|
I NOW present my reader with
a succession of extracts which possess a more than usual interest from their
bearing reference to the rebellion of 1715, and showing how that event was
agitating men’s minds in a little Scottish burgh at that period. It will be
remembered that the Jacobite cause had some partisans in Culross:—
“26 July 1715.
"The council being credibly
informed that the Pretender designes to invade Brittaine, and that he should
have taken sail the 18 instant; and understanding that the neighbouring
burghs and other places about are keeping guaird and putting themselves in
the best posture of defence they can: Therefore they think it expedient, and
ordain a guaird to be keiped every night as long as the council thinks
convenient, consisting of eighteen men and two commanding officers, and to
begin this night; each man is to parade himself this night with a firelock
and a sword and ammunitione. Accordingly the council hes named this night’s
guaird, whom they ordained to be warned by the officer to meet in the
tolbooth against nine o’clock at night at beating the drum, and to continue
upon the guard till five o’clock in the morning, one of the baillies coming
to see the guard dismounted ; and that under the penalty of twenty shilling
Scots, and empowers the guard to poynd the failiers therefore. But ordains
the guaird to behave themselves wisely, and not to be guilty of any abuse
whatsoever, under the penalty of twenty shilling Scots for each fault. And
farder, the council ordain the haill fencible men betwixt the age of 60 and
16 within this burgh to meet on the Sand Haven the morrow at two o’clock in
the afternoon, with their best armour, under the pain of twenty shilling
Scots; and ordains intimation hereof to be made by touck of drum the morrow
morning against eight o’clock, and ordains the baillies by turns to name the
guaird.
“As also the councill hereby
discharge the boatmen to take any strangers over the water or bring them to
this syd without acquainting the magistrates and procuring their liberty
thereto, and that under the penalty of five pounds Scots.”
"27 August 1715.
"The councill being credibly
informed that the Pretender’s standart is set up about the Brae of Mar as
the standart of King James the Eight, and that it is their duty to put
themselves and the town in the best posture of defence they can, think it
proper and necessar that fifty pund weight of powder or thereby, with lead
conform, be sent for; and ordaine the three baillies to buy the same for the
behoof of the town, and to sell it out in parcels to such of the inhabitants
as shall be pleased to buy the same, at the rate it is bought.”
In the autumn of 1715 there
was good cause for the alarm expressed in a minute of the Culross town
council. The Jacobite army, under the command of the Earl of Mar, was
descending through Perthshire on the Lowlands. After the lapse of little
more than a fortnight, on 13th November, it was encountered on the
Sheriffmuir by the Government troops, under the Duke of Argyll, and, if not
defeated, received at least a serious check. Sheriffmuir is on the north
slope of the Ochils, a few miles from Dunblane, and, as the crow flies, not
twenty miles from Culross. The “ Sherramuir,” as the engagement was
popularly termed, was long remembered in Scotland, and gave rise to the
proverbial expression, “ There was mair lost at Sherramuir,” with the
addition sometimes (as a fling at the Highlanders), “ whaur a Hielandman
lost his faither and his mither, and a gude grey mare that was worth them
baith! ” Burns makes the “Grannie” in “Halloween” thus refer to the battle:—
“Ae hairst afore the
Sherramoor,
I mind’t as weel’a yestreen,
I was a gilpey then, I’m sure
I wasna past fifteen.”
He also, in the same poem,
speaks of the year 1715 as “ Mar’s year,” from the circumstance of the
rebellion having been mainly conducted by the Earl of Mar.
A Jacobite burgess is thus
called to account:—
“12 December 1716.
“The council having convened,
Robert Dalgleish, younger, flesher, burges of this burgh, for going to Perth
and corresponding with the rebells; who being present, acknowledged
judicially that he went to Perth with Mrs Muirheid, and stayed there some
days, and helped to kill an ox for Harr’s use, and conversed with some of
the rebells in Perth. And the vote being stated what punishment shall be
inflicted upon him, it carryed by plurality of votes that he continue in
prison ay and while he find sufficient caution, that he shall answear as law
will for the fault confessed, under the penalty of one hundred pound Scots,
and that he shall not be guilty of the like in time coming.”
The tacksman of the ferry
from Culross to Borrow-stounness, on whose trade an embargo had been laid
during the rebellion, applies for an abatement of rent:—
“17 September 1716.
“The said day there being a
representation given in to the council for William Drysdale, tacksman of the
watter money for the year 1715, representing that the boats were stoped by
the Government the time of the rebellion, to his great loss, and that he has
given in more to the town than he got; which being considered by the
council, and that he has payed ten merks thereof, they quite him the
ballance, being four pounds six shilling and eight pennies, and discharge
him of the water monie for the said year.”
