orders of the Protector, he was now indicted for having been a Trustee under Cromwell.
Though this was technically true, it should have been taken into consideration that he had employed the powers then given him wholly on behalf of the Royalists, and the accusa¬ tion seems to have been a singularly unjust and ungracious one.
He was not taxed with any crime in the Committal Order, but there was cause for serious anxiety to his family and
61
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1665.
Baron Court Book of Urie.
Mackenzie’s History of Scotland.
Colonel David Barclay 1610-1686, Urie I.
D.N.B., Vol. xii, P- 153-
1665.
Records of
Secretary’s
Office,
Windsor,
July 30,
1688.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
friends, as it was suspected that “ there was a design of forfeiting him both of estate and life,” which might have suc¬ ceeded had it not been for the strong interposition of his old friend General, now Earl of, Middleton, who had received high promotion at the Restoration, and was the King’s Commissioner to Parliament. Though the records do not give favourable accounts of his administration of that office, and shortly after this he was disgraced and exiled for mis¬ conduct, yet it must be put to his credit that he could not permit his old friend and comrade to be unjustly accused, without protest.
The fact that Lauderdale was then Secretary of State for Scotland, and that “ in order to gain the favour of the King and Court he became a most merciless persecutor of the Covenanters . . . and was deeply implicated in all the arbitrary and unconstitutional acts of the Government at this period,” may be some explanation.
This seems the more remarkable as Lauderdale was himself brought up as a Presbyterian. Desiring to stand well with the King, he consulted him as to which religion he would prefer him to adopt. Charles’s characteristic reply, that Presbyterianism was no religion for a gentleman, was sufficient for the time-serving courtier. He was made a Duke in 1672.
The reason for David Barclay’s imprisonment has never been officially explained, though his grandson attributes it to “ mere jealousy.” This treatment was the more extraordin¬ ary in that the Royalist Government was actually in debt to him for a considerable sum he had advanced out of his own pocket, to pay his regiment.
This fact was acknowledged, but he never recovered this expenditure in his lifetime, though in July 1688, “ James II caused re-imburse his sonne Robert £400, as the order upon the Receiver General remarks, in my grandfather’s pocket book,” says Robert Barclay (Urie III).
There is a family legend that sundry old parchments and manuscripts were put away in a garret at Urie House. Their value and interest were not suspected, until a visitor observed fragments of torn papers, nibbled and destroyed by mice, 62
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
scattered on the floor, but it was too late to restore them. Possibly this manuscript book so constantly referred to in Robert Barclay’s Memoirs may have been among them, and would have cleared up many difficulties and filled up many gaps in the history of David Barclay.
The order for his Committal to Edinburgh Castle was made out as follows.
“ August 23 1665.
“ Charles R.
“ Our Will and pleasure is that you cause apprehend the persons of Colonel David Barclay, and Sir James Stewart, sometime
Provost of Edinburgh, and - Wallace, sometime Lieutenant
Colonel of our foot guard in Scotland. And them and every one of them you commit into sure prison in some of our castles of Edinburgh, Sterlin, or Dumbarton there to remaine until you receave our further orders.
“ For which this shall be your warrant.
“ Given att our Court att Salisbury the 23rd day of August 1665, & of our reign the 17th yeare.
To these alle
Sr George Maxwell of Nether Rock
Sr Hugh Campbell of Lesnock
The Lairds of Cunninghamhead, Rorallan, Dunlop,
Sr Jas Chester, Rowallan, Robert Harker, Major Moore.
“ fly His Majestie’s Command “ Lauderdaill.”
The Court had removed to Salisbury, for fear of the Great Plague, which was raging in London at that time.
There is a letter to the Secretary of the Privy Council, which refers to this affair, but does not throw much light upon it, nor the real reasons for his imprisonment. It says “ Anent Colonel Barclay and one Lennox, both prisoners for being concerned in the late Rebellion. — underwrytten by order of Councill direct to the Lord Secretary.”
