|
SCOTLAND has long been
pre-eminent as the “Land o’ Cakes ”—an epithet which, if Bums did not coin,
he has certainly rendered immortal, by the opening lines in his elegy on
Captain Grose:—
“Hear, Land o’ Cakes, and
brither Scots,
Frae Maidenkirk to John o’ Groat’s.”
For, up to comparatively
recent times, the great “staff of life” in Caledonia was oatmeal, whether in
the form of cakes, porridge, or brose—the last being the simplest
preparation, as it merely involved the pouring of boiling water on the raw
material. Though wheaten bread was always known, it was generally regarded
as a luxury, only to be partaken of on special occasions; whilst the baker,
as a public artist and purveyor, was a much less important personage than he
is now—most households being, to a large extent, quite independent of his
services. Amid all ranks, oatcakes, barley-bannocks, and occasionally fiour-scones,
were articles of universal consumption, and a regular baking of these
commonly took place every week. It will readily be comprehended that this
must have formed an important domestic institution, and that every house
must have been provided with the proper implements for accomplishing this
work. Of these the girdle, [Dr Jamieson derives this word from the ancient
Swedish grind, the shovel used for the oven—or the verb graedda, to bake.]
or circular iron plate, for toasting cakes over the fire, was the most
necessary, and, as such, constituted a requisite in every Scottish family—as
indispensable as the broth-pot or the washing-tub. And for many long years
the only source of supply of so necessary a utensil was the town of Culross,
which held a monopoly of the manufacture of girdles. Sir Walter Scott puts
into the mouth of Madge Wildfire, in the ‘ Heart of Mid-Lothian,’ the
following reference to it:—
“The hammermen of Edinburgh
are, to my mind, afore the world for making stancheons, ring-bolts,
fetter-bolts, bars, and locks. And they arena that bad at girdles for
carcakes neither, though the Cu’ross hammermen have the gree for that My
mother had ance a bonny Cu’ross girdle, and I thought to have baked carcakes
on it for my puir wean that’s dead and gane nae fair way."
Another evidence of the
celebrity of the manufacture is to be found in the threat which, it is said,
an angry mother would sometimes hold over a troublesome child: “ If ye dinna
behave yoursel’ better, I’ll gar your lugs ring like a Culross girdle! ”
The merit of having invented
girdles was claimed by the girdlesmiths of Culross; and though this is
perhaps questionable, there was certainly an old tradition that they had
been made there from time immemorial—and we have no record of their having
been made, to any extent at least, in any other locality. There was plenty
of ironstone in the surrounding country for supplying the necessary
material. And it is generally reported that one of the requisites with which
King Robert Bruce ordered his soldiers to be provided, in their forays into
England, was an iron plate for toasting cakes, though the old song speaks
only of oatmeal and brose:—
“Then our sodgers, arrayed in
their kilts and short hose,
With their bonnets and belts, which their dress did compose,
And a bag o’ aitmeal on their backs to mak brose.
For it’s O the kail brose o’ auld Scotland!
And O the auld Scottish kail brose! ”
We know that King Robert
encamped with his army for a while at Culross, in anticipation of a
threatened invasion from England; and it is very possible, indeed, that the
iron plates or girdles above-mentioned may have been procured for the
troops, from this quarter.
Neither in the erection of
Culross into a burgh of barony in 1490 under Abbot Hog, nor in its
subsequent elevation to the rank of a royal burgh, is there any mention of
the girdlemakers or their craft,— the corporation in which they were really
included, though not specially referred to by name, being that of the fabri
or smiths. The earliest evidence which I have been able to find regarding
them is a document preserved in the girdlesmiths’ box, which, with the other
papers therein contained, is now in the possession of Mr W. K. Penney,
Culross. It is a notarial instrument, ratifying an agreement among the
“craftis mene of smythes of the toune of Culrois, convenit altogether, with
ane consent and assent, for the utilitie, weill, and profeit of us and our
craft, and the commoun weill of us all,” and is executed at the monastery of
Culross on 12th May 1549, in the fourteenth year of the pontificate of Pope
Paul III. The chief article of contract is to the effect that no forge shall
be erected by the servant or apprentice of any craftsman till he be judged
qualified by the corporation to carry on the trade, and that he shall have
sufficient means of his own without being necessitated to borrow on credit.
It is also agreed “ that naine of us sail use this craft of ours in na toune
nor place of Scotland, bot allenarlie in the toune of Culrois, quhair it hes
bein ay usit of befor.” The penalty to be incurred by any contravener of the
articles of agreement is, for the first offence, to be reduced from the rank
of a master to that of a servant for one year, or to pay a fine of twenty
merks Scots; for a second offence, the delinquent is to be debarred from
exercising his craft for three years; and for a third, he is to be expelled
from the corporation. One of the parties to the contract is a certain
“Duncane Prymrois,”—doubtless the same as the “ Duncan Primrose, burgess of
Colrois,” father of Gilbert Primrose, surgeon to James VI., and direct
ancestor of the present Earl of Rosebery.
There can be little question,
I think, but that the art of girdlemaking is included in the “ craft ” above
referred to, though it is not expressly named; and indeed the great
probability is, that it formed the main subject of the above provisions.
Though the smiths of Culross seem always to have regarded themselves as
possessing a “vested interest” in a prescriptive right to the exclusive
manufacture of girdles, it is not till the end of the sixteenth century that
we find this monopoly formally recognised. Here is the famous letter of King
James VI. reviving rather than establishing that privilege, which, for
nearly a hundred and fifty years to come, was to make Culross a household
word throughout the length and breadth of Scotland:—
“HEX.
“My Lobdis and Bakonib,
Provost and Bailleis of oub
Bruchs,—
“Foraomeikill as we are
credible informitt be the girdelmakers, inhabitants within the bruch of
Culross, that thair is sindrie men vilipendis and usurpis thair priviledges,
and without all kynd of ordoure intromitts thame selfs with the said craft,
and wyrkis in that craft without authorizing of the remanent brethreine
bodie of the craft and thair admissioun, as thai aucht to have, according to
thair auld priviledges: Quhairfoir it is oure will, and we command yow, that
in all tymes heirefter ye concur, fortifie, and assist the frie men of the
girdelmaker craft within our said bruch in all thingis according to thair
usuall and antient priviledge, swa that na persone nor personis tak upoun
hand to work any of the said girdills, except thai be lawfullie admittit and
authorizit be the haill bodie of that craft to that effect; and ye, and ilk
ane of yow, will answer to us upoun yor obedience at yoT uttermost chtdrge
and perill, and under all hiest pane and chairgis that efter may follow. Be
thir presentis, gevin under o' signet and subscryvit with oure hand at
Halyrudhous the xxviii day of November, and of or regince the xxxiii yeir,
1599.
“James R”
It appears from a statement
contained in a written pleading given into Court by the girdlesmiths of
Culross, in a lawsuit with the smiths of Low Valleyfield in the latter half
of the seventeenth century, that King James VI. had, in the year 1599, paid
a visit to Culross, and there witnessed the process of girdle-making.
Doubtless he must often have been there when engaged in his hunting
expeditions in the neighbourhood of Dunfermline, which, during his occupancy
of the Scottish throne, seems to have been his favourite residence. And as
both Edward Bruce, Lord Kinloss, and his no less distinguished brother Sir
George, were natives of the parish of Culross, and esteemed friends of King
James, there can be little doubt of the monarch often finding his way to the
little monastery town, which had so many pleasant surroundings. Sir George
Bruce had been very active at this period, as we learn from the burgh
records, in procuring a charter from his Majesty erecting Culross into a
royal burgh; and it is highly probable, considering the important stake he
had in the prosperity of the place, that both his influence and that of his
brother Lord Kinloss were employed in obtaining a concession of such a
valuable additional privilege as the girdle monopoly. It is true the grant
could scarcely be considered a constitutional one, being merely bestowed by
the fiat of royalty; but in that age such an objection had little force,
when the granting, of monopolies was a frequent and recognised method with
sovereigns of gratifying a favourite without the necessity of bestowing a
grant of lands or paying down a sum of money.