We have now heard the last of
the rebellion of 1715 as far as the town of Culross is concerned; but before
quitting the subject, I should like to say something of a member of the
Preston family who took a leading part in the troubles of this period. This
Was the celebrated General George Preston, younger son of Sir George
Preston, first baronet of Valleyfield, and uncle of the Sir George Preston
whom we shall soon find exercising a princely act of generosity towards the
town of Culross. Prior to the Revolution he had entered the service of the
States - General of Holland, and had accompanied William of Orange to
England. He served in all the wars of William III. and Queen Anne, and was
severely wounded at the battle of Ramillies, several bullets lodging in his
body which could never afterwards be extracted. In 1706 he became colonel of
the Cameronian regiment, and in 1715, the year of the rebellion, had
intrusted to him the command of the Castle of Edinburgh, which he held with
great firmness and gallantry. When the Jacobites gained a partial possession
of the town, he threatened to fire on it from the Castle, and had thereupon
a message conveyed to him that if he did so the family mansion of
Valleyfield would be burnt by the Pretender’s army. He held his ground
resolutely, and for several years after the suppression of the rebellion
acted as commander-in-chief of the forces in Scotland. When a second
insurrection on behalf of the Stewarts took place in 1745, and the young
Pretender Charles Edward was advancing towards Edinburgh, General Preston,
though now an aged veteran of upwards of fourscore, hastened to the Castle,
which he held with unflinching bravery against the rebel force during the
whole time that they occupied the capital. My reader may remember Colonel
Talbot discussing in ‘Waverley’ the future movements of the Pretender’s
army, and intimating his belief that the possibility of his old commander
General Preston surrendering the Castle under any circumstances, and the
building itself sinking into the North Loch, were equally likely .
contingencies. The old General died at Valleyfield in 1748, in his
eighty-ninth year. He retrieved the fortunes of the Preston family, and
increased considerably the value of the estate by purchasing and
incorporating with Valleyfield the two farms of Overton and Muirside in the
north of the parish. He also purchased from the Blairhall family the New
MiIIb of Culross, which, from their situation, form so naturally a part of
the Valleyfield estate that it seems scarcely possible at the present day to
conceive of their having once constituted an appanage of Blairhall. The
rights of thirlage claimed by the lord of these mills over the burgh of
Culross had been strenuously but unsuccessfully resisted by the latter. Then
it had endeavoured to better itself by taking the mills in feu from the
proprietor of Blairhall—a step which ultimately involved Culross in the
greatest trouble, and indeed was one leading cause of her financial
derangements. Lastly, she would fain have got rid of the incubus by
resigning the feu into the superior’s hands; but this he refused to accept.
The town thus remained, down to recent times, thirled to the New Mills,—that
is to say, the burgesses were not only bound to carry thither to be ground
all grain produced within the burgh, but had also to pay an impost on all
grain brought into the burgh—the invecta et illata, as it was termed—and
this, whether it was in the form of grain, of meal or flour, or of malt. In
ancient phraseology, “ whatever tholed fire or water ” was subject to
thirlage. The claim took its origin in the circumstance of the mill having
been built by the feudal superior or baron for behoof of his vassals, who
were thus held bound in return to give him or his tacksman the benefit of
their custom. The words thirl and thirlage are simply other forms of thrall
and thraldom.
About this period the burgh
of Culross had been involved in a vexatious lawsuit with Colonel Erskine of
Camock, who, as purchaser of the Kincardine estates, claimed right to the
coal lying beneath the town moor. After a good deal of money had been spent
in defending its rights, the victory remained with the burgh—though it
proved but a profitless one, as a still farther expenditure was incurred in
an unsuccessful attempt to ascertain the existence of the minerals and let
them out on lease. Meantime, whilst they are striving with the Black
Colonel, they elect the White Colonel as their commissioner to the General
Convention of Burghs. The minute to this effect is dated 17th June 1717, and
describes the White Colonel as “ fair Collonell John Erskine,” the same
individual who is afterwards spoken of as a son of Sir John Erskine of Alva.
The following application to
the town council has some interest:—
“5 Novr. 1717.
