at the time of his committing the act. Nothing
could avail to save him. His right hand was first struck off, and then he
was beheaded and quartered, his head being fixed on a prick at the Nether
Bow Port, and his hand at the West Port.—Pit.
Aug 29
Mr John Guthrie, minister of Perth, ‘on ane Sunday after the afternoon’s
sermon, married the Master of Sanquhar with Sir Robert Swift’s daughter,
ane English knight in Yorkshire. Neither of the parties exceeded thirteen
years of age.’—Chron. Perth.
Nov 18
‘About the midst of November, there appeared a prodigious comet in the
morning, in the north-east, broad, and stretching with a large tail
towards the north-west. It appeared fine and clear some few days in the
beginning, and after became more dim and obscure, and vanished away at
last in the north. This comet by appearance portended the wars of Germany,
which began not long after, and continueth yet to this hour.’—Cal.
Dr Bembridge, ‘a very profound and learned
mathematician,’ obliged the king with an account of this comet. He told
him it was as far above the moon as the moon is above the earth, and not
less than 2,300,000 English miles! Rushworth speaks of it as followed by,
first, the Bohemian wars, then the German and Swedish, &c. ‘Dr Bembridge
observed it to be vertical to London, and to pass over it in the morning;
so it gave England and Scotland in their civil wars a sad wipe with its
tail.’ —Foun. Hut. Ob.
This notable comet was observed in Silesia, Rome, and
Ispahan. From Skipton’s observations, Halley afterwards computed its
orbit. It passed its perihelion on the 8th of November, at little more
than a third of the earth’s distance from the sun. On the 9th of December,
its tail was 70° in length, being, according to Kepler, the longest that
had been seen for a hundred and fifty years.
This comet is also remarkable as the only one, besides
another in 1607, which was observable by the naked eye in the first half
of the seventeenth century; whereas in other spaces of time of the same
extent, as many as thirteen have been detected. The comet of 1607, which
is the same with that seen in 1682, 1759, and 1835, and usually known as
Halley’s comet, is not mentioned by any of our contemporary chroniclers as
having been visible in Scottish skies.
1618, Dec 25
Christmas was observed in Edinburgh at the command of the king, and two
churches opened for service; but the attendance was scant. ‘The Great Kirk
was not half filled, notwithstanding the provost, bailies, and council’s
travels.... The dogs were playing in the flure of the Little Kirk, for
rarity of people, and these were of the meaner sort. ..
. . Mr Patrick [Galloway] denounced judgments .
. . . famine of the word, deafness, blindness, lameness, inability
to come to the kirk to hear and see, to fall upon those who came not to
his Christmas sermon .‘—Cal.
A few weeks afterwards, Richard Lawson, James Cathkin,
and John Mean, merchants, were obliged to appear before the Court of High
Commission, accused of ‘not coming to the kirk on Christmas-day, for
opening of their booth-doors, walking before them in time of sermon,
dissuading others from going to the kirk, and reasoning against preaching
on that day. They answered they did nothing of contempt; they reasoned to
receive instruction, and to try what warrant others had. They were
dismissed, with an admonition to be modest in their speeches and behaviour
in time coming.’—Cal.
On Christmas-day 1621, there was service in the Old
Kirk in St Giles, which the magistrates and state officials attended; but
no other church was open, and Calderwood informs us that ‘one hundred and
six booth-doors or thereby stood open ‘—a proof of the general disregard
of the festival.
Patrick Anderson, doctor of physic, and who is usually
said to have been physician to Charles I., published a tract on the ‘Cold
spring of Kinghorn,’ its admirable properties for the cure of sundry
diseases. He took care to draw a distinction between the simply natural
efficacy of this well and ‘the superstitious mud-earth wells of Menteith,
or our Lady Well of Strathern, and our Lady Well of Ruthven, with a number
of others in this country, all tapestried about with old rags, as certain
signs and sacraments, wherewith they arle the devil.’ He further assured
the public that the ‘clear and delicate cauld water’ of this spring, being
drunk in great quantity, ‘is never for all that felt in the belly.’ Modern
physiologists, it may be remarked, admit the rapid absorption of saline
waters by the stomach; and the drinking of nine tumblers before breakfast
is at this day not uncommon at Airthry.
