(by
the sieve) is very ancient, having been practised among the Greeks. He is
puzzled about her confession, as it may be from frenzy and hatred of life;
but if the fact of the consultation can be proved, he is clear that it
infers death.
Divination by a sieve was performed in this manner:
‘The sieve being suspended, after repeating a certain form of words, it is
taken between the two fingers only, and the names of the parties
suspected, repeated: he at whose name the sieve turns, trembles, or
shakes, is reputed guilty of the evil in question.... It was sometimes
practised by suspending the sieve by a thread, or fixing it to the points
of a pair of scissors, giving it room to turn, and naming as before the
parties suspected: in this manner Coscinomancy is still practised in some
parts of England.’—Dernonologia. By J. S. F. London, 1827; p. 146.
Feb
‘Strange apparitions were seen in and about Glasgow, and strange voices
and wild cries [were heard], particularly one night about the Deanside
well, was heard a cry, Help, help!'—Law. Many such occurrences are
noted about this time and for four or five years before. In March 1679,
for instance, a voice was heard at Paisley Abbey, crying: ‘Wo, wo, wo—pray,
pray, pray!’ Such reports reveal the excited state of the public mind and
a general sense of anxiety under the religious variances of the time.
1682, Mar
Major Learmont, an old soldier of the Covenant, though only a tailor to
his trade, was taken in his own house near Lanark, or rather in a vault
connected with it which he had contrived for hiding. ‘It had its entry in
his house, upon the side of a wall, and closed up with a whole stone, so
close that none could have judged it but to be a stone of the building. It
descended below the foundation of the house, and was in length about forty
yards, and in the far end, the other mouth of it, was closed with feal
[turf], having a feal dyke built upon it; so that with ease, when he went
out, he shot out the feal and closed it again. Here he sheltered for the
space of sixteen years, taking to it at every alarm, and many times hath
his house been searched for him by the soldiers; but where he sheltered
none was privy to it but his own domestics, and at length it is discovered
by his own herdsman.’—Law.
Mar 9
Thomas Barclay of Collerine in Fife was a youth of eighteen, in possession
of ‘an opulent estate,’ and likewise of a considerable jurisdiction in his
county. His predecessors were loyalists; but Thomas himself, by the
remarriage of his mother to Mure of Rowallan in Ayrshire, was, according
to the allegation of his uncle John Barclay, in the way of being ‘bred up
in a family of fanatical and disloyal principles, not being permitted to
visit or be acquainted with his nearest relations and friends, and denied
all manner of education suitable to his quality . . . .
not being sent to college ‘—he had, moreover, been influenced to
choose ‘curators altogether strangers to his family, of known disaffected
and disloyal principles.’ It seemed, in John Barclay’s judgment,
unavoidable in these circumstances that a supporter would be lost to his
majesty’s interests, unless a remedy were provided.
It seems so far creditable to a government which has a
good many sins at its charge, that, when this case came before the Duke of
York and the Privy Council, on John Barclay’s petition, and both sides had
been heard—namely, the uncle on one side, and the Lady Rowallan, with the
three curators, Montgomery younger of Skelmorley, the Laird of Dunlop, and
Mr John Stirling, minister of Irvine, on the other—they decided that the
young Barclay was of age to act and choose curators for himself and that
the defenders were not bound to produce him in court; thus frankly
consenting that the young man should rest in the danger of being perverted
from the loyalty of his family.—P. C. R.
Apr
A severe murrain commenced amongst the cattle, thought to be owing to the
deficient herbage of the preceding year, and the heavy rains of the
intermediate season. The support of cattle during winter was at all times
a trying difficulty in those days of no turnip-husbandry; but on an
occasion like this it was scarcely possible. It was remarked that the
farmers had to cut heather for their beasts to lie upon, and pull the old
straw out of the coverings of their houses to feed them with. The murrain
lasted till May, when some tenants in the Highlands lost as many as forty
cows by it.
Apr 13
A complaint presented to the Privy Council by Janet Stewart, servant to Mr
William Dundas, advocate, set forth that James Aikenhead, apothecary in
Edinburgh, took upon him ‘to compose and vent poisonous tablets,’ and
‘Mistress Elizabeth Edmonstoun, having got notice of these tablets, and
that they would work strange wanton affections and humours in the bodies
of women,’ sent James Chalmers for some of them, which she caused to be
administered to the complainer, in presence of several persons, ‘as a
sweetmeat tablet.’ Janet having innocently accepted of the tablet, ate of
it, and in consequence ‘fell into a great fever, wherein she continued for
twenty days, before anybody knew what was the cause of it; so that the
poison has crept into her bones, and she is like never to recover.’
Fountainhall tells us that Janet would not have
recovered, ‘had not Doctor Irvine given her an antidote.’ The Council
remitted the case to the College of Physicians, as being skilled in such
matters (periti in arte), ‘who,’ says Fountainhall, ‘thought such
medicaments not safe to be given without first taking their own
advice.'
