|
The year 1600 was the first
which was held to be commenced in Scotland on the 1st day of January.
Previously, the year was understood to begin on 25th March, or Lady Day.
This alteration in the style was enforced by an Act of the Estates, and
requires to be kept in view in regard to the precise date of any document
executed between January and March before 1600. The beginning of this
century was also remarkable in Scotland by the accession of James VI., in
1603, to the crown of England, and the consequent transference of the seat
of royalty from Edinburgh to London. Before leaving Scotland James took a
personal interest in a trial before the High Court of Justiciary in 1601,
wherein Thomas Bellie, burgess of Brechin, and his son were accused of “
having and keeping of poison, mixing the same with daich or dough, and
casting down thereof in Janet Clerk’s yard in Brechin for the destruction of
fowls, by the which poison they destroyed to the said Janet two hens.” The
accused were banished from the kingdom for life, as recorded by Burton in
his Criminal Trials,—no great punishment, perhaps, some of James’ English
courtiers thought. This change of the seat of government was at first
detrimental to Scotland, as it drew off the rich nobles to the court in
England, where they spent the ready money which Scotland so much needed. The
change was the more felt in consequence of the policy adopted by both
nations, which, although then made one kingdom, so far as the title of Great
Britain, bestowed by James, could unite them, still remained as hostile and
distinct in reality as any two nations could be, each showing its jealousy
of the other by enacting that sheep, black cattle, wool, hides, leather, and
yarn, should be prohibited from exportation and reserved by both nations for
internal consumption. The families of Panmure and Southesk seem to have
followed the court party at this period, and to have added to their titles
of honour in consequence.
Patrick Maule of Panmure, who
was born in 1603, was on 3d August 1646 created a peer by the title of Earl
of Panmure, Lord Maule of Brechin and Navar. This noble family has been long
and olosely connected with Brechin ; and, after ranking five earls in
succession, is now represented by the Right Hon. Fox, Lord Panmure of
Brechin and Navar, the title having been renewed to his father the Right
Honourable William Ramsay Maule, the representative of the ancient family,
through a female, by William IV. in September 1831. Patrick, the first earl,
was much attached to Charles I., and was present with him at all the battles
fought by the king during the civil wars. His Lordship died on 22d December
1661, and was succeeded by his son George, who was an equally keen royalist,
and was present at the battles of Dunbar, Inverkeithing, and Worcester, in
1650 and 1652. George, the third earl, succeeded his father in 1671. He was
a privy councillor to Charles II. and to James VII., and lived till 1686,
when he was succeeded by his brother James, the fourth earl. This nobleman
had a very checkered life. He was a privy councillor to James VII., but was
removed from that office in consequence of opposing the abrogation of the
penal laws against Popery. In 1689, however, he strenuously supported the
cause of James VIII., and he was present, with his brother, Harry Maule of
Kellie, at the battle of Sherifimuir in 1715, having previously proclaimed
James at the cross of Brechin as King Regnant of Great Britain. After this
battle he escaped abroad. He was then attainted of high treason, and by Act
of Parliament deprived of his lands and titles. His honours and estates
were, however, twice offered him if he would take the oaths to the house of
Hanover, but he conscientiously declined to do so, and died in exile at
Paris on 11th April 1723. His brother, Harry Maule of Kellie, was a man of a
similar stamp, noted for his goodness of heart, and marked by all the
characteristics of a cavalier and high-bred gentleman. The fifth earl was
William, son of Harry Maule of Kellie. William was bom about the year 1700,
and was created an Irish peer in 1743 by the title of Earl Panmure of Forth
and Viscount Maule of Whitechurch. He represented the county of Forfar for
forty-seven years, and was a general in the army in 1770. In 1764, he
purchased the estate of Panmure from the York Buildings Company for £49,157,
18a and 4d., and died in 1782, leaving his estates to hiB nephew, the eighth
Earl of Dalhousie, with reversion to William Ramsay, the second son of Lord
Dalhousie, who died, universally lamented, on 13th April 1852, having been
long known as the Honourable William Ramsay Maule, subsequently as the
Honourable William Maule, and finally as Lord Panmure, and who through life
made it his study to patronise every plan calculated for the benefit of
Brechin. The present representative of the family is the Right Honourable
Fox, Baron Panmure of Brechin and Navar, and Earl of Dalhousie, well known
for his energetic services as Secretary at State for War during the Crimean
contest, as well as his labours in other public situations. The late Lord
Panmure represented the county of Forfar in the successive Parliaments from
1796 to 1832; and the present Earl of Dalhousie sat in Parliament, first for
the county of Perth in 1835, next for the Elgin burghs in 1838, thereafter
for the town of Perth in 1841, and sat for that city till 1852, when he
became a peer, having been returned by that community for four successive
Parliaments, and elected in 1846, 1847, and 1852 by the unanimous voice of
the electors. Lord Dalhousie was created a Knight of the Thistle in 1853,
and on the fall of Sebastapol in 1860 he had conferred on him the honour of
Grand Cross of the Bath; his lordship is Lord of Forfarshire, Lord Privy
Seal for Scotland, and a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. The family
of Panmure is of French extraction. The progenitor of Maule of Panmure came
over with William the Conqueror in 1066, and from various chartularies and
other documents, the genealogy of the family can be traced downwards from
that date to the present time.
