CONFISCATED ESTATES.

Evening Star, Issue 3240, 9 July 1873, Page 3

CONFISCATED ESTATES.

A PROBLEM FOR LEGAL ANTIQUARIES, Amongst those who suffered for their religious opinions in 1683 was a gentleman of the name of John White!aw, popularly known in the parish of New MonkJand, Lanarkshire, as the “ Martyr,” and proprietor at the time of his death of the lands of Bothwellshiels, and supposed also of Stand and Drumshannie. A detailed account of his trial is still to be seen at the Register House of Edinburgh, in the “Records of Justiciary,” and from these records it appears he was condemned to death for the following reasons : —Fiist, he refused to say “God save the King”; second, he said he considered “ the whole three nations ” bound to adhere to the Covenant they had recently made; third, he admitted he was present with the rebels at the rising at Bothwell Bridge, and had a sword in his hand ; fourth, he professed himself unable to determine whether the assassination of the Archbishop of St Andrews was lawful or unlawful. On these grounds, says the old record of Justiciary from which we quote, the Lords Commissioners, consisting of the Hon. Lords Fowlis of Colin ton, Lockhart of Castlehill, Balfour of Fornet, Hog of Harcarse, and of Pitiriedden, by the mouth of James Johnston Dempster of Court, decerned and adjudged the said John Whitelaw to he taken to the Market Cross Kdinbro, on Friday, the last day of' No\'.emb,cr, 1653, and between the hours of two and four o’clock in the qfternoon, to he hanged on the flbbet untjl he be dead, and all his lands, eritagea, goods, and gear to be forfeited and escheat to our Sovereign Lord’s use. This sentence was carried into effect, and as a letter—which has recently come to light, after lying unknown at the Registered Office of Edinburgh for nearly two hundred years—shows, was borne with heroic fortitude. In this letter, written at “the Tron House” or Tolbooth, Edinburgh, either on the night previous to, or morning of the day of his execution, the “Martyr” utters no complaint either against the sentence which had been passed upon him or those who had passed it, but, deploring the apostacy of the age, and expressing a hope that better times would come both for the Church of Scotland and the country, states “ was the sweetest day 119 eyev spent on earth,” th ;\t “the Jjorc] had made cold irons and the want of fire delightsome unto him,” and “ all his trouble to flee away,” and concludes with tho words, “And now, farewell, sun, moon, and stars, Christian friends, and all created comforts ; and welcome, Heaven and the spirits of just men made perfect, and welcome, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, into whose bands I. commit my spirit.” Such ig a brief outline of the character of John White-’ law, as well as of tho for Which lie suffered, Tye point, however, to which \ve wish to’direct the attention of our readers, and'more particularly of legal antiquaries, is this —Hq\v happens it that the estates of John Whitelaw have never been restored to his lineal and lawful descendants, while it is well known that property belonging to his contemporaries, confiscated at the same time, is now in the possession of its rightful owners ? How is it that restitutions have been made in so qiany other oases, and the representatives of tho Martyr of “Stand” arc still in the position, iu so far as infeftment into his lands and heritages is concerned, as he himself was, after sentence of death and forfeiture had been passed upon him ? This will app.ear all the more wonderful when it is borne in mind that William 111., in the year 1694, passed ai} Act restoring to their rightful owners, and their descendants all' forfeited estates. And that John Whitelavy’s estates were of considerable extent as well ?,s of value may be inferred from tho fact that they are specially mentioned in an Act of Parliament, passed in 1684, as “all and haill, the said John Whitelaw, his toon and lands of Bothwellshiols, with houses, biggins, yrards, orcbai •hi. niilus, woods, fishings, parks, meadows, gnvssingß, shealings,” and are given by the King to his “lovite,” James Urquhart, of Knookleite, under the great seal of His Majesty’s ancient kingdom of Scotland, at Whitehall, on the 29th of March, 1684. No mention is made in the Act referred to i of the lands of “Stand,” or but thm’g [q*o £pQ.d reasons for’believing John \Vhite'law y was proprietor of these 1 places as well as of Bothwellshiels, Some interesting particulars having reference to John Whitelaw still remain to be mentioned. From documents which have come under our notice, it appears that the Martyr had a wife, by whom he had two children—a son and a daughter; that his wife’s name was Thomson; that alter the execution of her husband she remained

for some time in possession of “ Stand ;” that a brother of hers afterwards lived with her; that the Martyr’s wife and this brother entered into a compact to keep the children of John Whitelaw ignorant of their position, with a view of appropriating to their own advantage bis moveable property; that eventually her daughter was married to a gentleman of the name of Mr Forbes Douglas Dick; that this gentleman went to India and accumulated a largo fortune there, died childless, and left a will bequeathing his property to the “ male heirs of John Whitelaw of the Stand.” Here, then, is the problem wo propose to legal antiquaries First, why are the descendants of John Whitelaw, the Martyr, not in possession of their patrimonial inheritance ? Second, what has become of the will of Mr Forbes Douglas Dick? Vast pecuniary interests arc involved in the solution of this problem, for, exclusive of the property left by Mr Forbes Douglas Dick, that left; by the Martyr, had it amounted at the time of his death to only two or three thousand pounds (and this is making a moderate estimate of its value), would, with interest accumulating upon it for nearly two hundred years, come to upwards of a million sterling. A gentleman of undoubted veracity indeed states he saw this sum mentioned in a public notice which appeared fourteen years ago, calling the heirs of John Whitelaw to come forward and claim it. Attempts were made then, and have, we believe, been repeated since by some of the descendants of the Martyr to make good their claim. For want, however, of some papers, which have either been lost or destroyed, they have never been prosecuted with the energy adequate to the occasion and commensurate with the vast property at stake. It only remains for us to add that the descendants of John Whitelaw, the Martyr, both lineal and collateral, are numerous. Of the former, we believe we are justified in stating that a Mr James Whitelaw, at present in Australia, is one ; that the late Mr Matthew Whitelaw, of James’s place, Links, Leith, was another —as also, of course, bis sons, the Rev. Dr Whitelaw, minister of Athelstaneford, and Mr Matthew Whitelaw, of Com-Iy Bank, Edinburgh, and other members of the family; and some other individuals now living in Lanarkshire, Should the Martyr’s estates be recovered, there will be an ample share for each and alt of his descendants, as well as for those to whom we now propose this interesting and complex legal problem ; and thus another page, and by no means an uniustructive one, will be added to the “ Romance of History. ” —Dundee Adveriiscr.