|
THE first entry of interest
that appears in the session-book of Culross, after the long surcease in
consequence of the prevalence of the plague, is an admonition by the
ever-zealous Mr Duncan, the minister, to check the progress of
“malignancie”— that is to say, of any tendency on the part of the
parishioners to join the schemes of the Royalist party. Those who did so
were termed “Malignants”:—
"10 March 1646.
“The minister desyred the
elders, that what they had found concerning malignancie in toune or land,
they wold now mak dedaratione of it and give it in, that they might be
punished according to the Act red to them befor.”
“20 Apryll 1646.
"The names of widowes within
the parioch who had their husbands killed in England to be givene to the
minister against the next dayt of mietting.”
“Some honest men to be
thought upon against the next day for visiting the brewster-houses in
landward one Sunday before sermon, and to see that the people keepe the kirk
preciesly."
“ 12 May 1646.
"Because of sundry complaints
givene be the elders against people vaiging from the kirk in the afternoone,
it was thought miet that searchers should be apoynted for the landward, and
that especially they should try the brew-8ter-houses that nae people resort
thir.”
This institution of “
searchers ” on Sunday for watching and arresting any persons who might be
walking abroad in time of divine service, if it did not originate in the
flourishing time of Presbyterian supremacy subsequent to 1638, was at least
extensively developed in these days, and maintained itself as a Presbyterian
speciality to a comparatively recent date. It prevailed more especially in
burgh towns such as Glasgow, Dunfermline, and others, where the puritanical
leaven was strong and active among the magistracy. In the former-mentioned
town, down to near the end of the last century searchers used regularly to
perambulate the Green, to pounce upon any regardless individual who might be
so far left to himself as to indulge in a walk on the Sunday afternoon. At
last they caught a Tartar. Mr filack-adder, father of Mr Blackadder of
Killeam, long chairman of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway Company, having
been Bummarily arrested and “warded ” in this fashion, brought an action of
wrongous imprisonment against the magistrates of Glasgow, and got decree of
damages against them in the Court of Session. The searchers’ occupation in
the city of St
Mungo was from that time
gone, but it still continued to flourish for a while in other localities. In
Dunfermline, for instance, it was quite common for persons to be apprehended
who were found on the streets carrying water or engaged in any similar
occupation; and many a “young man from the country” who had walked into town
with the intention of spending the Sunday with his Mends, was either
ignominiously turned back, or marched off to the guard-house “with his
bundle under his arm.” Latterly the duties of searchers were performed by
the town-officers and suchlike functionaries; but originally the office
seems to have been filled by elders and members of the Church, and regarded
as a most honourable and necessary one. We shall hear a good deal about the
searchers and their adventures as we proceed with the session records.
“28 July 1646.
"George Rowane and his wyf,
accused for charming a bairne, they confessed they used some words which a
begger used them, they not knowing what it mynded—referred to the Presbetrie.
The Presbetrie apoints the forsaids persons to mak ther repentance upon the
publick place of repentance on the Lord’s Day after sermon in the fomoone.”
The minister of Culross is
ordered off on a mission to the Scottish camp in England:—
"November 3,1646.
“The whilk day the minister
shew a letter to the session from the Commission of the Kirk ordiening him
with all expedition to address himselfe to Newcastell to attend the Generali
Leslie there, and that the Presbetrie, during his absence, wold per vice*
supply his place.”
About this time the
Valleyfield and Balgownie families have burial-places assigned them. Of the
latter family some account has already been given, and it now seems
desirable to say something of the former, which, since the times of the
Reformation to the present day, has ever been an influential one in Culross
parish.
The name Preston is derived
from the barony of Prestoun (Priests’ town), now Gourtoun, on the South Esk,
Mid-Lothian. Sir John de Preston, knight, was taken prisoner with David II.
at the battle of Durham, in 1346, and suffered imprisonment for a long time
in the Tower of London. He obtained from David II. charters of the lands of
Gourtoun or Gorton in Mid-Lothian, and also of lands in Fife and Perthshire.
His son, Simon de Preston, obtained from King Robert II. a charter of the
lands of Craigmillar, near Edinburgh; and though there is some question as
to who his children really were, there seems no reason to doubt that he was
the father of Sir George de Preston, who again was the father of John
Preston of Craigmillar and Gorton. From this last the Prestons of
Craigmillar were descended, as also those of Valleyfield—though the precise
period at which the latter branched off is a matter of some dispute. The
earliest account we have of them in connection with Valleyfield is the
acquisition, in 1543, of that estate from Patrick Bruce by James Preston,
son of Henry Preston, burgess of Edinburgh, and grandson of William Preston
of Craigmillar. The conveyance was ratified by a charter, in 1544, from
William Colville, Commendator of Culross Abbey, in favour of the said James
Preston and his wife Margaret Home.