May 3
A riot took place in the streets of Edinburgh, in consequence of an
attempt to carry away, as soldiers to serve the Prince of Orange, some
young men who had been imprisoned for a trivial offence. As the lads were
marched down the street under a guard, to be put on board a ship in Leith
Road, some women called out to them: ‘Pressed or not pressed?’ They
answered: ‘Pressed,’ and so caused an excitement in the multitude. A woman
who sat on the street selling pottery, threw a few sherds at the guard,
and some other people, finding a supply of missiles at a house which was
building, followed her example. ‘The king’s forces,’ says Fountainhall,
‘were exceedingly assaulted and abused.’ Under the order of their
commander, Major Keith, they turned and fired upon the crowd, when, as
usual, only innocent bystanders were injured. Seven men and two women were
killed, and twenty-five wounded—a greater bloodshed than ‘has been at once
these sixty years done in the streets of Edinburgh.’ One of the women
being pregnant, the child was cut from her and baptised in the streets.
Three of the most active individuals in this mob were seized and tried,
but the assize would not find them guilty. The magistrates were severely
blamed for their negligence and cowardice in this affair.
It gave origin to the well-known Town-guard of
Edinburgh, for, under the recommendation of the Privy Council, and with
the sanction of the king, it was agreed to raise a body of a hundred and
eight men, to serve as a protection to the city in all emergencies. The
inhabitants were taxed to pay for it, ‘some a groat, some fivepence, and
the highest at sixpence a week;’ but this being found oppressive, the
support of the corps, which cost 22,000 merks a year, was soon after put
upon the town’s common good. Patrick Graham, a younger son of Graham of
Inchbrakie, was appointed captain, at the dictation of the Duke of York,
who, says Fountainhall, ‘would give a vast sum to have such a breach in
London’s walls.’
Many who remember the Town-guard, with their rusty
brown uniform, their Lochaber axes, and fierce Highland faces, as a
curiosity of the streets of Edinburgh in their young days, will be perhaps
unpleasingly surprised to learn that the corps was originally an engine of
the government of the last Stuarts. Captain Graham, who was a sincere
loyalist by blood, being descended from the Inchbrakie who sheltered
Montrose on his commencing the insurrection of 1644, figured with his
guards on various occasions during the remainder of the Stuart reigns,
particularly at the bringing in of the Earl of Argyle to be executed in
1685, when he and the hangman received the unhappy Maccallummore at the
Watergate, and conducted him along the street to prison.
The Town-guard was disbanded in November 1817, by which
time it had been reduced to twenty-five privates, two sergeants, two
corporals, and two drummers.
May 6
The Gloucester frigate, on her voyage from London to Edinburgh with
the Duke of York and his friends, and attended by some smaller vessels,
was by a blunder wrecked on Yarmouth Sands. A signal-gun brought boats
from the other vessels to the rescue of the distressed party, and the duke
and several other men of importance were taken from the vessel, just
before she went to pieces. A hundred and fifty persons, of whom eighty
were men of quality, including the Earl of Roxburgh, the Laird of Hopetoun,
Sir Joseph Douglas of Pumpherston, and Lord O’Brian of the Irish peerage,
were drowned. Sir George Gordon of Haddo, president of the Court of
Session, and who had just received the high appointment of Chancellor of
Scotland, escaped by leaping into the water, whence he was drawn by the
hair of the head into a boat. The Earl of Roxburgh had been heard crying
for a boat, and offering twenty thousand guineas for one. His servant in
the water took him on his back, and was swimming with him to a boat, when
a drowning person clutched at them, and the unfortunate earl fell off and
perished, his servant barely escaping for the moment, and dying an hour
after. The duke and the rest of the survivors arrived in Leith next day,
without further accident.
‘The pilot, one Aird, of Borrowstounness, was
threatened with hanging for going to sleep and giving wrong directions
. .. . he was condemned to perpetual
imprisonment.’—Foun.
It is remarkable that the widow of the Earl of Roxburgh
survived him in widowhood for seventy-one years, dying in 1753.
June 13
Sir Alexander Lindsay of Evelick—an ancient castle on the a high grounds
overlooking the Carse of Gowrie—had married as a second wife the widow of
Mr William Douglas, ‘the advocate and poet." Both had children approaching
maturity, and William Douglas, the lady’s son, became very naturally the
playfellow of Sir Alexander’s heir Thomas. Whether jealousy on account of
the superior prospects of Thomas Lindsay had entered William Douglas’s
heart, we cannot tell; but the two boys being out one day in the Den of
Pitrodie, a romantic broomy dell near Evelick, Douglas was tempted to stab
Lindsay with a clasp-knife, and so murder him.
The wretched boy gave a confession next day, fully
admitting his guilt. It commences thus: ‘I have been over proud and rash
all my life. I was never yet firmly convinced there was a God or a devil,
a heaven or a hell, till now. To tell the way how I did the deed my heart
doth quake [and] head ryves. As I was playing and kittling at the head of
the brae, I stabbed him with the only knife which I have, and I tumbled
down the brae with him to the burn; all the way he was struggling with me,
while I fell upon him in the burn, and there he uttered one or two pitiful
words. The Lord Omnipotent and all-seeing God learn my heart to repent.’
On this occasion, ‘he also produced the little knife called Jock the
leig, with ane iron haft.’
Being on the ensuing day brought before the
sheriff-court of Perth, it was there alleged against him that ‘he did
conceive ane deadly hatred and evil [will] against Thomas Lindsay, son to
Sir Alexander Lindsay of Evelick, with a settled resolution to bereave him
of life; he did upon the thretteen day of this instant month, being
Tuesday last, about seven hours in the afternoon or thereby, as he was
coming along the Den of Pitrodie in company with the said Thomas Lindsay,
fall upon the said Thomas, and with his knife did give him five several
stabs and wounds in his body, whereof one about the mouth of his stomach,
and thereafter dragged him down the brae of the den to the burn, and there
with his feet did trample upon the said Thomas lying in the water, and as
yet he not being satisfied with all that cruelty which he did to the said
Thomas, he did with a stone dash him upon the head, so that immediately
the said Thomas died.’
