1731, July
It will be remembered that the Bank of Scotland, soon after its
institution in 1696, settled branches at Glasgow, Aberdeen,
Montrose, and Dundee, all of which proving unsuccessful, were
speedily withdrawn. Since then, no new similar movement had been
made; neither had a native bank arisen in any of those towns. But
now, when the country seemed to be making some decided advances in
industry and wealth, the Bank resolved upon a new attempt, and set
up branches in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, and Berwick. It was
found, however, that the effort was yet premature, and, after two
years’ trial, these branches were all recalled.
It is to be
observed that Glasgow, though yet unable to support a branch of a
public bank, was not inexperienced in banking accommodation. The
business was carried on here, as it had long ago been in
Edinburgh, by private traders, and in intimate connec tion with
other business. An advertisement published in the newspapers in
July 1730 by James Blair, merchant, at the head of the Saitmarket
in Glasgow, makes us aware that at his shop there, ‘all persons
who have occasion to buy or sell bills of exchange, or want money
to borrow, or have money to lend on interest, or have any sort of
goods to sell, or want to buy any kind of goods, or who want to
buy sugar-house notes or other good bills, or desire to have such
notes or bills discounted, or who want to have • policies signed,
or incline to underwrite policies in ships or goods, may deliver
their commands.’
The latter part of
the year 1730 and earlier part of 1731 were made memorable in
England by the ‘Malicious Society of Undertakers.’ An inoffensive
farmer or a merchant would receive a letter threatening the
conflagration of his house unless he should deposit six or eight
guineas under his door before some assigned time. The system is
said to have begun at Bristol, ‘where the house of a Mr Packer was
actually set fire to and consumed. When a panic had spread, many
ruined gamblers and others adopted the practice, in recklessness,
or with a view to gain; but the chief practitioners appear to have
been ruffians of the lower classes, as the letters were generally
very ill-spelt and ill-written.
In the autumn of
1731 the system spread to Scotland, beginning in Lanarkshire.
According to Mr Wodrow, the parishes of Lesmahago and Strathaven
were thrown into great alarm by a number of anonymous letters
being dropped at night, or thrown into houses, threatening
fire-raising unless contributions were made in money. Mr Aiton of
Walseley, a justice of peace, was ordered to bring fifty guineas
to the Cross-boat at Lanark; otherwise his house would be burnt.
He went to the place, but found no one waiting. At the same time,
there were rumours of strangers being seen on the moors. So great
was the consternation, that parties of soldiers were brought to
the district, but without discovering any person that seemed
liable to suspicion.
James Erskine of
Grange, brother of the attainted Earl of Mar, and who had been a
judge of the Court of Session since 1707, was fitted with a wife
of irregular habits and violent temper, the daughter of the
murderer Chiesley of Dalry.’ After agreeing, in 1730, to live upon
a separate maintenance, she continued to persecute her husband in
a personal and indecent manner, and further vented some threats as
to her power of exposing him to the ministry for dangerous
sentiments. The woman was scarcely mad enough to justify
restraint, and, though it had been otherwise, there were in those
days no asylums to which she could have been consigned. In these
circumstances, the husband felt himself at liberty in
conscience—pious man as he notedly was—to have his wife spirited
away by night from her lodgings in Edinburgh, hurried by
night-journeys to Loch Hourn on the West Highland coast, and
thence transported to the lonely island of Heskir, and put under
the care of a peasant-farmer, subject to Sir Alexander Macdonald
of Sleat. After two years, she was taken to the still more remote
island of St Kilda, and there kept amongst a poor and illiterate
people, though not without the comforts of life, for seven years
more. It was not till 1740 that any friends of hers knew where she
was. A prosecution of the husband being then threatened, the lady
was taken to a place more agreeable to her, where she soon after
died.
Lord Grange was one
of those singular men who contrive to cherish and act out the most
intense religious convictions, to appear as zealous leaders in
church judicatories, and stand as shining lights before the world,
while yet tainted with the most atrocious secret vices. Being
animated with an extreme hatred of Sir Robert Walpole, he was
tempted, in 1734, to give up his seat on the bench, in order that
he might be able to go into parliament and assist in hunting down
the minister. Returned for Clackmannanshire, he did make his
appearance in the House of Commons, fully believing that he should
ere long be secretary of state for Scotland under a new ministry.
It unluckily happened that one of the first opportunities he
obtained for making a display of oratory was on the bill that was
introduced for doing away with the statutes against witchcraft.’
Erskine was too faithful a Presbyterian of the old type to abandon
a code of beliefs that seemed fully supported by Scripture. He
rose, and delivered himself of a pious speech on the reality of
necromantic arts, and the necessity of maintaining the defences
against them. Sir Robert is said to have felt convinced from that
moment, that he had not much to fear from the new member for
Clackmannanshire Disappointed, impoverished, out of reverence with
old friends, perhaps somewhat galled in conscience, Erskine ere
long retired in a great measure from the world. For some years
before his death in 1754, he is said to have lived principally in
a coffeehouse in the Haymarket, as all but the husband of its
mistress; certainly a most lame and impotent conclusion for one
who had made such a figure in political life, and passed as such a
‘professor,’ in his native country.
