Chapter XXX · (continued 3)

¹ Register of the Privy Council; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume V., page 49.

The bulk of the clothing then used in Scotland was home made, the people supplying themselves with clothes from their own wool and flax; each family spinning for itself the yarn, and sending it to the village weaver to be woven. In some parts of Scotland the children were regularly taught to spin by a mistress. The magistrates of Peebles resolved in 1633​—“to convene all the persons and parents of those bairns given up in a roll, to be bound for a year to the small wheel in the house to be erected to learn the young ones to spin.” And, “the whole council have referred the taking of a house for the mistress and bairns of the little wheel to be erected for learning the young ones to spin, to the provost and the two bailies.”¹ It was not till towards the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries that successful efforts were made to manufacture this class of goods for general sale; although in the reign of Charles I. there were cloth manufactories on a small scale at Newmills in Haddingtonshire, at Bonnington near Edinburgh, and at Ayr; while in Aberdeen there was a manufactory of plaiden goods and ginghams. In 1641, parliament passed an act to encourage and facilitate the erection of manufactories. This act promised the following immunities to all who had or should erect such works:​—“All Spanish and foreign fine wool for making fine cloth shall be custom free, all dye stuffs, oil, and other materials necessary for such works, shall be free of all custom and impost; all parcels of cloth made by any who have erected, or shall erect such works, shall be custom free for the space of fifteen years from the date of their erection. The managers of such works shall be free of any taxation to be imposed on the kingdom for any occasion bygone or to come; and it shall not be lawful for anyone to engage, reset, or entertain, any of the servants of these works without the consent of the masters thereof.” By another Act passed in 1645, the masters and all the workers of manufactories were freed from military service and the quartering of troops upon them; and it was again declared that such works were to be free of all taxation.²

¹ Burgh Records of Peebles, pages 372, 373.

² Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume V., page 497; Volume VI., page 174.

In 1661, Parliament passed two Acts concerning manufactories, one recommending the establishment of companies and societies for making linen and cloth stuffs, and the other for erecting manufactories; while it also ratified former Acts of Parliament and of Council which had similar ends in view. These proposed companies were authorised to incorporate themselves, and to elect a certain number of their members to act as a committee or council of managers, to frame rules and regulations for the management of the manufactory, and conducting the business of the company. For their encouragement, materials imported for use in their manufactures, and whatever goods they produced and exported, were to be free of custom and impost for nineteen years; the stock invested in their works was exempted from public and local taxes; and they themselves were to be free from quartering of soldiers. Every encouragement was given to skilled workmen from other countries to come and settle in Scotland, and instruct the Scots in their respective kinds of work. The point touching foreigners was thus stated:​—“If any stranger shall come or be brought into this kingdom by natives to set up work and teach his art in making cloth stuffs, stockings, or any other kind of manufacture, he shall enjoy the benefit of the law and all other privileges that a native does enjoy; with power to erect manufactories either in burgh or landward as they shall think fit: and there to dwell and exercise their trade without any stop or trouble.” The managers and heads of the company were enjoined to appoint an expert man to visit and examine the work, and to put a mark or seal upon it, distinguishing what was sufficient and what not. The Privy Council, or others whom the King might appoint, were empowered to do whatever was found to be hereafter necessary for promoting the manufactures.¹

¹ Ibid., Volume VII., pages 255, 261.

At the same time other Acts were passed with the aim of promoting home manufactures. The export of all kinds of hides, of woollen yarn, of raw and unwaxed cloth, excepting plaiding, all linen yarn, broken copper, brass or pewter, was prohibited under the penalty of confiscation of the goods. An Act was also passed in 1661, authorising and recommending the establishment of fishing companies for promoting the fishings. This Act contained many proposals and elaborate provisions for prosecuting the herring fishing and white fishing in the various seas, channels, firths, and lochs, “in his Majesty’s ancient kingdom of Scotland.” An Act for encouraging shipping and navigation was passed; and also an Act appointing a council of trade, which was empowered to do whatever was necessary for regulating, improving, and advancing of trade, navigation, and manufactures; and this was to endure until discharged by the King.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., pages 257, 259‒261, 273, 283.

In 1681, Parliament passed another Act for encouraging trade and manufactures, which embodied proposals that the Privy Council had issued by proclamation six months before, and ratified all former Acts for the encouragement of manufactures. The most remarkable part of the Act was the long list of articles and goods which were emphatically forbidden to be imported. All gold or silver thread, lace, fringes, or buttons of gold, and all gold or silver worn on clothes, or counterfeits of them, and all embroideries of silk for wearing clothes; all foreign linen, cambric, damask, ticking, and calico; all foreign silk or woollen stockings, silk lace, and gimp thread; all foreign shoes, boots, or slippers, gloves and clothes, and many other things, were forbidden to be imported under the penalties of being “burned and destroyed, and the importers or resetters fined in the value thereof.”¹ By such measures it was thought that more money would be retained at home, and thus enrich the nation. But it was soon discovered that the prohibited foreign goods quickly rose in price; and then the magistrates of Edinburgh were called before the Privy Council, and ordered to assemble the merchants of the city, and forbid them to take such exorbitant prices from the people for the prohibited goods, on the ground that there was no more to be imported into the kingdom. In fact, the prohibitive part of the Act was too extreme, and had to be relaxed.²

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VIII., page 348.

² Register of the Privy Council; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VIII., page 479.

About this time a company, including some of the Edinburgh merchants, was formed for starting a new work at Newmills. It was to be placed under the direction of James Stanfield, an Englishman, and a foreman and six sheermen were to be brought from England. The work was opened with two looms, which were soon increased to eight, and then to twenty-five; and in 1683 the work was still going on. They began by making white cloth, and next turned a number of their workers to coarse mixed cloth, and so on gradually to fine, “till now we are upon superfine cloths, and have brought the spinners and the best of the workers that length that we hope by May next to have superfine cloths as good as generally are made in England.” In the same place there was a manufactory of silk stockings in operation.¹ There was a small woollen manufactory in Leith; and in 1683, on a petition from the owners, the Privy Council extended to it the privileges of the Act for encouraging manufactures. It was reported that the partners of this undertaking were well skilled in their business, and that it​—“can dye and mix wool and cloth; and can take in wool from the merchants and others, and does dye and mix it and deliver it in broadcloth; and has already made good broadcloth to many of the merchants of Edinburgh.”²

¹ Pamphlet on Woollen Manufactories, 1683.

² Register of the Privy Council.

