[Knox's Works; Histories by Buchanan Calderwood, Keith, and Leslie; Diurnal of Occurrents, Melville's Memoirs, Moysie's Memoirs, and Hist. of James the Sext (Bannatyne Club); Herries's Memoirs (Abbotsford Club); Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, vols. i–iii.; Reg. Mag. Sig. Scot. 1546–80; Cal. State Papers, Foreign, Elizabeth; Douglas's Scottish Peerage (Wood), ii. 141–2.]
STEWART, Sir JOHN, first Earl of Traquair (d. 1659), lord high treasurer of Scotland, was the son of John Stewart the younger of Traquair, by Margaret, daughter of Andrew, master of Ochiltree; he was thus fifth in descent from James Stewart, a natural son of James Stewart, earl of Buchan, who was the second son of Sir James Stewart, the Black Knight of Lorne [see under Stewart, Sir John, of Balveny, first Earl of Atholl], by Jane or Johanna Beaufort, queen dowager of James I. On 20 Feb. 1489 this James Stewart obtained from his father an act of legitimation under the great seal, and also a charter of the lands of Traquair, Peeblesshire. His son, William Stewart of Traquair, had four sons, of whom the elder, Robert, died in 1548; the second, Sir John, was knighted by Queen Mary on 20 July 1565, was chosen a captain of her guards, and also fought for her after her escape from Lochleven in 1568; and the third, Sir William, was gentleman of the bedchamber to James VI, and governor of Dumbarton Castle. These three sons were successively lairds of Traquair, and, all dying without issue, the estate fell in 1605 to the youngest, James, who died in the following year, and, being predeceased by his eldest son, was succeeded by his grandson, afterwards first Earl of Traquair.
John Stewart received his early education under Thomas Sydserf [q. v.], bishop of Galloway, and afterwards spent some time abroad. In 1621 he was elected commissioner for Tweeddale in the Scottish parliament; he was also sworn a member of the privy council, and was knighted. On 19 April 1628 he was raised to the peerage by the title of Lord Stewart of Traquair, to him and his heirs male. In 1630 he was appointed treasurer depute, and on 18 Nov. of the same year an extraordinary lord of session. During the visit of Charles I to Scotland, in 1633, he was on 23 June created Earl of Traquair, Lord Linton and Caberston, to him and his heirs male whatever, bearing the title and arms of Stewart.
In 1634 Traquair was chancellor of the jury at the trial of Lord Balmerino [see Elphinstone, John, second Lord Balmerino], and, it is said, lest he should offend the bishops and the court (Balfour, Annals, ii. 219), gave the casting vote against him; but finding that the sentence was extremely unpopular, he went up to London, and, after fully explaining the case to the king, obtained his pardon. The attitude of Traquair on the Balmerino case is a sample of his attitude throughout the covenanting struggle; he always succumbed to the policy of the king when necessity compelled him to do so, but at the same time did his utmost both to temper that policy and to reconcile the nation to obedience to it when there was no other option than open resistance. Having gone to London in 1636, he returned in June as lord high treasurer, in succession to the Earl of Morton (Spalding, Memorialls, i. 71). Probably, before receiving office, he gave the king to understand that he would do his best to aid him in introducing the liturgy into Scotland. Indeed, according to Bishop Guthry, Traquair, being a secret enemy of the bishops, encouraged the king to proceed with the imposition of the liturgy in order to accomplish their ruin (Memoirs, pp. 17, 20). Spalding, who also describes him as ‘a great enemy of the bishops,’ states that in July 1637, before the liturgy was introduced, he and other nobles, with ‘various miscontented puritans, held a meeting, at which they began to regret their dangerous estate with the pride and avarice of the prelates’ (Memorialls, i. 78–9). Spalding does not hesitate even to suggest that Traquair, although taking an active part in the arrangements for the introduction of the liturgy into Scotland, secretly encouraged the tumult of the serving-women against the service in St. Giles (ib.); but of this there is, of course, no proof. The probability is that Traquair personally cared little either for presbyterianism or episcopacy, and would have been satisfied with any kind of peaceful settlement of the question. He therefore did his utmost to assuage the anger of the king against the offenders, representing that ‘the flame kindled was of little danger for its consequence’ (Gordon, Scots Affairs, i. 14); and he further endeavoured to impress him with the necessity of acting with caution by signing, with others, the letter of 25 Aug., representing that the opposition to the liturgy was so vehement and general that they could not take further steps for enforcing its introduction until they received fresh instructions (Balfour, Annals, ii. 229–31). In October following he had an unpleasant reminder of the excitable temper of the people; for in a tumult against the bishop of Galloway he was himself thrown down, and had his hat,