From the pleadings in the
lawsuit above referred to, it seems dear that there was really an ancient
gift to the smiths of Culross of the exdusive privilege of making girdles;
but at what time or by what sovereign it was granted, is not stated. It is
alleged, however, that the original deed of gift, and other evidents
connected with it, were lost at the storming of Dundee,—an event which took
place on two occasions during the seventeenth century, first under Montrose
in 1645, and then under Monk in 1651—though the loss of the Culross
documents is most probably to be referred to the latter of these
occurrences. The letter of King James is therefore only to be regarded as a
rider to or corroboration of a charter or deed of gift already in existence,
and obtained from him to secure the privileges and stimulate the trade of
the young and rising royal burgh.
In common with the coal and
salt trades, the girdlemaking craft seems to have shared largely in the
general prosperity which marks the condition of Culross during the reigns of
James and Charles I.,— from the dissolution of the monasteries, in short, to
the commencement of the great Civil War. It did not, however, as already
stated, form a corporation of itself, but it constituted the principal and
most influential class in the general corporation of smiths or hammermen.
This last included several trades, such as blacksmiths, cutlers, saddlers,
and one or two others; but though each one of these was included under the
general denomination of smiths, and had a right to all the privileges,
including that of being elected to any office belonging to the craft, it was
only the girdlesmiths who attained to the dignity of forming a separate and
independent class, or, as one of the Acts of the corporation expresses it,
of being “ of ane sufficient number and corram ” [quorum]. Whilst the other
“workers of iron” within the community of hammermen were free to engage in
any branch of the trade except girdlemaking, the professors of the
last-named craft were debarred strictly, by their own rules, from engaging
in any other, and exercised a rigid surveillance in excluding the
non-privileged members of the fraternity of smiths from any participation in
the special employment and rights secured by royal grant to the girdlesmiths
as a monopoly.
Whilst, then, the
girdlesmiths exercised what might be termed an imperiwm in imperio, the
record of their proceedings is to a considerable extent mixed up with that
of the community of smiths, and it becomes somewhat difficult to remember
and trace out the distinction. It was they, certainly, that gave the general
tone to the corporation, securing for it the precedence over the other
crafts of
Culross on all occasions,
festive or otherwise; and we shall not greatly err, in discussing any matter
in which the smiths are concerned, in regarding it as chiefly connected with
the girdlemakers and their vocation.
Along with documents of
various kinds relating to the craft, the girdlesmiths’ box already referred
to contains two minute-books recording the transactions of the corporation.
One of these is a small quarto volume, containing the earlier entries, which
are scattered over its pages very much in random fashion, as if they had
been written down at haphazard, wherever a blank sheet of paper presented
itself. Generally, however, they may be stated as extending over a century,
from 1634 to 1733. The other is a folio volume, containing the entries from
the latter date to 1851, when the ancient corporation of the Culross
hammermen draws its last breath in the election of William Brand to the
office of deacon. Independent of its contents, its boards possess an
interest as having apparently belonged to some old volume in the library of
the monastery of Culross, and been afterwards degraded into enclosing the
records of a heretical corporation. They have engraved in their centre a
design representing the angels’ salutation to the Virgin, with the motto on
the border, “Ave Maria . . . Domintjs tecum ...” These four words are the
only ones legible. The word between “Maria” and “Dominus” looks like “plena”
or “pura,” and that following “tecum” may be “quies.” Above and below this
has been subsequently stamped on one of the boards, “God prosper the
Hammermen of Colros;” and on the other board, “A Book for the Hammermen of
Colros.”
At the commencement of the
earlier minute-book of the girdlesmiths is the following quotation from the
Book of Job, “Seke unto the Lord betymes, and make known thy supplication to
the Almighty; thogh thy beginnings be smal, yet thy latter end shall
greatlie increase.” This pious aspiration can hardly be said to have been
realised in the case of the Culross hammermen, since whatever might be the
extent of their beginnings, their prosperity had, in common with that of the
burgh in general, reached about this period (1634) its zenith. Shortly
afterwards, with the commencement of the Civil War, it experienced a
decline, which went gradually onwards, and by the middle of the last century
the glory of the craft had come to an end. In June 1634 the craftsmen
obtained from the kirk-session permission to erect at their own expense “ane
loft at the west end of the kirk, to belong to the said craft and their
successors, as craft seat proper, and belonging to them in all time coming.”
Persons still living remember the smiths’ loft in the situation here
indicated in the church, prior to the alterations in 1824, with the trade
device of the crown and hammer painted on the front panel of the gallery. As
in the case of the other corporations, the attendance of the members was
expected every Sunday, and rigidly enforced both by their own laws and those
of the Church. At this time there were sixteen master-smiths in Culross—a
strange contrast to the state of things at the present day, when there is
not one forge within the burgh, and only two smithies in the whole parish,
one at Shiresmill and the other at Balgownie Mains.
With the dignity of acquiring
a seat or loft in the church, the smiths seem to have bethought themselves
of purchasing, on behalf of the corporation, a fine velvet mortcloth, which
they lent out on the occasion of funerals both to their own members and the
public in general, on payment of certain charges. It appears to have been
rather a profitable investment for the corporation, but brought them at the
same time into collision with the kirk-session, who found their own fees
diminished in consequence of the smiths’ mortcloth or pall competing for
public patronage with that belonging to the parish. By an edict of theirs,
accordingly, issued in 1646, just after the termination of the visitation of
the plague, it is enacted that any parishioner using the smiths’ mortcloth
shall pay to the kirk-session also the same charges that he would have been
liable in had he been furnished with the use of the parish mortcloth. This
Act was passed during the palmy days of Presbytery, when the authority of
kirk-sessions was at its highest. How far it was enforced, there is no
evidence to show; but apparently it had soon fallen into abeyance, as after
the Restoration we find in the smiths’ minute-book, under the date of
Michaelmas 1669, the following entry:—
“Anent the mortcloth.
“The day forsaid Alexr.
Halliday ia ordained to keep the mortcloth, and to lend the same to who
shall desyre the same, and receave the mony therof till compt making.”
A touching circumstance in
connection with the girdlemakers is to be found in reference to the last
visitation of the plague in Scotland, in 1645. We have already seen some
account of the pestilence in the records of the kirk-session, and how it was
commonly the practice to inter the bodies of the victims in lonely and
remote places away from the churchyard. Culross Muir, then unplanted and
unenclosed, seems to have been used for this purpose, among other
localities. As the wanderer traverses the glades of Tulliallan forest, which
now covers a large portion of the moor, he will be not a little startled, in
the region of the wood adjoining the Walls Cottages or Half-Way House, to
come upon an ancient tombstone of the cromlech or through-stane type. The
surroundings have all the weird-like aspect described in Edgar Allan Poe’s
poem of “Ulalume.” The inscription reads as follows:—
“Here lyes Eobert, Agnes,
Jeane, Baida, children was to ICer bvrges of Cvlros,
[who departed] af this Lyf in
the Yisetaseon 24 Septr. Ano 1645.”