On stormy night in
this month, Colonel Francis Charteris died at his seat of
Stonyhill, near Musselburgh. The pencil of Hogarth, which
represents him as the old profligate gentleman in the first print
of the Harlot’s Progress, has given historical importance to this
extraordinary man. Descended from an old family of very moderate
fortune in Dumfriesshire—Charteris of Amisfield—he acquired an
enormous fortune by gambling and usury, and thus was enabled to
indulge in his favourite vices on a scale which might be called
magnificent. A single worthy trait has never yet been adduced to
redeem the character of Charteris, though it is highly probable
that, in some particulars, that character has been exaggerated by
popular rumour.’
A contemporary
assures us, that the fortune of Charteris amounted to the then
enormous sum of fourteen thousand a year; of which ten thousand
was left to his grandson, Francis, second son of the Earl of
Wemyss.
‘Upon his
death-bed,’ says the same writer, ‘he was exceedingly anxious to
know if there were any such thing as hell; and said, were he
assured there was no such place (being easy as to heaven), he
would give thirty thousand Mr Cumming the minister attended
him on his death-bed. He asked his daughter, who is exceedingly
narrow, what he should give him. She replied that it was unusual
to give anything on such occasions. “Well, then,” says Charteris,
“let us have another flourish from him !“ so calling his prayers.
There accidentally happened, the night he died, a prodigious
hurricane, which the vulgar ascribed to his death.'
Mar 10
A transaction, well understood in Scotland, but unknown and
probably incomprehensible in England—’ an inharmonious settlement
‘—took place in the parish of St Cuthbert’s, close to Edinburgh. A
Mr Wotherspoon having been presented by the crown to this charge,
to the utter disgust of the parishioners, the Commission of the
General Assembly sent one of their number, a Mr Dawson, to effect
the ‘edictal service.’ The magistrates, knowing the temper of the
parishioners, brought the City Guard to protect the ceremony as it
proceeded in the church; so the people could do nothing there.
Their rage, however, being irrepressible, they came out, tore
down the edict from the kirk-door, and seemed as if they would
tear down the kirk itself. The City Guard fired upon them, and
wounded one woman.
June 24
Owing to the difficulty of travelling, few of the remarkable
foreigners who came to England found their way to Scotland; but
now and then an extraordinary person appeared. At this date, there
came to Edinburgh, and put up ‘at the house of Yaxley Davidson, at
the Cowgate Port,’ Joseph Jamati, Baculator or Governor of
Damascus. He appeared to be sixty, was of reddish-black
complexion, grave and well-looking, wearing a red cloth mantle
trimmed with silver lace, and a red turban set round with white
muslin; had a gray beard about half a foot long; and was described
as ‘generally a Christian.’ Assistance under some severe taxation
of the Turkish pacha was what he held forth as the object of his
visit to Europe. He came to Edinburgh, with recommendations from
the Duke of Newcastle and other persons of distinction, and
proposed to make a round of the principal towns, and visit the
Duke of Athole and other great people. He was accompanied by an
interpreter and another servant. It appears that this personage
had a public reception from the magistrates, who bestowed on him
a purse of gold. In consequence of receiving a similar
contribution from the Convention of Burghs, he ultimately resolved
to return without making his proposed tour.
Four years later,
Edinburgh received visits, in succession, from two other Eastern
hierarchs, one of them designated as archbishop of Nicosia in
Cyprus, of the Armenian Church, the other being Scheik Schedit,
from Berytus, near Mount Lebanon, of the Greek Church, both
bringing recommendatory letters from high personages, and both
aiming at a gathering of money for the relief of their countrymen
suffering under the Turks. Scheik Schedit had an interpreter named
Michel Laws, and two servants, and the whole party went formally
in a coach ‘to hear sermon in the High Church.’
July 11
The Scottish newspapers intimate that on this day, between two and
three afternoon, there was felt at Glasgow ‘a shock of an
earthquake, which lasted about a second.’
Since 1598 we have
not beard of any foreigners coming into Scotland to play dangerous
tricks upon long tight ropes; but now, unexpectedly, a pair of
these diverting vagabonds, one described as an Italian who had
performed his wonders in all the cities of Europe, the other as
his son, presented themselves. A rope being fixed between the
Half-moon Battery in the Castle, and a place on the south side of
the Grassmarket, two hundred feet below, the father slid down in
half a minute. The son performed the same feat, blowing a trumpet
all the way, to the astonishment of ‘an infinite crowd of
spectators.’ Three days afterwards, there was a repetition of the
performance, at the desire of several persons of quality, when,
after sliding down, the father made his way up again, firing a
pistol, beating a drum, and playing a variety of antics by the
way, proclaiming, moreover, that here he could defy all
messengers, sheriffs’ officers, and macers of the Court of
Session. Being sore fatigued at the end of the performance, he
offered a guinea to the sutler of the Castle for a draught of ale,
which the fellow was churlish enough to refuse.
The two funambuli
failed on a subsequent trial, ‘their equipage not at all
answering.’ Not many weeks after, we learn that William Hamilton,
mason in the Dean, trying the like tricks on a rope connected with
Queensferry steeple, fell off the rope, and was killed.