“The council considering that
there is a letter from Mr Alexr. Bruce direct to the magistrates and
council, wherein he desyres that when any vacancies falls in Lord Bruce
hospital, they may recommend to him, who is now manager of the said
hospitell, such burgesses as are deuly qualified in the terms of the
mortification. And the council ordains Baillie Robertson to return him
thanks, and that it shall be observed; and ordains the letter to be keepit”
The hospital referred to in
the above minute was that founded at Culross in 1637, by Thomas Bruce, first
Earl of Elgin, who states in the narrative of the deed of foundation, that
he is carrying out the intentions of his predecessors—his father Lord
Einloss, and his own brother Lord Edward Bruce. He announces that he has
erected a hospital at the east end of Culross for the reception of twelve
poor persons, inhabitants of the town—six men and six women—who are to
reside in the building, and be maintained there out of the revenues of
certain lands which he has destined or mortified for this purpose, lying
partly near the Kirk of Rosyth, partly in the neighbourhood of the
Nethertown at the town of Dunfermline. They must all be respectable persons,
and free of any infectious disease or troublesome complaint. The government
of the hospital, as well as its patronage, is reserved exclusively to
himself and his representatives, who are, moreover, to have the power of
presenting, on the occasion of a vacancy, persons who do not belong to the
parish of Culross. The building thus erected by the first Lord Elgin was
situated at the foot of the Abbey orchard, on the slope above the high road,
a little to the east of the Newgate. It appears to have been regularly
tenanted by a succession of occupants who were maintained there out of the
revenues provided for them, and occasionally drew on themselves the
animadversion of the ecclesiastical authorities for various misdemeanours,
such as drunkenness or neglect of religious ordinances. Mr Alexander Bruce,
mentioned above, seems to have been the son of the Earl of Kincardine, and
must have been appointed manager of the charity by his kinsman the Earl of
Elgin, who was then living abroad at Brussels, where he died at an advanced
age in 1741.
About 120 years ago the
original building erected by the first Lord Elgin became ruinous, and
probably also there was a desire on the part of the occupants of Culross
Abbey to have such an institution removed to a greater distance from their
lawns and pleasure-grounds. An agreement—or, as it is called in Scotch law,
an excambion—was entered into between Mr Charles Cochrane’s trustees, as
proprietors of the Abbey, on the one hand, and Charles, Earl of Elgin and
Kincardine (the two titles having been united in him), as hereditary patron
of Lord Bruce’s hospital, on the other. In virtue of this arrangement, the
original hospital, with its ground, was made over in 1761 to Mr Cochrane’s
trustees, or rather to the beneficiary, Lord Dundonald, who conveyed to Lord
Elgin in return a new building which he had recently erected considerably to
the east of the former hospital, and almost at the eastern extremity of the
burgh territory on the lands of St Mungos. This was to form the hospital in
future; the beneficiaries were to reside there, as formerly in their old
abode; and the whole institution was to be governed in accordance with the
regulations laid down in the original deed of foundation.
For a number of years Lord
Bruce’s hospital was maintained on its new site; but about half a century
ago the grandfather of the present Lord Elgin, the celebrated transporter to
this country of the Elgin Marbles, conceived that the clause in the original
deed allowing his family to nominate to the vacancies in the hospital
persons not belonging to the parish, gave him the right of removing entirely
from Culross the benefits of the institution, and bestowing them on the
workmen and other inhabitants of the village of Charlestown employed in the
lime-works on his lordship’s estate of Broomhall. It is not my province here
to discuss the legality of the transference. Suffice it to say, it was
accomplished, and, as far as I have been able to learn, without any
opposition at the time on the part of the Culross authorities. One or two
old people, the last Culross pensionaries appointed, were allowed to end
their days in the hospital, the building of which, however, was suffered to
fall into utter ruin; and I can recollect myself as a child being much
impressed with its miserable aspect as then tenanted by one old woman. On
her death the last vestiges of human occupancy disappeared; every fragment
of woodwork, including roof, doors, and windows, was stripped and carried
off, by people, it is said, living in the neighbourhood; and the weird-like,
ghoul-haunted - looking edifice—with its walls, outer and inner, indeed
entire—a ghastly skeleton, remains still, opposite the fishing cottage
between Low Valleyfield and Culross: and were it not that the belief in
ghosts and Bpectres has now become almost extinct, the old walls would
certainly ere now have furnished many a tale of terror for the winter’s
fireside. Old Alloway Kirk itself could not have furnished, in its general
surroundings, a more likely or more suitable spot for a diabolical revel.
The Culross youths had been
in the practice, it would seem, of making raids on gardens to procure the
means of dressing the Cross with flowers on the marches day. The council, on
18th May 1718, issue a prohibitory edict, threatening that if any more
complaints of the kind be made, “they will discharge busking the Cross and
Tron hereafter.”
Baillie Hunter having been
appointed by the town council their commissioner for .representing the burgh
at the General Assembly of the Church, reports his proceedings:—
“26 May 1718.
“The said day Baillie Hunter
reports he went to Edinburgh the sixteen instant, and returned Friday last
the twenty-third instant, and attended the Assembly during that time, and
that he was obleidged to give in a crown with his commission, which, with a
crown for horse-hyre and sixteen shillings sterling for his charges eight
days, extends to twenty-six shillings sterling; the council ordains the
treasurer to pay the same.”
Five shillings for horse -
hire to and from Edinburgh, with two shillings a-day for maintenance, is a
moderate charge indeed. A day’s board at an Edinburgh hotel would cost now
more than kept the worthy Baillie for eight days.
Orders are issued at the same
time for celebrating King George’s birthday, and also for providing some
civic requirements, coupled with a proper regard to economy:—
“The said day it is ordained
that the hail council meet upon Wednesday next (being the King’s birthday),
betwixt six and seven at night, in order to solemnize the said day, and that
they meet in the tolbooth, and that the haill inhabitants put out bonefires
or candles.