The family of Southesk was
also ennobled during the seventeenth century, and took an active part in the
eventful affairs of that period. The progenitors of this family were
anciently proprietors of the lands of Balinhard; but in the reign of David
II. John de Balinhard obtained a grant of the lands of Carnegie, in the
barony of Panmure, and from thence he took his surname. From John descended
Duthac de Carnegie, who, in 1409, by a charter from Robert, Duke of Albany,
obtained the lands of Kinnaird. He was succeeded by his son Walter, who
joined the Earl of Huntly, on behalf of James II., against the Lindsays at
the battle of Brechin, for which he had his Castle of Kinnaird burned to the
ground by Earl Beardie and his followers. John, the grandson of Walter, was
slain at the battle of Flodden in Northumberland, fought by James IV. in
1513. This John left a son, Robert Carnegie, who was in great favour with
Regent Hamilton, and was by him promoted to be one of the judges of the
Court of Session, then to be ambassador to England, and subsequently to be
ambassador to France, previously to which last embassy he was knighted. He
was esteemed an excellent lawyer, and was the author of a work on Scots Law,
entitled “Liber Carnegij.” Sir Robert Carnegie died in 1565, leaving by his
wife, Margaret Guthrie, six sons and seven daughters, and from, some one or
other of these sons are descended most of the numerous families in
Angus-shire bearing the surname of Carnegie. This Sir Robert Carnegie was
succeeded by his eldest son John, a great friend to Queen Mary; and John
again was succeeded by his brother David, a favourite with James VI., who
promoted him to be one of the Lords of Session, a Privy Councillor, and a
Commissioner of the Treasury. Sir David left four sons, David, John, Robert,
and Alexander. David, the eldest son of Sir David, was created Lord Carnegie
of Kinnaird by King James VI. on 14th April 1616, and Earl of Southesk by
Charles I. on 22d June 1633. From the other sons of Sir David are descended
the families of Northesk and Balnamoon. David, the first earl, who was
buried at Kinnaird on 11th March 1658, left four sons, David, James, John,
and Alexander of Pitarrow, whose son David was created a baronet of Nova
Scotia in 1663. Earl David was succeeded by his son
James, who was a Privy
Councillor to Charles II. Robert, the third earl, succeeded his father in
1669. Before his succession he resided for some time in France, and was
captain of one of the companies of Scots Guards to Louis XIV. He again was
succeeded by his son Charles in 1688, and upon his decease, James, his son,
took up the title as fifth Earl of Southesk. This James was attainted of
high treason, being concerned in the rebellion of 1715, and having gone
abroad, he died at a convent in France in 1729. Sir John Carnegie, second
baronet of Pitarrow, grandson of Sir Alexander, fourth son of Earl David,
then became head and representative of the family, the other sons of the
earl having left no male descendants. Sir John was succeeded by his son Sir
James Carnegie, a man of great abilities, who purchased the forfeited
Southesk estates from the York Buildings Company, and was very active in
making like purchases for other noblemen similarly situated, and who sat in
Parliament for Kincardineshire for many years. This Sir James was succeeded
by his son Sir David Carnegie, who for some time represented in Parliament
the Aberdeen district of burghs, then comprising Bervie, Montrose, Arbroath,
and Brechin, along with Aberdeen Having left the burghs, he was called to
sit for the county of Forfar, which he continued to represent till his death
in 1796. Upon the decease of Sir David the title and estates devolved upon
his son, the late Sir James Carnegie, the fifth baronet of Pitarrow. Thus,
Sir Alexander Carnegie of Pitarrow (fourth son of Earl David) was succeeded
by his son Sir David Carnegie of Pitarrow, who again was succeeded by his
son Sir John Carnegie of Pitarrow, who came to be of Southesk, and was
followed by his son Sir James Carnegie, who was succeeded by Sir David
Carnegie, the father of the late Sir James, who died in 1849, and was then
succeeded by his son James. The late Sir James Carnegie began the
prosecution of the claim to the earldom, which claim was followed out by his
son. The committee of the House of Lords in July 1855 found the claim
proved; and the attainder being reversed, Sir James Carnegie, sixth baronet
of Pitarrow, was restored, with the original precedencies, to the dignity
and titles of Earl of Southesk and Lord Carnegie of Kinnaird and Leuchars,
in the peerage of Scotland, which had been forfeited by James, the fifth
earl, in 1716.
It was in 1600 that the
trades of Brechin were first incorporated. The seal of cause was issued on
3d October 1600 by Robert Kinnear and Robert Rollock, bailies; David
Lindsay, Thomas Lyall, Thomas Ramsay, Matthew Dempster, David Dempster, John
Mortoun, George Ferrier, John Leich, Thomas Liddel, elder, Alexander Gellie,
David Noray, David Carnegy, and Alexander Clark, councillors; on the
petition of David Noray, skinner; Alexander Gellie, cordiner; John Daw,
smith; John Adam, tailor; Thomas Schewan, baxter; William Bruce, webster;
John Langlands, bonnet-maker; and James Fair-weather, fiesher; and these
tradesmen state that, notwithstanding of Brechin being a royal burgh infeft
and established with right of guildry and deacons of crafts, yet, partly
from oversight, and partly from want of sufficient numbers of master
tradesmen, the election of deacons of crafts had been pretermitted, to the
great hurt and decay of the crafts, and also to the prejudice of the lieges,
by insufficiency of work through lack of trial; therefore, these tradesman
desire the town council to fortify and maintain the crafts in their rights;
and in consequence the bailies and council, with consent of the “greatest
multitude of the commons convenit,” grant the prayer of the petition, and
ordain that the freemen of the crafts enumerated should yearly, twenty days
before Michaelmas, choose a deacon from each craft, with collector or deacon
convener, officers and other members requisite, and that, “in the election
of magistrates, the vote of the deacons of the crafts shall be sufficient
for the haill members.” The bonnet-makers and fleshers have long ceased to
be corporations in Brechin. The bonnet-makers, indeed, do not appear ever to
have taken up the privileges conceded to them by the seal of cause, and the
fleshers, although they formed themselves into a craft, took no part in
municipal matters. The other six trades, however,—namely, the hammermen,
glovers, shoemakers, bakers, weavers, and tailors,—proceeded, in virtue of
this seal of cause, to choose deacons from each craft, and the six deacons
annually elected a deacon convener, and the whole subsequently took an
active, and often an important part in the municipal government of the town.
It is interesting to observe that the copy of the seal of cause engrossed in
the record of the hammermen trade bears to be signed, “Rot. Rollock, baillie,
be the clerk, because he could not subscribe.” The crafts thus incorporated
in 1600 were very zealous for the religion and morality of their members, as
became the craftsmen of an Episcopal city. The hammermen, the principal or
first in rank of these incorporations, may be taken as an example of the
whole trades. Immediately on being incorporated they enacted that the whole
members, with their servants and apprentices, should keep the church on the
Sabbath and three week days—viz., Monday and Saturday to the lecture, and
Wednesday to the sermon; that the masters should have family worship morning
and evening; that if any be seen drunk or using unlawful pastime during the
hours of worship on the Sabbath-day, he should pay a fine to the craft,
besides the kirk’s punishment; and masters were enjoined each to have a whip
in his house for punishing his servants and apprentices that took the Lord’s
name in vain. Any apprentice who broke the seventh commandment was to double
the years of his apprenticeship, and pay 40s. to the poor, “by and attour
the penalties and punishment belonging to the kirk." Masters were to pay
each time of their marriage 6s. 8d., likely to defray the cost of a little
feast to the trade on the occasion, but certainly not a provocative to
matrimony, although immediately after this enactment we find it ordained
that it shall in no wise be “ leisum ” for an unmarried master to take an
apprentice. All members of the craft were strictly prohibited from using
improper language, and some are fined for misconduct in this respect. To
secure a respectable attendance at funerals a fine was imposed for absence.
An attempt seems to have been made to raise a fund something like a friendly
society, but to have failed. The grand affair, however, always appears to
have been the church; a list is given of the twelve persons who contributed
in the erection of their loft in the cathedral in 1608, each of whom paid
250 merks; “ therefore, with {he arms of the trade,” which, if we mistake
not, remained on the front of the loft till the church was repaired in 1806;
and a list is also given of the seven persons whose wives were to be
admitted, by the unanimous consent, to sit in the front seat, likely as much
a matter of ambition as the right of entry of a duchess to the royal
presence. In November 1687 a letter is read by His Majesty’s command, King
James II. of England? ordaining the continuance of all magistrates and
office-bearers* until further orders, with which illegal order of the
foolish Stuart the officials readily complied; but in October 1689, during
the interregnum, the craft, in obedience to the Act of His Majesty’s
Council, makes a new election of deacon, treasurer, and other
office-bearers. A law plea occurs in 1752 in regard to the gate penny, a tax
of a penny exacted by the hammermen from every stall at the markets in the
town on which was found anything of iron work, understood to have been
originally an allowance made to the trade for keeping the gates of the town
at market times. The result of the plea is not mentioned, but we presume it
had been favourable, as the trade continued the exaction till very recently.