In the centre of the stone is
a shield or scutcheon, and below this a representation of the crown and
hammer, the insignia of the girdlesmiths. The letters “er” before “burges of
Cvlros” are doubtless the final syllable of the word “girdlemaker.” We know
that at this period there was in Culross a girdlesmith of the name of James
Baid, Bade, or Bald (for in all these ways the name is spelled, the last
having become ultimately the proper or settled orthography), who in the
years 1653 and 1657 was, we learn from the minute-book, chosen deacon of the
corporation. The antiquarian will be interested in this record of a bygone
age, whilst to every one the simple inscription tells its own pathetic tale
of the three children, a brother and sisters, who were cut off by the great
pestilence, and found in the lonely moor a grave which, like that of the “
Babes in the Wood,” is now sprinkled with leaves, whilst the robin-redbreast
and his mates carol their song from the overshadowing trees.
The laws made by the
girdlesmiths for the regulation of the affairs of their craft are in most
respects similar to those of other corporations, with the addition of a few
specialties arising from their peculiar condition and privileges. One of
these was the privilege of having a deacon and boxmaster of their own; but
from reasons of convenience this seems to have been generally waived, and
the right of nominating as well as being elected as office-bearers was by
common agreement conceded to and shared with the whole corporation of
hammermen, of which the girdlesmiths formed the principal and most
influential class. They adhered, however, most rigidly to the special rights
secured to them by the monopoly ; and whilst strangers or persons who had
not served an apprenticeship within the burgh might, on payment of certain
fees, be received as freemen, and allowed to practise all the ordinary
branches of smith-work, the admission to the girdlemaking craft was strictly
confined to such as had served an apprenticeship of five years to a
girdlesmith in Culross, and after that a period of three years as a
journeyman. Eight years must thus elapse before any one could attain to the
rank of a master—though a special exemption was made in favour of an
apprentice who at the end of his time had married the daughter of a freeman
belonging to the same craft, and who thus was entitled to commence forthwith
as a master without the necessity of any further service.
When an indenture was signed
between a master and his apprentice, the latter had to be presented to the
trade at their first quarterly meeting thereafter; the indenture was
deposited in the box, the names of the parties duly recorded, and the sum of
£3 Scots paid by the apprentice “ for his prentise pitcher to the trade.” He
was taken bound to serve his master faithfully by day and night; to eschew
all idleness, loose company, and practice of unlawful games; and to attend
the church regularly every Sabbath. His master received an apprentice fee
(generally about £40 Scots), and engaged himself in return to maintain his
apprentice at bed and board, and instruct him in his calling to the utmost
of his power. On the expiry of his period of service the apprentice was
entitled to be admitted as freeman, but was first obliged to produce
evidence of his handicraft skill by making a girdle in the presence of a
committee of masters. This ordeal having been satisfactorily passed through,
he had to treat the whole corporation to the “ speaking pitcher,” or else
pay the sum of £4 Scots, after which he had to pay a further sum of £4 Scots
in name of entry-money. Lastly, before being admitted as freeman, he had “to
provyde his denner, suficientlie furnished with meate and drink of severall
sorts, acording as he sail be injoyned by the deacone, or els to pay downe
to the box the soume of ten pund Scots, acording as he sail be ordained.” He
had also, when he Bet up for himself as a master, to satisfy the craft that
he was “ wordie of fifty punds of his awine ” before he could be permitted
to “kindell his fyre” or “take up ane booth.”
Such, in its general
features, was the novitiate of a girdlesmith of Culross, though
modifications seem to have been introduced from time to time, along with
relaxations, more especially in later days, from the strict severity of the
rules. One special exception had always been made in favour of a
girdlesmith’s widow, who was allowed to carry on the business of her
deceased husband—with this provision, however, that at least her foreman or
head smith should have served a regular apprenticeship to the trade within
the burgh.
The trades-union principle of
restricting production seems to have been fully acted on by the Culross
girdlesmiths:—
“1 October 1639.
“It is ordained by the
deacone and the brethren of craft that no girdelmaker sal make of twentie-sax
inch girdles in ane day, but two fitit girdilla; [Girdles provided with
feet] mair of twentie-four inch girdils, two fitit girdils; mair of littel
girdils, four unfited: nnder the paine of sax pund, and that to be precislie
liftet without farder delay.”
The following both
illustrates the same principle and gives some information regarding the hour
for beginning work in Culross in the seventeenth century. It is the first
time I have heard of a fine exacted for early rising:—
“9 January 1660.
“The smithe craft of Culross
being wholly meet together upon the fornamed day, and altogether consent for
to hold themselves and ther servants to rise no sooner than fyve, or at
soonest foure hours of the morning, under the penaltie of twenty shillings
Scots to the master, and 12s. for ilk ane of the servants—and that to be
keepit up of the first of ther wages.”
My reader may now be curious
to have some account of the process of girdlemaking, the practice of which
was fenced in by so many restrictions. This I am enabled to furnish from the
MS. lectures of the late Rev. William Stephen on the ‘ Antiquities of
Culross ’:—
“There is said to have been
two modes. The master-smith chose a lump or mass of iron such a size as he
judged sufficient to make the girdle intended. He himself handled the tongs,
and was assisted by two or more apprentices or servants, who used the
hammers, it being contrary to Act of trade for any but a master to use the
tongs, the apprentice or servant only using the hammer, which required less
skill and more strength. The iron, when duly
softened by the heat of the fire, was beaten out by the hammermen, called
also strikers, the master turning it on the anvil with the tongs; and this
process of heating and beating was con-tinned till the requisite thinness
and size was obtained. The other mode was this: The smith, using a small
piece of iron, began at the centre, called the crown. He then took a thin
bar of two inches or so in breadth, and of a convenient length, the outer
edge of which was broader than the inner, like a knife; and the centre piece
and the bar being continually heated in the fire and beaten, were welded or
united into one mass by the hammer. This mode required only one smith. The
girdle, however, was not yet finished according to either mode. Much labour
was needed to smooth the rough plate by means of a hammer of a peculiar
form; and we are told the smoothing and tempering called into requisition
the chief care of the craftsman, and required his highest skill. The handle,
which was welded to the plate, was of two kinds. It either projected from
the girdle in the same plane—which was the kind used by the Culross
people—or it formed a bow across it; and some of the bows had a swivel for
turning the girdle, which was the variety preferred by the Perth people.
Another qualification of a good girdle was, it must be well footed. This
requisite I did not understand until I saw in possession of Mrs-an old
girdle with four feet (two on each side), for supporting it on the hoba.
Modern girdles have no feet. . . . Girdles were made both in Culross and
Valleyfield in the end of last century; and I find that some half-dozen
persons now living [1869] remember having seen the process of girdlemaking.
. . . There are few girdles now to be found in Culross. I have only found
four, and two in Low Valleyfield. One of the latter, which was broken, had a
bow and swiveL Two in Culross are in good preservation; one especially is a
genuine old specimen, with the brand.”