“ My Lord,
“The Councill has desyred me in their name to transmitt to your Lordship the copy of a petition [This refers to a sale of horses] . . and Lykeways a petition presently presented the last Councill day in name of Colonell Barclay for his liberty, and seeing he was im¬ prisoned by the King’s order, the Councill desyres to know His Majestie’s pleasur anent it.
63
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1665.
From original in British Museum.
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland.
1666.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1666.
Genealogical
Account.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
“ There is also a signatour herewith sent for a remission to one Lennox for his accession to the late Rebellion, which they desyre may be offered by your Lordship to the King.
“ Of these the Council expects an accompt, which they have desyred me to signifie in their name.
“ I am your Lordship’s most humble servant.
“ Linlithgow.”
The first year of the Colonel’s incarceration passed without official record, and there is no evidence that he was kept in “ close prison ” all the time. It is probable that he may have negotiated a “ bond of union,” undertaking to make certain payments as “ caution money.” It seems that Lauderdale encouraged this form of penalty and no doubt benefited thereby. We find an entry in the Register of the Privy Council, January 1, 1670, where he is ordained to remain at his own house, and to find caution “ as formerly ” for £100 sterling. The practice varied according to the quality of the prisoner, and the political situation, and was often accepted in the case of prisoners able to pay for their liberty.
When he was consigned to Edinburgh Castle it happened that the place was unusually crowded, and he found he had to share a cell with a fellow Member of Parliament, one John Swinton, of Swinton. This man had been a judge of the Court of Session under the Commonwealth and, though originally a Royalist, had become one of Cromwell’s most trusted and influential agents in Scotland. He was a man of great natural ability and eloquence, and had joined the Society of Friends. In prison Swinton talked with Barclay on the theme that most interested them both, and “ David Barclay was strengthened and assisted towards an open avowal of himself as a believer in the principles and practice of the Quakers. He had always meditated much and deeply on religious matters, and having himself had much experience on the uncertainty of life, and the evils of malice, envy and persecution, from which neither innocency nor justice could protect a man, he turned to their teaching, which seemed to him to most closely resemble the principles laid down by the Founder of the Christian religion.”
64
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
No doubt his imprisonment and enforced inactivity gave Colonel him more opportunity for consideration of these questions. Swinton’s proselytising tendencies resulted in an order for ^io-ies^, him to be placed in solitary confinement, but his eloquence Urie I. had so strongly influenced David Barclay that we find in 1666. the Journal of the Society of Friends that “ David Barclay of Urie, in the Kingdome of Scotland, received the truth in 1666, being the fifty sixth year of his age, about the seventh month, and abode in it, and in constant unity with the faithful Friends thereof, having suffered the spoiling of goods cheer¬ fully, and many other indignities he was formerly unaccus¬ tomed to bear, and several tedious imprisonments after the sixty-fifth year of his age.”
It is not easy to define shortly the doctrines of a body which never accepted any creed nor employed any liturgy, which denied the sacraments and refused to acknowledge an ordained Ministry. But their teaching was
That there is a direct revelation of the Spirit of God to each individual soul, that this light comes to all, heathen or Christian, and that thereby the love and grace of God to all mankind is universal.
That the sacraments were inward and spiritual and not dependent on material manifestations.
That liberty of preaching and prayer should be common to all and not restricted to men specially ordained and paid.
That litigation, oaths, and war were absolutely unlawful, and that the use of weapons, even in self-defence, was contrary to Christian teaching.
That women were entitled to equal rights with men in all matters, and many minor regulations, as to the use of bad or coarse language, the denial of outward forms of respect to men of worldly position, strictness and purity of life, and so forth.
This teaching appealed strongly to David Barclay, but brought George Fox, its principal exponent, into direct conflict with all the religious bodies in England and Scotland, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and the more extreme sects of Fifth Monarchy men, Ranters, Seekers hi— 1 65
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1666.
Genealogical
Account
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
and Muggletonians, who all resented this claim to direct inspiration “ from within ” without ecclesiastical sanction.
A furious opposition arose to the new doctrines, but thousands of people full of devout enthusiasm, crowded to the meetings, and the leaders of religious thought became seriously alarmed.
