|
THE year 1666, or annus
mirabilis of Dryden, so memorable as that of the Great Fire of London, and
also to Scotch Presbyterians in connection with the disastrous termination
of a rising in the west country in the defeat at Rullion Green, is chiefly
noticeable as regards Culross in reference to the revived claim of
jurisdiction over her made by Lord Colville of Ochiltree. The particulars of
this contest will shortly be explained, but I have first to notice two
entries in the burgh records belonging to the earlier part of the year.
The first of them is not a
particularly savoury one, and may therefore be skipped by the fastidious
reader. As an illustration of the strange coarse manners of the time, it
seems too curious to be omitted:—
“11 January 1666.
“The quhilk day, anent the
complent given in be Thomas Lies, officer of the said burgh, procurator-fiscall
at the court of Culrois, for the tounis interest, against William Master-toun,
merchand, bulges of the said burgh of Culrois, mak-and mention that the said
William, upone the second day of January instant, in the night tyme,
accompanying Mr Alexander Couper, lait scholmaster at Culrois, in his
imprisonment within the counsell hous of the tolbuthe of the said burgh, for
deteaning and keiping up of the kirk’s registers and rytis, the said
William, without any regard or respect he had, as ane burges of this burghe,
to the magistrates therof, or place where he then was, being the speciall
seat of justice within this burghe, he rose from the tabill where he was
sitting with the said Mr Alexander and certeine other discreit and
honorabill personis who war lykwayes accompanying the said Mr Alexr., and
there most obsurdly and undiscreitly fyled and abused the said counsell hous
by putting forth his filthe and excramentis therintill within ane brasen
pott belonging to James Bennet, cordiner, burges of the said burghe, being
then within the said counsell hous, to the great dishonour and contempt of
authoritie and place where he then was, as the said bill of complent in the
self proportis; qlk being callit, the said William Mastertoun compeaipnd
personallie in judgment, and he being interrogat be the saids baillies if it
was true what was conteanit in the said bill of complent, he immediatlie
confest and acknowledge the samyne to be of veritie. And the saids baillies
finding the said William Mastertoun culpabill and guiltie of the foresaid
wrong and abuse by his own confession, thairfor they have convict and
decernit the said William in ane unlaw of four punds Scottis, and ordanis
the samyne to be payed before his removall furthe of the said tolbuthe;
wherupon the said Thomas Lies, procurator - fiscall aforesaid, askit and
took instrumentis and act of court.”
The next entry gives a
specimen of the paternal ideas of government prevalent in those days
regarding the fixing of the price of commodities, and affords some
interesting statistics on the price of grain and beer:—
“The qlk day thair was
produced befor the saids baillies and counsell ane proclamation anent the
pryces of aill and bear issued furth from the Honorabill Lords of his
Majtestie’s most Honorabill Privie Counsell of Scotland, off the dait the
eightene day of January last, ordanying (for the causes thairin exprest)
that quhen the pryce of the boll of the best rough bear1 is six punds
Scottis of Linlithgow measure, that the pynt of the best aill and best
drinking bear sail be sold at twelf pennies Scotis—that when the pryce of
the best rough bear sail be eight pund Scottis the boll, that the pryce of
the best aill and best drinking bear be sold at twentie pennies Scottis—and
that when the pryce of the best rough bear is at ten pund Scottis the boll,
the pynt of the best aill and best drinking bear be sold at two shillings
Scottis in tyme coming; and also ordanying the said proclamation to be
punctuallie observit be all brewaris and tapsteris within the kingdome,
certifeing thame thairby if they failzie they sail be dischargit brewing,
tepping, or retailing for a full year efter their transgression, and further
fynfed at the discretione of the judge and qualitie of the offence, as the
proclamatione conteanyng divers others clauses for punishing of the
transgressors therof at mair lenth proportis: qlk being read and dewlie
considerit be the saids baillies and counsell, they, be pluralitie of
voices, judgit it expedient that the said proclamatione sould be published
at the mercat croce of this burgh upon Fryday next, that the brewaris within
the samyne burghe and other persons mentionat in the said proclamatione
might pretend no ignorance therof.”