The mode of electing the office-bearers of all the trades was regulated by a
minute of the Convenery Court in 1742, and, we believe, continues to be the
rule to this day.
The bakers of the burgh had
surely been in repute at this time, for in the accounts of the town of
Aberdeen there is this entry: “1603-4.—Item, to the post that brocht hame
thrie loodes of quhyt breid fra Edinburgh, Donde, and Brechin, to try the
baxteris with,' 6s. 8d.” But the next year the same accounts have an entry
of a different kind, still, however, showing the intimacy between the two
burghs; it is this, “To Caddell the post to gang to Brechin at command of
the Provost for inquisition of the pest at Killimuir, lib. 10s.” The plague
did not become serious in Brechin till more than forty years after this. The
Brechin bakers do not appear to have been the only tradesmen from that burgh
held in repute in Aberdeen, for in the accounts already alluded to we have,
under date “ 1626-27.— Item, at command of the magistrates, given to ane
calsie maker (paviour) that cam to this town from Brechin for undertaking
the bigging of the town’s common calsies, for making his ex-pensiss forth
and hame, £61. 13s. 4d.”
A few years afterwards, in
1629, the guildry incorporation was commenced, for this seems the proper
term for a body whose records begin thus: “The said day and several days
before, these persons undemamed, who were then actual merchants, traders
within the burgh of Brechin, taking to their consideration, that for
themselves and their posterity, and for respect and love that they have to
the welfare of the burgh wherein they were living and residing, they should
lay out and improve themselves to their utmost, to be example to those who
should survive them, to advance the interest of merchandising, and for that
end, the surest mean so to do was, that they should incorporate themselves
into a body who were to keep order and rule, and with common consent to make
such laudable acts as should be performed by them so convened, and obeyed in
all burghs for the weal of each other and the common good of the whole body,
ay, and until they should attain to that perfection that other royal burghs
do brook and possess of late, that is, to have a dean of guild established,
under whose jurisdiction they were to be, and to be governed by the laws of
the guild/1 This preamble is followed up by a statement that a loft in the
church had been bought for the use of the guildry, and mortcloths (palls)
provided to be used at the interment of members and their families, and then
a list of the contributors to the guildry is given. For many years
afterwards, nothing is entered in the guild records but simply the names and
contributions of persons admitted; but, in 1666, there is a long decree
engrossed from which it appears that the merchants had applied to the
convention of burghs, and that that body had appointed commissioners, who
met at Brechin on 5th September 1666, and, after hearing parties, ordained “
that at the next election of the burgh of Brechin, and yearly at elections,
in all time coming, in the said burgh, there shall be strictly kept and
observed, without the least change or seeming alteration, these rules
following: to wit, that the whole number of the council, magistrates, and
others who shall have voice, shall consist of the number of thirteen only,
whereof there shall be still eight of the said thirteen such as either has
been or are actual trafficking merchants or maltmen who are not incorporate
with any other handicraft; and if any be presently on the council under the
name of merchants or maltmen, or yet incorporate in any of the trades, or
meets with them, that they are hereby obliged, before they can be leeted as
councillors for the merchants, to renounce the said trade both before the
collector at the meeting of trades, as also in presence of the council, and
that the said thirteen shall not leet any to be magistrates but those who
are merchants traffickers, and that at the said next election, and in all
time coming, there shall be chosen out of the said merchant councillors so
leeted, their magistrates, conform to their ancient custom, with ane dean of
guild and treasurer, with ane master of the hospital; and the said dean of
guild is hereby declared invested and empowered as fully and freely in all
respects as any royal burgh of this kingdom, with all the power, rights, and
privileges that is or can belong thereto in any other royal burgh, as said
is; and that of the said thirteen of the council in all time coming, seven
shall be a quorum, the haill councillors being always cited either
personally or at their houses, to keep each council day, with this provision
always, that the said dean of guild and his council shall not have power to
quarrel, stop, or impede any burgess residing within the town, and bearing
burden with the rest of the burgh, whether merchants or tradesmen, already
made, in their privilege, that is, cannot challenge them, nor force them, or
either of them, to enter of new as burgesses, or pay anything to the guild
box” John Donaldson, who was the first contributor, in 1629, to the
voluntary association then formed, was the first dean of guild of Brechin.
His election is entered in the record on 8th October 1669. Probably some
delay had arisen with the convention, and the guildry had not been brought
into play till that time. Like other corporations, the guildry is now on the
wane. The maltmen have long ceased to exist.
The authority of the bishop,
though considerably abridged, was sufficient to constitute him the principal
man of Brechin for the greater part of the seventeenth century. Andrew Lamb
was bishop of the see from 1606 to 1619, and was one of the bishops sent to
England in 1610 by King James for the purpose of receiving Episcopal
Ordination from the English bishops, as some doubts existed regarding that
of the Scottish bishops. The Bishop of Brechin was accompanied by the Bishop
of Galloway and the Archbishop of Glasgow, so we may infer that Lamb was
considered a man of some importance.
David Lindsay held this
diocese from 1619 to 1634, when he was translated to Edinburgh. He is not
more indebted to the popular rhymes of the day than are his brother bishops;
but, notwithstanding of the insinuations of the reformers and bards of that
period, Lindsay appears to have been a man of unspotted virtue, and he
certainly was a man of undoubted ability. Bishop Lindsay was one of the most
spirited of all the prelates, and hence drew upon himself the especial
hatred of the Covenanters. It is related of him, that being one time
threatened with personal violence in case he should read the service-book in
his cathedral, he went into the pulpit with a pair of pistols in his belt,
and resolutely read out the liturgy; and his minister having become
recusant, and refused to read the prayers as appointed in the service-book
or Scottish edition of the liturgy, the bishop caused his own servant ascend
the desk and read the service regularly. It would appear that King Charles
held Lindsay in high estimation, for he selected this bishop to act when he
wa& crowned King of Scotland, at Holyrood House, on 18th June 1633. The
ceremonies on this occasion are described with great minuteness, and seem to
have attracted no little attention from their near resemblance to Popish
practices.