In 1646 and 1648 ordinances had been passed by Parlia¬ ment for the prevention of “ Blasphemies and Heresies,” which covered several of the Quaker doctrines, notably their denial of the sacraments and an ordained priesthood. Also their refusal to pay tithes raised a legal point, which was placed in the hands of justices of the peace.
In 1654 Cromwell declared in a speech in the House of Commons that liberty of conscience was a natural right, and the Quakers breathed more freely. But other pretexts for persecution were soon found. They were accused of being Sabbath-breakers because they travelled to their meetings. They were fined for non-attendance at church services, were called “ brawlers ” when they spoke in churches, were guilty of breaches of the peace when they preached in the streets, refused to pay tithes, or take of! their hats to men, or declined to take any Oath in Courts of Law, which latter rule had a serious result in Colonel Barclay’s own case at this time.
He had for so long seriously considered the question, and made up his mind to accept all its drawbacks and dis¬ advantages, that his first step was to disembarrass himself of all worldy concerns and devote his life to the religion in which he found true peace and happiness.
Robert Barclay says that “ having cleared accounts with Barclay of Johnston, his father’s Factor, concerning his intromissions, which clearance I have by me, and having finished all transactions with the Earle Marischal, and his brother-in-law, Charles Gordon, his Trustee, about the lands of Urie, and being now at liberty from all worldly encum- berances, the uncertainty whereof he had seen both in prosperity and adversity, upon a serious and mature reflection he joined himself to the people called Quakers, about the year 1666.”
66
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
“ Surprise, incredulity, ridicule, dislike, resentment, and even fury, were awakened by David Barclay’s profession of Quakerism. A Barclay, whose coat armorial still bore the shining mitre of Aberbrothwick,* a staunch King’s man — a gallant and distinguished soldier — brother-in-law to a bishop — and own brother to the dignified Rector of the Scots College ! The thing was impossible, not to be credited.”
David Barclay pursued his way unmoved. The date of his “ convincement ” conflicts with the statement that David was actually in “ close prison ” at the time, as this involved imprisonment in a cell with a warder, and no communication with the outside world. There must have been certain form¬ alities connected with his election to the Society, and they could hardly have taken place in Edinburgh Castle. The rules were so severe against the Quakers gathering themselves together, or holding meetings of any kind, that the only safe places for such functions were in private houses, and under conditions of extreme secrecy.
But “ open imprisonment ” permitted of occasional leave and some of the amenities of civilised life on payment of caution money.
This points to the likelihood of his having returned to Urie, if only for a time, and this probability is increased by the fact that in 1667 Colonel Barclay reconstituted the Baron Court of Urie, which had lapsed since 1637.
It may have been merely a formality which did not require his personal attendance at Urie, but it probably involved a gathering of the tenants and crofters, and certain ceremonies to reinstate the feudal system, so it seems that at any rate in the beginning of the year 1667, his imprisonment was not “ close.”
The establishment of the Baron Court in Scotland may be regarded as an essential growth of feudalism, coincident with
* “ The shining mitre of Aberbrothwick.” This statement, though frequently made, is without foundation. The origin of the “ mitre ” cannot be traced, but it dates back to Gloucestershire days. The Earls of Berkeley, of Berkeley Castle, bear the same crest.
67
Colonel David Barclay, 16x0-1686, Urie I.
Alex. Gordon in
Theological Review, 1874.
1666.
1667.
Baron Court Book of Urie.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1667.
The
Pentland
Rising.
Sufferings of the Church in Scotland, Woodrow, Vol. II p 108.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
the tenure of the land by military service. The early kings recognised in it a ready means of increasing the influence of the Crown over turbulent subjects, through the grant of power to the feudal lords to enforce respect for law and order. For as he did homage for his land, so must his sub-vassals recognise a similar duty to him as their overlord.