Hitherto the dress of the royal army had been of a plain description, but it was now deemed necessary for the soldiers to have coloured coats, that they might be easily distinguished from other skulking and vagrant persons, who had before imitated the livery of the King’s troops. In 1684, the Newmills manufacturing company offered to furnish from their own works a suitable cloth of any dye that should be desired, as cheaply and promptly as could be done in England; and they offered to show samples and to give security for the fulfilment of the undertaking. But the Privy Council decided to use English cloth. In the beginning of the year 1685, the captain of the town-guard of Edinburgh was empowered to import three hundred yards of scarlet cloth, with trappings and other necessaries, for the clothing of his corps; and some of the other commanders of troops got similar licenses. At this the Newmills company were greatly offended, and petitioned that the importation of English cloth for the army should be stopped, as it could be supplied as good and as cheap from the home factory, and begged that a committee should be appointed to ascertain if this was the case. The petition was received, but nothing resulted from it. The company, however, had resolved to protect their privileges, and directly attacked five of the merchants of Edinburgh, who had been dealing in English cloth contrary to the law. Their complaint contained a minute enumeration of the goods and the quality of the cloth which each of the merchants had sold; and the offenders were many times called before the Privy Council, and failing to appear, they were held to be guilty, and therefore decreed to deliver up the prohibited goods to be burned according to law; while they had to recompense the King’s cash-keeper for the goods, “at the rate of twelve shillings sterling for each yard of cloth, and five shillings for each dozen of the prohibited stockings.”¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council; Chambers’ Domestic Annals of Scotland, Volume II., pages 419‒421. “It was not, after all, to be in this age that good woollen cloth was to be produced in our northern clime.” A writer, in 1697, says: “We have tried to make several things, and particularly hats and broadcloth, and yet we cannot make our ware so good as what we can have from abroad. Those who would propagate any new manufacture must lay their account to labour under several disadvantages at first.”​—Husbandry Anatomised, Edinburgh, 1697.

From an early period linen cloth was made in Scotland, though for long the trade was on a very limited scale. Parliament enacted, in 1641, that linen at tenpence per yard or upwards should be a yard in breadth, and should be presented in the markets in folds, not in rolls. In 1661, the Act already noticed for establishing companies enumerated linen among the fabrics proposed to be encouraged, and enacted that all yarn must be sold by weight.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume V.; Volume VII., page 257.

But the commercial relations of England and Scotland were of the most unsatisfactory character. In all the trade and commercial legislation of the period it was the leading aim to prevent the importation of everything, which it was thought could be produced or made at home, as it was believed that this course was the only one which would enable the nation to become busy and rich. So in 1663, the Scotch Parliament imposed a scale of duties on all English goods which amounted to prohibition, with the natural result that the English also adopted prohibitory measures. The consequences were ruinous. A petition was presented to the Privy Council in 1684, complaining of the severe treatment which Scotsmen had received when selling their linen goods in England. It was stated that before there had been a free trade for Scotch linen in the South, but that latterly the men selling it in England had been apprehended, and whipped as criminals, and many of them obliged to give security that they would discontinue their traffic. It was affirmed that about twelve thousand persons were then employed at this branch of industry in Scotland; and therefore it was important, not merely to the workers, but also to the landlords and to the government, as every twelve hundred packs exported to England paid a custom of three pounds sterling. The Council recommended the Secretary of State to intercede with the King, that the Scotch merchants and others might have liberty to sell linen in England, without alluding to the fact that there was a Scotch Act which treated English woollen goods in the same exclusive spirit.¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., pages 465, 466.

Another way of promoting the manufacture of, and trade in linen, was tried in Scotland, when Parliament in 1686 enacted that the bodies of all persons should be buried in plain linen only, spun and made within the kingdom, under a penalty of three hundred pounds Scots, if a nobleman. To render the Act effective, the relatives of deceased persons were enjoined, under severe penalties, to declare upon oath to their parish minister, within eight days of the funeral, that the law had been obeyed. Poor tenants and cottars in the country were exempted from the operation of the Act. This Act was repeated in 1693 and in 1695.

In the Act of 1693, it was enacted that all linen should be sold by weight. “And further, their Majesties, considering how much the uniform working and measuring of linen cloth may raise the value thereof with natives and foreigners, and render the trade more easy and acceptable to merchants: therefore, have enacted that all linen cloth made for export or for sale in the public markets of the kingdom, should be made exact to these two standards, namely, either of the breadth of three-quarters and two inches unbleached, or a large ell and 2 inches in breadth when bleached; and that no three-quarter cloth should contain above a thousand double threads of warp, and that all cloth above a thousand double threads of warp should be an ell and two inches broad unbleached, and a large ell bleached: that all linen cloth to be sold in the manner aforesaid should be made up in pieces and half-pieces as follows: All three-quarter broad in pieces containing eighteen ells, and half-pieces nine ells; and all ell-broad cloth in pieces containing twenty-four ells, and half-pieces twelve ells. That all such linen cloth should be equally and evenly wrought according to the due thickness and closeness of sufficient marketable cloth; and that all weavers should leave at the end of each piece three finger breadths of warp yarn unwefted to remain for thrumbs to each piece and half-piece, and that when they cut any web out of the loom they knit every fifty double threads together, for the more exact numbering of the warp threads of every web ... that the owner of all such linen cloth, before exposing it for sale, should be obliged to bring it to a royal borough where linen is usually sold, and there to receive the public seal and stamp of the borough upon both ends of each piece, which shall be a sufficient proof of the just length, breadth, and the quality of the working, and the proper thickness and closeness.”

Another Act was passed in 1693, prohibiting the export of lint, and permitting it to be imported free of duty. At the same time Parliament passed Acts granting the privilege of manufactories to Paul’s works at Edinburgh, and to the works at Leith, giving them power to incorporate themselves with all the rights usually accorded to manufactories. Yet another Act was passed in 1693, erecting the woollen manufactory of Newmills into a free incorporation; and another in favour of the manufacture of baizes, and for the encouragement of trade, in which it was stated that James Foulis, John Holland, William Graham, and other five merchants, had resolved to erect a manufactory for making the cloth, commonly called “Colchester Baizes,” and all other kinds of baizes. This, it was supposed, would consume the native wool which could not be otherwise profitably used. The company were granted all the privileges usually given to such undertakings; but if they failed to put the work in operation within two years, then the Act in their favour became null and void.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VIII., page 598; Volume IX., pages 311‒319, 461. Touching coffins, the Act of 1686 contained this provision, “that no wooden coffin shall exceed one hundred merks Scots as the highest rate for persons of the greatest quality, and so proportionally for persons of meaner quality, under the pain of two hundred merks Scots for each contravention.”

In May, 1694, an agreement was concluded between Nicolas Dupin, acting for a linen company in England, and the royal burghs and others in Scotland, for forming a company to carry on the manufacture of linen in the latter kingdom. It was arranged that the undertaking should be founded upon a capital of thirty thousand pounds, in five pound shares, which were to be equally divided between Englishmen and Scotsmen. The shares were to be paid in four instalments within four years. The work was referred to as established in 1696, and two years later the bleaching was executed at Corstorphine.¹

¹ Wodrow Pamphlets.

Prior to the seventeenth ♦century, all the soap used in Scotland was imported, chiefly from Flanders. It has been estimated that the whole annual consumption of this essentially necessary article only amounted to about 400,800 pounds, little more than a fraction of the quantity which is consumed at present. In 1619, the King granted a patent to Nathaniel Uddart, to endure for twenty-two years, for the manufacture of soap in Scotland. This man erected a soap-work at Leith, and furnished it with everything requisite for the business. But two years later he petitioned the Privy Council that the importation of foreign soap should be prohibited, and said that he was able to supply all that was necessary for the use of the people, and thus save money from being sent out of the kingdom. The Council made inquiries as to the quality of the soap which he produced, and having satisfied themselves that he could produce the necessary quantity, granted the prohibition which he desired. At the same time they fixed the maximum price of the native soap, which was to be £24 per barrel for green soap, and £32 for white, and each barrel to contain sixteen stones. But the production of soap had only been two years under protection when loud complaints arose amongst the people. It was said that the quality of the home-made soap was inferior, and the merchants bitterly complained that their traffic with the Low Countries was interrupted; while the merchants of Dumfries and other places grumbled because they were forced to carry soap all the way from Leith, when they could have it brought by ships to their doors. These parties presented their grievances to the Lords of Council, who again made inquiries, and concluded that Uddart’s privilege was hurtful to the nation, and that the people had not been so well supplied with the soap made by him as they had been formerly with foreign soap. The Council accordingly, in July 1623, declared that the prohibition should cease in a year or sooner, if he continued to produce an inferior or a dearer article.¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council.

