of July, 1651, and directly proceeded to business. John Chalmer, the
minister of the parish, was called, and gave in a list of the elders
and deacons of the parish, containing eighteen names, and they were all
sworn “to declare boldly what they knew in their minister, his doctrine,
his life, his conversation, and the exercise of his calling among them,
as in the sight of God, before whom they were shortly to answer. The
minister and the other elders being removed, John Innes of Codrain, one
of the elders, was asked whether the minister behaved himself like a
man of his calling in his private conversation: answered, he did lead
an innocent, blameless life, and exemplary in these points, and that
he did not frequent ale-houses or such places, but was diligent in the
restraint of such unlawful exercise when occasion offered. Being asked
whether he had the worship of God set up in his own family, and reading
of the Bible morning and evening: answered, that he had indeed, and
that he was not forgetful of such holy exercise to have his children
also instructed in this. Being asked concerning his doctrine, how he
taught, how often, and if on the week-days: answered, that he did teach
them soundly and convincingly out of the Scriptures, and seasonably,
bringing forth ordinarily abundance of food, conveniently, sensibly,
and articulately delivering the same in such a manner as all might
be able to understand it; and that sometimes, as his text led him,
as he saw the necessity, he did express himself against the errors
of the times, to wit, malignancy and sectarianism; in his sermons
he constantly showed himself against both, and argued for obedience
to the public resolutions of the times. He preached twice on Sunday,
and lectured before sermon in summer, baptised after it, before the
blessing, with such reverence and due respect as stirs up all to be
attentive and to countenance the ordinance. Sometimes he lectured on
the week-days, and sometimes catechised; always had the psalms sung in
the time of divine service; and before the celebration of the Lord’s
Supper, was more punctual and frequent in examining his people than
ordinarily. Moreover, he declared that the minister was exact in
discipline, and used no partiality in punishing delinquents, and was
careful both in admonishing and in censuring when he saw it expedient;
and he visited the sick of his parish, and urged family worship. In a
word, he remembered nothing at present to have the minister admonished
for.” Gordon of Colithy, the next elder called, concurred in everything
that the last one had said, and added: “that their minister had a good
popular gift of preaching, and was every day improving, for he applied
himself to his work more than before, and engaged less in worldly
business.” All the rest of the elders intimated their concurrence, and
also said that he was active in the distribution of the poor’s money
at set times of the year, according to their necessities, and was not
behind anyone in giving them of his own when he saw it needful.
The minister was then recalled, “and gravely encouraged to the work,
with serious entreaty to consider the weight of his calling, and to be
earnest with God for assistance and direction in it.” The elders were
then removed, and the minister reported favourably of their fidelity
to the discipline of the Church. When recalled, they were encouraged
to further diligence, and exhorted to hold family worship in their own
homes.¹
¹ _Extracts from the Presbytery Book of Strathbogie_, pages
200‒202.
In August, 1651, at a similar visitation by the Presbytery of the
Church of Rhynie, Mr. William Watson, the schoolmaster, being removed,
“was called a tippler and idle speaker sometimes; but he was careful
enough of the children, and had taken much pains in educating them.
He was admonished for the time, and exhorted to amend; or otherwise
to be removed.” In 1652, James Reid, having been nominated and elected
by the session of Grange to be schoolmaster there, appeared before the
Presbytery: “and having produced famous testimony of his literature and
Christian conversation under the hands of presbytery of Old Aberdeen,
his election was approved; and for his trial, prescribed to him the
3rd Ode, book 4, of Horace, to expound and explain, grammatically,
logically, and rhetorically.”¹
¹ _Extracts from the Presbytery Book of Strathbogie_, pages
202, 209, 226.
Under the presbyterian polity, the members of the congregation were
generally allowed to choose their own minister, and throughout the
local records of the sessions, the presbyteries, and the synods, there
is much interesting information on this matter. The people were not the
mere slaves of the clergy; they had a pretty strong hold over the
ministers. In 1642, James Horne, in the parish of Kinnor, was summoned
before the presbytery, and accused of being drunk in the time of divine
service. When called before the session for this, he had publicly
railed against the minister and the elders. He told them, “all that he
had said he would say it again, and worse also; and took up a straw and
held it out before the session, and said that he would not give that
straw for all they could say or do to him, and that there were none
there that would cause him to make his repentance for anything that
he had said.” The presbytery ordered him to be summoned again, and if
he failed to appear, then to censure him without any more citation.
In July, 1643, the case of George Mitchell was reported to a meeting
of the presbytery at Gartly; his offence was, that he prevented his
wife from satisfying the discipline of the session, for her visiting
of wells and chapels, and for assaulting the minister and the
elders――especially for upbraiding George Gordon of Colithie: “saying
that he would not be corrected by him, and told him to go home and
correct his cottars; and that he had as much money as himself; and that
he should meet him whenever he pleased, with other abusive speeches,
and went out of the session with threatening and menacing words.” The
presbytery commanded him to pay a fine of twenty pounds, and to make
his public repentance in the church next Sunday. But the same day,
Mitchell gave in a complaint against George Gordon of Colithie for
slandering him; he was told, however, that he must lodge a pledge to
prove it, according to the order. He then answered, “that he saw no
law for him here, and would crave no law; ye may direct what ye please,
but he would not obey, and he should get a better advocate against the
next day.” In 1644, James Middleton of Tullobeg was brought before the
presbytery for speeches which he had uttered in the church, and for
quarrelling with the minister. The witnesses against him deponed that,
“when the minister chided him for his ignorance, he said that he cared
not for him nor any minister in Scotland, and bade the minister come
out to the churchyard and try himself if he pleased. Also, when the
minister said that he should cause him to be put in the stocks, he
replied, that neither he nor the best minister within seven miles durst
do so much.” The presbytery ordered that he should make satisfaction in
sackcloth, and pay ten pounds; but when this was intimated to him, he
answered in the hearing of the minister, “that he should as soon go and
hang himself as obey anything of the kind.” Thomas Dey in the parish
of Glass, was summoned by the presbytery, in October, 1648, because he
had failed to give satisfaction for his absence from church. Instead
of giving satisfaction on the appointed day when he was called by
the minister, he sat in his own seat opposite the pulpit and railed
against the minister, “and with execrable oaths said that he would not
acknowledge them nor their sentence.” The presbytery ordered him to be
again summoned.¹
¹ _Extracts from the Presbytery Book of Strathbogie_, pages 34,
37‒38, 46, 93.
These are only a few instances out of many of a similar character,
which tend to show that the clergy had not always submissive people to
deal with; indeed, they often encountered extreme opposition in their
efforts to reform the people to regular habits of life. Even during the
heat of the Covenanting period, when the Presbyterians attained their
greatest height of power, there was no lack of opposition to many of
their proceedings.
In the last volume it was stated that the reformed clergy and the
authorities continuously exerted themselves to secure the observance of
Sunday, but rooted customs and habits are persistent, and it requires
a long time to change or to direct them into other channels. It will
be remembered that, prior to the Reformation, it was the universal
custom to hold markets on Sunday, military musters of the people, and
to engage in many other affairs not at all connected with religion.
Accordingly, in spite of all the laws enacted after the Reformation,
all the efforts of the local magistrates, and all the discipline of
the Church, the complete observance of Sunday was not attained till
well through the seventeenth century. In the Acts of Parliament, the
proceedings of the Privy Council, the records of the burghs, and in
the records of all the Church courts, from the sessions to the General
Assemblies, there is a great mass of evidence of the vehemence of the
struggle for the observance of Sunday; and without entering into long
details, I will give illustrative and expository instances to complete
this part of social history.
The magistrates of Aberdeen, in 1608, asserted that one of the manifold
sins of the city was the breaking of Sunday by openly fishing salmon,
though this had been already four times condemned, “the possessors of
the waters preferring, as it appears, their own greed and avarice to
the glory and the worship of God, the manifest contempt of His law, and
the slander of the gospel.” Some promised to desist from this practice
of fishing on Sunday if their neighbours would do so, but others
refused to abandon it. The following year the session ordered visitors
to be appointed at the four chief outlets of the city, to watch those
who went out of the town on Sunday. The town’s piper was forbidden
to play his pipes on Sunday, under the penalty of losing his office,
and banishment from the city; while William Stewart, a fiddler, was
admonished not to play on Sunday. The tailors, the shoemakers, and the
bakers, were still in the habit of working in their booths every Sunday
morning for three or four hours, “to the dishonour of God and the
slander of the gospel,” and these parties were henceforth prohibited
from working at their trade on Sunday, under the penalty of ten
shillings. In 1647 the Town Council passed an act for enforcing a more
strict observance of Sunday. Many of the citizens were in the habit of
going to the Old Town and to other places, before and in the time of
preaching, quite regardless of the laudable acts of the kirk-session
which forbade such wandering upon Sunday; therefore, the council not
only ratified these acts in all points, but also anew ordained that
all should attend the parish church on Sunday in the forenoon and in
the afternoon, and hear the Word of God. All who disobeyed the act were
to be fined forty shillings, one-half of which was to be applied to
maintain the fabric of the church, and the other half to be given to
the poor. The council recommended the kirk-session to appoint captains
for taking the names of all who were found going to the Old Town fields
or walking about; and this was ordered to be intimated to the people
from the pulpit.¹
¹ _Selections from the Kirk-Session of Aberdeen_, pages 64‒68;
_Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., page 76.