Their authority in the earlier days was absolute, extending to jurisdiction over all crimes except treason, and the right of “ pit and gallows.” As things improved, these privileges were curtailed, but the landowner could still pursue for debt, punish for theft or contumacy, and settle disputes over land and tenancy. He might call a jury, consisting of fifteen in most cases in Scotland, though the useage of the Court of Urie was not limited to that number, and could summon fewer or more if desired by him, but his authority and judg¬ ment could not be disputed.
Such in its main outlines was the Baron Court, on which the comfort and self-respect of the rural population rested. They were held in Scotland until 1747, when their jurisdiction was by law curtailed to an extent which rendered them no longer indispensable, and they gradually fell into complete disuse.
Even the partial freedom that Colonel Barclay was allowed was to be curtailed. The restoration of the bishops with the return of the Monarchy was still resented in Scotland, and the legal dispersal of hillside meetings, or “ conventicles,” was a never-ending grievance. In 1667 a little band of about a thousand stern Covenanters, or Cameronians, as they were called, after their leader, Richard Cameron, took up arms against the Government, believing that “ God was able to save by few as by many.” They were routed and dispersed in a fight with the soldiers among the Pentland Hills. There is no reason to suspect that David Barclay had any hand in this revolt, but Woodrow, the historian, writes in April, 1668: —
“ 1 find David Barclay prisoner in the Castle of Edinboro, for some concern I suppose in Pentland, upon his declining to sign the Bond, is sent to the Tolbooth of Montrose.”
Though there seems to have been no foundation for the charge, the authorities were evidently suspicious of him, no 68
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
doubt increasingly so after his profession of Quakerism, and the terms of his imprisonment became more severe. His implication in this rising was the more improbable since his severance from the Kirk in 1653, and the pretext was a lame one. The Bond referred to by Woodrow was called The Bond of Peace, and was drawn up by the authorities and presented to all political prisoners for signature, without which they could not be given their freedom.
There had been many such Bonds of Peace during these times of rebellion and unrest, and the terms offered do not seem to have been unduly harsh. The wording of this par¬ ticular bond ran : —
“ I, A.B. bind and oblige me that I shall Keep the Public peace, and that 1 shall not rise in arms against or without His Majesty’s authority, under all highest pains that may follow, in case I shall do anything to the contrary : and for further security C.D. doth bind and oblige himself as Cautioner for me for my keeping of the Peace, and performance of the obligement aforesaid under the pain of ... . to be paid in case I contravene the same.”
There was another version, which was “ the shape in which it was offered up and down the country ” :
“ I, A. B. do bind and oblige me to keep the public peace, and, if I fail, that I shall pay a year’s rent : likewise that my tenants and men- servants shall keep the public peace, and in case they fail, I oblige myself to pay for every tenant his year’s rent, and for every servant his year’s fee. And for more security I am content these presents be registered in the books of Council.”
It does not appear that the wording of either of these Bonds need have offended any man with David Barclay’s Royalist sympathies. It could only have been the strict tenets of the Society of Friends forbidding the taking of oaths that stood between him and his liberty. He stead¬ fastly refused to sign the bond, and remained in prison. It must have been no light deprivation, for though being considered a political prisoner he was probably allowed to see his family and friends, he was cut off from his home and private affairs which urgently demanded his presence at Urie.
69
Colonel
David
Barclay,
1610-1686,
Urie I.
1667.
Council’s Act anent the
Indemnity with the Bond of Peace, Oct. 9. 1667, Woodrow, Vol. 11, P-93-
Colonel
David
Barclay,
1610-1686,
Urie I.
1667.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
There is a vaulted chamber in the Castle of Edinburgh which is pointed out as the cell where both Montrose and Argyll spent their last hours. Montrose may have been there in 1641, when he was imprisoned on the representation of Argyll that he was a traitor to the Commonwealth, but, as we know, the great Marquis’s last hours were spent in the Tol- booth. Argyll was, however, imprisoned there, and only left it to suffer death on the gallows in 1 685 . This cell was used chiefly for the safekeeping of the Covenanting leaders, so one of Colonel Barclay’s importance would most probably have been put there, and shared it with John Swinton, as the room itself is of tolerable size. It can, however, be partitioned in two through a long slit in the floor, through which the great portcullis could be raised or lowered, the room being im¬ mediately above the main entrance to the castle. It was without light or air, beyond what filtered through one narrow arrow-slit in the wall, which affords a very limited glimpse of the roofs and pinnacles of Edinburgh far below, with the steel grey waters of the Firth of Forth behind them, and beyond the faint blue distance of the opposite shore.