Uddart seems to have retained his patent till the twenty-one years were nearly run; and in 1634, a new one, to commence on the close of the old, was granted by the King to his servant, Patrick Mauld of Panmure. The King’s letter is characteristic, and proceeded on this ground:​—“that it is necessary for the good of his Majesty’s ancient kingdom that the people should be furnished with good soap, at a reasonable price within itself, and that soap-making is not a trade that can be communicated to all his subjects, and that the public would suffer if the same was left indifferently to all: while it is equally true, that such being the case, the choice of the person belongs to his Majesty as a part of his sovereign prerogative.” As Mauld had undertaken the work with the responsibility of continuing it, the King granted to him and his representatives, for twenty-one years, the sole licence within the kingdom of making soap for washing clothes, of all colours and qualities which they may think fit. If more soap was produced than was required for the people, the surplus might be exported; and Mauld might employ foreigners at his works, but they were forbidden to make soap for any other person. In connection with his patent, he got a licence to fish and trade in the seas of Greenland, and in the Isles, that he might provide his works with oils and other materials. The King also granted to him the sole right of making potash of all kinds: and for these privileges he was to pay an annual sum of twenty pounds sterling.¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council.

In 1661, Parliament passed an Act for encouraging soap-works, which stated that such works had already been of advantage to the nation, and might be made of greater advantage: that the eastern and Greenland fishing would be greatly assisted by the importing of potash and other materials, and money brought into the kingdom by the exported soap made within the same. It was therefore enacted that oil, potash, and other materials imported for making soap, should be free of all custom; and that any soap produced in the kingdom might be exported duty free for nineteen years from the date of the erection of the works where it was produced.¹ Before the end of the century there were several soap-works in operation.

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., page 203.

Another product of skill and industry associated with refinement, glass-making, was attempted. In 1610, a patent was granted for the erection of a glass-work in Scotland, which was begun in Wemyss, in Fife, under the direction of Sir John Hay, who, it is also reported, had originated an ironwork. But in 1619, he informed the Privy Council that his works had not proved remunerative; and it was then requested that the King should allow the glass made by Hay to be sold unrestrictedly in England, while the export of coal into that country should be prohibited; and if this were done he had some hope of prospering. However, it appears the work was continued, as the Privy Council, in 1621, appointed a commission to examine and try the quality of the glass, to see that measures were adopted for the full supply of the country with glass, and thus save the importation of foreign glass. They soon reported that the Wemyss glass work was in a satisfactory condition. The cradles contained fifteen wisps, and each wisp had three tables, three quarters of a yard and a little more in depth. The glass was reported to be fully as good as Danskine glass, though they would have been better pleased if it had been a little thicker and tougher. Touching the quality of the drinking glasses produced, the commissioners were more doubtful, and recommended patterns of English glass for comparing and trying the quality of the Scotch ones in future. Upon this report the Council granted the desired monopoly against foreign glass-makers, but under conditions limiting the price of broad glass to twenty pounds per cradle.¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council; Chambers’ Domestic Annals of Scotland, Volume I., pages 506, 507.

Before the end of the century several glass-works were established. There was one in Leith which made bottles and apothecary glasses; and in the year 1689, it was stated that this work produced a greater quantity of wares in four months than had been sold in the country for a whole year, and at as low prices as any similar articles from London and Newcastle. So the Privy Council granted it the privileges of a manufactory, and prohibited the importation of foreign bottles, provided that the Leith company should not charge more than two shillings and sixpence per dozen bottles. In the beginning of the year 1690, the owners of the Leith glass works complained that the work at Newcastle, and the English, had sent large quantities of glass and bottles into Scotland, “which was likely to over-stock the whole country.” On their petition, the Privy Council empowered the Leith glass company to employ officers to seize all such English bottles and bring them in for his Majesty’s use. The laird of Prestongrange proposed to build a glass-work on his own estate, at a place called Newhaven, “for making all kinds of glass, as bottles, vials, drinking glasses, window and mirror glasses.” He had arranged with foreigners for carrying on the work, and everything looked encouraging; and in 1697, the Privy Council granted to his proposed work the privileges accorded by Act of Parliament to manufactories. About the end of the century, a proposal was made by James Montgomery, a merchant in Glasgow, to erect a glass-work there, and the Council granted him the usual privileges.¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council.

Connected with the department for preparing the glass intended for mirrors, there was a refugee Frenchman, called Leblane, who had married a Scotch woman, and became a burgess of guild in Edinburgh. His special branch of work was to polish the glass used for making mirrors, an art never before practiced in Scotland. He carried on his business in a workshop in the Canongate; and the mirrors which he was commissioned to make often required mouldings and head-pieces of wood, and sometimes tables, drawers, and stands, corresponding to the glass, for completing a set. Leblane offered to employ the wrights of the Canongate to execute the woodwork which he required, but they told him that they could not do it; he was therefore forced to employ some of the wrights of Edinburgh. This, however, caused the Canongate wrights to complain that their rights were encroached upon, and his work was likely to be much impeded; but he petitioned the Privy Council, and got permission to provide the upholstery work connected with his mirrors on the simple principle of his making a first offer of it to the wrights of the Canongate.

It seems that until about the beginning of the eighteenth century there was no regular work for making earthenware in Scotland. The articles of this description in use among the people were imported. In 1703, William Montgomery, of Mackbiehill, and George Sim, a merchant of Edinburgh, made arrangements for erecting a pothouse, for making porcelain and earthenware; and had engaged foreign operatives to secure the successful execution of the work. For the encouragement of the enterprise Parliament granted to them an exclusive right of production for fifteen years.¹ It was stated in the Act that the projectors of the work “were to bring home workmen upon their own charges, until those of this nation be instructed and capable in the said trade, provided they be allowed such privileges and encouragement for such a number of years as the hazard of a project new in itself, and liable and subject to many miscarriages and accidents in the beginning, and the uncertainty whether when the same is erected, the clay of the country will prove so good and sufficient as to warrant us to proceed therein.”

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume XI.

Paper is associated with the diffusion of knowledge and the progress of civilisation in many ways; and the first attempts to manufacture it in Scotland are full of interest. The trade of collecting rags in connection with the sale of earthenware, and the production of paper, became an important branch of industry; in fact, the value of rags as material for the manufacture of paper could not be easily estimated. Recently the difficulty of obtaining sufficient raw material for making the enormous quantities, and the different kinds and qualities of paper, have been greatly increased, and have taxed the ingenuity of able and energetic men.