To the great concern of his friends, the boy now
retracted his confession, alleging that he found Thomas Lindsay lying in
the burn, and in trying to help him up had fallen upon him. The trial was
consequently postponed to a future day. Meanwhile his friends exerted
themselves to bring back the culprit to a sense of his guilt, and after a
few days, they seem to have succeeded. On the 25th of June, his mother is
found writing to the Laird of Balhaivie, a cousin of the murdered youth,
relating how she had been witness to the power of God in changing the
heart of the obstinate. ‘In a very little,’ says she, ‘after you went to
the door, he rose up in such a passion of grief and sorrow, crying out in
such bitterness, rapping on the table, and cursing the hour it entered
into his head to recant, and promised through the Lord’s strength, nothing
should persuade him to do it again, but that he should constantly affirm
the truth of his first declaration. He took out the declaration the devil
had belied him to write, and cried to cast it in the fire, with so much
sorrow and tears, as he took his head in his hand and said he feared to
distract [become distracted], and prayed that the Lord would help him in
his right judgment, that he might still adhere to truth. This,’ continues
the wretched mother, ‘was some consolation to my poor confounded mind; but
when I consider that deceitful bow the heart, and his frequent distemper,
my spirit fails.... I desire you and the rest of your worthy friends no to
pit yourself to needless charges in the affair, for I, his nearest
relation, being not only convinced justice should be satisfied, but am
desirous nothing may occur to hinder. And as I know, though both he and I
hath creditable friends, they will be ashamed to own me in this. The good
God that best knows my pitiful case bear [me] up under this dismal lot,
and give you and all Christians a heart to pray for him, and your poor
afflicked servant, Rachel Kirkwood.’
The Laird of Balhaivie seems to have entered kindly
into the lady’s feelings. His answer contains a few traits highly
characteristic of the time. ‘Much honoured madam, as soon as Sir Patrick
Threipland] gave me account yesternight of your son’s second confession, I
went alongs with Sir Patrick and saw him, and I swear to outward
appearance he seemed very serious, and I pray God Almighty continue him so
My cousin, young Evelick, and all his relations are very sensible of your
ladyship’s extraordinary and wonderful good carriage in ane affair so
astounding as this has been, and ye renew it in your letter, wherein ye
desire they should not be put to needless trouble and charges in the
affair. The truth is, madam, there is none of us but are grieved to the
bottom of our hearts that we should be obliged to pursue your son to
death; but we keep evil consciences if we suffer the murder of so near a
relation to go unpunished; and his life for the taking away of the other’s
is the least atonement that credit and conscience can allow. His dying by
the hand of justice will be the only way to expiate so great a crime, and
likewise be a means to take away all occasion of grudge which otherwise
could not but continue in the family....'
The youth was brought to trial in Edinburgh, and
condemned to suffer death on the 4th of August. After the trial, he
confessed that it was he who in the January preceding ‘put fire in Henry
Graham’s writing-chamber, out of revenge, and that he had first stolen
some books there.’ He was subjected to a new trial for this crime,
because, being treason, it would have inferred a forfeiture of his estate,
worth upwards of £2000; but on this occasion he retracted his confession,
nor could any thing prevail with him to renew it judicially. The jury, who
were honest Edinburgh citizens, seeing that the design was to enrich
certain courtiers at the expense of the sisters of the young homicide,
acquitted him of the new charge, to the great irritation of the king’s
advocate, who ‘swore that the next assizers he should choose should be
Linlithgow’s soldiers, to curb the phanaticks.'
July 5
The magistrates of Dumfries had a man called Richard Storie in their jail,
on a charge of murder, and were put to great charges in keeping and
guarding him, because several of his friends from the Borders daily
threatened to force the prison and
permit him to make his escape ‘if he shall remain any longer there.' It
was therefore found necessary to order that Storie should be transferred
by the sheriff under a sufficient guard to the next sheriff upon the road
to Edinburgh, and so on to Edinburgh itself, where he should be placed in
firmance in the Tolbooth.
There was the more reason for the magistrates of
Dumfries being anxious about the detention of Richard Storie, that George
Storie, an associate in his crime, had already escaped. These two men were
accused of having basely and cruelly murdered Francis Armstrong in
Alisonbank, in the preceding month of June. The witnesses being
Englishmen, it was necessary (December 7, 1682) to recommend to the
sheriff of Cumberland to take measures for insuring their appearance
before the Court of Justiciary at the approaching trial. This proving
ineffectual, the widow and six children of Francis Armstrong petitioned in
March for further and more effectual efforts; and the lords agreed to
address the English secretary of state on the subject.
Not long after (April 30, 1684), the Council was
informed that, ‘by the throng of prisoners in the Tolbooth of Dumfries,
the same has been already broken, and is yet in the same hazard.’ Being at
the same time made aware ‘that, within the castle of Dumfries, there are
some strong vaults fit for the keeping of prisoners,’ they gave orders to
have these prepared for the purpose.