The following document,
preserved in the girdle-smiths’ box, may be quoted here as exhibiting the
different qualities and prices of the Culross girdles. It is dated at Perth,
the 27th November 1668, and is a contract between John Wilson, Dean of Guild
of that burgh, and certain merchants subscribing with him, on the one
hand—and John Christie, one of the girdlemakers of Culross, as representing
and commissioned by the corporation, on the other. By this agreement the
said John Christie binds and obliges himself and the other girdlemakers of
Culross
“To furnish the said John
Wilsone, Deane of Gild, and remanent merchants of the said burgh of Perth,
under-subscryvers, with good and sufficient girdles of all syses that they
or either of them shall happine to requyre; and that they shall be weill
footed and dressed every way, and that before their transportation from
Culros they shall be sichtit by sworne men of the said incorporatione, and
approven to be sufficient, and thereftir receave their stamp or seall upon
every ane of them, being the crowne and hammer, with the name of the toune
Culros about the same; and that they shall be of sufficient breadth—that is
to say, the first syse, commonly callit the narrow girdles, to be of measor
upon the elwand at least half ane elne wanting ane inch; and the second syse,
commonly callit broad girdles, to be of measor upon the ellwand half ane
elne, and half ane quarter wanting ane inch, at least; and the third syse,
commonlie callit twenty-six inch girdles, to be of measor upon the ellwand
half ane elne, half ane quarter, and ane inch, at least: and that the said
John Wilsone, Deane of Gild, and remanent merchants foresaids, shall be
answered and obeyed of the samene in tyme coming, upon fourteine dayes
advert-ishment to be made be them or either of them to the said John
Chrystie and remanent members of the said incor-poratione, provyding they be
no feuer in number sent for than ane load 2 at once. For the whilks causes
the said John Wilsone, Deane of Gild, and with him the remanent merchants of
the said burgh of Perth, under-subscryvers, binds and obleisses them, ilk
ane of them for their owne pairttis, to mak good and thankfull payment to
the said John Chrystie, or any other member of the said incorporatione from
whom they shall receave any of the forsaids girdles, of the sowmes of monie
following,—viz., for the first syse, the peice therof twenty-six shilling
eight pennies Scots money; for the second syse, the peice therof fourtie-six
shilling eight pennies; and for the third syse, the peice therof thrie punds
thrie shilling four pennies. And siclyke shall only furnish and serve
themselves with those girdles which shall happine to be made be the members
of the said incorporatione of the girdlemakers att Culros, and which shall
have their seall and stampt upon them as said is, other-wayes to pay to them
thryse alsemuch as the pryce of any girdle they shall happine to buy or sell
heirefter not swa bocht and stampt (except what is presently in their
custodie allenarly). And farder, it is hereby declared, with consent of both
parties contracters, that this present agreement is to stand swa lang as the
pryce of the stone of iron beis att or below threttie-twa shilling money
forsaid; and if the samene beis deirer, the augmentatione of the piyces of
the forsaids girdles to be in the merchants’ discretione. And in lyk manner,
in cais it shall happine the said John Wilsone, Dean of Gild, and remanent
merchants foresaids, or either of them, to be refused or denyed of the saids
girdles from the said John Chrystie or the members of his said
incor-poratione, upon the pryces forsaids and advertishment above written,
the deacone of the samene being acquainted therewith, it is hereby provydid
that it sail be leisome to them to buy their girdles whair they pleas,
notwithstanding of this present contract.”
A similar contract with
Glasgow merchants, bnt containing terms a little more favourable as regards
prices, is dated 9th December 1668, and also preserved in the box.
In connection with Robert
Blaw, one of the girdlesmiths after-mentioned, a curious circumstance is
recorded in the minutes of the Guildry of Culross, under the date of 19th
September 1667. His forge adjoined the house of no less a personage than
Alexander, second Earl of Kincardine, who probably at that period still
occupied the family mansion of the Bruces, known in later times as “the
Coloners Close,” but in which the Kincardine family seem to have resided for
a number of years before removing to the splendid abode of the Abbey. Such a
proximity gives a curious idea of the simplicity of the times, when the
clouted shoe could be allowed to come so near the courtier as to gall his
kibe. The girdlesmith’s fire was breaking through into the nobleman’s
premises, to the imminent danger of the latter. He is first fined £2 Scots;
and then, proving contumacious, has an additional fine of £20 Scots imposed,
with an order to build up within twenty-four hours the breach which he had
made in the mutual wall.
There is a document preserved
in the girdlesmiths’ box which contains some details regarding the
quantities of girdles made in Culross during a period which may be roughly
stated as extending over nearly seventeen months, from the commencement of
1674 to the middle of 1675. Unfortunately it is only a scroll, and is not
very clearly or distinctly expressed, seeing that in some parts it gives a
regular list of the girdles made—as seems to have been taken every week—and
in others merely summarises without stating particulars. Each account
commences on 24th January 1674, and terminates in May 1675, but on different
days of that month. As the document comprises only the names of six smiths,
it cannot probably be said to exhibit a statement of all the girdles made in
Culross during the period just mentioned, but it enables us to form some
general idea of the extent of the manufacture, and also of the quantities
which an individual maker would turn out from his forge within a given time.
I have accordingly endeavoured, in the following table, to present an
abstract of the contents of the “scrole.” In the case of the first
account—that of William Blaw—a distinct statement is furnished in the
original of the different qualities, according to the trade nomenclature, of
116 26-inch, 185 broad, and 364 narrow girdles, composing in all an
aggregate of 665.
But in all the others this
classification is only partially made. The amount of stamp-money levied by
the trade for its general benefit, at the uniform rate of a halfpenny
sterling, or 6d. Scots, on each girdle, is in all cases given :—
The stamping of the girdles
with the device of the crown and hammer and the name “Culross” was an
indispensable ceremony before they could be offered for sale. Certain
members of the craft called “visitors” were appointed in rotation to examine
the girdles made, and when satisfied as to their sufficiency, to impress the
stamp. The “bawbee fee" levied on this occasion, must have formed of itself
a respectable revenue to the corporation.
Though the girdlesmiths seem
to have adhered very strictly for the most part to their regulation
excluding all from the privileges of the craft who had not served a regular
apprenticeship to it, they nevertheless appear occasionally to have relaxed
this role. We accordingly find them in 1666 admitting John Haliday,
blacksmith, and deacon in general of the hammermen, with Robert Sands, also
blacksmith, to the full liberty and privilege of exercising the girdlemaking
trade, in addition to their other occupations. It does not appear whether
any consideration was given by Haliday for acquiring this right, but the
minute-book shows that Sands paid for his privilege the sum of £100 Scots.
Besides the three
descriptions of girdles already mentioned, there seems to have been another
which constituted an illicit branch of manufacture, and forms the subject of
the entry quoted below. What the term '*callope girdles” means, I have not
yet been able to discover; and it is not to be found in Jamieson’s
Dictionary. Can it be a corruption of “scallop,” as denoting a small
shell-shaped girdle?
“20 Jany. 1671.
“Act adicionall conskrning the
Discharging of making of Callope Girdills
“We, the incorporatione
forsaid, having taken to our con-sideratione the greate prejudice that dooth
daylie aryse to our calling throw the making of callope girdils, heath
therfor acted and ordained, and be thir presents acts and ordains, that in
no tyme coming any of the members of this incorporatione nor our prentises
sail make any of the forsaid callope girdils, nor no girdils of any lesser
syze than nyntine inches, comonly called narow girdels, excepe they be to
gifte to a freind, and mead with libertie from the deacone; and that under
the paine of fourtie shiling Scots for every feallie, to be uplifted and
applied to the use of the trade.”
A rigid discipline was
exercised by the girdlemakers over such of their members as were
contumacious in the way of refusing obedience to the laws of the trade, of
non-payment of the fines imposed on them, or using disrespectful language
towards the deacon and officers. In case of any transgression, the offenders
were liable “ to be discharged of their worke by stryking out of thair teu
iyron, and thair other workloums to be disposed upon our pleasour, conforme
to the ancient custom of this incorporation.” That is to say, the nozzle or
tube of their forge-bellows was to be taken out, and their tools to be
carried away—a species of legalised “ rattening,” so familiar in the case of
strikes and recalcitrant trades-unionists at the present day.