In 1590, there was a proposal made to erect a paper manufactory in Scotland. The Privy Council granted the projected work an exclusive right of making paper for nineteen years. But it does not appear that this design, which was originated by a German and others associated with him, proved successful; and we find no more attempts to produce paper at home till 1675, when a paper work was erected at Darly Mills, on the Water of Leith. French workmen were employed to instruct the Scots; and in 1679, the owners of the work reported that they were able to produce “gray and blue paper much finer than ever was done before in this kingdom.” At this time, Alexander Deas, a merchant, and one of the proprietors, presented a petition to the Council stating that the work not only supplied good paper, but also promised a general benefit to the community from the utilisation of rags, which before were not turned to use, and in gathering of which many poor people could make a living; while in the work itself, many Scotsmen and boys were employed, and many more might be instructed in the art of making paper. But in order that the rags might be fully available, it was necessary to suppress the custom of using fine rags for wicks to candles; and it was therefore agreed that cotton wicks should be substituted, which, though dearer, gave a much better light. The Privy Council acceded to their request, and prohibited the candlemakers from using clouts and rags for the wicks of candles.¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council. Chambers gives it as his opinion, that this paper mill was not continued, and that paper-making was not successfully established in Scotland till the middle of the eighteenth ♦century. Domestic Annals of Scotland, Volume II., page 395.

Mr. Dupin, who was connected with paper works in England and in Ireland, proposed to establish one in Scotland in 1693. In that year, he and his partners applied to the Privy Council for permission to erect and carry on a paper work; and stated that he had attained “to the art of making all kinds of paper moulds as good, or better than any made beyond seas, and at a far cheaper rate, inasmuch that one man can make and finish more moulds in one week than any workman of other nations finish in two months’ time. Moreover, whereas large timber is scarce in this kingdom, I and my men have arts to make the greatest mortar and vessel for making up of paper without timber; and we have also provided several ingenious outlandish workmen to work and to teach their art in this kingdom.” The Council granted them liberty to erect paper mills in Scotland, “without hindering any other persons who were already set up.” They also received permission to put the national arms upon the paper produced at their mills. In 1695, Parliament sanctioned this enterprise as a joint-stock company, and ordered that a charter of incorporation should be granted to them for their security and encouragement, under the name of “The Scots White Paper Manufactory,” “for the making of all kinds of writing and printing white paper, throughout this kingdom,” with all the privileges usually accorded by Acts of Parliament for encouraging manufactories. In 1697, the work was going on and producing “good white paper, and only needing a little more encouragement to be an advantage to the whole kingdom.” Upon the petition of the papermakers, the Privy Council again commanded that the candlemakers should not use rags for making wicks.¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IX., page 429. Touching the paper company, the Act of Parliament stated:​—“It being found that the water and air in several parts of the kingdom are very fit, and may contribute much to the success of such work ... and that the several attempts that have hitherto been made for rendering such work effective may have failed because such an undertaking could not be otherwise managed than by a society and incorporation, and required a general joint-stock to set up and carry on the same.”

The beginning of a smaller and less necessary branch of industry has to be noticed, though subsequently it was developed into a great trade in the chief city of the west of Scotland, and brought fortunes and wealth to many individuals. Tobacco was first brought into Britain in the latter half of the sixteenth century. The antipathy of James VI. to tobacco is well known, and he forbade its importation into Scotland; but his decree was much evaded, and it soon became an article of common merchandise in the country. A duty of one shilling and eightpence sterling was then imposed on it, but this only led to smuggling to evade the tax; and in 1622, the Council passed an Act prohibiting the importation of tobacco, under the penalty of confiscation. The same year, however, the Council passed an Act explaining that the King did not mean to deprive his subjects of the orderly sale and moderate use of tobacco, but only to prevent the abuse and excessive use of it; and a proclamation was emitted, intimating that the prohibition to import it only applied to those who did not hold a licence. In 1634, another attempt was made to put the sale of tobacco under a wholesome restriction. Two men were appointed to sell licences to retailers of tobacco, and to account to the royal revenue for the proceeds as might be arranged between the parties, but this arrangement could hardly be carried out. In 1671, Sir John Nicolson of Nicolson was allowed by the government to impose a tax upon tobacco; but in 1673, it was stated in an Act of Parliament, that the tax was injuring the trade of tobacco, and therefore Sir John’s privilege was terminated, and tobacco was to be henceforth free of any duty, except the ordinary custom and excise. In accord with the prevailing commercial ideas of the time, in 1661, a tax was imposed on all tobacco pipes imported into the kingdom. The Act on the tobacco pipes contained the following:​—“It being represented to his Majesty that tobacco pipes can be made and sold at home at a far easier rate than they can when brought from abroad: therefore, to keep money at home, and give tradesmen work, and for the encouragement and good of all who are skilful in making of tobacco pipes, his Majesty does impose upon the gross of all tobacco pipes imported, eight shillings Scots ... and does prohibit any merchant, importer, or maker of pipes, to charge more than eighteen shillings Scots for the gross of any pipes, whether they be made within or without the country.”¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., page 65; Volume VIII., page 212.

In 1674, Andrew M‘Kairter presented a petition to the Privy Council, stating that when the insurrection of 1666 broke out, being then a youth at school, he joined the insurgents; and after the suppression of the rising, “out of a childish fear he did run away to Newcastle;” and having there, in London, and in Holland, served a long apprenticeship in spinning tobacco, and having now returned to his native land, he had set up this trade at Leith. He now desired to make his peace with the government, by signing the bond required by the law; and the Council granted his request, and he became one of the earliest tobacco spinners in Leith.

The state of the coinage often engaged the attention of parliament and the Privy Council in the seventeenth century, and for this period the records of it are pretty complete. But no radical change occurred in the coinage till the introduction of banking at the end of the century, and only points of general interest demand notice.

In November, 1604, the government ordered gold to be coined of the fineness of twenty-two carats, and the silver of eleven deniers. Five kinds of gold coins were to be struck​—the unit or twelve pounds Scots piece, the double crown or six pounds Scots piece, the Britain crown or three pounds Scots piece, the thistle crown, forty-eight shillings Scots, and the half-crown, thirty shillings Scots. Out of every 20 pounds of gold coined, one pound at least was to be issued in the smaller gold pieces, and the types of the coins are minutely described in the records. The silver coinage was to be issued in seven pieces​—the crown or three pounds Scots, half-crown, shilling, sixpence, twopence, penny, and half-penny pieces. This series of coins, which were minted between the beginning of the year 1605 and 1610, were exactly the same both in England and in Scotland, except the mint-mark and the difference in workmanship; and they were authorised to pass current throughout Great Britain.¹

¹ R. W. Cochran Patrick, Records of the Coinage of Scotland, Volume I., pages 164, 165, Introduction; Lindsay’s View of the Coinage of Scotland, Supplement, page 60. In July, 1604, Alexander Reid, a cutler in Edinburgh, was tried for false coining. It seems that he was employed in the mint, and had got hold of some false blanks, which he stamped with the true dies of the merk piece; and for this crime he was hanged. Birrel’s Diary; Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials, Volume II., page 399.

By a proclamation in November, 1611, all the gold coins were raised about one-tenth in value, and all the former acts against exporting coin were renewed. The Privy Council ordered that a table of the prices for gold of every standard should be prepared and placed in some public part of the coining-house. Foreign money was only to be received as bullion; and in December the same year, the Council prohibited the circulation of foreign coin, and ordered it to be brought to the mint, where it would be paid for at the settled rates.