July 7
A poor Quaker, named Thomas Dunlop, had taken a house in Musselburgh, and
was endeavouring by humble industry to support himself and his family,
without being burdensome to any. But other Quakers came occasionally about
him, to the annoyance of the magistrates of the town; and finding he broke
a local law, in having no certificate of character from the minister of
the parish in which he had last resided, they took advantage of the
circumstance to get quit of him. Poor Thomas and his wife and little
children were thrust out of their home into the fields, notwithstanding
his entreaties for delay till he should get letters certifying his
respectability from persons they knew. He had now been lodging for
thirteen days and nights in the fields, the magistrates resisting all
pleadings in his favour from charitable persons, and disregarding the
misery which he was manifestly enduring. On his petition to that body
which almost every week was sending recusant Whigs to the scaffold, they
lent him a patient hearing, and summoned the Musselburgh magistrates
before them; but all that the laws permitted them to do in the case, was
to ordain that Thomas might have recourse to a legal action if the
magistrates had not ‘removed him in ane orderly manner.’—P. C.
R.
July 8
James Somerville, younger of Drum, riding home to that place from
Edinburgh, found on the way two friends fighting with swords—namely,
Thomas Learmont, son of Mr Thomas Learmont, an advocate, and Hew Paterson,
younger of Bannockburn. These two young men had quarrelled over their
cups. Young Somerville dismounted, and tried to separate them, but
received a mortal wound from Paterson’s sword, though inflicted by the
hand of Learmont, the two combatants having perhaps, like Hamlet and
Laertes, exchanged weapons. The wounded man lived two days, and expressed
his forgiveness of Learmont, who, by his advice, fled. ‘Some alleged his
wounds were not mortal, but misguided.’ Somerville was the progeny of the
marriage described as having taken place at Corehouse in November
1650. He left an infant son, who carried on the
line of the family.— Foun.
Aug 17
A comet began to appear in the north-west. ‘The star was big, and
the tail broad and long, at the appearance of four yards.’ It continued
visible for twenty days.—Law.
This was the celebrated Halley's
Comet, so called in honour of
the illustrious astronomer who first ascertained, by his calculations
regarding it, the periodicity of comets. The same object had been observed
by Kepler in 1607, and by Apian in 1531. ‘The identity of these meteors
seeming to Halley unquestionable, he ventured to predict that the same
comet would reappear in 1758, and that it would be found to revolve in a
very elongated ellipse in about seventy-six years. As the critical period
approached, which was to decide so momentous a question regarding the
system of the world, the greatest mathematians endeavoured to track the
comet’s course with a minuteness which Halley’s opportunities did not
permit him to reach. The illustrious Clairhaut, feeling that a general
prediction was not enough, undertook the most complex problem as to the
disturbing effects of the planets through whose orbits it must pass.... He
succeeded in predicting one of the positions for the comet for the middle
of April; stating, however, that he might be in error by thirty days. The
comet occupied the position referred to on the 12th of March.’—Nichol’s
Contemplations on the Solar System.
It is humiliating to have to remark, that the notices
of comets which we derive from Scotch writers down to this time, contain
nothing but accounts of the popular fancies regarding them. Practical
astronomy seems to have then been unknown in our country; and hence, while
in other lands men were carefully observing, computing, and approaching to
just conclusions regarding these illustrious strangers of the sky, our
diarists could only tell us how many yards long they seemed to be,
what effects were apprehended from them in the way of war and
pestilence, and how certain pious divines ‘improved‘
them for spiritual edification. Early in this century, Scotland had
produced one great philosopher - who had supplied his craft with the
mathematical instrument by which complex problems, such as the movement of
comets, were alone to be solved. It might have been expected that the
country of Napier, seventy years after his time, would have had many sons
capable of applying his key to such mysteries of nature. But not one had
arisen—nor did any rise for fifty years onward, when at length Colin
Maclaurin unfolded in the Edinburgh University the sublime philosophy of
Newton. There could not be a more expressive signification of the
character of the seventeenth century in Scotland. our unhappy contentions
about external religious matters had absorbed the whole genius of the
people, rendering to us the age of Cowley, of WaIler, and of Milton, as
barren of elegant literature, as that of Horrocks, of Halley, and of
Newton, was of science.
Nov 23
John Corse, Andrew Armour, and Robert Burne, merchants in Glasgow, were
now arranging for the setting up of a manufactory ‘for making of damaties,
fustines, and stripped vermiliones,’ expecting it would be ‘a great
advantage to the country, and keep in much money therein which is sent out
thereof for import of the same.’ Seeing ‘it undoubtedly will require a
great stock and many servants, strangers, which are come and are to be
sent for,’ the enterprisers deemed themselves entitled to have their work
declared a manufactory, so that it might enjoy the privileges accorded to
such by act of parliament. This favour was granted by the Council for nine
years, ‘but prejudice to any other persons to set up and work in the said
work.’—P. C. R.