From the above we learn that
when “ rough bear ” was at its cheapest (£6 Scots, or 10s. sterling, the
boll), the proportion of the price of a Scotch pint, or rather more than two
imperial quarts of ale, to the value of1 a Linlithgow boll of barley, was as
1 to 120; at its medium price of £8 Scots, or 13s. 4cL sterling, the
proportion borne by the cost of the pint to that of the boll was as 1 to 96;
and at its highest price of £10 Scots, or 16s. 8d. sterling, the proportion
was 1 to 100. We may fairly conclude that at this period the price of “
rough bear ” (now almost obsolete as a growth) seldom rose above the last or
fell below the first of these rates. At the present day the average price of
the imperial quarter of barley may be stated at £1, 8s. The old Linlithgow
boll contains nearly six bushels, and its value may be taken at 18s. 8d., or
about two-thirds the cost of an imperial quarter. Reckoning the price of an
imperial pint of beer at 4d., the proportion borne by it at the present day
to the value of the old boll of six bushels is 1 to 56; and the Scotch pint,
at the same rate, would only be as 1 to 14. It is evident, therefore, that
our ancestors drank ale at a wonderfully cheaper rate than we do—that is to
say, at less than one-eighth of the cost. Taking into account, however, the
difference between the values of money two hundred years ago and at the
present time (moderately estimated at the proportion of 1 to 3), it would
seem that the price of grain (at least of barley) was fully twice greater in
the days of Charles II. than in those of Victoria.
Another subject for remark is
suggested by the above minute of the Culross town council. Ale and beer were
then, and continued for a long time subsequently to be, the popular beverage
in the Scottish Lowlands, where, notwithstanding the general opprobrium
which has generally attached to their inhabitants in connection with this
matter, ardent spirits, and more especially whisky, were but little used
till about the middle of the last century. In almost all the cases related
either in the kirk-session or burgh records, where the keepers of “ eall
houses ” are summoned for selling liquor on Sundays or otherwise prosecuted,
the liquor supplied by them is almost invariably ale; and this appears also
to have been most generally in vogue on all ordinary occasions. “French wyne,”
or claret, indeed, was in common use among the upper classes, and was
procurable in almost every hostelry. But whisky, though undoubtedly largely
consumed in the Highlands, as also in Ireland, was by no means then, in the
Lowland counties of Scotland, the common potation which it has since become.
In the whole of the kirk-session records I have only found one reference to
it, and that of a comparatively recent date.
The struggle which the burgh
of Culross had to wage this year, and apparently not very successfully, with
Lord Colville of Ochiltree, discloses a strange phase of ancient manners, as
exhibited in the system of heritable jurisdictions, finally abolished in
1748. The Colvilles of Ochiltree, so called from their descent from Robert
Colville, a natural son of Sir James Colville of Easter Wemyss, have already
been noticed. The last of the four Robert Colvilles who had successively
enjoyed the estate of Cleish, was raised to the peerage in 1651 by
Charles II., under the title
of Lord Colville of Ochiltree. He died at Crombie in 1662, and being
predeceased by his son David Colville, was succeeded by his grandson Robert,
who inherited the family estates as Robert, second Lord Colville of
Ochiltree, and died at Cleish in 1671. It was he who came so seriously into
collision with the burghers of Culross.
In speaking of those Lord
Colvilles of Ochiltree thus descended from an illegitimate son of Sir James
Colville of Easter Wemyss, it is necessary to distinguish them carefully
from the Lord Colvilles of Culross, who were also descended from the same
common ancestor, but through his legitimate son and successor.
Previous to the Reformation,
the Earls of Argyll, who had their residence at Castle Campbell, held, as
already mentioned, the office of hereditary bailies of the abbey and
regality of Culross under the supremacy of the abbots. On the suppression of
the monasteries, and annexation of the property belonging to them to the
Crown, this office of bailiary of the lordship of Culross was, in 1569,
transferred from the Argyll family to the second Robert Colville of Cleish,
grandfather of the first Lord Colville of Ochiltree, as a heritable fief.
The authority thus claimed by
Lord Colville of Ochiltree over the territory of Culross was that “ of all
jurisdictions civil or criminal, and of all the amerciaments, bloods, and
casualties to his own behoof.” That is to say, he claimed to act as judge in
all matters civil and criminal, and to receive for his own behoof all the
fines and forfeitures levied in his court. These must have formed a
considerable source of revenue; and it is therefore no wonder that he
insisted so strongly on the maintenance of his rights, in which, as he
argued, he and his predecessors had been seized prior to the erection of
Culross into a royal burgh, and the annexation of the abbey and its revenues
to the Crown. But whilst his authority over the landward portion of the
regality was undisputed, it was maintained, on behalf of the inhabitants of
the burgh and its territory, that the royal charter in their favour
superseded and abrogated, as regarded them, all other claims of
jurisdiction.
Whether, previous to 1666,
any endeavour had been made by Lord Colville’s predecessors to enforce their
asserted right, does not appear. Regarded simply from a legal point of view,
there could be little doubt of its being well founded—and so it was held by
the Court of Session on coming up before them this year for their judgment.
But a question was raised as to whether the burgh might not have acquired,
by long and continued exercise, a prescriptive right to the jurisdiction, in
civil and commercial matters at least, which Lord Colville might in such a
case be held to have forfeited through disuse. A proof was ordered as to
this, and here the history of the suit abruptly terminates. How it was
settled we are not informed, but the victory certainly did not remain with
the town. Possibly the process may have been allowed to fall into abeyance,
from the death of Lord Colville a few years afterwards, and the minority and
non-insistance of his son and successor. The claim was certainly considered
a valid one by the family, as in 1733, we shall find it urged on the burgh
authorities of Culross by Lord Colville’s great-grandson, Robert Ayton
Colville of Craigflower.