The want of small money was still felt in Scotland, and in 1614, a new coinage of copper was authorised. Four hundred stone weight of copper was directed to be coined into twopenny and penny pieces. The same year the Council renewed all the former acts for bringing in bullion, and especially an act of the reign of James IV. In 1619, the circulation of all foreign coins was again prohibited, and they were ordered to be brought to the mint, and paid for as bullion at the rate of £39 3 shilling 5 pence for every ounce of twenty-two carat gold, and £2 18 shilling 10½ pence for every ounce of fine silver. It was again declared illegal to export any coin.

In 1623, a new coinage of copper was ordered. Five hundred stone weight of copper was to be minted in twopenny and penny pieces. The acts against exporting money were re-enacted in 1625, and at the same time, commissioners were appointed to consider the best means of raising the value of the money. They held several meetings, but in June, 1627, it was resolved not to raise the course of the money, or restrain the course of foreign dollars, till a more fitting opportunity. In April, 1629, another copper coinage was authorised, similar to that of 1623. From this time to 1636, various proposals and changes concerning the coinage were presented and discussed among the public bodies of the kingdom, relating chiefly to the currency of foreign coins, but they were not of sufficient importance to justify entering into details. A new copper coinage was issued in 1632, consisting of one thousand five hundred stone weight of copper, in pieces the same as the preceding ones; and in 1634, another of the same quantity of copper.¹

¹ Records of the Coinage of Scotland, Cochran Patrick, Volume I., Introduction, pages 166‒169, 235‒237, 241; Volume II., pages 3, 11, 13, 18, 21, 23, 32‒37, 75, 80‒102, 108, 116.

The use of a mill was introduced in minting the silver coinage in 1637; the former method of coining by the hammer had continued for a long time in Scotland. In January, 1637, the Council gave permission to Briot, the master coiner, to make a trial of his mill and press till the Whitsunday following, and this was extended from time to time, till the use of the hammer in coining was tacitly and finally relinquished.

“The method of coining by the mill and press was more efficient and quicker than by the hammer.¹ The metal having been prepared in much the same way as formerly, the flang was placed between the puncheons, the bar of the press turned, and the impression given at once.... The irons were prepared by the graver of the Mint, who engraved the portrait of the sovereign in relief, and from this the dies for striking the money were struck. The dies from which the reverses and the legends were struck were also furnished by the chief graver.”²

¹ “In the Scottish Mint, as everywhere else, money was first struck with the hammer. The method of proceeding was as follows:​—The gold and silver having been brought to the required standard, was put into heated crucibles of earth, shaped like inverted cones, and placed in a furnace. These furnaces were of two kinds, differing in their construction​—the one generally used for gold, and the other for silver. Whenever the metal was melted throughout, it was run into moulds and cast into bars. These bars were again re-heated, and afterwards lengthened by beating on an anvil. They were then cut into pieces about the thickness of the coins required, and adjusted to the proper weight by cutting with shears. The pieces were then taken up together with pincers, and while held tightly on an anvil, beaten with a hammer all round, to blunt and soften down the marks left by the shears on the edges. The pieces thus prepared were known as the flangs, and were now ready for bleaching. This was done by again beating them, shaking them in a copper sieve, and afterwards throwing them into boiling water mixed with common salt and the ashes of the burnt lees of wine, in which they were boiled till quite bright, and then again thrown on the copper sieve and dried with rubbers.

“After this the flangs were distributed to the moneiers to have the impression put on them. Each moneier had two irons or puncheons, one of which was called the ‘pile,’ and the other the ‘trussel.’ The pile was from seven to eight inches long, and was firmly fixed in a block of wood. On the pile was engraved one side of the coin, and on the trussel the other. The flang being placed on the pile, the trussel was applied to the upper side of it by means of a twister wand, or by the hand, and the moneier then struck the end of the puncheon with a hammer until the impression was produced on the flang.

“The legend was put on by means of small puncheons bearing the necessary letters. The coining irons and the ‘letters of graving’ were always destroyed or defaced when the type of the coinage was changed, and when in use were placed in the custody of the warden, one of the responsible officials of the Mint.”​—Records of the Coinage of Scotland, Cochran Patrick, Introduction, pages 48‒50.

² Records of the Coinage of Scotland, Cochran Patrick, Introduction, page 52. In 1649, there is a minute inventory of the machinery, the tools, and the furnishings, then in the Scottish Mint. Out of many things enumerated we may notice that there were “a great iron mill, a justing mill with four wheels, and a complete hand mill, three complete spring presses, and two furnaces with their iron work.”

“A further improvement was made in the fabrication of the money by the introduction on the coinage of ‘James VII.,’ of marking the edges either with lettering or milling, This was done by a machine which was originally the invention of M. Casting of the Mint of Paris.... A thin piece of steel was firmly screwed upon a flat plate of copper fixed in a stout wooden frame. This steel bore on one edge half of the legend or marking. Another piece of steel, having on its edge the remainder of the legend or marking, fixed on the copper plate, so that the flang, being placed between them, was touched on each side by the marked edges of the steel bands. This second steel was moved by a mechanical arrangement of a wheel and handle, and the revolving flang received at once the milling or inscription.”​—Records of the Coinage of Scotland, Cochran Patrick, Volume I., Introduction, page 55.

There were many complaints as to the scarcity of money, and at length it seems that inconvenient evils had arisen from the large quantity of small copper coins in circulation. The state of the copper money engaged the attention of parliament in 1639 and 1641, and its importation was prohibited under the penalty of death. In 1642, the Council specified the foreign coins which should be current, and fixed the rex dollar of 15 drops at fifty-four shillings. But in 1645, parliament raised the value of the money, and fixed the rex dollar at fifty-eight shillings.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume V., pages 260, 261, 283, 284, 450; Volume VI., page 197. In the end of the year 1652, a committee of the English Parliament met with deputies from Scotland to confer touching the coinage, but nothing of much importance was done. The Scotch deputies complained of the great scarcity of money in the country, and it was proposed to issue £5000 worth of bodies for Scotland, but the English Council thought nothing was required.​—Records of the Coinage of Scotland, Cochran Patrick, Volume II., pages 133‒135.

In December, 1660, Charles Maitland, of Halton, was appointed general of the Mint; and on the 12th of June, 1661, parliament adopted a revised and exhaustive scale for collecting bullion. An alphabet or table stating the exact quantities of bullion to be imposed on all kinds of goods, and payable to the Mint, by all merchants and parties who exported these goods, was ordered by parliament to be printed and published, and to be in force from the date of its publication. This mode of collecting bullion had for long been in operation in Scotland, but it had never before been so completely systematised and extended. As this alphabet of charges is highly interesting from a commercial point of view, as well as in relation to the Mint, I shall go over a few of the articles under each letter, noting the quantity of goods of different kinds. For each barrel of whisky containing ten gallons, there were enacted two ounces of silver; every two bolls of apples, two ounces; each tun of drinking beer, four ounces; every four chalders of coal, two ounces; each gross of drinking-glasses, one ounce; every five thousand red herring, two ounces; every three hundred hart horns, two ounces; every two thousand oxen horns, two ounces; every five thousand sheep horns, two ounces; every twenty planks, two ounces; every four bolls and a half of malt, two ounces; each gross of night-caps, one ounce; each dozen of masts of all kinds, two ounce; every three oxen, two ounces; every twenty thousand oysters, one ounce; every forty reams of paper, two ounces; every hundred yards of plaiding, two ounces; every three barrels of salmon, two ounces; every twenty sheep, two ounces; and every six stones of wool, two ounces. Under the head of skins, there is a pretty large number of kinds mentioned. Altogether the alphabet of bullion occupies three double-column pages of a large volume of the Scots Acts.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., pages 250‒254.