Dec
Daniel Mure of Gledstanes, out of health and mental vigour, and believed
to be on his death-bed, was induced to make a disposition of his estate to
Thomas Carmichael of Eastend. Such a disposition, however, could not be
valid by the law of Scotland, unless the testator appeared afterwards ‘at
kirk and market’— an arrangement designed to insure that natural heirs
should not be cheated. By ‘a most devilish contrivance’ of William
Chiesley, writer in Edinburgh, Thomas Bell, Carmichael’s servant, was
dressed up to personate the sick man, and taken with all due form to the
public places appointed by the law. The notary before whom the man
presented himself was so doubtful of his being Daniel Mure, that he caused
him to take his oath that he was truly that person. When Carmichael and
his man afterwards retired to a tavern with the notary, the latter once
more expressed his doubt, saying: ‘This person is certainly not like
Daniel Mure;’ to which Carmichael answered, that he was really the man,
but much altered by sickness. On the death of Daniel Mure soon after,
Carmichael accordingly appeared as the inheritor of the estate of
Gledstanes, to the exclusion of Francis Mure, merchant in Edinburgh, the
brother of the deceased. The affair was the more wicked, as the estate was
one which had been long in Mure’s family.
Dec 21
On the whole matter being brought before the Privy Council by Francis Mure,
the truth became clear, and Carmichael was punished by a fine of live
thousand merks, whereof two thousand were assigned to Francis, as a
compensation for the damage he had sustained; while Chiesley, the writer,
was mulcted in three thousand merks for being accessory to the cheat. An
obligation which Francis Mure had been induced to give to Carmichael,
binding himself never to expose or pursue the forgery, was at the same
time discharged. It is not unworthy of remark, that Chiesley, who had
devised this forgery and drawn up the iniquitous obligation aforesaid, was
one of those members of the legal profession who had refused, from
scruples of conscience, to take the Test.—P. C. R.
Dec 23
Alexander Nisbet of Craigentinny and Macdougall of Makerston had gone
abroad to fight a duel, attended by Sir William Scott of Harden and
Douglas, ‘ensign to Colonel Douglas,’ as seconds. The Privy Council
hearing of it, ordered the four gentlemen to be confined in the Tolbooth
in different rooms, until it should be inquired into. The principals were,
on petition, set at liberty in a few days, after giving caution for
reappearance.—P. C. R.
1683, Jan 5
The widow of Andrew Anderson at this time carried on business in Edinburgh
as the king’s printer, by virtue of a royal gift debarring others from
exercising the like art. The bibles produced by her are said by
Fountainhall to have been wretchedly executed. One David Lindsay having
now got a similar gift, Mrs Anderson endeavoured to keep him out of the
trade, setting forth that she had been previously invested with the
privilege, and ‘one press is sufficiently able to serve all Scotland,
our printing being but inconsiderable.' The Lords ordained that Mrs
Anderson’s monopoly should be held as only including the printing of such
things as had been specified in the gift to her husband’s predecessor
Tyler.
There were at this time printers in Glasgow and
Aberdeen, but probably no other part of Scotland—though St Andrews had had
a press before the Reformation. The business of the printer has been of
slow growth in our country. Edinburgh contained in 1763 only six
printing-offices; in 1790, sixteen; there are, in 1858, sixty-two printing
firms, besides several publishing offices, in which special printing work
is executed.
Feb 1
It was represented to the Privy Council by the Bishop of Aberdeen that the
Quakers in his diocese were now proceeding to such insolency, as to erect
meeting-houses for their worship and ‘schools for training up their
children in their godless and heretical opinions;’ providing funds for the
support of these establishments, and in some instances adding
burial-grounds for their own special use. The Council issued orders to
have proper investigations made amongst the leading Quakers concerned and
the proprietors of the ground on which the said meeting-houses and schools
had been built—P. C. R
Apr 5
At the funeral of the Duke of Lauderdale at Haddington, while the usual
dole of money was distributing among the beggars, one, named Bell, stabbed
another. ‘He was apprehended, and several stolen things found on him; and,
he being made to touch the corpse, the wound bled afresh. The town of
Haddington, who it seems have a sheriff’s power, judged him presently, and
hanged him over the bridge next day.’—Foun.
Apr 19
Alexander Robertson of Struan, whom we saw two years back breaking out
with mortal fury against an agent of the Marquis of Athole in the chamber
of the Privy Council, now comes before us in a more agreeable
light—namely, as one seeking to cultivate an industrial economy in the
midst of the vicious idleness and barbarism of the Highlands. Far up among
the Perthshire alps, on the dreary shores of Loch Rannoch, there was then
‘a considerable wood,’ the property of Struan. This would have been
useless to him and the country—being in so remote a wilderness—‘
if he had not, with great expenses and trouble, caused erect
saw-mills, in which, these divers years past, there has been made the
number of 176,000 deals.’ This had redounded ‘to the great benefit and
conveniency of the country adjacent, besides the keeping of many persons
at work’ who would otherwise have been idle and in wretchedness. Struan,
however, could not obtain a market for the great bulk of his timber,
without sending it in floats along Loch Rannoch, and down the water of
Tummel into the Tay; and in this long and tedious passage, it was
sometimes driven by storms and spates [floods] on shore, or on the banks
of the rivers, where it was made prey of by the country people, ‘thinking
they would be no further liable than to a dead spulyie.’
Occasionally, ‘louss and broken men’ attacked his mills in the night-time,
and helped themselves to such timber as they wanted. ‘So that his work was
likely to be broken and ruined.’ The Privy Council, on Struan’s petition,
issued a strong edict for the prevention of these spoliations, and further
gave him power to make roads between his saw-mills in Carrie and Apnadull,
and to take a charge of those from Rannoch to Perth, so that he might have
the alternative of land-carriage for his timber.—P. C. R.