About this time the town
seems to have been much troubled with the “ invasione of the Hieland-eris
and other extraingald persons.” It was therefore ordered,
“That ane watche be keipit
everie night from this night [26 November] furthe, consisting*of the number
of eightene persons; and appoyntis and ordanis that there be two persons in
everie quarter within this burgh for govemyng the said nightlie watche—they
ar to say, for the west quarter, David Mitchell, baillie, and William
Drysdeall; for the northe quarter, James Makie, thesaurer, and James Shanks;
and for the east quarter, Johne Archibald and Robert Bill: and ordains the
govemoura of the west quarter to begin, the northe next, and the east
quarter last, and swa to continew ilk persone their tour about during the
tyme that the said watching sail happen to remayne unforholden.”
But “Quis custodiet
custodies?” The remedy threatened to prove worse than the disease, as we
find under:—
“3 December 1666.
“The said day the saids
bailleis and counsell, taking to consideratione the abuse that formerly hes
bene committit in keiping of the nightlie watche, and for preventing of the
lyk in tyme comeing, the saids baillies hes statut and ordanit that if an y
of the souldieiris that comes to the watche be found full,1 that they be
removed that night from the watche, and pay twelf shillings Scottis upon the
morrow unforgiven.”
We hear no more of the
“Hielandens”; but the breaking out of a new war with Holland, and the
hostile armaments despatched by the Dutch to the British shores, are thus
referred to and provided against:—
“21 June 1667.
“The said day the saids
bailleis and counsell, taking to their serious consideratione that whereas
this kingdome is greatlie threatned to be invaded be forrane enemies, and
that it was requisite that this burghe alseweill as other burghes within
this kingdpme war put in ane powstoir of defence against the forrane enemie:
Thairfor the saids bailleis and counsell have statut and ordanit that all
fenceabill persons within this burgh and libertie theroff, bothe frie and
unfrie, be sufficientlie provydit with armour of their owne, such as
musquettis, fyrelocks, stocks, and pykes, and that they mak their
randesvowes therewith in the Sandie Heavin upon the sixt day of July next to
come; and ordanis ilk persone that sail not be so pro-vyded with the forsaid
armour the forsaid day, to pay ane unlaw of ten punds unforgiven, and
ordanes suche persons immediatlie therefter to be poyndit or wardit therefor.”
About a fortnight previous,
the magistrates had enacted the following sumptuary laws regarding
“brydells,” “bankquettis,” and “wakkis”:—
“10 June 1667.
“The said day the saids
baillies and counsell, with advyse of my Lord Provost, upon certane
considerations moving 1 The italics are my own them, have ratifieit and
approven, lykas they, be the tenor of this present Act, ratifies and
approves, the former Acts maid anent brydell lawings, and that the pryce
therof be eight shillings Scottis to ilk person that shall happene to be at
any brydell in tyme coming within this burgh and libertie theroff, allenerly
and no dearer; and that under the payne of ten punds Scottis to be payed by
those who shall happen to transgress the samyne toties quoties.
“Lykas the said day the saids
bailleis and counsell, with advyce of my Lord Provost, upojie certane good
respects and considerations moving thame to-day in regard of the great
superfluitie and abuse formerlie maid at banquettis within this burghe and
libertie theroff: Thairfor they, be pluralitie of voices, have dischargit,
lykas they, be the tennor of this present Act, discharges, all bankquettis
to be had at the baptizing of children within this burghe and libertie
theroff, as said is, except onlie aill and bread, and no other great cheir;
and that the number of persons that ar to be at the baptizing of the said
children, being their godfathers and godmothers, be onlie sex men and sex
women. And ordains that whosoever sail contraveane or transgres this present
Act sail pay ane unlaw of ten punds Scottis mony unforgiven toties quoties.
“The samyne day the saids
baillies and counsell, with advyce of my Lord Provost, taking to
consideration the great abuse, undecencie, and disordour done at lait wakkis
within this burgh and libertie theroff, they, for the better ordering of the
samyne in tyme coming, have statut and ordanit that there come no person to
lait wakkis within this burghe and libertie theroff in tyme comeing
uninvited, and that the persons be bot few in number, and suche as the
partie concerned sail desyre; and ordanes that the baillies in everie
quarter where any suche lait waks sail happene to be herefter attend the
samyne, that no abuse nor disorder be done.”