During the Covenanting period, Parliament passed several acts for
securing a more complete observance of Sunday. After the custom of
holding markets on Sunday was abolished, it was found when they were
held on Mondays and Saturdays that they encroached upon the observance
of the Sabbath. A series of acts was therefore passed prohibiting
markets on Saturdays and Mondays, and everything was done to obtain
an entire cessation of all work and business on Sunday. But from
the frequent re-enactment of the acts prohibiting work on Sunday, it
may be inferred that they were often disregarded. According to the
acts of Parliament, the labour most persistently engaged in on Sunday
was the working of mills, salt-works, and salmon fishing, which were
emphatically specified in all the acts prohibiting labour on Sunday.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., pages 300,
301, 302, 473; Volume VI., pages 127, 128, 215, 370.
It was announced from the pulpits of Aberdeen in 1651, that no
inhabitant of the town should walk about the fields or go in companies
to the Castle Hill on Sunday. The same year, Jane Barclay was sharply
rebuked and admonished for going to the Old Town between the sermons,
and several other persons were called before the session for travelling
on Sunday.¹
¹ _Selections from the Records of the Kirk-Session of
Aberdeen_, pages 115, 136, 137.
The subject of Sunday-breaking by salmon fishing in the Dee and the
Don came before the synod of Aberdeen in 1657, and the discipline of
the Church was ordered to be enforced against all who engaged in such
profanation, and the assistance of the magistrates was asked to curb
the offenders. In 1663, the synod ordered that the Lord’s Day should
be strictly kept, and notice taken of those who travelled on Sunday,
who were to be censured according to the degree of their offence. As
late as 1680, it was stated that the Lord’s Day was everywhere profaned
by drinking, travelling to markets, engaging of servants, and making
bargains and contracts.¹
¹ _Selections from the Register of the Synod of Aberdeen_,
pages 234, 271, 272, 285, 332. There is some curious
information on the attempts to secure the observance of
Sunday in Dr. Davidson’s _History of Inverurie and the
Earldom of the Garioch_. This work contains much valuable
matter of a varied character, and to those with a taste for
local lore it is exceedingly interesting.
But, by the combined application of the means above indicated,
and chiefly by the constant exertion of the Church, ultimately an
observance of the Sabbath was attained in Scotland, unmatched in any
other nation.
Besides the devotion of Sunday to religious exercises, there were
daily morning and evening prayers in the churches of the burghs, and
preaching on two or three days of the week, and this was continued
until near the end of the seventeenth century. In the records of the
burghs, and of the Church courts, there are many acts, rules, and
notices touching the week-day meeting and preaching. In Edinburgh, in
1650, there was a lecture every afternoon, and the ministers of the
city performing the duty by turns. The town council of Aberdeen, in
1694, appointed the week-day sermons to be held in the new church; but
the next year, the council found that the morning and evening prayers
were not frequented as in former times, and therefore they were to
be discontinued.¹ As the energy of the people became more directed to
trade and industry, the preaching and the religious exercises in the
churches on week-days gradually fell into disuse, though in some towns
the practice has lingered on to the present time.
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 315, 317.
But the religious feeling of the age had yet another channel in which
it occasionally sought emphatic expression, under the form of the
national fast or humiliation. The General Assembly appointed the
national fasts, and gave the reasons why they should be held. One was
appointed in 1615, to begin on the last Sunday of March, and to be
continued to the first Sunday of April; and to enhance the solemnity
of the fast, it was enjoined that there should be public preaching in
all the burghs of the kingdom every day in the week, preceding the two
Sundays. “For many weighty causes moving the Church thereto, and among
the rest, by reason of the great number of Jesuits and seminary priests
come into this Island, and spread through all the corners thereof,
pressing by all possible means to subvert the true religion established
in this Isle.” In 1644, a fast was proclaimed throughout the kingdom,
chiefly on account of backsliding from the Covenant, the prevalence of
vice, and to entreat the favour of God for the parliamentary armies;
and also to pray that the King’s heart might be filled with the spirit
of reformation. A public fast was appointed to be held on the last
Sunday of August, 1649, for the following reasons:――“The sins of
the land, especially the sin of witchcraft; and the interruption of
the Lord’s work in England and in Ireland; to entreat the Lord to
deliver our King from the hands of malignants, and incline his heart
to give satisfaction in those things that concern religion; to pray for
steadfastness to this land, and especially to those in charge of public
affairs; to entreat the Lord to carry on his work in England and in
Ireland against all opposers of the same; and lastly, for a blessing
upon the harvest.”¹ In 1696, the Assembly appointed a national fast
to be observed on the 21st of January, to deprecate the wrath of God,
“which is very visible against the land, in the judgments of great
sickness and mortality in most parts of the kingdom, as also of growing
dearth and famine threatened, with the imminent hazard of an invasion
from cruel enemies abroad――all the just deservings and effects of
our continuing and abounding sins, and of our great security and
impenitence under them.”²
¹ _Acts of the General Assembly_; _Selections from the Records
of the Kirk-Session of Aberdeen_, page 82.
² _Acts of the General Assembly._
Besides the national fasts appointed by the Assembly, the local
authorities occasionally ordered fasts to be observed within the limits
of their jurisdiction. Thus the magistrates of Aberdeen commanded
fasts to be observed in the city in January, 1658, and in 1669; and
on the latter occasion the council, “considering the prevalence of
all sorts of sins within this burgh, such as drunkenness, uncleanness,
cursing, and the like, to the effect that the just judgments of God
may be averted, finds it expedient to indict a fast, to be kept by
the inhabitants of this burgh, and recommends to the magistrates to
intimate this to the ministers.” The Synod of Aberdeen ordered a fast
to be observed on the 28th of November, 1651, for the sins of the
land.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 170, 177, 253.
Drunkenness seems to have been rather prevalent. The light wines of
France were the common drink among the gentry, and ale among the people,
but stronger spirits were often used. The kirk-sessions frequently
took cognisance of cases of drunkenness. In the beginning of the year
1604, the Kirk-Session of Aberdeen had before them Robert Cuthberd,
a shoemaker, and Thomas Hay, a tinkler, and they were seriously
admonished to abstain from their excessive drinking and night-walking;
and that they should never entice Alexander Smith, shoemaker, to drink,
or draw him out for that purpose in the night, under the penalty of
being punished as night-walkers and drunkards. The Session in 1606
cited Alexander Mortimer and John Leslie for having abused themselves
by inordinate drinking of aquavitæ (whisky), and bringing slander on
this congregation by their drunkenness. In 1611, the Privy Council
renewed the former acts against night-walkers in Edinburgh, and idle
and debauched persons who went about the streets at night, indulging
their evil passions and frequently committing serious crimes. Direct
reference was made to several persons of this character, some of them
strangers, who wallowed in all kinds of excesses, riot and drunkenness,
committing enormities upon peaceable citizens, and cruelly attacking
the officers appointed to watch the city, and unmercifully slaying
them. The Council ordered that in future no one should remain on the
streets after ten at night. In 1619, Robert Hunter and James Hay were
admonished by the Kirk-Session of Aberdeen, to behave themselves better,
and to desist from their drinking. The town council of Aberdeen, in
1625, passed an act, “that no person should at any public or private
meeting presume to compel his neighbour to drink more wine or beer than
what he pleased, under the penalty of forty pounds.”¹
¹ _Selections from the Records of the Kirk-Session of
Aberdeen_, pages 29, 50, 78; _Register of the Privy Council_;
_Burgh Records of Aberdeen_.
It appears from the financial accounts of the burghs that drink was
pretty freely used on all public occasions; and in the accounts for
work done to the corporations, the sums given as drink-money are
frequently stated. For half-a-day’s work at the bridge of Tweed, a
workman was paid six shillings and sixpence Scots, and one shilling
and eightpence for drink. In the burgh of Peebles, Stephen Grieve and
his son were employed a day and a half erecting the gallows on which
the witches were to be hung, and they received forty shillings, and
eightpence for drink.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Peebles_, pages 50, 423, 224.
After the Restoration, among a portion of the upper classes,
drunkenness greatly increased. Excessive drinking was indulged in
without shame, and some men even gloried in it. Sometimes a company
of these gentlemen fell a carousing, and encouraged each other by
giving healths, and when they had exhausted their resources in drinking
healths, “not knowing whose to give next, one of them gives the devil’s
health, and the rest pledges him.”¹
¹ Robert Law’s _Memorials_, page 43.
