THE death of King William without
children (March 8, 1702), opened the succession to the Princess Anne,
second daughter of the late King James. Following up the policy of her
predecessor, she had not been more than two months upon the throne, when,
in conjunction with Germany and Holland, she proclaimed war against the
king of France, whose usurpation of the succession to Spain for a member
of his family, had renewed a general feeling of hostility against him.
This war, distinguished by the victories of the Duke of Marlborough,
lasted till the peace of Utrecht in 1713. The queen had been many years
married to Prince George of Denmark, and had had several children; but all
were now dead.
King William left the people of
Scotland in a state of violent discontent, on account chiefly of. the
usage they had received in the affair of Darien. Ever since the
Revolution, there had been a large party, mainly composed of the upper
classes, in favour of the exiled dynasty. It was largely reinforced, and
its views were generally much promoted, by the odium into which the
government of William III. had fallen, and by the feelings of jealousy and
wrath which had been kindled, against the whole English nation. This was
not a natural state of things for Scotland, for the bulk of the people,
Presbyterian at heart, could have no confidence in a restored sovereign of
the House of Stuart; but anger had temporarily overcome many of the more
permanent feelings of the people, and it was hard to say what course they
might take in the dynastic difficulties which were impending.
In 1700, the English parliament,
viewing the want of children to both William and the Princess Anne, had
settled the crown of England upon the Electress Sophia of Hanover,
daughter of the Princess Elizabeth, daughter of King James I, she being
the nearest Protestant heir; thus excluding not only the progeny of James
II., but that of several elder children of the Princess Elizabeth, all of
whom were of the Roman Catholic religion. It was highly desirable that the
Scottish Estates should be induced to settle the crown of Scotland on the
same person, in order. that peace might be preserved between the two
kingdoms; but the discontents of the Scotch stood in the way. Not that
there existed in Scotland any insuperable desire for another person, or
any special objection to Sophia; the great majority would probably have
voted, in ordinary circumstances, for this very course. But
Scotland had been wronged and insulted ; it was necessary to show the
English that this could not be done with safety to themselves. She had a
claim to equality of trading privileges: it was right that she should use
all fair means to get this established. Accordingly, in 1703, the Scottish
parliament passed two acts calculated to excite no small alarm in the
south: one of them, styled the Act of Security, ordaining that the
successor of Queen Anne should not be the same person with the individual
adopted by the English parliament, unless there should be a free
communication of trade between the two countries, and the affairs of
Scotland thoroughly secured from English influence; the other, providing
that, as a means of enforcing the first, the nation should be put under
arms. The queen, after some hesitation, was obliged to ratify the Act of
Security. In the debates on these measures, the Scottish parliament
exhibited a degree of eloquence which was wholly a novelty, and the memory
of which long survived. It was a remarkable crisis, in which a little
nation, merely by the moral power which animated it, contrived to inspire
fear and respect in one much its superior in numbers and every other
material element of strength.
The general sense of
danger thus created in England proved sufficient to overcome that
mercantile selfishness which had inflicted so much injustice upon
Scotland. It came to be seen, that the only way to secure a harmony with
the northen kingdom in some matters essential to peace, was to admit it to
an incorporating union, in which there should be a provision: for an
equality of mercantile privileges. To effect this arrangement,
accordingly, became the policy of the English Whig ministry of Queen Anne.
On the other hand, the proposition did not meet a favourable reception in
Scotland, where the ancient national independence was a matter of national
pride; nevertheless, there also a parliamentary sanction was obtained for
the preliminary steps.
In May 1706, the Commissioners, thirty from each
nation, met at Westminster, to deliberate on the terms of the proposed
treaty. It was soon agreed upon that the leading features of the act
should be—a union of the two countries under one sovereign, who, failing
heirs of the queen, should be the Electress of Hanover or her heir; but
each country to retain her own church establishment and her own
laws—Scotland to send sixteen representative peers and forty-five
commoners to the British parliament—Scottish merchants to trade freely
with England and her colonies—the taxes to be equalised, except that from
land, which was to be arranged in such a way that when England contributed
two millions, Scotland should give only a fortieth part of the sum, or
forty-eight thousand pounds; and as the English taxes were rendered
burdensome by a debt of sixteen millions, Scotland was to be compensated
for its share of that burden by receiving, as ‘an
Equivalent,’ about four hundred thousand pounds of ready money from
England, which was to be applied to the renovation of the coin, the
discharge of the public debts, and a restitution of the money lost by the
African Company.
When these articles were laid before the Scottish
Estates in October, they produced a burst of indignant feeling that seemed
to overspread the whole country. The Jacobite party, who saw in the union
only the establishment of an alien dynasty, were furious. The clergy felt
some alarm at the prelatic clement in the British parliament. The mass of
the people grieved over the prospect of a termination to the native
parliament, and other tokens of an ancient independence. Nevertheless,
partly that there were many men in the Estates who had juster views of the
the interests of their country, and partly that others were open to
various influences brought to bear upon their votes, the act of union was
passed in February 1707, as to take effect from the ensuing 1st of May.
The opposition was conducted principally by the Duke of Hamilton, a
Jacobite, and, but for his infirmity of purpose, it might have been more
formidable. The Duke of Queensberry, who acted on this occasion as the
queen’s commissioner to parliament, was rewarded for his services with an
English dukedom. The Privy Council, the record of whose proceedings has
been of so much importance to this work, now came to an end; but a
Secretary of State for Scotland continued for the next two reigns to be
part of the apparatus of the central government in the English metropolis.
