The History of Lochee

Old Lochee Book 1911.

From "Lochee" - As it was and is - by Alexander Elliot - 1911

Chapter 11

GEORGE WISHART AND PITALPIE.

          WOULD it ever be surmised that George Wishart of fateful memory, in his walking to and fro over the land, was in any way identified with the locality now represented by Pitalpie? Yet, of a verity, that possibility cannot well be gainsaid ; and certain circumstances show that it may have some foundation in fact. In the sixteenth century the estates of Pitalpie and Dryburgh, which are now incorporated with Camperdown, were held by James Wishart of Pitarrow, Kincardineshire, a relative, it is said, of the great preacher. According to certain authorities, the supervision of the properties was placed in charge of another kinsman—a cousin, it is under­stood, of the Reformer, also George by name, and for a time a bailie of Dundee. The House of Pitalpie, as Bailie Wishart's residence was designated, presumably partook of the fortalice order of similar edifices of the period. It stood upon the summit of an eminence, now timber-clad, close to the third milestone from the burgh on Coupar Angus Road. A portion of the hill is excavated, and the old courtyard and garden are laid out as a nursery. The riddle of this vanished edifice is difficult to solve. With the exception of a few fragmentary vestiges, all tangible trace of its existence has long since disappeared. Still, here and there a few bits are stumbled upon that go to show where an ancient stronghold had stood. The ground has been frequently examined, and though on the whole the evidence gathered is slender, such as it is it was carefully sifted and pieced together as far as it would go.

The structure, it seems, was built upon a strong foundation, and evidently a massive rampart had encircled it. Overgrown with moss and trees, and flanking the east side, the base of what has the appearance of a bulwark is still discernible. At the north-east corner a circle, cut out of the rock, evidently had been hollowed out for the foundation of a tower, and all around great boulders and stately trees usurp the place of ancient walls. The parapet which separates the plantation from the highway is worthy of examination, the weather-worn material indicating that it had composed part of the venerable pile. Here there is a piece of weather-bleached masonry, and there stout blocks show the sockets of former stanchions. The principal feature of interest in the wall, however, is the semi-oblong stone which figures in the centre bearing the arms of the Wisharts. To which part of the structure this roughly-hewn stone, with its time-encrusted carving, now obliterated, belonged, no opinion can be formed. Myles, who knew the place intimately, states that in his youth it surmounted a pillar of a gateway to a field on the west. It is, however, conjectured that it bad formed a part of the old dwelling, and had been introduced subsequent to Bailie Wishart's occupancy, as the date it bore did not coincide with the period in which he lived. With reference to the carving, the enigma is so far solved both by Thomson and Myles. The stone, the edge of which was moulded, according to these authorities, was rudely sculptured. In the centre a shield, heart shaped, was charged with three piles, their points meeting together. Near the base there were worked the letters "F" on the one hand and "W" on the other, and similarly at the top is the date "16" and "01." That is, for example, to say, 'Francis (?) Wishart, 1601." The individual to whom the inscription refers is supposed to have been a younger offshoot of the Pitarrow family. A lady residing in Lochee, and who was born near Pitalpie, relates that when a girl she was in the habit of gathering wild fruit in the old garden. Bushes and plants, like sweet memories, often survive long after the habitations they had once adorned have passed away. The lady also added that in those days, before quarrying operations were carried out to atiy extent, many curious-looking stones, which since have been broken up, were lying around. One of these—almost a fragment—showing heavy moulding is built into the lower part of the wall, near the block upon which the arms of the Wisharts are inscribed.