James Preston wtw succeeded
by his son Archibald, who obtained sasine from the Commendator and convent
of Culross of the whole lands and barony of Valleyfield. And Archibald
Preston was succeeded as third baron by his eldest son James, who married
Jean, daughter of James Erskine of Little Sauchie, third son of Robert
Erskine, fourth Earl of Mar. Their eldest son was Sir John Preston of
Valleyfield, who received the honour of knighthood from James VI., with whom
he was a great favourite. He married Grizel Colville, daughter of Alexander
Colville the Commendator, and sister of John Colville of Comrie.
The eldest son of Sir John
Preston of Valleyfield and Grizel Colville was the Sir George Preston who
has a burial-place assigned him on the basement storey of Culross steeple,
as recorded in the kirk-session book, and who ten years previously, in 1637,
had received from Charles I. a baronetcy, which still exists, though no
longer connected with the estate of Valleyfield. His brother, Robert
Preston, who makes the application for him, became a Lord of Session; and
his sister Mary, as previously mentioned, married the second George Bruce of
Camock, and was mother of the first and second Earls of Kincardine.
Sir George Preston married
Marion, only daughter of Hugh, third Lord Semple, and was succeeded as
second baronet by his eldest son Sir William. His second son, George, was
greatly distinguished as a military officer, and commanded the garrison of
Edinburgh Castle during both the rebellions of 1715 and 1745. He died at an
advanced age in 1748. We shall hear more of him at a subsequent stage.
On 27th April the following
entry occurs regarding the seating of the church:—
“Thos who ware apoynted for
sighting the kirk and finding out of places most commodious for building
seats, report that they can find no place in the kirk for that use except
the quiere, and that they think the Communion tables may be removed, and set
alongs the body of the kirk when they have to doe with them. Referred.”
In the above, as well as in a
previous entry of 13 th April, we find some interesting information
regarding the condition of Culross Church in 1646. It is evident from the
very minute delineation of the burial-space accorded to the Preston family
“within the porch under the stiple, betwixt the inner doore of the kirk and
the outer doore of entrie thereto,” that the entrance - porch to the church
on the basement floor of the steeple was the same as at the present day, and
that the nave, which originally extended westwards as far as the churchyard
gate, had by that time been reduced to the condition of an external roofless
ruin. We also find that, though the whole of the present place of worship
formed anciently the choir of the Monastery Church, the term “quiere,” or
choir, was restricted in after-times to the portion extending between the
transept at the pulpit and the east wall of the church—corresponding,
indeed, in situation to what is generally known as the chancel. The
Communion table was formerly placed there; and we learn also, from another
source, that there was a partition or screen between the so-called choir and
the rest of the church. The little chapel or aisle on the north side of the
choir, now in ruins, but exhibiting still in the fragment of a window a
beautiful specimen of ancient architecture, was then known as the Little or
Old Aisle, to distinguish it from the New Aisle recently erected by George
Bruce. The old burial-place of the Preston family in the porch has long been
disused, in consequence of their descendants, Sir Robert Preston and Lady
Baird, having built other mausolea for themselves; but the vault of the
Cunninghams of Balgownie, though a modem structure, adjoins the Little
Aisle.
The seating of churches with
pews and galleries— or as the latter were commonly termed, “lafts”—came into
general vogue about the middle of the seventeenth century. Previous to that
time the congregation either stood entirely throughout the service, or used
seats which they themselves or their servants had brought with them to
church. Jenny Geddes turned the stool which she had brought with her to a
peculiar use by hurling it at the head of the Dean of Edinburgh. When the
movement for fitting up churches with pews commenced, there was no uniform
method or model followed. Each heritor or other applicant, on having a space
assigned him by the kirk-session, fitted up his pew or gallery at his own
expense, and in the fashion that pleased himself best. As might have been
expected, the result was that singular congeries that was frequently to be
observed in our old churches, of all shapes and sizes, in the way of square
pews, oblong pews, and galleries, rising above each other like the boxes of
a theatre. Previous to its rearrangement in 1824, Culross Church has been
described to me as “an awfulike kirk,” with its queer pews and galleries;
and I understand the same might have been said of the Abbey Church of
Dunfermline, when the nave, now a promenade, was used as a place of worship.
Even after it had come to be recognised as an indispensable duty on the part
of the heritors to seat as well as build the church, it was quite common to
leave the floor in its primitive condition as a part of mother earth,
without either planking or flags.
Mr Duncan goes on with
unabated zeal in carrying out the exercise of Presbyterian polity and
discipline in Culross. He announces the commencement of the practice of
diets of examination, a custom which was long continued in Scotland. At
certain times all belonging to the parish, whether young or old, were
expected to present themselves before the minister and elders, and, as it
was expressed, “ say their questions ”—that is, repeat the answers to the
questions in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms—as also, to be “ targed ”
generally in matters of faith and practice. As might have been expected, no
little perturbation was felt on these occasions by those who were conscious
of having neglected their religious studies, and thus laid themselves open
to public rebuke and exposure:—
“18 May 1647.
“The minister shew that, now
he had been through the whole parioche, and had taken upe all ther names,
and purposed, God willing, to beginne to examine on Monday next, the 27 of
this instant, and desyred earnestly that the elders wold have a care to
keepe the dyets precisely themselves, and be carfull that ther quarters have
a care to meet, as they shall be advertised—which they all promised.”