The prisoners were allowed to take exercise on the ram¬ parts, which are little altered to-day, and we can picture Colonel Barclay’s commanding figure and military stride, as he paced to and fro, either alone, or with his fellow- prisoners.
Looking over to the north, he could see the huddle of smoky roofs of the “ auld toun ” below, dominated by the stately crown tower of St. Giles’s church. He must often have stood to gaze into the grey distance, thinking of his wide and desolate fields lying untilled and waiting for the master’s eye.
He had sent his son Robert to live at Urie, but he was unversed in estate management, and, even at this early period of his life, already deeply engaged in writing his world-famous “ Apology.” David’s other children were still at Gordons- toun, where their grandmother Lady Gordon gave them a mother’s care. Robert no doubt sent his father reports, but to a man of his energetic temperament the enforced idleness 70
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
must have been irksome indeed, and needed all the patient endurance enjoined by his creed.
He sent up a petition for the release of himself and his friend Thomas Lennox, but only received this reply from Lauderdale, speaking for the King.
March 30, 1668.
“ Wee did see the petition of David Barclay, which though it bee of unusual straine, yet if he will signe such a bond and security as the uther persons did who were committed with him, wee do allow you to grant him his liberty, bot if he refuse, then you shall remove him to some other prison, for we will not have our Castle of Edinburgh made a prison.
Receaved here inclosed the remission you desyred for Thomas Lenox.
Given at our Court at Whithall the 30 day of March 1668, and of our reigne the 20th year.
Subscribitur by His Majestie’s Command,
Lauderdale.”
Thomas Lennox was restrained by no religious scruples, and on taking the Bond for Peace was released at once under this order : —
“ The Lords of His Majes1*63 Privy Councill ordaines His Majesties Remission in favour of Thomas Lenox to be delyvered up to him, and ordaines the Magistrates of Edinburgh to sett him to liberty, he first subscryving the band for the peace, and having his remission past the great Seall.
Appoyntes the Lord Register to call for David Barclay, and to offer him the band for the peace, that he may sign the same, and to report.”
But David still refused to sign. Possibly the next order sent by the Council on April 9, 1668, was not altogether un¬ welcome to the Colonel, as it brought him to Montrose, which was nearer Urie, though the accommodation and comfort of the actual quarters were even inferior to those in Edinburgh Castle, and were indeed sordid, cramped and insanitary be¬ yond description.
Edinburgh, April 9, 1668.
“ The Lords of His Majties Privy Councill having considered His Majues letter anent David Barclay, and finding that he is un¬ willing to subscryve the band for the peace, doe ordaine him betwixt
71
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1668.
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, 1665-1669, Vol. 11,
P- 424. 428.
Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, Vol. 11, p. 282.
Colonel
David
Barclay,
1610-1686,
Urie I.
1668.
Reg. of Privy Council, Vol. 11, p. 457-
Ibid.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
(now) and the first of May nixt, to remove and transport himself from the Castle of Edinburgh, and enter himself prisoner within the Tol- booth of Montrose, under the payne of five thousand Scots merks, and that he find caution for that effect, and ordaines the keeper of the Castle of Edinburgh to sett him to liberty to the effect forsaid, and the Magistratts of Montrose to receave and detean him prisoner until further order, and discharges the said Magistratts not to suffer any Quaikers to have access to him, except his own sonne.”