In consequence of the cousins bearing the same surname, the men, their habits, and their reputations unfortunately have been confounded with each other, to the detriment of the fair fame of the Martyr. Anti-Protestant writers, indeed, have dealt unsparingly with his character. Sir Patrick Fraser Tytler, too, looks askance, and demurs to the assumption of this personal duality. It is declared that in reality there was only one George Wishart, and that that one was the individual who suffered at the stake at St Andrews.; Dr Hill Burton, an elegant exponent, of Scottish History, describes, the sentiments of these "partial scribes'" accurately when he" explains that " a fierce, vehement, unscrupulous writer on the Popish side asserted that he (Wishart) had joined the conspiracy for putting the Cardinal (Beaton) to death, and; that he had prophesied according to his knowledge. That writer spoke of Wishart as justly suffering, according to the sacred canons", for his wicked schisms and -presumptuous blasphemies. His; execution .was treated as1 art act of wise severity, and gave quiet to the land until Satan let loose another band of satraps, headed by Calvin." Commenting on the foregoing, Dr Burton adds—".A charge uttered in such a tone against the idol of the opposite party was not likely to-be received by them with much respect, embodied in a book signally filled with personalities." As to whether Wishart was implicated in the furtherance of the homicidal plot, or secretly was conversant with the circumstances that led up to the fatal climax, the historian, however, assumes an attitude of reserve. He acknowledges the worth of the preacher, and eulogises his unselfishness, his piety, and gentleness; but beyond that he does not go, his convictions evidently being influenced by asseverations contained in certain State papers. Referring to the contentions of Protestants, and their desire to defend the champion of their cause, he departs from the subject by declaring that "naturally enough it is maintained that Wishart the Martyr cannot be the same man who entered so earnestly into the business of the killing of the Cardinal. There were other Wisharts in those days, and as they cannot be identified it were better that the scandal should lie generally amongst them. . . . These ugly revelations of the State papers, if they show us one fallen star, show others.

The ardent polemic, who deems himself the soldier of the Lord in a contest with Satan, demands charitable allowances. He is the desperate combatant in the front rank who neither asks nor gives quarter." Even Mr Andrew Lang, in an analytical examination of this thorny and much-disputed question, after weighing the arguments on both sides, only leans slightly towards Wishart. Though found in close association with the leaders of the conspiracy, that in his (Mr Lang's) view did not implicate him. In the negative he states—" It is easy to reply—and the reply must be admitted—that Wishart knew nothing of these men's iniquities. Here actual proof was impossible. Because Brunton (the Laird of, and a conspirator) sent a fellow-scoundrel named Wishart to Henry (VIII.) in 1544, and aided and ' reset' Wishart the martyr in 1545, it does not follow that these two Wisharts are one arid the same man." In another passage Mr Lang expresses himself dubiously. "Whether Wishart knew anything of the plots of Brunton and others," he continues, "can never be certainly discovered. We are baffled by the loss or destruction of the English papers. We can only conjecture as to whether Wishart was or was not the murderous envoy of Brunton (to King Henry). If we may say noscitur a sociis, the case for Wishart stands ill." Froude, too, holds aloof, and indefinitely remarks that a "Scot named Wishart" was the central figure in this complicated embroglio. "The question has been debated with eagerness," he adds, "whether this person was the Wishart whose death afterwards became so famous, both the friends and the enemies of the reforming preacher seeming to agree that if the two were identical his character would suffer some injury. Wishart was a common name in Scotland, and the evidence, therefore, can amount to but a vague probability. I can see no reason to believe, however, that the martyr of St Andrews was so different from his Protestant countrymen as to have been unlikely to have been the messenger to Hertford or to have sympathised cordially with the message. . . . The expedient of assassination, which the general sense of the present time disapproves under almost every condition of circumstances, was admitted and approved in the sixteenth century by the best men of all persuasions/' That erudite and painstaking recorder, David Laing, giving his views on the controversy, says that "in the burgh archives of Dundee he had met with the names of three others (Wisharts), any one of whom may have been the go-between in the conspiracy. First, George Wishart, one of the bailies in Dundee in 1560; second, George Wishart, brother-german of John Wishart of Pitarrow, who appears in 1565 as one of the procurators in a matter concerning a third George W7ishart, Esquire of the Cross of the King of France." With reference to the foregoing, it is understood that the first and second—the bailie and the procurator—were one and the same person; that is to say, the individual who, it is claimed, was concerned in some of the complexities, the secrets, and the underground workings of a critical time.