Bishop Lindsay, when
translated to Edinburgh, met with ruder treatment than he had ever
experienced in Brechin. On the Sabbath of 16fh July 1637, an order was
promidgated from the different pulpits in Edinburgh, for the introduction of
the Scottish liturgy on the Sunday following. Accordingly, on 23d July 1637,
the dean of St Giles’ appeared in his surplice, and began to read the
prayers, when an old woman, named Janet Geddes, rising with the tripod on
which she had been seated, exclaimed, “Villain, dost thou say mass at my
lugI” and made the stool fly at the clergyman’s head. All was immediately
confusion ; Bishop Lindsay, who was present, ascended the pulpit and
endeavoured to allay the ferment; he was answered by volleys of sticks,
stones, and stools; and had it not been for the assistance of the
magistrates and influential nobility who attended this cathedral, in all
probability the bishop would have been killed. As it was, Lindsay was much
injured, and being then “a corpulent man,” and not able to defend himself as
he had done in his earlier days, he was carried off with great difficulty in
the coach of the Earl of Roxburgh.
The great bell, as the
session-house tablet informs us, was recast during Bishop Lindsay’s
incumbency. The session records state, that on 17th August 1630, “there was
no session, because the minister was in Dundee agreeing with a skipper to
take the great bell to Holland and found her of new, because she was riven."
Immediately following this entry we find it recorded that James Peires left
£300 to the kirk-session, “£200 thereof to the poor, and the third hundred
to help the bell."
In 1629 there is a
disposition by John Mortimer of Craigievar to Robert Arbuthnot of Findowrie
of his desk and seat in the kirk of Brechin, which sometime pertained to
Symer of Balzordie, with the ground whereon the same stands, but reserving
the liferent use thereof to Craigievar and Helen Symer his spouse;—so the
conveyances of seats in the church, whether legal or not, had commenced at
an early period.
Bishop Whiteford, who
succeeded Lindsay in the diocese of Brechin, met with pretty much the same
treatment in the kirk of Brechin, in November 1637, as Lindsay had done
under Mrs Geddes in Edinburgh; and in consequence of the irritation of the
inhabitants, and the pugnacious spirit displayed by them, Whiteford was
obliged to flee from his see, his palace having been plundered, and his wife
and children threatened, if not ill-used. The burgh records contain no
account of these transactions, but we observe that for several weeks about
the end of the year 1637, there was no session, “because the minister was in
Edinburgh.” In 1638 Whiteford fled the kingdom and went to England, where he
obtained, in 1642, the see of Waldegrave in Northamptonshire, from King
Charles, to whose person and fortunes he appears to have been decidedly
attached. Whiteford died in England.
A curious agreement is
extant, dated in 1637, between Bishop Whiteford, “ with advice and consent
of the chapter of the said bishoprick,onthe first part,” the Right
Honourable Patrick Maule of Panmure, “ one of his sacred Majesty’s
bed-chamber, on the second part,” and the bailies, dean of guild, and
town-treasurer, "with the advyce and consent of the counsell” of Brechin, on
the third part. This document states that Mr Maule stood heritably infeft,
“by his sacred Majesty” Charles I., with whom he was a great favourite, in
the heritable offices of justiciary and constabulaiy within the city of
Brechin, with power and liberty of election of one of the bailies of the
burgh, “ upon the resignation of Umquhile John, Earl of Mar, who was infeft
therein, upon the resignation of Umquhile David, Earl of Crawford,* authors
to the Laird of Panmure; ” but that disputes having arisen about Mr Maule’s
right, the king had, in 1635, directed a commission to the archbishop of St
Andrews, and other prelates, for settling of all controversies, and that, in
terms of the recommendation of these commissioners, it was agreed, in 1635,
that, for the future, one bailie should be chosen by the bishop, one by the
Laird of Panmure, and one by the town of Brechin, and that the Laird of
Panmure should give a deputation of the offices of justiciar and constable
to the bailie whom he named, “by doing whereof, all controversie betwixt the
depute of the justiciar and the town, anent the jurisdiction therein, will
be removed, whereas of before there has been still debait and contention, in
matters of riot or bluid, the justiciar and his deputes claiming the samen
to them, and the bailzies of the town also pretending right thereto.” The
charter chest of Panmure contains some long processes, in reference to the
right to judge and punish in matters of “riot and bluid,” claimed by the
town and by the justiciar. The present magistrates, we daresay, would be
most happy if Lord Panmure would relieve them of the trouble of deciding
such “bluid wits” occurring now-a-days. This agreement, with some partial
interruptions, was acted upon till the forfeiture by the Panmure family in
1715.
The disturbances in Scotland
during the reign of Charles, have afforded materials for many volumes. It is
not our province to detail these civil wars, but we must glance at them in
so far as Brechin was affected by them. Suffice it for us to say, that the
despotic attempts of James, and the still more despotic attempts of Charles,
to force upon a rude people a mode of worship which certainly bore, in some
of its forms, a likeness to the Roman Catholic ceremonies, led to serious
wars between the king and the people, which finally terminated in the
decapitation of Charles, and the establishment of a miscalled republic,
under the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell. Many and severe were the
struggles of parties before matters were thus settled. In March 1638, the
solemn league and covenant was subscribed in the Greyfriars Church of
Edinburgh, by the great majority of the barons and leading men of Scotland.
Copies #were immediately transmitted through the land, and were received
with exultation in almost every quarter. The Bishop of St Andrews is
reported, on hearing of these proceedings, to have exclaimed, “All we have
done these last thirty years is at once undone." At this time a Committee of
Estates, as it was called, assumed the temporary government of Scotland. In
1643 this body raised a regiment of horse, and “appointed 140 to come out of
the sheriffdom of Forfar.” Most likely these men were furnished by the
landed interest; but subsequently—as we are informed by Spalding, in his “
History of the Troubles in Scotland and England ”—there were “lifted out of
the town of Edinburgh 1200 men, out of Dundee 180, out of Brechin and
Montrose 110 men;” and these assuredly were raised by the burgesses.
Presuming Montrose and Brechin to have borne to each other the relative
proportion of inhabitants which they now do, this would give about 36 men
for Brechin; and holding again that the proportion was just between Brechin
and Edinburgh, it would show that the inhabitants of Brechin were then as
one to thirty-one of those of Edinburgh, while at the last census they were
about as one to twenty-three. “ Ilk soldier (of this period we are told) was
furnished with twa sarks, coat, breeks, hose and bonnet, bands and shoon; a
sword and musket, powder and ball for so many, and others, some a sword and
pike, according to order; and ilk soldier to have six shillings (sixpence
sterling) every day, for the space of forty days, of loan silver; ilk twelve
of them a baggage horse worth £50, (Scots,) a stoup, a pan, a pot for their
meat and drink, together with their hire or levy, or loan money; ilk soldier
estimate to ten dollars.”
