REIGN OF JAMES VI.: 1591-1603. (continued 3)

Feb. 8.

The impunity of numberless murders and other atrocious crimes in this reign is not more remarkable than the severity occasionally exhibited in comparatively trifling cases. For making a false writ in a matter of three hundred merks, five citizens of Edinburgh were condemned to death. Such, likewise, was the issue of the trial of John Moscrop, writer in Edinburgh, for giving himself out as a notary, and subscribing divers papers as such, he not being one. The six men appear to have all been tried on one day, and the end of the affair is chronicled by Birrel: ‘John Windieyetts, John Moscrop, Alexander Lowrie, John Halliday, and Captain James Lowrie [were] all hangit at the Cross of Edinburgh for counterfeiting false writs; whilk was great pity to see.’—Bir.

Feb. 16.

It was now five years since the tragic death of the Earl of Moray, and yet his corpse lay unburied. So also did that of the late Lord Maxwell, killed in a conflict with the Johnstons, in December 1593.

Stigmatising this as an abuse that ‘of late has croppin in,’ and in order to prevent the example from being followed, the king and Council issued an order to the respective relatives of the two noblemen, that they have the bodies buried in their ordinary places of sepulture within twenty days, under pain of rebellion.—P. C. R.

Feb. 25. 1597-8.

On this day, being Saturday, occurred an eclipse of the sun, total at Edinburgh, and probably so throughout the country generally. No event entirely similar had occurred within the memory of living people in Scotland, and the impression which it was naturally calculated to produce in an age when such things were regarded as prodigies, was aggravated by the critical state in which the favourite Presbyterian institutions were then believed to be placed. Men regarded it as the omen of a dark period for the Kirk of Scotland.232

‘Betwixt nine and ten forenoon,’ says Calderwood, ‘began a fearful eclipse, which continued about two hours. The whole face of the sun seemed to be covered and darkened about half a quarter of an hour, in such measure that none could see to read a book. The stars appeared in the firmament. Sea, land, and air was still, and stricken dead as it were. The ravens and fowls flocking together mourned exceedingly in their kind. Great multitudes of paddocks [frogs] ran together, making an uncouth and hideous noise; men and women were astonished, as if the day of judgment had been coming. Some women swooned. The streets of Edinburgh were full of cries. Some men ran off the streets to the kirk to pray.’

‘In the session-house or college of justice, no letter nor book could be read nor looked upon for the space of an hour for darkness, and yet in the north-east there appeared two stars. After this, the space of eight days fair weather [which] ensued, was admirable. But the day after, yea Friday and Saturday, there fell out the greatest rain that might be, in such a manner that neither plough nor harrow could gang a long time after.’—Pa. And.

‘I knew,’ says James Melville, ‘out of ephemeridis and almanack, the day and hour of it ... also, by natural philosophy, the causes. I set myself to mark the proceedings of it in a basin of water mixed with ink, thinking the matter but common. But yet, when it came to the extremity of darkness, and I myself losit all the sun, I was strucken with such fear and astonishment, that I had no refuge but to prostrate [myself] on my knees, and commend myself to God, and cry for mercy.’

1597-8.

‘The like fearful darkness was never seen in this land, so far as we can read in our histories, or understand from tradition. The wise and godliest thought it very prodigious, so that from pulpit and by writ, admonitions were given to the ministers, that the changeable and glittering show of the world go not in betwixt them and Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, and remove the clear light of the gospel from the kirk.’—Cal.

A Presbyterian diarist is careful to tell us the ‘notable effects of this eclipse’ in the year following; namely, the death of those famous ‘lights of the Kirk of Scotland, Mr Thomas Buchanan, Mr Robert Rollock, David Ferguson, &c.’—Ja. Mel.

1598. Mar.

‘... the Duke of Holstein, the queen’s brother, came through England to Edinburgh, and was conveyed the first night to the Palace of Holyroodhouse, where he was received and welcomed very gladly by her majesty, and used every way like a prince. His majesty hasted to Edinburgh to meet with the duke, and at his coming saluted and entertained him ... as appertained to his rank. The duke made a progress from Holyroodhouse to the other side of the Forth, the first night to Ravensheugh, Lord Sinclair’s house, and from thence to Balcomie, Pittenweem, Anstruther, St Andrews, Dundee, Foulis, Stirling, and Linlithgow, and returned again to Edinburgh. He was honourably received and banqueted all the way. His majesty gave him banquets in Holyroodhouse and Stirling sundry times, and entertained him with pastime, and all other things to his great liking and contentment; likewise he was very largely complimented by their majesties.’ That is, they gave him large presents.—Moy. R.

May 2. ‘The Duke of Holstein got ane banquet in Macmoran’s lodging,233 given by the town of Edinburgh. The king’s majesty and the queen being both there, there was great solemnity and merriness at the said banquet.’—Bir.

June 3. ‘The Duke of Holstein took his leave of the king and queen, and shipped at Leith, having got great propines [gifts]; to wit, a thousand five-pound pieces, a thousand crowns, with a hat and a string valued at twelve thousand pounds, besides other rich chains and jewels.’—Pa. And. ‘To his bonalley, sixty shot of ordnance shot off the bulwark of Leith.’—Bir.

Apr. 1598.

Fynes Moryson, gentleman, who had travelled in most of the countries of Europe, being at Berwick, felt an earnest desire, before returning southwards, to see the king of Scots’ court. He therefore entered Scotland, and in one day rode to Edinburgh; after which he proceeded to Falkland, and designed to visit St Andrews and Stirling, but was prevented by unexpected business, which recalled him to England. He tells us little that is remarkable about the localities he visited, but makes some general observations regarding travelling in Scotland, which are not devoid of interest.

‘In Scotland,’ he says, ‘a horse may be hired for two shillings the first day, and eightpence the day till he be brought home; and the horse-letters used to send a footman to bring back the horse. They have no such inns as be in England; but in all places some houses are known where passengers may have meat and lodging; but they have no bushes or signs hung out, and for the horses, they are commonly set up in stables in some out-lane, not in the same house where the passenger lies. And if any man be acquainted with a townsman, he will go freely to his house, for most of them will entertain a stranger for his money. A horseman shall pay for oats and straw (for hay is rare in those parts) some eightpence day and night; and he shall pay no less in summer for grass, whereof they have no great store. Himself at a common table shall pay about sixpence for his supper or dinner, and shall have his bed free; and if he will eat alone in his chamber, he may have meat at a reasonable rate. Some twenty or thirty years ago, the first use of coaches came into Scotland; yea, were they rare even at Edinburgh. At this day, since the kingdoms of England and Scotland were united, many Scots have been promoted by the king’s favour both in dignity and estate, and the use of coaches became more frequent, yet nothing so common as in England. But the use of horse-litters hath been very ancient in Scotland, as in England, for sickly men and women of quality.’

1598.

He tells that the Scotch eat much colewort and cabbage, and little fresh meat. ‘Myself,’ he says, ‘was at a knight’s house, who had many servants to attend him, that brought in his meat with their heads covered with blue caps, the table being more than half furnished with great platters of porridge, each having a little piece of sodden meat. And when the table was served, the servants did sit down with us; but the upper mess [those sitting above the salt-vat], instead of porridge, had a pullet with some prunes in the broth. And I observed no art of cookery or furniture of household stuff, but rather rude neglect of both, though myself and companion, sent from the governor of Berwick about Border affairs, were entertained after their best manner.... They vulgarly eat hearth-cakes of oats [girdles for toasting the cakes over a fire were subsequently invented at Culross], but in cities have also wheaten bread, which for the most part was bought by courtiers, gentlemen, and the best sort of citizens.... They drink pure wines, not with sugar, as the English; yet at feasts they put comfits in the wine, after the French manner; but they had not our vintners’ fraud, to mix the wines....’

‘Their bedsteads were then like cupboards in the wall, with doors to be opened and shut at pleasure; so we climbed up to our beds. They used but one sheet, open at the sides and top, but close at the feet, and so doubled [still practised, and a comfortable custom it is].... When passengers go to bed, their custom was to present them with a sleeping-cup of wine at parting.’

‘The husbandmen, the servants, and almost all in the country, did wear coarse cloth made at home, of gray or sky colour [hodden gray], and flat blue caps very broad. The merchants in cities were attired in English or French cloth, of pale colour or mingled black and blue. The gentlemen did wear English cloth, or silk, or light stuffs, little or nothing adorned with silk lace, much less with lace of silver or gold, and all followed at this time the French fashion, especially in court. Gentlewomen married did wear close upper bodies, after the German manner, with large whalebone sleeves, after the French manner, short cloaks like the Germans, French hoods, and large falling bands round their necks. The unmarried of all sorts did go bareheaded, and wear short cloaks, with most close linen sleeves on their arms, like the virgins of Germany. The inferior sort of citizens’ wives, and the women of the country, did wear cloaks made of a coarse stuff, of two or three colours in chequer-work, vulgarly called plodan.’234

May.

1598.

‘... Lord Home came to Lauder, [and] asked for William Lauder [bailie of that burgh, commonly called William at the West Port], being the man who hurt John Cranston (nicknamed John with the gilt sword). [William] fled to the tolbooth, as being the strongest and surest house, for his relief. But the Lord Home caused put fire to the house, and burnt it all. The gentleman remained therein till the roof-tree fell. In end he came desperately out amongst them, and hazard[ed] a shot of a pistol at John Cranston, and hurt him. But [it] being impossible to escape with life, they most cruelly without mercy hacked him with swords and whingers all in pieces.’—Pa. And.

Lady Marischal, sister of Lord Home, ‘hearing the certainty of the cruel murder of William Lauder, did mightily rejoice thereat, and writ it for good news to sundry of her friends in the country. But within less than twenty-four hours after, the lady took a swelling in her throat, both without and within, after a great laughter, and could not be cured till death seized upon her with great repentance.’235—Pa. And.