A strange fracas occurs in
1668 between the magistrates and town council and John Christie, girdlemaker,
also deacon in that year of the corporation. of smiths. He is accused by
Bailie John Burnside of illegal conduct in exacting a “buist penny,” or
marking fee, from the hardware merchants who frequented Culross fair.
Thereupon
“The said Johne Chrystie,
deacone of the said craft of the smythe craft, rose up in counsell in ane
most boasteus and insulting way, and declared in presence of the saids
bailleis and counsell that he did approve of the deed that was done be him
towards the said chapmen the last fair-day. . . . And farder, the said Johne
Chrystie in ane verie boasteus and menasing maner chopped upon the counsell
tabell with his fauldet neeve1 three severall tymes, and in ane commanding
way ordanit the remanent deacons of craftis that war there sitting to ryse
presentlie from the counsell tabell and mianteane the priviledge of his
craft, for he should have the business done without the consent of bailleis
or counsell, whether they would or not; and farder declared that if the
saids deacons of craftis would not presentlie ryse and concure and asist him
in his designe, he would caus thame doe it in defyance of the saids bailleis
and counsell.”
For these “brave words
the magistrates fine John Christie in the sum of 500 merks,—on being
summoned again to pay which, he defends himself by the curious plea, that
his accuser John Burnside had rendered himself incapable of acting as bailie
from not having subscribed the declaration imposed by Act of the Scottish
Parliament. These were the persecuting days of Lauderdale and the Privy
Council, and doubtless this declaration was one of those obnoxious
engagements by which the Government sought to render the Scottish
communities entirely subservient to its wilL Most probably the appeal had
all the results desired, as it was most dangerous for the magistrates to
contest such a point, and thus draw upon themselves the attention of the
Privy Council. At least we hear no more of John Christie’s fine.
We are not, however, done yet
with John Christie. A few years afterwards, as we learn from the burgh
records, he had come under an obligation for £600 Scots, for the payment of
which a certain William Reid was his cautioner. As a security to the latter,
he made over to him in a bond of relief his household furniture, all the
articles of which are detailed at length. The list seems worth quoting, as
giving an idea of the plenishing of the house of a Culross girdlesmith in
the seventeenth century. It also gives an account of the tools used in his
trade:—
“Ane dresser ambrie, ane
drawing wanscot table, ane wanscott tabell standing above three roundell
tables, ane dusson of lether chairs, ane dussone of timber chairs, two fyr
tabells, ane wanscott furme, two falding-beds, fyve kiste, three
looking-glasses, six buffet stoles,4 two dry seats
with the pannes therof, three furnished beds with coverings and courtines
conforme—to witt, one reid, one blue, one grein— ane strip buird-cloathe,
three domick buird-cloathes and three of linning, six dussone of naiprie,8
six toules, eighteen pair of sheets, eighteen coadwards,* four chimley
brasses, one with gallows, three pair of tongs, three poaring , ane pair of
standing , ane handed girdle, ane iron poat, two brass poats, ane iron
frying-pan, ane duss-ing of puther pleatts, ane dussing of puther trenchers,
three brass panes, two hinging chanlers of brass, thrittein half fatts,1
sextean pleatts, threetean salt-fatts, fyve pynt stoups, ane quart stoup,
four mutchkin stoups, four choppin stoups, with ane half-mutchkin and a
quarter-of-mutchkin stoups, ane small sword with ane sticket2 gray belt, ane
snapwork goune, ane pair of pistolls, ane pair of bandoliers, ane pair of
buits, a ryding sadle, ane pack-sadle, ane iron studie8about ten stone
weight, ane pair of bellosses, two foir-hammers, two girdle-hammers, six
hand-hammers, four pair of tongs, two pair of girdle tongs, together with
ane full stand of brewing lomes.”
Such being the inventory of a
girdlesmith’s house-hold gods, we must regard him as, all things considered,
a man of tolerable competence and comfort. The “ drouthy ” propensities of
the craft, as well as its pugnacious qualities, are well illustrated by the
liberal provision made both for the implements of conviviality and warfare.
The following tells its own
tale, and seems also worth quoting in its entirety, from the curious view it
presents of the old primitive idea of the debtor being the bondman of the
creditor, who was considered entitled to “ take out ” his claim in personal
service:—
“Minot of Agreement with John
Sandis anent that money that he is restand to the Trade, as Ca-tioner for
his father.
"John Sands being debitor to
this incorporation for the some of ane hundereth punds Scots, the which
soume was advanced by the remnant girdilsmiths in anno 1664 for his father,
he then being ane frieman of his calling, and was depursed by us for
assisting to get our ancient priviledges renewed unto us by the King’s
Majestie, att which tyme ilk ane of thes freimen advanced the lyke soume for
themselves ; for the qlk soume Walter Sandis as principall, and this John
Sands as cationer, in anno 1670 granted to this incorporation ane bond for
the said soume of ane hun-derethe punds, payable at Martinmas 1671, with ane
year’s annual rent, and bearing annual rent ay and quhill the said soume be
paid: And now at this tearme of Mertimes last past, we being desyrous to
heave up the said soume, with the annual rent therof, to the effect that we
might mortifie the same for payment of the minister’s stiping, therfor we
cause registrat the said bond, and raise letters of homing and captione
therupon, and imprison John Sands for payment; but finding no probabilitie
to get payment, we was forced to take his bond of corroboration for payment
of this principall soume and annual rent, being seven years past at
Mar-times, which extends to fourtie-two punds, and eghte pund of necessar
expensis, depursed by us, which bond is now ane hundereth and fiftie punds
of principall, and heath taken his ingadgement to serve as a jumayman ay and
whill he pay the said soume, or els find us suficient catione for the same;
the which service he is to make every weike about amongst the heall freimen,
bot if any of the freimen be detained from being able to work himself,
either by sick-nes, or ocasione to goe abrod, or any other way that he
cannot get his work attended, then and in that ceasse it is expresslie
condescended unto that the said Johne Sands sail suplie his place and worke
to him untill he returae to his worke, and therafter heave toure about of
John Sandis without any rememberance of that tyme that he did worke to this
absent master, and every weik to keip up 8/- of John Sands* wages, and to be
comptable therfor at every quarter meiting befor the incorporation”
A mingled feeling of pity and
indignation is excited in reading the above, combined also, it must be
confessed, with a slight sense of the ludicrous, as we reflect on the
hapless lot of the poor fellow, whose filial affection had led him into so
unpleasant a position, and who was now to be bandied about like a job-horse
from one girdlesmith to another. It would be interesting to know how long
the bondage continued, and also whether the pound of flesh was exacted to
the utmost extent. Is the statement about the money being required to
provide a fund for payment of the minister’s stipend a pious clause
introduced to cover the harshness of the procedure of the corporation in
adding a half to the original debt in name of interest and expenses, and
then seizing their debtor as a bondman ?
“In lav, what plea so tainted
and corrupt,
But, being seasoned with a gracious voice,
Obscures the show of evil 1 In religion,
What damned error, but some sober brow
Will bless it, and approve it with a text,
Hiding the grossness with fair ornament.”