Of the discontent engendered on this occasion, the
friends of the exiled Stuarts endeavoured to take advantage in the spring
of 1708, by bringing a French expedition to the Scottish coasts, having on
board five thousand men, and the son of James II., now a youth of twenty
years of age. It reached the mouth of the Firth of Forth, and many of the
Jacobite gentry were prepared to join the young prince on landing. But the
Chevalier de St George, as he was called, took ill of small-pox; the
British fleet under Admiral Byng came in sight; and it was deemed best to
return to France, and wait for another opportunity.
The Tory ministry of the last four years of Queen Anne
affected Scotland by the passing of an act of Toleration for the relief of
the persecuted remnant of Episcopalians, and another act by which the
rights of patrons in the nomination of clergy to charges in the
Established Church were revived. The Whigs of the Revolution felt both of
these nieasures to be discouraging. During this period, in Scotland, as in
England, the Cavalier spirit was in the ascendency, and the earnest Whigs
trembled lest, by complicity of the queen or her ministers, the Pretender
should be introduced, to the exclusion of the Protestant heir. But the
sudden death of Anne on the 1st of August 1714, neutralised all such
schemes, and the son of the then deceased Electress Sophia succeeded to
the British throne, under the name of George I., with as much apparent
quietness as if he had been a resident Prince of Wales.
1702, July
On the principle that minute matters, which denote a progress in
improvement, or even a tendency to it, are worthy of notice, it may be
allowable to remark at this time an advertisement of Mr George Robertson,
apothecary at Perth, that he had lately set up there ‘a double Hummum, or
Bath Stove, the one for men, and the other for women, approven of by
physicians to be of great use for the cure of several diseases' A hummum
is in reality a Turkish or hot-air bath. We find that, within twenty years
after this time, the chirurgeons in Edinburgh bad a bagnio, or hot
bath, and the physicians a cold bath, for medical purposes.
The Edinburgh Gazette which advertises the Perth
hummum, also announces the presence, in a lodging at the foot of the West
Bow of Edinburgh, of Duncan Campbell of Ashfield, chirurgeon to the city
of Glasgow, who had ‘cutted nine score persons [for stone] witbout the
death of any except five.' [Mr Campbell had,
in 1709, an action at law against Mungo Campbell of Netherplace, for
recovery of fIfty pounds which he charged for attendance upon him, and
performance of the operation of lithotomy. It was represented on the other
side that he had done his work with an unskilfulness which resulted in
some most distressiag injuries to his patient, and the Lords held that the
seventeen guineas already paid was guerdon sufficient. -
Fountainhall’s Decisions, ii. 510.] There was also a mysterious
person, styled ‘a gentleman in town,’ and ‘to be got notice of at the
Caledonian Coffee-house,’ who had ‘had a secret imparted to him by his
father, an eminent physician in this kingdom, which, by the blessing of
God, certainly and safely cures the phrenzie’—also ‘convulsion-fits,
vapours, and megrims—in a few weeks, at reasonable rates, and takes no
reward till the cure is perfected.’
In the same sheet, ‘G. Young, against the Court of
Guard, Edinburgh,’ bespoke favour for ‘a most precious eye-water, which
infallibly cures all distempers in the eyes, whether pearl, web, catracht,
blood-shot dimness, &c., and in less than six times dressing has cured
some who have been blind seven years.’
The custom of vending quack medicines from a public
stage on the street—of which we have seen several notable examples in the
course of the seventeenth century—continued at this time, and for many
years after, to be kept up. Edinburgh was occasionally favoured with a
visit from a famous practitioner of this kind, named Anthony Parsons, who,
in announcing his arrival in 1710, stated the quality of his medicines,
and that he had been in the habit of vending them on stages for thirty
years. In October 1711, he advertised in the Scots Postman—’ It
being reported that Anthony Parsons is gone from Edinburgh to mount public
stages in the country, this is to give notice that he hath left off
keeping stages, and still lives in the Hammermen’s Land, at the Magdalen
Chapel, near the head of the Cowgate, where may be had the ORVIETAN, a
famous antidote against infections distempers, and helps barrenness, &c.’
Four years later, Parsons announced his design of bidding adieu to
Edinburgh, and, in that prospect, offered his medicines at reduced rates;
likewise, by auction, ‘a fine cabinet organ.
In April 1724, one Campbell, commonly called (probably
from his ragged appearance) Doctor Duds, was in great notoriety in
Edinburgh as a quack mediciner. He does not seem to have been in great
favour with the populace, for, being seen by them on the street, he was so
vexatiously assaulted, as to be obliged to make his escape in a coach. At
this time, a mountebank doctor erected a stage at the foot of the
Canongate, in order to compete with Doctor Duds for a share of business;
but a boy being killed by a fall from the fabric the day of its erection,
threw a damp on his efforts at wit, and the affair appears to have proved
a failure.
The author just quoted had a recollection of one of the
last of this fraternity—an Englishman, named Green—who boasted he was the
third generation of a family which had been devoted to the profession. ‘A
stage was erected in the most public part of a town, and occupied by the
master, with one or two tumblers or rope-dancers, who attracted the
multitude. Valuable medicines were promised and distributed by a kind of
lottery. Each spectator, willing to obtain a prize, threw a handkerchief,
enclosing one or two shillings, on the stage. The handkerchief was
returned with a certain quantity of medicines. But along with them, a
silver cup was put into one to gratify some successful adventurer.’