The chance of getting the spoliations put down must
have been very small, for thieving raged like a very pestilence in the
Highlands. The Earl of Perth, writing from Drummond in July 1682, says
expressively: ‘We are so plagued with thieving here, it would pity any
heart to see the condition the poor people are in."
Apr
Sir Thomas Stewart of Coltness was obliged to fly to Holland, in
consequence of a vague threat held out by Sir George Mackenzie, supposed
to have been designed to frighten the unfortunate gentleman away, that his
estate might be seized. The subsequent circumstances, as related, by his
son, give a striking view of the troubles in which a Presbyterian family
of rank might then be involved, even while making no active demonstrations
against the government.
‘The day after he was gone, came one of the Lord
Advocate’s emissaries, Irvine of Bonshaw, with a party of dragoons heated
with fury and with liquor... They demanded the family horses, though their
warrant bore no more than to apprehend the person of Thomas Stewart of
Coltness; and when Irvine was told by Mr James Stewart, Coltness’s second
son, that he was acting beyond orders in offering to seize horses or
goods, he swore and blasphemed against rebels and assassins, and that any
treatment was warrantable against such. The child Robert made some
childish noise, and he threw down the boy of eight years old from a high
leaping-on stone. The lady, seven months gone with child, came down to
reason with him, but be was so much the more enraged. He offered to shoot
the groom [who] stood behind, for denying the keys of the stable, and at
length carried off the young gentlemen David and James’s horses... There
was a complaint given in at Edinburgh, and the horses were returned, jaded
and abused by ramblers. This Mr Irvine, some months after, in a drunken
quarrel at Lanark, was stabbed to death on a dunghill by one of his own
gang: a proper exit for such a blood-hound.’
The lady immediately displenished her house, and,
notwithstanding the delicate state in which she was, prepared to follow
her husband to Holland. Taking with her her step-son David, and a niece of
three years, the child of Mr James Stewart, also an exile in Holland, she
set sail from Borrowstounness in the beginning of June. The ship
encountered a severe storm. ‘The sea was so boisterous, the lady was in
danger of being tossed from her bed, and her step-son was alarmed, and got
up - staggering in the hold, and bewailing; but
she composedly said: "David, go to your cabin-bed, and be more quiet, for
there is no back-door here to fly out by." In some days after, they got
safe to harbour. They took the treck-scuit from Rotterdam to Utrecht, and
a surprising accident happened by the way, and in the scuit close by her:
a Dutch minister’s wife, a fellow-traveller and with child, miscarried and
died instantly. The husband was as one distracted, and would not be
persuaded she was dead, but in a swoon. He made lamentable outcries, but
all to no effect. This was alarming to the lady, and made her reflect and
acknowledge the kind Providence had preserved her and the fruit of her
womb, when in danger both in the journey and ‘the stormy voyage. Coltness
has a remark of thanksgiving on this in his diary, and concludes with
this, "God makes our hymn sound both of mercy and judgment."
‘Her husband, with Mr Pringle of Torwoodlee, came
half-way on to Leyden, and met these recent fugitives, and conducted them
to Utrecht, where trouble was in part forgot, and sorrow in some measure
fled, upon the first transports of being safe and together. Here was the
ingenuous, upright Archibald Earl of Argyle, too virtuous for so
licentious a court as that of King Charles. Here was the Earl of Loudon,
who died anno 1684, and lies buried in the English church at Leyden. There
was here the Lord Viscount Stair, and with him for education his son, Sir
David Dalrymple, in better times Lord Advocate, and his grandson John,
that great general under Queen Anne, and the ambassador of elegant figure
in France, and a field-marshal under King George. Here was also Lord
Melville, [who became] High Commissioner to the Restitution Parliament
under King William, and secretary of state, and with him his son the Earl
of Leven, who went to the king of Prussia’s service, and after this was
commander-in-chief in Scotland, and governor of Edinburgh Castle in Queen
Anne’s reign. But it were endless to name all the honest party of gentry
and ministers, outlawed, banished, and forfaulted, for the cause of
religion and civil liberty.’
In July, Lady Coltness brought into the world the
person who relates the above particulars. ‘The occasion was joyful to the
parents; but the mother had not the blessing of the breasts, and there was
hard procuring a nurse for a stranger. This gave a damp; but a Dutch lady
was so kind as wean her daughter a little sooner, and so a careful and
experienced nurse was procured.’
'....Coltness fell in straits . . .
. for he soon spent the little he brought with him, and remittances
were uncertain and but small. His friends at home were under a cloud.
Alertoun, his brother-in-law, was imprisoned and fined; Sir John Maxwell,
his other brother-in-law, was fined £10,000 and imprisoned; and his
younger children had none to care for them, but their grandmother, Sir
James Stewart’s widow. She had a large jointure [that] was not affected,
and acted the part of a kind parent In this present situation, the old
widow lady could give little relief to those banished. It was chargeable
supporting the expenses of a family in Holland, and all visible sources
were stopped or withdrawn; yet a kind Providence raised up friends in a
strange land. Of these the most sympathising was Mr Andrew Russell,
merchant-factor at Rotterdam; he generously proffered money, and
genteelly, as it were, forced it upon Coltness (and so he did to Sir
Patrick Hume of Polwarth, Mr James Stewart, advocate, and others), though
he could have no probable prospect of recovering it; and yet all was
thankfully repaid after the Revolution.’