Dr Patrick Anderson was the inventor of a pill of
aloetic character, which long had a great celebrity in Scotland, and is
still in such repute that an agency-office for its sale may be found in
both Edinburgh and London. He is the more entitled to some notice here, as
our work has been somewhat indebted to a History of Scotland by him, to be
found in manuscript in the Advocates’ Library.
At this time, one Thomas Milne was a maker of virginals
in Aberdeen—a calling, however, ‘but lately put in practice in the burgh.’
The trade must have been tolerably encouraged, as John Davidson, who had
served an apprenticeship under Milne, now proposed to set up for himself.
On his exhibiting a pair of virginals of his own making as his
‘master-stick’ before the Council, they gave him the freedom of the burgh
without a fee, which he was too poor to pay.—Ab. C. R.
1619, Feb 15
Died, ‘Mr William Cowper, Bishop of Galloway, a very holy and good [man],
if he had not been corrupted with superior powers and warldly cares of a
bishopric and other such things. He was buried at the south door of the
new kirk callit the South Kirk, in the Greyfriars’ Yard, or common
burial-place of Edinburgh, whilk kirk was newly completed, and at the
funeral sermon consecrated by Mr John Spottiswoode, archbishop of
Sanctandrews.’—Jo. H.
Cowper was an eloquent and able man, and had been
conspicuous for his zeal against bishops, ‘appearing to all men to hate
very much that lordly dignity in a kirkman, comparing them and their
godless followers to snuffs of candles, whilk not only is destitute of
light, but also casts out a filthy flewrish stink in man’s noses.’ To a
former friend, who had accepted a bishopric, he wrote a despiteful letter,
telling him he had fallen away and apostatised, and while he still loved
himself, he hated his way. Afterwards, ‘perceiving the courses of the
bishops daily going forward, and being a proud ambitious man, glorying in
his gifts, he began first privately to be social and homely with the
bishops, and then, after the Golden Assembly at Glasgow in 1610,
perceiving that the bishops had gotten all their intent, he also embraced
a bishopric, and (1612) was created Bishop of Galloway.’
Feeling that his conduct had been inconsistent, Cowper
wrote an apology, which mainly came to this, that he had got more light
than he had before. ‘One answered merrily: "It is true; for now he has
upon his table two great candles, whereas before he had but one small
candle—other more light I know none."’
In the end, he announced from the pulpit, he would give
full satisfaction to all who would come and confer with him. ‘Upon whilk
invitation, so many came to him, both in the fields and in his own house,
that he was wearied with them.’ [According to the Chronicle of Perth—’ The
wives of Edinburgh came in to him, and shewed to him his awn books against
friers’ books.’] One person went so far as to charge him with apostasy,
and call upon him to prepare an answer shortly to the Judge of all the
world. It would appear from what followed that the bishop was by this time
out of health. ‘Within a day or two after, being at his pastime [golf?] in
the Links of Leith, he was terrified with a vision, or an apprehension;
for he said to his playfellows, after he had in an affrighted and commoved
way cast away his play-instruments: "I vow to be about with these two men,
who have now come upon me with drawn swords!" When his playfellows
replied: "My lord, it is a dream: we saw no such thing," he was silent,
went home trembling, took bed instantly, and died.’—Row.
Mar 23
It had been a custom of the congregations in Edinburgh to hold a meeting
on the Tuesday before the administration of the communion. ‘If anything
was amiss in the lives, doctrines, or any part of the office of their
pastors, every man had liberty to shew wherein they were offended; and if
anything was found amiss, the pastors promised to amend it. If they had
anything likewise to object against the congregation, it was likewise
heard, and amendment was promised. If there was any variance among
neighbours, pains were taken to make reconciliation, that so both pastors
and people might communicate in love at the banquet of love.’ On the
present occasion, the affair had much the character of a modern public
meeting, and the people stood boldly up to their pastors, arguing against
the innovations of worship now about to be introduced, particularly
kneeling at the sacrament.—Cal.