“The council ordain James
Robertson, taylor, to turn the officers' coats, and to furnish what
necessars they want; and ordain the pyper to get a new rid coat, and allows
the drummer to get als many new tews as will serve the drum”
A Mecd-Mob at Culross.
“2 April 172a
“The said day Baillie James
Adam and Baillie Law represented that there happened a mob at Valleyfield
Pans lately, anent some meall that was carrying out of the town, and that
they sent through a proclamation the forenoon before against the same, and
that they themselves went in person and saw the same safely out of the
town’s liberty, and that they are summoned to Perth to witness what they did
hear and see of the matter. The council considering the affair, find they
were acting as baillies, and exerted themselves as became; therefore they
enact and ordain the treasurer pay their necessar charges.”
“12 April 1720.
“The clerk reports that he
went to Edinburgh Wednesday last, and returned Saturdays night, and got the
town’s decreet of declarator Act and commission, with letters of diligence,
against Colonel Erskine anent the muir and coall, &c.; and that the accompt
of the expenses thereof, with his own charges of horse-hyres, extends to one
hundred and six pounds eighteen shillings and four pennies Scots, which the
council orders the treasurer to pay to the clerk, who has instantly produced
and delivered the decreet, &a, until the eztracter’s receipt therof, which
amounts to ninety-six pound 13s. 4d. Scots, the rest of the above some [sum]
being for his horse-hyres, fraughts, and charges.”
The town has gained so far,
though at some cost, its plea with the Black Colonel, regarding the property
of the moor and underlying minerals. The town-clerk receives for travelling
expenses and four days’ maintenance £10, 5s. Scots, or 17s. Id. sterling,
which certainly cannot be deemed an extravagant outlay. In a subsequent
entry he is ordered to receive 12s. 8d. Scots, or one shilling and
two-thirds of a penny sterling, for the hire of a horse to Dunfermline and
back to attend a meeting of the Presbytery.-
The burning of sea-ware for
the manufacture of kelp had at this time come to be extensively practised
about Culross, and many complaints in consequence arose. We shall soon hear
of a grand fracas in connection with this matter, in which the Black Colonel
plays a prominent part:—
"19 July 1720.
“The council, taking to their
consideration that there was a memorial given in to the magistrates
compleaning of the burning ware, to the prejudice of those who have burrow
aikers and yairds, and to the health of the inhabitants, and several other
prejudices mentioned in the memoriale, and that the said memoriale was by
the magistrates referred to the council, they discharge the cutting and
burning of ware within the liberties of the town, until those who design to
practise that procure the consent of the major pairt of the heritors and
possessors of burrow aikers; and when that is done, the council will
consider in what terms and under what restrictions to tolerate the burning
wair.”
The first of June 1721 is a
red-letter day in the burgh records. It seems, therefore, proper to extract
its proceedings in extenso:—
“Culross, the first day of
June 1721.—Sederunt: James Adam, David Law, and John Buchanan, Baillies;
James Nesmith, Dean of Gild; David Belfrage, treasurer; Laurance Johnston,
Robert Spittle, William Cumming, Archibald White, John Donaldson, William
Milln, George Drysdale, and William Drysdale, trades councillor; and William
Murgan. Baillie Buchanan, preset.
“The said day the Honourable
Sir George Preston of Valeyfield, Baronet, compeared personally in council
and represented that the good will and kindness he bears towards the good
town of Culross had induced him to enquire into the circumstances therof;
and finding the burgh to be considerable in debt, did instantly of his own
proper motive most generously and freely, in presence of the council, give
to David Belfrage, presentlie treasurer, 2000 merks Scots towards freeing
and easing the town of a pairt of their debt. Whereupon the whole
magistrates and council returned the said Sir George Preston thair most
humble and dutyfull thanks and good wishes; and in commemoration of his
generosity, ordained thir presents to be recorded in their registers as a
lasting remembrance of such a considerable free gift conferred on the burgh.
Sic subtur., Jo. Buchanan.”
Sir George Preston must have
made his appearance in the council chamber of Culross like a deus ex machind
to relieve the burgh from its hopeless state of financial entanglement. It
was really a princely donation in its way, and must be credited with the
best and purest motives — at least there is not a shadow of evidence to the
contrary. Sir George seems to have become the possessor of a considerable
fortune, which enabled him to relieve the burgh of Culross of its
difficulties and close up the old wound which had been rankling in the
breasts of the burgesses towards his family ever since the time when his
father and brother, by procuring the erection of Valleyfield into a burgh of
barony, had interfered so seriously with the privileges of the older
community, and more especially with the girdlemaking monopoly.