Then, as now, habits of drinking and swearing were often associated,
and in many of the Acts of Parliament both offences were classed
together, and received the same kind of punishment. Besides the Acts of
Council, Parliament passed a series of acts from 1617 to 1696, for the
punishment of ♦drunkards; and in 1644, an act was passed which imposed
penalties upon the keepers of inns and ale-houses, if they sold drink
after ten at night or on Sunday. The act of 1617 asserted that the
detestable vice of drunkenness was daily increasing. It enacted that
public-houses should be closed at ten at night, and proposed a scale
of punishments for drunkards, consisting of fines, the stocks, and
imprisonment. For the execution of the act, special power was given to
the sheriffs, stewards, magistrates of burghs, and to the kirk-session
of every parish; and they were directed to meet and try drunkards,
and do everything requisite for the execution of the law. Innkeepers
who induced parties to become drunk were to be punished. The part
of the act of 1617 touching the punishment of offenders is to this
effect:――“All persons lawfully convicted of drunkenness, or of haunting
taverns or ale-houses after ten at night, or at any time of the day,
except when travelling or for ordinary refreshments, shall for the
first fault pay three pounds, and in case of inability to pay, to
be put in the stocks or into the jail for six hours; for the second
offence to pay five pounds, or be kept in the stocks or the jail for
twelve hours; for the third fault ten pounds, or twenty-four hours
in the stocks or the jail; and afterwards if they transgress, to be
imprisoned till they find caution for their good behaviour in time
coming.” In an act passed in 1645, “against swearing, drinking, and
mocking of piety,” the scale of punishments was stated thus: “Whosoever
shall swear or blaspheme, and whosoever shall drink excessively,
especially under the name of healths ... who shall be found guilty of
all or any one or other of the foresaid vices, by any kirk judicatories
to which they are subject, having been once already censured by
these courts for the same vice, shall after the second conviction be
censurable in the following manner: Each nobleman shall pay twenty
pounds for the second conviction, and for each one thereafter; each
baron twenty merks; each gentleman, proprietor, and burgess, ten merks;
each yeoman forty shillings, each servant twenty shillings, and each
minister the fifth part of his year’s stipend. And that wives who
offend against this act shall be punished according to the rank of
their husbands, and the husbands shall be liable for the payment of
their wives’ fines.” The money raised by these fines was to be applied
to pious uses in the parishes where the offenders resided. The act
against swearing and excessive drinking of 1661 repeats the scale
of fines of the act of 1645, with this addition, “and if any of the
parties offending be unable to pay the foresaid penalties, then to be
exemplarily punished in their bodies according to the degree of their
faults.”¹
♦ “drunkarks” replaced with “drunkards”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.; Volume
VI., page 128; Volume VII., pages 195, 262.
There was a constant struggle against immorality and drunkenness; and
in 1696, parliament passed an act ratifying and renewing “all former
laws and acts of parliament made against drunkenness, Sabbath-breaking,
swearing, fornication, uncleanness, mocking and reproaching religion
and the exercise thereof, and generally all laws made against
profaneness, and ordained the same to be put in full and vigorous
execution. And further, considering how much profanity and immorality
do abound over all the nation, to the dishonour of God, the reproach
of religion, and the discredit and weakening of the Government,
notwithstanding the many good laws that have been made against
profaneness,” therefore it was anew enacted that all those in authority
in every parish in the ♦kingdom should be obliged and required to put
these acts against profanity and immorality into full and due execution.
This act declared “that no pretence of different persuasion in matters
of religion shall exempt the offender from being censured and punished
for such immoralities as by the laws of this kingdom are declared to
be punishable by fining.” The Estates also recommended to the Lords of
the Privy Council to take such further steps as seemed requisite “for
restraining and punishing of all sorts of profanity and wickedness.”¹
♦ “kingdon” replaced with “kingdom”
¹ _Ibid._, Volume X. pages 65‒66.
Those at the head of the Government may not always have shown a good
example, but the magistrates of the burghs and the kirk-sessions
struggled manfully against drunkenness and immorality. In December,
1648, the town council of Aberdeen had before them a request from the
ministers, “desiring them to take notice of all the country people
found in the town, either drunk, swearing, or otherwise debauching
themselves, and notify their names to the ministers, who were then to
send such names to their own ministers, so that these offenders may be
punished as their own session thinks fit.” The council enacted “that
all persons, of whatever rank, found drunk, swearing, or debauching
themselves, should be ♦apprehended, imprisoned, and punished, at the
discretion of the magistrates.” In 1655, the council enacted that no
mariners, masons, stablers, slaters, millers, or any unfree person,
should presume to brew, vent, or sell ale, strong waters, or aquavitæ,
without a special licence from the council. The synod of Aberdeen,
in 1667, commanded all the ministers in the diocese to be careful
to execute the censures of the Church on drunkards, swearers, and
Sabbath-breakers. But in 1680, the synod had to announce that,
notwithstanding the glorious gospel vouchsafed to the people, with
plenty of temporal benefits, “iniquity does exceedingly abound in this
diocese, and part of the Church and kingdom, and especially the sins
of drunkenness, whoredom, and horrid cursing and swearing.”¹ The habit
of swearing and using imprecations had descended from pre-Reformation
times, and was extremely difficult to eradicate.
♦ “appreheneed” replaced with “apprehended”
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 93, 156;
_Selections from the Register of the Synod of Aberdeen_,
pages 284, 332.
Under the authority of the acts of parliament, the town councils
throughout the kingdom framed rules from time to time for restraining
this heinous offence. In 1642, the town council of Aberdeen stated
that the sin of swearing was increasing; and for curbing and punishing
all offenders of this character, they resolved “to ratify and approve
of all the acts passed by their predecessors in bygone times, and
particularly an act of the 7th of December, 1605, and anew ordained
that every master and mistress of a family in the burgh, as often as
any of them happens to be found banning and swearing any sort of oath,
shall pay eighteenpence to the poor, and each servant fourpence, which
shall be presently exacted of them by the master of the family, and
a box to be kept in every family for this purpose. For restraining
of children from swearing, there should be palmers in every family
wherewith to punish the children on their hands as often as they were
found swearing; and those of the poorer classes thus offending, as
beggars, scolds, and vagabonds, having no means to pay the penalties,
to be put in the stocks, and to stand there for three hours or longer,
according to the degree of their fault.” As swearing was most common
on the streets, at the burn-head, the flesh, the fish, the malt, and
the meal markets, and at the cross, where coals, fruit, and such things
were sold, the magistrates appointed captors and searchers to note
all persons found swearing at any of the above places. The names of
the captors and their several districts were minutely stated, and they
were empowered “to execute the penalties above specified; and if anyone
resisted and refused to give obedience, then the captors were to note
down their names and hand them to the magistrates, that they may take
steps for punishing and censuring the offenders according to the tenor
of this act.” These captors were also to visit families once a month,
to see if the act was obeyed and if any reformation was effected,
and to report those who had failed to obey to the kirk-session, to
be treated as they should think fit. Moreover, the captors had to
report if parents were careful in training their children, or if they
neglected them; and if there were idle and wicked rogues living without
all order and persisting in their evil ways, these were to be brought
to the correction-house, and there under the eyes of the captors
themselves, properly punished.¹ In 1678, the council commanded that all
persons found swearing on the streets, or in any other public place,
should be sharply punished.
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume III., pages 279‒281.
The relation of the different sexes was still somewhat lax; and
complaints were occasionally made of men and women living together
as married persons, though not lawfully married. Sometimes parties
who could not obtain marriage by the law and constitution of Scotland,
went to neighbouring countries and got themselves married; but in 1641,
Parliament prohibited this under severe penalties. An act was passed
in 1661 against clandestine and unlawful marriages, which also imposed
severe fines and penalties on the parties who entered into such unions,
and enacted “that the celebrators of such marriages shall be banished
from the kingdom, never to return thereto, under the pain of death.”
In 1695, an act was passed against clandestine and irregular marriages,
and another in 1698. The latter act enjoined for the better suppression
of these marriages, “that over and above the penalties contained in
the acts of 1661 and 1695 against clandestine and irregular marriages,
the celebrator of them shall be liable to be summarily seized and
imprisoned by any ordinary magistrate or justice of the peace, and
further punished by the Lords of his Majesty’s Privy Council, not only
by perpetual banishment, but also by such pecuniary or corporal pains
as the council shall think fit to inflict.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., page 388;
Volume VII., page 231; Volume X., page 149.
The church courts had frequently to deal with irregular and scandalous
marriages. All incestuous connections were severely treated both by
the civil law and by the Church. In 1668, the synod of Aberdeen passed
an act for restraining scandals at marriages. “It being represented
to the bishop and the synod that there had been frequently disorderly
marriages contrary to the authorised custom of the Church, to the great
offence of God and scandal of Christian people; therefore, for curbing
and restraining these enormities, the bishop and synod have ordained,
that ministers take diligent notice in their respective parishes of
such scandalous persons, and that whoever shall be convicted of having
violently carried away unmarried women, shall be censured to remove
the scandal in the same manner as it is enjoined for adulterers, even
should he afterwards extort the woman’s consent to marry him; and if
it be found that the woman carried away has been privy to the same, and
in collusion with the man, without the knowledge of her parents, then
the woman also should be censured. And further, it is enacted that all
those found guilty of accession to such scandalous violence in covering
and assisting any man in carrying away a woman, shall also be enjoined
to remove the scandal of his conduct in sackcloth, ... and the persons
so censured, in case of disobedience, to be excommunicated.” It was
also ordered that persons cohabiting together and pretending that they
were married by popish priests, should be proceeded against until they
made public acknowledgement of their sin of disorderly marriage, in
the face of the congregation. “Also, all persons cohabiting together
as married, who allege that they have privately plighted their faith to
one another; but if it be found that there was no intimation of their
purpose to the congregation, nor the marriage solemnised nor blessed
by any minister, then all that have so cohabited shall be censured as
fornicators, yea, and until they separate from each other, and having
removed the scandal, be lawfully married according to the order of
the Church. In like manner, when two persons come before a minister
in private or in public, declaring that they take each other as
husband and wife, and do forthwith cohabit together, and will not wait
the public intimation of their purpose to the congregation, or its
solemnisation by the minister, according to the order of the Church,
it is ordained that those guilty of this, for the time that is bygone,
shall make their public appearance in their own parish church, and
there, in the presence of the minister and of the congregation, confess
and crave God’s forgiveness of their sin, and thereupon receive the
orderly blessing to their marriage from the minister.”¹
¹ _Selections from the Register of the ♦Synod of Aberdeen_,
pages 290‒292. Some of the particulars of irregular marriage
indicated in the above quotation are exactly similar to
those which the reformed clergy had to deal with after the
Reformation in the sixteenth century, which I noticed in the
second volume, pages 261‒264.