Strict regulations are issued
for the sanctification of the Sabbath:—
"6 June.1647
“According to the good order
authorised be the Sark, and practised now by the most part of burghs in this
kingdome, it is ordiened that mercats on Saturday shall be holden on Fryday,
and those satling on Monday and Tuesday, because of severall abuses falling
out by fleshers and other treds-men who resort to mercats on thos days.
"The whilk day ane act of
Assemblie for sanctification of the Saboth was publicly intimat and ordiened
to be registrat.”
11 July 1647.
“The dyet of the Communion to
be and beginne this day fourtnight, the 20 of this inst., and the minister
earnestly desyred that all persons at variance should be reconciled be the
elders, and thos who stood out to be delated and brought in before the
session—which they undertok.”
Both Mr Duncan, the minister
of Culross, and the Presbytery of Dunfermline, had long been urging on the
kirk-session the desirability of having a helper or “collige minister ”
appointed without further delay. Mr Donaldson, the celebrated minister of
Dalgety, who figures so prominently both in the sunshine and gloom of
Presbyterian history, seems to be doing his share of duty at Culross in Mr
Duncan’s absence at the camp, and takes occasion to stir up the
procrastinating session:—
“16 Septr. 1647.
“By Master Andro Donaldsone,
minister of Dalgety, who keept session here that day, and did earnestly
recommend to the session the satling of a collige minister hier, and shew
that the Presbetrie was a little discontent, they receaved not ane answeare
in wreat to their Act; whereupon the session desyred Mr James, their clerk,
to wreat ane answere agane the next day.”
“21 December 1647.
“The minister desyred the
elders to tak notice of the people on Yuile Day that they goe about ther
ordinarie callings; and if any be found superstitiously set for the keeping
of that day, to delat them accordingly.”
“24 December 1647.
“Thomas Anderson cited,
accused for drawing brothe to his panne on the Lord’s Day, confessed that he
drew some three or four bucket-full in the morning; ordiened to satisfie
according to the Act.”
The “brothe” above mentioned
was the salt water contained in the reservoir known as the “ bucket-pat,” a
structure of stonework erected on the seashore for the supply of the
salt-pans. The remains of these bucket-pats, like projecting promontories
are to be seen along the whole coast of the Firth of Forth; and, as far as I
am aware, the term is confined to this locality—at least it is not to be
found in Dr Jamieson’s Dictionary. Originally it would appear that the water
was simply conveyed in buckets from the “ pat ” to the “ pan,” but latterly
pumping machinery was employed. Scarcely any salt is now manufactured from
sea-water, and what was formerly a large and important branch of industry
has become almost quite extinct.
The next entry, of the same
date as the foregoing one, shows not only the extreme watchfulness now
exercised under the supremacy of Presbytery in maintaining the strict
observance of the Sabbath, but also in enforcing on the community a
knowledge of the principles on which such watchfulness was founded. Whether
the severities here and elsewhere threatened were ever in any instance
carried into actual execution, we have no evidence from the session records
of Culross. Fines, exposure in church, and interdiction of church
privileges, were certainly frequently inflicted; but one is almost inclined
to believe that corporal punishment, except in such cases where it would
have been justly due for civil delinquencies, was merely decreed ad terrorem.
“George Anderson cited,
accused of prophanation of the Sabboth by running up and doune the toune in
tyme of divine service—confessed, and promised never to doe the lyk
hire-after; bot because of his ignorance, not knowing what commandment he
had broken, was enacted that if he should not get the commandments betwixt
and that day twentie dayes, he should be brought bak and scurged publicly.”
“7 Januar 1648.
“Margrit Stirk cited, of
nights drinking with sojours —denyed. Proven by hir nighbours. She is
ordiened to stand at the cross on the marquet-day betwixt ten and twelve
hours, with a paper hat on hir head, and hir filthie fait written theron,
and therafter to be scurged by the hangman.”
“22 Apryll 1648.
“The whilk day the minister
shew the session that it was apoynted by the Generali Assemblie, and that
now it had come to this Presbetrie, that the litle books of warning and
helping people to the duetie of familie exercise war ordiened to be giuen
through honest families of the toune; and therfor apoynted Mr James Meldrum
to distribut the same, and receave a count from the elders, and to report
his diligence therin.”
Much trouble seems to have
been occasioned to the session at this time by the “ sojours ” and those who
kept company with them. Bessie Mackie and Elspit Robson are summoned for
irregularities of this kind, and “ enacted with their own consent that if it
shall be proven by the witnesses that ather of them was in company night or
day with the sojours, in that caice they are content to sit at the cross on
the marquet-day, with a paper hat on their heads and the branks in their
mouth, and therafter stand bearfooted at the kirk doore betwixt the second
and third bell, and therafter mak thir repentance in publick befor the
congregation.”
The offences alleged against
Bessie Mackie and Elspit Robeson are this day proved by witnesses, and they
are “ referred to the baillies, to be punished by them exemplarly, and to
stand at the kirk door barefooted betwixt the first and second bell, and
therafter to mak their repentance in publick.”