The then treasurer of
Culross, it is seen, was David Belfrage, described in the stent-roll for the
west quarter of the town as “ David Belfrage, Treasr., merchant.” The name
is certainly a corruption of “ Beveridge,” which is also found occasionally
in the burgh records of Culross as “ Beverage ” and “ Bever-adge,” there
being also a garden described as “ Beverage’s yeard.” I am not aware,
however, of any forebear of my own having belonged to Culross. The origin of
the name is to be found in “Beverege,” the name of an island in the Severn,
referred to by the monkish chronicler Florence of Worcester as a retreat of
the Danes during a revolt of the English. The word signifies “ Beaver
Island,” and is derived from the Anglo-Saxon befer, or beofer, a beaver, and
ig or ige, an island. A cognate name is “ Beverley,” the Beaver holm or
meadow.
The amount of Sir George’s
gift was 2000 merks Scots, or £111, 2s. 2½d. sterling. The council are not
content with having his generosity recorded in the burgh minute-book, but
resolve on something grander and more enduring. Evidently they had not the
same idea of the immortality of their minute-book as Horace had of his poems
when he wrote—
“Exegi monumentum are
perennius."
The Culross dignitaries
thought the ces, or perhaps I should rather say the aurum, a more enduring
register than paper or parchment. They ordain as follows:—
“The said day the council
ordain a broad to be made, and erected in the council house, mentioning that
the Honourable Sir George Preston gave the town the foreaaid 2000 merks, to
be a lasting memorial of his goodness to the town; and that the inscription
be in gold letters.”
In February 1724 the
incorporation of girdlemak-ers apply for assistance to the town council in
prosecuting an action against a recreant member of the craft, and receive a
donation of £12, 12s. Scots towards this object. The whole subject of the
Culross girdles and girdlesmiths is discussed in another chapter.
The council resolve to have a
trial made as to the existence of coal-seams in the moor of Culross, and
Laurence Johnston is appointed the chief manager or superintendent of these
operations. A great deal of money was spent in the search, which would have
been better expended in reclaiming and cultivating the surface of the moor.
On 21st September 1725,
Laurence Johnston is chosen dean of guild, and on 29th September 1727
becomes second bailie. It appears, from an account presented in June 1728
for repairing the pier of Culross, that the wages of a mason were then a
merk Scots, or Is. ljd. sterling per day. A “barrowman” or labourer received
6s. Scots, or 6d. sterling, per day.
Here are some interesting
particulars of regulations for. providing the lieges with post-horses :—
“2 November 1728.
“The councill, considering
that both the inhabitants of the burgh and the leidges are incommoded and
losers by there not being ane establisht postmaster in the burgh for
providing the leidges in hired horses: For preventing whereof the council
appoint all persons within the burgh who keep horses for hiring, that they
give in a list of their horses to serve the leidges for hiring, and that the
same list he attested by the magistrates and given to the postmaster, who is
authorized to oblidge the hirers so listed to furnish the leidges with a
horse by turns when necessity requires; and for effectuating the premises
the council appoint Bobert Ferguson to be postmaster during the council’s
pleasure, and that the hirers enlist themselves upon Thursday next, being
the day for rouping the common good.”
In 1729 a negotiation is
entered into with a Mr Stephen Teems for a lease to him of the burgh coal;
and on the 14th March a head court or curia capi-talis of the burgesses is
summoned, at which “ the haill community present give it as their best
advice that the magistrates and town council sett the coal to the best
advantage they can.” No satisfactory arrangement, however, seems ever to
have been accomplished.
The Black Colonel causes a
tremendous disturbance on account of the burning of sea-ware:—
“30 July 1729.
“John Ballingall compeared
before the council and acquainted them that yesternight, about ten, Colonel
Erskine, Peter Reid, Patrick Niccoll, William Buchan, and James M'Kairtan,
his servants, came in a maisterfull and riotous manner, and extinguished the
ware-kilns that were burning, and threw out and scattered the ashes that
were burnt, by which all the kelp that could have been made of the said
kilns is entirely lost, to his great loss and prejudice. . . .
“The council, considering the
affair of the sea-ware, unanimously agree that John Balingall, and the
workpeople employed by him, continue to cut and burn the said sea-ware till
legally interpelled.
“Also, the council
unanimously recommend to the procu-rator-fiscall to prosecute these who were
guilty of the ryot yesternight anent the extinguishing the ware-kilns, &c.
“The council appoint the
thesaurer to pay Robert Dal-gleish three pounds Scots1 for his pains and
expence in going to Edinburgh express with a letter to Mr Boswell anent
Colonel Erskine’s suspension anent the sea-ware, being three days and three
nights.”
So much for the history of
the famous kelp onslaught, headed by Black Colonel Erskine of Car-nock, as
detailed in the burgh minute-books of Culross. Many will be disposed, no
doubt, to regard the whole affair as little more dignified than the
JPohmo-Middinici between Ladies Scotstarvet and 158. sterling.