‘At various times in the year 1621, there were private
meetings of ministers and other good Christians in Edinburgh, setting
apart days for fasting, praying, and humiliation, crying to God for help
in such a needful time; whilk exercises, joined with handling of
Scripture, resolving of questions, clearing doubts, and tossing of cases
of conscience, were very comfortable. . . . Thir
meetings the bishops and their followers, enemies still to the power of
godliness and life of religion, hated to the death; and sundry ministers
of Edinburgh inveighed against them, under the name of unlawful
conventicles, candle-light congregations (because sometimes they continued
their exercises for a great part of the night), persecuting them with
odious names of Puritans, Separatists, Brownists, &c.’ —Row.
One of the Edinburgh clergy ‘sent to Nicolas Balfour,
daughter of umwhile Mr James Balfour, minister of Edinburgh, to advertise
her that she was to be banished the town, for entertaining such meetings
in her house; and reviled her despitefully, when she came to confer with
him.’—Cal.
Mar 28
This day, being Easter Sunday, the communion was administered in the
Edinburgh churches for the first time after it had been arranged that the
people should kneel on receiving the elements. There being a general
disrelish for this new form, the people left the town in great numbers to
communicate at country churches where the order was not yet appointed. Of
those who attended in town, few willingly knelt besides government
officials and pauper dependents on the church contributions. ‘Some were
dashed and kneeled, but with shedding of tears for grief.’ In some
churches throughout the country, certain persons told the ministers: ‘The
dangers, if any be, light upon your soul, not on ours!’ Some departed,
‘beseeking God to judge between them and the minister.’ ‘it is not to be
passed over, how that when John Lauder, minister at Cockburnspath, was
reaching the bread to one kneeling, a black dog started up to snatch it
out of his hand.’—Cal.
On next Easter Sunday, the like disinclination to
kneeling was shewn. In the College Kirk, where sixteen hundred people
communicated, only about twenty kneeled, and it was thought that none
would have done so, ‘if they had not brought the poor out of the hospital,
to begin, and give a good example.’ These, ‘being aged, poor, and ignorant
persons, durst not refuse;’ yet even of them, some, ‘when they were
kneeling, knocked on their breasts and lifted up their hands and eyes.’
While the officers of the government and many others
joined cordially in the new arrangements, the bulk of the people revolted
from them. Whenever they heard of a church in the country where they might
be allowed to communicate sitting, they resorted to it in great numbers;
‘whereupon the auditory of the kirks of Edinburgh became rare and thin.’
On Easter Sunday, 1622, at the communion in the Old
Kirk, Edinburgh, ‘among all the two hundred and fifty [communicants] there
was not a man of honest countenance but the President, Sir William
Oliphant, the Advocate, Sir Henry Wardlaw, the Provost, the Dean of Guild,
Dame Dick, the Master of Works’ wife, and two bailies, who communicate
not: plaids, gray cloaks, and blue bonnets made the greatest show.’
At the same time, ‘many of the profaner sort were drawn
out upon the sixth of May, to May-games in Gilmerton and Roslin; so
profanity began to accompany superstition and idolatry, as it had done in
former times. Upon the first of May, the weavers in Paul’s Work, English
and Dutch, set up a high May-pole, with their garlands and bells hanging
at them, whereat was great concourse of people.’— Cal.
Apr 2
John Maxwell of Garrarie—’ane landed gentleman, in the rank of ane baron,
worth three thousand merks of yearly rent, and above‘—was, with his son,
George Maxwell, tried for the crime of treason. Garrarie had, in a crafty
manner, possessed himself of the estate and whole worldly means of John
M’Kie of Glashock, who thus became a miserable dependent upon him, almost
constantly living in his house. At length, tiring of the company, and
probably also of the complaints of the unfortunate Glashock, Garrarie and
his son resolved to be rid of him. On the 8th of July 1618, when Glashock
was coming by night to the place of Garrarie, the two Maxwells, attended
by an armed band of servants, fell upon him, tied his hands and feet,
strangled him, and flung his body into a peat-moss.