The son apparently of one of
the above-named ladies allows his filial piety to overstep the respect due
to the ordinance of the session:—
“8 June 1648.
“Robert Robeson, for his
great miscarriage in taking his mother from the kirk doore betwixt bells,
when she was appointed by the kirk so to satisfie, referred to the baillies,
to be led fast by them in stocks till he find caution to satisfie, according
as he shall be enjoyned.”
“10 Septr. 1648.
“John Aitken’s wyfe accused
for knocking beare in time of sermon, confessed hir fault, and promised
never to doe the lyk hirafter.”
“Knocking beare ” denotes the
act of decorticating barley or “bear” by striking it in a stone mortar with
a wooden mallet. Before men had learned the art of removing the husk from
barley by machinery, it was customary to prepare it for the broth-pot by
beating it in the manner just mentioned, and the utensil in which the
process was performed was called a “ knocking stone,” and was an
indispensable adjunct to every household. It has now become totally
obsolete, and its very meaning forgotten, though I myself have heard the old
servant of a relative thus address the dog when obstructing her way: “ Get
up, Cassie—siftin' there on your tail, like a knockin’ stane! ” She could
not herself explain the meaning of the phrase, having heard it used by some
old-world person.
“1 Octr. 1648.
“The minister earnestly
desyred that the elders wold have a special caire, that they within thir
quarters should keep the kirk on Saboth-day more carefully than they doe,
which they promised.
“That they who had miscarried
with this deboshed crewe from Stirling, should be delated against the next
day, and censured accordingly.”
“This deboshed crewe from
Stirling” were doubtless connected with the Royalist army, which in the
preceding summer had marched into England under the command of the Duke • of
Hamilton, and been defeated by Cromwell at Preston. There was a division in
the Presbyterian councils as to the support which they ought to accord
Charles I. against Cromwell and the Independents, and a secret treaty had
been concluded in the Isle of Wight with Charles I., by which the Scottish
commissioners agreed under certain conditions to promote the reinstatement
of the King on his throne. This compact was, however, disapproved of and
disavowed by the more zealous Presbyterians, including the Marquis of
Argyll; and where these were predominant, as seems to have been the case in
Culross, all supporters of the “ Engagement ” were denounced as malignants,
and subjected to strict surveillance. The soldiers belonging to this party
had evidently been promoting immorality and disorder in the towns; and they
had also, as we shall see, been harassing by their exactions the landward
district of the parish of Culroes.
“15 October 1648.
“ Thos of toune and land to
give in the losses they had by thes malignants from Skirling against the
next day, and to be presented to the Committee of Estates.”
"31 October 1648.
“John Mastertoone of East
Grange chosen to goe over to Edinburge to present grievances of the
landward, and losses sustained by them by thos malignants from Stirling.”
The Solemn League and
Covenant, already sworn to in 1643 by 707 parishioners of Culross, is again
subscribed with great solemnity by 495 persons, among which we notice the
name of the newly created Earl of Kincardine, who on the previous occasion
had signed as Edward Bruce. A public confession is also made by the
favourers of the “ Engagement.”
“20 Deer. 1648.
“The whilk day, befor the
congregation, the heritors, counsellors, and others who had hand or did any
way con-tribut to the outputting of sojours in the leat unlawful engagement,
did publicly befor the congregation mak ther confession by standing up in
their seats.
“Therafter the Act being red
debarring and discharging all who had correspondence with the enemie, and
war vnder the conduct of Lenrick and George Monroe, from the renewing of the
Covenant.”
These were the notable
leaders in the recent attempt to reinstate Charles I. The Earl of Lan-rick
or Lanark was brother of the Duke of Hamilton, now in prison as taken
captive at the battle of Preston, and destined ere three months were over to
lose his head in Palace Yard, Westminster.
The renewal of the Covenant
is finally recorded thus in .large letters:—
“THE PEOPLE, IN PRESENCE OF
THE DREADFUL GOD, STANDING ON THER FEETE, DID SOLEMNLY RENEWS THE COVENANT,
WITH THER HANDS LIFTED UP TO THE MOST HIGH.”
“27 December 1648.
“Thos who came not to sweare
and subscryve the Covenant, to be taken notice of by the elders, and delated.”
Here we have a session case
regarding four over-“ merry masons ” :—
“John Messon, John Millar,
James and Allr. Mackie, messons, accused severally of ther prophanation of
the Lord’s Day by going to Torribume befor sermon in the morning, ther
binding a prentise, and entering John Millar fellow to the craft, and
returning in tyme of afternoon sermon, and then going to the taverae, did
all confess ther fait sincerely. They removed; the session finding ther fait
very gross, and that the lyk had not been hard of ther befor, did recommend
the same to the Presbetrie.”
“This day the Erie of
Kincardin, Sr. Jo. Erskyn, and Balbougy, with ther servant, after ther
confession befor the congregation, did sweare the Covenant, and thirafter
subscryve the samen.”