Newbams, immortalised by
Drummond’s macaronics. But, seriously speaking, it seems to have been a very
wanton and high-handed proceeding on the part of the choleric old gentleman,
who certainly had no right to take the law into his own hands, even though
the smoke of the kelp-kilns went down his throat, offended his nose, and
aggravated his asthmatic tendencies. There is no reason to doubt that the
account of the affair presented in the above day’s entry is in every respect
substantially correct. It may now not be uninteresting to my reader to
peruse the following account either of this or another fracas, as detailed
in Sir H. Moncreiff Wellwood’s ‘ Life of Dr Erskine,’ the Black Colonel’s
grandson, who himself took a prominent part in the affair. Sir Henry assures
us that he received the account of the occurrence from one who was
intimately acquainted with all the parties concerned:—
“During the last ten or
twelve years of Lieutenant-Colonel Erskine’a life, he was occasionally
afflicted with asthma, which he endured with considerable impatience. He had
an attack of this kind when the magistrates of Culross, where he resided,
were burning kelp on the shore immediately below his residence. Imagining
that his complaint was irritated by the smoke of the kelp, he sent
peremptory orders to put out the fires, to which the magistrates were not
disposed to submit. Too much provoked to consider either their rights or his
own, he resolved to extinguish the fires with his own hand. Unable to walk,
he mounted his horse, and made his grandson (the subject of this narrative,
who was then at his house, a youth about the age of fourteen) march before
him along the steep descent of the street of Culross, with his grandfather’s
sword drawn, in his hand a circumstance which, to those who were afterwards
acquainted with the venerable figure of Dr Erskine, must present a very
singular picture.
“The magistrates, not willing
to acquiesce in the Colonel’s encroachment on their privileges, assembled
their retainers, and fairly took him and his grandson prisoners. His passion
had soon sufficiently subsided to enable him to address the magistrates in
the following terms: ‘ This is all nonsense, gentlemen, and we are all in
the wrong. Come along to the inn, and we shall all dine together and forget
this folly/ They accompanied him without hesitation. He treated them with
the best dinner which the inn afforded, and the afternoon was spent in
perfect good-humour and cordiality.”
One cannot help suspecting
that the scene described by Sir H. Moncreiff Wellwood had taken place after
the riot detailed in the minute-book on 30th July 1729. Very likely John
Ballingall, encouraged by the judgment of the magistrates, pursued quietly
his burning of sea-ware and manufacture of kelp. The Colonel became
provoked, and, regardless of law and reason, set out again on a “
colonelling” expedition, like Sir Hudibras, to extinguish the cause of his
disquiet. It is evident that the burgh minutes do not record the same event
as that detailed by Dr Erskine’s biographer, inasmuch as in the former case
the hostile purpose was accomplished; in the latter it was prevented. There
is no reason for doubting the substantial correctness of either account. Yet
in that given by Sir H. Moncreiff Wellwood we may note one or two
inaccuracies. It is perfectly certain that at the time indicated Colonel
Erskine was not residing in Culross Abbey, although he had been originally
infeft in it, seeing that Lady Mary Cochrane had managed successfully, in
opposition to him, to assert her right to the family mansion and surrounding
acres, which for nearly a century afterwards continued to be possessed by
her family. The Colonel was obliged to content himself with the other
so-called “ Palace or Great Lodging ” in the Sand Haven, which had also
belonged to the Earls of Kincardine, and in which he himself had been infeft
without opposition, as the purchaser of their estate. Though I cannot
establish by direct evidence that this was his habitation during the period
of his connection with Culross, yet the voice of persistent tradition has
assigned this dwelling as his residence, and named it after him, “The
Colonel’s Close.” It is situated on the level ground at a short distance
from the sea; and therefore it is quite impossible that Colonel Erskine
could have descended on horseback the steep street of Culross, as he must
have done had he lived in the Abbey or in some quarter of the upper part of
the town. But if, as seems probable, the burning of the kelp took place on
the shore opposite the Playfield between Culross and Duni-marle, the
distance might still be too much for a crippled old man to accomplish on
foot; and he might well, therefore, make the journey on horseback. We must
make allowance, also, for some rhetorical embellishment. Curiously enough,
no further notice is taken in the minute-book of the dispute between the
Colonel and the Culross magistrates. Consequently we may receive the
circumstances detailed in Dr Erakine’s Life with some degree of confidence,
as presenting a true account of the final settlement of the quarrel.
On a loose slip of paper in
the minute-book is the following curious entry:—
“Head Court of the Burgh of
Culross, holden at the Boar Stone, 18th May 1730, by Laurence Johnston and
James Robertson, baillies.
“The head court roll being
called, such as were present gave suit and presence. Some were excused for
lawfull reasones, and those who gave no reasonable excuse their names are as
follows—viz. [follows a list of names].
Then follows, on the same
fragment of paper, a minute of a head court held at Culross 1st October
1730. At the end of the list of absents is the following.
“The baillies fines each of
the above absents in twenty shillings Scots, according to the proclamation.