Walter Sands, father of John
Sands, on whose account the latter was involved in such hardship, got
himself into further trouble with the corporation; and in justice to them,
it ought to be remarked that possibly it was not altogether undeserved. Here
is their account of the matter:—
“The 5 day of September 1673,
our craft being meete in the Toylbooth of Culros, Walter Sands, being
conviened befor the said craft, was found lyabell in breaking the Acts of
our craft at many sundry tyines severall wayes, especially that Act daited
the 1 day of March 1669 years. The deacon having apprehended and taken 3
broad girdils and 6 narow girdils belonging to the said Walter Sands,
earnestly desyred that the craft wolde be pleased to give the forsaid
girdils to him again, that he might give the iyron of them to those men he
was resting it unto. But the wholl craft denyed to give any of them unto hym
againe, and ordieaned the deacon to make money of them, and put it in box
for the use of the poor of the craft.”
It is not clear from the
above whether the request there preferred was made by Walter Sands himself,
or the deacon of the craft on his behalf. It certainly seems a severe
proceeding to confiscate for behoof of the poor the property of a craftsman
who was himself in difficulties.
A female girdlesmith gave the
corporation a good, deal of trouble about this time. This was Mrs Margaret
Anderson or Sands, already mentioned, widow of the Robert Sands who, without
having served an apprenticeship to the craft, had purchased, as we have
already seen, a right to participate in its privileges by the payment of
£100 Scots. He had evidently not long survived his admission as a freeman;
but his business must have been a good one, and was after his death carried
on by his widow, who, whatever other qualities she possessed, had certainly
a good deal of the virago in her composition. I take a special interest,
however, in Mrs Sands, seeing that there is good reason to believe that she
lived and flourished almost on the very spot where I am now writing. [ I was
then residing at St Mungo’s, Culross.] We learn from the kirk-session
records that she lived near St Mungo’s Kirk or Chapel, and had an
altercation with the ecclesiastical authorities regarding a piece of ground
lying between her house and the western wall of the old burying-ground
adjoining the little church. The position of her dwelling would thus
correspond almost exactly with the present house of St Mungo’s, one portion
of which is very old, and has evidently had attached to its west end a
building of some kind, as the doorway leading to it is still traceable in
the adjoining waJUL This may have been the forge; and, however dubious my
supposition may seem, there is no doubt whatever that this bustling lady-girdlesmith
carried on her trade in the immediate neighbourhood. St Mungo’s Chapel, I
may inform my reader, immediately adjoins the eastern enclosure of the
garden of St Mungo’s—the distance between it and the house being scarcely
100 yards.
Let us now hear the story of
Mrs Margaret’s quarrel with the girdlemakers, bearing in mind always that it
is only their account that we have of the affair:—
“1673.
“The 21 day of Aprill, our
craft being meete together in Toylbooth, Marget Anderson being conviened
befor the crafte, she brought Kobert Blaw, present Dean of Gild, with hyr,
who neither of them made answer our craft on word to purpose; but the said
Margett brak out in passion and gaive our present deacon a lie, forbyding
hym to lie any mor, and she Had gud grounds to say that he was hyr ennemy—for
the which misdemanure she is onlyed and fyned in fourtie shilings, to be
payed befor she have liberty to worke or imploye any to work in hyr forge.
“The whilk day Marget
Anderson was fyned in twentie pund for sending girdils to Glasgow without
acquainting our deacon; and further ordaines that she nor no other member
shall sende any girdils to Glasgow or Pearth, or any plaice else, without
liberty asked and gotten from the deacon, and that under the paine and
penalty conteaned in the Act made the first day of March 1669 year.”
“24 November 1673.
“Margret Anderson, relick of
Robert Sands, on of the freimen of the incorporatione of girdilmakers, she
being conveined befor the said tread and found culpable in transgressing of
severall Acts which in all reasson she is lyable to fulfill, they heave
therfor, out of their own condescendence, consented to passe all hir former
transgressions, pro* vyding that within fourtie days hence shee give to the
incorporatione ane suficient bond and seurtie that shee sail give deu
obedience to all ther Acts of that incorporatione, according as other
members of the incorporatione doeth.”
“22 January 1674.
“The foresaid day Margaret
Anderson compeiring, did faithfullie promise and ingadge herself, upon the
conditions after specefeit, that she shall, in all tyme coming, dulie and
punctuallie observe and fulfill the haill Acts of the trade,
Mrs Sands proves
incorrigible, notwithstanding all the gracious dealings of the corporation
towards her. Again does she prove contumacious, and, in legal phrase, is “
put to the horn,” or charged by letters of homing to answer for her
misdemeanours. These consisted mainly of having disposed of a parcel of
girdles which had not been approved by the craft and received their stamp.
What effect this procedure had we are not informed; but it is evident that
her spirit of defiance had been little diminished, as we find, after the
lapse of four years, the corporation meeting again in reference to a new and
terrible cause of offence which she had given. In explanation of what
follows, it may be stated that at this period, and for a good many years
previously—as I shall shortly have occasion to detail—the girdle-makers of
Culross had been sadly exercised by an encroachment on their privileges by
the inhabitants of Low Valleyfield, who were therefore regarded by them with
the bitterest animosity.
“27 March 1678.
“Ordinance of thes
incorporatione to repair to the magistrats to assist us in the defence of
our priviledgis, which this day is most baislie abused by Margret Anderson.
"The qlk day the
incorporation of girdlsmiths being con veined, and being informed by the
deacon that Margret Anderson heath meade the unworthiest breache upon our
treade this day that ever was meade this many ageis, and that by hir
bringing in of on Watson out of the Valyfield, and seeting of him up into
hir forge to make girdils for hir use; the which unworthie act being
considered by us, and also considering thes our priviledges granted unto us
by his Majestie and also his predecessours, it is apointed that we first
repaire to the magistrats and show to them our priviledges, and creave their
concurrance to assist us to stryke out hir teu iyron, and secure the same
and other thair work-loums, quhill she be meade sencible of hir doings by
hir infringing of our priviledges after such ane insulting manner, and be
punished corrdingly for the same if ever heirafter shee be tollerat to heave
the libertie of ane forge for making of girdills ” •
It would appear from the
following entry that the girdlemakers, without waiting for the warrant of
the magistrates, had on their own authority rendered Mrs Sands’ forge
bellows useless by “ striking out the teu iron,” or removing the nozzle. She
takes the bull by the horns and lodges a complaint with the town council
against the craft:—
“Upon the first of April the
incorporation, being informed by the deacone that there is ane complaint
given unto the counsell by Margret Anderson upon them and all the rest of
the treade for thair stryking out of hir teu iyron and bringing therof away
with them, whereupon it is ordered by the counsell that our gift, and
ratification therof in Parlament, which containeth our priviledges, sail be
produced to the magistrats and severall others of the counsell who is
nominat, to the effect that they may see the same, and consider therupon
whether or not that we heave that poure that we assume to ourselves by the
said gift: the which ordinance of the counsell being considered by the
incorporatione, we conceav that we are not oblidged to produce our gift
befor no inferior judicatories to be commented upon or expounded by them at
thair pleasour; yet notwithstanding because we neide not caire much to whos
sight the same be presented, we therfor heave consented that the next
counsell day we sail all compeire in the Tolbooth, and sail offer the said
gift and ratificatione to be reade by the magistrats, upon conditione that,
after the reading therof, they sail be immediatlie returned to us againe;
and that in the meane tyme John Kennewie, clarke, who heath declared himself
to be ane oppen ennemie to our treade, and to be ane instrument against us
to reduce our gift and priviledges to nothing, that he sail be removed, or
at the least sail stand by when he may have the same reade,—and upon no
other tearmes to be produced.”
The expressions at the end of
the foregoing are obscure, and the composition, to say the least of it,
slipshod; but it is very evident that the girdlemakers found little favour
with the town council. They manfully, however, resolve to stand to their
guns, and without abating one jot of their corporate dignity, pass the
following
“Act discharging Marget
Anderson to heave the benefit of John Sands, our jumayman, to work to hir
weike about befor shee supliccU the tread, and aknowledge hir rebellious act
in bringing in of Watson to make girdils in hir forge.