♦ “Sgnod” replaced with “Synod”
Some of the old customs associated with marriages and burials still
survived. The custom of casting knots at marriages was occasionally
practised, but then punishable as a form of enchantment. In 1666,
James Smith was cited by the minister of Cluny, before the Synod of
Aberdeen, “for using enchantment by casting of the knots at marriages,
for unlawful ends, and the Synod ordained that he should give evidence
of his repentance in sackcloth.”¹ It had been long customary among the
people when a young couple were married, to receive a mixed company and
hold a sort of ball, while each person contributed something towards
the expense, a part of which was usually left over for the benefit
of the newly-wedded pair. This custom soon drew the attention of
the reformed clergy, and the kirk-sessions endeavoured to suppress
these promiscuous merry-makings, called “penny bridals;” and in 1581,
Parliament passed an act limiting the expense of marriages and banquets,
and similar acts were passed in 1621 and 1681. The General Assembly
passed an act against penny bridals, which enjoined the presbyteries
to use severe means to restrict them. In the Burgh Records of Aberdeen,
references to the act on superfluous banqueting at baptisms and other
meetings frequently occur, and in 1633, the Town Council made the
following additions to this act: “That none be found dancing through
the town at marriage feasts; nor any person invited to night-wakes
hereafter, but a few of the nearest neighbours of the deceased, ... and
ordains this to be proclaimed from the pulpits of both the churches of
the burgh.” They repeated this act, “in all points,” in 1636, again in
1661, and once more in 1671, with this addition, “that no inhabitant of
the burgh, of whatever rank, shall invite more persons to the baptism
of their children than four men and four women,” under the penalty
of a fine for each person above that number. The Act of Parliament of
1681, for restraining the expense of marriages, baptisms, and burials,
enacted, “that at marriages, besides the married persons, their parents,
children, brothers, and sisters, and the family wherein they live,
there shall not be present at any marriage above four friends on
either side, with their ordinary domestic servants. And that neither
bridegroom nor bride, nor their parents or relations, shall make above
two changes of raiment at that time or upon that occasion,” under
the penalty of forfeiting the fourth part of their annual income or a
fourth part of their goods. The number of the company at baptisms was
limited the same as at marriages. The number of persons permitted to
attend the funerals of the different ranks are also stated in the act.¹
¹ _Selections from the Register of the Synod of Aberdeen_, page
280.
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume III., pages 54, 105;
Volume IV., pages 213, 274; also, _Burgh Records of Glasgow_;
and _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., page
350.
It seems that at penny marriages fights and other excesses sometimes
occurred, and that intoxicating spirits were freely indulged in. In
some parts of the country the lairds bound their tenants to hold all
their marriages at an alehouse.¹
¹ Dr. Davidson says, “Alehouses were largely established by
the lairds in order to the sell and consumption of the bear
crops in malt, and their tenants were required to make all
their weddings penny bridals, and held at an alehouse; where
the innkeeper supplied the eatables on the occasion gratis,
finding his profit in the ale consumed during the festivities,
which were prolonged for days.”――_Inverurie, and the Earldom
of the Garioch_, pages 319, 340.
In 1643 the Town Council of Aberdeen resolved to correct the disorders
connected with the dead, as ringing of bells and other superstitious
rites at funerals. They henceforth “discharged the tolling of bells
at funerals, and laying of the bier and mortcloth on the graves of
deceased persons; and prohibited all the inhabitants from inviting the
master doctor of the grammar school to sing or read at likewakes, under
a penalty of forty pounds.”¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., page 6.
The Government deemed it a duty to regulate the dress of the people,
and to prescribe the exact habit which each rank should wear. In 1621
Parliament enacted that no one should wear gold or silver lacing on
their clothes, nor any velvet, satin, or silks, save the nobles. The
King’s councillors, lords of Parliament, lords of session, and barons
with a yearly rent of six thousand merks of silver, were allowed to
appear in silk and satin apparel; while the provosts and magistrates
of the principal burghs, and the rectors of the universities, were to
be permitted to wear fine dresses under the condition “that they should
have no embroidering or lace or passements upon them, save only a plain
welting lace of silk upon the seams and borders of their garments,
with belts and hatbands embroidered with silk; and that their wives,
their eldest sons, their unmarried daughters, and the children of all
noblemen, should wear their dress in the aforesaid manner only, under
a penalty of a thousand pounds.” All other persons were prohibited from
having pearling or ribboning upon their ruffles, shirts, napkins, and
socks; if the people still resolved to have pearling upon their clothes,
it should be produced in Scotland. “Further, that no one should wear
upon their heads buskings or feathers; that no other persons except
those privileged should wear any pearls or precious stones, under the
penalty of a thousand merks. It was also stated that no persons should
wear upon their bodies tiffanies, under the penalty of a hundred pounds;
that no servants should wear any clothing save that made of cloth,
fustians, canvas, or stuffs produced in the kingdom; they should have
no silk upon their clothes except the buttons and button-holes, and
silk garters without pearling or roses, under the penalty of a hundred
merks. But it was declared to be lawful for them to wear their masters’
old clothes. It was also declared that heralds, trumpeters, and
minstrels, were exempted from the act. It was further enacted that no
one save the privileged classes should wear damask napery brought from
abroad, under a penalty of a hundred pounds. It was likewise statuted
that no more mourning weeds should be made at the death of an Earl or
a Countess than twenty-four at the utmost, and for a lord of Parliament
or his wife not more than sixteen, and for all other privileged persons,
twelve; and that none but these should have any honours carried, and
that no mourning weeds should be given to the heralds, trumpeters,
or sachs, except by the Earls, the lords of parliament and their
wives, and that the number of sachs should be exactly according to the
mourning weeds, under the penalty of a thousand pounds. It was enacted
that the fashion of clothes then in use should not be changed by man
nor woman, under the penalty of forfeiting the clothes and a hundred
pounds to be paid by the wearers thereof, and as much by the makers of
the clothes. And also that no castor hats should be used or worn but by
the privileged classes, under the penalty of a hundred pounds. That the
husbandmen and the labourers of the land should wear no clothing but
grey, white, blue, and serge black cloth, made in Scotland, and that
their wives and their children should wear the same, under the penalty
of forty pounds. Finally, it was enjoined that after the publication of
this act, no clothes should be made but according to the manner and the
style before expressed, and that none of the former discharged clothing
be worn by anyone after Martinmas, 1623, under the respective penalties
above stated.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.
This act, with some alterations, was re-enacted in 1672, and again in
the following year, with the removal of some of the former restrictions
touching the wearing of white lace or pearling made of thread, and
some other explanations. But as late as 1696, a proposal was mooted
in Parliament for a constant fashion of clothes for men, and another
for women. Two years after, Parliament had under consideration an act
for restraining the expense of apparel; and a debate ensued on the
point whether the prohibition of gold and silver on clothes should be
extended to house furniture, and it was carried that it should. It was
then put to a division, whether gold and silver lace manufactured in
Scotland should be allowed on clothes, and the majority voted against
it; and thereupon, an act was passed prohibiting the wearing of gold
and silver lace, and also the importation of the same, under the
penalties of burning of the articles on which it was found, and five
hundred merks of a fine imposed upon the person wearing it.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume VIII., pages 71‒72, 212; Volume X., Appendix,
page 6, pages 142, 144, 150.
The dress of the common people was made of a plain cloth, called hodden
gray, spun at home and manufactured from the undyed wool. In summer
the women usually went barefooted, and the children generally ran about
without shoes or stockings in summer.
In the preceding periods, the defective sanitary condition of the
towns was noticed, and with it the consequent and frequent recurrence
of pestilence. One of the first requisites of a town where a large
population is located within a limited space, is a constant and
sufficient supply of clean water; but in the seventeenth century,
even the capital of Scotland had not a constant supply of pure water.