The Earl of Kincardine seems
to have done penance for his connection with the parties to the
“Engagement.” He had received his patent of earl from Charles I. at
Carisbrook Castle in 1647, and it was probably as one of the Scotch
commissioners who concluded that secret treaty that the King invested him
with the dignity.
Christane Paton, who had been
convicted of using slanderous language towards Janet Peacock, is “ ordeined
to stand on the col hill, wher the offence was given, in the joogs, with the
branks in her mouth, for example to others, and the Sunday after to mak her
repentance in publick.”
"7 January 1649.
“This day John Messon, John
Millar, Allr. Mackie, and James Bowey, did publicly confess ther
prophanation of the Lord’s Day befor the congregation, and John Messon
suspended from his eldership for a tyme, as was advysed by Presbetrie.”
Jan. 14, 1649.—The following
entry in regard to the arrangements for appointing a second minister, shows
that the Earl of Kincardine had then a house in Culross, doubtless what was
afterwards known as “ the Colonel’s Close ” in the Sand Haven:—
“The voicers to meet at my
Lord Kincardin’s hous tomorrow, and therafter to report ther diligence.”
The harbouring of strangers
and beggars seems to have been a great cause of offence in those days. Great
annoyance was doubtless occasioned to respectable people in having the
country overrun with gangs of sturdy beggars, or, as they were sometimes
styled, “thiggars and somers.” There would also be a reasonable apprehension
of the plague and other epidemics being disseminated by their means.
“26 Jany. 1649.
“John Piymros, in Sands,
cited, accused for receaving strangers and beggers within his bounds;
confessed ther war some two nights in his bounds in ane old wast house by1
his knowledge; and being sharply reproved for his oversight, is ordiened to
remove them to-morrow, vnder the paine of the highest censur the session
shall think miet to inflict.”
“John Kowane, in Cumry,
cited, accused of the lyk, confessed, ordiened to remove them; and because
sundry tymes befor reproved for the said fait, enacted that if hirafter he
be fund to lodge or reset within his bounds any such strangers or vagabounds,
in that caise to satisfie according to the Act publickly intimat.”
One would be inclined to
suspect that the Scottish country people of those days had the same sympathy
with beggars and “ gangrel bodies ” that the peasantry of Southern Europe in
our own day have with brigands. It must be admitted, indeed, that
fraternising with nothing worse than mendicants shows at least a stage of
advancement beyond that of association with banditti.
"13 March 1649.
“Ordienes that a seat be
build befor James Blaw’s seat for the midwyfs, and that they discharge the
goodwyfe of Grange of her seat.”
There must surely have been a
good many sages-femmes in Culross in those days.
“18 March 1649.
“This day Mr John Edmestone,
James Kenowey, with James Hutton and Archibald Tealyr, who war sojours in
the unlawful engagment, having satisfied befor the congregation, as the rest
of that number, did renewe the Covenant and subscryve the same.”
The renewal of the Covenant
seems to have been imposed in 1648 in consequence of the secret engagement
with Charles I., and the Scottish expedition under the Duke of Hamilton into
England, having raised a suspicion in the minds of the more zealous
Presbyterians of a defection in the ranks of their followers. As an
impartial reviewer of the events of the time, I must say that this
enforcement of a test was closely akin to some of the high-handed measures
of the Restoration which have been so much and justly reprobated.
“Thomas Fynlay, smith, Robert
Heweson, James Sind&r, and Tho. Coalyr, war cited, and accused for ther
negligence in bringing up their children, in suffering them to vaige throu
the toune in tyme of sermon, and not having a care to bring them to the
kirk, and to tak account of them, and to tak account of them what they hier
declared, that they ware wicked over lads, and promised to correct them for
this tyme, and to have a care of them hirafter, which they ware earnestly
exhorted to.”
The old-fashioned
Presbyterian Sabbath must have been extremely irksome to children when the
directions of the kirk-session as to their discipline on that day were
rigorously carried out. They were to be strictly confined within-doors,
except when walking to or from church; had to listen attentively during the
long, and what must have appeared to them dreary and interminable services,
and had to give an account of what they had heard, under severe penalties.
They must often have longed for the return of Monday, to get back to the
greater freedom of ordinary school work and lessons.
Penny-weddings, with their
attendant revelries, were the frequent subject of ecclesiastical
denunciation :—
“22 April 1649.
“It was also thought miet,
because of the great abuse at pennie biydols of gathering in numbers of
people, especially work-people, from their masters’ service, that therfor
the persons to be maryed should consigne befor the session £20. If they
keept within bounds limit by Act publicly intimat, in that caice to receave
ther £20 bak; if not, to be employed and disponed upon by the session ad
pios utnts.”
The belief in the efficacy of
holy wells, as already observed, was extremely difficult to eradicate:—
“6 May 1649.
“This day the Act against
thos who resort to superstitious wells was publicly intimat, and ordiened to
be registrat as followeth: The Presbetrie hearing that ther are sume
resorting to superstitious wells for obteining helth to sick and distracted
persons, as also that ther are some that sends them and gives advices to goe
that way, for preventing wherof in all tyme coming the Presbetrie ordiened
that whosoever shall be found guiltie of the premiss, that they mak ther
public repentance in sackcloth befor the congregation, and ordained this Act
to be intimat in all the kirks of the Presbetrie: tie svbscribitur,
“Mr Hkrie Smith, Clerk to the
Presbetrie.”