In 1644, Brechin was made the
place of rendezvous for the Covenanters, and the Marquis of Argyle is said
to have been joined in the September of that year, by the Earl Marischal,
the Lord Gordon, Lord Forbes, Lord Frazer, Lord Crighton, and other noblemen
who-met him at Brechin. In the following years the Covenanters again made
Brechin their rallying-point, and Hurry and Baillie, the covenanting
generals, assembled their troops at Brechin, in January 1645, with the view
of intercepting the Marquis of Montrose in his descent upon the low
countries. Hurry, who was a man of considerable abilities, left Brechin,
with six* hundred horsemen, one morning early in March, to reconnoitre the
royal army, then lying at Fettercairn, but was led into an ambuscade and
defeated by Montrose at the planting of Haulkerton, a little beyond the
North Water Bridge. The covenanting army, although superior in numbers to
the royal army, was deficient in training, and its generals were obliged to
waive a battle, and to allow Montrose to proceed westward by the ridge of
the Grampians ; the Covenanters keeping between the Marquis and the low
country. The covenanting and royal armies thus both marched westward at the
same time, in parallel lines, but at a respectful distance from each other.
Montrose, however, proved himself a second time an overmatch in policy for
Generals Hurry and Baillie. By a stratagem, he passed the Covenanters, came
down upon Dundee, sent his baggage and part of his troops on to Brechin in
the end of March; and, after plundering Dundee, came with the rest of his
army, by forced marches, to Arbroath, and then up to Careston, and so away
into the Highlands over the Grampians, where he was joined by the baggage
and the party which he had despatched to Brechin; and thus he eluded General
Baillie, who was again in full pursuit after him. The citizens of Brechin
are alleged to have been not a little alarmed when the royal troops came to
visit them, and apparently they had too much reason, for Montrose is said to
have burned and destroyed some fifty or sixty houses in the burgh. The
kirk-session records state, that on 23d March 1645 there was “ no preaching,
neither collection, by reason of the enemies being in the town;11 and on
31st March, there is an entry to the same effect. On 29th July 1645, a
similar entry is repeated; and on 16th November of that year, we are
informed there was no session in consequence of the absence of the
ministers, “and of the enemie, Lodovick Lindsay, approaching near to the
town.” A minute under the date of 28th June 1647, is still more graphic: “No
session, neither collection, by reason the sermon was at the Castle of
Brechin for fear of the enemie.” Another equally graphic entry occurs in
November 1646: “Taken out of the box, (says the record,) to buy a mortcloth,
£80; the first mortcloth was plundered by the common enemy and taken away.”
This “common enemy” seems, however, to have had some friends in Brechin, at
least the session records insinuate as much, for on 28th February 1647, “the
minister demands of the whole elders if any of them had drunken James
Grahame’s good health,” which,.of course, they all denied. Spalding, in
reference to the visit by Montrose's troops in 1645, says, “The
town's-people of Brechin hid their goods in the castle thereof and kirk
steeples, and fled themselves, which flight enraged the soldiers; they
herried their goods, plundered the castle and haill town, and burned about
sixty houses.” In the Balnamoon charter room there is a list of the losses
sustained by the Laird of Findowrie and his tenants, through the Marquis of
Montrose in 1646, and “ by burning of his Ludging in Brechine,” so that
lairds as well as burgesses had suffered from the great marquis. General
Baillie, however, having returned and again made Brechin his rendezvous, the
courage of the people was somewhat restored, the more especially when they
saw the covenanting general joined in Brechin by the Earl Marischal, the
Viscount Frendraught, the Lord Frazer, the Master of Forbes, the Lairds of
Boyne, Echt, Craigievar, Leslie, and most of the gentry in the surrounding
country. Fortune was at this time against Montrose and the royal troops; and
the glorious victories of the Covenanters were unfortunately tarnished by
the delivery of Charles I. to his English subjects in 1647; a transaction
which reflected small credit upon either the buyer or seller, for, disguise
it as we may, the delivery of Charles was little else than a money bargain
between England and Scotland; although we Scotsmen are fond enough to think
that our ancestors were misled by the Southerns. Against this transaction,
we are happy to say, the commissioner for the burgh of Brechin stood out,
along with the commissioners for Forfar, Ross, and Tain. We regret we cannot
record the names of these worthies, who showed themselves persons of sense
and deliberation, when overzeal seems to have blinded the feelings of most
men. Montrose, although de-feated in 1647, was not a man to be easily put
down. In 1650, he again raised the civil war in Scotland for behoof of
Charles II., who then claimed the throne of his ancestors, but the
Covenanters met Montrose with spirit, overcame him, and finally beheaded
him. No sooner was it known that Montrose was in Scotland for another
campaign, than the Estates, the covenanting party, directed David Leslie,
their commander-in-chief, or as Father Hay, a keen royalist, was pleased to
designate him, “Argyle's Postilion,” to gather together, at Brechin, all
those parties of horse and foot which, since the termination of the first
campaign, had been dispersed over the country for its protection. During the
wars of Montrose, therefore, it would appear that Brechin was esteemed the
key of the covenanting army, and its situation immediately on the line
between the Highlands and Lowlands, and commanding the only bridge then in
existence over the South Esk, seems to have rendered it of importance in
such a civil warfare. The burgh was much annoyed by this distinction, which
rendered it an object to both parties. For several weeks in the end of
August, and during the months of September and October 1651, there were “ no
sermon, collection, nor session, by reason both the ministers were absent,
the English forces lying in garison round about this town and a garison in
the Castle of Brechin,” so the kirk records bear; and they further inform
us, that on 2d July 1651, there was “ no session, neither sermon this
Wednesday, by reason all within this burgh was called to go to Aberbrothock
to assist them against the pursuing enemy by sea; ” although in what manner
the landsmen of Brechin were so to assist is not explained. Again, in
November, we are told there was “no sermon this Wednesday, be reason twelff
hundreth English were in the town, Tuesday all night, and on Wednesday till
the time of Divine Service was past.”
The country in the
seventeenth century seems to have been much infested with vagrants. In 1615,
John Mill, kirk-officer, and bailie John Liddle, are enjoined by Bishop
Andrew Lamb and his session to go daily through the town and expel the “
vagabonds and stranger beggars; ” and in subsequent years, these enactments
are renewed in the records of the session of Brechin. Similar proceedings
were adopted in most other parishes. The natural consequence of this state
of things was, that the poor were compelled to feed on filthy garbage, and
became infected with disease, wliich rose from the lowest to the highest,
and raged in various shapes in different parts of Scot-hind, for several
years, about this period. In 1604, the Scottish Parliament was obliged to
meet at Perth to avoid the plague then raging in Edinburgh, and the disease
seems to have gone on increasing and travelling northwards for many years
afterwards. Great frosts and snow, which occurred in the seed-time of 1640,
still further tended to increase the evil. Brechin was visited with the
pestilence in 1647. The session records, after informing us that there was a
public fast on 4th April, state “ there was no session, neither collection,
from the 4th April, by reason the Lord inflicted the burgh of Brechin with
the infecting sickness until the 7tli November; ” and even on the 7th
November, when a collection is made, there is no session, by reason the
minister and elders are afraid to keep company, or, as the records of the
Landicard session bear, “ be reason the moderator and remanent sessions
feared to convene under one roof." Indeed, the regular meetings of the
session scarce seemed to have recommenced till 26th December 1647, although
all business was not interrupted, for the records inform us, that “ when it
pleased the Lord that the sickness began to relent there were some persons
contracted and married; ” such is life. Clearness were at this time brought
from Edinburgh, who, if we may judge from some of the entries in the session
records, were not men of the best character, but what these cleansers did we
have no means of ascertaining. Other parts of the session minutes show, that
amidst this scene of death, there were scenes of folly. The terror of the
disease seems to have extended to the country. The records of the parish of
Menmuir of 11th April. 1647, bear that “ because of the forthbreaking of the
plague in Brechin, the minister preached in the fields, therefore no
collection;” and from that date till 26th September, a similar entry is made
every Sabbath. A stone built into the wall of the churchyard of Brechin,
records that in 1647, no less than six hundred died of the plague in Brechin
in the course of four months. The inscription is comparatively modem in
point of workmanship, but most probably has been copied from an older stone.