In the course of
this year, a body called the Edinburgh Company of Players
performed plays in the Tailors’ Hall, in the Cowgate. On the 6th
June, they had the Beggars’ Opera for the benefit of the Edinburgh
Infirmary. They afterwards acted Othello, Hamlet, Henry IV.,
Macbeth, and King Lear, ‘with great applause.’ In December, they
presented before a large audience the Tempest, ‘every part, and
even what required machinery, being performed in great order.’ In
February 1734, the Conscious Lovers was performed ‘for the benefit
of Mrs Woodward,’ ‘the doors not to be opened till four of the
clock, performance to begin at six.’ In March, the Wonder is
advertised, ‘the part of the Scots colonel by Mr Weir, and that of
his servant Gibby, in Highland dress, by Mr Wescomb; and all the
other parts to the best advantage.’ Allan Ramsay must have been
deeply concerned in the speculation, because he appears in the
office-copy of the newspaper (Caledonian Mercury) as the paymaster
for the advertisements.
Nor was this
nascent taste for the amusements of the stage confined to
Edinburgh. In August, the company is reported as setting out early
one morning for Dundee, Montrose, Aberdeen, &c., ‘in order’ to
entertain the ladies and gentlemen in the different stations of
their circuit.’ We soon after hear of their being honoured at
Dundee with the patronage of the ancient and honourable society of
freemasons, who marched in a body, with the grand-master at their
head, to the playhouse, ‘in their proper apparel, with hautboys
and other music playing before them;’ all this to hear the Jubilee
and The Devil to Pay.
In December, the
Edinburgh company was again in the Tailors’ Hall, and now it
ventured on ‘a pantomime in grotesque characters,’ costing
something in the getting up; wherefore ‘nothing less than full
prices will be taken during the whole performance.’ In
consideration of the need for space, it was ‘hoped that no
gentleman whatever will take it amiss if they are refused
admittance behind the scenes.’ Soon after, we hear of the
freemasons patronising the play of Henry IV., marching to the
house ‘in procession, with aprons and white gloves, attended with
flambeaux.’ Mrs Bulkely took her benefit on the 22d January in
Oroonoko and a farce, in both of which she was to play; but ‘being
weak, and almost incapable to walk, (she) cannot acquit herself to
her friends’ satisfaction as usual; yet hopes to be favoured with
their presence.’
It is observable
that the plays represented in the Cowgate house were all of them
of classic merit. This was, of course, prudential with regard to
popular prejudices. Persons possessed of a love of literature were
very naturally among those most easily reconciled to the stage;
and amongst these we may be allowed to class certain
schoolmasters, who about this time began to encourage their pupils
to recite plays as a species of rhetorical exercise.
On Candlemas,
1734—when by custom the pupils in all schools in Scotland brought
gifts to their masters, and had a holiday—the pupils of the Perth
Grammar School made an exhibition of English and Latin readings in
the church before the clergy, magistrates, and a large
miscellaneous auditory. ‘The Tuesday after, they acted Cato in the
school, which is one of the handsomest in Scotland, before three
hundred gentlemen and ladies. The youth, though they had never
seen a play acted, performed surprisingly both in action and
pronunciation, which gave general satisfaction. After the play,
the magistrates entertained the gentlemen at a tavern.’
In August, ‘the
young gentlemen of Dalkeith School acted, before a numerous crowd
of spectators, the tragedy of Julius Caesar and comedy of AEsop,
with a judgment and address inimi table at their years.’ At the
same time, the pupils in the grammar school of Kirkcaldy performed
a piece composed by their master, entitled The Royal Council for
Advice, or the Regular Education of Boys the Foundation of all
other National Improvements. ‘The council consisted of a preses
and twelve members, decently and gravely seated round a table like
senators. The other boys were posted at a due distance in a crowd,
representing people come to attend this meeting,for advice: from
whom entered in their turn and order, a tradesman, a farmer, a
country gentleman, a nobleman, two schoolmasters, &c., and, last
of all, a gentleman who complimented and congratulated the council
on their noble design and worthy performances’ The whole
exhibition is described as giving high satisfaction to the
audience.
This sort of fair
weather could not last. At Candlemas, 1735, the Perth school-boys
acted George Barnwell—certainly an illchosen play—twice before
large audiences, comprising many persons of distinction; and it
was given out that on the succeeding Sunday ‘a very learned moral
sermon, suitable to the occasion, was preached in the town.’
Immediately after came the corrective. The kirk-session had
nominated a committee to take measures to prevent the school from
being ‘converted into a playhouse, whereby youth are diverted from
their studies, and employed in the buffooneries of the stage;’ and
as for the moral sermon, it was ‘directed against the sins and
corruptions of the age, and was very suitable to the resolution of
the session.’
England was
pleasingly startled in 1721 by the report which came home
regarding a singularly gallant defence made by an English ship
against two strongly armed pirate vessels in the Bay of Juanna,
near Madagascar. The East India Company was peculiarly gratified
by the report, for, though it inferred the loss of one of their
ships, it told them of a severe check given to a system of marine
depredation, by which their commerce was constantly suffering.