A remission for this barbarous slaughter was granted by the king, in 1606, to the Earl of Home, Hume of Hutton Hall, Thomas Tyrie, tutor of Drumkilbo, John Hume in Kells, and other persons.236

June 5.

It does not appear that any effectual order was taken with the Laird of Johnston for his resistance to the royal authority at Dryfe’s Sands and the slaughter of Lord Maxwell (December 6, 1593). His turbulent proceedings at length caused him to be denounced as a rebel. A few days before this event, his portrait was hung, head downwards, on the gibbet at the Cross of Edinburgh, and he declared ‘a mansworn man.’—Bir. He was restored to his honours in 1600.

June 22.

The king gave a letter of patent to Archibald Napier, apparent of Merchiston, for an invention of his, a ‘new order of gooding and manuring of field-land with common salt, whereby the same may bring forth in more abundance, both of grass and corn of all sorts, and far cheaper than by the common way of dunging used heretofore in Scotland.’ That nothing came of this plan need not be told.

1598.

The Merchiston Napiers must have been a theme of some curiosity and no little remark at this time, seeing that three generations were now living, all of them busy-brained, ingenious, and original-minded persons. First was the laird himself, master-general of the cunyie-house, still in the vigour of life, being not more than sixty-five years of age. Second was John Napier, the fiar or heir, only sixteen years the junior of his father, constantly engaged in puzzling out profound problems in mathematics and prophecies in the Apocalypse. Finally, this grandson of the laird, a youth of four-and-twenty, and already, as we see, exhibiting the active intellect of the family.

Archibald became a favourite courtier of James VI. and Charles I., by the latter of whom he was raised to the peerage. He joined the anti-covenanting party, and endured some adversity in his latter days.

The carboniferous formation, as is well known, does not extend in Scotland beyond the Ochils; but in the remote county of Sutherland, on the coast at Brora, there is a patch of oolite, in the lower section of which is a workable bed of coal, between three and four feet thick. John, tenth Earl of Sutherland, had discovered this valuable deposit, but being cut off by poison (anno 1567), he had no opportunity of trying to turn it to advantage. The Sutherland estates were now under the management of a woman of some force of character, and who has by accident a place in our national history—Lady Jean Gordon. Being divorced by Bothwell, in order to admit of his marriage to Queen Mary, she had subsequently married one Earl of Sutherland, and become the mother of another, for whom she was now acting. By this clever countess the coal of Brora was for the first time worked, not merely for its use in domestic purposes, but as a means of establishing a salt-work. Some pans being erected by her ‘a little by-west the entry of the river,’ there was good salt made there, ‘which served not only Sutherland and the neighbouring provinces, but also was transported into England and elsewhere.’ This was a good effort, but, like all similar enterprises in that rude age, it met with interruptions. One vigorous renewed effort was made by the countess’s son, Earl John, in 1614. It was not, however, till our own time, when the first Duke of Sutherland spent £16,000 on the coal-works, and £2337 on the salt-works, that the original designs of Countess Jean could be said to be fully realised. The works are stated to have given forth twenty thousand tons of coal between the years 1814 and 1826.237

July 10.

1598.

‘... ane man, some callit him a juggler, playit sic supple tricks upon ane tow, whilk was fastenit betwixt the top of St Giles’s Kirk steeple and ane stair beneath the Cross, callit Josia’s Close head, the like was never seen in this country, as he rade down the tow and playit sae mony pavies on it.’—Bir.

Practitioners of such dangerous arts were not uncommon in those days. The death, in Edinburgh, of one Kirkaldy, ‘who had before danced at the cock of the steeple [St Giles’s],’ is noted in the history of the civil broils of 1571.238

Mr James Melville reports in 1600: ‘Being in Falkland, I saw a funambulus, a Frenchman, play strange and incredible proticks upon stented tackle in the palace close before the king, queen, and haill court.’ He adds the vulgar surmise of the day: ‘This was politickly done, to mitigate the queen and people for Gowrie’s slaughter.’

It appears that these diverting vagabonds were well rewarded. The juggler of 1598, called an ‘English sporter,’ had twenty pounds from the king for the steeple-trick. Two months after, six pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence was ordered to ‘David Weir, sporter,’ supposed to be the same person. To Peter Bramhill, the French pavier—that is, player of pavies—there is a precept from his majesty, ordering him no less a sum than £333, 6s. 8d.239—but of course Scottish money.

‘This year the wheat was blasted.’—Chron. Perth. ‘The ait meal sold for 6s. the peck.’—Bir.

There was, consequently, towards the end of the year, ‘ane extraordinar dearth of all kinds of pultrie and other vivres,’ throughout the realm, but particularly did this kind of scarcity prevail in Edinburgh, ‘where his hieness, his nobility and council, in sundry seasons of the year, make their chief residence.’ The king issued a proclamation, fixing a minimum of prices for the said articles, not to be exceeded under certain penalties. This, however, was now found ‘likely to become altogether ineffectual, partly through the avaritious greediness of some persons wha forestalls and buys the pultrie in grit, and keeps the same in secret houses, and there sells the same far above the prices exprest in the proclamation,’ and partly by the negligence of magistrates, who take no care to punish ‘the authors of this disorder.’ For these reasons, a more rigorous and menacing proclamation was now made.

1598.

A fortnight after, followed an edict of Council against twenty-four poultrymen of Edinburgh (surprising there should have then been so many in the business), who, it was said, had contravened the late proclamation by forestalling and secretly selling their poultry at high prices, representing the fowls as ‘his majesty’s awn kain fowls, or that they are bocht by them for his majesty’s awn mouth ... slanderand his majesty hereby, as if his majesty were the chief cause of the break of the said proclamation.’

It is amusing to observe the apparent astonishment of the king and his councillors on finding how little respect was paid to edicts of this kind, as if it were a most unrighteous and undutiful thing of the people to try to get prices for articles proportionate to the small quantity there was to sell. We must not, however, be too ready to indulge in a smile at the false political economy of the Scottish monarch of 1598, when we remember that a law-made scarcity of vivres was kept up in Great Britain till 1846, and observe that at the present day the sovereign of France still dictates the prices at which beef and mutton are to be sold in Paris. At the very time when this notice is penned (September 1856), the newspapers describe the conduct of butchers in Paris as precisely that of the twenty-four poultrymen of Edinburgh in 1599; that is to say, they sell their meat in secret to persons who will give suitable prices.

Considering the scarcity which marked the close of 1598, it is not surprising to find the Chronicle of Perth adverting next year to ‘ane great deid among the people.’

Dec.

The Privy Council Record at this date gives an anecdote which reads like a tale of patriarchal times—the time when Jacob told his sons to go down into Egypt and buy corn, ‘that we may live and not die.’

1598.

On some recent occasion of pestilence, Dumfries, being specially and severely afflicted, was, as usual, sequestered from all intercourse and traffic—its markets became altogether decayed, and the inhabitants, in addition to all their other distresses, found themselves ‘evil handlit for want of necessar sustentation.’ In these circumstances, it seemed good to them to send two of their number, unsuspected of infection, to the country about the Water of Cree in Galloway, to purchase cattle. The two men, James Sharpe and John Mertine, set forth on this quest, and, coming to the burgh of Wigtown, were there well received by the magistrates, who seemed willing to give them Christian help and countenance for their object, on the condition that the cattle were paid for and the burgh of Wigtown satisfied in their customs. Thus sanctioned, the Dumfries emissaries went into the country and bought thirty-eight nolt, which they began to drive towards Dumfries, looking for no interruption or impediment. At Monygaff on the Water of Cree, they were met by a large armed party under the command of Patrick Ahannay, provost of Wigtown, and John Edgar and Archibald Tailfer, bailies, who laid violent hands upon them, and carried them and their cattle to Wigtown. We do not learn what was the motive of this conduct, but may reasonably surmise it was some claim in the way of custom which the Dumfriessians had failed to satisfy. At Wigtown the cattle were detained eight days, getting gradually leaner for want of food, till at last they were ‘extreme lean;’ and it was not till their owners had paid a hundred merks, that they were allowed to proceed with the beeves to the starving burgh of Dumfries.

This pitiable affair, which reads so strangely of Dumfries, now the scene of magnificent markets for the transfer of cattle, came under the notice of the Privy Council, and was remitted to the ordinary judges to be settled by them as they might think best.—P. C. R.

1598-9. Jan. 19.

Thomas Lorn, residing at Overton of Dyce, was brought before the provost of Aberdeen, accused of ‘hearing of spreits, and wavering ofttimes frae his wife, bairns, and family, by the space of seven weeks,’ they not knowing ‘where he has been during the said space.’ He agreed that, if he should ever be found absenting himself in that manner, without giving warning, he should suffer death ‘as ane guilty person, dealer with spreits.’—Ab. C. R.

1599. July 26.

Andrew Melville, of whose courage and zeal for pure presbytery Scottish history is at this time full, presided at a disputation in the theological hall of St Mary’s College, St Andrews, where the question was, ‘Whether by divining or diabolical force of witches and hags, bodies may be transported or transformed, or souls released for a time from bodies, and whether this transportation or transformation of bodies, or resemblance of a projected corpse, without sense and motion, as if the soul were banished, be a simple lethargy, or a certain evidence of execrable demonomania?‘240

1599.