Though it seems strange to us that a prisoner should be ordered to arrange his own transfer from one prison to another, David Barclay transported himself as commanded ; but he addressed another “ supplication ” to the Lords of the Council in a month’s time, which shows the hardship and injustice of his treatment. Montrose lies some twenty-five miles distant from Urie, and he could probably communicate with his friends there, but was rendered so uneasy by their reports of the condition of the place, that he wrote : —
“ Colonel David Barclay reports that by the Council’s order he has removed himself a prisoner from the Castle of Edinburgh to the Tolbooth of Montrose, bot by reason of his effaires and family, which are in much disorder and straites, that unless he have some farder tyme to make some shift for his and his children’s mainten¬ ance, he or they shall starve ; besides there is no roume in that prison wherein any persone can stay, and so craves some relief.”
May 9, 1668.
The Lords thereupon ordained him to have “ the liberty of the town of Montrose till further orders, on finding caution in 5000 merkes, to confine himself within the same, and not remove without license.”
They again recommended the magistrates of the burgh “ that they be carefull no quaikers frequent his company, except his owne sonne.”
The repetition of this caution throws some light on the severity of his treatment, he being still accused of no offence.
However time went on, and it was not until the 3rd of December 1668, that an answer was vouchsafed to the first part of his petition.
“ The Lords of His Majestie’s Privy Council having considered a petition presented be David Barclay desyring that in respect of his
72
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
urgent affaires he might be liberat of the confynement putt upon him to the towne of Montrose, doe hereby change the place of the peti¬ tioners confynement from Montrose to his house at Urie, and three myles about the same, the petitioner finding caution under the payne of five thousand merkes that he shall keep his confynement and return to Montrose against the first day of June, nixt, to which time they allow him to reseid at his house, as said is, whilk caution is found accordingly.”
The references to “ his own house at Urie ” are rather per¬ plexing, for we know he did not finally build “ the old Castle ” until 1670. There must have been some sort of habitation there, possibly a farm house, or maybe the old manor house of the Hayes may not have been entirely des¬ troyed, where Robert could live and prosecute his studies, as we are told he did during these years.
Another grudging extension of leave was granted in April 1669.
“ The Lords of the Council having considered a petition pres¬ ented by Colonell David Barclay supplicating that the former liberty allowed him to reseid at his house of Urie with the licence of three myles about the same, to goe about his affaires might be prorogat for some further tyme, notwithstanding of his former confynement to the towne of Montrose, do hereby contnow [continue] the petitioners confynement to his house of Urie, and three myles about the same, untill the last day of July nixt, he finding caution under the payne of five thousand merkes, to keep his confynement, and to return to the burgh of Montrose immediately after the said last day of July.”
Again on July 29, 1669, a permit extended his liberty for another six months.
It must have been during this time when the Colonel was permitted to live at Urie that one of his earliest acts in connection with the reconstituted Baron Court of the estate took place. “ It was one which probably stands unique in the history of such tribunals.”
We can easily understand how, after so long a period of practical exemption from authority, there had grown up in the Barony a race of tenants ill-disposed to brook the will of a superior, however considerately and wisely it might be im¬ posed. Accordingly on May 7th, 1669, we have the curious in.— K 73
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1669.
Ibid.
July 29, 1669.
Baron Court of Urie.
1669.
Colonel
David
Barclay,
1610-1686,
Urie I.
1669.
Baron Court Book of Urie.
East Coast of Scotland, Francis Douglas.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
incident of the Laird voluntarily surrendering himself at the bar of his own Court, in answer to the charge of being an oppressor and exactor.
The question narrowed itself to one of the rendering of certain services, and the matter was amicably settled by the refusal of the tenants to prosecute, confessing “ in regaird to them that they had no reasons soe to doe.” David Barclay met them half way, by proposing to discontinue the exaction of service for the future, on payment of a small yearly equiva¬ lent of six pounds Scots.
Notwithstanding this action on his part it is not difficult to see how, in discharging his duties as a landlord, the Colonel’s religious opinions must have caused him, for a time at all events, to be ill thought of and misjudged. “ In his hands a Court of legal justice is transformed, as far as may be, into a tribunal of religious equity, and doubtless there were few among his vassals that rightly appreciated the change.” It upset their notions, and disturbed their equanimity. It fre¬ quently overwhelmed with rebuke and penalty those who had not calculated to meet a moral element in the preferment of their often-times vexatious and ill-considered claims.