It appeared that
the Company’s ship Cassandra, commanded by Captain Macrae, on
coming to the Bay of Juanna in July 1720, heard of a shipwrecked
pirate captain being engaged in fitting out a new vessel on the
island of Mayotta, and Macrae instantly formed the design of
attacking him. When ready, on the 8th of August, to sail on this
expedition, along with another vessel styled the Greenwich, he was
saluted with the unwelcome sight of two powerful pirate vessels
sailing into the bay, one being of 30, and the other of 34 guns.
Though he was immediately deserted by the Greenwich, the two
pirates bearing down upon him with their black flags, did not
daunt the gallant Macrae. He fought them both for several hours,
inflicting on one some serious breaches between wind and water,
and disabling the boats in which the other endeavoured to board
him. At length, most of his officers and quarter-deck men being
killed or wounded, he made an attempt to run ashore, and did get
beyond the reach of the two pirate vessels. With boats, however,
they beset his vessel with redoubled fury, and in the protracted
fighting which ensued, he suffered severely, though not without
inflicting fully as much injury as he received. Finally, himself
and the remains of his company succeeded in escaping to the land,
though in the last stage of exhaustion with wounds and fatigue.
Had he, on the contrary, been supported by the Greenwich, he felt
no doubt that he would have taken the two pirate vessels, and
obtained £200,000 for the Company.’
The hero of this
brilliant affair was a native of the town of Greenock, originally
there a very poor boy, but succoured from misery by a kind-hearted
musician or violer named Macguire, and sent by him to sea. By the
help of some little education he had received in his native
country, his natural talents and energy quickly raised him in the
service of the East India Company, till, as we see, he had become
the commander of one of their goodly trading-vessels. The conflict
of Juanna gave him further elevation in the esteem of his
employers, and, strange to say, the poor barefooted Greenock
laddie, the protegé of the wandering minstrel Macguire, became at
length the governor of Madras! He now returned to Scotland, in
possession of ‘an immense estate,’ which the journals of the day
are careful to inform us, ‘he is said to have made with a fair
character’—a needful distinction, when so many were advancing
themselves as robbers, or little better, or as truckling
politicians. One of Governor Macrae’s first acts was to provide
for the erection of a monumental equestrian statue of King William
at Glasgow, having probably some grateful personal feeling towards
that sovereign. It was said to have cost him £1000 sterling. But
the grand act of the governor’s life, after his return, was his
requital of the kindness he had experienced from the violer
Macguire. The story formed one of the little romances of familiar
conversation iu Scotland during the last century. Macguire’s son,
with the name of Macrae, succeeded to the governor’s estate of
Holmains, in Dumfriesshire, which he handed down to his son. The
three daughters, highly, educated, and handsomely dowered, were
married to men of figure, the eldest to the Earl of Glencairn (she
was the mother of Burns’s well-known patron); the second to Lord
Alva, a judge in the Court of Session; the third to Charles
Dalrymple of Orangefield, near Ayr. Three years after his return
from the East Indies, Governor Macrae paid a visit to Edinburgh,
and was received with public as well as private marks of
distinction, on account of his many personal merits.
An amusing
celebration of the return of the East India governor took place at
Tain, in the north of Scotland. John Macrae, a near kinsman of the
great man, being settled there in business, resolved to shew his
respect for the first exalted person of his hitherto humble clan.
Accompanied by the magistrates of the burgh and the principal
burgesses, he went to the Cross, and there superintended the
drinking of a hogshead of wine, to the healths of the King, Queen,
Prince of Wales, and the Royal Family, and those of ‘Governor
Macrae and all his fast friends.’ ‘From thence,’ we are told, ‘the
company repaired to the chief taverns in town, where they repeated
the aforesaid healths, and spent the evening with music and
entertainments suitable to the occasion.’’
Dec 6
The tendency which has already been alluded to, of a small portion
of the Scottish clergy to linger in an antique orthodoxy and
strenuousness of discipline, while the mass was going on in a
progressive laxity and subserviency to secular authorities, was
still continuing. The chief persons concerned in the Marrow
Controversy of 1718 and subsequent years, had recently made
themselves conspicuous by standing up in opposition to church
measures for giving effect to patronage in the settlement of
ministers, and particularly to the settlement of an unpopular
presentee at Kinross; and the General Assembly, held this year in
May, came to the resolution of rebuking these recusant brethren.
The brethren, however, were too confident in the rectitude of
their course to submit to censure, and the commission of the
church in November punished their contumacy by suspending from
their ministerial functions, Ebenezer Erskine of Stirling, William
Wilson of Perth, Alexander Moncrieff of Abernethy, and James
Fisher of Kinclaven.
The suspended
brethren, being all of them men held in the highest local
reverence, received much support among their flocks, as well as
among the more earnest clergy. Resolving not to abandon the
principles they had taken up, it became necessary that they should
associate in the common cause. They accordingly met at this date
in a cottage at Gairney Bridge near Kinross, and constituted
themselves into a provisional presbytery, though without
professing to shake off their connection with the Established
Church. It is thought that the taking of a mild course with them
at the next General Assembly would have saved them from an entire
separation. But it was not to be. The church judicatories went on
in their adopted line of high-handed secularism, and the matter
ended, in 1740, with the deposition of the four original brethren,
together with four more who took part with them. Thus,
unexpectedly to the church, was formed a schism in her body,
leading to the foundation of a separate communion, by which a
fourth of her adherents, and those on the whole the most religious
people, were lost.