The disorders attending an
Irish wake were evidently in former times by no means a peculiar
characteristic of the Green Isle. The term “lait wakkis,” or “late wake,”
would have called down the denunciation of Jonathan Oldbuck, who, it may be
remembered, descants with some prolixity to his nephew Hector M‘In tyre on
the impropriety of using this instead of “lyke wake,” which carries with it
the evidence of its origin from the Anglo-Saxon lich, or German Leichnam, a
corpse. But with all deference to the learned antiquary, “late wake” seems
to have been in quite as common, if not greater, use.
To prevent any irregular
conversation at the meetings of the Town Council, we find enacted:—
“16 December 1667.
“The qlk day the saids
baillies and counsell, for the better ordour and conformitie to be used be
them in tyme comeing whill they are in counsell, have statut and ordanit
that none of the baillies nor counsellaris in no tyme coming, qll they ar
sitting in counsell as said is, presume nor tak upone hand, under
whatsomever cullor or pretext, to debait or contend or mak speitche ane with
another, bot that they ordour their speitches to the preses that sail
happene to be for the tyme — ilk contravener under the payment of ane
shilling sterling.”
Hitherto there is little
evidence obtainable from the burgh records regarding the tyrannical
government under which Scotland then groaned, or the still more
unconstitutional proceedings of the military who scoured the country in
pursuit of the recusant or fugitive Presbyterians. Two reasons may be
assigned for this: first, the circumstance that the hottest period of
persecution had not yet arrived; and secondly, that there is little
likelihood of any record being kept or notice taken of the arbitrary
proceedings of the soldiers and their officers. Culross, indeed, and its
district, do not seem to have experienced the same severity of oppression
that fell so fearfully on the western counties. But evidence is not wanting
either, as we shall see from time to time, of the merciless and oppressive
system which then prevailed making its crushing influence perceptible. The
entry to be quoted will fully bear out this remark:—
“1 January 1668.
“The qlk day the said
bailleis and counsell, taking to consideration that wheras thair was ane
ordour laitlie sent to this burgh be Sir Peter Wedderburne, clerk of his
Majestie’s Secret Counsell in Scotland, for subscryving of the declaratione
and sending over the samyne be the saids bailleis to Edinburgh against the
fyft of January instant; and in regard Bobert Blaw, ane of the present
bailleis of this burghe, had for the present refused to subscryve the said
declaratione: Thairfor the saids baillies and counsell have not onlie
suspendit the said Bot. Blaw, baillie, from executing the office of
magistracie or as counsellar within this burghe ay and qll till he subscryve
the said declaf-atione, but also hes convict and decemit him in ane unlaw of
one hundrethe punds Scottis for refusing to subscryve the declaratione
aforesaid.”
The Sir Peter Wedderburn
above mentioned was Sir Peter Wedderburn of Gosford, knight, father of Sir
Peter Wedderburn of Gosford, who was created a baronet by Charles II., and
by marrying the heiress of Pitfirrane, near Dunfermline, was obliged to
assume the name and arms of the Halket family. Probably, as things went in
those days, he was a respectable man; but it is difficult to conceive the
existence of any respectability in connection with the holding of office
under the odious Privy Council, presided over by Lauderdale and his
compeers. A similar sentence to that pronounced on Blaw was three weeks
afterwards directed against James Craiche, Dean of Guild, and two of the
town councillors, named respectively John Bumsyde and John Sands. At first
sight the reader may imagine that Bobert Blaw must have been a troublesome
contumacious man to have refused subscriptions to a declaration, when
ordered by his brother magistrates, who themselves had received instructions
from the authorities in Edinburgh. But before forming any opinion on the
matter, it will be as well that he peruse the declaration in question, of
which, at the risk of wearing out his patience, I herewith present a copy:—
“I solemnly swear, in
presence of the eternal God, whom I invocat as judge and witnes of my
sincere intentione of this my oath, that I own and sincerely profess the
true Protestant religion, conteinit in the Confession of Faith, recorded in
the first Parliament of Xing James the Sixt, and that I believe the same to
be founded on and agreeable to the written Word of God; and I promise and
swear that I shall adhere thereto during all the days of my lyftyme, and
sail endeavour to educate my children therein, and sail never consent to any
change or alteration contrare thereto; and I disowne and renounce all such
principles, doctrines, or practices, whether popish or jezaweiticall, which
ar contrar unto and inconsistent with the said Protestant religion and
Confession of Faith. And for testification of my obedience to my most
gracious soveraigne Charles the Second, I do affirm and swear, by this ipy '
solemn oath, that the King’s Majestie is the only supreme governor of this
realm, over all persons and all causes, as well ecclesiasticall as civill;
and that no forraigne prince, person, pope, prelate, state, or potentate
hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superioritie, preheminencie,
or authoritie, ecclesiasticall or civill, within this realm; and therefor I