If the reader be at a loss to conceive how any body of learned men could gravely treat such a question, he may have the fact verified to his mind by looking into King James’s book on Demonologie, where the same matter is fully debated between Philomathes and Epistemon, the two interlocutors in the dialogue of which that treatise consists. In answer to the question of Philomathes, by what means may it be possible for witches to come to those conventions where they worship the devil and receive his orders, Epistemon coolly says: ‘One way is natural, which is natural riding, going, or sailing: this may be easily believed. Another way is somewhat more strange ... being carried by the force of the spirit which is their conductor, either above the earth or above the sea swiftly, to the place where they meet; which I am persuaded to be likewise possible, in respect that as Habakkuk was carried by the angel in that form to the den where Daniel lay, so think I, the devil will be ready to imitate God as well in that as in other things.... The third way is that wherein I think them deluded: for some of them say that, being transported in the likeness of a little beast or fowl, they will come and pierce through whatsoever house or church, though all passages be closed, by whatsoever open the air may enter in at: and some say, that their bodies lying still, as in an ecstasy, their spirits will be ravished out of their bodies and carried to such places; and, for verifying thereof, will give evident tokens, as well by witnesses that have seen their body lying senseless in the meantime, as by naming persons whom-with they met, and giving token what purpose was amongst them, whom otherwise they could not have known; for this form of journeying they affirm to use most, when they are transported from one country to another.’

Oct.

The reformed clergy did not at first take a decidedly hostile view of theatricals, and we have seen that even the Regent Moray allowed a play to be represented before him. In March 1574, the General Assembly forbade the playing of ‘clerk plays,’ and ‘comedies and tragedies made of the canonical scriptures’ both on Sabbath and work-days; but as to ‘comedies, tragedies, and other profane plays not made upon authentic parts of scripture,’ they were willing that such might be considered before they be proposed publicly, provided they were to be set forth on work-days only.—B. U. K.

1599.

Accordingly, it is not surprising that, when a company of comedians came to Perth in June 1589, and applied to the kirk-session for a licence to represent a play, of which they produced a copy, that reverend court expressed itself as follows: ‘Perth, June 3, 1589.—The minister and elders give licence to play the play, with conditions that no swearing, banning, nor nae scurrility shall be spoken, whilk would be a scandal to our religion, and for an evil example to others. Also, that nothing shall be added to what is in the register of the play itself. If any one who plays shall do in the contrary, he shall be wardit, and make his public repentance.’—P. K. S. R.

These are among the proofs to the general conclusion, that the puritanic strictness for which Scotland has been noted, did not reach its acme during the first age succeeding the Reformation.

Ten years had since elapsed, during which the English drama had passed through a vigorous adolescence, drawing the highest wits of the land into its service. No regular theatre had been set up in Scotland, nor was the time come when one could be supported; but some inclination was manifested by the London acting companies to pay occasional visits to the north, where the mirth-loving king and his court were ready to patronise them. The clergy were by this time disposed to look more sourly on the children of Thespis. An English company did come to Edinburgh about October 1599—possibly the Blackfriars company, to which Shakspeare belonged; but on this point, and as to the question whether Shakspeare was of the party, we have no information. It received a licence from the king to perform.

Nov. 10.

1599.

Roused by ‘certain malicious and restless bodies, wha upon every little occasion misconstrue his majesty’s haill doings,’ the general kirk-session of the city passed an act in direct opposition to the purport of the royal licence, threatening with censure all who should support the comedy; and this they ordered to be read in all pulpits, where, at the same time, the ‘unruly and immodest behaviour of the stage-players’ became the theme of abundant declamation. The king chose to take up this act as a discharge of his licence, and called the sessions before him, when, after a conference, they professed to be convinced that ‘his hieness had not commandit nor allowit ony thing carrying with it ony offence or slander;’ and they readily agreed to annul their former act. This was accordingly done next day, ‘sae that now not only may the comedians freely enjoy the benefit of his majesty’s liberty and warrant grantit to them, but all his majesty’s subjects, inhabitants within the said burgh, and others whatsomever, may freely at their awn pleasure repair to the said comedies and plays, without ony pain, reproach, censure, or slander to be incurrit by them.’—P. C. R.

We learn, however, from Spottiswoode, that this was ‘to the great offence of the ministers.’

Oct.

The Western Isles being a scene of almost incessant private war and strife, and the crown-rents remaining unpaid, the king became desirous to reduce that part of his dominions to obedience and the arts of peace. It was thought that a plantation of industrious Lowlanders might prove an effectual means of civilising the district. As a preliminary step, an act of parliament was passed (June 1598) for depriving of their lands all who should not shew their titles by a particular day—a most arbitrary measure, which to some extent the turbulent chieftains were justified in resisting. In this manner the islands of Lewis and Harris, the lands of Dunvegan in Skye, and of Glenelg on the mainland, were declared to be at the disposal of the government. It was resolved to proceed, in the first place, with the planting of the Lewis, where there were only two illegitimate sons of the late proprietor to give any opposition.

Accordingly, a set of gentlemen, chiefly belonging to Fife, associated themselves together as adventurers; namely, the Duke of Lennox; Patrick, Commendator of Lindores; William, Commendator of Pittenweem; Sir James Anstruther, younger of that Ilk; Sir James Sandilands of Slamanno; James Learmont of Balcomie; James Spens of Wormiston; John Forret of Fingask; David Home, younger of Wedderburn; and Captain William Murray. By the terms of a contract between these individuals and the government, they were, in consideration of the great expenses to be incurred by them, and the improvements which they were expected to make, freed from any payment of rent for the lands which they were to occupy, for seven years. At the end of that time, an annual grain-rent of one hundred and forty chalders of beir was to commence.241

1599.

In October 1599, ‘the adventurers met altogether in Fife, where they assembled a company of soldiers, and artificers of all sorts, with everything which they thought requisite for a plantation. So, transporting themselves into the Lewis, they began apace to build and erect houses in a proper and convenient place fit for the purpose. In the end, they made up a pretty town, where they encamped. Niel Macleod and Murdo Macleod—now only left in that island of all Rorie Macleod his children—withstood the undertakers. Murdo Macleod invaded the Laird of Balcomie, whom he apprehended with his ship [near the Orkneys], and killed all his men: so, having detained him six months in captivity within the Lewis, he released him, upon promise of a ransom. But Balcomie died in his return homeward to Fife,242 after his releasement, whereby Murdo Macleod was disappointed of his ransom.’—G. H. S.

The two brothers soon after quarrelled, and Niel took Murdo prisoner. The enterprisers entered into an agreement with him for the delivery of Murdo to themselves, promising him, in requital, a portion of their lands. Niel consequently obtained a pardon at Edinburgh, while Murdo was hanged at St Andrews, confessing that the Lord of Kintail, the ambitious chief of the Mackenzies, had been the instigator of his brother and himself in their opposition to the plantation, the fact being, that Kintail desired to obtain the Lewis himself.

The truth of this appeared when the Lord of Kintail soon after set at liberty Tormod Macleod, legitimate son of the late proprietor, who immediately proceeded to raise a new war against the undertakers. Niel joining him, they attacked the settlement, which they destroyed, killed most of the people, and took the commanders prisoners. These gentlemen were only released eight months after, on a promise that they should abandon the island, and never return; besides which, they undertook to procure a pardon from the king for their conquerors.

Thus ended, for a time, the attempt to plant the Lewis.

Dec. 17.

1599.

Till this time, the new year legally held in Scotland was that originally pitched upon by Exiguus when he introduced the Christian era—namely, the 25th of March, or day of the Annunciation. King James, probably looking upon the approaching year 1600 as the beginning of a new century, thought it would be a good occasion for bringing Scotland into a conformity with other countries in respect of New-year’s Day. There was therefore passed this day at Holyrood an act of Privy Council, in which it is set forth that ‘in all other weel-governit commonwealths and countries, the year begins yearly upon the first of January, commonly called New-year’s Day, and that this realm only is different frae all others in the count and reckoning of the years;’ for which reason they ordained that, in all time coming, Scotland shall conform to this usage, and that the next first of January shall be the first day of the year of God 1600.

Dec. 27.

A singular combat being intended betwixt Alexander Livingstone of Pantaskin and John Kennedy, appeirand of Baltersand, without any warrant from his majesty, the Privy Council denounced and prohibited the encounter as contrary to law, and ‘not likely to settle the trouble whereupon the challenge proceeded and procure peace to baith parties.’—P. C. R.

On the 1st of April 1600, there was a strong edict for the execution of the laws against single combats, which were said, through slackness of the law, to have become frequent.

During this year ‘there were divers incursions in the Highlands and Borders, and sundry slaughters committed in divers parts of the country. Five sundry men were slain in one week within two miles of Edinburgh.’—Cal.

Circa 1599.

M’Alexander of Drumachryne in Ayrshire had a lease of the teinds of his estate from the Laird of Girvanmains, who in his turn was head-tenant of these teinds from the Earl of Cassillis. ‘But this Drumachryne, being ane proud man, wald now be tenant to my lord himself, and his man. [That is, he preferred being man or vassal to the earl.] The Laird of Girvanmains came to my lord, and said his lordship “had [done him wrang] in setting of his teinds to his awn man ower his head; and for ony gains he sall reap by that deed, the same sall be but small.” My lord answerit and said: “Ye dar not find fault with him; for, an ye do, we knaw whare ye dwell.” The other said: “An he bide by that deed, he should repent the same, do for him wha likit!” My lord said: “Ye dar not steir him for your craig [neck]!” and bade him gang to his yett [gate]. The Laird of Girvanmains rides his ways, and thinking that the Laird of Drumachryne wald come after him, he stayit, and his twa servants with him, on a muir called Craigdow, behind ane knowe [knoll], while that he saw him coming. His brother, the Laird of Corseclays, being with him, and Oliver Kennedy of ... ; but they strake never ane strake in his defence. Girvanmains pursues him, and his twa men with him, callit Gilbert M‘Fiddes and William M‘Fiddes, ane boy, wha was the spy. They come to them on horseback, and strake him on the head with swords, and slew him. My lord was very far offendit at this deed, and avowit to have ane mends thereof, and causit denounce Girvanmains to the horn; and did all he could to have his life, and wrack him in his geir.’—Hist. Ken.

A less tragical, but equally characteristic affair occurred in the same district about the same period. Let it first be understood that Kennedy of Bargeny and the Earl of Cassillis had long been on hostile terms.