An immense deal of
devotional zeal, mingled with the usual alloys of illiberality and
intolerance, was evoked through the medium of ‘the Secession.’ The
people built a set of homely meeting-houses for the deposed
ministers, and gave them such stipends as they could afford. In
four years, the new body appeared as composed of twenty-six
clergy, in three presbyteries. It was the first of several
occasions of the kind, on which, it may be said without
disrespect, both the strength and the weakness of the Scottish
character have been displayed. A single anecdote, of the truth of
which there is no reason to doubt, will illustrate the spirit of
this first schism. There was a family of industrious people at
Brownhills, near St Andrews, who adhered to the Secession. The
nearest church was that of Mr Moncrieff at Abernethy, twenty miles
distant. All this distance did the family walk every Sunday, in
order to attend worship, walking of course an equal distance in
returning. All that were in health invariably went. They had to
set out at twelve o’clock of the Saturday night, and it was their
practice to make all the needful preparations of dress and
provisioning without looking out to see what kind of weather was
prevailing. When all were ready, the door was opened, and the
whole party walked out into the night, and proceeded on their way,
heedless of whatever might fall or blow.
1734, Jan
Our Scottish ancestors had a peculiar way of dealing with cases of
ill-usage of women by their husbands. The cruel man was put by his
neighbours across a tree or beam, and carried through the village
so enthroned, while some one from time to time proclaimed his
offence, the whole being designed as a means of deterring other
men from being cruel to their spouses.
We have a series of
documents at this date, illustrating the regular procedure in
cases of Riding the Stang (properly, sting—meaning a beam). John
Fraser, of the burgh of regality of i Huntly, had gone to John
Gordon, bailie for the Duke of Gordon, complaining that some of
his neighbours had threatened him with the riding of the stang, on
the ground of alleged ill-usage of his wife. The first document is
a complaint from Ann Johnston, wife of Fraser, and some other
women, setting forth the reality of this bad usage: the man was so
cruel to his poor spouse, that her neighbours were forced
occasionally to rise from their beds at midnight, in order to
rescue her from his barbarous hands. They justified the threat
against him, as meant to deter him from continuing his atrocious
conduct, and went on to crave of the bailie that he would grant
them a toleration of the stang, as ordinarily practised in the
kingdom, ‘being, we know, no act of parliament to the contrary.’
If his lordship could suggest any more prudent method, they said
they would be glad to hear of it ‘for preventing more fatal
consequences.’ ‘Otherwise, upon the least disobligement given, we
must expect to fall victims to our husbands’ displeasure, from
which libera nos, Domine.’ Signed by Ann Johnston, and ten other
women, besides two who give only initials.
Fraser offered to
prove that he used his wife civilly, and was allowed till next day
to do so. On that next day, however, four men set upon him, and
carried him upon a tree through the town, thus performing the
ceremony without authority. On Fraser’s complaint, they were fined
in twenty pounds Scots, and decerned for twelve pounds of
assythment to the complainer.
1735, Sep
The execution of the revenue laws gave occasion for much bad
blood. In June 1734, a boat having on board several persons,
including at least one of gentlemanlike position in society, being
off the shore of Nairn with ‘unentrable goods,’ the custom-house
officers, enforced by a small party from the Hon. Colonel
Hamilton’s regiment, went out to examine it. In a scuffle which
ensued, Hugh Fraser younger of Balnain was killed, and two of the
soldiers, named Long and Macadam, were tried for murder by the
Court of Admiralty in Edinburgh, and condemned to be hanged on the
19th of November within flood-mark at Leith.
An appeal was made
for the prisoners to the Court of Justiciary, which, on the 11th
of November, granted a suspension of the Judge-admiral’s sentence
till the 1st of December, that the case might before that day be
more fully heard. Next day, the Judge-. admiral, Mr Graham, caused
to be delivered to the magistrates sitting in council a ‘Dead
Warrant,’ requiring and commanding them to see his sentence put in
execution on the proper day. The magistrates, however, obeyed the
Court of Justiciary. Meanwhile, four of those who had been in the
boat, and who had given evidence against the two soldiers on their
trial, were brought by the custom-house authorities before the
Judge-admiral, charged with invading and deforcing the officers,
and were acquitted.
On the 5th
December, the Court of Justiciary found that the Judge-admiral, in
the trial of Long and Macadam, had ‘committed iniquity,’ and
therefore they suspended the sentence indefinitely. On a petition
three weeks after, the men were liberated, after giving caution to
the extent of 300 merks, to answer on any criminal charge that
might be exhibited against them before the Court of Justiciary.’