The accused protested their innocence, and it was
necessary twice to postpone proceedings against them, apparently for lack
of evidence. Another remarkable circumstance was, that no fewer than
seventeen gentlemen of the district incurred fines by failing to appear as
jury-men. Notwithstanding these and other impediments, justice asserted
its claims, and Garrarie and his son had their heads stricken off at the
Cross of Edinburgh, with forfeiture of lands and goods.—Pit.
The period at which we have now arrived, being one of
internal peace, is distinguished as the time when the practice of several
of the useful arts was first introduced into Scotland. Sir George Hay, the
Clerk Registrar—ancestor of the Earls of Kinuoul—a man of talent and
intelligence, had set up, at the village of Wemyss, in Fife, a small
glasswork, being the first known to have existed amongst us. An ironwork,
of what nature we are not informed, was also originated by Sir George.
1619, July 22
The Privy Council informed the king that Sir George Hay had enterprisingly
set up works for iron and glass, which for some years he supported at high
charges, in hopes of being remunerated by profits. ‘But now he has found,
by experience, that all the country dispatch of his glass in ane haill
year will not uphold his glassworks the space of ane month.’ It was
entreated that the king would allow of Sir George’s glass being sold
unrestrainedly in England, and at the same time restrict the exportation
of coal into that country. By such means he admitted he had a hope of
thriving.—M. S. P.
It would appear that the native manufacture, after all,
prospered; for in February 1621, the Privy Council appointed a commission,
including Sir George Hay, to meet and confer anent the glassworks, to
examine and try the glass, and see that measures were taken for the full
supply of the country, so as to save the introduction of foreign glass.
The commission soon after reported that the glassworks
at Wemyss were going on satisfactorily. The cradles or cases contained
fifteen wisps, each wisp having three tables, three-quarters of a Scots
ell and a nail in depth. The glass was fully as good as Danskine glass,
though they could wish it to be ‘thicker and tewcher.’ Being less sure of
the character of the drinking-glasses produced, they recommended patterns
of English glass of that kind to be established in Edinburgh Castle, for
trying the sufficiency of Scots glass in all time coming. On the strength
of this report, the Council granted the desired monopoly as against
foreign glassmakers, on certain conditions, one of which was, that the
price of ‘braid glass’ should not exceed ‘twelve punds the cradle.’—P.
C. R.
Oct 20
Before this time, soap was imported into Scotland from foreign countries,
chiefly from Flanders. It was estimated that the entire quantity brought
in was about a hundred and twenty lasts. The king now gave a patent to Mr
Nathaniel Uddart for the manufacture of soap within the country, and Mr
Nathaniel accordingly raised a goodly work at Leith, furnishing it with
all matters pertaining to the business. Before he had been at work two
years (June 21, 1621), he petitioned the Privy Council that foreign soap
should be prohibited, professing to be able himself to furnish all that
was required for the use of the country people, and thus save money from
being sent out of the country—a piece of false political economy much in
favour, as we have seen, in those days. The Privy Council, after taking
some pains to ascertain the character of ‘Mr Nathaniel his soap,’ and
becoming convinced that he could furnish the quantity needful, granted the
prohibition requested, but not without fixing down the native manufacturer
at a maximum price. This was decreed to be £24 per barrel for
‘green soap,’ and £32 per barrel for ‘white soap,’ each barrel to contain
sixteen stone.
If we are right in considering the stone at 17.19
pounds avoirdupois, and the last as containing twelve barrels, the
estimated amount of regularly manufactured soap annually used in Scotland
at that time might be approximately 400,880 pounds. In 1845, taking its
consumption of the same article as one-seventh of that of Great Britain,
Scotland consumed about twenty-seven million pounds!
Matters had not proceeded upon the footing of
protection for above two years, when complaints became rife as to the
inconveniences sustained by the lieges. The merchants of Edinburgh felt it
as a grievance that their traffic for soap with the Low Countries was
interrupted; They also complained of the quality of the article produced
at Leith. The merchants of Dumfries and other distant ports groaned at
being obliged to carry soap a long land-journey from Leith, when they
could have it brought by ships direct to their doors. In short, it was not
to be borne.