doe utterly renounce and forsak all forraigne jurisdictions, powers,
superiorities, and authorities, and doe promise that from henceforth I sail
bear faith and true allegiance to the King's Majestie, his aires and lawful
successors, and to my power sail assert and defend all rights,
jurisdictions, prerogatives, privileges, preheminencies, and authorities
belonging to the King’s Majestie, his aires and lawful successors. And I
farther affirm and swear, by this my solemn oath, that I judge it unlawful
for subjects, upon pretence of reformation, or any other pretence
whatsoever, to enter into covenants or leagues, or to convocat, convein, or
assemble in any councils, conventions, or assemblies, to treat, consult, or
determine in any matter of state, civill or ecclesiastick, without his
Majestie’s speciall command or express licence had thereto, or to tak up
armes against the King or those commissionated by him; and that I sail never
armes or enter into such covenants or assemblies, and that there lyes no
obligation upon me from the National! Covenant, or the Solemn League and
Covenant, so commonly called, or any other manner of way whatsoever, to
indevour any change or alteration in the government either in Church or
State as it is well established by the lawes of this kingdom. And I promise
and swear that I sail with my utmost power defend, assist, and mainteen his
Majestie’s jurisdiction foresaid against all deedly;1 and I sail never
declyne his Majestie’s power and jurisdiction, as I sail answer to God. And
finally, I affirm and swear that this my solemn oath is given in the plaine
genuine sense and meaning of the words, without any equivocation, mental
reservation, or any manner of evasion whatsoever; and that I sail never
accept or use any dispensation from any creature whatsoever. So help me
God.”
It will be pretty plain, I
think, that few persons, almost of any shade of political or religious
opinion, who had in the slightest degree the courage to avow and maintain
their sentiments, could have subscribed such a declaration as the above
without a feeling of the most thorough degradation and self-contempt. Yet
such were the declarations sought to be imposed by the Government of the day
on the Scottish people, and such was the depth of craven submission to which
it was attempted to reduce them. It has been a good deal the fashion to
represent the Presbyterians in the reigns of Charles and James IL as a
fanatical, obstinate, and precise set of men, who aimed at the realisation
of Utopian ideas in Church or State such as could never be carried out or
conceded with safety in any community. But it is at least equally certain
that their rulers endeavoured to subject them to a mental thraldom which had
hitherto been unprecedented in Great Britain, and could only find a parallel
in the countries of the Inquisition. The Presbyterians, rightly or wrongly,
regarded their form of religion as of divine origin, and would have felt as
sincere and conscientious scruples in admitting the right of a prelatical
king to determine the constitution of the Church, as a Protestant would
experience in acknowledging the supremacy of the Pope, or an early Christian
in worshipping the image of the Roman emperor.
In what follows next we get
some statistics of the prices of foreign liquors in those days:—
“10 November 1668.
“The quhilk day the pettie
impost of wyne, strong wateris, forren bear, and aill ventet within this
burgh, was sett to William Drysdeall, merch. and burges of Culrois, from the
first day of November 1668 to the first of November 1669, for payment of the
soume of threttene hundrethe and fyftie merkis Scottis money,1 at four
quarters in the year—Candlemas, Witsonday, Lambes, and Mertynmes 1669 yearis—who
fand Alexander Aitkene, ane of the lait baillies of Culrois, John Sands, ane
other of the lait baillies therof, and Kobert Bald, cordiner, burges of the
samyne, cautioners for him. And the said principal taksman, and his
cautioneris forsaids, actit and obleigt themselves, con-junctlie and
severallie, to mak payment of the said soume at the foresaid dyettes; and
the said Wm. Drysdeall actit and obleigt himself for his cautioneris releiff.
“Heir followis the pryces
sett doun be the saids baillies and counsell to be taken for wyne, strong
watteris, forrane imported bear, and aill ventet within this burghe during
the space above writtene, be the taksman aforsaid, from the brewaris and
venteneris of the samyne—viz.:
For the puncheon* of French
wyne . £4 0 0
For the rundell of seek . . .
1 10 0
For the whole anker of
brandie . . 10 0
For the half anker . . . . 0
10 0
For the barrell of forrane
bear . . £0 12 0
For brewing of the boll malt
. . 0 13 4”
“French wyne” was doubtless
what we now call claret, and which in those days, and for nearly a century
afterwards, was an extensive article of import and consumption in Scotland.
“Seek,” or sack, so familiar to all students of Shakespeare, was the old
name for sherry—i.e., the dry wine, from the French sec. From a passage in
Ben Jonson’s *Bartholomew Fair" it clearly appears that the terms “sack” and
“sherry” were synonymous, the former being the older and more popular word
:—
“Latlleme Leatherhead
(hobby-horse seller).
“And because he would have him their first meeting to be merry,
He strikes Hero in love to him with a pint of sherry,
Which he tells her from amorous Leander is sent her,
Who after him into the room of Hero doth venture.