Circa 1599.

‘My lord, having ane decreet against ane servant, of the Laird of Bargeny’s, callit John M‘Alexander, of the lands of Dangart ... wald put the same in execution, and intromit with the haill corns that was upon the grund; and send his household servants, and gart [caused] intromit with some of the corns, and shore ane part thereof. This coming to the Laird of Bargeny’s ears, he loups on in Ardstinchar, and rides to the land, and with horse and carts brought the corns that they had shorn with him to Ardstinchar; for, he said: “My lord had nae richt to the corns, albeit he had obteenit decreet against the land.” This being on the Saturday, my lord provides with all his force he can, against Monday, to shear the rest of the corns. And the Laird of Bargeny, in the same manner, provides for the same effect. The Laird of Bargeny, [being] the nearest hand, comes first to the grund, and to the number of six hundred men on horse, with twa hundred hagbutters. And my Lord of Ochiltree came also, with the number of ane hunder horse; so that, in all, he was, or [ere] twelve hours, the number of nine hunder men, on foot and horse. My Lord of Cassillis come also, with his haill force that he might mak, to the like number or few mae [more]. But the Laird, being in the house and yards, and he having many basses and hagbuts of found with him, the same was onpossible for my lord to mend himself. But my Lord of Cathcart, being ane nobleman wha had married to his wife ane near kinswoman of my Lord Cassillis, and his son having married the Laird of Bargeny’s sister, travelled amang them, and took up the matter in this sort, that the laird should have the haill corns that was on the grund to his servant, and should find caution for the duty of the land, whilk was my lord’s; and that my lord should come to the grund of the lands, and, according to his decreet, tak possession of the same, but not to steir the corns; and the Laird of Carleton and the Gudeman of Ardmillan to be cautioners for the foresaid duty, and my lord fand caution not to trouble the corns, nor the man in the shearing of them. And [according] to this agreeance, the laird rade his way to Ardstinchar; and my lord came to the land and took possession; and John M’Alexander shore his corns in peace.’—Hist. Ken.

1600. Jan.

There was a feid of old standing between the Lindsays of Forfarshire and the Lords Glammis; but for some years the parties were put under the restraint of letters of assurance. On a particular Sunday, during this month, Sir John Lindsay of Woodhead was passing along the High Street of Edinburgh, ‘gangand to the kirk,’ when he met Lord Glammis. The noble and gentle, ‘for the reverence they bure to his majesty and for observance of the assurance standing betwix them, past by other without provocation of offence or displeasure in word or countenance offerit by ony of them.’ As in the case of Montague and Capulet, however, the servants were not always to be restrained by the same feelings as the masters. After they were past, Patrick Johnston, a servant or tenant of Glammis, ‘drew his sword, invadit and pursewit the complenar [Lindsay] of his life, and strak and cuttit through the shoulder of his cloak, coat, and doublet, without the allowance of Lord Glammis, and thereby did what in him lay to have begun ane new feid and quarrel betwixt them, whilk wald not have faillit to have fallen out were not Lord Glammis himself and the complenar stayit it.’

Jan. 13.

Two days after, Lord Glammis appeared personally before the Privy Council, and ‘renouncit Patrick to be his man, tenant, or servant, sae that he sall not be repute, halden, nor esteemit to be his man, tenant, or servant hereafter;’ further avouching that ‘he sall quarrel nor beir grudge to nane that sall invade or pursue the said Patrick.’ The Council at the same time charged Patrick to compeir and answer for ‘his late violent and unhonest pursuit and invasion of Sir John Lindsay, without the consent, knowledge, or allowance of Patrick Lord Glammis, in whais company he was for the time, doing thereby what in him lay to have brocht on and protinued furder trouble and inconvenients betwixt the said Lord Glammis and the friends of the house of Crawford, to the break of his majesty’s peace and disquieting of the country.’—P. C. R.

An order to denounce Patrick as rebel for not appearing, was given on the 6th of March.

1600.

We receive in this notice a rich illustration of the relation of superior and ‘man’ in Scotland at the close of the sixteenth century. Johnston’s crime of assault is here touched upon lightly; what is pressed, is his committing this assault without the consent of his lord, and endangering a further quarrel between that lord and the assaulted man.

The affair appears to have had a sequel not less remarkable than itself. On Sunday the 6th of August 1601, as Patrick Johnston, designated as tenant of the Halltown of Belhelvies, was leaving the kirk of that parish, in time of the ministration of the sacrament of baptism, accompanied by his wife and two of his children, he was set upon, within two paces of the door, by Lord Glammis and a party of his lordship’s relatives and servants, and mercilessly slain with pistols and swords. We can scarcely doubt that this was the same Patrick who had incurred his superior’s anger by attacking Sir John Lindsay. A complaint against Lord Glammis and his ‘complices’ for the act was made before the presbytery of Aberdeen, by ‘the wife and aucht fatherless bairns’ of the slain man, and by that reverend court an effort was made, but in vain, to bring the matter to an arrangement in their favour. The guilty parties were cited for their crime before the Court of Justiciary in March 1602; but no punishment appears to have followed. Lord Glammis obtained a remission for his concern in Johnston’s slaughter, under the great seal. The ancient feudal ideas of Scotland were still too strong to allow of such a case being deemed one of common murder.243 The fact did not prevent Lord Glammis from receiving advancement in court-favour and elevation in rank. He was made Earl of Kinghorn in 1606. It is also somewhat curious to reflect that to his taste and munificence we owe much of what is grand in the architecture of Glammis Castle.

Feb.

At this time arrived in Edinburgh the young Earl of Gowrie, and his brother, Alexander Ruthven, from Padua, where they had been studying for some years. To all appearance, they were disposed to be peaceable subjects of the king, notwithstanding the hard measure which had been dealt out to their father sixteen years before. When, some months afterwards, they came to so tragical an end, a circumstance, which occurred not long after their arrival in Edinburgh, was remembered, as betraying a state of mind different from what appeared on the surface of their general behaviour.

1600.

A certain Colonel Stuart of Houston, who, as commander of the royal guard, had been employed in seizing the late unfortunate Earl of Gowrie, was still employed at court. One day in June, as the young earl, accompanied with seven or eight of his servants, was passing along the long gallery of the palace, on his way to the king’s chamber, he observed Colonel Stuart come forth from an interview with his royal master. To avoid a too close meeting with one so painfully associated with his family history, he stepped aside a little, in order to let Stuart pass by. ‘The same being espied by ane of the said earl’s servants, going in the rank before him, callit Mr Thomas Kinrosser, [he] said ardently till him: “What, my lord, are you going back for ony man here? Come forward, my lord, bauldly!” Whilk going aside and then coming forward again, being seen by Colonel Stuart, he went in again to the king.

“Sir, it will please your majesty hear ane strange matter, that, for guid service done to your grace, I sould be so evil rewardit as I am. Here comes in the Earl of Gowrie, and I see he minds to begin first at me; but beware next of the best of you all.”

Herewith the said earl enterit in his majesty’s chalmer, and the colonel went out thereof; but there was nothing of that purpose spoken betwixt his majesty and the earl at that time. But, the colonel’s words to the king being reported to the earl, he answered: “Aquila non captat muscas.”‘—Jo. Hist.

Mar. 14.

The king, returning from a General Assembly in Edinburgh to his palace of Falkland, crossed the Firth of Forth by the ferry between Leith and Kirkcaldy. The weather was fair at starting, but became foul on the passage, and the mariners were obliged to run their boat upon the sands at Kirkcaldy, where the king was taken out on horseback. ‘He exclaimed with execration, that he was ever in danger of his life in going to those assemblies.’—Cal.

Apr. 2.

1600.

‘... being the Sabbath-day, Robert Auchmuty, barber, slew James Wauchope at the combat in St Leonard’s Hill, and upon the 23d, the said Robert [was] put in ward in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh. In the meantime of his being in ward, he hang ane cloak without the window of the iron house, and another within the window there, and, saying that he was sick, and might not see the light, he had aquafortis continually seething at the iron window, while [till] at the last the iron window was eaten through. Sae, upon a morning, he causit his prentice-boy attend when the town-guard should have dissolvit, at whilk time the boy waited on, and gave his master ane token that the said guard were gone, by the show or wave of his handcurch. The said Robert hung out ane tow whereon he thought to have come down. The said guard spied the wave of the handcurch, and sae the said Robert was disappointit of his intention and device; and sae, on the 10 day, he was beheadit at the Cross, upon ane scaffold.’—Bir.

May.

We possess the rental-sheet of the Marquis of Huntly for this date, and obtain from it a striking idea of the worldly means resting with that noble and potent lord. In the first place, the document extends over fifty-nine pages of print in small quarto, detailing the particulars of money and produce due from each farm on his lordship’s various estates—in the lordship of Huntly, the lordship of the Enzie, the lordship of Badenoch, the barony of Fochabers, the lands of Marr, the Cabrach, and Lochaber. The sum of ‘silver mail’ or money-rent is £3819, besides £636 of teind silver. The ‘ferm victual’ payable to his lordship was 3816 bolls, besides which there were 55 bolls of custom meal, 436 of multure beir, 108 of custom oats, 83 of custom victual, 167 marts (cattle for slaughter), 483 sheep, 316 lambs, 167 grice (young pigs), 14 swine, 1389 capons, 272 geese, 3231 poultry, 700 chickens, 5284 eggs, 4 stones of candle, 46 stones of brew tallow, 34 leats of peats, 990 ells of custom linen, 94 stones of custom butter, 40 barrels of salmon, 8 bolls of teind victual, 2 stones of cheese, and 30 kids. The large proportion of payment in kind speaks of a country in which there was little industry or commerce beyond what was connected with husbandry and store-farming; but it is easy to see what an amount of power the noble marquis would derive from possessing the means of feeding so many retainers.