‘Doctor Green, younger of Doncaster ‘—probably the
second of the three generations—had occasion, in December 1725, to
advertise the Scottish community regarding his ‘menial servant and
tumbler,’ Henry Lewis, who, he said, had deserted his service with a
week’s prepaid wages in his pocket, and, as the doctor understood, ‘has
resorted to Fife, or some of the north-country burghs, with design to get
himself furnished with a play-fool, and to set himself up for a doctor
experienced in the practice of physic and chirurgery.’ Doctor Green deemed
himself obliged to warn Fife and the said burghs, whither he himself
designed to resort in spring, against ‘the said impostor, and to dismiss
him as such.’
We have this personage brought before us in an amusing
light, in May 1731, in connection with the King’s College, Aberdeen. He
had applied to this learned sodality for a diploma as doctor of medicine,
‘upon assurances given under his hand, that he would practise medicine in
a regular way, and give over his stage.' They had granted him the diploma
accordingly. Finding, afterwards, that he still continued to use his
stage, ‘the college, to vindicate their conduct in the affair, and at the
same time, in justice to the public, to expose Mr Green his disthgenuity,
recorded in the Register of Probative Writs his letter containing these
assurances.’ They also certified ‘that, if Mr Green give not over his
stage, they will proceed to further resentment against him.’
Down to this time there was still an entire faith among
the common sort of people in the medical properties of natural crystals,
perforated stones, ancient jet ornaments, flint arrow-heads, glass beads,
and other articles. The custom was to dip the article into water, and
administer the water to the patient. The Stewarts of Ardvorlich still
possess a crystal which was once in great esteem throughout Lower
Perthshire for the virtues which it could impart to simple water. A flat
piece of ivory in the possession of Campbell of Barbreck—commonly called
Barbreck’s Bone—was sovereign for the cure of madness. This article
is now deposited in the Museum of the Scottish Antiquaries in Edinburgh.
The Lee Penny—a small precious stone, set in an old English coin,
still possessed by the Lockharts of Lee—is another and highly noted
example of such charms for healing.
It was also still customary to resort to certain wells
and other waters, on account of their supposed healing virtues, as we have
seen to be the case a century earlier. Either the patient was brought to
the water, and dipped into it, or a fragment of his clothing was brought
and cast into, or left on the side of it, a shackle or tether of a cow
serving equally when such an animal was concerned. If such virtues had
continued to be attributed only to wells formerly dedicated to saints, it
would not have been surprising; but the idea of medicinal virtue was
sometimes connected with a lake or other piece of water, which had no such
history. There was, for example, on the high ground to the west of
Drumlanrig Castle, in Nithsdale, a small tarn called the Dow [i.e.
black] Loch, which enjoyed the highest medical repute all over the south
of Scotland. People came from immense distances to throw a rag from a sick
friend, or a tether from an afflicted cow, into the Dow Loch, when, ‘these
being cast in, if they did float, it was taken for a good omen of
recovery, and a part of the water carried to the patient, though to remote
places, without saluting or speaking to any one they met by the way; but,
if they did sink, the recovery of the party was hopeless.’ The clergy
exerted themselves strenuously to put down the superstition. The trouble
which the presbytery of Penpont had, first and last, with this same Dow
Loch, was past expression. But their efforts were wholly in vain.
[A fairy legend connected with the Dow Loch, and
illustrating the superstitious feeling with which it was regarded, has
been communicated by a friend:
'The farmer of Auchen Naight, near the Dow Loch, was
not in opulent circumstances. One day, during the pressure of some unusual
calamity, he noticed, to his surprise, a cow browsing tranquilly by the
side of the lake, and, on nearer inspection, found it to be a beautiful
animal of large size, and perfectly white. She allowed herself to be
driven home by him without resistance, and soon commended herself greatly
to his wife by her tameness and exceeding opulence in milk. The result of
her good qualities, and also her fruitfulness, was that a blessing seemed
to have come with her to his house. He became rich in the possession of a
herd of twenty fine cattle, all descended from the original White Cow.
'After some years had elapsed, and all his other cattle
had been used up, the goodman had to consider
how he was to provide a winter’s "mart" for his
family—that is, a bullock to be killed and
salted according to the then universal practice of the country. Should it
be the mother or one of her comely daughters? The former was still in fine
condition, highly suitable for the purpose; but then the feeling connected
with her—should they sacrifice in this manner the source of all their
good-fortune? A consideration that shemight fail in health, and be lost to
them, determined them to make her the mart of the year. It said that, on
the morning which was to be her last, she shewed the usual affection to
her mistress, who came to bid her a mournful farewell;
but when the butcher approached with hIs rope and axe, she suddenly
tore up the stake, and broke away from the byre, followed by the whole of
her progeny. The astonished goodman and his wife were only in time to see
the herd, in which their wealth consisted, plunge into the waters of the
Dow Loch, from which they never re-emerged.']