Puppet Jo. A pinte of sacke, score a pint of sacke in the Comrey
Cokes. Sack! You said but e’en now it should be sherry.
Puppet Jo. Why, so it is; sheny, sherry, sherry!
Cokes. Sherry, sherry, sherry!
By my troth, he makes me merry
I must have a name for Cupid too.”
It would also appear, from
the foregoing list of prices, that “strong waters” signified brandy. What is
referred to in several entries as “aqua vitas” was doubtless whisky, which,
at the date of which we speak, seems to have been comparatively little
drunk, at all events in the Lowlands.
The next extract gives us an
unpleasant idea of the condition of the wells of Culross:—
"1 November 1669.
“Act against such persons
that sail washe at Bessie Barrels Well9 or other wells within this burgh,
ayther clothes or other things in tyme coming.
“The said day the baillies
and counsill, taking to their consideratione the severell complents given in
by severell of the burgesses and inhabitants of this burgh, against those
that resort to the wells of this burgh with their foull lin-nings and yairn
and such lyke, to wasche them therat, which poysons and abuses the samein
wells, to the great hurt and prejudice of the whole inhabitants within this
burgh, and other his Majesty’s leidges resorting thither; for preventing of
the same in tyme comeing, they have unanimously appoynted that
certificatione be immediatlie made, by touck of drums, to all those that
shall be found doing the lyke in tyme coming, that they shall immediatlie
pay ane unlay of fourty shillings Scots for the transgression, by and attour
the breaking of the tubs, toties quoties!1
The “middings” are also a
constant trouble :—
“6 December 1669.
"The forsaid day the officer
is ordered, ilk day after the dait heirof, to take inspection of the street
betwix the cross and the strand of this burgh, whither their be any middings
lying upon the same; and to enquyre for the owners theirof, and to poynd
them for twelve shilling Scots, to be imployed be him for his owne proper
use, toties quoties. Qherin iff he failzie he is by this Act ordenied to pay
twelve shillings himself for the failzie.”
In an inquest held under date
September 14,1670, for serving George Lumsdane heir to his father, Sir James
Lumsdane of Innergellie, there occur among the names of the jurors, “ Robert
Newall, lait clerk ot Culrois; Andro Gray, merchant, burges therof; and
Hercules Huntar, chirurgeon, within the samyne.” This is the earliest notice
that 1 have found of a resident Esculapius in Culross.
The two following extracts
from the town council minute-book are interesting in connection with a
subject of which it may seem strange to many, as it has also done to myself,
that so little notice is furnished by the burgh records of Culross. It is
well known that trials and executions for witchcraft were exceedingly common
in Scotland during the seventeenth century; and the Presbyterian polity has
been credited with much of the injustice and cruelty which thus took place.
No doubt the Presbyterians believed devoutly in the existence of witches,
and the duty of pursuing them to the death; but though it is said that Sir
George Mackenzie, the King’s advocate and public prosecutor in the reigns of
Charles and James II., discredited the reality of such a crime, it is
certain that, under the Episcopal sway, prosecutions for witchcraft were
quite as common as at any other period—and the Government of the day had
nearly as much to answer for in this respect as for the cruel persecution of
the Covenanters. Yet, as regards Culross, there is not so much evidence
demonstrative of either of these points as might have been expected.
Possibly, indeed, many of the prosecutions may have been carried on before
-Lord Colville’s Regality Court, of whose proceedings no records, so far as
I have been able to discover, are now in existence. The adjoining parish of
Torrybum was, we know, famous for its witches; and we have already seen how
that, at an earlier period, the subject had engaged the attention both of
the kirk-session and burgh authorities. But I have not found recorded in the
proceedings of either, one indubitable instance of an execution on this
account having taken place within the territory of Culross.1 There is,
indeed, in ‘ Satan’s Invisible World Displayed,’ a horrible story of . a
poor woman, under sentence of death for witchcraft, endeavouring to make her
escape from the Culross tolbooth, and injuring herself so dreadfully that
she had to be carried to the place of execution in a chair. The event is
detailed there professedly by an eyewitness; but it .is impossible to
receive any statement on the authority of such a book. It has generally
happened that witches, notwithstanding all the diabolical influence at their
command, remained involved in the utmost poverty and want, and had to
exemplify in the fullest extent the axiom of the devil being the hardest of
taskmasters. But, from what follows below, it would seem that they were
occasionally possessed of property sufficient to render their escheats or
forfeitures matters of such importance as to induce the magistrates of a
royal burgh to come forward as competitors in the division of the spoil.
“2 August 1675.