1600.

In old times, so wealthy a lord was a kind of kinglet, owning, indeed, the superiority of a sovereign, but at the same time enjoying among minor lords and gentlemen a sway which barely owned a restraint in the royal authority. Men approaching him in influence were glad to form alliances with him, either through the ties of marriage, or by direct bonds of manred, in which they mutually agreed to support each other in all causes, against all living or dead, excepting only the king’s grace. Of such bonds, the Gordon charter-chest exhibits a grand series, extending from 1444, when James of Forbes ‘becomes man till ane honourable and mighty lord, Alexander of Seton of Gordon ... again all deadly,’ down to 1670, when Alexander Rose of Tillisnaucht, gave George, Marquis of Huntly, an engagement to live peaceably under his protection; being a hundred and seven in all. Even within the last seventeen years, during which the now existing marquis had been conducting his own affairs, the house had been receiving bonds of manred from a remarkable number of important men in the Highlands. The Earl of Argyle, in 1583, promised to ‘concur and take aefald, true, and plain part’ with the Gordon, ‘in all his honest and guid causes against whatsomever that live or die may, our sovereign lord and his authority alone excepted.’ Two years later, Macleod of Lewis receives promise of maintenance on the condition of obedience. At the same time, the chief of the Clan Kenzie, Colin of Kintail, enters into a bond of faithful service, ‘contrair all persons.’ His lordship received the like engagements from Monro of Foulis, the chieftain Glengarry, Macgregor of Glenstrae, and Drummond of Blair. In 1586, Kenneth Mackenzie of Kintail, Donald Robertson, the heir of Strowan, Donald Gorm of Sleat (progenitor of the present Lord Macdonald), John Grant of Freuchie, and the Lady Menzies of Weem, entered into similar undertakings. In 1587, Rattray of Craighall binds himself, with his dependents, ‘to serve the said earl in all his actions and adoes, against all persons, the king’s majesty only excepted, and sall neither hear nor see his skaith, but sall make him foreseen therewith, and sall resist the same sae far as in me lies, and that in respect the said earl has given me his band of maintenance.’ The remaining bonds before 1593 are from the Earl of Orkney, Menzies of Pitfoddles, Lord Lovat, Menzies of that Ilk, Scott of Abbotshall, the Laird of Melgund, Mackintosh of Dunnachtan, Innes of Innermarky, Lord Spynie, Cameron of Locheil, the Clan Macpherson, sundry barons of Moray, and the Laird of Luss. We may thus see what a formidable person this Earl of Huntly was to the Protestant interest in the year last named, and what a problem it must have been to the pacific King James to give him effectual opposition, however well he had been so inclined.244

1600.

The Marquis of Huntly chiefly dwelt in an ancient seat called Strathbogie Castle, situated where the rivulet Bogie joins the Doveran, near the village of Huntly, in Banffshire. He had another seat, called the Castle of the Bog or of Bogaugicht, on the extensive plain at the embouchure of the Spey, in the same county. The migrations of the family between the two places, and between them and a town-mansion in Aberdeen, are frequently alluded to by the annalist Spalding. In 1602, the marquis rebuilt Strathbogie Castle in a handsome style; and the remains of the house yet attest a grandness of living suitable to the wealth and political importance of the family. ‘A spacious turnpike-stair leads to what has been a very grand hall, and still bears the marks of splendour and magnificence. Its length is about forty-three feet, its breadth twenty-nine, and its height sixteen. There is another grand apartment over this, thirty-seven feet in length, and twenty-nine in breadth. The chimneys of both are highly ornamented with curious sculpture of various figures.... Most of the apartments are still in tolerable preservation, particularly the ceilings, which are ornamented with a great variety of paintings in small divisions, containing many emblematical figures, with verses expressive of some moral sentiment in doggerel rhyme.’245

July 2.

John Kincaid of Warriston, near Edinburgh, was married to a handsome young woman, named Jean Livingstone, daughter to a man of fortune and influence, the Laird of Dunipace. Owing to alleged maltreatment, the young wife conceived a deadly hatred of her husband. A base-minded nurse was near, to whisper means and ways of revenge, and the lady was induced to tamper with a young man named Robert Weir, a servant of her father, to become the instrument. At an early hour in the morning marginally noted, Weir came to Warriston, and, being admitted by the lady into the gentleman’s chamber, there fell upon him with his fists, and soon accomplished his death. While Weir fled, the lady remained at home, along with the nurse. Both were immediately seized, subjected to a summary kind of trial before the magistrates, and condemned to death.

1600.

In the brief interval between the sentence and execution, this unfortunate young creature—she was only twenty-one—was brought, by the discourse of an amiable clergyman, from a state of callous indifference to one of lively sensibility and religious resignation. Her case was reported in a small pamphlet of the day. She stated that, on Weir assaulting her husband, she went to the hall, and waited till the deed was done. She thought she still heard the pitiful cries uttered by her husband while struggling with his murderer. Afterwards, by way of dissembling, she tried to weep; but not a tear could she shed. She could only regard her approaching death as a just expiation of her offence. Her relations, feeling shamed by her guilt and its consequences, made interest to obtain that her execution should be as little public as possible, and it was accordingly arranged that, while the nurse was being burnt on the Castle Hill at four in the morning, and thus attracting the attention of any who might be out of their beds, the lady should be conducted to the Girth Cross, at the opposite extremity of the city, and there despatched by the Maiden.

According to the contemporary pamphlet: ‘The whole way, as she went to the place of execution, she behaved herself so cheerfully, as if she had been going to her wedding, and not to her death. When she came to the scaffold, and was carried up upon it, she looked up to the Maiden with two longsome looks, for she had never seen it before. This I may say of her, to which all that saw her will bear record, that her only countenance moved [her countenance alone would have excited emotion], although she had not spoken a word. For there appeared such majesty in her countenance and visage, and such a heavenly courage in her gesture, that many said: “That woman is ravished with a higher spirit than man or woman’s!”’ After reading a short address to the multitude at the four corners of the scaffold, she calmly resigned herself to her fate, uttering expressions of devotion till the descent of the axe cut short her speech.

Weir, being taken four years after, was broken on the wheel (June 26, 1604), a severe death, scarcely ever before inflicted in Scotland.—Pit. Bir.

July 21.

In Edinburgh, this day, ‘at nine hours at even, a combat or tulyie [was fought] between twa brether of the Dempsters, and ane of them slain by John Wilson. [He], being tane with het bluid, was execute at the flesh-stocks, where he had slain the man the night before.’—Bir.

July 25.

Quick as legal vengeance was in this instance, we have proof of its being of little avail for prevention of like outrages. Alexander Stewart, son of James Stewart of Allanton, had applied for admission to the king at Holyroodhouse, at a time ‘when his majesty desirit to be quiet,’ and Alexander Lockhart, one of the ushers of the chamber, had accordingly denied him admittance. The young man, conceiving deadly hatred at Lockhart for this, trained him out of his house unarmed, and there set upon him with sword and bended pistol to take his life. For a wonder, Lockhart escaped with only two wounds in the head. The guilty youth was denounced rebel for not answering for his offence.—P. C. R.

July.

1600.

The calamities of dearth, want, and a high mortality continued this year to press upon the people, in almost all parts of the country. ‘A sheaf of oat-straw was sold for forty shillings in Edinburgh. There was also a great death of little children; six or seven buried [in Edinburgh] in a day.’—Cal.

In October, the pest was in the town of Findhorn, in consequence of which there was an edict of the Privy Council, charging all the people there and thereabouts to keep at home, lest they should spread the infection.—P. C. R. We find the magistrates of Aberdeen in December ordaining a fast ‘in respect of the fearful infection of the plague spread abroad in divers parts of Moray.’—Ab. C. R.

‘The year of God 1600, fourteen whales, of huge bigness, were casten in by the sea, upon the sands under the town of Dornoch in Sutherland. They came in alive, and were slain immediately by the inhabitants, who reaped some commodity thereby. Some of these fishes were ninety feet in length.’—G. H. S.

Aug. 5.

In the midst of a time unmarked by great events, great excitement was caused by the attempt of the Earl of Gowrie and his brother upon the king’s liberty or life, at Perth. James Melville notes that ‘a little before or hard about the day of this accident, the sea at an instant, about low-water, debordit and ran up aboon the sea-mark, higher nor at any stream-tide, athort all the coast-side of Fife, and at an instant reteired again to almaist low-water, to the great admiration of all, and skaith done to some.’

Aug. 6.

While Robert Bruce and some others of the clergy professed to regard the conspiracy with incredulity, the great bulk of the people, going with their loyalty, as often happens, far beyond the merit of its object, manifested all tokens of extreme satisfaction at the king’s escape. On the arrival of the news, ‘there was sic joy, that the cannons shot, the bells rang, the trumpets sounded, the drums strake. The town rase in arms, with shooting of muskets, casting of fire-works, and banefires set forth; the like was never seen in Scotland, there was sic merriness and dancing all the nicht.’—Bir.

The same day, the state-officers, with some other nobles, went to the Cross, ‘and there heard Mr David Lindsay make ane orison, and the haill people sat down on their knees, giving thanks to God for the king’s deliverance out of sic ane great danger.’—Bir.

Aug. 11.

1600.

A few days later, the king returned from Perth to Edinburgh. ‘The town, with the haill suburbs, met him upon the sands of Leith in arms, with great joy and shooting of muskets, and shaking of pikes. He went to the kirk of Leith, to Mr David Lindsay’s orison. Thereafter, the town of Edinburgh having convenit, and standing at the Hie Gait [High Street], his majesty passed to the Cross, the Cross being hung with tapestry, and went up thereon with his nobles. Mr Patrick Galloway being there, made ane sermon upon the 124 psalm; he declared the haill circumstances of the treason proposed by the Earl of Gowrie and his brother, whilk the king testified by his awn mouth, sitting on the Cross all the time of the sermon.’—Bir.