Marriage-feasts seem to have
frequently, in those days, been held in taverns; and the landlords, in
consequence, came occasionally in collision with the ecclesiastical
authorities. Here we find a Gaius engaging himself that there shall be no
transgression of the session Act:—
“Robert Sands does oblige
himself for the pairties to be maryed on Tuesday, whose biydol dinner is to
be in his hous, vnder the paine of £20, that they shall not transgress the
Act publicly intimat.”
“Intimation to be mead the
next day of ane collection for John Home, whose hous was latly burnt within
this burge.”
“13 May 1649.
“Delated by the searchers,
Bessie Grame, pulling lieks in hir yaird in tyme of divine service, to be
warned against the next day.”
It would be interesting to
know what punishment was inflicted on Bessie for such flagrant wickedness,
but nothing further is recorded of the case. The next entry marks an
important epoch in the parochial history:—
“The 30 of June 1649, the
brethren of the Presbetrie had their meeting hier (Mr Robert Cay, minister
of Dun-fermling, preached) for the admission of Mr Robert Edmestone, collige
minister. J. Meldkum,
"Clerk to the Session.”
The above may be regarded as
the termination of the long course of procedure which had lasted over nearly
twenty years in connection with the appointment of a helper or second
minister. From this date the church of Culross is to be ranked as a
collegiate charge, and mention is now regularly made in the session records
of the “ministers.” It should be understood, that though in the original
constitution of the second charge the holder of it seems to have been
regarded in the light of an assistant to the incumbent in the first, there
was no difference between them in point of ecclesiastical rank or
precedence. Indeed, in the final arrangement which was made shortly
afterwards by the heritors regarding the allocation of their stipends, it
was endeavoured, as far as possible, to equalise these in every respect; and
this is still the case with the emoluments of the two charges. Both are very
small—amounting, respectively, to barely £200 a-year; while the total amount
thus divided between two incumbents would afford nothing more than a
reasonable provision for one. Whatever may have been the desirability in
bygone days of having a double charge in Culross, it can certainly only now
be regarded as one of those preposterous anomalies, like the two members for
Old Sarum, which have been allowed, in the history of the world, to exist
long after they had been condemned by expediency and common-sense.
“7 October 1649.
“It is apoynted that thos who
search the fomoon this Saboth, shall search in the afternoon the next day,
and so forth.
“Thos who collect in the
fomoon are apoynted to have a care to tak notice of the parlyhill when the
kirk skaills, that people stand not about their own busines and worldly
discourse, but remove to ther houses.”
“14 October 1649.
“The minister did regrat the
negligence of the magistrate within the toune in suffering so many vagabond
beggers to come within the toune. They ondertok that some course should be
taken the first counsel day.”
“24 October 1649.
“Bessie Mackie, a vile,
wicked, godless limmer, to be banished the congregation: recommended to the
bailies.”
"Three dollars to be given to
William Mubry for putting his young motherless bairns to a milk-woman.”
The kirk - session recognises
no privilege or immunity even on the part of the fair sex to impugn or treat
its authority with disrespect:—
“18 Novr. 1649.
“Elspit Schioch, for railing
on the searchers, cited and most sharply rebuked, apoynted to stand in joogs,
with the branks in hir mouth, and therafter to mak publick repentance.”
“26 Novr. 1649.
“This day Elspit Schioch,
having sitten in branks, as was apoynted, for railing on the elders, saying
they wer too busie in things concerned them not, did mak public satisfaction
befor the congregation.”
“4 Deer. 1649.
“This day .James Dobbie, John
Blaylock, Robert Ronald, and Jonet Sands, did mak public satisfaction for
drinking of James Dobbie’s wyfs dregie, and he himself sharply rebuked in
publick for his miscarriage at such a tyme, who should have been humbled for
that visitation in his familie.”
Of all the cases recorded in
the kirk-session books of Culross, there is none that is more elaborately
detailed, or seems to have occasioned a greater sensation among the members,
than the following one now to be transcribed. It partakes, in no small
degree, of the ludicrous, and illustrates pretty vividly the social and
convivial customs of the time, which, to say the least, must have been of
rather a rough order. Little did the reverend conclave imagine, when their
clerk minuted these and similar proceedings, that such careful details and
fervid denunciations might, as read by the garish light of afterdays, serve
only to gratify the curiosity, and possibly excite the laughter, of an
irreverent and degenerate posterity.
“24 Apryll 1650.
"The minister shew to the
session the prophane, lous, and unchristiane carriages of some young men at
the biydel in Thomas Ezat’s house, drinking the whole night, and themselves
so drunk that they spewed it againe,and that they drank King Charles’ helth
in a beare glass and chopin bicker, and in within the lume, with suit
amongst the drink, and pieces of tolbacco-pyps and broken candel in their
drink, and thus they drank till they behoued all be washen over hands and
feat, and that they sat doune on the flore in cireulo, when they drank a
chopin bicker full every on of them of wine, and wer all knighted after the
order of the garter by that prophane man James Broune: To try against the
next day what wer mor amongst them, and who they war; and all to be drawen
up in wreat, and they particularly accused of it.”