It runs thus:—
“1647.
Luna quater creacens,
Sexcentos peste peremptos,—
Diace mori,—vidit.
Pulvia et umbra aumua.'’
Close by the stone is
another, placed between double columns, supporting a Saxon arch, and
recording in bold alto relievo lettering, the death in that year of Bessie
Watt, spouse of bailzie David Donaldson, and their daughters, Elspet and
Jean, all of whom most probably also died of the plague. The inscription is
in very simple language: “ Heir lyes Bessie Watt, spoke to David Donaldson,
bailzie of Brechin, and Elspet Donaldson, and Jean Donaldson, their Dochters,
1647/' From a sasine found amongst some old papers belonging to' the town,
it appears that, in 1633, Bailie Donaldson and Bessie Watt were owners of
the house now belonging to Mr Thomas Ogilvy, on the High Street, the
adjoining house, on the south, having then belonged to Lord Airly, the head
of the clan Ogilvy, to whom it yet pays feu-duty.
The plague seems to have
continued in and around Brechin for the greater part of the year 1648, for
in January the treasurer of the session takes credit for thirty shillings,
(Scots of course,) “given to William Ross lying in ane hutt;" while in
August it is twice recorded there was “ no session be reasen the infection
was begun again in the toun; ” and finally, in October £3, 12s. additional
are given “ to buy malt and meall to those in the hutte!' These huts are
said to have been erected in the Glen of Murlingden, and before the present
garden of that property was made out we remember small mounds at different
places which were reported to have been huts or houses pulled down over the
inmates who had died there of the plague. It is to the honour of the then
inhabitants of Brechin that amidst their own troubles they did not forget
those of their neighbburs, for in October 1648, no less than £42,14s. 2d.
(Scots we believe) are collected for the “distressed people in Montrose,”
where by this time, we presume, the “infecting seeknese” had been worse than
in Brechin.
In 1634 the South Esk
suddenly subsided, from what cause was not known, at least is not reported ;
but the fact is recorded and imputed as a sign of the troubles which then
hung over the kingdom. Tradition has it, that the bed of the river was
wholly dry for twenty-four hours, except at the Ee-o’-the-weil, and
Stannachee, and that the water gradually subsided, and as gradually
returned. Most probably the circumstance had arisen from a great drought.
The subsequent winter was one of severe storm, and the greater part of the
shipping on the east coast of Scotland was destroyed.
The town council possess few
records of this period, but the kirk-session have several old volumes
relating to this time. On the fly-leaf of one of them, there is the
following note: “The town register evidencing that, in James Watt, reader
and session-clerk, his time, the town and landward kept session weekly; and
for the landward collections an elder was appointed, for receiving and
keeping the same, which was distributed by the direction of the minister and
remanent elders, to the landward poor. Upon the 20th June 1624, the minister
and landward elders, taking into their serious consideration, that the
landward elders could not conveniently attend the town-session weekly, by
reason of the distance of place, and their urgent and necessary labour and
affairs at home, particularly in the oat and bere seed time, in summer
season for casting, winning, and leading eldon, and in the harvest time:
Therefore, after mature deliberation, resolved, and thought it expedient and
most necessary to separate. Whereupon, it was condescended and agreed by the
minister and elders, to keep the landward session on the Sabbath day,
betwixt sermons, and to have a box for keeping the collections, and a
register containing their acts, collections, penalties, and processes, and
distributions. The book from the year 1624, containing these particulars
above expressed, was taken away by the common enemy, and this book, de novo,
begun on the 3d of March 1644.* The sessions thus disjoined, continued
separate till about 1708, when Mr Willison, then clergyman, seems to have
taken considerable trouble in getting the burgh and landward sessions again
united. The session have another volume, commencing in 1615 and ending in
1677, containing the “ acts and ordinances of the kirk and session of
Brechin/’ and thus, amongst the different volumes, there is a pretty correct
report of the proceedings in the session. In these volumes there are many
curious entries. John Duncanson, Baxter, in 1619, applies to have “ an act
of slander against all such as should object anything to him concerning
Marion Mar-now, a witch, that was burnt, which the session refused, till
further advisement” The same year the session resolved that for every burial
in the body of the church between the pillars, there should be paid £20, and
in the aisles and toofalls £10, “all to the use of the kirk.” On 13th
December 1620, we have this entry in the records of the church, “ Given to
the session by John Donaldson and his brother, David Donaldson, at their
return from their sea voyage, £4, 4s., to be bestowed on the poor.” From
similar subsequent entries, we learn that the voyage was to London. In the
same year, 1620, application is made for assistance in building a bridge
over Noran water, at Courtford, when the session appoint a. collection to be
made through the town, “both to help that bridge, and the Pow Bridge betwixt
Kinnaird and Auld Montrose, which our sovereign, King James the Sixth,
caused lay over for leading of his Majesty’s provision to Kinnaird, in
1617.” Hence we might infer, what we find elsewhere to be a fact, that James
that year visited David Carnegie at Kinnaird, whom he had the year previous
raised to the peerage, by the title of Lord Carnegie of Kinnaird.
James was a mighty hunter,
although a most awkward horseman, and was fond of pursuing the game in the
muir of Monroumonth or Montreuthmont, adjoining Kinnaird. In “ Adamson’s
Muse’s Welcome,” printed at Edinburgh in 1618, there are some curious
addresses presented to the king on his visit to Scotland in 1617. One says:—
“Stay then, (dread Leige,)
O stay with us a while,
With pleasing sports the posting time begyle;
Thy fynest hawks and fleetest hounds shall finde
Of fowls and beasts, a prey of everie kynd.
For morning both and evenyng flight, each day
Each hawk thou hast, shall have her proper prey
Each fowl that flies shall meit thee in thy way,
And in their sorts shall Are Ca$ar say.”
These events are all during
the time that Episcopacy was the form of worship recognised by the state.