The Colonel did not always “ suffer fools gladly ” if a tra¬ dition about him is true. Though his religion was the leading and absorbing interest of his life, he did not altogether neglect his practical concerns. His strenuous life had left him little opportunity for learning agricultural lore, and when he set about improving his estate, he found his lack of practical knowledge laid him open to criticism and even imposition. But for all that the Colonel meant to be master on his own property, and when he differed with one of his ploughmen as to the correct method of ploughing, and the man ventured to disagree, the Colonel addressed him in these words : “ Thou knowest, friend, that I feed and pay thee to do my work in a proper manner, but thou art wise in thine own eyes, and regardest not the admonitions of thine employer. I have hitherto spoken to thee in a style thou understandest not, for verily thou art of a perverse spirit. I wish to correct thy errors, for my own sake and for thine, and therefore thus tell
74
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
thee that I am thy master, and must be obeyed.” These moderate words were followed by a properly administered castigation, and it is related that he had no more trouble with insubordinate servants, who had been under the impres¬ sion that “the old Quaker ” could be defied with impunity.
His longed-for liberty was granted to him at last, on August 23, 1670. The Lords of His Majesty’s Privy Council, sitting at Edinburgh, once more
“ haveing considered a petition presented on behalf of Colonel David Barclay, supplicating that the former restraint put upon him, con- fyning him to his own house, might be taken off, and he permitted to goe about his necessar affaires as he shall have occasion, doe thereby take off and discharge the restraint and confi nement putt upon the Petitioner, and notwithstanding thereof grants him liberty to goe about his own affaires in any place of the Kingdome.”
We can imagine with what thankfulness of heart David Barclay set to work to build his house and restore his property.
He erected a long, low, solidly built mansion out of great blocks of the local granite, on the top of a steep bank, at the foot of which ran the burn. It faced south-east, so the morn¬ ing sun shone on its steep roofs and whitewashed walls. He built it with two “ pepper-pot ” turrets, a sign of the occupancy of the owner, and small deep-set windows, characteristic of those times, when the possibilities of defence were more considered than beauty of architecture. A battle- mented porch was later erected over the front entrance, but the house was built as a manor house, not a fortified dwelling, though capable of standing a siege if need be.
He planted young trees behind it to shelter it from the cold north winds, and began to restore the land. The damage had gone deep ; the uprooting of the gorse, the clearing out of the heather and bracken, and the thinning and replanting of the scattered woodland was the task of years, and even so late as 1760, we find the fifth Robert Barclay of Urie com¬ plaining that the estate was still “ in the rudest condition ” when he inherited it.
The Colonel also built a meeting house in the grounds, close to the house, in spite of having been expressly for-
75
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1669.
1670.
Colonel
David
Barclay,
1610-1686,
Urie I.
1670.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
bidden by the magistrates to “ keep Quaiker Meetings.” As ever, his conscience was his only guide.
As soon as the house was completed he handed over the whole property to his son Robert, who had married in 1669, making certain business-like arrangements as to his con¬ tinued residence there.
Of the Colonel, his grandson writes : “ He became as eminent for his religious and exemplary life as formerly among others for his bravery, resolving now to suffer in- dignitys and injurys for conscience sake, a virtue he was before unacquainted with.” His strong example encouraged others, and a little group of converts to the Society of Friends gathered round him, many of them his kinsmen : Alexander Jaffray, five times Provost of Aberdeen in the old campaign¬ ing days, the wife of Baillie Gilbert Molleson, the Gellie Family, the Forbes of Achorties, Patrick Livingstone, in whose marriage contract to Sarah Hy field of Nottingham, in 1675, the name of David Barclay of Urie appears as “ con¬ sented ” and many other people of rank and family were among the early friends in and about Aberdeen.
Urie from henceforth became the centre of the Quakers in the north, and the meetings there held first monthly, and then weekly, were attended by increasing numbers of tenants and neighbours, though the Synod of Aberdeen had issued a sentence of excommunication against “ Papists, Quakers, and other scandalous persons,” and all Christian people were en¬ joined to hold no communication with them.