The Lords of Council took pains to inform themselves of
the whole matter. They also had a letter from the king testifying his
‘dislike of this and others the like restraints, as being a mean to
overthrow traffic and to destroy commerce.’ Being now satisfied that
Uddart’s privilege was ‘hurtful to. the commonweal,’ and that ‘the
subjects has not been so commodiously furnist with the soap made by the
said Mr Nathaniel as formerly they were with foreign soap,’ they decreed
(July 1623) that the restraint should terminate in a year, or sooner, if
he should produce an inferior or dearer article.—P. C. B.
1620, Mar 30
While the struggle was going on between the Episcopalian and Presbyterian
principles, there was a small group of Edinburgh citizens, including the
booksellers Cathkin and Lawson, who took a lead in opposing the new
practices, and standing up against the dictates of the High Commission.
Deeply impressed with evangelical doctrine, and viewing all ceremonies as
tending to the corruption of pure religion, they were disposed to venture
a good way in the course they entered upon. Their wranglings in the kirk-session
against ministers of the court fashion, and their earnest private
exercises, were fully known to the king; but he bore with them till they
began to lend countenance and active help to the few refractory ministers
who fell under the ban of the bishops. He then, at the date noted, ordered
them to be removed as ‘evil weeds’ from Edinburgh—William Rig, merchant,
and James Cathkin, bookseller, to Caithness; Richard Lawson, to Aberdeen;
Robert Meiklejohn, skinner, to Dunkeld; John Mean, to Wigton in Galloway;
and Thomas Inglis, skinner, to Montrose. This was a great stretch of power
in a country professedly under regular laws; and even the state-officers
felt it to be so. After some dealings, in the course of which the clergy
were eager to negative a suspicion of their having sent the names of the
men to the king, the archbishop of St Andrews said he would intercede for
them, and meanwhile stayed further proceedings. In the end, the offence of
the Edinburgh patriots was passed over for this occasion .—Cal.
The Edinburgh pulpits were at this time filled with men
wholly devoted to the Episcopalian system, and such of the people as were
strenuous for the Presbyterian model, had to act not merely without
clerical leaders, but in despite of clerical opposition. As a specimen of
the spirit of these metropolitan clergy—’ Mr William Struthers (January 9,
1619) made a sermon in the Little East Kirk, whilk, by all the holy
divines in Scotland, was judged rather to have been a discourse of hateful
passion nor a sermon of a charitable divine or loving theologue. For the
most part of his haill discourse consisted in calling Christ’s flock of
Edinburgh a pack of cruel people, seeking the overthrow of their ministry;
calling them also the authors of the Seventeenth of December.’
. .. He also alleged the doings of the good town
of that day till be in all histories a foul blot to them for ever. He
alleged the people were bund to follow him and the rest of his brethren
the ministers, and to do all things that they bade them do, calling the
ministers the heid, and the people the tail, and whatever the ministers as
the heid spak, it was good and savoury, and whatever, the tail or the
people spak was unsavoury, adding thereto that the language of the tail
was deir of the hearing This sermon made me and all the hearers thereof
tremble for fear to behold fit untruth spoken in the chair of verity
‘—Jo. H.
May 3
It has been seen that horse-racing was, from an early time, practised as a
public amusement at various places in Scotland. One of these, not formerly
noticed, was Paisley. A silver bell of four ounce weight was made in 1608
to serve as a prize for the Paisley race: such was in those days the
accustomed prize at a race, giving rise to the proverbial expression—’He
bore off the bell.’ It may be remarked, however, that the winner of a
silver bell at a race did not obtain it as permanent property, but only
for a year’s keeping, as is customary with the silver arrows and silver
clubs now played for by archery and golfing societies.