A copper coinage was authorised by parliament on the 12th of June, 1661, consisting of three thousand stones of copper. It was directed to be coined into pieces called turners, each weighing one drop and a half, allowing four grains more or less for remedy. Two thousand stones were to be coined within three years, and the remainder when the Privy Council thought fit. After the issue of this coinage, the Council was enjoined not only to prohibit the importation of foreign copper coin, but also its circulation. A stock of twenty thousand merks Scots was to be provided for the Mint; and any gold or silver found in Scotland was to be taken to the coining-house, and paid for at the rate of one ounce of coined gold of 22 carat for the ounce of bullion of 24 carat; and similarly, the ounce of silver of 12 denier was to be paid by an ounce of minted silver coin. A coinage of silver was also authorised, consisting of a four merk piece, two merk piece, one merk piece, a half merk piece, and a piece of the value of forty pennies​—all Scots money. The Privy Council was empowered to fix the type and legends of these coins.¹ There were other coinages of this reign, but none of them call for special remark.

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., pages 233, 254‒255.

During this period, however, the Mint, like every other branch of the government in Scotland, had fallen into a deplorable state. From various papers still preserved, it appears that the standard of the money had been depreciated, that more copper had been coined than was warranted, that some of the officials of the Mint had appropriated to themselves money to which they had no right, and that the salaries of some of the officers had been drawn though their posts had been vacant for years. In 1862, a commission investigated the matter, and disclosed the above state of affairs. The heads of the Mint, Lord Halton, Sir John Falconer, Alexander Maitland, and Archibald Falconer, were removed from their posts and from all places of public trust, and the Lord-Advocate ordered to prosecute them.¹

¹ Records of the Coinage of Scotland, Cochran Patrick, Volume II., pages 182, 199, 171‒172.

Parliament passed a long act concerning the coinage in 1686. To encourage the importation of bullion, it was enacted that in future anyone bringing to the Mint bullion of the standard fineness should receive for it from the officers of the Mint the same weight in current coin of the realm, without any charge for coining. For doing this, and for defraying the expenses of the Mint, certain taxes were to be imposed upon various imported goods and articles. A clerk was to be appointed, who should keep a record on parchment books of the quantities of bullion given in by the merchants, “which record shall be open for the inspection of anyone who requires the same, under the penalty of deprivation;” he had also to keep an accurate record of the amount of money coined, “that it may be known what quantities of silver have passed his Majesty’s irons from time to time.” The act fixed the salaries of the officials and officers of the Mint, and a sum of £1100 was allowed for maintaining the fabric of the establishment, and providing new tools and incidental charges.

The kinds of current silver coins were stated to be the sixty, forty, twenty, ten, and five shillings Scots pieces; and the weight of each was minutely stated. It was expressly required by the act that the sixty and forty shilling pieces should be lettered round the edges, and the edges of the other three pieces grained. The Privy Council were empowered to cognise and consider the gold coins, and to regulate and determine the fineness and the weight, and the type of the coins, when the King should think fit to grant a warrant for a gold coinage; no copper was to be coined without the King’s express warrant, and when it was issued it was to be in sixpenny and twopenny pieces.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, VIII., pages 603‒608.

In 1690, the government of Scotland received a warrant from the King authorising the coining of the current pieces of silver, and ordering that the provisions of the act of 1686 should be put into operation. The same year, parliament sanctioned a copper coinage, not exceeding three thousand stones, and to be spread over six years. In 1693, a change in the rate of money was proposed, and accepted by the King, and a general rise of about ten per cent, was proclaimed on the money then current. But the next year, the Scots silver pieces of sixty, forty, twenty, ten, and five shillings, were reduced to the values which were current in 1686. On the 10th of December, 1695, sixty stones of silver were ordered to be coined and issued in forty shilling pieces, and one hundred and twenty stones in twenty, ten, and five shilling pieces.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IX.; Records of the Coinage of Scotland, Cochran Patrick, Volume II., page 253.

On the 6th of October, 1696, parliament passed an act authorising a copper coinage, not exceeding three thousand stones in the space of six years, of which two parts were to be coined in twopenny pieces, and a third in sixpenny pieces. At the same time an act was passed against false coiners. At the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries, counterfeit coining had become a common crime. In 1704, a batch of false coiners was discovered, and the authorities proceeded vigorously to prosecute them.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume X., page 12, Appendix, pages 53, 55, 79.

By a proclamation emitted in May, 1697, the importation of foreign copper coin or base money was prohibited, under a penalty of ten pounds; but in December another proclamation legalised the currency of the French three-sous piece at three shillings Scots, and the French crown at fifty-eight shillings Scots, and raised the forty-pence piece to three shillings and sixpence Scots.

At the Union it was agreed that the coin should be of the same standard and value throughout the United Kingdom. Accordingly, in 1707, arrangements were made for changing the Scotch coinage into English; and all the English, Scotch, and the foreign money was called in and reminted, and reissued as the coinage of Great Britain. In April, 1708, the Scottish coins were finally called in, and preparations made for carrying out the recoinage exactly on the methods of the English Mint.¹ Thus one of the beneficial results of the Union was soon obtained; since, commercially, the great advantage and the convenience of having one coinage, and only one standard of money for the whole Island, is too obvious to need illustration.

¹ Register of the Privy Council; Records of the Coinage of Scotland, Cochran Patrick, Volume II., pages 271‒272. Mr. Cochran Patrick’s Records of the Coinage of Scotland, often referred to in the preceding pages, was published in 1876, and is a very valuable work. The introduction to the records and the documents relating to the coinage, and to the mints of Scotland, is all that could be desired; while the method of arranging the records for easy consulting and reference is admirable. Altogether the work is a monument of research and industry.

The establishment of a bank in Scotland was a sign of the growing commercial spirit of the nation, which was manifesting itself in various directions. In Scotland, as in England, till towards the close of the seventeenth century, exchanges and other monetary transactions had been wholly in the hands of a few leading merchants; as in the back-room of a clothier in the High Street of Edinburgh, or the counting-room in the Saltmarket of Glasgow.¹ The scheme of the first Scotch bank, as drawn in an act of parliament in 1695, was limited and prudential in a high degree, and founded upon the joint-stock principle. It was to begin with a subscribed capital of £1,200,000 Scots, or £100,000 sterling, in shares of one thousand pounds Scots, of which no one was to have more than twenty; two-thirds of the capital was to be subscribed by persons residing in Scotland, and one-third by individuals in England or elsewhere. The company was to be placed under the direction of a governor, a deputy-governor, and twenty-four directors, who were to have the sole management of the bank. At the beginning it was thought best that twelve of the directors should be Englishmen, as it was assumed that they were better acquainted with the business of banking than the Scots. The names of the original proprietors of the bank are preserved in the act of parliament which sanctioned its establishment; and among them were Mr. Holland, and six London merchants, and six Edinburgh merchants. Mr. Holland came down to Edinburgh and resided there for some time, superintending the proceedings of the bank; and he found that the Scots were rather ignorant about banking matters. But the bank prospered, and in a few months after it was opened, it had attained a wonderful degree of credit. Shortly after the bank was fairly put in operation, by the common consent of the company, the whole of the directors were elected by the Scotch shareholders, the English ones being left to act as trustees, and to manage what business the bank might have in London. At length, when there were no longer thirteen proprietors of the bank in England, this arrangement also was relinquished.²

¹ The dates at which banks were established in the countries of Europe are as follows:​—In Venice, 1157; in Geneva, 1345; in Barcelona, 1401; in Genoa, 1407; in Amsterdam, 1407; in Hamburg, 1619; in Rotterdam, 1635; in Stockholm, 1688; in England, 1694; in Copenhagen, 1736; in Berlin, 1764; in St. Petersburg, 1786.

² Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IX., pages 494‒497; Account of the Bank of Scotland, 1728.

At first the chief business of the bank consisted in lending money on heritable bonds and other securities. The giving of bills of exchange was next tried, with the object of extending the advantages of the bank as much as possible; and with the same aim, to carry the circulation of their notes throughout the country, branch-offices were opened in Glasgow, Montrose, Dundee, and Aberdeen, for receiving money and paying money in the form of inland exchange, by notes and bills prepared for the purpose. But after a trial of this branch business, the directors came to the conclusion “that the exchange trade was not proper for a banking company; a bank, they thought, should be chiefly designed as a common repository of the nation’s cash, a ready fund for affording credit and loans, and for making receipts and payments of money easy, by the company’s notes. To deal in exchange interfered with the trade and the business of private merchants, and the Bank of Scotland had found it very troublesome, unsafe, and improper.” After a short trial, it was also found that the bank could not continue the four branch-offices, except at a loss far exceeding any advantage which could be derived from them; and after spending a considerable sum on these branches, the directors felt obliged to relinquish them, and recall their money to Edinburgh. For many years the business of the bank was entirely limited to lending money.¹

¹ Account of the Bank of Scotland, page 6.

Touching the paper currency then introduced, the Bank of Scotland issued from the first, five, ten, twenty, fifty, and hundred pound notes. It was not till the year 1699 that the bank began to issue one pound notes, which have ever since been a special and an important feature of Scottish banking, and of the circulating medium of the country. These twenty shilling notes soon got into circulation in Edinburgh, and in some other parts of the kingdom, but some time elapsed before they obtained a ready and general currency in the markets of the country, for among the common people of that day nothing answered so well as silver money: gold was then little used among them.¹ The one pound notes, however, it is well known, became and have long continued great favourites among the Scots; indeed, they have as much confidence in the paper notes of the old banks as they have in gold or in silver money.

¹ Ibid.

Having presented the foregoing details of the rise of the industrial arts, and noted the difficulties in the way of their progress, and indicated that there was a growing spirit in the nation towards trade and commercial enterprise, it seems requisite to adduce further evidence of the strength and generality of this spirit, which was vigorously struggling to find new means of outlet. Thus the consecutive and rapid progress of industry, trade, and commerce which subsequently ensued in Scotland will be better appreciated and easier understood, when it has been shown to flow from a natural succession of causes. Let us, therefore, briefly notice some of the numerous projects and trade adventures which were originated or proposed in the closing years of the seventeenth century, and the opening years of the eighteenth.

A sugar work was erected in Glasgow in 1667, and a second in 1683​—the only ones in the kingdom. In 1696, parliament passed an act authorising Hugh and James Montgomery, merchants in Glasgow, and others whom they might assume, to form a company and erect a sugar work at Glasgow. They were granted all the privileges accorded to manufactories for a period of nineteen years, under the name of “The New Sugar Manufactory at Glasgow.” William Corse, a merchant in Glasgow, in 1700, proposed to establish a similar work, and petitioned Parliament for the same privileges as the other sugar works. In 1701, Matthew and Daniel Campbell, merchants in Glasgow, proposed to erect another sugar work; and in connection with it, a work for distilling brandy and other kinds of spirits from malt produced within the kingdom. They undertook to produce as good liquor “as any that is imported from France;” and, besides, a distillery, they said, could not fail “to be exceedingly profitable both for the consumption of malt, a native product, and for the convenience of the country, and especially for foreign trade on the coasts of Guinea and America, seeing that no trade can be managed to these places or to the East Indies without great quantities of such liquors.”¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume X., page 66, pages 52, 67, Appendix; Register of the Privy Council.

In 1695, parliament passed many acts for the encouragement and authorisation of trade enterprises. Patrick Houston and his partners were granted the privileges of a manufactory for a rope-work in Glasgow. This company was founded upon a stock of forty thousand pounds Scots, and they proposed to introduce foreign workmen to instruct the natives. A company, chiefly composed of Glasgow merchants, with Dunlop, the Principal of the University, was formed in 1699, for carrying on the woollen manufacture there. They proposed to produce all kinds of woollen goods, damasks, half-silks, tartans, crapes, russets, and other stuffs for apparel either for summer or winter. The following year, William Marshall, William Gray, and two other merchants of Glasgow, proposed to erect a work for making pins and needles, boxes, shears, scythes, knives, and other kinds of hardware; and the Privy Council granted them the privileges of a manufactory. The same year, James and William Walkinshaw, and other merchants in Glasgow, proposed to erect a manufactory for cordage, canvas, and other requisites for shipping, and petitioned Parliament for the usual privileges.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IX.; Volume X., pages 146, 154, 231; Register of the Privy Council.

In 1695, the Estates passed an Act in favour of William Scot and his partners, for erecting a sawmill at Leith. It was stated that such a mill established at so convenient a port would be a great advantage to the nation, because there oak trees and all kinds of wood might be landed from abroad, for building ships and other great works in the kingdom, which before could not be done for want of skill in sawing wood. Another act authorised the erection of windmills for sawing all kinds of wood. Alexander Fearn, an engraver in Edinburgh, was granted the privileges of a manufactory for the practice of his art. It was stated that he had employed himself from his infancy in learning his art, “until by the blessing of God on his faithful endeavours, he has attained to such perfection in this art, once much admired and encouraged, that he can undertake to serve the people in that point of the art called sinking of seals in gold, silver, or steel, either cutting coats of arms, ciphering names, or other devices such as parties may order him to perform for them; and particularly that point of the art which is yet more singular​—cutting or sinking the exact effigies of any person who pleases to sit three hours; and thus the people may be served with this kind of work as good, and as cheap, and much easier than when they were obliged to employ foreigners; and all the money that used to be spent on that account may be kept in the country.” In 1693, parliament passed an act in favour of William Scot, cabinetmaker, who proposed to build a manufactory for making coaches, chariots, harness, and other things belonging to that business, and also for grinding glasses of all kinds. He promised to bring home and employ foreign workmen, until the Scots themselves were instructed and capable of working at this trade. On these terms the usual privileges of a manufactory were granted to him. In 1695, parliament confirmed two former acts of the Privy Council, in favour of James Turner, a cabinetmaker and mirror-glass maker. The wrights of Edinburgh thought that Turner was encroaching upon their trade, and seized his tools and materials, and otherwise annoyed him; and Parliament therefore commanded that James Turner “should have the full and free liberty to exercise his calling and his art and trade within the burgh of Edinburgh in all time coming;” and forbade the deacons of crafts or their officers, or anyone else, to interfere with him and his work.¹ At the same time parliament passed an act in favour of John Holmes, Thomas Fershman, and William Park, combmakers in Leith. They, having formed a joint-stock company, were empowered to make all kinds of combs, and accorded the privileges of a manufactory. It was stated in the act that they had been practising this trade for several years, and successfully teaching apprentices; and that they were even then able to supply the whole kingdom with combs, at a cheaper rate than they could be imported.