Sep. 11.

‘For divers guid respects and considerations,’ the king in council ordered that thenceforth the Castle of Stirling, in which his son was kept, should not be accessible to the whole trains of the nobility and gentry at such times as the king himself was not present; but every earl should ‘have access with four persons only, every lord with twa persons, every baron with ane person, and every gentleman and other person single, and all, ane and all, without armour, saving their swords.’ All except the earls, lords, and barons, to ‘lay their swords fra them at the yett.’—P. C. R.

Soon after, there was an edict for restricting the number of persons brought to court by noblemen in their trains. An earl was enjoined to bring not ‘mony mae’ than twelve persons; a lord, eight; and a baron, four. The indefiniteness of the order amusingly marks the want of all stern will in King James.

Sep. 14.

This being the Rood Fair-day in Jedburgh, a party of rough borderers, Turnbulls, Davidsons, and others, to the number of twenty, came to the town, armed with hagbuts and pistols, and there presented themselves before the lodging of Sir Andrew Kerr of Ferniehirst, ‘fornent the market-cross, and after divers brags, insolent behaviour, and menacings, in contempt of him and his servants,’ slew his brother, Thomas Kerr, and one of his servants. Eleven persons stood a trial for this act, when it appeared that they were only, more suo, executing a horning of the sheriff of Roxburgh against Thomas Kerr. Sir Andrew Kerr and others stood a counter-trial for resisting the execution of the horning. But the only practical result was, that one Andrew Turnbull, brother of Turnbull of Bewly, was beheaded at the Cross of Edinburgh (Dec. 16) for the slaughter of Thomas Kerr.—Pit.

Oct. 8.

1600.

Francis Tennant, a wealthy merchant of Edinburgh, was hanged at the Cross of Edinburgh for uttering pasquils against the king and ‘his maist noble progenitors.’ Tennant had been an active friend of the Earl of Bothwell, and when that nobleman was at his last extremity, towards the end of 1594, this merchant-burgess had undertaken to get him delivered up to the king. ‘But by the contrair, howsoon he came to Bothwell, he revealit the cause of his coming to him, and shew[ed] what reward he had gotten, and offerit himself with all his guids in Bothwell’s will, affirming that he would not betray him for all the gold in the warld.’ It was in a ship furnished by Francis Tennant that the forlorn Bothwell escaped to France.

Francis appears to have consequently forfeited his position in his native country. Having now fallen into the king’s hands, he was arraigned for writing a calumnious letter against the king, dated at Newcastle, January 17, 1597, addressed to Mr Robert Bruce, the minister, and another to Mr John Davidson, both being under fictitious signatures; and which letters ‘he had laid down in the kirk of Edinburgh, to the effect the same might have fallen in the hands of the people, thereby to bring his majesty in contempt, and steir up his people to sedition and disobedience.’ King James must have been stung to an unusual degree of wrath by these pasquils, for, after the trial, he sent a warrant to the justice-clerk, ordering for sentence, that Francis Tennant should ‘have his tongue cuttit out at the rute,’ and then be ‘hangit.’ Four days later, indeed, he departed from this cruel order, and sent a second warrant, stating that, ‘for certain causes moving us, we have thought good to mitigate that sentence, by dispensing with the torturing of the said Francis, other [either] in the boots, or by cutting out of his tongue, and are content that ye only pronounce doom agains him to be hangit.’

Dec. 23.

The baptism of the young prince, subsequently Charles I., took place this day at Holyroodhouse. The manner in which the king obtained the means of holding any such ceremonial is illustrated by the following letter (printed literatim),246 which he addressed on the occasion to the Laird of Dundas:

1600.

‘Richt traist friend, we greet you heartily well. The baptism of our dearest son being appointit at Halyrudhouse upon the xxiii day of Decem^r instant, wherat some princes of France, strangers, with the specialis of our nobility, being invyted to be present, necessar it is that great provisions, gude cheir, and sic uther things necessary for decorations thairof be providit, whilks cannot be had without the help of sum of our loving subjects, quhairof accounting you one of the specialis, we have thought good to request you effectuously to propyne with vennysons, wyld meit, Brissel fowlis,247 caponis, with sic other provisions as are maist seasonable at that time and errand. To be sent into Halyrudhouse upon the 22 day of the said moneth of December instant, and herewithall to invvte you to be present at that solemnitie, to take part of your awin gude cheir, as you tender our honour, and the honour of the country; swa we committ you to God. From Lithgow, this 6th of Decem^r. 1600—James R.’

At the close of the century, in the midst of the order of things arranged under the care of the reformed church, we may be said to have arrived at a point where it may be proper to take a general survey of the customs and manners of the people. We are enabled to do this with comparative ease by the copious extracts which have been published from the session-records of Perth, Aberdeen, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, the burgh-records of these cities and other documents.

[SUPERSTITIONS AND SUPERSTITIOUS PRACTICES.]

Of some of the superstitions of the people, particularly that regarding the pretended power of witchcraft, abundant illustrations have been presented in the chronicle of the bypast forty years. It may now be remarked, that, besides the witches of malevolent character, who were objects of dread to the community, there were ‘wise women,’ who were understood to possess the power of curing diseases generally, and restoring the health of sickly children, by charms and other means. We hear, in 1623, of one Janet at Black Ruthven, near Perth, of whom ‘the bruit went that she could help bairns who had gotten ane dint of ill wind.’—P. K. S. R. At Ruthven, or Huntingtower, there was a well the water of which was believed to have sanative qualities when used under certain circumstances. In May 1618, two women of humble rank were before the kirk-session of Perth, ‘who being asked if they were at the well in the bank of Huntingtower the last Sabbath, if they drank thereof, and what they left at it, answered, that they drank thereof, and that each of them left a prin [pin] thereat; which was found to be a point of idolatry, in putting the well in God’s room.’—P. K. S. R. They were each fined six shillings, and compelled to make public avowal of their repentance. In August 1623, Janet Jackson was cited before the same court for following a witch’s advice in employing the deceased Isobel Haldane ‘to go silent to the well of Ruthven, and silent back again with water to wash her bairn.’ It was admitted that ‘Isobel brought the water and washed the bairn therewith, and put the bairn through a cake made of nine curns of meal gotten from women, married maidens,’ which was said to be ‘a common practice used for curing bairns of the cake-mark.’

At St Wollok’s Kirk, a ruin in the parish of Glass, Aberdeenshire, are two pools by the river’s side, amongst high rocks, and known far and wide by the name of St Wollok’s Baths, Wollok having been an anchoritic saint who dwelt here in the fifth century, and is reckoned as the first bishop of Aberdeen. These pools, always full of water even in times of the greatest drought, were resorted to so lately as the seventeenth century, if not later, for the bathing of sickly children. Near by was St Wollok’s Well, also believed to have a supernatural virtue for the healing of diseases.248

It was customary for great numbers of persons to go on a pilgrimage barefooted, on the first of May, to Christie’s Well, in Menteith, and there perform certain superstitious ceremonies, ‘to the great offence of God and scandal of the true religion.’ In May 1624, the Privy Council issued a commission to a number of gentlemen of the district, enjoining them to post themselves at the well and apprehend all such superstitious persons and put them into the Castle of Doune.

At the Bay of Nigg, near Aberdeen, was a well dedicated to St Fiacre, and commonly called St Fittich’s Well, which was long held in the greatest veneration for its efficacy in disease. On the 28th of November 1630, Margaret Davidson, a married woman, residing in Aberdeen, was adjudged in an unlaw of five pounds by the kirk-session, ‘for directing her nurse with her bairn to St Fiack’s Well, and washing her bairn therein for recovery of her health ... and for leaving an offering in the well.’ The prevalence of this custom is indicated by the decree of the session on the same day, threatening heavy censure and punishment to all who should be ‘found going to Sanct Fiack’s Well, for seeking health to themselves or bairns.’

This Fiack was a Scottish saint—believed to be a son of Eugenius IV., king of Scotland—and it is curious to be assured, as we are, that ‘the name fiacre was first given to hackney-coaches, because hired carriages were first made use of for the convenience of pilgrims who went from Paris to visit the shrine of this saint.’249

When we consider that sanative effects are attributed in our own time, by a great number of practitioners, to pure water, we may be the more disposed to believe that there was some natural ground for the faith which the simple people of old entertained regarding saints’ wells, the saintly connection being assumed of course as indifferent in the case. It is remarkable, moreover, how long this faith continued to be maintained even in its most superstitious form. We are told in the New Statistical Account of Scotland, that a well dedicated to the Virgin Mary, at Sigget in Aberdeenshire, continued, till within the memory of living persons, to be resorted to on Pasch Sunday, the votaries always taking care to leave money or some other article beside the venerated lymph on departing. In Easter Ross, there are wells which are still resorted to by some of the more ignorant portion of the rustic classes.

Charms for the healing of sores and gunshot wounds were in great vogue. In May 1631, Laurence Boak and his wife were before the kirk-session of Perth, accused of using such charms, and they admitted that the following was the formula employed for sores:

The chief of fallen spirits was the subject of a strange superstition, which dictated that a piece of every farm should be left untilled for his especial honour. It went by the respectful appellation of the Goodman’s Croft. In May 1594, the General Assembly had under their attention that such a weird custom was rife in Garioch, Aberdeenshire; and it called for an act of the Estates ‘ordaining all persons possessors of the said lands, to cause labour the same, betwixt and a certain day to be appointed thereto; otherwise, in case of disobedience, the said lands to fall into the king’s hands, to be disponed to such persons as please his majesty, who will labour the same.’—Cal.