At the date noted, the Town Council of Paisley, under
the guidance of their provost, the Earl of Abercorn, arranged that their
annual horse-race should be run on the 6th of May, ‘to be start at the
gray stane called St Cormel’s Stane, and frae that richt east to the
little house at the causeyend of Renfrew, and frae that the king’s highway
to the Wall-neuk of Paisley; and what horse first comes over the score at
. . . . Renfrew, sall have ane double angel; and
the horse and master thereof that first comes over the score at the Wall-neuk
of Paisley, sall have the said bell with the said burgh’s arms thereon,
for that year, together with the rest of the gold that sall be given with
the said bell . . . . except ane double angel
that sall be given to the second horse and his master that comes next over
the score to the foremost. . . .‘ The horses and
their owners to gather at Paisley in good time before the race, and the
riders to be weighed at the Tron of the burgh. It was also arranged that
there should be ‘an aftershot race . . . . frae
ane score at the slates of Eilerslie to ane other score at the causeyhead
of the burgh of Paisley, by horse of the price of ane hundred merks.
. . . for ane furnished saddle, whilk sall be
presented by the said bailies of Paisley present and to come at the score
of the said causey-head.’
Patrick Anderson, a native of Ross-shire, and nephew of
the celebrated Bishop Lesly, had risen by learning and talent to be head
of the Scots College at Rome. This situation he left in order to add his
exertions to those which a number of his co-religionists were making, at
the hazard of their lives, for the recovery of Scotland from what they
called the Calvinistic heresy. Dempster speaks of him as ‘moribus innocens
ac fide integer,’ and tells us he had no superior in mathematics and
theology. Such as he was, he threw himself into this mission with a zeal
and gallantry which no generous opponent could now dispute, but which was
regarded in the Scotland of his own day as only a diabolic mania for the
turning of living souls to death and perdition.
May 18
Poor Patrick had not practised long, when he was apprehended with his
mass-clothes, books, and papers, and committed to prison as a trafficking
Romish priest. He owned to the fact of his having performed mass sundry
times, but would not tell in whose houses. In the ensuing October, a
brother-missionary, an Irishman, named Edmund Cana, was apprehended, along
with a younger brother, ‘who carried his mass-clothes, a portable altar, a
flagon of wine, and other requisites necessar for the mass.’—Cal.
Possibly, King James had heard of the merits of Father
Anderson as a man of learning, and felt some sympathy for him; perhaps the
French ambassador made friendly intercession in his behalf. However it
was, after the Father had suffered nine months’ imprisonment, the king
came to the resolution to shew him some mercy. At his command, the Privy
Council liberated the Father from prison, with a suit of good clothes, and
some money in his pocket, on condition that he should leave Scotland, and
return no more; otherwise, he would be liable to capital punishment. It
was enjoined upon the provost and bailies of Edinburgh that they should
‘try and speir out some ship bown from the port of Leith towards France or
Flanders; and when the ship is ready to lowse, that they tak the said
Patrick Anderson furth of their Tolbooth, carry him to the ship, and
deliver him to the skipper, and see him put aboard of the ship; and that
they give a strait command and direction to the skipper that the said
Anderson be not sufferit to come ashore again till their arrival at their
port in France or Flanders, where they sall put him a-land, and sall
report a certificate from the magistrates of the town or port where they
land, that the said Anderson was set ashore there.’ ‘—P. C. B.
The Catholic Church was at this time anxiously set upon
the recovery of Scotland; and many were they who devoted themselves to the
work. We are now disposed to wonder, not merely how so many men were
induced to risk their lives in this mission, but how they should have
expected to produce conversions in a field so inveterately Protestant.