Nov 18
Dancing assemblies, which we have seen introduced at Edinburgh in
1723, begin within the ensuing dozen years to be heard of in some
of the other principal towns. There was, for example, an assembly
at Dundee at this date, and an Edinburgh newspaper soon after
presented a copy of verses upon the ladies who had appeared at it,
celebrating their charms in excessively bad poetry, but in a high
strain of compliment:
‘Heavens! what a splendid scene is
here,
How bright those female seraphs shine!’ &c.
From the
indications afforded by half-blank names, we may surmise that
damsels styled Bower, Duncan, Reid, Ramsay, Dempster, and Bow—all
of them names amongst the gentlefolks of the district—figured
conspicuously at this meeting—
‘Besides a much more
numerous dazzling throng,
Whose names, if known, should grace my artless song.’
The poet, too,
appears to have paid 2s. 6d. for the insertion ot his lines in the
Caledonian Mercury.
From this time
onward, an annual ball, given by ‘the Right Honourable Company of
Hunters’ in the Palace of Holyroodhouse, is regularly chronicled.
At one which took place on the 8th January 1736—the Hon. Master
Charles Leslie being ‘king,’ and the Hon. Lady Helen Hope being
‘queen’—’ the company in general made a very grand appearance, an
elegant entertainment and the richest wines were served up, and
the whole was carried on and concluded with all decency and good
order imaginable.’ A ball given by the same fraternity in the same
place, on the ensuing 21st of December, was even more splendid.
There were two rooms for dancing, and two for tea, illuminated
with many hundreds of wax-candles. ‘In the Grand Hall (the
Gallery?), a table was covered with three hundred dishes en
ambigu, at which sate a hundred and fifty ladies at a time
luminated with four hundred wax-candles. The plan laid out by the
council of the company was exactly followed out with the greatest
order and decency, and concluded without the least air of
disturbance.’
On the 27th January
1737, ‘the young gentlemen-burghers’ of Aberdeen gave ‘a grand
ball to the ladies, the most splendid and numerous ever seen
there;’ all conducted ‘without the least confusion or disorder.’
The anxiety to shew that there was no glaring impropriety in the
conduct of the company on these occasions, is significant, and
very amusing.
The reader of this
work has received—I fear not very thankfully—sundry glimpses of
the frightful state of the streets of Edinburgh in previous
centuries; and he must have readily understood that the condition
of the capital in this respect represented that of other populous
towns, all being alike deficient in any recognised means of
removing offensive refuse. There was, it must be admitted,
something peculiar in the state of Edinburgh in sanitary respects,
in consequence of the extreme narrowness of its many closes and
wynds, and the height of its houses. How it was endured, no modern
man can divine; but it certainly is true that, at the time when
men dressed themselves in silks and laces, and took as much time
for their toilets as a fine lady, they had to pass in all their
bravery amongst piles of dung, on the very High Street of
Edinburgh, and could not make an evening call upon Dorinda or
Celia in one of the alleys, without the risk of an ablution from
above sufficient to destroy the most elegant outfit, and put the
wearers out of conceit with themselves for a fortnight.
The struggles of
the municipal authorities at sundry times to get the streets put
into decent order against a royal ceremonial entry, have been
adverted to in our earlier volumes. It would appear that things
had at last come to a sort of crisis in 1686, so that the Estates
then saw fit to pass an act to force the magistrates to clean the
city, that it might be endurable for the personages concerned in
the legislature and government, ordaining for this purpose a
‘stent’ of a thousand pounds sterling a year for three years on
the rental of property. A vast stratum of refuse, through which
people had made lanes towards their shop-doors and close-heads,
was then taken away—much of it transported by the sage provost,
Sir James Dick, to his lands at Prestonfield, then newly enclosed,
and the first that were so—which consequently became
distinguished for fertility—and the city was never again allowed
to fall into such disorder. There was still, however, no regular
system of cleaning, beyond what the street sewers supplied; and
the ancient practice of throwing ashes, foul water, &c., over the
windows at night, graced only with the warning-cry of Gardez
l’eau, was kept up in full vigour by the poorer and more reckless
part of the population.
An Edinburgh
merchant and magistrate, named Sir Alexander Brand, who has been
already under our attention as a manufacturer of gilt leather
hangings, at one time presented an overture to the Estates for the
cleaning of the city. The modesty of the opening sentence will
strike the reader: ‘Seeing the nobility and gentry of Scotland
are, when they are abroad, esteemed by all nations to be the
finest and most accomplished people in Europe, yet it ‘s to be
regretted that it ‘s always casten up to them by strangers, who
admire them for their singular qualifications, that they are born
in a nation that has the nastiest cities in the world, especially
the metropolitan.’ He offered to clean the city daily, and give
five hundred a year for the refuse.3 But his views do not seem to
have been carried into effect.
After 1730, when,
as we have seen, great changes were begin-fling to take place in
Scotland, increased attention was paid to external decency and
cleanliness. The Edinburgh magistrates were anxious to put down
the system of cleaning by ejectment. We learn, for example, from a
newspaper, that a servant-girl having thrown foul water from a
fourth story in Skinners’ Close, ‘which much abused a lady passing
by, was brought before the bailies, and obliged to enact herself
never to be guilty of the like practices in future. ‘Tis hoped,’
adds our chronicler, ‘ that this will be a caution to all servants
to avoid this wicked practice.’