“The quhilk day the saids
magistrattis and counsell, upon the consideratione of the great panes and
expence this place hes bene at in prosequieting the four witches to deathe,
and that nevertheles there ar divers persons given in for the gift of their
escheit: They therefore have com-niissionat John Kennewie, their clerk, to
goe over, and to give in for the samyne in behalf of this burghe; and
failzieing his procuring therof, they have ordered him to tak the accompt of
the expenses alongst with him, and to petitione the excheker that whosoever
gett the gift they may be ordered to take it with the burdene of the said
accompt.”
*16 July 1677.
“The forsaid day the
magistrates and council, considering that they ly out in ane considerabill
somme of the money expended in thair recovering of the gift of escheat, they
thairfor ordeans the gift to be send over, that homing be raised against
these lyabill in payment of thair proportiones, if they give not
satisfactione once this week.”
Whether the magistrates
succeeded or not in recovering their claims in the above case, we are not
informed, as nothing further appears in the minute-books either in reference
to it or any other prosecution for witchcraft. Some proceedings of a mild
character will be found recorded a good many years subsequently in the
kirk-session archives in connection with charming and suchlike occult arts.
But as regards the civic records, they are, for a long time subsequent as
well as previous to this period, singularly meagre and devoid of interest.
The entries exhibit also an unusual amount of confusion and bad grammar. It
was now a time of persecution— though the hottest period of it had not yet
arrived —and a general blight, civil and ecclesiastical, had overtaken
Scotland. For several years there seems to have been no regular ministry in
Culross; and as we learn from the prelatical Kirk records themselves, a
fearful tide of moral and spiritual declension had set in. Here is some
endeavour on the part of the magistrates to remedy the temporal
disadvantages thereby occasioned:—
“23 August 1675.
“The samyne day the saids
baillies and counsell, upon consideration that there ar many poore indigent
householders within this place who thinks evill to beg, and ar in a sterving
condition; and that there is seldome preaching here, and that many devertis
[sic] the goeing to the churche, so that thair can be no suplie gotten for
thame without ane remeid therto: They have therfor appoyntit that ane roll
be drawine of the inhabitants, and given to two in each quarter of the town,
that they may goe throw eache fourt-night and collect what they ar
Christianlie disposed to bestow in charitie for the maintenance of the said
poore, that they sterve not, as licklie they will if not supplied as
aforsaid; and that the collectoris be changed every quarter, as the saids
baillies thinks fitt.”
Mr Burnett was inducted in
1676 as minister of the first charge of Culross; and probably in consequence
of this, the following edict is issued by the magistrates:—
“27 April 1676.
“The said day it was intimat
at the head court to the inhabitants, that such of thame as have disearted
the church hitherto, shall for the future be moir observand in going thairto;
otherwayes such of thame as have not yett bene summoned elaequhair, will be
proceided against be the baillies, conforme to the Act of Parliament.”
The system of quartering
soldiers on a town or individuals, so frequently employed as an engine of
oppression, seems to have been the common method in those days of enforcing
payment of taxes. We find frequent instances of this in the burgh records.
Here is one:—
“18 December 1676.
“The said day, upon
consideratione that the party of horse are still quartering for what is yett
deficient of the twelf moneths cess which Baillie Aitkene hes intrometted
with, the magistrats and counsell have thought fitt that he be imprisoned
till payment be maid therof; and as to the ryding money, they ar to take
such ane course as the party shall judge convenient, by poinding the
deficients for the samyne.”
We have seen how, in 1668,
Robert Blaw, one of the Culross bailies, was, with others, deprived of
office and fined in £100 Scots by his brother magistrates for refusing to
subscribe the declaration demanded by the Government. Nine years afterwards,
in 1677, he and William Gray, a girdlemaker, were fined by the Privy
Council, as we are informed by Wodrow, in the sums respectively of 2000 and
200 merks Scots for frequenting conventicles. The same authority states,
moreover, that on the same day Adam Stobie (or Stobow) of Luscar was “ fined
by the council in 3000 merks for keeping conventicles, withdrawing from
public ordinances, reset and converse with intercommuned persons, and, after
payment of the fine, ordered to be transported furth of the kingdom.” An
interesting corroboration of the last-mentioned circumstances is furnished
by the narrative of Captain John Creichton, a soldier of fortune, of Irish
extraction, whose Memoirs were edited by no less a personage than Dean
Swift, and will be found in the edition of his collected works. Creichton
had been introduced, in 1674, to the Marquis of Athole, and received into
his troop at Stirling under Lieutenant-Colonel Cockbum. Soon after this he
was largely employed in the west in the suppression of conventicles, and he
was afterwards the principal actor in the famous hunt after the Rev. David
Williamson, who took refuge in the house of Lady Cherrytrees, near
Edinburgh, and eluded capture by a singular device on the part of his
hostess. Then he goes on to tell how, some time after, he had been directed
by General Dalziel to take the command of a party of foot-guards, and go in
pursuit “ of a notorious rebel, one Adam Stobow, a farmer in Fife, near
Culross.” I shall tell the rest of the Btory in Creich ton’s own words:—
“This fellow had gone through
the west endeavouring to stir up sedition in the people by his great skill
in canting and praying. There had been several parties sent out after him
before I and my men undertook the business; but they could never discover
him. We reached Culross at night, when I directed the ensign and all the men
to secure three or four rebels who were in the place, while I, with two or
three of the soldiers to assist me, went to Stobow’s house, about a mile and
a half from Culross, by break of day, for VOL. I. Z fear some of his friends
might give him notice. Before I got to the house I observed a kiln in the
way, which I ordered to be searched, because I found there a heap of straw
in the passage up to the kiln-pot. There I found Stobow lurking, and carried
him to Culross, although his daughter offered me a hundred dollars to let
him go. We returned immediately to the general at Edinburgh with Stobow and
the prisoners taken by the ensign at Culross. They continued awhile in
confinement, but Stobow, at his trial, found friends enough to save his
life, and was only banished; yet he returned home a year after, and proved
as troublesome and seditious as ever, till, at the fight at Both-welT
Bridge, it was thought he was killed, for he was never heard of afterward.”
