spreul3 – The Reformation

John
Spreul on the Bass Rock.

The story of John Spreul`s incarceration in the Bass Rock prison is as fantastic as his earlier persecution, since the government continued to harass him in any way they could

and even brought him back to
Edinburgh

to another trial. Within days of his transfer to the Bass Spreul`s long suffering wife came with a servant and brought clothes and comforts for him. It seems that she was allowed to stay at least for a few days, as she quickly realised how the privations of the prison were made worse by its isolation. The sea was often rough and heavy swells made landing on the small quay difficult at the best of times. This meant that fresh food, meat etc was at a premium and might easily go off before fresh supplies arrived. Thus meat was often roasted to keep it edible longer, especially in summer, although the prisoners were not allowed to kill sheep that grazed the upper slopes of the island – their meat was said to be especially sweet from the diet of heather and grasses and reserved for the governor and other prestigious persons. With considerable forethought Mrs Spreul  sent out to the island with a servant three hens to provide her husband with fresh eggs. It was remarkable in fact, perhaps providential, that he was allowed to keep the

hens.

Mrs Spreul returned to Glasgow to see what she could sell in order to settle debts, and also dispose of what little plenishings (furniture etc) she could and thus avoid having to pay rent on a house to keep them in. In this way she managed to keep her husband with a small but very welcome supply of food and other comforts.  After some time, and almost by way of light relief, Spreul was taken to the

Canongate

Tolbooth where a Major Learmond was a prisoner.  The Major had confessed that he had seen a John Spreul at Bothwell Brig  which prompted the Privy Council to convene and bring  yet another charge against him.  The Major said that he had seen a John Spreul at Bothwell muir and had seen him but once, and not since. When confronted before the Council Spreul enquired when he had been seen and how could the Major  remember if he was the person, when he had only seen him once, and in the dark. Spreul then asked what colour horse he was riding -` a brown horse` – `in the dark ?` – `it was a grey horse`. Confused and uncertain Learmond was not a good witness and Spreul astutely  asked the clerk to mark in Learmond`s confession about the uncertainty of the horse`s colour, and also about his dress where there was uncertainty if he had been wearing a velvet cap or a hat. A telling comment was that Spreul`s brother had been at Bothwell Brig and moreover so had two cousins – John Spreul, a writer (lawyer) and another John Spreul, a merchant. So whom had Major Learmond actually seen ? The exasperation of the Privy Council at their failure to convict Spreul was reflected in his prompt return to the

Bass Rock.

Life on the Bass was primitive but with so many ministers and preachers in the company, plus a little freedom of movement for fresh air and exercise, the worthy gentlemen were able to meet twice a day for prayer with each minister taking it in turn to preach and lecture. The years passed and relief and release for most came with the death of King Charles II in February 1685. One of the last to go was Alexander Shields  but not to his liberty. Shields refused to sign a bond for good behaviour – ` to live orderly` was the phrase, and was thrown into the Edinburgh Tolbooth for a further year. Eventually John

Spreul was the last prisoner on the Bass.

Defiant and conscience stricken to the end, John Spreul recognised the Toleration edict given by James VII/II ( his former adversary the Duke of York) as part of a Jesuit prompted trick to divide the Protestants in England and Scotland. This was part of the overall plan to restore Popery. Spreul annoyed his keepers by refusing his freedom for a further year after everyone else had gone, even though he had to keep himself and have food and drink brought in by boat. He was clearly fortunate that his wife had made provision available else he might have had to concede defeat in his battle of principle. As it was, he sent word to King James via the Governor`s son, Charles Maitland, that he (James II) was spurring his horse too hard and drawing blood, which he would regret ere long – an allusion to the Killing Time and the many executions that had taken place.  And in a jest he also sent James the message that he was well provided for by his three little hens, better than any who had the government for

their provider.

The probable turning point for Spreul may well have been the death of his wife from a fever in 1683. She had previously stayed with him on the Bass in summer and returned to look after the business in Glasgow during the winter. Without her visits and occasional company Spreul`s stay on the Bass  became a battle of wills, the government keen to be rid of him and Spreul saddled with his conscience. They  even tried to play on his isolation and the common beliefs in the supernatural. Captain Charles Maitland devised a plot whereby a soldier, renowned for his climbing ability, was dressed up with rams horns on his head to emulate the Devil, and  climb up to the prisoner`s cell window in the night.  Spreul was awoken by a scratching at the window but was not taken in by it, deciding to see if the visitor was a spirit or a human being by striking the hands on the window sill with a water pitcher. The subsequent thump of a falling body and groans told him it was human. The soldier involved, William Law, subsequently confessed his part and sought forgiveness. Some years later he died from a fall when climbing the cliff face for birds eggs ( the Solan Goose –

a large gannet, nest there in prodigious numbers).

Time and continuing hardships finally forced Spreul to make a petition to the Privy Council seeking they release him or make an allowance for his upkeep. In it  he recited his sufferings – six years in the Bass; some of his ships and cargoes lost at sea or taken by Dutch privateers; house and shop burned in a great fire in Glasgow during 1677; property confiscated by the government; many of his debtors were dead, and in his absence the business was in ruins. Perversely the Privy Council refused to accept the petition ( probably because it did not admit guilt and  accept the terms of the Toleration). However, Mr George Bell, a merchant from Edinburgh, who was Spreul`s cautioner (guarantor for fines etc), made an acceptable petition. On 13 May 1687 they ordered the release of Spreul from the Bass but stubborn to the bitter end he refused to leave. He wrote to Sir William Paterson, Clerk to the Privy Council, protesting that he had not accepted the Toleration. The Council`s response was to order the governor to open the cell door and take away the guard – Spreul could then come and go as he pleased. After ten days and not having had a reply to the letter. Spreul gave his three hens to the governor and went to Edinburgh. Here he sought out the Lord Chancellor and Sir George Mackenzie to protest again about his not accepting the Tolerance. His representations were of no avail, but Spreul did have the good sense not to return to the Bass.  He returned to Glasgow and went back into business where he

prospered and lived well beyond the Glorious Revolution.