1702, July 3
‘It pleased the great and holy God to visit this town [Leith], for their
heinous sins against him, with a very terrible and sudden stroke, which
was occasioned by the firing of thirty-three barrels of powder; which
dreadful blast, as it was heard even at many miles distance with great
tenor and amazement, so it hath caused great ruin and desolation in this
place. It smote seven or eight persons at least with sudden death, and
turned the houses next adjacent to ruinous heaps, tirred off the roof,
beat out the windows, and broke out the timber partitions of a great many
houses and biggings even to a great distance. Few houses in the town did
escape some damage, and all this in a moment of time; so that the merciful
conduct of Divine Providence hath been very admirable in the preservation
of hundreds of people, whose lives were exposed to manifold sudden
dangers, seeing they had not so much previous warning as to shift a foot
for their own preservation, much less to remove their plenishing.’ So
proceeded a petition from ‘the distressed inhabitants of Leith’ to the
Privy Council, on the occasion of this sore calamity. ‘Seeing,’ they went
on to say, ‘that part of the town is destroyed and damnified to the value
of thirty-six thousand nine hundred and thirty-six pounds, Scots money, by
and attour several other damages done in several back-closes, and by and
attour the household plenishing and merchant goods destroyed in the said
houses, and victual destroyed and damnified in lofts, and the losses
occasioned by the houses lying waste; and seeing the owners of the said
houses are for the most part unable to repair them, so that a great part
of the principal seaport of the nation will be desolate and ruinous, if
considerable relief be not provided,’ they implored permission to make a
charitable collection throughout the kingdom at kirk-doors, and by going
from house to house; which prayer was readily granted.
July 8
The Earl of Kintore, who had been made Knight Marischal of Scotland at the
Restoration, and afterwards raised to the peerage for his service in
saving the regalia from the English in 1651, was still living. He
petitioned the Privy Council at this date on account of a pamphlet
published by Sir William Ogilvie of Barras, in which his concern in the
preservation of the regalia was unduly depreciated. His lordship gives a
long recital on the subject, from which it after all appears that his
share of the business was confined to his discommending obedience to be
paid to a state order for sending out the regalia from Dunnottar Castle—in
which case it was likely they might have been taken— and afterwards doing
what he could to put the English on a false scent, by representing the
regalia as carried to the king at Paris. He denounces the pamphlet as an
endeavour ‘to rob him of his just merit and honour, and likewise to belie
his majesty’s patents in his favour,’ and he craved due punishment. Sir
William, being laid up with sickness at Montrose, was unable to appear in
his own defence, and the Council, accordingly, without hesitation, ordered
the offensive brochure to be publicly burnt at the Cross of Edinburgh by
the common hangman.
David Ogilvie, younger of Barras, was soon after fined
in a hundred pounds for his concern in this so-called libel.’
There is something unaccountable in the determination
evinced at various periods to assign the glory of the preservation of the
regalia to the Earl of Kintore, the grand fact of the case being that
these sacred relics were saved by the dexterity aud courage of the
unpretending woman—Mrs Grainger—the minister’s wife of Kineff, who, by
means of her servant, got them carried out of Dunnottar Castle through the
beleaguering lines of the English, and kept them in secrecy under ground
for eight years. See under March 1652.
Aug
The arrangements of the Post-office, as established by the act of 1695,
were found to be not duly observed, in as far as common carriers presumed
to carry letters in tracts where post-offices were erected, ‘besides such
as relate to goods sent or to be returned to them.’ A very strict
proclamation was now issued against this practice, and forbidding all who
were not noblemen or gentlemen’s servants to ‘carry, receive, or deliver
any letters where post-offices are erected.’
Inviolability of letters at the Post-office was not yet
held in respect as a principle. In July 1701, two letters from Brussels,
‘having the cross upon the back of them,’ had come with proper addresses
under cover to the Edinburgh postmaster. He ‘was surprised with them,’ and
brought them to the Lord Advocate, who, however, on opening them, found
they were ‘of no value, being only on private business;’ wherefore he
ordered them to be delivered by the postmaster to the persons to whom they
were directed.
Long after this period—in 1738—the Earl of Ilay,
writing to Sir Robert Walpole from Edinburgh, said: ‘I am forced to send
this letter by a servant twenty miles out of town, where the Duke of
Argyle’s attorney cannot handle it’ It sounds strangely that Lord Ilay
should thus have had to complain of his own brother; that one who was
supreme in Scotland, should have been under such a difficulty from an
opposition noble; and that there should have been, at so recent a period,
a disregard to so needful a principle. But this is not all. Lord Ilay, in
time succeeding his brother as Duke of Argyle, appears to have also taken
up his part at the Edinburgh Post-office. In March 1748, General Bland,
commander of the forces in Scotland, wrote to the Secretary of State,
‘that his letters were opened at the Edinburgh Post-office; and I think
this is done by order of a noble duke, in order to know my secret
seatiments of the people and of his Grace. If this practice is not
stopped, the ministers cannot hope for any real information.’ Considering
the present sound administration of the entire national institution by the
now living inheritor of that peerage, one cannot without a smile hear
George Chalmers telling ’how the Edinburgh Post-office, in the reign of
the second George, was ‘infested by two Dukes of Argyle!’
It will be heard, however, with some surprise, that the
Lord Advocate may still be considered as having the power, in cases where
the public interests are concerned, to order the examination of letters in
the Post-office. So lately as 1789, when the unhappy duellist, Captain
Macrae, fled from justice, his letters were seized at the Post-office by
order of the Justice-clerk Braxfield.