It is recorded in 1654, that owing to the drought of the summer the
wells ran dry, and the inhabitants of Edinburgh could not get enough
of water for cooking their food, and some of them had to go a mile and
more before they could obtain clean water. In Glasgow, notices of the
public wells occur in the records of the city from the latter half of
the sixteenth century onward to the present time. The magistrates, in
1610, authorised a well to be built upon the side of the Highgate, “so
that it be built five quarter height above the ground, with asler work
for the safety of the bairns and other persons ... and the well to be
common to all men of this town.” In 1630, they ordered that the new
well in the Trongate should be slated in the best form, and two pumps
attached to it, and that it should be cleaned as soon as possible; and
in 1638, some improvements were made on the common wells.¹
¹ Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of Scotland_, Volume II., page
226; _Burgh Records of Glasgow_, pages 312, 390. In 1575, the
provost and council of Glasgow ordered that “the new common
wells in the Gallowgate shall be opened daily in the morning
and locked at even, and appointed a man to attend thereto,
and to keep the well and the key thereof, and to get forty
shillings of fee for his trouble during the year.”――_Burgh
Records of Glasgow_, page 39.
In 1632, the town council of Aberdeen had under their consideration
the inconvenience which the people suffered for want of clean and pure
water. As the most of the water which they were then using, “coming
only from the loch, is filthy, defiled, and corrupted, not only by the
gutters daily running in the burn, but also by listers, and the washing
of clothes, and pollution of the water in several parts, with other
sorts of uncleanness,” they therefore resolved that fountains should be
erected as soon as possible to supply the town with pure water. Some of
the crafts objected to the payment of their share of the requisite tax;
but upon the petition of the magistrates, the Privy Council empowered
the town council to impose a tax to defray the expense of the new
fountains, and to enforce its payment. Yet these efforts to supply
the citizens with pure water were only partly successful. In 1683,
the deficiency of clean water was again before the magistrates, and it
was stated that the bringing in of water and of erecting fountains had
often been attempted, but had not as yet been effectively accomplished.
The dean of guild was requested to inquire among the inhabitants what
they would be willing to contribute to forward this work, and to report;
but more than twenty years elapsed ere the city was supplied with pure
water. The council granted authority to purchase lead for the pipes
and the cisterns required for bringing in the water from Carden well;
and James Mackie and John Burnet were engaged to build the first fount
at the spring of Carden’s well, for the sum of ten pounds sterling.
The treasurer was allowed to borrow money for bringing in this water;
and it seems that the work was completed in 1708, as the council then
resolved, on account of the many obstacles which Joseph Foster, plumber,
had encountered in bringing in the water, to give him a gratuity of two
hundred pounds Scots, with thirty-six shillings of drink money to his
servants.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume III., pages 50, 51, 55,
58, 303, 333‒334; Volume IV.
As regards cleanness, the state of the towns was most wretched. In
March, 1619, the Privy Council communicated with the magistrates
of Edinburgh touching the cleaning of the streets in the following
terms:――“The city is now become so filthy and unclean, the streets,
the vennels, the wynds, and the closes thereof, so overlaid and covered
with middings, and with the filth of man and of beast, as that the
noble councillors, servants, and others of His Majesty’s subjects, who
are lodged in the burgh, cannot have clean or clear passage and entry
to their lodgings; and because of this, their lodgings have become
so loathsome to them, as they are resolved rather to make choice of
lodgings in the Canongate and in Leith, or some other parts about the
town, than to abide the sight of this shameful uncleanness, which is
so universal and in such abundance throughout all parts of this burgh,
as in the heat of summer it corrupts the air and gives great occasion
to sickness. And further, this shameful and beastly filthiness is
most detestable and odious in the sight of strangers, who, beholding
the same, are constrained, with reason, to give out many disgraceful
speeches against this burgh, calling it a puddle of filth and
uncleanness, the like of which is not to be seen in any part of the
world.” The plan proposed by the council was, that each householder
should keep the street clean opposite his own door, as was done in
other well-governed cities.¹ There was no idea of a cleaning department
of police, but there was a sort of arrangement adopted for cleaning
the streets of Edinburgh at stated times, though it long remained in a
very defective condition. During the reign of Cromwell, more effective
measures were taken for cleaning the streets, and for preventing foul
water from being thrown out at the windows.
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._
In 1686, Parliament passed an act for cleaning the streets of Edinburgh,
in which it was stated that there had been many complaints of the
nastiness of the streets, wynds, closes, and other places of the city.
And the magistrates were commanded to adopt effectual means for freeing
the capital of such nastiness; and at the same time to purge it of
“those numerous beggars who resort in and about the burgh, and that
under the penalty of a thousand pounds Scots yearly, to be paid by the
magistrates to the Lords of Session, to be applied by them for the end
and use aforesaid.” The magistrates were to be authorised to impose a
tax for cleaning the streets of the city.¹
¹ Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of Scotland_, Volume II., page
212; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII.,
page 595.
The arrangements for cleaning the other burghs of the kingdom were
equally defective. In 1674, the town council of Aberdeen stated, that
in spite of the many acts of their predecessors emitted for cleaning
the streets of the burgh, and removing the middings and filth, yet
there had been little observance of them. Therefore, they resolved
that a fit person should be employed, and one or two horses and carts
furnished to him at the town’s charge, “for keeping the streets and the
common passages of the burgh clean, and for taking away the middings
and dubs off the streets.” This person was empowered to go through
all the streets and lanes of the town every morning, and at all other
times which he thought fit, to remove all the middings and dubs which
he found upon them. In this act there are some curious and amusing
statements. “The man appointed to clean the streets was to apply the
dung for the use of the burgh and the freedom lands of the same, and
no otherwise, at such price as shall be appointed by the council; and
for any red, middings, or filth, that shall be taken out of the closes
and laid down upon the front streets, if the owners do not within
twenty-four hours after the same is laid down, take away or remove it
to a convenient place of the street, that then the aforesaid person is
hereby empowered to remove it for his own use; and that if the person
appointed for this purpose, coming to any midding to take it away,
and the owner at the same time coming and instantly taking it to
a convenient place of the street, he shall be permitted to do so.
Also, it is and shall be lawful for any labourers or others to take
and remove any middings and filth which they shall first attack and
apprehend, and apply the same to their own use only, and no otherwise,
if the owner thereof shall not instantly remove the same as aforesaid.”
In 1679, the town council ordered that no one should throw out at their
windows filth upon the streets, or permit it to lie before their doors
on the streets, under a penalty of forty shillings.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 291, 299.
It was already mentioned that, in the sixteenth century, swine were
allowed to run about the streets of the burghs, and the magistrates of
Aberdeen passed many acts for expelling them from the streets of the
city. But in spite of this, swine were still kept within the town in
greater numbers than formerly; and in 1696, they had become a great
nuisance and an unseemly sight in the burgh. Therefore, the council
enacted that parties who had swine in the town should remove them all
out of the burgh, and a quarter of a mile beyond it, before two o’clock
the next day; and that in future all the swine found on the streets
or within doors should be confiscated, and one half of the proceeds
to be given to the poor, and the other half to those who seized the
swine; and anyone who seized swine in the city was to be freed from all
trouble. The act was ordered to be proclaimed at the cross and through
all the streets of the town, that none might pretend ignorance. It was
stated in the council “that there was a great number of swine, which
formerly were not permitted to stay within this burgh, and seeing by
experience they are found very prejudicial to the yards in and about
the town, in digging up the same, as also by their digging in the
middings and in all sorts of filth, does rise an intolerable smell,
besides the danger to children by them, and the unseemliness of having
such creatures within the walls of a city.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume IV., page 319.
The local trade in the various burghs of the kingdom was still hampered
by monopoly. It was as yet common to fix the price of articles of daily
use, such as bread, ale, shoes, and tallow. In 1640, the Committee of
Estates passed an act fixing the price of shoes, boots, hides, and the
tanning of leather, which was approved by Parliament, and proclaimed at
the cross of Edinburgh. This act commanded the shoemakers to sell their
boots and shoes at the following prices:――Three-soled shoes of the best
leather were to be sold at two shillings and twopence per inch, and
the third quality of three-soled shoes at twentypence the inch; the
best single-soled shoes at sixteenpence the inch, and the second sort
at fourteenpence the inch. Children’s double-soled shoes of the best
quality, sixteenpence the inch; and the second sort of lighter leather
at fourteenpence the inch, and for single-soled shoes, of eight inches
and under, twelvepence the inch. Women’s shoes of the best quality,
timber-heeled, to be sold at two shillings and twopence per inch;
the second sort, with timber heels, at one shilling and eightpence.
Touching the price of boots it was enacted, “that there be allowed
of the best leather for each inch of the length of the boots eight
shillings and eightpence per inch, the tops being long and of the
best quality.” For various reasons the Committee of Estates thought
fit to fix the price of boots and shoes in Edinburgh at fourpence per
inch higher than the above on the best kind of shoes, and so on in
proportion for the cheaper classes of the same articles.
The penalties to be imposed on all who refused to sell at the stated
prices, and the fines for using insufficient materials, were to be
divided, one half to the informer, and the other half to the judge,
for the public use. If any of the shoemakers refused to work and left
off, they were to be fined forty pounds, besides other punishment which
might be inflicted upon their persons.
The Town Council of Aberdeen, in 1656, fixed the price of shoes at
the following rates:――Double soled shoes made of foreign leather,
three shillings per inch; double-soled shoes made of Scotch leather,
two shillings and sixpence the inch; single soled shoes without walts,
sixteenpence the inch; and children’s shoes, double-soled, eightpence
the inch. Those who broke the above prices rendered themselves liable
to a penalty of five pounds.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., page 163.