So lately as 1651, at a visitation of the kirk of Rhynie in Aberdeenshire, it was admitted by Sir William Gordon of Lesmore, that a part of his mains or home-farm was given away to the Goodman, and used not to be laboured; ‘but he had a mind, by the assistance of God, to cause labour the same.’250

Some religious practices of the Romish Church continued to be in vogue for many years after the Reformation, notwithstanding all that the Presbyterian kirk could do for their suppression. There had been a custom of pilgrimising, for penitential purposes, to certain holy places, precisely as there still is in the more Catholic districts of Ireland. We may presume that, as in the sister-island, people went barefooted to the sacred spot, walked on bare knees repeatedly round it, repeating prayers, and afterwards formally confessed their sins to the priests who superintended the ceremonial. In these reformed times, the affair would be of course shorn of many of its rites; but certainly the habit of going on pilgrimage was still such as to give great concern to presbyteries and general assemblies. One of the chief places still in vogue was the Chapel of Grace, on the western bank of the Spey, near Fochabers—a mere ruin, but held in great veneration, and resorted to by devout people from all parts of the north of Scotland. Another was the Chapel of the Virgin, at Ordiquhill in Banffshire, where also there was a well believed to possess miraculous virtue. We find the General Assembly which met at Linlithgow in 1608, recommending that, for remedy of the growth of papistry, ‘order be taken with the pilgrimages’—specifying these two, and a well in the district of Enzie. Of course Catholics were most disposed to making the pilgrimages. In 1592 Robert Wauchope of Caikmuir, suspected papist, was accused before his presbytery of going yearly barefooted in pilgrimage to the Cross of Peebles, and he admitted having been guilty of such proceedings a few years back, but now he had given it up as a ‘rite unprofitable and ungodly.’ We hear of Lady Aboyne going to the Chapel of Grace every year, being a journey of thirty Scotch miles, the two last of which she always performed on her bare feet.251 About the time of the National Covenant (1638), what remained of the Chapel of Grace was thrown down, with a view to putting a stop to the practice; but this seems to have been far from an effectual measure. In a work written in 1775, the author says: ‘In the north end of the parish [of Dundurcus] stood the Chapel of Grace, and near to it the well of that name, to which multitudes from the Western Isles do still resort, and nothing short of violence can restrain their superstition.’252

There were even practices of an obviously heathen origin still flourishing in the country. That of kindling fires at Midsummer and on St Peter’s Eve seems to have been among the most difficult to eradicate. In July 1608, several inhabitants of Aberdeen were accused before the kirk-session, of having had fires kindled in front of their houses on one of these evenings. Gilbert Keith of Achiries, ‘a common banner and swearer,’ confessed the fault. Mr Thomas Menzies, bailie, gave an equivocating answer. Others alleged that the fires had been kindled by their servants and children.—A. K S. R.

[HOLIDAYS AND POPULAR PLAYS.]

The observance of Yule (Christmas), Pasch (Easter), and the various saints’ days, had been sternly repressed at the Reformation. So were the May-games and other holiday amusements in vogue under the ancient faith. Nevertheless, we still find all of these matters enjoying a sort of twilight life. They assert their vitality by the very efforts made from time to time to extinguish them. Passing over the Robin Hood play and other Edinburgh May-sports, to which repeated reference has been made in the chronicle, we may advert to the corresponding doings at the Fair City of the Tay.

The people of Perth had been in the habit, before the Reformation, of observing Corpus Christi Day (second Thursday after Whitsunday) and St Obert’s Day. On the former, it was customary to have a play. After the change of religion, there was a great inclination to keep up these old practices, which the church, however, condemned as ‘idolatrous, superstitious, and slanderous.’ In 1577, the kirk-session of Perth prosecuted several persons for taking part in the Corpus Christi play. Thomas Thorsails, who had borne the ensenyie or flag, had to submit himself to the discipline of the kirk, and promise ‘never to meddle with such things again,’ in order that he might have his bairn baptised. A considerable number of persons had to make the like submission that they might be at peace with the session. Nevertheless, on the ensuing 10th of December, being St Obert’s Eve, there was a procession as usual; and several citizens were brought to submission, ‘in that they superstitiously passed about the town, disguised, in piping and dancing, and torches bearing.’ John Fyvie afterwards confessed that on this occasion ‘he passed through the town striking the drum, which was one of the common drums of the town, accompanied with certain others—such as John Macbeth, William Jack riding upon ane horse going in men’s shoes.’—P. K. S. R.

In Aberdeen, December 30, 1574, certain persons were charged before the kirk-session of Aberdeen ‘for playing, dancing, and singing of filthy carols on Yule Day [Christmas Day] at even, and on Sunday at even thereafter.’—A. K. S. R. January 10, 1575-6, ‘the haill deacons of crafts within this burgh are ordained to take trial of their crafts for sitting idle on Yule Day last was.’—Ibid. In Perth, January 10, 1596-7, ‘William Williamson, baxter, is accused of baking and selling great loaves at Yule, which was slanderous, and cherishing a superstition in the hearts of the ignorant.’—P. K. S. R.

[FROLICS AND MASQUERADINGS.]

The sessions appear to have everywhere had great battlings with old-accustomed habits of festival-keeping and merry-making, in which the people indulged, probably without any idea of committing a sin. Some of their habits were connected with superstition, and thus gave double offence.

There was a cave called the Dragon-hole, on the face of the Kinnoul Hill near Perth. It was of difficult access, and old tradition had her stories about it. The common sort of people were accustomed to make a merry procession to the Dragon-hole once a year in May; perhaps they had continued to do so since the days of heathenrie. May 2, 1580, ‘because that the assembly of minister and elders understand that the resort to the Dragon-hole, as well by young men as women, with their piping and drums striking before them through this town, had raised no small slander to this congregation,’ they therefore ordain that each person guilty of this practice shall pay twenty shillings to the poor, and make public repentance.

Notwithstanding all efforts at repression, cases of excessive conviviality and of questionable frolics are not infrequent in these moral registers. It seems to have been a favourite prank to interchange the dresses of the sexes, and make a parade through the town by night, singing merry songs. At Aberdeen, February 9, 1575-6, Madge Morison is ‘decreit to pay 6s. 8d. to the magistrate, and Andrew Caithness is become caution for her repentance-making when she is required, and that for the abusing of herself in claithing of her with men’s claiths at the lyke [wake] of George Elmsly’s wife.’ A month after, in the same place, a group of women, ‘tryit presently as dancers in men’s claiths, under silence of night, in house and through the town,’ are assured that if found hereafter in the same fault, ‘they sall be debarrit fra all benefit of the kirk, and openly proclaimit in pulpit.’

At some blithesome bridal which took place in Aberdeen in August 1605, a number of young men and women danced through the town together, ‘the young men being clad in women’s apparel, whilk is accounted ane abomination (Deut. xxii. 5), and the young women with masks on their faces, thereby passing the bounds of modesty and shamefacedness, whilk aught to be in young women, namely [especially] in a reformed city.’ The matter was referred to the provincial assembly, and severe penalties threatened for future instances of the offence.—A. K. S. R.

At Perth, in 1609, we find the kirk-session dealing with an ultra-merry company, composed of Andrew Johnston, James Jackson, and David Dickson, and three women, two of whom were the wives of the first two men. They were accused of having gone about the town on the evening of the preceding Tuesday, disguised, and with swords and staves, molesting their neighbours. They stated that they had been supping, and after supper, from mere merriness, had gone about the town, but without molesting anybody. ‘It was certainly found that they were disguised; namely, Andrew Johnston’s wife having her hair hanging down, and a black hat upon her head; her husband with a sword into his hand; James Jackson having a mutch [woman’s cap] upon his head, and a woman’s gown; and that they hurt and molested several persons.’ The matter was aggravated by the consideration that it was a time of plague, and the offenders were convalescents new come in from the fields, with ‘the blotch and boil’ still on their persons. A public repentance was decreed to them.—P. K. S. R.

The chief element of conviviality among the common people, at this time, and for several generations later, was a light ale which the keepers of taverns made at home; hence browster-wife came to be a synonym for a woman keeping a public-house. The fierier and more fatal whisky was, however, not unknown. In the Aberdeen Kirk-session Register, under March 1606, we have two men brought up for ‘abusing themselves last week by extraordinar drinking of aqua-vitie.’

[OBSERVANCE OF SUNDAY.]

The Protestant Church took the observance of Sunday as a Sabbath from the ancient church; and the Presbyterians of Scotland adopted it fully, while rejecting all the other festivals—a fact with which Ninian Winzet did not fail to taunt them as an inconsistency in his Tractates, published immediately after the Reformation.253 Not merely ecclesiastical acts, but several statutes of the realm, were put in effect for the purpose of enforcing the observance of the day as a day of rest and of religious exercises. From the terms of these, however, and from the accounts we have of frequent punishments for their neglect or infraction, it is evident that many years elapsed before the people of Scotland attained to that placid acquiescence in the order for the day which we now see.

The main demands of the new church were for a complete abstinence from work and market-holding, as well as from public amusements, and a regular attendance on the sermons. We have seen some instances of the struggles of the church to induce mercantile people to abandon Sunday-marketing. So late as 1596, it is evident that their wishes were not fully attained, as we find the presbytery of Meigle then complaining to the Privy Council of the obstinate refusal of the people in their district to abandon a Sunday-market.254 Two years later, the Town Council of Aberdeen was content to ordain that ‘nae mercat, either of fish or flesh, shall be on the Sabbath-day in time of sermon‘—a clear proof that they did not look for a complete suppression of marketing on that day, but only its cessation in time of church-service. There are many similar indications that at this early period taverns were allowed to be open, and public amusements permitted, at times of the day apart from ‘the sermons.’ It is somewhat startling to find the General Assembly itself, in 1579, expressing indifference to marriages being solemnised on Sunday (B. U. K.), and only so late as January 1586, discharging ‘all marriages to be made on Sundays in the morning in time coming.’ Nor is it less surprising to find a kirk-session, so late as 1607, requiring that ‘the mill be stayit from grinding on the Sabbath-day, at least by eight in the morning.’255 It clearly appears to have been common in 1609 for tailors, shoemakers, and bakers in Aberdeen, to work till eight or nine every Sunday morning, ‘as gif it were ane ouk day.’—A. K. S. R.