“30 Apryll 1650.
“It is required that what
they had learned further concerning the prophane and wicked carriage of yon
young men in Thomas Eizat’s hous, the elders declared that all wes red the
last day of ther miscarriage wes true, and, moreover, that they had the
fidler with them, and were singing and dancing every night till three or
four houres in the morning, and that James Broune wave all his sockheads
[?], and gave them favours after they were knighted be James Anderson, and
that he vented much obscene filthie language to his wyf publicly when shee
entered the roume as . . . and such as now ar ashamed to utter. The young
men, Mr James Broune, James Anderson, John Bobertson, Wm. Hallyday, Andro
Anderson, in Dunfermling; John Robertson, souldier onder Pitfirrin and
Captain Murray; Thos. of or toune,—cited and most sharply rebuked Removed
all; only James Anderson is kept still, and enquyred that he wold declare
the truth. He promised he should not lie in any thing wes asked thereinent.
First, he declared that about eight o’clock the first night ther deboshrie
about eight o’clock, and continued till twelve at night, and that the
Dunfermling men began the deboshrie and the great healths, and that they all
sang and drank extraordinarily, and that they drank King Charles’ helth in a
board glass, and many ordinarie cups out; and that they entered the second
day at fyve hours, when Andro Anderson came up with a quart of wine and a
bicker; then they went in to the chimney, and drank a helth every one of
them within the chimney; and further, he confessed that ther wes wicked,
prophane, louse, unchristiane carriage amongst them, and that he wes grieved
to think on it. The extract of thir particulars to be send to the Presbetrie
and our ministers, to shew it to Sr James Halkit his sojours miscarriage.
A curious case in reference
to consulting a reputed wizard is also commenced of these dates:—
“24 April 1650.
“Delated Robert Cusing in
Kincardine, who went to the man of Kilbuck-Drummond for ane John Aitkine in
Torri-biume, for seeking helth to his wyf, whom he allaidged wes witched.”
“30 April 1650.
"Robert Cousing cited,
accused of his goeing to the man of Kilbuck, for seeking helth to John
Erskin’s wyf in Torri-bum—denyed altogether that ever he wes employed in
such a busines. The ministers to acquaint Mr James Sibbald therwith, that
befor his session it may be tryed, and that they report to them accordingly.
Robert Cousing, reproved sharply, is removed, and the busines referred til
further try all.”
“7 May 1650.
"It is apoynted the week
dayes sermon begine at eight hours in the morning.”
The matters of the wedding
revelry and the expedition to the “ man of Kilbuck ” are again taken up. In
reference to the latter, the following extract is inserted in the Culross
minutes from those of the kirk-session of Torryburn:—
“From the Session of Torie the
27 of Apryll 1650.
“The whilk day John Aitkene
being convened befor the session and examined for his alleged consulting
with witches anent his wyfe’s sicknes, he confessed as followes—that he,
hearing a common report that James Young being sick wes healed again by the
help of Robert Cousin in Kincardine, went and asked James Young his wyf
concerning this; that she bad him goe to Kincardine to Robt. Cousing and hir
daughter; that he went to them, and that the said Robert’s wyff said to him
that her goodman brought to him from the wyfiFs son of Kilbuck a yellow
gowen,1 which healled hir father; and that the said Robert Cousing agreit
with him to go to the said wyff of Kilbuck her sonne, to get helth to his
wyff; that he gave his wyffs much with him, and that he returned with this
answeare, that his wyff had gotten wrong by thos whom he suspected; that
shee wold be dead befor he went home; that her pictur wes brunt ;* that he
brought with him three pieces of rantries,8 and baid him lay thes onder his
door threshold, and keep on of them upon himself with seven pickles of whyt,
because seven wes set for his lyf; that he brought with him ane orange -
coloured saw,4 whilk he did keep with himself, because his wyff was dead
before he came with it.
“To advys with the Presbetrie
anent this wicked fellow Cousing.”
“14 May 1650.
“This day John Aitken, in
presence of Robert Cousing, did affirm that he, hearing report of him that
James Young wes healled by a yellow gowan which he brought to him from the
wyff of Kilbuk, and that he tok James Young’s wyfFs much with him; that he
came to James Young’s hous, and told him his errand. James Young answeared
that about bearsyd tyme bygone four years Robert Cousing brought hom a
yellow gowan ten myles beyond Dumblane, from Drummond the wyffs son of
Kilbuk, and caused him goe to a south-running water and put in his neck and
wash himself three times all over in the water, and goe three tymes
withersones1 about, and say, All the evel that is
on him bee on the gowen. John Aitkin offered him a firlot of come and
twentie schillings of silver, which he was content with; and that he went
away on Saturday in the morning, and returned on Sunday and brought him the
rantrees, the pickles of whyt, and the orange-coloured saw, and bad him keep
a piece of the rantree on him, and put a piece onder his door threshold, for
they wer set for his lyf also; and the man told him his wyff wold be dead or
he cam home again, bot if shee wer alive to put that saw on hir bak
forgainst hir heart, and it wold tak the heat out of it. James Maine
declared the samen. At length the said Robert Cousing confessed all the
premiss verbatim as is wreatten. Removed; he is apoynted to mak his
repentance in sackcloth, according to the ordinance of the Presbetrie.”