There lived at this
time in Edinburgh a respectable middle-aged man, named Robert
Mein, the representative of the family which had kept the
post-office for three generations between the time of the civil
war and the reign of George I., and who boasted that the pious
lady usually called Jenny Geddes, but actually Barbara Hamilton,
who threw the stool in St Giles’s in 1637, was his
great-grandmother. Mein, being a man of liberal ideas, and a great
lover of his native city, desired to see it rescued from the
reproach under which it had long lain as the most fetid of
European capitals, and he accordingly drew up a paper, shewing how
the streets might be kept comparatively clean by a very simple
arrangement. His suggestion was, that there should be provided for
each house, at the expense of the landlord, a vessel sufficient to
contain the refuse of a day, and that scavengers, feed by a small
subscription among the tenants, should discharge these every
night. Persons paying what was then a very common rent, ten
pounds, would have to contribute only five shillings a year; those
paying fifteen pounds, 7s. 6d., and so on in proportion. The
projector appears to have first explained his plan to sundry
gentlemen of consideration—as, for example, Mr William Adam,
architect, and Mr Colin Maclaurin, professor of mathematics, who
gave him their approbation of it in writing—the latter adding: ‘I
subscribe for my own house in Smith’s Land, Niddry’s Wynd, fourth
story, provided the neighbours agree to the same.’ Other
subscribers of consequence were obtained, as ‘Jean Gartshore, for
my house in Morocco’s Close, which is £15 rent,’ and ‘the Countess
of Haddington, for the lodging she possessed in Bank Close,
Lawnmarket, valued rent £20.’ Many persons agreed to pay a
half-penny or a penny weekly; some as much as a half-penny per
pound of rent per month. One lady, however, came out boldly as a
recusant—’ Mrs Black refuses to agree, and acknowledges she throws
over.’
Mr Mein’s plan was
adopted, and acted upon to some extent by the magistrates; and the
terrible memory of the ‘DIRTY LUGGIES,’ which were kept in the
stairs, or in the passages within doors, as a necessary part of
the arrangement, was fresh in the minds of old people whom I knew
in early life. The city was in 1740 divided into twenty-nine
districts, each having a couple of scavengers supported at its own
expense, who were bound to keep it clean; while the refuse was
sold to persons who engaged to cart it away at three half-pence
per cart-load.
1736, Jan 9
Five men, who had suffered from the severity of the excise laws,
having formed the resolution of indemnifying themselves, broke
into the house of Mr James Stark, collector of excise, at
Pittenweem, and took away money to the extent of two hundred
pounds, besides certain goods. They were described as ‘Andrew
Wilson, indweller in Path-head; George Robertson, stabler without
Bristoport (Edinburgh); William Hall, indweller in Edinburgh;
John Frier, indweller there; and John Galloway, servant to Peter
Galloway, horse-hirer in Kinghorn.’ Within three days, the whole
of them were taken and brought to Edinburgh under a strong guard.
Wilson, Robertson,
and Hall were tried on the 2d of March, and condemned to suffer
death on the ensuing 14th of April. Five days before that
appointed for the execution—Hall having meanwhile been
reprieved—Wilson and Robertson made an attempt to escape from the
condemned cell of the Old Tolbooth, but failed in consequence of
Wilson, who was a squat man, sticking in the grated window. Two
days later, the two prisoners being taken, according to custom, to
attend service in the adjacent church, Wilson seized two of the
guard with his hands, and a third with his teeth, so as to enable
Robertson, who knocked down the fourth, to get away. The citizens,
whose sympathies went strongly with the men as victims of the
excise laws, were much excited by these events, and the
authorities were apprehensive that the execution of Wilson would
not pass over without an attempt at rescue. The apprehension was
strongly shared by John Porteous, captain of the town-guard, who
consequently became excited to a degree disqualifying him for so
delicate a duty as that of guarding the execution. When the time
came, the poor smuggler was duly suspended from the gallows in the
Grassmarket, without any disturbance; but when the hangman
proceeded to cut down the body, the populace began to throw
stones, and the detested official was obliged to take refuge among
the men of the guard. Porteous, needlessly infuriated by this
demonstration, seized a musket, and fired among the crowd,
commanding his men to do the same.
There was
consequently a full fusillade, attended by the instant death of
six persons, and the wounding of nine more. The magistrates being
present at the windows of a tavern close by, it was inexcusable of
Porteous to have fired without their orders, even had there been
any proper occasion for so strong a measure. As it was, he had
clearly committed manslaughter on an extensive scale, and was
liable to severe punishment. By the public at large he was
regarded as a ferocious murderer, who could scarcely explate with
his own life the wrongs he had done to his fellow-citizens.
Accordingly, when subjected to trial for murder on the ensuing 5th
of July, condemnation was almost a matter of course.
