Ogilvie in his living and lands of Findlater, Deskfurd, Drumnokeith, Blairshinnach, Castlefield, Castleyards, with the office of Constabulary of Culan, Constable lands, Pittinbringans, the fishing upon Itham; the lands of Seyfield, Bruntoun, Upstart, Smythtown, Woodfield, Touchaneill; the lands of Clouchmatrie, with the mills advocation of kirks, &c. Whereby, says Murray, the said Earl has gratified us greatumly, and made us sure of the lands of Strathnarne and Cullard, and others lands; therefore he, Murray, obliges himself to set forward the reduction of the forfeiture to the uttermost of his power by himself and others whom he might procure, and to resign the Sheriffship and Castle of Inverness with diverse lands allowed for keeping that Castle and other things, but all of them natural consequences of the reduction of the forfeiture. Goodall. In order to understand these deeds the reader must be informed, that James Ogilvie of Findlater had been disinherited by his father, whose second wife (of the Huntley family) had persuaded him to entail his estates of Finlater, Deskford, &c. upon his son-in-law John Gordon, Huntley's brother, and on his failure, upon Adam Gordon his younger brother. On the execution and forfeiture of John Gordon in 1562, the estate was restored by Murray to James Ogilvie, in exchange for the lands of Straithnairn and Cardell. Upon Huntley's return to favour, his brother Adam claimed the estate of Finlater, &c.which, to gratify both parties, was awarded to Ogilvie, and the lands of Auchendown and Kethmore, to Adam Gordon, by the arbitration of Bothwell and Lethington,the queen being umpire, on the 22d of March, the day after Bothwell obtained the Castle of Edinburgh. Crawford's Notes on Buchanan, 160. Douglas Peerage, 262. Huntley therefore exacts a bond from Murray, the day before his departure, to promote, or in other words, not to oppose his restitution, and the day before the act is passed, he engages to warrant Murray's transactions respecting the forfeited estates. Huntley's ratification of the decreet arbitral, is stated, in Murray's bond, as the consideration for which the latter engaged to promote the restitution, as it made him sure of Strathnairn and Cullard, of which he could be dispossessed only on the restitution of the Gordons. But in Huntley's subsequent bond, Murray's application to the queen for his restitution, is artfully stated as the consideration for ratifying his former transactions. No. VIII. Vol. I. Page 87. Act of Council. Apud Dunbar penultimo Aprilis Anno 1567. Privy house, THE quhilk day the queen's majesty understanding Records of how lately hir heness being at Seyton, wes movit to set Council: furth her lettres and proclamation, Inhibiting hir lieges Registerto answer or obey Sir William Murray of Tullibardin Edinburgh. hir comptroller of the victuals money and others duties, of the thirds of benefices: Notwithstanding any werning made thereoff, under pain of dowbill payment; as the lettres direct thairupon of the date at Seyton the fyft day of Apryl instant propones. Nevertheless her hichnes presentlie understands that the said inhibition hes greatly hindret of the inbringing of the saids victuals and thirds; and that the seassoun of the year and time of payment is now present, quhilk being past ower, it will be difficult to get payment of the saymen thairafter, understanding weil the nature of the comons to be mair facillie inhibit to retain thair dewties, nor for manie chairges to pay the samen. Therefore presently by the tenour heroff, relaxes the said inhibition simplie, and ordanes lettres be direct to make publication heroff: and to charge all and sundrie persons as are dew and addebt in payment of the saids thirds and victuals, to pay the samen to the comptrollaris collectors, to the effect that the samen may be ready brot in by thame to the furnishing of our saidis Souverains house, efter the form and tenour of the saids lettres direct to that effect by the lordis of Counsal and Ses 1 sion, at the saids comptrollars instance of before, and No. IX. Vol. I. Page 92. MELVIL's error concerning the bond, may be easily explained. None but peers were present at Ainstey's supper, as the entertainment was termed, and the bond was neither signed by the abbots, by the officers of state, nor by the burgesses, that sat in parliament. When the bond was again produced upon the eve of the marriage, Melvil was required to sign it, but refused; (Mem. Pref.) and afterwards when he wrote his Memoirs, he would naturally imagine, that the signatures of the nobility were not obtained till then. Guthrie suspects that Melvill's Memoirs were interpolated or altered by the editor; a conjecture which, after every enquiry, I can discover no MS. to confirm or to confute. They were first published in 1683, by George Scott of Pitlochie, Sir John Scott of Scotstarvets younger son, by Melvil's grand-daughter; and though he has certainly altered and modernised the language, no interpolations can be tracted to other writers, as in Crawford's Memoirs. From the period at which they were published, 1683, any alterations must have consisted in the omission of unfavourable, or the insertion of favourable circumstances for Mary, to whom the author, or editor, is partial throughout. In this view, "seeing that he had ravished her, and lain with her against her will," exhibits, in the last clause, the editor's comment on the Scottish rape or abduction of her person, which Spottiswood treats as a mere pretext, 202, and is of much the same import with Paris's declaration, "<< que les nûyt auparavant que les Royne fust ravie et enlevee du dit Sieur de Boduel, que Mons. d' |