pressure was put by Dunbar and Cecil on Balmerino to induce him to take the whole blame on himself, and on the promise that his life and estates should be secured to him he consented to exculpate the king. He remained imprisoned at Falkland till October 1609, when. on finding security in 40,000l, he was allowed free ward in the town and a mile around. Afterwards he was permitted to retire to his own estate at Balmerino, where he died in July 1612. He married, first, Sarah, daughter of Sir John Menteith, by whom he had one son, John, second lord Balmerino; secondly, Marjory, daughter of Hugh Maxwell of Tealing, by whom he had a son James, created in 1607 Lord Coupar, and two daughters, Anne and Mary.
[Douglas and Wood's Peerage of Scotland, i. 183, 538; Anderson's Scottish Nation, i. 228; Burton's Hist. of Scotland to 1688, vi. 138; Laing's Hist. of Scotland, iii. 69-81; Calderwood's Hist. of the Church of Scotland, pp. 312, 354, 427; Chronicle of Kings of Scotland (Maitland Club Publications). p. 178; Register of Privy Council of Scotland, vi. 276. vii. 340, and passim; Cal. State Papers (Dom. Ser. 1603-14), pp. 466, 407, (1611-18) 137.]
ELPHINSTONE, JOHN, second Lord Balmerino (d. 1649), was the son of James, first lord Balmerino [q. v.], by his first wife, Sarah, daughter of Sir John Menteith of Carse. His father being under attainder when he died in 1613, the title did not devolve to him, but he was restored to blood and peerage by a letter under the great seal, 4 Aug. 1613, He was a strenuous opponent of the ecclesiastical policy of Charles in Scotland, and distinguished himself more particularly in the parliament of 1633 by his hostility to the act establishing the royal prerogative of imposing apparel upon churchmen. Although, however, a majority of the members voted against the measure, the clerk affirmed that the question was carried in the affirmative. When his decision was objected to, Charles, who was present, insisted that it must be held good unless the clerk were accused from the bar of falsifying the records. This being a capital offence, the accuser was liable to the punishment of death if he failed in the proof, and no one caring to incur the risk, the decision was not further challenged. William Haig of Bemersyde, solicitor to James I, and one of those opposed to the measure, thereupon drew up a petition to be signed by his party, setting forth their grievances and praying for redress. It was couched in rather plain language and asserted that the recent ecclesiastical legislation had imposed 'a servitude upon this church unpractised before.' The king peremptorily declined to look at it, and ordered a stop to be put to all such proceedings. The matter was therefore delayed, but Balmerino retained a copy, which, having interlined it in some places with his own hand, he showed to his confidential agent, Dunmore. Through a breach of confidence it was forwarded by a friend of Dunmore's to Spotiswood, archbishop of St. Andrews, who, supposing it was being sent about for signatures, laid the matter before the king. Haig made his escape to the continent, but Balmerino, by a warrant of the privy council, was brought before Spotiswood, who sent him a prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh. His imprisonment occurred as early as June 1634, and the final trial was not till the following March. Hill Burton suggests that the delay was owing to hesitation whether to prosecute or not (Hist. Scot. vi. 97), but the succinct yet circumstantial narrative of Sir James Balfour (Annals, ii. 216-19) clearly proves that the aim was to leave no means untried to secure a conviction. In June he was indicted before the justice-general, William, earl of Errol, lord high constable of Scotland, on the accusation of the king's advocate. Sir Thomas Hope, the court sitting into July. So unmistakably hostile was public opinion to the proceedings, that Balmerino was conveyed each day to and from the castle under a strong escort. Before a decision was arrived at, a warrant came postponing the matter till 13 Nov., when, after it had been under consideration for twelve days, another warrant came to add four assistants to the justice-general, who, says Balfour, 'were men sworn to the bishops and favourers of the corruptions of the time.' At last, after long debate, the charge was found relevant in three points: the keeping or concealing of a libel against the king's authority, the failing to apprehend the original author of the libel, and the being art and part in the fabrication of the libel, from the fact that certain parts were admitted to have been underlined by him. The matter was then ordered to be tried by a jury, who were carefully selected by the government. The trial came on in March 1635, and the charge being finally narrowed down to the one count that he, knowing the author of what was held to be a dangerous and seditious libel, failed to discover him, he was found guilty by eight to seven, and sentenced to death. Before the trial came on, William Drummond of Hawthornden [q. v.] had written an 'Apologetical Letter' to the Earl of Ancrum (published in Drummond, Works) in the expectation that it would be shown to Charles, in which he described such pro-