In the year 1659, the tailors of Inverness petitioned the magistrates,
that they were much injured in their trade by its being encroached
upon and taken away by outlandish men, dwelling around the burgh, and
evading the taxes, and yet they came and stole away the trade of the
place, “to our great and apparent ruin.” The authorities listened to
their complaint, and empowered them to restrain all outlandish tailors,
and to seize their work, and then bring the whole affair before the
magistrates. But two years later they were again petitioning the
magistrates and complaining of the outlandish hands, and they argued
that all unfreemen should be prevented from usurping the rights of
freemen, and from keeping apprentices or employing servants.
Troubles of a bitter character sometimes arose from corporation
privileges. All attempts of unfreemen to work within the royal burghs
were met with measures of obstruction and punishment. In October, 1692,
William Somerville, a wright, and a burgess of Edinburgh, was engaged
in repairing the Earl of Roxburgh’s house in the Canongate, but Thomas
Kinloch, the deacon of the wrights of the latter burgh, assisted by a
party of his associates, took away all the workmen’s tools. This was
done to prevent the Edinburgh wrights from working in a district where
they were not free. Somerville shortly after demanded the restoration
of his workmen’s tools, but they were distinctly refused. The Earl
of Roxburgh was a minor, but his curators were irritated at the
proceedings, and concurred with Somerville in summoning the deacon of
the Canongate wrights before the Privy Council, for riot and oppression
in the Earl’s house. It seems, if the Earl’s house had been subject
to the jurisdiction of the Canongate, the Privy Council would have
been precluded from giving any redress, but when the Earl’s ancestor
relinquished the superiority of the Canongate, he still continued to
hold his mansion of the Crown, so it was argued that the Canongate
corporation had no jurisdiction in this case, and consequently no right
to interfere with the action of his Lordship in the choice of craftsmen
to perform work in his own house. The Council remitted this point to
the Court of Session, which at once ordered the restoration of the
workmen’s tools.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._ Chambers, in his _Domestic
Annals_, gives an instance of oppression by the Merchant
Company of Edinburgh, who had the sole right of dealing in
cloth of all kinds within the city. Volume III., page 70.
The wage of skilled workmen in Scotland was comparatively low, but then
food was usually cheap, and it is the relation which wages bears to the
price of the necessaries of life――the purchasing power of the sum at
the time――that is the really important point. About the middle of the
seventeenth century, from fourpence to sixpence a day, or about three
shillings sterling a week, would represent the wages of a tradesman;
but direct information on the subject is so scanty that a precise
statement of their wages cannot be made. In 1655, two men were employed
for twenty-four days slating and pointing a house; they got their food
during that time, and twenty-four shillings, or twopence in sterling
money per day.
The wages of servants generally, and in particular of domestic servants
and agricultural labourers, were very low. As a class these were
then, and for long after, in a very humble position, as compared with
that which they now hold. The yearly wages of farm servants in the
seventeenth century, and till the rise of modern agriculture, were only
from twenty-five to thirty-five shillings sterling; women’s wages were
about a third less than the men’s.
Any law that existed on the relation between master and servant was
mostly on the side of the former, but there was little distinct law on
the subject. In 1610, Glasgow was much annoyed with servants “who fee
themselves with two masters,” and the Town Council therefore commanded,
“that all such servants as hereafter fee themselves to two masters,
must pay to the one into whose service they fail to enter, both the fee
and the bounty which was promised to them, and also to be imprisoned
for twenty days upon bread and water.” In 1610, the magistrates of
Peebles had many complaints lodged about the misdeeds of servants――“for
drinking on the night, running about, and refusing to do any kind of
work.” They therefore enacted that no servant should drink after eight
at night, under the penalty of thirteen shillings for each fault, and
that no one should sell them drink on Sunday; that servants should not
refuse to do any kind of work, either in or out of the house, under
the penalty of six shillings and eightpence for each fault, which
sum the master may deduct from their wages; that no one should engage
another man’s servant, except the servant prove by two witnesses that
he warned his master forty days before the term, under the penalty of
five pounds, one half for the use of the poor, and the other to the
master.¹ By a clause of an Act of Parliament passed in 1617, concerning
the establishment of justices of peace, the justices of peace were
empowered to fix the rate of wages. At their quarter sessions in August
and in February, they were enjoined to fix the wages of labourers,
workmen, and servants; and those who refused to work or serve for the
wages thus settled, were to be imprisoned, and further punished at
the discretion of the justices. To induce the servants to obey their
decrees more readily, they were empowered to compel the masters to
pay the servants the stated amount of wages when duly earned. This
Act was repeated in 1661.² The circumstance affording a measure of
justification for it was the comparatively large proportion of the
population of the kingdom always living by begging and vagabondism;
this class presented a real difficulty, and the Government grasped
at any expedient which seemed to encourage the hope of reducing the
numbers of the idle and vagrant multitude.
¹ _Burgh Records of Glasgow_; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_;
_Burgh Records of Aberdeen_. Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of
Scotland_, Volume II., page 235. _Burgh Records of Peebles_,
pages 358‒360.
² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.; Volume
VII., page 308.
Partly owing to these circumstances, and partly owing to other motives,
the workmen in coal-mines and at salt-works in Scotland were kept in
a state of semi-slavery for more than a century and a half. In 1606,
Parliament passed an Act binding this class of workmen to perpetual
service at the works in which they were engaged. This Act enjoined that
no one should hire salters, colliers, or coal-bearers, without their
masters’ consent, or at least an attestation of a reasonable cause for
their removing, made in the presence of a magistrate of the district
whence they removed. Therefore, if anyone engaged persons of this
description, without conforming with the law, their former master could
reclaim them, and enforce their re-delivery, under a penalty of one
hundred pounds. Further, if the colliers, coal-bearers, and salters,
should accept forehand wages, they were to be held and reputed as
thieves, and punished in their persons. This law was re-enacted in
1661, with an addition, including the watermen engaged in drawing off
the water from the coal pits,――“as they are as necessary to the owners
and masters of the pits as the colliers and the bearers.” And because
it was found by experience that giving high wages to colliers had
been used to seduce them from their masters, therefore, it was enacted
that no coalmaster in the kingdom should give a higher wage than
twenty merks yearly to each man, that is, one pound two shillings and
sixpence sterling. It was also found that colliers and salters, and
other workers about the pits, were accustomed to stay from their work
on certain holidays, accordingly it was enacted that henceforth they
should work all the six days of the week, except Christmas, under the
penalty of twenty shillings Scots, to be paid to their masters for each
day that they failed to work, and any other corporal punishment which
their masters thought fit to inflict upon them.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume VII., page 304.
Thus it was that from the early part of the seventeenth century till
near the end of the eighteenth, the colliers and the coal-bearers,
and those employed at saltworks in Scotland, remained in a state of
semi-slavery. When collieries and saltworks were sold, the right of
the service of the workers was transferred to the new proprietor as a
portion of fixed stock. By an act of the British Parliament, in 1775,
they were emancipated, but a considerable time elapsed ere they were
able to take much advantage of their freedom. This act was clogged with
special conditions, which many of the colliers failed to comply with,
and they continued in bondage, till the act of 1799 was passed, when
they became really free.
Though the mining operations of Scotland were not as yet on a great
scale, they added to the slowly advancing progress of the nation. In
the first part of the century the coal works of Culross were worked
some distance under the sea. But it appears from a petition to the
Privy Council in 1621, that the proprietors of collieries were not
making fortunes, as it was then stated that some of the owners of
coal-haughs were ten thousand pounds, and even twenty thousand, out
of pocket. The Master of Elphinstone’s coal mine of Little Fawside had
been on fire for several years, and another mine of his had entailed
an outlay of eight thousand pounds. The pits of Sir James Richardson of
Smeaton for some years had been so unproductive as scarcely to supply
his own house; the coal of Mickle Fawside had undone the late laird’s
estate, and caused him to sell a part of his old heritage. The coal
of Pencaitland was wasted and decayed, and past hope of recovery,
except at a cost far greater than it was worth. The Council appointed
a commission to make inquiry, and to report what prices should be fixed
for coal. Upon this report it was ordered that the price of coal “at
the hill” should be seven shillings and eightpence per load――that is,
♦about sevenpence three-farthings sterling. It should, however, be
mentioned that in these days a load meant a horse’s burden.¹
♦ duplicate word “about” removed
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._
The Privy Council passed an act in 1621, in favour of Mr. Johnston, the
laird of Elphinstone, because he had expended twenty thousand merks on
his coal works, “to his great hurt and apparent ruin.” It was stated
that he sustained forty families at the work, that their weekly wages
exceeded two hundred merks; and that his coal would be lost, and all
his workers thrown out of employment, if something was not done to
assist him, as he was unable any longer to struggle with the adverse
circumstances in which he found himself. According to his statement,
the average weekly wages of a collier’s family reached about five
shillings and sixpence sterling.¹
¹ Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of Scotland_, Volume I., page 516.
