Psal. lxvi. 16.

"Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for my soul."

Psal. cxvi. 8. from tears, and my feet from falling.”

"He hath delivered my soul from death, mine eyes

Psal. lvi. 8.

"

"Thou tellest all my wanderings, put my tears in thy bottle; are they not in thy book?" Psal. lvii. 1. "Yea, in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge, until these calamities be overpast. Psal. xxxii. 7. "Thou art my hiding-place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou wilt compass me about with songs of deliverance." Psal. lxxvii. 10. "I will remember the years of the right hand of the Most High." Ver. 11. "I will remember the works of the Lord; surely I will remember thy wonders of old."

Psal. xlii. 6. "O my God, my soul is cast down within me therefore will I remember thee from the land of Jordan, and of the Hermonites, from the hill Mizar."-The Land of Jordan is the Scotch and English ground on both sides of the Tweed: The Hermonites are the Reidsdalites: Mizar is the Carter, where I hardly escaped the enemies' search.

MEMOIRS

OF

MR. WILLIAM VEITCH.

MR. VEITCH was born at Roberton, in the shire of Clydesdale, seven miles from Lanark, and in that presbytery, in the year of our Lord 1640, April 27. He was the youngest child of Mr. John Veitch,* minister of that place for the space of about forty-five years. His mother was a pious and frugal woman, very dexterous in housekeeping and educating of children; which her husband knew little of as to family affairs. Her name was Elizabeth Johnston, a merchant's daughter in Glasgow.

He (Mr. John Veitch) had many sons, three whereof were ministers, and of no mean repute in this church, viz. Mr. John Veitch was minister

Mr. John Veitch, the father, was ejected from his parish, and in September 1664 was residing at Lanark. In 1671 he was still alive; for in that year, October 6, we find a retour-Mr. John Veitch, late minister at Robertoun, heir of Mr. David Veitch, schoolmaster at Salton, his brother. (Inquis. Retorn. Gen. 5464.)

in the year

as he was

of Westruther, in the shire of Berwick, above fifty-four years. He died at Dalkeith, the day of returning home from attending the commission of the Kirk; and is buried there among his ancestors, who had a considerable estate in and about that town for a hundred years together; and his eldest brother Robert Veitch sold the last of it, and lies there himself: the one of them was eightyfour and the other eighty-five years when they died. On Oct. 4, 1685, by order from Chancellor Perth, Mr. John Veitch, minister of Westruther, was taken, and carried prisoner to Edinburgh, by Sir Adam Blair of Carberry, younger; and lay all night in the guard keeped at Holyroodhouse. Oct. 5, 1685. He was sent to the tolbooth in a most unusual manner; made close prisoner, his keeper sworn neither to carry any word to him, nor take out any from him, nor suffer any to speak to him; and, in his absence, lest any should speak in at the door to him, or he to them, two soldiers constantly guarded his door: pen and ink were taken from him. In this case he continued for the space of twenty weeks, till January 16, 1686. †

"Mr. John Veitch, minister of Westruther, died at Dalkeith, going home from the Commission, Dec. 1703, I think." (MS. note on Mr. William Veitch's family Bible.)

+ There must be some oversight here. It is not twenty weeks from October 4, 1685, to January 16, 1686. From the King's letter of the 17th October to the Council, (Wodrow ii. 577,) it is evident

This was found marked with his own hand among

his papers.

*

that his examination was on or before 21st September 1685. Perhaps October in Veitch, is an erratum for September. The same error is committed by Wodrow, ii. p. 577. Fountainhall has the following notice concerning him, October 24, 1685:-" J. Veitch falling sick, and supplicating for a physician, they would allow none to go in to him but the apostate Doctor Sibbald, which was looked on by some as strange." (Decis. i. 371.) The Doctor here referred to, is the well-known Sir Robert Sibbald, who had turned Papist.

* Wodrow has inserted a letter from the council to the King, (September 21, 1685,) giving an account of their having examined Spence and Mr. John Veitch, on some surmises thrown out by Sir John Cochran and his son, affecting the Earl of Murray and the Lord Register, as to alleged correspondence with Lord Melvil, and some malversations of the Lord Advocate. The King, by a letter of the 17th October, rebukes them severely for interfering with the Chancellor's prisoner, (J.Veitch,) and "admires by what persuasion" they could have been induced so to do. The council reply on the 25th, stating more precisely what they did with regard to Veitch, and adding, "One of the chief motives that induced us to believe that we might examine him, was, that my Lord Chancellor's order did not expressly bear that no person or judicature should examine him, which, if it had been, we would have had that just deference to my Lord Chancellor's order, as not to have examined him ; but the order bearing only, that no person should speak with or see him, we only considered Veitch to be in the condition of other close prisoners, whom the council uses to examine. But whatever the practice has been, it is sufficient for us that your Majesty has excluded all examination in such cases for the future, which we shall humbly and heartily obey. And to show that no interest of ours did or shall induce us to believe, that your Majesty, by yourself or your order, may not examine any person whatsoever, either as to us or your Majesty's servants, we again renew the acknowledgement in our former letter, that informations are to be received against the best of servants; and we may be the safer in this acknowledgement, that we are so happy as to live under a prince who will protect the innocence of his approved servants." (Wod. ii. 576, 577, 578.)

Another son of his was Mr. James, who, after he had been seven years a regent in the col

It would appear that Mr. John Veitch had been prosecuted, if not imprisoned, more than once. Wodrow says, he was summoned before the council, October 5, 1680, for preaching without licence at Anstruther, probably Westruther. Not compearing, he was denounced, and put to the horn. "We shall afterwards hear that he was taken and kept close prisoner at Edinburgh about a year's time, under no small hardships. He was allowed neither candle nor fire the whole time; his wife was never allowed to speak to him, but in the presence of two or three soldiers. He pressed much to be brought to a trial, but that could not be allowed. The reason of this cruel and unchristian treatment was, that when the curate died, at the invitation of the people, he returned and preached to his own people from whom he had been violently thrust away." (Wod. ii. 128.)

Though his name does not appear in Wodrow's lists of indulged ministers, both that historian and Fountainhall speak of him as indulged. 66 August 2, 1683, seven of the indulged ministers being pannelled for breaking their instructions, in preaching without their bounds, or against the test; five of them were continued under caution to the 1st of December next; and the other two, viz. Mr. John Veitch, once at Wester-Anstruther, (Westruther,) and Mr. Antony Shaw, were incarcerate, because their guilt seemed greater than that of the rest." (Fountainhall's Decis. i. 236-7.) December 10, "Mr. Veitch's diet is deserted, on caution that he compear when called." (Wod. ii. 307.)

"In 1684, at the circuit court held by Balcarras, Yester, and Drummelzier, for Berwick, Roxburgh, &c. at Jedburgh, October 10th, on application made by George Veitch, writer in Edinburgh, the Lords repone Mr. John Veitch at Westruther, against the sen→ tence past at Dunse upon absents, his absence being owing to infirmity, on the said George giving bond of 5000 merks for his father's compearing when called. In the abstract of their proceedings, they state that Mr. James Fletcher at Nenthorne was the only indulged minister within their district. (Public Papers.) If Mr. Veitch, therefore, had been formerly indulged, his indulgence must have been withdrawn; probably in 1683. (Wod. ii. 307.) The above