The sport of cock-fighting had lately been introduced
into Scotland, and a cock-pit was now in operation in Leith Links, where
the charges for admission were 10d. for the front row, 7d. for the
second, and 4d, for the third. Soon after, ‘the passion for
cock-fighting was so general among all ranks of the people, that the
magistrates [of Edinburgh] discharged its being practised on th streets,
on account of the disturbances it occasioned.'
William Machrie, who taught in Edinburgh what he called
‘the severe and serious, but necessary exercise of the sword,’ had also
given a share of his attention to cock-fighting—a sport which he deemed
‘as much an art, as the managing of horses for races or lbr the field of
battle.' It was an art in vogue over all Europe— though ‘kept up only by
people of rank, and never sunk down to the hands of the commonalty ‘—and
he, for his part, had studied it carefully: he had read everything on the
subject, conversed and corresponded on it with ‘the best cockers in
Britain,’ carefully observing their practice, and passing through a long
experience of his own.
Thus prepared, Mr Machrie published in Edinburgh, in
1705, a brochure, styled An Essay on the Innocent and Royal Recreation
and Art of cocking, consisting of sixty-three small pages; from which
we learn that he had been the means of introducing the sport into
Edinburgh. The writer of a prefixed set of verses evidently considered him
as one of the great reformers of the age:
‘Long have you taught the art of self-defence,
Improved our safety then, but now our sons;
Teaching us pleasure with a small expense.’
For his own part, considering the hazard and expense
which attended horse-racing and hawking, he was eager to proclaim the
superior attractions of cocking, as being a sport from which no such
inconveniences arose. The very qualities of the bird recommended
it—namely, ‘his Spanish gait, his Florentine policy, and his Scottish
valour in overcoming and generosity in using his vanquished adversary.’
The ancients called him an astronomer, and he had been ‘an early preacher
of repentance, even convincing Peter, the first pope, of his holiness’s
fallibility.’ ‘Further,’ says he, ‘if variety and change of fortune be any
way prevalent to engage the minds of men, as commonly it is, to prefer one
recreation to another, it will beyond all controversy be found in cocking
more than any other. Nay, the eloquence of Tully or art of Apelles could
never with that life and exactness represent fortune metamorphosed in a
battle, as doth cocking; for here you’ll see brave attacks and as brave
defiances, bloody struggling; and cunning and handsome retreats; here
you’ll see generous fortitude ignorant of interest,' &c.
Mr Machrie, therefore, goes con amore into his
subject, fully trusting that his treatise on ‘this little but bold animal
could not be unacceptable to a nation whose martial temper and glorious
actions in the field have rendered them famed beyond the limits of the
Christian world;’ a sentence from which we should have argued that our
author was a native of a sister-island, even if the fact had not been
indicated by his name.
Mr Machrie gives many important remarks on the natural
history of the animal—tells us many secrets about its breeding; instructs
us in the points which imply strength and valour; gives advices about
feeding and training; and exhibits the whole policy of the pit. Finaily,
he says, ‘I am not ashamed to declare to the world that I have a special
veneration and esteem for those gentlemen, within and about this city, who
have entered in society for propagating and establishing the royal
recreation of cocking (in order to which they have already erected a
cock-pit in the Links of Leith) ; and I earnestly wish that their
generous and laudable example may be imitated in that degree that, in
cock-war, village may be engaged against village, city against city,
kingdom against kingdom, nay, the father against the son, until all the
wars in Europe, wherein so much Christian blood is spilt, be turned into
the innocent pastime of cocking.'
Machrie advertised, in July 1711, that he was not the
author of a little pamphlet on Duelling, which had been lately published
with his name and style on the title-page—’ William Machrie, Professor of
both Swords.’ He denouuced this publication as containing ridiculous
impossibilities in his art, such as ‘pretending to parry a pistol-ball
with his sword.’ Moreover, it contained 'indiscreet reflections on the
learned Mr Bickerstaff [of the Tatler],' 'contrary to his [Machrie's]
natural temper and inclination, as well as that civility and good manners
which his years, experience, and conversation in the world have taught
him.'
The amusement of cock-fighting long kept a hold of the
Scottish people. It will now be scarcely believed that, through the
greater part of the eighteenth century, and till within the recollection
of persons still living, the boys attending the parish and burghal schools
were encouraged to bring cocks to school at Fasten’s E’en (Shrove-tide),
and devote an entire day to this barbarising sport. The slain birds and
fugies (so the craven birds were called) became the property of the
schoolmaster. The minister of Applceross, in Ross-shire, in his account of
the parish, written about 1790, coolly tells us that the schoolmaster’s
income is composed of two hundred merks, with payments from the scholars
of 1s. 6d for English, and 2s. 6d. for Latin, and ‘the
cock-fight dues, which are equal to one quarter’s payment for each
scholar.’
A Short Account of Scotland, written, it is
understood, by an English gentleman named Morer, and published this year,
presents a picture of our country as it appeared to an educated stranger
before the union. The surface was generally unenclosed; oats and barley
the chief grain products; wheat little cultivated; little hay made for
winter, the horses then feeding chiefly on straw and oats. The houses of
the gentry, heretofore built for strength, were now beginning to be
‘modish, both in fabric and furniture.’ But ‘still their avenues are very
indifferent, and they want their gardens, which are the beauty and pride
of our English seats.’ Orchards were rare, and ‘their apples, pears, and
plums not of the best kind;’ their cherries tolerably good; ‘for
gooseberries, currants, strawberries, and the like, they have of each, but
growing in gentlemen’s gardens; and yet from thence we sometimes meet them
in the markets of their boroughs.’ The people of the Lowlands partly
depended on the Highlands for cattle to eat; and the Highlanders, in turn,
carried back corn, of which their own country did not grow a sufficiency.