As noticed in the preceding volume, the Privy Council from time to time
had made regulations for fixing the price of coal, and prohibiting the
export of it until all the people of the kingdom were supplied. A duty
of six shillings was imposed in 1644 on coal exported in Scotch or
English vessels of the value of twelve pounds, but if it was exported
in foreign ships the duty was twelve shillings. In 1655 and 1656 the
custom on Scotch coal was fixed at four shillings per ton in British
ships, but eight shillings if exported in foreign vessels. Small coal
was only charged at half the above rates. According to a Parliamentary
return of Richard, the Lord Protector, in April, 1659, the annual value
of the custom on the export of Scotch coal amounted to £2216 sterling.
The Ayr coal fields began to assume importance in the latter part of
the century.
Prior to the eighteenth century the quantity of iron produced in
Scotland was comparatively small; but there were several lead mines
worked. In 1641, Sir James Hope of Hopetoun obtained a grant of the
lead mines in Waterhead and Glengonar; and in 1649 an Act of Parliament
was passed, which enacted that any one fraudulently intromitting with
his lead ore should be punished as resetters of stolen goods. The same
year Parliament exempted Sir James Hope’s mines from the valuation
of the sheriffdom, because they were the only ones of that kind in
the kingdom, and ought to be specially favoured. In 1661 Parliament
ratified the former Acts in favour of Sir James Hope; at that time the
family possessed the lead mines in Crawford Moor, and also the copper
mines in Airthrey, and the Binnie silver mines.
In 1698, Hope of Hopetoun had a party of men constantly employed at his
lead mines far up one of the vales of Lanarkshire. As it was extremely
inconvenient for every man to go several miles for his food, and the
proprietor was anxious to make an arrangement that one should go and
purchase necessaries for himself and the rest; but under a recent Act
against forestalling, no one could venture to sell to any single person
so much victual as the miners needed. Hope, therefore, applied to the
Privy Council for permission to his baillie to purchase the quantities
of victual required, with the assurance that none of it would be stored
or sold out to any other person except his own workmen, and that it
should be sold to them at the price which it was bought for in the
market. On these grounds the Council granted Hope a license to supply
food to his workmen. At the same time licenses were granted to the
chamberlain of the Earl of Mar, for the benefit of the workmen engaged
in his Lordship’s coal mines; to the Duke of Queensberry, for the
workmen at his lead mines; to the Earl of Annandale, for his servants
and workmen; and to Alexander Inglis, factor for the collieries on the
estate of Clackmannan.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volumes V., VI., and VII. All these noblemen were
members of the Privy Council.
Means of intercourse, as roads, bridges, communication by sea, and
postal arrangements, are closely connected with trade and national
progress. Roads in the order of development naturally precede other
modes of transit, and are followed by ferry-boats, canals, improved
harbours, and a regular postal system. As civilisation advances,
these are rapidly improved, and by and by partly superseded by better
expedients and arrangements, as steamships, railways, telegraphic
and telephonic communication, all which evince the resources of the
human mind. But merely to state results leaves the steps of progress
unexplained, and gives no conception of the many difficulties and
obstacles which had to be encountered and overcome ere the desired aim
was reached; accordingly it is necessary to enter into details in order
to render the development of social organisation intelligible, as well
as to indicate the obstacles which impede the progress of civilisation.
By an Act of Parliament passed in 1617, Justices of Peace were
empowered to give orders for repairing the roads and passages to market
towns and seaports, when they deemed it necessary. Those who refused to
assist at this work might be punished at the discretion of the Justices;
but the arrangement had not proved effective. In 1669, another Act was
passed authorising the Sheriff of the county and the Justices of Peace
to meet at the head burgh of the shire on the first Tuesday of May
every year, and frame measures for repairing the roads, bridges, and
ferries within their bounds. They were enjoined to appoint some of
their number as overseers of such parts of the roads as were nearest to
their residence; and also to appoint some of themselves to survey the
roads, the bridges, and the ferries, and then report to the rest, and
continue to meet from time to time till the survey was completed. They
were authorised to convene all the tenants, their servants, and the
cottars within their district, by intimation at the parish churches
on Sunday, warning them to have in readiness their horses and carts,
sledges, spades, shovels, picks, mallets, and all implements required
for repairing the highways. Some of the more expert men should be
appointed to direct the rest, at a fixed rate of wages. According to
the Act, these parties had to work on the roads, “man and horse,” six
days every year for the first three years, and afterwards four days.
The Justices of Peace and the overseers were empowered to fine those
who absented themselves, twenty shillings for each day a man was absent,
and thirty shillings if a man and horse were absent, which money was
applied to hire others in their place. It was well understood that this
arrangement would not be sufficient for keeping the roads in repair,
accordingly all proprietors of each county were authorised to meet once
a year, and consider what was necessary for repairing the highways,
and for making and repairing bridges and ferries. For this purpose
they were empowered to impose a tax not exceeding ten shillings on
every hundred pounds of valued rental; and they were authorised to
levy moderate custom or toll at bridges and ferries. The Justices
were empowered to punish all who injured the roads, by ploughing up,
laying stones, rubbish or dung upon them; and where cultivated land
lay alongside of the roads it should be fenced with dykes, ditches, or
hedging. Where it was necessary to change the line of the road, they
were to appoint three of their number to mark the direction of the
new road, and upon oath to estimate the damage to the parties whose
properties were encroached upon. By this Act the time appointed for
repairing the roads was between seed-time and harvest; but on the
ground that other seasons of the year were more convenient for working
at the roads, Parliament passed another Act in 1670, authorising the
Sheriffs and Justices of Peace to convene those liable for this work at
any time of the year which they thought fit, excepting always seed-time
and harvest.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.; Volume
VII., pages 574‒576; Volume VIII., page 18.
With the aim of making these Acts still more effective, Parliament in
1686 passed an additional Act touching the highways and bridges. It
enjoined the Commissioners of Supply to meet with the Justices of Peace,
and to act together in their several counties according to the tenor of
the preceding Acts. They were directed to meet every year in the month
of June, five to form a quorum, and if a quorum should not assemble,
then the Sheriff was empowered to fine each of those who were absent
twenty merks, which sum was to be applied for repairing of the roads
and bridges.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume VIII., page 590.
According to a series of Acts reaching back to the twelfth century, all
the common highways between market towns had to be twenty feet broad at
the least, and where they happened to be broader, they were to remain
so. Those who put any obstruction upon the highways could be put under
caution by the Court of Session not to commit the like again, under
a severe ♦penalty.¹ Notwithstanding all this minute legislation, the
roads in Scotland, even at the end of the seventeenth century, were
in a wretched condition, and it was not till the latter half of the
eighteenth century that the roads throughout the country were put in
a proper state for traffic.
♦ “penality” replaced with “penalty”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I.; Volume II.
A single illustration of the actual condition of the roads near the
capital of the kingdom in 1680 may suffice on this point. The first
four miles of the road from Edinburgh to London, the part from the
Clockmill Bridge to Magdalen Bridge, was in such a ruinous state that
passengers were in danger of their lives, “either by their coaches
overturning, their horses falling, or their carts breaking, their loads
casting, and horses stumbling; and the poor people with their burdens
upon their backs sorely grieved and discouraged. Also, strangers do
often exclaim thereat.” The Council authorised a toll of a half-penny
for a loaded cart, and a sixth of a penny for a loaded horse, for the
purpose of keeping this portion of the road in repair.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._
Turning to the means of communication by post, it appears that the
arrangements were of the most primitive description. In the sixteenth
century there was no regular system for the transmission of letters in
Scotland. When anything was unusually pressing and important, a special
messenger was dispatched. About the end of the century, Aberdeen had
an officer called the common post, and in 1595, the magistrates ordered
that he should have a distinctive livery of blue, with the town’s
arms on it. In the early part of the seventeenth century there were
a kind of posts at certain intervals or places, where horses could
be had for travelling, and these were occasionally used for conveying
public letters; but such arrangements were limited and very imperfect.
Till 1635 there had been no constant intercourse between England and
Scotland; but then the King’s postmaster of England, for foreign parts,
commanded that there should be “one running post or two, to run day
and night between Edinburgh and London, to go thither and come back
again in six days, and to take with them all such letters as should be
directed to any post town on the said road, and the posts to be placed
in several places out of the road, to run, and bring, and carry out
of the said road the letters, as there shall ♦be occasion, and to pay
twopence for every single letter under eighty miles, and if one hundred
and forty miles, fourpence, and if above, then sixpence. The like rule
the King is pleased to order to be observed to West Chester, Holyhead,
and thence to Ireland, and also to observe the same rule from London to
Plymouth, Exeter, and other places on that road; the same for Oxford,
Bristol, Colchester, Norwich, and other places. The King commands that
no other messenger or foot-posts shall take up, carry, receive, or
deliver any letters whatsoever, other than the messengers appointed
by Thomas Witherings, Esquire, except common carriers, or a particular
messenger purposely sent with a letter to a friend.” The post between
London and Edinburgh was conducted on horseback; it commonly went
twice a week, but sometimes only once. During the Covenanting struggle,
communication became irregular.¹
♦ “he” replaced with “be”
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_,
Volume II.; _Burgh Records of Glasgow_, pages 327‒347;
Rushworth’s _Collections_.