There were, however, some encouraging precedents. It was but recently that
St Francis of Sales had brought thousands of the Swiss Calvinists back to
the bosom of the church. He and his cousin, Lewis de Sales, entered a
Protestant canton in September 1594, amidst the tears and remonstrances of
their friends, who believed their task impracticable, as well as
dangerous. In the course of a very few years, says Alban Butler, ‘his
patience, zeal, and eminent virtue wrought upon the most obdurate, and
insensibly wore away their prejudices. It is incredible what fatigues and
hardships he underwent in this mission; with what devotion and tears he
daily recommended the work of God; with what invincible courage he braved
the greatest dangers; with what meekness and patience he bore all manner
of affronts and calumnies. In 1596, he celebrated mass on Christmas-day in
the church of St Hippolytus at Thonon, and had then made seven or eight
hundred converts. In 1598, the public exercise of the Catholic religion
was restored, and Calvinism banished by the duke’s orders, over all
Chablais and the two bailiwicks of Teni and Guillard.’ At the same time,
‘his extraordinary sweetness, in conjunction with his eminent piety,
reclaimed as many vicious Catholics as it converted heretics. The
Calvinists ascribe principally to his meekness the wonderful conversions
he made amongst them. They were certainly the most obstinate of people at
that time near Geneva; yet St Francis converted no fewer than seventy-two
thousand of them." Such success in the great stronghold of Calvinism might
well engender hopes regarding Scotland, whose determined adherence to the
reformed faith had not then been so much tried as we now know it to have
been.
June
The tanning of leather may be said to have been introduced into Scotland
at this time. About a dozen tanners from Durham, Morpeth, and
Chester-le-Street, were brought in, under royal patronage, in order ‘to
instruct the tanners and barkers of the kingdom in the true and perfect
form of tanning.’ They were invested with certain privileges, and
distributed to various parts of the kingdom. It was hoped through this
means that much money, which was usually spent on foreign leather, would
now be kept within the kingdom.
Unfortunately for the success of this reformation, a
tax was put upon the leather—four shillings Scots per hide for the first
twenty-one years, and thereafter one penny. The consequence was a grievous
discontent among the cordwainers, who everywhere did what in them lay to
thwart his majesty’s design. ‘To steir the people up to exclaim against
it, they have very extraordinarily raised the prices of boots and shoon,
to twenty shillings or thereby the pair of boots, and six shillings or
thereby the pair of shoon, more nor was paid before;’ thus oppressing the
whole country, and particularly the poorer sort of people, besides
slandering the king and his Council. In January 1622, the Privy Council
dealt with a complaint that many of the tanners throughout the country,
disregarding the obvious benefit to themselves and the commonwealth from
the new modes, continued the old practice of letting their leather remain
but a short time in the pots, and then bringing it to market in a raw
state. By way of a stimulus to these persons, a certain number of them
were proclaimed rebels.
Oct
At this time, the Earl of Sutherland being a minor, and the family
resources much reduced, the inhabitants of the district ‘did shew
themselves exceeding loving and thankful to their Master and superior; for
not only did they give a general contribution—every one according to his
estate and ability—for defraying of his sister’s portion, who was now to
be married to the Laird of Pitfoddels, but also they yielded a voluntary
yearly support to the earl and his two brothers’ fitter maintenance at the
university for the space of five years. So much did they value and regard
the education and good-breeding of him who was to govern and command them,
knowing how much it doth concern every state and country to have weel-bred
and wise superiors; which good-will and course of theirs was exceedingly
weel thought of by the Earl of Sutherland and his greatest friends.’—G.
H. S.
We find it noted that in this year a pearl was found in
the burn of Kellie, a tributary of the Ythan, Aberdeenshire, so large and
beautiful that it was esteemed the best that had at any time been found in
Scotland. Sir Thomas Menzies, provost of Aberdeen, obtaining this precious
jewel, went to London to present it to the king, who, in requital, ‘gave
him twelve or fourteen chalder of victual about Dunfermline, and the
custom of merchant goods in Aberdeen during his life." It has been
reported that this pearl was inserted in the apex of the crown of
Scotland.
Apparently this circumstance called the king’s
attention to the old repute of certain Scottish rivers for the production
of pearls. In January 1621, we find the Privy Council adverting to the
fact, that the seeking for pearls had for many years been left to
interlopers, who pursued their vocation at unseasonable times, and thus
damaged the fishery, to the hurt of his majesty’s interest, he having an
undoubted right to all pearls, as he had to all precious metals found in
his dominions. Being now inclined to take up pearl-seeking on his own
account, he issued a proclamation for the preservation of ‘the waters
wherein the pearls do breed;’ and, took measures to have the fishery
conducted on a regular plan ‘no pearls to be socht or taken but at such
times and seasons of the year when they are at their chief perfection both
of colour and quality, whilk will be in the months of July and August
yearly.’ The Privy Council commissioned three gentlemen to protect the
rivers, and ‘nominat expert and skilful men to fish for pearls at
convenient seasons;’ one gentleman for the rivers of Sutherland, another
for those of Ross, and another (Mr Patrick Maitland of Auchincroch) for
the waters Ythan and Don. The gentleman just named was further made
commissioner ‘for receiving to his majesty’s use, of the haill pearls that
sall be gotten in the waters within the bounds above written, and who will
give reasonable prices for the same; the best of the whilk pearls for
bigness and colour he sall reserve to his majesty’s awn use.’