Mr Morer found that the Lowlanders were dressed much
like his own countrymen, excepting that the men generally wore bonnets
instead of hats, and plaids instead of cloaks; the women, too, wearing
plaids when abroad or at church. Women of the humbler class generally went
barefoot, ‘especially in summer.’ the children of people of the better
sort, ‘lay and clergy,’ were likewise generally without shoes and
stockings. Oaten-cakes, baked on a plate of iron over the fire, were the
principal bread used. Their flesh he admits to have been ‘good enough,’
but he could not say the same for their cheese or butter. They are 'fond
of tobacco, but more from the snish-box than the pipe.’ Snuff indeed, had
become so necessary to them, that ‘I have heard some of them say, should
their bread come in competition with it, they would rather fast than their
snish should be taken away. Yet mostly it consists of the coarsest
tobacco, dried by the fire and powdered in a little engine after the form
of a tap, which they carry in their pockets, and is both a mill
to grind and a box to keep it in.’
Stage-coaches did not as yet exist, but there were a
few hackneys at Edinburgh, which might be hired into the country upon
urgent occasions. ‘The truth is, the roads will hardly allow them those
conveniences, which is the reason that the gentry, men and women, choose
rather to use their horses. However, their great men often travel with
coach-and-six, but with so little caution, that, besides their other
attendance, they have a lusty running-footman on each side of the coach,
to manage and keep it up in rough places.’
Another Englishman, who made an excursion into Scotland
in 1704, gives additional particulars, but to the same general purport. At
Edinburgh, he got good French wine at 20d,. and Bnrgundy at 10d. a quart.
The town appeared to him scarcely so large as York or Newcastle, but
extremely populous, and containing abundance of beggars. ‘The people
here,’ he says, ‘are very proud, and call the ordinary tradesmen
merchants,’ ‘At the best houses they dress their victuals after the French
method, though perhaps not so cleanly, and a soup is commonly the first
dish; and their reckonings are dear enough. The servant-maids attended
without shoes or stockings.’
At Lesmabago, a village in Lanarkshire, he found the
people living on cakes made of pease and barley mixed. ‘They ate no meat,
nor drank anything but water, all the year round; and the common people go
without shoes or stockings all the year round. I pitied their poverty, but
observed the people ‘were fresh and lusty, and did not seem to be under
any uneasiness with their way of living.’
In the village inn, I had,’ says he, 'an enclosed room
to myself, with a chimney in it, and dined on a leg of veal, which is not
to be had at every place in this country.’ At another
village—Crawford-John-’ the houses are either of earth or loose stones, or
are raddled, and the roofs are of turf, and the floors the bare
ground. They are but one story high, and the chimney is a hole in the
roof, and the fireplace is in the middle of the floor. Their seats and
beds are of turf earthed over, and raddled up near the fireplace, and
serve for both uses. Their ale is pale, small, and thick, but at the most
common minsh-houses [taverns], they commonly have good French brandy, and
often French wine, so common are these French liquors in this country.’
Our traveller, being at Crawford-John on a Sunday, went
to the parish church, which he likens to a barn. He found it ‘mightily
crowded, and two gentlemen’s seats in it with deal-tops over them. They
begin service here about nine in the morning, and continue it till about
noon, and then rise, and the minister goes to the minsh-house, and so many
of them as think fit, and refresh themselves. The rest stay in the
churchyard for about half an hour, and then service begins again, and
continues till about four or five. I suppose the reason of this is, that
most of the congregations live too far from the church to go home and
return to church in time.’
The general conditions described by both of these
travellers exhibit little, if any advance upon those presented in the
journey of the Yorkshire squire in 1688, or even
that of Ray the naturalist in 1661.
1703, Jan 24
George Young, a shopkeeper in the High Street of Edinburgh, was appointed
by the magistrates as a constable, along with several other citizens in
the like capacity, ‘to oversee the manners and order of the burgh and
inhabitants thereof.’ On the evening of the day noted, being Sunday, he
went ‘through some parts of the town, to see that the Lord’s Day and laws
made for the observance thereof were not violat.’ ‘Coming to the house of
Marjory Thom, relict of James Allan, vintner, a little before ten o’clock,
and finding in the house several companies in different rooms, did soberly
and Christianly expostulate with the mistress of the house for keeping
persons in her house at such unseasonable hours, and did very justly
threaten to delate her to the magistrates, to be rebuked for the same.
[He] did not in the least offer to disturb any of her guests, but went
away, and as [he was] going up the close to the streets, he and the rest
was followed by Mr Archibald Campbell, eldest son to Lord Niel Campbell,
who quarrelled him for offering to delate the house to the magistrates,
[telling him] he would make him repent it.' So runs George Young’s own
account of the matter. It was ratner unlucky for him, in his turn at this
duty, to have come into collision with Mr Campbell, for the latter was
first-cousin to the Duke of Argyle, and a person of too much consequence
to be involved in a law which only works sweetly against the humbler
classes, being, indeed, mainly designed for their benefit.