Colonel Barclay, however, was not under that eccle¬ siastical jurisdiction, and the Bishop of the neighbouring diocese of Brechin was his brother-in-law, and his very good friend ; but the peace and order of his later years were rudely broken, and he suffered with many of his friends from the bitter intolerance of the Restoration period.
The ancient “ prelatic ” City of Aberdeen was still strongly opposed to any form of religious dissent and persecuted the Society of Friends with the utmost harshness. Where there was pretext that they had broken the law, it was used to excuse the greatest cruelty of prosecution, and even though 76
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
many of its members were people of good position, and living peaceful charitable lives, all were treated the same. A party of Quakers was driven out of the town by town sergeants, and the inhabitants were forbidden to harbour them or succour them in any way. The humbler members were roughly handled, refused medical or other aid, and for the smallest offences subjected to heavy fines, and even personal chastisement. George Keith, a cousin of David Barclay, a rather aggressive ring-leader, was imprisoned for ten months. The clergy were especially vindictive, and at their instigation the magistrates ordered all male Quakers to be apprehended at a meeting and committed to gaol, while their meeting house was closed. Some interments having taken place in the Friends’ private burial ground without religious ceremony, the magistrates ordered the bodies to be exhumed and removed to the churchyard.
David Barclay therefore made a burial ground on the top of a steep hill in the Urie “ policies ” which he purposed to surround with a stone wall and locked gate, so that no un¬ authorised person could break in. He left the building of the wall to his son Robert, in his last directions. Here lie the Colonel himself, his son Robert and his wife, with the successive members of his family who inherited Urie, down to the year 1853.
A small mausoleum was later erected to cover their graves, and the walls are hung with plain slate tablets, inscribed with their names and dates only. No further inscriptions are added, nor even a text of scripture.
This mausoleum, or “ Howff ” as it is locally called, has been added to by the present owners of Urie and used as their private burying ground. It should be said that this addition was not approved of by the country people, who still hold the name of Barclay in veneration.
It must be admitted that, as in so many religious move¬ ments, there was some truth in the accusations made by their opponents that the extremist followers of the new sect brought it into disrepute.
The Quakers were accused of carrying religious excitement
77
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
1670.
Colonel David Barclay, 1610-1686, Urie I.
HISTORY OF THE BARCLAY FAMILY
to the verge of frenzy, and their very nickname was popu¬ larly, though erroneously, attributed to their shaking and trembling under the influence of excessive religious fervour. Though they forbade the use of weapons, they employed the power of the pen, and issued great numbers of controversial tracts and pamphlets, which possibly inflamed the passions of their persecutors quite as much, though until Penn and Robert Barclay began to write nothing of much literary value appeared. They did not meddle with politics, and obeyed George Fox’s exhortation, “ Keep out of the powers of the earth.”
Meanwhile David Barclay was suffering many things for his faith. He was never one to hide his opinions, and on his occasional visits to Aberdeen, he wore the rather conspicuous garb of black cloak, and severely plain garments, with a broad brimmed hat set on his straight cut grey hair, which in those days of brightly coloured and fantastically cut clothes, left the passers by in no doubt as to his profession.
The citizens of Aberdeen were given to the throwing of unsavoury missiles, and the utterance of coarse abuse of their religious opponents, and assuredly this dress must have attracted notice which it would have been pleasanter to avoid. David was still a noticeable figure, and those who remembered him in the scarlet tunic, white plumed hat, full trunks, high black boots and gilt spurs of his Swedish cam¬ paign, or in later days in the workmanlike steel breastplate and helmet, leather belt, and plain basket-hilted sword of the great Rebellion, may have regretted the change.
The Laird of Urie, as he was now called, rode through the jeering crowds, indifferent to their conduct, and no doubt with a prayer on his firm lips that they might receive the truth.
The American poet Whittier has described the scene in a poem which may be quoted here.
THE LAIRD OF URIE.
Up the streets of Aberdeen, by the Kirk and College Green
Rode the Laird of Urie