"The day forsaid the
breitherine being conveined, and heaving taken to thair consideration that
unworthie rebellious act committed by Margret Anderson by hir bringing in of
WilL Watson, smith, in Valyfield, and seeting of him up into hir forge to
make girdils, expreslie contrarie to his Majestie’s gift and his
predecessors, granted in favours of this our incorporatione, they heave
therfor acted and discharged, and be thir presents acts and dischargis our
present deacon James Blaw to give back to hir that teu ijnron or any other
of hir workloums which they did bring away out of hir forge the tyme that
they did find this Watson in the very act of making of girdils; and also
discharges hir of the benefit of John Sands, our jurnayman, to worke to hir
weike about acording as he is oblidged to serve other freemen, and that ay
and quhyll the said Margret Anderson suplic$t the treade, and acknowledge
that hir unworthie, wrongous, rebellious act, and refer herself to be
sencenred and fyned by this incorporatione, and obtaine thair libertie to
kendill hir forge-fyre and seet up hir work.”
These proceedings against a
widow woman may not seem very chivalrous on the part of the girdlemakers;
but it should be remembered that Mrs Sands, in addition to her former
delinquencies, had now committed a flagrant breach of the trade rules in
employing a stranger as her overseer, instead of a freeman of Culross. Our
pity may more legitimately be expended on poor John Sands, so
unceremoniously spoken of as the common bondman of the corporation, and
giving a week’s service in turn to each of the members, till his cautionary
obligation on behalf of his father should be cleared off. How this business
of Mrs Sands was ultimately settled we have no information; but it is
probable, from the following entry (the last regarding her), that she
remained to the end successfully defiant:—
“16 Octr. 1679.
“The said day Maigret
Anderson is ordained to be spoken unto by James Cowie, to pay to Sot. Blaw,
betwix and Saturday, the soume of £4,14s. 8d., els to be discharged of
work.”girdlemakers of Culross and those whom they were wont to denominate“
the pretended girdlemakers of Valleyfield.” The contest extended over more
than half a century, and was not only a most troublesome and expensive
conflict in itself, but proved also the means of ultimately extinguishing
the monopoly and ruining the trade of Culross. However much the exclusive
privilege claimed by the Tatter town may be opposed to our modem ideas of
free trade and unrestricted competition, we ought always to bear in mind the
current principles then in vogue, the fact that a prescriptive and
uncontested right had been enjoyed by the Culross people from time
immemorial, and that the very parties who impugned this right were merely
claiming an extension of the monopoly for their own benefit.
The burgh territory of
Culross is bounded, as we have already seen, on the east by the lands of
Valleyfield, which, since the middle of the sixteenth century, had been in
the possession of the Preston family. The estate was not in itself of great
extent; but, in imitation apparently of the example of Sir George Bruce, who
had raised Culross to such a height of prosperity, its proprietors had
endeavoured to achieve a similar success in working collieries and saltworks
in the adjoining district. The workmen engaged in these lived for the most
part in the straggling village of Low Valleyfield, which extends along the
sea-shore almost from Newmill Bridge to the east end of Culross. The
undertaking seems to have been so prosperous as to stimulate the Prestons to
still higher aspirations, and the ambitious idea was conceived of having a
burgh of their own, which might both rival Culross and also enjoy a share in
the peculiar and exclusive privileges possessed by the latter. A charter was
accordingly procured in 1663 by Sir George Preston in favour of his son,
William Preston (reserving his own liferent), of the lands of Valleyfield,
which were thereby erected into a burgh of barony, with many of the
privileges of royal burghs, including those of holding fairs and markets, of
punishing offenders, and establishing the ordinary trade corporations. Among
these last are mentioned the fdbri or smiths; and although nothing is said
about girdlemakers, the position was taken up that this must include a right
to participate in the girdle monopoly hitherto exclusively enjoyed by the
smiths of Culross. Some such assertion seems to have been foisted into the
infeftment proceeding on the charter of resignation erecting Valleyfield
into a burgh of barony. The whole affair was regarded by the Culross people
as a gross infringement of their privileges, and, as we have already seen,
met with the most determined, and to some extent effectual, opposition. But
it was the girdlesmiths who had to suffer most severely and bear the brunt,
and certainly the procedure of Sir George Preston and his son does seem most
invidious. One of the first steps taken to foil their adversaries was the
resolution of the Culross girdlemakers to obtain a fresh grant of their
monopoly from Charles II.—an object which was accomplished in 1666; and a
parliamentary ratification of the new gift was obtained in 1669. But the
people of Valleyfield, disregarding all threats or remonstrances, continued
to manufacture girdles, though it is alleged their quality was of a very
inferior kind. And a regular contract seems to have been entered into
between the Prestons and certain inhabitants of the place, by which the
latter, on condition of paying a sum of money annually, were to have the
exclusive privilege of manufacturing girdles within the barony of
Valleyfield. Meantime the Culross smiths were striving to the utmost to
maintain their monopoly, both against their neighbours of Valleyfield and
strangers. We find in 1668 a charge on letters of homing given to David
Mather, smith in Bridgeness, on the opposite side of the water, “ that he
perpetuallie abstein from making of any girdles of any quantitie whatsoever,
and that within the space and under the panes all within exprest.” And we
have seen how endeavours were made to secure an exclusive market with the
merchants of Glasgow and Perth,—all, indeed, evidences of the straits to
which the Culross hammermen were reduced by the growing resistance to their
monopoly, and gradual declension of their prestige. A charge, too, was given
to the Valleyfield girdlemakers, who brought a suspension of it before the
Court of Session, and seem to have so far succeeded as to induce the Culross
men to open negotiations with the Prestons in the hope of effecting a
compromise of the matter. But no compromise apparently could be arrived at,
the laird of Valleyfield demanding a composition of a thousand marks Scots,
or £55, lls. Id. sterling, whilst £50 sterling was the utmost limit to which
the others could be induced to go. One would have thought, when the
respective proffers approached so nearly, that an agreement might have been
come to; but, the only result seems to have been a sisting of procedure in
the case for several years. The Culross girdlemakers had evidently exhausted
their resources, and were glad for a while to rest on their oars.
The suspension by the
girdlemakers of Valleyfield of the charge given them by those of Culross
seems to have been allowed to go to sleep; but in 1687 we find the Culross
smiths plucking up spirit again, and determined to have a fresh tussle with
the Valleyfield intruders. They accordingly revived the process by what is
known in Scots law as a summons of wakening, and gained such an advantage by
this step over their antagonists, who made no appearance, that they resolved
to have the whole question settled by a summons of reduction and declarator,
so as to have their own privileges permanently ascertained, and the claims
of the Valleyfield men for ever silenced by getting annulled the charter of
erection of the estate into a burgh of barony. The Culross girdlesmiths had
apparently calculated on no opposition being made to them; but in this
expectation they were too sanguine, as a defence was entered, and the
lawsuit dragged its slow length along for more than a quarter of a century.