There seems uo reason to
doubt that the “ Adam Stobie of Luscar” mentioned by Wodrow is the same as
the “Adam Stobow” of Captain Creichton. I have not been able to discover the
name of Stobow or Stobie, whether as a farmer or proprietor, in any part of
the parish of Culross at the period under consideration. There is an estate
named Luscar near Camock, in Fife, about five miles from Culross; and this,
in all probability, was the place visited by Creichton. Yet he speaks of it
as being only a mile and a half from Culross. Taking these as Scotch miles,
they would amount nearly to three English ones, and in this way his
statement would tally with the real distance between the places. At all
events, he may readily be conceived to have let his memory make a slip; and
it is quite possible, too, that in a rapid ride at early mom he might easily
fancy the distance traversed less than it really was. Any further solution
of the question seems now unattainable.
It is only too probable, from
the account given by Captain Creichton, that several persons who were
captured by his troop at Culross paid the penalty of death for their
adherence to their principles. The following entry shows that the
Presbyterian recusants had begun to hold meetings for religious worship in
the neighbourhood of Culross:—
“7 November 1678.
“The said day the said Sir
Alexr. Bruce signified to the town council that he is informed that there
are certain disorderly conventicle meittings in and about this burgh and
elsewhere, to which certan of their burgesses doeth repair; and therfor
desired the saids magistrates to advert to it, by their tymus proceiding
against them, conform to the Act of Parliament; the which advyce of his they
find convenient, and accordingly thinks fitt they be proceidit against vi
supra with all expeditione.”
This Sir Alexander Bruce of
Broomhall has been already referred to. Though a steady supporter of the
Government, and in after-days a stanch Jacobite, we are informed by Wodrow
that he had, in 1677, to submit to a fine of £1200 for not having enforced
on his tenants the subscription of a certain bond; and as some of them, by
repeated attendance at conventicles, had rendered themselves liable in a
heavy amount of accumulated impositions, Sir Alexander was obliged to make
these good.
From a report to the Privy
Council, quoted by Wodrow, we learn that the magistrates of Culross were at
that time cited before the Committee “ for permitting one Michael Potter, a
fugitive person, to be schoolmaster there, and for resetting one William
Adam, a fugitive and banished person, and others.” It goes on farther to
say—
“There being a conventicle
kept in Culross Sabbath was eight days, which was dissipate by Captain
Buchan, and about eighteen persons seized upon and imprisoned in Culross ;
upon examination, the Committee finds that the magistrates had set some of
them at liberty at their own hand. The Committee has ordered the magistrates
to call them all back to prison, and hath condescended upon the persons most
substantial of them, and appointed the magistrates to produce them before
the Council this day se’en night; and if the rest, who are mean persons,
will give bond to keep their own parish churches and not keep conventicles,
they have appointed them to liberate them, otherwise to continue them in
prison. The Committee find the magistrates are culpable, and deserve to be
fined; but it is their opinion that the Council shall delay to punish them
for some time, that they may see what will be their future carriage, and
have time to search for and apprehend the said William Adam, —which the
bailie present undertook to do.”
There is nothing about these
proceedings in the minute-book of this period, though a few years hence we
shall find the magistrates getting into some trouble with the Privy Council.
Perhaps they were too much frightened to make any entries on the subject,
for there seems no reason to doubt the accuracy of the circumstances quoted
by Wodrow. As regards the holding of conventicles, it has always been a
tradition that this took place in a secluded part of Culross Moor, now
covered with wood; but nothing definite can be stated regarding the
locality. No doubt the unpleasant experiences of Sir Alexander Bruce in the
way of pecuniary mulcts would render him doubly eager in urging the
suppression of these meetings on the Culross magistrates. |
