Aberdeen was the fifth head port, and those connected with it were

Stonehaven, Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Banff, and a few other small ports.

Tucker described the harbour of Aberdeen minutely, and said――“But

the wideness of the place, from the inlet of the sea coming in with

a narrow winding gut, and beating in store of sand with its waves,

has rendered it somewhat shallow in the greater part of it, and so

less useful than formerly. But the inhabitants are remedying this by

lengthening their quay, and bringing it up close to a neck of land,

which jutting out eastwards towards a headland before it, makes the

coming in so straight.” He stated that the trade outwards was “with

salmon and plaiding, commodities which are caught, and made here in

greater quantities than any other place of the nation whatsoever.”

Aberdeen had nine ships belonging to her port, one of eighty tons, one

of seventy, another of sixty, and the rest smaller; while Peterhead had

one small vessel, and Fraserburgh four.

The sixth head port was Inverness, which included in its district the

ports of the counties of Moray, Ross, Sutherland, Caithness, and the

Orkney Islands; but in these regions there were few ships. Inverness

had only one, Garmouth one, Cromarty one, and Thurso two, while the

Orkney Islands had three; but it was stated that “lately there were

other nine barks belonging to the Islands which had been taken or lost

by storm, this and the last year.”

Glasgow was the seventh head port, which appeared according to Tucker’s

view, to have been even then taking the lead in trade amongst the

Scotch ports. “This town, seated in a pleasant and fruitful soil,

consists of four streets, handsomely built in the form of a cross,

is one of the most considerable burghs of Scotland, as well for its

structure as for its trade. Its inhabitants, all save the students of

the College, are traders and dealers: Some go to Ireland with small

smiddy coals, in open boats of from four to ten tons burden, whence

they bring home hoops, barrel staves, meal, corn, and butter; some

to France with plaiding, coals, and herrings, of which there is a

great fishing yearly in the western sea; some to Norway for wood; and

everyone with their neighbours, the Highlanders, who come hither from

the Isles and the Western parts, in summer by the Mull of Cantyre, and

in winter by Torban, to the head of Loch Fyne, usually drawing their

boats over the small neck of sandy land and into the Firth of Dumbarton,

and so pass up the Clyde with plaiding, dry hides, goat, kid, and deer

skins, which they sell, and purchase with their price such commodities

and provisions as they need from time to time.” Tucker thought that

Glasgow was likely to become a great commercial city, owing to the

energy of her citizens; but the chief obstacle to her rapid growth

appeared to be the shallowness of the Clyde, on which only very small

barks could pass up to the town. Glasgow had twelve ships, three of

one hundred and fifty tons burden each, one of a hundred and forty

tons, two of one hundred tons, and the rest smaller. The other ports

associated with Glasgow were noticed in the report thus:――“Dumbarton,

a small and very poor burgh, which sometimes gives shelter to a vessel

of sixteen tons. Greenock, a small place, the inhabitants being all

seamen or fisherman, trading to Ireland or to the Isles in open boats.

Saltcoats has only a few houses inhabited by fishermen.”

Ayr was the eighth and last head port, and its district embraced “all

the shore which bounds Kyle, Carrick, and Galloway, places fuller of

moors and mosses than good towns and people, or trading.” Yet Ayr had

three ships and a few small barks. But Tucker stated that this district

of ports would scarcely yield any more revenue than would pay the

necessary outlay of the Government.

The materials and figures for comparing the shipping at the dates of

1656 and 1692 are very incomplete, as the information of a definite

character for the later is imperfect, and only admit of a comparison

of the shipping of a few of the chief ports. But the figures in the

following table may be taken as approximately correct:――

1656. 1692.

────────────────── ──────────────────

Vessels. Tonnage. Vessels. Tonnage.

──────── ──────── ──────── ────────

Leith 12 1000 29 1700

Dundee 10 498 21 1191

Glasgow 12 830 15 1172

Kirkcaldy 12 592 14 1213

Montrose 12 220 18 629

── ──── ── ────

58 3140 97 5905

It appears from the above figures that the shipping of these five ports

had increased considerably between the two dates. It may also be stated

that at the later period, various parties in Glasgow were part-owners

of several other ships besides these in the table; while only about one

half of the Kirkcaldy vessels belonged to parties in that town: and the

vessels belonging to Montrose were all small barks.

The mode of agriculture practised in Scotland was extremely rude; and

in no field of industry is there a more striking contrast than between

the husbandry of the seventeenth century and that of the ♦nineteenth.

In the seventeenth century only a small portion of the land was under

tillage, there was no regular rotation of crops, and no improved

grasses, such as clover and ryegrass; and though the chief wealth

of the farmers consisted of cattle, no efforts were made to improve

the breeds, which were all of a small class, and as yet there was no

stall-feeding.

♦ “ninteenth” replaced with “nineteenth”

The general system of farming was this. The land which was manured

extended to only about a fourth of the farm, or sometimes a fifth or

sixth of it. The remaining portion, called the outfields, was never

manured, but a certain part of it, after having been pastured on for

seven or eight years, was then ploughed up, and after yielding a poor

crop or two of oats, by which it was exhausted, it was again rested and

pastured on as before, and another portion ploughed, cropped, exhausted,

and rested in its turn. Under this system, which kept only the part of

the land nearest to the farmyard in a state fit for tillage, the whole

arable land of the country could have yielded but little, compared

with what it was capable of producing. Several parts of the south,

now celebrated as grain-producing districts, were at the end of the

seventeenth century merely stony moors and bogs. Although parliament

had passed acts touching fences, hedges, and ditches, there were few

enclosed fields anywhere in Scotland, and the practice of improving

the soil by a regular system of drainage was quite unknown. In 1686 it

was enacted that all proprietors, life-renters, tenants, and cottars

should cause their cattle, horses, sheep, goats, and swine to be herded

the whole year; and during the night to keep them in houses or folds,

that they might not eat and destroy other people’s crops, grass, woods,

planting, and hedges. Those found contravening the act were to be

liable to a penalty of half a merk for each of the animals found upon

their neighbours’ grounds, “over and above the damage done to the grass

or the planting.”¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., page 595.