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IX., pages 490‒491, 321, 523.

James Lyell, of Garden, in 1695, obtained the privileges of a manufactory to make oil from lint seed and rape seed; and also for an establishment for preparing hare and rabbit skins and making hats. The same year, liberty was granted to erect a manufactory for making gun-powder and alum, and it was stated that there was no powder-mill in the kingdom, and that there had never been a work for making alum in Scotland. In 1698, a company was formed for casting shot, which obtained the usual privileges of a manufactory for nineteen years.

In 1697, James Ormiston and William Elliot, merchants, proposed to erect a work for winding, throwing, twisting, and dyeing all kinds of raw silk. They thought that the undertaking would prove to be beneficial to the nation, as this branch being the groundwork for all other silk manufactures would diminish the foreign import, and make the balance of trade much more favourable: “and also in time be the means of opening a trade directly from Scotland to Turkey, which is one of the most profitable and enriching known, and further tends to advance other manufactories which are dependent on it, such as buttons, silk stockings, and the like.” The Privy Council granted the usual privileges. In 1698, a number of men in Aberdeen petitioned the Privy Council for permission to erect a woollen manufactory, which was also granted. A cloth manufactory was in full operation at Gordon’s Mills, in the vicinity of Aberdeen, in 1703, and it was recorded that it was producing broadcloths, druggets, and goods of other kinds, such as half-silks, serges, damasks, and plush made of wool, “which looks nearly as fine as that made of hair.”¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IX., pages 419‒420; Volume X., pages 22‒23, Appendix.

In these years also it is very remarkable that almost every seaport of any consequence in Scotland applied to parliament for permission to impose a tax for the purpose of building new harbours or improving the ones which they already possessed. At the same time the weekly, quarterly, half-yearly, and yearly markets, greatly increased all over the kingdom. Thus it is pretty evident that the energy which projected the colony of Caledonia-Darien was only a symptom of the awakening spirit of the nation, which was seeking vent in trading pursuits and in new commercial enterprises.

At the same period various notices of inventions for draining mines and other purposes occur in the records. In 1684, James Young, a writer in Edinburgh, represented to the Privy Council that after much labour and expense he had completed an engine for writing “whereby five copies can be had at once,” and he requested an exclusive right of making it, and the Council granted this for nine years. The next year he came before the Council as the inventor of a new lock, which was minutely described in the record, and an exclusive privilege of making it was also granted for fifteen years. In 1696, Young again appeared before the Council and stated that he had invented and perfected “an engine for weaving, never before practised in any nation, whereby several kinds of cloths may be manufactured without manual operation or weaving looms.” He affirmed that he had actually made cloth with his engine, and he believed that it would prove highly useful, especially for the “trade to Africa and the Indies; and therefore he petitioned the Council for the privileges of a manufactory, and for a patent,” and the Council granted to him an exclusive use of his engine for thirteen years.¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council.

Nicolas Dupin, already mentioned as a paper manufacturer, came before the Privy Council in 1695, asking a patent for a new invention for draining water out of coal pits. He stated, “that in twenty fathoms deep we can raise in two minutes’ time a ton of water, provided the pit or shaft will admit of two such casks to pass one another.... The machine was calculated to be useful for all kinds of corn mills, where water was scarce or frozen, for we can grind by one man’s hand as much as any watermill does. It was adapted for draining lakes or for bringing water to any place where it was wanted, and for clearing of harbour mouths from great rocks or sand.” He had also a smaller engine, with economised power for lighter work, “as mincing of tallow for candles, a very exact way of cutting tobacco, for cutting tanners’ bark, and similar sorts of work, without the assistance of either wind or water.” It was stated that several gentlemen were ready to contract with the inventor for the draining of some flooded coal-pits. The Council granted him a patent for eleven years.¹

¹ Ibid. Occasionally a foolish proposal occurs in the records. For instance, Robert Logan, a cabinetmaker, asserted that he could make kettles and caldrons of wood which could “abide the strongest fire, while boiling any liquor put into them, as well as any vessel made of brass, copper, or any other metal,” with the advantage of being more durable, and only a third of the price. The Council granted him the exclusive right of making such articles for nineteen years.

Scotland as yet had not many great ships¹ or much commerce, but it was manifest that the mind of the nation was turning more and more to secular and commercial pursuits than it had formerly been; and all that was wanted for the rapid development of industry and commercial enterprise was a field for the energy of the people. But, while Scotland was forced to continue in an antagonistic attitude to England this could not be obtained; and the difficulty was how to change the relations of the two kingdoms, and to place both upon a footing of equality and commercial freedom. The Union at length solved the difficulty; and, as already stated, it has proved an immense advantage to the progress of civilisation in Scotland, while it has contributed to the power and to the glory of the British Empire.

¹ See under page 303.

In concluding this exposition of the social state of the nation, let me briefly recapitulate some of the leading points. Commencing with the administration of justice and the powers of the executive, I proceeded to show the state of crime, the condition of the poor, and the means employed for their relief, and touched on the laws for suppressing and reforming the vagrant and idle classes. The ideas and the beliefs prevailing among the people, and the causes of their persistence, were indicated; and the social morality of the nation, the relations of the people and the clergy, the observance of Sunday and religious services, drinking habits, the relations of the different sexes, sumptuary regulations, and the sanitary condition of the kingdom, were explained at some length. Having noticed the state of the roads, and the introduction of postal communication, the shipping of the kingdom, and indicated the state of agriculture, I then traced the rise and slow progress of industry and manufactories, noting some of the obstacles which impeded their development in Scotland; the coinage, and the introduction of banking; and especially remarked that more energy began to be thrown into trading and commercial matters towards the end of the century. When all the distracting influences springing out of civil and religious war, and other adverse circumstances which the nation had to face, are taken into account, it is surprising that the people entered so soon upon the remarkable career of industry and rapid commercial progress which have characterised the succeeding centuries; and which, along with the rise and the diffusion of science, of invention, of literature, of philosophy, and art, constitute an era of true glory in the history of Scotland. Here, therefore, I may repeat, that there is hardly anything, hardly any difficulties, which will not yield “to the persistent energy of man.”¹ The intellectual and moral impetus of the Reformation continued till new influences came, and then one by one the links of tradition and the shackles of authority became weaker and weaker; a philosophy of surpassing vigour and boldness arose, far-reaching in its results, shaking the foundations of the received principles of belief and the current theories of knowledge to their core, thus inaugurating a new point of departure for the human mind. To elucidate the historical antecedents of this philosophy will be the special aim of the concluding chapter of this volume; and ultimately the whole movement of European thought will open before us with amazing clearness.

¹ Mackintosh’s History of Civilisation in Scotland, Volume I., page 17.