It has been left to Alexander Maxwell, in his history of "Dundee Prior to the Reformation," to ring up the curtain and disclose altogether another phase—the obverse phase, it might be called—of this perplexing drama. In elucidation of his views Mi-Maxwell gives us a graphic delineation of a sixteenth century man of affairs—a type found in all ages and in all communities— able, virile, restless; a man, in fact, who dipped his fingers in other men's dishes as well as in his own. Educated, travelled, and an associate of the more advanced reformers, when the fire of religious revolution was lit in Dundee he was just the type of person to keep it burning. As showing the interest he had taken openly or subsidiary in the removal of Cardinal Beaton, he Was charged as an aider and abetter of those who were implicated therein. Such was George Wishart, the representative of the Pitarrow family, the custodian of Pitalpie, the active municipalist.; Bailie Wishart is described by Maxwell as a person of outstanding individuality. That is not denied. His versatility, too, is acknowledged. At one time he is chaffering Avith merchants; at another conducting a scholastic examination; and, later, quarrelling with and dispossessing a tenant because he had "nocht payit " a satisfactory rental.

"Which of these two men," asks Maxwell, "may we most reasonably fix upon as having been the ' Scottish man called Wysshert,' who carried the message between the plotters, and negotiated the conditions upon which the Cardinal was to be slain ? They were both of the same name, of the same family, and contemporaneous. They had friends in common, and each in his own way was interested in promoting the work of the Reformation. In circumstances so similar it is hardly to be expected that the identity of each would be altogether preserved, and we need not wonder although historic confusion has arisen or that acts done by the one who has been forgotten should be accredited to the other, of whom historians alone have had knowledge. Of direct knowledge implicating the preacher in this business there is really none. . . . The other-evidence is wholly in his favour. From all we know of him he stands before us a man of singularly mild and gentle character, and one as unlikely as any in the historians' range to have been guilty of entering into conspiracies or compassing the death of even an enemy. Simple as a child, he would only have been contemptible as a schemer. It is hardly credible that the devisers of an audacious plot would have chosen so unfit an instrument for its promotion; . . . and it only needs that we should find there was another man, in a similar social position, capable of doing the work, and likely to have done it, in order to free him from the odious charge. The other George Wishart seems to me to have been such a person. He had the opportunity for joining in the plot, and he had the essential qualifications for promoting it, which his cousin had not. His birth and education enabled him to mix freely with leading men in Scotland. He was connected with the more violent and unscrupulous enemies of the Old Church, and he exhibited enough energy and decision of character to show his fitness for daring action. The charge cannot be explicitly proved, but the circumstances against him are so strong, and he is so much more likely to have been the conspirator, that we may, I think, without hesitation fix it upon him, and vindicate the memory of the noble martyr from the infamous suspicion that has for so long rested upon it—an act of justice which might fairly and honestly be rendered by men of all creeds."
Such, then, is an unbiased comparison of the characters of the two cousins.

Apart from the question at issue, George Wishart, the bailie, seems to have been an outstanding personality in Dundee. In the arena of public affairs he found congenial scope for his abilities. In 1543 he was appointed a burgess. Sometime later he became a member of the Town Council, and in 1553 a bailieship was conferred upon him, an honour he enjoyed repeatedly till 1561. Espousing the reformed doctrine, he developed into a pronounced partisan, as is demonstrated by the active part he took in destroying certain religious houses. It is at this point that the preachers connection with Pitalpie obtrudes. Kinsmen, professing the same religious opinions, and the locality. John Yeaman. it is evident, was the first to settle upon these lands. That gentleman was succeeded by his son on 23rd December 1634, and in turn he was followed by Patrick, 7th May 1678. East and Middle G our die, including the Mill of Denmiln, are embraced in the patrimony. The properties of Pitalpie, Dryburgh, and Easter Gourdie eventually were acquired by the Duncans.