In 1649, John Mean, the postmaster of Edinburgh, stated that “the
benefit arising from letters sent from the capital to London, and
coming thence hither by the ordinary post, amounted to four hundred
pounds sterling yearly or thereby, all charges being deducted for
payment of the postmaster from Newcastle to Edinburgh inclusive, and
no proportion thereof laid upon the Berwick packet.” In recompense for
his expenses, he was allowed to retain the eighth penny upon all the
letters sent from Edinburgh to London, and the fourth upon all those
coming from London to Edinburgh.¹
¹ Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of Scotland_, Volume II., page
187.
During the rule of Cromwell, intercourse between Scotland and London
was largely increased; in 1658, a fortnightly stage-coach was running
between the two capitals.
After the Restoration, some improvement of the postal system was
effected. In 1662, it was ordered that posts should be established
between Edinburgh and Portpatrick, the intermediate stations to
be Linlithgow, Kilsyth, Glasgow, Kilmarnock, Ayr, and Ballantrae.
The charge for each letter from Edinburgh to Glasgow was twopence
sterling, thence to any part of the kingdom threepence, and all letters
to Ireland sixpence. All other posts, either foot or horse, were
prohibited. But this mode of horse-post had not been long in operation,
when several persons were found carrying letters along the same line
on foot, to the injury of the postmaster, and at his request a warrant
was granted against all such persons. Till 1669, there was no regular
postal communication between Aberdeen and Edinburgh; and in the former
city this had long been felt as a serious want, “not only to the city,
but also to the nobility, the gentry, and others in the northern parts
of the kingdom.” There had been miscarriage of missives, as well as
untimeous delivery and receiving of the same. It was therefore arranged,
with the consent of the King’s postmaster-general, that Lieutenant
John Wales should establish a regular foot-post carrying letters
from Aberdeen to Edinburgh twice a week, and returning every Tuesday
and Thursday in the afternoon. Each single letter was to be charged
twopence, each double one fourpence, and every packet fivepence per
ounce sterling. All other common foot-posts were prohibited from
carrying any letters to or from Edinburgh, save those employed by
Lieutenant Wales, the postmaster of the city. In 1669, a foot-post was
established between Edinburgh and Inverness to go and return twice a
week to Aberdeen, and once to Inverness, “if wind and weather served.”¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 134‒138.
But at the date of the Revolution, the postal system of Scotland was
still extremely imperfect. The postmastership was sold by auction to
John Blair in 1689, who undertook to carry on the whole business at
various rates for letters, and to pay the government an annual sum
of five hundred and fifty pounds for seven years. The charges for
single letters were:――to Dumfries, Ayr, Kelso, Jedburgh, Dundee, and
Perth, twopence; to Carlisle, Portpatrick, Dunkeld, and Aberdeen,
threepence; and to Inverness fourpence.¹ In 1695, Parliament passed
an Act for establishing a general post-office in Edinburgh, under a
postmaster-general. He was invested with the exclusive privilege of
receiving and of dispatching letters; but on roads where there were
no regular posts, the common carriers were permitted to convey letters
until posts should be established. This system had only one centre,
the capital, and letters coming from London to Glasgow arrived first
in Edinburgh, and thence sent westward at the earliest opportunity.
The Privy Council were enjoined to see that branches were established
in the most convenient places all over the kingdom, and the hours
of dispatching the posts settled and published. According to this
Act, the charges for letters were these:――All single letters to
Berwick or to any part of the kingdom within fifty miles of Edinburgh,
twopence――double letters, fourpence, and so on proportionally;
(declaring, nevertheless, that all single letters with bills of lading
or exchange, invoices, or other merchants’ accounts, may be enclosed
and sent to any part of the kingdom as single letters).²
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; Chambers’ _Domestic Annals
of Scotland_, Volume III., page 21.
² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
517‒419.
It appears that the posts were sometimes attacked and the letters and
packets seized. In 1690, Parliament enacted that the robbing or seizing
of the mails should be punished with death and the confiscation of
goods; and by the Act of 1695, any person that molested or impeded the
posts in the execution of their duty by night or by day, were liable to
a penalty of one thousand pounds Scots, besides reparation and damages.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume IX., pages 241, 418.
We have seen that the roads were not in a fitting condition for wheeled
vehicles, indeed carriages or coaches were not used in England or in
Scotland till the latter part of the sixteenth century. It was said
that coaches were first used in England during the reign of Elizabeth.
In 1610, the King granted a licence to Henry Anderson to bring a
number of coaches and waggons into Scotland for the purpose of driving
his Majesty’s subjects between Edinburgh and Leith. He also obtained
for himself and his heirs an exclusive right of this business for
fifteen years, on the condition that he should be always ready to
serve the people, and charge only the sum of twopence for conveying
each passenger between Edinburgh and Leith.¹ As already mentioned,
stage-coaches ran from Edinburgh to London during the Commonwealth, and
the fare was four pounds ten shillings, “in all cases with good coaches
and fresh horses on the roads.” Street carriages did not come into use
in Scotland till the latter part of the seventeenth century, and even
then they were little used. In Edinburgh sedan-chairs were employed
instead of wheeled vehicles down to near the end of the eighteenth
century. In 1678, the Privy Council granted an exclusive privilege to
three men in Haddington to run a stage-coach between that place and
Edinburgh for five years. The same year, William Hume, a merchant in
Edinburgh, established a stage-coach between the capital and Glasgow.
He proposed that his coach should only carry six passengers, at a fare
of six shillings each in summer and nine in winter. The Privy Council
granted him an exclusive privilege for seven years, and also assured
him that his coach horses would not be pressed for any kind of public
service.²
¹ _Royal Letters_; Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of Scotland_,
Volume I., page 427.
² _Register of the Privy Council._
But it seems doubtful if any of these schemes of stage-coaching were
really successful. A writer who travelled through Scotland in 1688 has
stated: “Stage-coaches they have none.... The truth is, the roads will
hardly allow them these conveniences, which is the reason that their
gentry, men and women, choose rather to ride on their horses. However,
their great gentlemen travel with a coach and six, but with so much
caution, that besides their other attendants, they have a lusty running
footman on each side of the coach, to manage and keep it up in rough
places.” The traveller further remarks: “This carriage of persons from
place to place might be better spared were there opportunities and
means for the speedier conveyance of business by letters. They have no
horse-posts besides those which ply between Berwick and Edinburgh, and
from thence to Portpatrick, for the sake of the Irish packet.... From
Edinburgh to Perth, and so to other places, they use foot-posts and
carriers, which, though a slow way of communicating our concerns to one
another, yet it is such as they acquiesce in till they have a better.”
But in 1697 the stage-coach from York to London required a week to
accomplish its journey. This fact was noted in the _Diary_ of George
Home; the truth is, travelling was very slow everywhere throughout
Britain at that period, and for long after.¹
¹ _A Short Account of Scotland_, 1702.
Turning to the shipping of the kingdom, some information may be drawn
from the report of Thomas Tucker――one of Cromwell’s officials, upon the
settlement of the revenues of excise and customs in Scotland in 1656;
and from a Register containing notices of the state of every burgh in
the kingdom in the year 1692.¹ For fiscal purposes the Government of
the Commonwealth arranged the ports of Scotland into eight groups, and
at the head port of each group a custom office was established. Leith,
the chief port of Scotland, and the ports attached to its district (of
which the most important were Dunbar, Eyemouth, and Musselburgh) had
fourteen vessels, of which a few of the largest were of three and two
hundred tons burden. Speaking of Leith, Tucker said:――“Leith itself is
a pretty small town, having a convenient dry harbour, into which the
Firth ebbs and flows every tide; and a convenient quay on the one side
thereof, of good length, for the landing of goods. Leith was, and is,
indeed, a storehouse, not only for her own traders, but also for the
merchants of the city of Edinburgh, and did not that city, jealous of
her own safety, obstruct and impede the growing of this place, it would
from her slave, in a few years become her rival.”
¹ Both of these Reports were printed for the Scottish Burgh
Record Society in 1881.
The next head port was Borrowstounness, to which was attached a number
of small ports, but the number of their vessels was not stated; their
trade, however, was chiefly in coal and salt. The third head port was
Bruntisland, on the north side of the Firth opposite to Leith, and its
district extended from Inverkeithing along the shore of Fife to the
banks of the Tay. The trade of this district inwards was with Norway,
the East, and France, and the outward trade was mostly in coal and salt.
This group of ports had fifty vessels, but the greater part of them
were small, only three reached up to one hundred tons burden, two of
which belonged to Kirkcaldy.
The fourth head port was Dundee, to which was attached Perth, Arbroath,
and Montrose. The trade of Dundee inwards, as generally all over
Scotland, was with Norway, the East, Holland, and France; and the
outward trade consisted mainly of plaiding and salmon. Dundee had ten
ships, two of one hundred and twenty tons each, one of ninety tons, one
of sixty, and the rest smaller. Tucker said that Perth――“is a handsome
walled town, where there is an officer always attending, not so much
because of any great treading there, as to prevent the carrying out
of wool, skins, and hides, of which commodities great quantities are
brought thither out of the Highlands, and there bought up and engrossed
by the Londonmen.”