The session records of 15th
April 1650, state that the town and landward elders being convened after
sermon, and it being shown by the minister that Mr John Fyfe refused to take
the charge, to be an actual minister in this congregation, “ they all being
inquired whom they would nominate to that charge, they all, una voce, after
due deliberation, nominated Master Laurence Skinner, to be conjunct minister
with Mr William Raitt.” We have not observed any previous mention of Mr Fyfe
in the records, but whether there is such entry or not, this minute proves
that the session then exercised the right of choosing the minister. The
volume of records, commencing in 1615, gives a somewhat different version of
the matter. There it is stated, “ that on 13th March 1650, the minister,
provost, bailies, council, and others within the burgh, and commissioners
direct from the landward session, being convened for nominating and calling
ane actual minister to this vacant kirk, and that be reason Mr John Fyfe
refuses to embrace the charge, all in one voice did nominate Mr Laurence
Skinner, minister at Navar, to be their minister, and colleague with Mr
William Raitt; ”and on 24th May, the same record tells us Mr Skinner“ was
heartily received by the magistrates and others of the parish, as their
minister.” The magistrates appear always to have formed constituent members
of the session at this time, and every two or three years a list of the
elders and deacons is made up, commencing with the provost and two bailies.
Hence, the acts and ordinances of the session have much the character of the
proceedings of a lay court, the magistrates carrying with them to the
session their magisterial powers, and sending to ward, or jail, persons who
did not implement the orders of the session. On the one hand, the session
then assumed powers which are now vested wholly in the town council, and we
find them repeatedly admitting individuals to the benefit of the hospital,
and making a regulation, that applicants for this privilege shall be both
examined and catechised publicly before the session, and that the person who
has best insight in the grounds of religion shall be preferred: this entry
is dated 24th November 1646. On the other hand, the absence of the
magistrates was deemed sufficient reason for not holding a session; thus
21st May 1662, “ No session holden this day, by reason the magistrates went,
immediately after sermon, to bring in the Trinity fair; ” and similar
entries frequently occur. Amongst other crimes which then engaged the
attention of the dignitaries of the kirk, Sabbath-breaking frequently
occurs; some are punished for selling ale, others for winnowing corn, a few
for frolicsome behaviour, and a good many for “yolking their carts, both in
the burgh and landward,” and going “to the moss.” Where this moss was
situated is not mentioned; but apparently it had been at some distance, as
the offenders are occasionally accused of commencing their labour l)efore
twelve o’clock of Sunday night; and it may thus be inferred, that they
wished to have a long day for bringing home their eldon. A serious
discussion is entered upon the minutes of the session in December 1649. One
woman complains to the session against another for scandalising her, by
calling her a witch ; and the party complained upon undertakes to prove that
the complainer is actually a witch. Witnesses are called. One person swears
that the suspected witch rubbed the witness's side, and then followed such a
pain, that the witness could not bow herself for weeks; another, that his
mother having refused to give the witch a little butter, could make no more
butter that season; a third, that the witch spoiled her brewsts; and others,
that a suspicious dog kept company with the witch, who was over-kind to the
animal. The session sent the matter to the presbytery, and as we hear no
more of it, we flatter ourselves that they gave the silly affair the go-by.
The trial of witches was, however, common in this part of the country; and
the minutes of the kirk-session of Menmuir, of 2d and 23d December 1649,
tell us that there was “no lecture this week, because the minister was
attending the committee appointed by the provincial assembly, for the trial
of witches and charmers in their bounds/ Tradition also informs us that
unfortunate beings did suffer in Brechin for this imaginary crime; and the
hollow where the gas-work is now erected, bears the name of the Witch Den;
digging in which, some years ago, a gentleman found a quantity of ashes
mixed with human bones, and a piece of iron chain, tending to confirm the
tradition, that witches had been burned in this place. Amongst the archives
of the town is preserved an instrument called the witch’s branks, an iron
frame made to embrace the head, with a piece shaped like an arrow contrived
to enter the mouth and prevent the criminal from speaking, and the whole
fastening behind with a padlock, which might have been easily attached to a
stake or a building. We should be truly thankful that the march of intellect
has now banished such superstitions from Brechin. Amongst other minutes in
the records of the session of 1650, there is one illustrative of the price
of books in these days; stating that the session had “ given to Catherine
Williamson, to buy a New Testament, 16s.”—Scots of course, but almost then
equal to sterling money of the present time. In October 1654, there was a
collection “for helping to build the bulwark of Aberbrothick; ” and in
October 1657, a similar collection for building the shore of Montrose; while
the bridge of Tayock got an aid in October 1660.
All these events, for the
proof of which we are indebted to the kirk-session records, being subsequent
to 1640, of course, took place while Presbyterianism was predominant.
On 26th January 1662, the
records of session state, “This day it was shown by the minister, that it is
appointed by authority, that no session be keeped within this land till
afterwards a way and liberty be opened and granted by authority hereafter;
but only to keep session for writing up the collection and distributing
charity to the poor.” This entry is explained by another occurring on 3d
August 1662, which says there was “ no session holden this day, by reason it
was the first Sabbath of the bishop his entry, and preached this day/’ This
was Bishop David Strachan. Episcopacy was thus again re-established by
Charles II.; and the ministers and elders went on under the bishop, in
pretty much the same style as they had done during his absence. An elder is
punished and deprived of his office, for permitting piping and dancing in
his house on a Sabbath, and “having many more at his daughter's marriage
than was appointed;” others are punished for less peccadilloes; and in April
1670, there is a collection made to assist the inhabitants of Dundee in
rebuilding their shore.
The different clergy of the
period embraced in this chapter seemed to have vied with each other in gifts
to the church, probably with the view of purchasing the good opinion of
their hearers. In 1643, as a tablet affixed to the wall of the session-house
informs us, “Mr Alex. Bisset, minr. at Brechin, gifted a silver cup for the
communion table; ” and in 1648, “Mr Wm. Bait, minr. at Brechin ” made a
similar gift. These silver cups, presented by Presbyterian clergymen, are
still in use. The same authority tells us that in “1655 Mr Laurence Skinner,
minister at Brechin, gave the church’s great Bible;” and that in “1665 Dauid
B. of Brechin gifted the orlidg on the steepel,” a clock which, we believe,
continued to mark time to the people of Brechin till pulled down, when the
cathedral was repaired sixty years ago. But the greater dignities of the
church were not the only benefactors of it. The tablet referred to informs
us that in “1660, John Mil, church-officer, gave three tinne basins for
serving in administration of the sacrament,” which basins continue to be so
employed at the present time, and are interesting as illustrative of the
state of popular feeling in 1660, each having a pretty good likeness of
Charles I. embossed in the centre. Bound the margin of each plate or basin,
there is an inscription to this effect:—“Pelvis Ecclesi® Brechineensi
Dedicata Ut Eeidem In Administratione Sacramentorum Inserviat, Anno 1660.”