‘In the end of 1684, Coltness removed to Rotterdam, and
there he received many civilities and friendships from his countrymen,
merchants, and others, and had some remittances, and in part provisions,
transmitted in Scotch ships. Here he had much society of fellow-sufferers,
and they had select meetings for conference and intelligence. The badge of
such select club was a seal in wax, upon a bit of rounded card, with a
blue ribbon and a knot, all in a small spale-box. I have seen Coltness’s
ticket; the device was handsome, the motto Omne tulit punctum, the
seal was upon a single spot of the heart suite card."
These severities against the Coltness family form a
striking example of those now practised every day upon the known adherents
of the more extreme Presbyterian views, and the whole would be quite
unintelligible to a candid mind in our times, if we were not aware that,
thirty years before, the party in which Sir Thomas Stewart’s father was a
leader, were subjecting their dissidents to precisely similar
treatment: see, for example, the case of the
family of Menzies of Pitfoddels, fined, confiscated, driven from their
native land and means of living, and the lady and one of her sons lost in
a storm at sea; see the case of Dr Forbes of Corse, thrust from his
college and country because he scrupled to subscribe the Solemn League and
Covenant; his very bones refused burial in his own ground! It happened
that, in the very same month which saw Sir Thomas Stewart’s family
subjected to the harsh treatment above described, there was an application
to the Privy Council regarding the sufferings of an Episcopalian family
through two generations, in consequence of the rigours exercised partly
under the dictation of Sir Thomas’s father. It is in the form of a
petition from Mr John Ross, minister of Foveran in Aberdeenshire, and Mr
Alexander Ross, parson of Perth. Their grandfather, Mr John Ross, parson
of Birse in Aberdeenshire, had been turned out of his ministry in 1647,
merely for his ‘opposition to the rebellious and seditious principles and
practices which at that time had overspread the land.’ He was likewise
‘fined at several times in five thousand merks, and imprisoned in the
Tolbooth of Edinburgh for the space of nine months together, and forced to
lend the sum of four thousand merks on the public bands, as they were
called, for carrying on that unnatural war.’ He had ‘his house frequently
plundered by the rebellious armies then on foot, so that [he} was
prejudged in at least the sum of twenty thousand pounds Scots.’ Thus
pillaged, and kept out of his ministry for thirteen years, he had both
reduced to great straits, and left his family in poverty. The claim of the
sufferer and his family was acknowledged at the Restoration by an order of
two hundred pounds out of the vacant stipends; but it had never been paid.
His eldest son, parson of Monymusk, the father of the petitioners, and who
had likewise suffered for his loyalty, was kept poor all his days through
the losses of his father, and had lately died, leaving a widow and eight
children alive, besides the petitioners, with no means of support but what
the petitioners could contribute. Here, in short, was a clerical family
originally of some substance, reduced to poverty through the oppressions
which had been exercised upon it by those now in their turn suffering, or
their predecessors.’ In such facts there is certainly no valid excuse for
the severities of the present time; but they tell us how these severities
came to be practised. The reaction, however, from the Presbyterian reign
of terror in the middle of the century was now beginning to strain and
crack, and a settlement of the political pendulum was not far distant.
June 5
At the circuit court at Stirling, a man was tried for reviling a parson,
‘in causing the piper play The Deil stick the Minister. Sundry
pipers were there present as witnesses, to declare it was the name of ane
spring.’—Foun.
July 12
Captain Thomas Hamilton, merchant in Edinburgh, who had for some years
carried on a considerable trade with the American plantations in the
importation of beaver and racoon skins, craved and obtained privileges for
a manufactory of beaver hats which he proposed to set up, being the
first ever attempted in Scotland. He set forth his design as one which
‘will do no prejudice to any felt-makers,’ while it would benefit the
kingdom by furnishing a particular class of articles ‘at easy rates.’ He
expected also to be able to export his hats.—P. C. R.
Sep
Alexander Young, Bishop of Ross, ‘a moderate and learned man,’ being
afflicted with stone, was obliged, like his predecessor in the like
circumstances above a hundred years before,’ to travel to Paris for the
purpose of having a surgical operation performed for his relief. Like his
predecessor, also, he sank under the consequences of the operation.—Foun.
Sep 10
It was believed that much native copper existed in Scotland; yet all
attempts at realising it by mining had failed. A German named Joachim
Gonel, highly skilled in copper-mining, now proposed to the Privy Council
to work a copper-mine in the parish of Currie with proper workmen brought
from abroad, all at his own expense, provided only he got a present of the
mine from the state. The Council, deeming such a work calculated to be
useful to the public interest, recommended the government to comply with
the request.—P. C. R.
Nov
At this time began a frost which lasted with great severity till March,
‘with some storms and snow now and then.’ ‘The rivers at Dundee,
Borrowstounness, and other places where the sea ebbs and flows, did
freeze, which hath not been observed in the memory of man before; and
thereby the cattle, especially the sheep, were reduced to great want
. . . . the like not seen since the winter
1674.’ —Foun.
This frost prevailed equally in England and Ireland,
producing ice on the Thames below Gravesend. One remarkable circumstance
arising from it is noted by a gentleman residing in London, that printing
was hindered for a quarter of a year (by the hardening of the ink).
