William Hay, 6th Lord Yester

WILLIAM, sixth Lord Yester, seems to have inherited the fierce and turbulent spirit of his maternal ancestors, for he was noted even in those troublous times for his turbulence and violence. On the 30th of April, 1585, a complaint was made against him, before the Privy Council, by John Livingstone of Belstane, in the parish of Carluke, on the ground of a violent attack made upon him by Lord Yester, which put him in peril of his life. One morning, he alleges, he left his home before sunrise, meaning no harm to anyone, and expecting none to himself. He was walking out, ‘under God’s peace and the King’s,’ when suddenly he was beset by about forty people, who had him at feud, ‘all bodin in feir of weir;’ namely, armed with jacks, steel bonnets, spears, lances, staffs, bows, hagbuts, pistolets, and other invasive weapons forbidden by the laws. At the head of them was William, Master of Yester (a denounced rebel on account of his slaughter of the Laird of Yesterhall’s servant), Alexander Jardine, younger, of Applegarth, and a number of other individuals, all mentioned by name, all of them persons of good position and influence. Having come for the purpose of attacking Livingstone, they no sooner saw him than they set upon him with discharge of their firearms, to deprive him of his life. He narrowly escaped, and ran back to his house, which they immediately environed in the most furious manner, firing in at the windows, and through every aperture, for a space of three’ hours. A ‘bullon’ pierced his hat. As they departed they met his wife and daughter, whom they abused shamefully. The perpetrators of these barbarities and violent deeds were all denounced as rebels by the Privy Council, a sentence which they seem to have regarded very lightly.

In the following year (October 8th) the Master of Yester is once more brought before the council, on a complaint made by Sir John Stewart of Traquair, and his brother, James Stewart of Shillinglaw, lieutenant of his Majesty’s guard. They set forth, in the first place, how it is well known of Sir John Stewart that, ‘having his dwelling-place on the south side of Tweed, in a room [place] subject to the invasions of the thieves and broken men of the Borders, and lying betwixt them and sundry his Majesty’s true liges, whom commonly they harry and oppress, have at all times himself, his brother, his friends and neighbours assisting him, dwelling betwixt the burgh of Peebles and Gaithopeburn, resistit the stouthreif and oppressions of the said thieves and broken men, to the comfort and relief of many true men, in whilk course they intend, God willing, to continue to their lives’ end.’ Of late, however, they declare ‘they have been and is gretumly hindered therein, by reason that William, Master of Yester, by the causing, direction, at least owersight and tolerance, of William Lord Hay of Yester, his father, sheriff of Peebles and provost of the burgh of Peebles (wha by the laws of this realme aucht to mak his said son answerable,’ but had ‘placit him in the principal house and strength of Neidpath,’ though he had been denounced rebel for nearly the space of a year ‘for his inobedience to underlie the laws’ till within the last few days that he obtained relaxation) . . . had in the meantime ‘not only usurpit, and taken on him the charge of the sheriffship of Peebles, and provostry of the burgh thereof, but ane absolute command to proclaim and hold wappinshawings at times na wise appointit by his hieness’ direction, to banish and give up kindness to all persons, in burgh or land, where he pleases, to tak up men’s gear under pretence of unlaws fra wappinshawings or other unnecessar causings, never being lawfully callit nor convenit; . . . and forder it is well knawn to sundry of the lords of Secret Council that the said Master sought the life of the said James Stewart, and daily shores and boasts [threatens and vaunts] to slay him and all others of his kin, friends, allies, assisters, and partakers.’ On the petition of the complainers, the Council heard parties, the peccant Master appearing for himself and in excuse for his father, who was sick and unable to travel. The case was remitted to the judgment of the Court of Session, to be decided by them as they might think proper. Meanwhile the Master was enjoined to desist from molesting the Stewarts and their friends and dependents between this and the 8th of January next.

On the 20th April, 1587, it is stated that the King had dealt with these hostile parties, and had arranged letters of affirmance between them, in order to secure peace for the future; but the Master of Yester had refused to subscribe. For his refractory behaviour he was threatened with being denounced a rebel. On the 12th of May the King ordered him to enter in ward north of the Tay, and there remain till liberated; and a few weeks later, on this order not being complied with, the Master was denounced rebel, and all persons were forbidden to assist or receive him.

It was shortly after this fruitless effort to heal the feud between the Hays and Stewarts that King James made his memorable attempt to induce the whole nobility, convened for the purpose at Edinburgh, to bury in oblivion their mutual animosities, and to promise that they would henceforth live together in amity. After a banquet at Holyrood, they were made to march in procession hand-in-hand to the Cross of Edinburgh, and there, in the presence of the King and a great concourse of the citizens, to drink to each other, and to pledge their faith that they would be friends. The Master of Yester alone declined to comply with the King’s earnest request, and refused to be reconciled to Stewart of Traquair. He was committed to the castle for his contumacy, and after a few months’ imprisonment he at last yielded. The whole circumstances connected with this affair throw great light both on the character of the Scottish nobility of that day, and on the lawless state of the country, when the son of a peer of the realm, and the sheriff of the county, robbed the people of their goods under the pretext that they had refused to attend meetings illegally convened by his own authority.

It is a curious and instructive fact that Father Hay, in his ‘Genealogie of the Hays of Tweeddale,’ written a century later, precisely reverses the character and objects of this quarrel. The Master of Yester, whose nickname it seems was Wood-sword, is described by him as a vigorous supporter of the laws, and a scourge of the thieves and broken men who infested the Borders; while the Stewarts of Traquair were their friends and protectors. The Master, he affirms, captured and hanged a great number of them, and in pursuing them received a wound in the face. Father Hay admits that the Master was at feud with the house of Traquair, but asserts that it was because they ‘seconded’ the moss-troopers. ‘King James VI.,’ he continues, ‘being desirous to have this feud taken away, as all others of the country, and he refusing was committed to the castle of Edinburgh, out of which he made his escape, and immediately made some new inroad against the thieves, of whom he killed a great many, in a place called from thence the Bloody Haugh, near Riskinhope, in Rodonna; whereupon King James was pleased to make a hunting journey, and came to the house of Neidpath, whither the King called Traquair, with his two sons, who made to Lord Yester acknowledgement for the wrong they had done him, and thus peace was made by the King. This was witnessed by one William Geddes, who was my lord’s butler, and lived till the year 1632.'

This account of the cause of the feud between these two powerful Border families is no doubt in accordance with the version of it which was traditionary among the Hays, but it is unfortunately at variance with the judicial records of the country. It is not improbable, however, that the reconciliation, which was undoubtedly effected by the King, took place at Neidpath.

Lord Yester was one of the nobles engaged in the Raid of Ruthven in 1582, and was in consequence obliged to take refuge in the Low Countries. He returned in 1585, and died in 1591, leaving six daughters, but no son, by his wife, a daughter of Lord Herries. He was succeeded by his brother—