The inscription varies slightly on the different plates. A rose, impressed
on the margin of each basin, would lead us to infer that the basins are of
English workmanship.
The records of the burgh for
this period, as already said, are extremely scanty, arising no doubt from
the unsettled state of the times; but amongst the few records which do
exist, we find one dated 26th June 1656, “By his Highness* council in
Scotland,” bearing that the council having received good information that
the town of Brechin was, in former times, the seat where the commissary
court for the shires of Forfar and Kincardine respectively were kept, and
that it is the most convenient place for the two shires; therefore, the
council directed “ that from henceforth the commissary court of the said
shires respectively be kept at Brechin, aforesaid, until further orders.”
This document is signed “Broghill, president;” and was issued during the
protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, when the civil administration of Scotland
was committed to a council of state, composed of nine persons, seven
Englishmen and two Scotsmen, of which council Lord Broghill was president.
The name of the commissary of this period is not extant; but as most of the
com-missariots were then filled by English military officers, very likely
the commissariot of Brechin was put under similar command. When the
commissary court of Brechin was abolished in 1824, and the duties of it
transferred to the sheriff, the parishes of Strachan, Glenbervie, and
Caterline were the only places in Kincardineshire which were connected with
the commissariot of Brechin. But, curiously enough, Michael Hill, within the
policies of Brechin Castle, was understood to be in the diocese of Dunkeld,
while part of Aldbar was in the commissariot of St Andrews. All these
anomalies were corrected in 1824, by making each sheriff the commissary
within his own county.
During the seventeenth
century, the exports of Brechin consisted chiefly of malt and half-tanned
hides; and to almost every property in the burgh belonged either a kiln and
coble, or a tan-pit. The other manufactures were few, and such only as
supplied the most pressing wants of the immediate neighbourhood; bonnets,
shoes, blankets, and coarse cloth. Altogether the state of the people seems
to have been very uncomfortable, deprived of the support which they formerly
received from the church, distracted by civil wars, and without
manufactures, and on many occasions without food.
We must, however, bring this
long chapter to a close. The period of time embraced in it is not great, but
this period, from 1600 to 1670, witnessed events of no small importance to
Scotland: the accession of James VI. to the English throne; the succession,
dethronement, and death of his son Charles I.; the protectorate of Oliver
Cromwell; the succession of Cromwell’s son Richard to, and retirement from,
the same proud eminence; and the recall of Charles II. to the throne of his
ancestors; the abolition of Episcopacy; the establishment of
Presbyterianism; and the restoration of the authority of the bishops. It was
during the currency of the time embraced in this chapter, also, that a very
melancholy event occurred in Brechin. Robert
Symmer, son of the Laird of
Balzordie, having quarrelled with David Grahame, son of James Grahame of
Leuchland, the two met on the “Hauche of Insche, neir to the Meiklemylne of
Brechin,” on 30th April 1616, when Symmer struck Grahame “ throw the body
with ane rapper-sword; quhair of sex or seven days thereafter he decessit.”
For this crime Symmer was tried before the High Court of Justiciary on 18th
March 1618; found guilty by the verdict of assize, and sentenced “to be tane
to the mercat-croce of Edinburgh, and thair his heid to be striken from his
body, and all his moveable guidis to be escheit,”—forfeited to the Crown.
The most remarkable literary
character of this period was Thomas Dempster, who by one author is said to
have been born of a family of little note in Brechin, and by another to have
been the son of the Laird of Muiresk in Aberdeenshire, where he was bom in
1579. He was educated first at Aberdeen College, and afterwards became a
student at the University of Cambridge. Being a zealous Catholic, he went to
France about the time of the Reformation, and obtained a professor's chair
at Paris, “ when,” says Boyle, “ though his business was to teach a school,
he was more ready to draw his sword than his pen.” In consequence of his
quarrelsome disposition, he was obliged in a short time to return to
England, where he married Susanna Waller, a woman of uncommon beauty, with
whom he soon after went again to Paris. Here the lady, vain of her charms,
while walking the public streets, exhibited more than an ordinary portion of
her breast and shoulders, which attracted such a mob, that she and Dempster
were both nearly trodden to death. Dempster obtained, by competition, a
professorship in the university of Nimes, and soon after a vacant chair and
a large salary in the University of Pisa. But here his comfort and
usefulness were suddenly marred by the conduct of his “beautiful wife," who
eloped with one of his scholars. Leaving Pisa, Dempster proceeded to Bologne,
and was appointed professor of Greek, in the university of that town, in
which situation he continued till his death, in 1625. Chambers describes
Dempster as “a learned professor and miscellaneous writer, Bora at Brechin,
in the county of Angus." During his life he enjoyed an extensive reputation;
his published works were many and various; but the principal of them was an
“Ecclesiastical History of Scotland” in “XIX beuks.” Speaking of him as an
author, an eminent critic says, “It would perhaps be difficult to point out
another Scottish writer of his time, who had the same intimate acquaintance
with classical antiquity.” King James, in 1615, appointed Dempster to the
office of Historiographer Royal.
Another literary man of this
period connected with Brechin was William Guthrie, a person of a very
different character from Dempster. William Guthrie, author of the well-known
work, “ The Christians Great Interest,” was born at Pitforthy, near Brechin,
in the year 1620. His father, who was proprietor of that estate, had five
sons, four of whom devoted themselves to the minifitry. Of these William was
the eldest, and to qualify himself for the profession he had chosen, he
acquired a very superior classical education, studied divinity at St Andrews
under Mr Samuel Rutherford, received licence to preach in 1642, and in 1644
was ordained minister of Fenwick in Ayrshire. During the “ troublesome times
” that followed, Mr Guthrie was by no means an idle spectator. When not
engaged in his parochial duties, he was with the army as a chaplain, or
assisting in conducting the business of church courts. At the restoration of
Charles II. and re-establishment of Episcopacy, he was ejected from his
living, and returned to Pitforthy, where the affairs of the family required
his presence. He had only been there a short time when a complaint which had
preyed upon his constitution for many years, rapidly increased. After some
days of great pain, in the intervals of which he cheered his relations with
his prospects of happiness in another *nd better world, he died in the house
of his brother-in-law, the Rev. Lawrence Skinner, at Brechin, on the 10th of
October 1665, and his body was interred in the cathedral church, below the
pews belonging to the estate of Pitforthy.
Various donations were given
to the church during the period we have been considering, as recorded on a
board in the session-house, which, as stated in the session minutes of 1683,
was then put up to record the mortifications that till then had been made to
the church, and those which might afterwards be made;
showing a grateful sense of
favours expected, a gratitude still existing. In 1680 Walter Jameson, bailie
and kirk-master, gave two quart stoups for the communion table, which are
still in use; Bishop Strachan’s widow, Mrs Anna Barclay, gifted £33, 6s. 8d.
in 1682; and in 1690 Mr John Glender, dean of Cashels and prebend of St
Michael's, Dublin, who had likely been a native of Brechin, gave £40. |