To pursue Young’s narrative. ‘Mr Archibald came next
day with some others towards the said George his shop, opposite to the
Guard [house], and called at his shop, which was shut by the hatch or
half-door: "Sirrah, sirrah !’ which George not observing, nor apprehending
his discourse was directed to him, Mr Archibald called again to this
purpose: "I spoke to you, Young the constable." Whereupon, George civilly
desiring to know his pleasure, he expressed himself thus: "Spark, are you
in any better humour to-day than you was last night?" George answered, he
was the same to-day he was last night. "I was about my duty last night,
and am so to-day. I hope I have not offended you; and pray, sir, do not
disturb me." Mr Archibald, appealing angry, and challenging George for his
taking notice of Mrs Allan’s house, again asked him if he was in any
better temper, or words to that purpose; [to which] George again replied,
He was the same he was, and prayed him to be gone, because he seemed
displeased. Whereupon Mr Archibald taking hold of his sword, as [if] he
would have drawn it, George, being within the half-door, fearing hart,
threw open the door, and came out to Mr Archibald, and endeavoured to
catch hold of his sword. Mr Archibald did beat him upon the eye twice or
thrice, and again took hold of his sword to draw and run at him; which he
certainly had done, if not interrupted by the bystanders, who took hold of
his sword and held him, till that the Town-guard seized Mr Archibald, and
made him prisoner.’
Mr Campbell, being speedily released upon bail, did not
wait to be brought before the magistrates, but raised a process against
Young before the Privy Council, ‘intending thereby to discourage all
laudable endeavours to get extravagancy and disorder .’ In the charge
which he brought forward, Mr Campbell depicts himself as walking peaceably
on the High Street, when Young attacked him, seized his sword, and
declared him prisoner, without any previous offence on his part. The Guard
thereafter dragged him to their house, maltreating him by the way, and
kept him a prisoner till his friends assembled and obtained his
liberation. The process went through various stages during the next few
weeks, and at length, on the 9th of March, the Council found Young guilty
of a riot, and fined him in four hundred merks (upwards of £22 sterling),
to be paid to Mr Campbell for his expenses; further ordaining the offender
to be imprisoned till the money was forthcoming.
To do the Duke of Argyle justice, his name does not
appear in the list of the councillors who sat that day.
Mar 6
Sir John Bell, a former magistrate of Glasgow, kept up a modest frame of
Episcopal worship in that Presbyterian city, having occasionally
preachers, who were not always qualified by law, to officiate in his
house. On the 30th of January, a boy-mob assailed the house while worship
was going on, and some windows were broken. However, the magistrates were
quickly on the spot, and the tumult was suppressed.
A letter from the queen to the Privy Council, dated the
4th February, glanced favourably at the Episcopalian dissenters of
Scotland, enjoining that the clergy of that persuasion should live
peaceably in relation to the Established Church, and that they should,
while doing so, be protected in the exercise of their religion. It was a
sour morsel to the more zealous Presbyterians, clergy and laity, who, not
from any spirit of revenge, but merely from bigoted religious feelings,
would willingly have seen all Episcopalians banished at the least. At
Glasgow, where a rumour got up that some Episcopalian places of worship
would he immediately opened under sanction of her majesty’s letter, much
excitement prevailed. Warned by a letter from the Lord Chancellor, the
magistrates of the city took measures for preserving the peace, and they
went to church on the 7th of March, under a full belief that there was no
immediate likelihood of its being broken. The Episcopalians, however, were
in some alarm about the symptoms of popular feeling, and it. was deemed
necessary to plant a guard of gentlemen, armed with swords, in front of
the door of Sir John Bell’s house, where they were to enjoy the
ministrations of a clergyman named Burgess. Some rude boys gathered about,
and soon came to rough words with this volunteer guard, who, chasing them
with their swords, and, it is said, violent oaths, along the Saltmarket,
roused a general tumult amongst all who were not at church. The alarm soon
passed into the churches. The people poured out, and flocked to the house
where they knew that the Episcopalians were gathered. The windows were
quickly smashed. The worshippers barricaded and defended themselves; but
the crowd broke in with fore-hammers, though apparently hardly knowing for
what purpose. The magistrates came with some soldiers; reasoned,
entreated, threatened; apprehended a few rioters, who were quickly
rescued; and finally thought it best to limit themselves to conducting the
scared congregation to their respective homes—a task they successfully
accomplished. ‘Afterwards,’ say the magistrates, ‘we went and did see Sir
John Bell in his house, where Mr Burgess, the minister, was; and, in the
meantime, when we were regretting the misfortune that had happened to Sir
John and his family, who had merited much from his civil carriage when a
magistrate in this place, it was answered to us by one of his sons
present, that they had got what they were seeking, and would rather that
that had fallen out than if it had been otherways.’
The Privy Council, well aware how distasteful any
outrages against the Episcopalians would be at court, took pains to
represent this affair in duly severe terms in their letters to the
secretaries of state in London. They also took strong measures to prevent
any similar tumult in future, and to obtain reparation of damages for Sir
John Bell.