Patrick Walker speaks emphatically of this frost, and
says: ‘Even before the snow fell, when the earth was as iron, how many
graves were in the west of Scotland in desert places, in ones, twos,
threes, fours, fives together, which was no imaginary thing! Many yet
alive, who measured them with their staves, [found them] exactly the
deepness, breadth, and length of other graves, and the lump of earth lying
whole together at their sides, which they set their feet upon and handled
with their hands. Which many concluded afterwards did presage the two
bloody slaughter years that followed, when eighty-two of the Lord’s people
were suddenly and cruelly murdered in desert places.’
‘An old minister, Mr Bennet, records in his
manuscripts, that, before our late troubles [the Civil War], there were a
number of graves cast open in a moor in the south.’—Law.
Dec
A scandal broke forth against Mr John M’Queen, one of the ministers of
Edinburgh. It was alleged that, having fallen besottedly in love with Mrs
Euphame Scott, who despised him, he contrived by a trick to obtain
possession of one of her undergarments, out of which he made a waistcoat
and pair of drawers, by wearing which he believed the lady would
infallibly be induced to give him her affections. ‘He was suspended for
thir fooleries; but in the beginning of February 1684, the bishop reponed
him .‘—Foun.
If the Presbyterian satirists are not altogether
fable-mongers, the bishop (Paterson) must have had a strong fellow-feeling
for M’Queen. ‘He is said to have kissed his band-strings in the pulpit, in
the midst of an eloquent discourse, which was the signal agreed upon
betwixt him and a lady to whom he was suitor, to shew he could think upon
her charms even while engaged in the most solemn duties of his profession.
Hence he was nicknamed Bishop Band-strings."
It appears there were now two sugar-works in the
kingdom, and only two—being placed at Glasgow—and one of them was in
danger of being stopped in consequence of the death of Peter Gemble, one
of the four partners, his widow refusing to advance her share of what was
necessary for carrying on of the work. Materials, utensils, and men, to
the extent of £16 sterling of wages monthly, were thus thrown idle—a
general calamity. The Privy Council (December 20) enjoined the magistrates
of ‘Glasgow to use their endeavours to get the difference composed and the
work kept up.—P. C. R.
Dec 26
A dismally tragical incident occurred at the Hirsel, the seat of the Earl
of Home near Coldstream. The earl having been long detained in London, the
countess, to beguile the time during the Christmas holidays, had a party
of the neighbouring gentlemen invited to the house. Amongst these were
Johnston of Hilton, Home of Ninewells, and the Hon. William Home, brother
of the earl, and the sheriff of Berwickshire—three gentlemen who, like the
countess, have all been before us lately in connection with the abduction
of the young Lady Ayton. Cards and dice being resorted to, and William
having lost a considerable sum, a quarrel took place among the gentlemen,
and Johnston, who was of a haughty and hot temper, gave William a slap in
the face. The affair seemed to have been amicably composed, and all had
gone to bed, when William Home rose and went to Johnston’s chamber, to
call him to account for the affront he conceived himself to have suffered.
What passed in the way of conversation between the two is not known; but
certain it is that Home stabbed Johnston in his bed with nine severe
wounds. Home of Ninewells, who slept near by, came to see what caused the
disturbance, and, as he entered the room, received a sword-thrust from the
sheriff; who was now retiring, and who immediately fled into England upon
Johnston’s horse.
The unfortunate Hilton died in a few days. Ninewells
recovered. The sheriff—of whom it was shudderingly remarked that this
bloody fact happened exactly a twelvemonth after the execution of a
Presbyterian rebel whom he had apprehended.— was never caught. He was
supposed to have entered some foreign service, and died in battle. In
advanced life, he is said to have made an experiment to ascertain if he
could be allowed to spend the remainder of his days in his native country.
A son of the slaughtered Johnston, while at a public assembly, ‘was called
out to speak with a person, who, it was said, brought him some particular
news from abroad. The stranger met him at the head of the staircase, in a
sort of lobby which led into the apartment where the company were dancing.
He told young Johnston of Hilton, that the man who had slain his father
was on his death-bed, and had sent him to request his forgiveness before
he died. Before granting his request, Johnston asked the stranger one or
two questions; and observing that he faltered in his answers, he suddenly
exclaimed: "You yourself are my father’s murderer," and drew his sword to
stab him. Home— for it was the homicide himself—threw himself over the
balustrade of the staircase, and made his escape.’
This year a great alarm was excited by a conjunction of
the planets Saturn and Jupiter in the constellation of Leo. It was
announced as an extraordinary conjunction, which had only happened twice
before since the creation of the world; and ‘our prognosticators all spoke
of it as very ominous,’ ‘portending great alterations in Europe.’ Mr
George Sinclair, Professor of Natural Philosophy in Glasgow, considered it
as nothing leas than ‘terrible.’ To add to the general uneasiness, some
one brought out a treatise on comets, promising a further one under the
title of Catastrophe Mundi. Fonntainhall was evidently puzzled, for
from November 1682 to March 1683, the season had been ‘like a spring for
mildness,’ and he really could not say whether such an event as this could
be ascribed to the conjunction. Had he waited a little, he might have seen
the matter in a clearer light, for in April there took place pestilential
fevers, with other terrible and uncommon disorders. ‘In Montrose, several
families were taken with an unco disease,
like unto convulsion fits, their face thrawing about to their
neck, their hands griping close together, so as the very nails of their
fingers make holes in their looves; lose their senses, and have a
devouring appetite, eat much, yet not satisfied.’—Law.