A document preserved in the box, entitled an “ Information from the
girdlemakers of Culross against the burgh of barronie of Valeyfield and the
pretended girdlemakers therm,” lodged in process in 1688, contains some
curious statements. One of these, after arguing that the privilege claimed
could not properly be styled a monopoly, goes on to say:—
For the tempering and
beating out the iron to the thin-nes of a girdle soe that it may last
against fire for ane age or two, is that which wes invented particularlie at
Cullross; and the 8 or 10 workmen who are there are able to serve the whole
kingdome, and are able to export manie into Ireland and the north of
England, and have swa manie hundreds upon their hands withall, which, tho’
they could sell all they have, they are hardly able to won their bread; and
albeit that trade is the hardiest of all toylls, and sufers feu to live to
anie age, yet never anie of them arose to anie competent riches, and if they
did not regulate their own societie to the number of 8 or 10, and to work 3
days a-week (lest otherways they should make too manie and ill girdles),
they would all starve, soe that if others should be allowed to work, everie
serving the said trade, not onlie the poor buyers should be cheated with ill
work, but the trade should absolutelie decay; and all the burghs royal are
so sensible of this, that neither their Convention in general nor anie burgh
in particular would suffer their inhabitants to follow this trade; nor can
thir suspenders, on the other hand, lose anie thing, for they are
blacksmiths to their own trade, and were not bred to this, wheras these poor
people would absolutlie ruine, having noe other trade, and the town of
Cullross itself e, which subsists by them and their dependents onlie, would
ruine with them.”
This may to some extent be
only a rhetorical flourish; but it presents, nevertheless, a sufficiently
melancholy picture of the state of things which had come to prevail in
Culross. The process went on, fell asleep again, and again was wakened. In
1706 a petition was presented by the craft to the Convention of Royal Burghs
sitting at Edinburgh, praying the latter to assist them with the services of
an advocate, “ we being brought to an most low condition and our trade
wholly destroyed by the said, men in Valefield.”
The assistance thus sought
for seems to have been given. In the following year Thomas Stevenson, one of
the Valleyfield smiths, was apprehended at the instance of the corporation
of hammermen, for working within the burgh, and committed to prison, from
which he was only released on giving his bond to refrain from doing so in
future, under the penalty of £20 Scots. For some years after this we have no
information as to the progress of the lawsuit, till in 1716 we find the
Culross girdlemakers sending John Blaw, one of their number, as their
commissioner to Edinburgh, to effect an amicable adjustment of the matters
in dispute with the smiths of Valleyfield. This object must have been,
temporarily at least, accomplished, seeing that two years afterwards a
mutual agreement was signed by the parties to refrain, each member under a
penalty of £6 Scots for each failure, from producing more than “a broad and
a narrow girdle each work day, fyve twenty-two inch girdles each two work
days, three twenty-six inch girdles in two days, and one twenty-eight inch
girdle in one work day.” But it was found impossible to overcome the
resistance of particular individuals, who, now that an example of revolt had
been set, were ever ready to make a fresh encroachment. In 1719, George
Cunningham, smith in Valleyfield, presents—with what success we are not
informed—a bill of suspension before the Court of Session of a charge of
homing which had been given him to abstain from the manufacture of girdles.
The Convention of Royal
Burghs seems to have favoured the suit of the Culross girdlemakers, and
besides the legal assistance already mentioned, made a grant to them from
its funds of £60 Scots, which was paid through its agent, Mr George
Smollett, a relation of the author of ‘ Roderick Random.’ And as General
George Preston was now a candidate for the representation of the Stirling
Burghs in the British Parliament, some faint hopes were excited that, in
return for the votes of the Culross town council, he might lend important
assistance in getting the ancient monopoly of the girdlesmiths renewed and
confirmed.
All such expectations,
however, were destined to be fallacious, and the crowning blow was about to
descend. A recreant member of the corporation, named John Watson, had left
Culross and commenced the manufacture of girdles in Kilmarnock, where he
worked under the patronage and protection of the celebrated Earl of that
name, who at a later period laid his head, for the Stewart cause, on the
block on Tower Hill. The craft was indignant, and sent its officers to the
west country to search for and summon the traitor; the Culross magistrates
lent their aid; and even the assistance of the Church was invoked, and not
refused. Watson was summoned before the kirk-session to answer for his
breach of the oath taken on his admission as a freeman; a certificate of
Church membership, which he had forwarded to Culross for some emendation
that he wished, was ignominiously tom; and the kirk-session of Kilmarnock
was written to “to treat the said John Watson no better than he deserves.”
But all this artillery, civil and ecclesiastic, had no effect whatever.
Watson, on receiving a charge of homing, presented a bill of suspension in
the Court of Session; and this being opposed by the girdlemakers, the action
at their instance was proceeded with against him and another contravener of
the name of Master-ton. In 1725 the case which is recorded in the law
reports under the title of the Girdlemakers of Culross v. Watson and
Masterton, was finally decided. The judgment was completely against the
Culross smiths, and declared authoritatively that the monopoly claimed by
the latter was wholly illegal and unconstitutional. No such exclusive
privilege could be sustained in favour of any locality or any body of men.
Notwithstanding this defeat,
the Culross girdlemakers still strove, and not unsuccessfully, to vindicate
their privileges within the burgh, as will appear from the following entry:—
“24 April 1733.
“The said day Alexander
Stevenson, younger, girdlesmith in Valleyfield, being found and apprehended
selling girdles within the burgh, and the haill girdles seized, the said
Alexander Stevenson, present, acknowledges his fault.
“The trade having considered
the transgression, with the confession, fines the said Alexander Stevenson
in ten shillings sterling, and ordain the girdles seized to be kept while
payment therof, and discharges the girdles to be delivered within the burgh.
“The above sentence being
intimate to the said Alexander Stevenson, he payed the fine instantly.”
But it was soon felt to be
useless to protract the struggle longer, and the two following entries show
that the corporation had resolved to accept the situation, and contend no
further with the inevitable :—
"13 July 1754.
“Patrick Donald has entered a
complaint to the trade against George Tannochie, elder and younger, for the
cause alleging that they are making girdells in Laigh Valleyfield, which
crime being contrary to their oath to the trade.
“This 13th day of July 1754,
the trade has taken to their serious consideration the detriment and great
loss that their girdlesmith trade is at. Considering that they had made
formerly an Act that no girdlesmith freeman could take apprentice but one
apprentice in their whole lifetime, and the trade considering the decay of
trade, and the great loss they are at, has by majority of votes broken the
former Act; and they all agree that every freeman girdlesmith could take
apprentice at the end of every four years, and that apprentices indentures
is to be put in the box, whether he be a freeman's son or a stranger, and to
pay the ordinary dues. This day the trade has taken into their consideration
the loss that they are at by a former Act that the incorporation made, that
no freeman of the girdlesmiths could make a girdell or any part thereof in
any part of Scotland except in this burgh of Culross. The trade considering
that it being a very hard case that, when any of the members of the
incorporation is fallen back in the world, and that they have no liberty by
working by way of journeyman to any other person of that trade, or set up in
any other place or town, so the trade, by majority of votes, agree that the
Act is resinded and broken, and every freeman of the trade has their liberty
to work where they please, or where Providence shall order their lot in the
world.
“James Holland, Deacon.”
After such a declaration,
which may be regarded as a final and distinct abandonment by the
girdlemakers themselves of their old and long-cherished privileges, it need
excite no surprise that this is about the last time that either the word “
girdle ” or “ girdlesmith ” is mentioned in the minute-book. Henceforward it
only records the proceedings of “The Incorporation of Smiths.” Another
circumstance still was to complete for Culross the loss of her prestige.
This was the establishment of the Carron ironworks in 1760. The cast-iron
plates being so much cheaper, soon entirely superseded the artistic and
enduring utensil of wrought-iron. Even the use of girdles of any kind began
to decline; and so much has been the alteration in our mode of living, that
they have come to be almost as obsolete as the knocking-stone or the
spinning-wheel. |