“John Rolland.”
This slip of paper is
evidently of the same age as the dates which it bears. It is clear, both
from this and another scrap in the minute-book, that attendance at the head
courts of the burgh—whether at the Borestone or the tolbooth—was no
formality or fiction, but was rigidly expected from the burgesses under the
pain of fine and imprisonment.
The Borestone is a stone on
the very limit of the burgh moor at its western extremity, near the spot
where the kennels of Tulliallan Castle now stand. It was always the goal of
the municipal expedition on the marches day; and the inhabitants of the
neighbouring town of Kincardine used regularly on that occasion to indulge
in the practical joke of visiting the Borestone before the Culross cavalcade
arrived, and depositing thereon a quantity of leeks. For some reason or
other not explained, but probably from the circumstance that Culross was
renowned for its leeks and other garden-produce, the epithet of a “ Culross
Leek ” was an old local taunt applied to any one belonging to the burgh. The
word “ borestone ” denotes the “ boundary stone,” and is still used in this
sense in the New Forest in Hampshire, where it is called a “ bowerstone,” as
we are informed by Mr Wise in his ‘ History and Scenery of the New Forest.’
This meeting of the Culross community at the Borestone is an example of
those open-air assemblies which in ancient times were held in special
localities set apart for the purpose, for the enactment and promulgation of
laws. An instance of it still exists in the custom observed in the Isle of
Man, where all laws passed by the Parliament of the island are promulgated
to the lieges at the Tynwald Hill; and another remained till the middle of
last century, in the holding of the Stannary Parlia-liaments on the summit
of Crockem Tor, Devonshire, where the deputies, seated on granite blocks,
discussed, amid the mists and drizzle of Dartmoor, the laws and regulations
for the working of the tin-mines.
In July 1730 an Act of the
General Convention of Royal Burghs is received by the town council of
Culross, and ordered to be recorded. It is rather an interesting document,
being essentially a denunciation of smuggling—or, as it is therein
expressed, “the clandestine importation and open and excessive consumption
of brandy within Scotland.” It states “that great sums of money are yearly
exported for purchasing this unnecessary commodity, which, being run without
payment of duty, is sold cheaper than spirits distilled in Scotland can be
afforded for, and is therefore universally used, to the total discouragement
of the distillery at home, and to the lessening the price of the grain of
this country, which, were it manufactured and used in spirits, might fully
supply the room of brandy and all other foreign spirits, and save so great
an expense of money to the nation.” The Scottish burghs are accordingly
earnestly recommended to do all in their power to remedy this state of
matters, and report to the Committee of the Convention what measures they
shall have devised for this purpose, and the success that may have attended
their efforts in the way of repression.
The evil thus complained of
had developed itself largely since the union of the kingdoms, in consequence
of the imposition, on foreign liquors and commodities, of duties which
hitherto had been comparatively unknown in Scotland. There was also a strong
spirit of opposition to every legislative measure proceeding from England.
All this, combined with a general laxity of supervision on the part of the
authorities, had produced an immense amount of smuggling traffic between
Scotland and the Continent, and more especially with the Low Countries. The
line of small burghs extending along the northern shore of the Firth of
Forth from Culross to Crail, were particularly notorious for their addiction
to the contraband trade, and stood in no little need of the admonition
issued by the General Convention of Burghs. Men of the greatest outward
respectability did not scruple to participate in this trade in smuggled, or,
as they were termed, “run” goods; and the surveillance exercised by
Government seems never to have been of a very thorough or effectual kind. As
a business carried on methodically and on an extensive scale, smuggling has
long become, with some occasional exceptions, wholly extinct.
A panic regarding mad dogs
having arisen, the Culrosa magistrates issue the following sweeping and
peremptory
“Act anent Killing Dogs.
"23 February 1733.
“The said day,*it being
represented that there has been some wood1 dogs
going through the town, and that it is a great danger to suffer any dogs
within the town to live, the council by plurality of votes appoint, enact,
and ordain the hftill dogs and bicks within the town to be put to death, and
that against the morrow at two of the clock in the afternoon, under the
penalty of ten shillings sterling in case of none-performance against the
time foresaid, and that by and attour performance, and that to be done by
the persons themselves or their order.”
Whether or not this order was
rigidly carried out, there is no evidence to show.
The town having failed in its
negotiations for letting the coal in the burgh territory, it was resolved
about this time to have a trial and search instituted to ascertain the
presence of that commodity in the common moor of Culross. Contributions
towards this object were solicited from the different corporations, and a
great deal of money seems to have been pro-fitlessly expended. No
commensurate success, however, was achieved. A few years subsequently
extensive grants of the moor were made in feu to the Dundonald family, in
which the property of the minerals was included. As regards those within the
burgh territory proper, it was ultimately taken in lease by the Earl of
Dundonald, who covenanted to pay therefor the yearly rent of five pounds
sterling —which, however, was only to be exigible when he should have
actually commenced to work the minerals. This right, after remaining for
nearly a hundred years in abeyance, was recently claimed by his lordship’s
grandson—the late Earl of Dundonald—and the claim admitted by the burgh of
Culross. No actual working has, however, yet taken place.