The popular
antipathy to the excise laws, the general hatred in which Porteous
was held as a harsh official, and a man of profligate life, and
the indignation at his needlessly taking so many innocent lives,
combined to create a general rejoicing over the issue of the
trial. There were some, however, chiefly official persons and
their connections, who were not satisfied as to the fairness of
his assize, and, whether it was fair or not, felt it to be hard to
punish what was at most an excess in the performance of public
duty, with death. On a representation of the case to the queen,
who was at the head of a regency during the absence of her husband
in Hanover, a respite of six weeks was granted, five days before
that appointed for the execution.
[Amongst the papers
of General Wade, in the possession of the Junior United Service
Club, is a letter addressed to him by a lady who felt interested
in behalf of Porteous. It is here transcribed, with all its
peculiarities of spelling, &c., as an illustration of the
exceptive feeling above adverted to, and also as a curious
memorial of the literary gifts then belonging to ladies of the
upper classes. The writer appears to have been one of the
daughters of George Allardice of Allardice, by his wife, Lady Anne
Ogilvy, daughter of the fourth Earl of Findlater:
‘I dute not Dear
general waid but by this time you may have heard the fattel
sentence of the poor unhappy capt porteous how in six weeks time
most dye if he riceve not speedy help from above, by the asistance
of men of generosity and mercy such as you realy are it is the
opinion of all thos of the better sort he has been hardly deelt
by, being cond’mned but by a very slender proof, and tho he was
much provokted by the mob and had the provest and magestrets order
to fire which th’y now sheamfuly deney nor had he the leeberty to
prove it tho even in his own defence, but the generous major powl
will assure you of the trouth, and yet tho the capt had thos crule
orders it is proven my state he now is in most draw your generous
pity on his side ther’for dr general waid continwa your uswal
mercy and plead for him and as our sex are neturly compassinot and
being now in the power of the quin, so generous a pleader as you
may easely persuad, considring it is a thing of great concquenc to
the whol army which yourself better knou then I can inform the
duke of buceleugh, marques of Lowding othian] Lord morton geneal
myls all the commissioners and chiff baron are to join ther
intrest with yours in this affair, by your own generous soul I beg
again Dear sir you will do whats in your power to save him, thos
that think right go not through this poor short life just for
themselves which your good actions shou you oft consider, and as
many just now put a sincer trust in your generous mercy I am sure
they will not be disapointed throgh aney neglect of yours let this
letter be taken notes of amongst the nomber you will reseve from
your frinds in Scotland in behalf of the unfortunat capt which
will intierly oblidg
Dear general waid
your most affectionat and most
obident humble servant
CATHARINE ALLARDICE.
‘you would be sory
for the unexresable los I have had of the kindest mother, and two
sisters I am now at Mrs Lind’s where it would be no smal
satesfaction to hear by a Line or two I am not forgot by you drect
for me at Mr Linds hous in Eclenburg your letter will come safe if
you are so good as to writ Mr Lind his Lady and I send our best
complements to you, he along with Lord aberdour and mr wyevel how
has also wrot to his sister mrs pursal go hand in hand togither
makeing all the intrest they can for the poor capt and meet with
great sucess they join in wishing you the same not fearing your
intrest the generals Lady how is his great friend were this day to
speak to the Justes clarck but I have not since seen her, so that
every on of compassion and mercy are equely bussey forgive this
trouble and send ens hop’]
The consequent
events are so well known, that it is unnecessary here to give them
in more than outline. The populace of Edinburgh heard of the
respite of Porteous with savage rage, and before the eve of what
was to have been his last day, a resolution was formed that, if
possible, the original order of the law should be executed. The
magistrates heard of mischief being designed, but disregarded it
as only what they called ‘cadies’ clatters;’ that is, the gossip
of street-porters. About nine in the evening of the 7th September,
a small party of men came into the city at the West Port, beating
a drum, and were quickly followed by a considerable crowd.
Proceeding by the Cowgate, they shut the two gates to the
eastward, and planted a guard at each. The ringleaders then
advanced with a large and formidable mob towards the Tolbooth, in
which Porteous lay confined. The magistrates came out from a
tavern, and tried to oppose the progress of the conspirators, but
were beat off with a shower of stones. Other persons of importance
whom they met, were civilly treated, but turned away from the
scene of action. Reaching the door of the prison, they battered at
it for a long time in vain, and at length it was found necessary
to burn it. This being a tedious process, it was thought by the
magistrates that there might be time to introduce troops from the
Canongate, and so save the intended victim. Mr Patrick Lindsay,
member for the city, at considerable hazard, made his way over the
city wall, and conferred with General Moyle at his lodging in the
Abbeyhill; but the general hesitated to act without the authority
of the Lord Justice Clerk (Milton), who lived at Brunstain House,
five miles off. Thus time was fatally lost. After about an hour
and a half, the rioters forced their way into the jail, and seized
the trembling Porteous, whom they lost no time in dragging along
the street towards the usual place of execution. As they went down
the West Bow, they broke open a shop, took a supply of rope, and
left a guinea for it on the table. Then coming to the scene of
what they regarded as his crime, they suspended the wretched man
over a dyer’s pole, and having first waited to see that he was
dead, quietly dispersed.
The legal
authorities made strenuous efforts to identify some of the
rioters, but wholly without success. The subsequent futile
endeavour of the government to punish the corporation of Edinburgh
by statute, belongs to the history of the country.