Agricultural implements were rough and clumsy. The plough was made of

timber, save the clathing, the coulter, and sock; while the ploughing

itself was of the most wretched description. The entire economy of

the farm was in a backward state: the manure was carried to the fields

on horseback and by manual labour, while the grain was conveyed to

the mills and to the markets on horseback, carts being as yet very

little used. Three or four returns was considered to be a good crop,

and the difficulty of finding food for cattle throughout winter was

often extreme. Animals intended for human food were slaughtered before

Martinmas, and salted, to supply the family with meat during the winter.

The trade in beef was then on a limited scale in Scotland; probably

there is more beef sold in one week at the present time than was sold

in a year at the end of the seventeenth century.

The state of the tenants and labourers of the land was not a

comfortable and happy one. Farmers themselves were poor, and part of

their rents was still paid in produce and in services to landlords.

Farm-steadings were merely clusters of hovels, without proper

accommodation even for cattle, far less for human beings.

A strong desire for exclusive privileges in trade and industry still

prevailed. Early in the seventeenth century, attempts were made to

introduce into Scotland an improved mode of tanning leather. Twelve

tanners from England, under royal patronage, came to instruct the

barkers and tanners of Scotland in the perfect mode of making leather.

They were invested with special privileges, and were located in several

parts of ♦the country, the object being to retain at home the money

which had been usually spent on foreign leather. But a tax was put on

the improved leather, at the rate of four shillings Scots per hide, for

the first twenty-one years. This caused discontent among the shoemakers

who everywhere exerted themselves to thwart the King’s purpose.

They raised the prices of their boots and shoes, twenty shillings on

the pair of boots, and six shillings on the shoes, which stirred up

the people against the tax, and a clamour arose that the nation was

oppressed, the poorer classes especially. In 1622, a complaint was

lodged with the Privy Council, that many of the tanners throughout the

kingdom still continued the old mode of letting their leather remain

only a short time in the pits, and then brought it to market in a raw

state, quite regardless of the obvious advantages of the new way of

tanning. The Council therefore ordered that a number of the old tanners

should be proclaimed rebels. The grievances of the leather-workers came

before the Estates in 1625, and again in 1633, when the tanners and

barkers of the kingdom petitioned Parliament, “to be freed and relieved

of the burden and imposition imposed upon them for tanning and barking

of hides; and that this impost should be discharged, because it does

great damage to the whole country.” Subsequently the matter was often

before the Estates;¹ but down to the present time, the tanners of

Scotland have not succeeded in producing leather of equal quality to

the best English and French. The Scotch croops, or sole leather, is

much inferior to the English, and the Scotch calf and upper leather is

also inferior both to French and English.

♦ duplicate word “the” removed

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; _Acts of the Parliaments

of Scotland_, Volume V., pages 48, 185, 264. About this time

gilded and ornamented leather was fashionable for covering

the walls of rooms in the better class of houses though,

of course, it was imported. But in 1681, Alexander Brand,

a merchant in Edinburgh, stated that he had brought workmen

and materials into Scotland, and proposed to erect a work

to produce this kind of leather as cheap as it could be

imported. The Privy Council granted him an exclusive right

of manufacturing it for nineteen years.

In the preceding volumes I referred to the making of cloth, which

branch of industry was still in a comparatively rude stage, and

various attempts were begun in the seventeenth century to introduce

improvements. In 1601, Commissioners, deputed by the burghs, engaged

seven Flemishmen to settle in Scotland and assist in setting the work

in operation; six of them being intended for making serge stuff, and

one for broadcloth. On arriving in Edinburgh, they had expected to be

immediately employed; but a debate arose as to whether they should be

dispersed among the chief towns, and thus diffuse their instructions

more widely among the Scots. While this was pending, the foreigners

complained to the Privy Council that they were neither entertained nor

sent to work, and that it was proposed to separate them, which would

greatly retard the perfecting of the work. The Council ordered that

they should all be allowed to remain in Edinburgh, and work according

to the conditions on which they had agreed with the commissioners; and

that till they began their work, they should be properly supplied with

food and drink. But six weeks later, the burghs had done nothing; and

the Council then informed them that, unless they made a beginning by

the month of November, the royal privilege would be withdrawn. Eight

years later a company of these foreigners, under the special protection

of the King, was established in the Canongate, Edinburgh, and made

cloth of various kinds. The business was managed by John Sutherland and

Joan Van Headen, and it was stated that they were diffusing much light

and knowledge of their calling amongst the Scots. In spite, however, of

the King’s letters, which invested these industrious men with special

privileges, and exemptions from local burdens, the magistrates of the

Canongate began to molest them, with the object of forcing them to

become burgesses and freemen in the regular form; on their appeal to

the Privy Council, their exemption was affirmed.¹

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

♦ “centruy” replaced with “century”

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.

♦ “ceetury” replaced with “century”

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.