John Elphinstone, 2nd Lord Balmerino

John Elphinstone, 2nd Lord Balmerino (died 28 February 1649) was a Scottish aristocrat, convicted in a celebrated trial of the 1630s which became a crux of the religious issue of the time.

He was the son of James, 1st Lord Balmerino, 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 August 1613.

He was a strenuous opponent of the ecclesiastical policy of Charles I in Scotland. In the parliament of 1633 he demonstrated his hostility to the act establishing the royal prerogative of imposing apparel upon churchmen. A majority of the members voted against the measure, but the clerk affirmed that the question was carried. 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 the decision was not further challenged.

William Haig of Bemersyde, solicitor to James I, and one of those opposed to the measure, drew up a petition, 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. Charles declined to look at it, and ordered a stop to be put to all such proceedings. Balmerino retained a copy, and having interlined it in some places he showed to his confidential agent, Dunmore. Through a breach of confidence it was forwarded by a friend of Dunmore's to John Spottiswoode, who laid the matter before the king.

Haig escaped to the continent, but Balmerino was brought before Spottiswoode, who sent him to Edinburgh Castle, in June 1634. The trial was in the following March. In June he was indicted before the justice-general, William Hay, 10th Earl of Erroll, on the accusation of the king's advocate Sir Thomas Hope. The matter was ordered to be tried by a jury, the charge being 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. Public opinion was on his side, but he was found guilty by eight to seven, and sentenced to death.

...
Wikipedia