Generally, the condition of Episcopal ministers
continued to be uncomfortable. In February 1705, Dr Richard Waddell, who
had been Archdean of St Andrews before the Revolution, and was banished
from that place in 1691, but had lately returned under protection of her
majesty’s general indemnity, became the subject of repressive measures on
the part of the Established Church. Letters of horning were raised against
him by ‘John Blair, agent for the kirk,’ and, notwithstanding strong
protestations of loyalty to the queen, he was ordained by the Privy
Council once more ‘to remove furth of the town and parochine of St
Andrews, and not return thereto.’
1703, Apr
An elderly woman named Marion Lillie, residing at Spott, in East Lothian,
was in the hands of the kirk-session, on account of the general repute she
lay under as a witch. Amidst the tedious investigations of her case in the
parish register, it is impossible to see more than that she occasionally
spoke ungently to and of her neighbours, and had frightened a pregnant
woman to a rather unpleasant extremity by handling her rudely. The
Rigwoodie Witch, as a neighbour
called her, was now turned over to a magistrate, to be dealt with
according to law; but of her final fate we have no account.
Spott is a place of sad fame, its minister having
basely murdered his wife in 1570, and the estate having belonged to a
gentleman named Douglas, whom we have seen concerned in the slaughter of
Sir James Home of Eceles, and who on that account became a forfeited
outlaw. The wife of a subsequent proprietor, a gambler named Murray, was
daughter to the Lord Forrester, who was stabbed with his own sword by his
mistress at Corstorphine in 1679. There is extant a characteristic letter
of this lady to Lord Alexander Hay, son of the Earl of Tweeddale, on his
bargaining, soon after this time, for the estate, with her husband,
without her consent—in which she makes allusion to the witches of Spott:
‘THES TO LORD ALEXANDER HAY.
‘Spott,
19
May.
‘This way of proceeding, my lord, will seem verey
abrupte and inconsiderat to you; but I laye my count with the severest
censer you or may malicious enemies can or will saye of me. So, not to be
tedious, all I have to speak is this: I think you most absurd to bought
the lands of Spott from Mr Murray without my consent, which you shall
never have now; and I hope to be poseser of Spott hous when you are att
the divel; and believe me, my childrin’s curse and mine will be a greater
moth in your estate than all your ladey and your misirable wretchedness
can make up and pray [pay].
‘This is no letter of my lord Bell Heavins, and tho you
saye, in spite of the divell, you ‘le buy it befor this time twell month,
you may come to repent it; but thats non of my bisnes. I shall only saye
this, you are basely impertinent to thrust me away in a hurrey from my
houss at Whitsunday, when I designed not to go till Martinmis: and I wish
the ghosts of all the witches that ever was about Spott may haunt you, and
make you the unfortountest man that ever lived, that you may see you was
in the wrong in makeing aney such bargain without the consent of your
mortal enemy, CLARA MURRAY."
July 1
The country was at this time in a state of incandescent madness regarding
its nationality, and the public feeling found expression through the
medium of parliament. By its order, there was this day burned at the Cross
of Edinburgh, by the hangman, a book entitled Historia Anglo-Scotica,
by James Drake, ‘containing many false and injurious reflections upon
the sovereignty and independency of this nation.’ In August 1705, when the
passion was even at a greater height, the same fate was awarded by the
legislatnre to a book, entitled The Superiority and Direct Dominion of
the Imperial Crown of England over the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland;
also to a pamphlet, called The Scots Patriot Unmasked, both being
the production of William Atwood. On the same day that the latter order
was given, the parliament decreed the extraordinary sum of £4800 (Scots?)
to Mr James Anderson, for a book he had published, A Historical Essay
shewing that the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland is imperial and
independent. Nor was this all, for at the same time it was ordered
that ‘Mr James Hodges, who hath in his writings served this nation,’
should have a similar reward.
Sep 3
The Scottish parliament at this time patronised literature to a
considerable extent, though a good deal after the manner of the poor
gentleman who bequeathed large ideal sums to his friends, and comforted
himself with the reflection, that it at least sheived good-will. Alexander
Nisbet had prepared a laborious work on heraldry, tracing its rise, and
describing all its various figures, besides ‘shewing by whom they are
carried amongst us, and for what reasons,’ thus instructing the gentlefolk
of this country of their ‘genealogical pennons,’ and affording assistance
to ‘envious antiquaries’ in understanding ‘seals, medals, historic, and
ancient records.’ But Alexander was unable of his own means to publish so
large a work, for which it would be necessary to get italic types,
‘whereof there are very few in this kingdom; and which also required a
multitude of copper engravings to display ‘the armorial ensigns of this
ancient kingdom.’ Accordingly, on his petition, the parliament (September
3, 1703), recommended the Treasury to grant him £248, 6s. 8d. sterling
‘out of what fund, they shall think fit.'
Aug 9
In 1695, the Scottish parliament forbade the sale of rum, as interfering
with the consumpt of ‘strong waters made of malt,’ and because the article
itself was ‘rather a drug thau a liquor, and highly prejudicial to the
health of all who drink it.’ Now, however, Mr William Cochrane of
Kilmaronock, John Walkenshaw of Barrowfleld, John Forbes of Knaperna, and
Robert Douglas, merchant in Leith, designed to set up a sugar-work and
‘stillarie for distilling of rum’ in Leith, believing that such could
never be ‘more necessary and beneficial to the country, and for the
general use and advantage of the lieges, than in this time of war, when
commodities of that nature, how necessary soever, can hardly be got from
abroad.’ On their petition, the designed work was endowed by the Privy
Council with the privileges of a manufactory.