On 6th November 1733 a letter
was received by the magistrates and town council from Mr Colville of
Ochiltree, heritable bailie of the regality of Culross, who now urged his
right of criminal jurisdiction over the burgh. He deprecates any wish to
quarrel with the latter or its rulers, but refers to an alleged decision of
the Court of Session in 1663 on this question, in favour of an ancestor of
his—a Lord Colville of Ochiltree—and proposes that the matter in dispute he
referred to the arbitration of two lawyers. The Culross town council resolve
to take the opinion of Mr Boswell, advocate, on the subject—and till that is
obtained, defer sending any reply to Mr Colville.
The writer of this letter, Mr
Robert Colville, or, as he was generally termed, Mr Robert Ayton Colville of
Craigflower, was the son of Sir John Ayton, who had married a sister of
Robert, third and last Lord Colville of Ochiltree. This Lord Colville dying
without issue, the representation of the family, as regarded inheritance,
devolved on the son of his sister, Lady Ayton, who assumed the name of
Colville ; but the baronage could only be taken up by males, and no one has
ever succeeded in making good his claim to it up to the present day. Robert
Ayton Colville married Janet Wedderbum, a daughter of Sir Peter Wedderbum of
Gosford; and at a subsequent period there was another intermarriage of the
representatives of the Colville and Wedderbum families, from which the
present Mr Colville of Craigflower is descended. The heritable jurisdiction
of the regality of Culross, which had belonged to the Lords Colville of
Ochiltree, became vested in Mr Robert Colville as their representative; and
he now sought to enforce his claims on the burgh, which, as we have already
seen, had been already made—and not altogether unsuccessfully—by his
predecessors. On the present occasion the magistrates endeavoured to
temporise, and despatched a conciliatory answer to Mr Colville’s letter, in
which, without absolutely repudiating his claim, they deprecate the
proceedings of his bailies in attempting to hold regality courts within the
limits of the burgh. The dispute never seems to have been formally adjusted,
and all necessity for a settlement was obviated a few years afterwards by
the Act of 1748, which abolished heritable jurisdictions.
In the following minute of
27th December 1733 we have a reference to an extraordinarily high tide at
Culross. I am strongly inclined to think it must be the same event which I
have heard a lady, now deceased, speak of as having been related to her by
her mother (who died nearly twenty years ago at the age of ninety); and she,
again, had heard it from her mother. The -only special circumstance that I
remember about the story is, that the people in Culross were wading
knee-deep in water:—
“It being represented by the
baillies that there being considerable breatches made by the late
extraordinar tyd and storm upon the long peer, highway at the playfield, and
upon the wall opposite to Mr Sheddon's yeard dyck which defends the High
Street from the storm, and that the repairing therof could not admit delay:
Therefor they have ordered to mend these breatches in pairt, and that the
repair is still going on. The council approve of the baillies conduct in the
said matter, and authorizes the baillies to proceed to do what’s absolutely
necessar for preventing fardar breatches.”
Some members of council are
taken to task for remissness in attendance at church:—
“23 April 1734
“The council, considering
that a great pairt of the council do not frequent and keip the council seat
on the Lord’s Day, to the dishonour of the town: Therefore they ratify all
former Acts theranent, and of new enact that the haill council (except such
as have been baillies and' the present Dean of Gild) keep and frequent the
said seat each Lord’s Day they come to kirk, under the penalty of six
shilling Scots for each transgression, with their best equipage, and
particularly hats; and that they have the same equipage when they attend the
council”
On 23d June 1735 there occurs
the following melancholy account of • profitless expenditure in searching
for coal:—
“The council appointed last
council day for auditing the accounts anent the tryle of the coal report.
That they met and revised the said accounts, and found the charge extends to
one hundred and fifty-two pound eight shilling and ten-pennies Scots money,
and the discharge to one hundred and fifty-one pound fourteen shilling money
foresaid; but remark that there are three articles of the discharge—one for
five pound eleven shilling, one other for twelve shilling, and the third for
twenty pound thirteen shilling—for which there is no voucher. Secondly, that
there is twenty-six pound ten shilling sixpennies of said discharge expended
upon a new tryle after the tryle on the old sink was given over. Thirdly,
that the haill materials are rouped and sold and included in the charge,
except the winless roape and three cutt of deals, which are a part of the
discharge. The council appoint the managers to attend the next council day
and to answer the remarks.”
With the above the series of
extracts from the burgh records of Culross may terminate. From this date
downwards the entries are absolutely devoid of interest for the general
reader. |