“3 June 1650.
“The searchers declared all
wes quiet, except that in Kincardin James Paterson’s pan not drawen.
"James Bruce, buxter, playing
in the laft and straiking Tho. Thomson.
“The persons who wer
scandalous in Thomas Eizat’s house, to mak their repentance publickly, and
to sit two dayes, and to be receaved the second, but with this provision,
that the sense of ther guiltines be manifested befor the same ther receaving.
“The minister desyred that
particular notice be taken of people not coming to kirk, especially in
Kincardine.”
“10 June 1650.
“The whilk day Robert Cousin,
for his horrid fait read, receaved befor the congregation, having sitten the
wholl tyme of service in sackcloth.”
“27 June 1650.
“Elspet Mather, for cursing
and banning the divel tak hir, and the divel ryve her, cited, and because
not sensible of this fait, recommended to John Calendar to be put in joogs
and branks publicly on the coal-hill, which he on-dertok.”
“9 July 1650.
“John Peacock, for absenting
himself on the Lord’s Day from publick worship, sitting in his owne hous the
whole tym, cited, and confessed upon his knees befor the session, and
enacted if ever he be found in the lyk hirafter, to mak public
satisfaction.”
“16 July 1650.
“David Rind, for cursing and
banning the divel tak him once or twyce, did ingenuously confess his fait,
and becaus it is knowen he used not the lyk and it is the first tyme, he did
confess his fait befor the session, and promised, with the Lord’s grace, he
should never fall in the lyke again.”
“3 July 1650.
“The whilk day the minister
asked the session of the caryage of people within thir particular bounds,
and what conscience they mead of familie dueties, and how they keept the
kirk ; the elders declared that ther caiyage wes Chrias-tine-lyke, and that
they all, so farr as they could learne, had fanrilie exercise, and did keep
the kirk preciesly on the Lord’s Day, and on week dayes as they could have
libertie in respect of busines: exhorted earnestly to tak more and more
notice of them, and to exhort them to duetie, and if any feall, to delat
them, which they promised.”
“5 Agust 1650.
“This day Elspet Mather,
being by jougs and stocks punished, and now sincerely sensible, is receaved
befor the congregation for hir cursing by the divel three severall tymes,
wishing he may tak hir away, and confessed the same in publick very
sincearly.”
“12 Agust 1650.
"The whilk day the elders
declared all was quiet, only that they fand some sojours on the way, and
that they exhort them to goe to the kirk, which they did; and also shew them
that if they keept not better the kirk while they wer hier, that it wold be
complained of to their commanders.”
Sunday observance must
certainly have been very strict in these days when even, on a fine evening
in the month of August, after the long services of the day, it was
considered an infringement of its sanctity to take a “ daunder ” on the Sand
Haven of Culross:—
“20 Agust 1650.
“The whilk day the searchers
declared all wes quiet, bot after sermons the strangers wer vaiging on the
sand haven, and not keeping ther houses; therfor, for redress therof, it is
apoynted that the searchers goe through and visit ther particular bounds on
the Lord’s Day, and to rebuk thes sharply, or o'* our people whom they find
on the streits.
“To mak publick intimation
the next Lord’s Day to the people that they tak more care of the young ones
on the Lord’s Day, or els they are to be charged for them, according to the
Act
“John Archibald, elder,
exhorted in the name of Chryst to mak more conscience of visiting the
saltpans within his bounds, and of delating them particularly who do not put
furth ther fyre on Saturdayes night, according to the Act, and as they are
particularly enacted.
“Marion Bippet of
Borroustounes, accused for hir rash speaking towards the magistrate for
searching for meall to be employed in the publick service, denyed that shee
spak anything bot‘ God forgive you, sirs! ye have taken twentie bolls of
mell from me. God knowes when I will get payment.’ Exhorted to walk more
circumspectly in tymes coming, which she promised, by God’s grace.”
The requisitions for meal
above mentioned were doubtless in consequence of the invasion of Scotland by
Cromwell, and the necessity of collecting stores for the maintenance of the
opposing Scottish army. About ten days before the date last mentioned,
Charles II., then lately arrived in Scotland, had visited Dunfermline, and
subscribed there the declaration binding himself to adhere to the Solemn
League and Covenant. Possibly the Kang may even have passed through Culross
on his way to or from Dunfermline. On the 3d of September in this year the
Scottish army was routed by Cromwell at Dunbar. We find the Culross session
on this day peacefully engaged in giving orders for the repair of the West
Kirkyard dykes, and calling to account Lord Bargeny’s “ kitching boyes ” for
Sunday desecration.' |