Breach of the Sunday arrangements was usually punished by fines. In Aberdeen, in 1562, for an elder or deacon of the church to be absent from the preachings, inferred a penalty of ‘twa shillings;’ for ‘others honest persons of the town,’ sixpence. November 24, 1575, it is statute that ‘all persons being absent fra the preachings on the Sunday, without lawful business, and all persons ganging in the gait or playing in the links [downs], or other places, the times of preaching or prayers on the Sunday, and all persons making mercat merchandise on Sunday within the town ... sall be secluded fra all benefit of the kirk unto the time they satisfy the kirk in their repentance, and [the] magistrate by ane pecunial fine.’ Notwithstanding this statute, we find the Town Council in 1588 referring to the fact, that a great number of the inhabitants of the burgh keep away from church both on Sundays and week-days, and give themselves to ‘gaming and playing, passing to taverns and ale-houses, using the trade of merchandise and handy labour in time of sermon on the week-day;’ for which reason it is ordained that all shall attend the sermons on Sunday, ‘afore and after noon;’ as also every Tuesday and Thursday ‘afore noon,’ under certain penalties—a householder or his wife, 13s. 4d.; a craftsman, 6s. 8d.; ‘and in case ony merchand or burgess of guild be found within his merchand booth after the ringing of the third bell to the sermon on the week-day, to pay 6s. 8d.’ These ordinances were acted upon. November 28, 1602, ‘the wife of James Bannerman, for working on the Sabbath-day, [is] unlawit in 6s. 8d.’ ‘The same day, the session ordains that nae baxters within this burgh work, nor bake any baken meat, in time coming, on the Sabbath-day.’ Four Aberdeen citizens were, January 16, 1603, ‘unlawit, ilk ane of them, in 3s. 4d., for their absence fra the sermons on Sunday last, confessit by themselves.’—Ab. C. R. Soon after we find a bailie and two elders appointed to go through the town in time of sermon, and searching any house they pleased, note the names of all they found at home; likewise to watch the ferry-boat, and note the names of ‘sic as gangs to Downie, that they may be punishit.’—A. K. S. R.

At Perth, January 8, 1582-3, ‘it was ordained that an elder of every quarter shall pass through the same every Sunday in time of preaching before noon, their time about, and note them that are found in taverns, baxters’ booths, or on the gaits, and delate them to the Assembly, that every one of them that is absent from the kirk may be poinded for twenty shillings, according to the act of parliament.’ Soon after, a married woman named Hunter was fined three pounds for her absence from church during the bygone year, and other three pounds for her absence during the time of fasting. In September 1585, tavern-keepers were subjected to a heavy fine for selling wine and ale in time of sermon. In 1587, the Sunday penalties were extended to the Thursday sermon. February 21, 1591-2, John Pitscottie, younger of Luncarty, and several other persons, ‘confessed that on the Sunday of the fast, in the time of preaching in the afternoon, they were playing at foot-ball in the Meadow Inch of the Muirton, and that the same was an offence; therefore they were ordained on Sunday next to make their repentance.’

In the same town, January 29, 1592-3, ‘the Lady Innernytie being called, and accused for absenting herself and the rest of her family from the hearing of the word on Sabbath, compears and confesses that she does it not, neither in contempt of the word nor of the minister, but only by reason of her sickness, and promises when she shall be well in health, to repair more frequently to the kirk and hearing of the word.’ This lady was the wife of Elphinstone of Innernytie, a judge of the Court of Session, and a Catholic. It is therefore probable that her submission was hypocritical. July 31, 1598, ‘Andrew Robertson, chirurgeon, being accused of breaking the Sabbath-day by polling and razing of the Laird of ... , declared he did it quietly at the request of the gentleman, without outgoing.’ He was ordained to make repentance, and warned for the future. It will be understood that under the designation of chirurgeon both surgery and the functions of the barber were embraced.

The Perth kirk-session also exerted itself to prevent Highland reapers from sauntering on the streets on Sunday, waiting to be hired (August 1593); and they took strong measures to put an end to the practice of cadgers departing from the Saturday market on Sunday morning (March 1599). Four persons were rebuked in November of this last year for ‘playing at golf on the North Inch in the time of the preaching after noon on the Sabbath’—a sport which would not now be indulged in on Sunday in any part of Scotland. April 13, 1601, ‘George Murray [was] accused for suffering of ale to be sold in time of preaching on the Sabbath in his house. [He] answered that he was in the kirk himself, and his wife also; but his servant came, and brought his wife out of the kirk to ane daughter of Tullibardine’s [Murray of Tullibardine—the family since become Dukes of Athole], to give her some clothes which she had of hers in custody, and in the mean time caused fill drink to the said gentlewoman and her servants with her.’ Murray was dismissed with an admonition.

By a stern act of the Aberdeen town-council, passed in 1598, a severe tariff of fines was ordained for various ranks of people on their staying away from Sunday and week-day services in the churches, every husband to be answerable for his wife, and every master for his servants. A burgess of guild or his wife was to pay 13s. 4d. for absence from church on Sunday. ‘Likewise, following the example of other weel-reformit congregations of this realm, [the council] statutes and ordains that the wives of all burgesses of guild, and of the maist honest and substantious craftsmen of this burgh, sall sit in the midst and body of the kirk in time of sermon, and not in the side-ailes, nor behind pillars, to the effect that they may mair easily see and hear the deliverer and preacher of the word; and siclike ordains, that the women of the ranks aforesaid sall repair to the kirk, every ane of them having a cloak, as the maist comely and decent outer garment, and not with plaids, as has been frequently used; and that every ane of them likewise sall have stules, sae mony as may commodiously have the same, according to the decent form observed in all reformit burghs and congregations of this realm.’—Ab. C. R.

While it is thus apparent that observance during time of sermon and attendance thereupon were the principal objects held in view, it clearly appears that the day, in its totality, was then a different thing from what it now is. It was, as in Norway still, held to commence at sunset of Saturday, and to terminate on Sunday at sunset, or at six o’clock. As illustrations of this fact, two curious notices may be cited. In May 1594, the presbytery of Glasgow is found forbidding a piper to play his pipes on Sunday ‘frae the sun rising till the sun going-to.’256 When a fast was ordained in Edinburgh, in December 1574, on account of impending pestilence, it was to commence ‘on Saturday next at aucht hours at even, and sae to continue while [until] Sunday at six hours at even.’257 An act of the presbytery of Glasgow, January 1, 1635, ordered that the Sabbath be from 12 on Saturday night to 12 on Sunday night;258 a clear proof that there was previously a different arrangement.

Another curious fact, indicative of a progress in the ideas of the reformed kirk as to Sabbath-keeping, is that there were ‘play-Sundays’ till the end of the sixteenth century. The presbytery of Aberdeen ordered in 1599 that ‘there be nae play-Sundays hereafter, under all hiest pain.’—A. P. R.

In April 1600, in obedience to an ordinance of the General Assembly, it was arranged at Aberdeen—and of course a similar arrangement would be made in other places—that ‘on Thursday, ilk ouk [every week], the masters of households, their wives, bairns, and servants should compeir, ilk ane within their awn parish kirk, to their awn minister, to be instructit by them in the grunds of religion and heads of catechism, and to give, as they should be demanded, ane proof and trial of their profiting in the said heads.’

After this arrangement had been made, the religious observances of the citizen occupied a considerable share of his time. He was bound under penalties to be twice in church on Sunday, to make Monday a ‘pastime-day, for eschewing of the profanation of the Sabbath-day,’ to give Tuesday forenoon to a service in the parish church, to do the same on Thursday forenoon, and on that day also to attend a catechetical meeting with his family. Three forenoons each week remained for his business and ordinary affairs. Notwithstanding this liberal amount of external observance, the General Assembly appointed, in 1601, ‘a general humiliation for the sins of the land and contempt of the gospel, to be kept the two last Sabbaths of June and all the week intervening.’

[LICENTIOUS CONDUCT.]

Licentious conduct was from the first an object of severe observation to the reformed church, and many sharp measures were taken and harsh punishments inflicted for its repression.

In 1562, the kirk-session of Aberdeen ordained as its punishment, for the first offence, exposure before the congregation; for the second, carting and ducking; for the third, banishment from the town. A subsequent act of parliament imposed still severer punishment—‘That is to say, for the first fault, as weel the man as the woman sall pay the sowm of forty pounds, or than [else] he and she sall be imprisoned for the space of aucht days, their food to be breid and small drink, and thereafter present[ed] to the mercat-place of the town or parochin, barehead[ed], and there stand fastened, that they may not remove, for the space of twa hours.’ To this punishment some additions were made for a second offence, as cold water for food, and a shaving of the head. A third inferred ducking and banishment.

At Aberdeen, in 1591, in a case where a marriage relationship existed, the punishment inferred the depth of horror with which the offence was on that account regarded, the man being ordained to be banished from the town, but first to be set up at the cross on three several market-days, bound to the pillar by a pair of branks, and having a paper-crown on his head inscribed with his crime; also to stand on three several Sundays at the kirk-door, in haircloth, barelegged and barefooted, while the people are assembling; after which to be exposed in like guise at the pillar of repentance during the whole time of worship.259

November 20, 1582, the kirk-session of Perth ordains John Ronaldson, having offenders of this class in his custody, ‘to put every one of them in a sundry house in time coming, to give them bread and small drink, to let none of them come to the nether window [probably a window where they could see or converse with the people passing on the street]; and when they come to the cross-head, that they shall be fast locked in the irons two hours, their kurchies [caps] off their heads, and their faces bare, without ane plaid or any other covering.’