Patrick Maitland gave up his commission in July 1622,
and it was then conferred on Robert Buchan, merchant in Aberdeen, who was
reputed to be skilful in fishing for pearls, and ‘hath not only taken
divers of good value, but hath found some to be in divers waters where
none were expected.’—P. C. B.
Among the acts of the first parliament of Charles I.
was one for the ‘discharge of Robert Buchan’s patent of the pearl and
other monopolies.’ Since then, there has occasionally been successful
fishing for pearls in this river; it is said that ‘about the middle of the
last century, a gentleman in Aberdeen got £100 for a lot of pearls found
in the Ythan.’ The mouth of the river has a great muscle and cockle
fishery, and is accordingly the haunt of an extraordinary variety and
quantity of sea-fowl. In summer, when the water is low, school-boys often
amuse themselves by going in search of pearls, feeling with their toes for
the shell, which is distinguished by its curved shape, and griping it when
found with a kind of forceps at the end of a long stick.
1621, Feb 6
The church historian Calderwood notes the occurrence of three fires in
Edinburgh in one day as being regarded by the people as ‘foretokenings of
some mischief.’ ‘About the same time,’ he adds, ‘there came in a great
whale at Montrose; which was also apprehendit to be a forerunner of some
trouble.’
Mar 1
On a complaint that coal had risen to eight shillings the load, the Privy
Council had interfered in the usual rash manner, and dictated a certain
maximum price to be exacted for the article; namely, seven shillings the
load—that is, horse-load; for coal was borne at this time, and for a long
time after, on horseback. Certain coal-proprietors—Alexander, Master of
Elphinstone; Samuel Johnston of Elphinstone; Sir James Richardson of
Smeaton; Robert Richardson of Pencaitland; Jonet Lawson, Lady Pawside; and
David Preston of Whitehill—now petitioned, setting forth that the cost of
mining coal had greatly risen of late years, and that the dearth of the
article to the public was much owing to the base fellows who act as
carriers of coals. It was represented that some of the proprietors of
‘coal-heughs’ were £10,000, and some even £20,000 out of pocket. The
Master of Elphinstone’s coal of Little Pawside had been on fire for
several years; another mine of the same owner had caused an outlay of
£8000. The Smeaton pits had been so unproductive for some years as
scarcely to supply the laird’s house. The coal of Elphinstone had proved
for nine years barren, and 20,000 merks had been sunk upon it, being more
than it promised ever to repay. The coal of Mickle Pawside bad undone the
late bird’s estate, and ‘made him to sell ane part of his auld heritage:’
what with fire on the one hand and water on the other, it was a hopeless
case. As for the coal of Pencaitland, it was wasted and decayed, past hope
of recovery, but at such extraordinary charges as it was not worth having
bestowed upon it. The basis of the evils complained of lay with the
coal-carriers, who dealt fraudulently with the public. Had the particulars
been rightly known, the lords, it was assumed, would never have given a
decreet against the complainers, ‘who are gentlemen of grit charge and
burden,’ overlooking the faults of those base fellows who carry coals.
The lords appointed a commission to inquire into the
matter, and report what prices they thought ought to be fixed for this
necessary article. In consequence of a report soon after given in by this
commission, it was ordained that the price of coal at ‘the hill’ should be
7s. 8d. (7 2/3d. sterling) per load; and it was at the same time agreed
that a measure for the load and a charge for carriage should afterwards be
appointed.—P. C. R.