[Sidenote: 1673.]
Died Sir Robert Murray of Craigie, Justice-clerk, and an eminent
councillor; memorable above all as one of a small group of learned
and thoughtful men who, in 1662, founded the Royal Society, of which
illustrious body Sir Robert was the first president, and for a time
‘the life and soul.’ For the last six years of his life, he bore
a leading part in the government of Scotland. Not a Whig had been
fined, tortured, or banished; not a commission against ‘the horrid
crime of witchcraft’ had been issued; but the act was sanctioned by
this gentleman, ‘the most universally beloved and esteemed by men
of all sides and sorts, of any man I have ever known in my whole
life,’ and who ‘knew the history of nature beyond any man I ever yet
knew;’ who ‘had a most diffused love to all mankind, and delighted
in every occasion of doing good;’ and who ‘had a superiority of
genius and comprehension to most men.’--_Burnet._ Sir Robert’s father
was a younger son of a distinguished Perthshire family, Murray of
Abercairney. He himself had been the friend of Charles I. and of
Richelieu, and latterly he was a favourite of Charles II. When the
daughter of Sir Robert was married in London to Lord Yester, eldest son
of the Earl of Tweeddale, ‘the king himself led the bride uncovered to
church.’--_Kir._
To find two such amiable men as the Earl of Tweeddale and Sir Robert
Murray taking part for many years in the severe measures against the
Scottish Presbyterians--though, it must be admitted, with the effect
of infusing a certain mildness--and to find day after day the bloody
edicts of the Privy Council sanctioned by not only their names,
but by those of the Duke of Hamilton and the Earl of Argyle, the
latter of whom was to die the death of a martyred patriot, while the
former was to preside in the convention which settled the Stuarts’
forfeited crown on William and Mary, certainly presents a striking
view of the mixed nature of human tendencies. As regards, too, the
philosophical character of the founder of the Royal Society, it can
never be forgotten that one of his contributions to the Transactions
of that sage body was an account of _the development of barnacles into
sea-birds_--a most noted example of the power of preconceived notions
to blind the perceptions of even a faithful and intelligent observer.
His testimony on this subject was thus presented in the _Philosophical
Transactions_:
[Sidenote: 1673.]
‘Being in the isle of East [Uist], I saw lying upon the shore a cut of
a large fir-tree, of about 2-1/2 foot diameter, and nine or ten foot
long; which had lain so long out of the water that it was very dry;
and most of the shells that formerly covered it were worn or rubbed
off. Only on the parts that lay next the ground there still hung
multitudes of little shells, having within them little birds perfectly
shaped, supposed to be barnacles. These shells hang at the tree by a
neck longer than the shell, of a kind of filmy substance, round and
hollow, and creased, not unlike the windpipe of a chicken, spreading
out broadest where it is fastened to the tree, from which it seems to
draw and convey the matter, which serves for the growth and vegetation
of the shell and the little bird within it. This bird, in every shell
that I opened, as well the least as the biggest, I found so curiously
and completely formed, that there appeared nothing wanting as to the
external parts, for making up a perfect sea-fowl; every little part
appearing so distinctly, that the whole looked like a large bird seen
through a concave or diminishing glass, colour and features being
everywhere so clear and neat. The little bill like that of a goose, the
eyes marked, the head, neck, breast, wing, tail, and feet formed; the
feathers everywhere perfectly shaped and blackish coloured; and the
feet like those of other water-fowl, to my best remembrance. All being
dead and dry, I did not look after the inward parts of them. But having
nipped off and broken a great many of them, I carried about twenty or
twenty-four away with me.... Nor did I ever see any of the little birds
alive, nor met with anybody that did. Only, some credible persons have
assured me they have seen some as big as their fist.’
After all, it must be acknowledged there is something very perplexing
about these cirripeds, and calculated to excuse the mistake which so
long existed regarding them, since it was not till about 1840 that
naturalists could determine whether they belonged to the articulate
or the molluscan division of the animal kingdom. It is scarcely
necessary to remark that they are now concluded to be articulates, of
the crustacean class. Even Cuvier had placed them under the mollusca,
though regarding them as intermediate between these and the articulata.
As to the eyes spoken of by Sir Robert Murray, it may be observed that
the barnacle has latterly been found to have visual organs in an early
period of its existence, and to lose them when at full growth. When Mr
Thomson of Cork, about 1830, described the actual characters of the
animal, many naturalists for a long time refused to believe in his
statements.
* * * * *
A sumptuary law was passed in the parliament in 1672, ‘discharging the
wearing of silver lace and silk stuffs, upon a design to encourage the
making of fine stuffs within the kingdom, and to repress the excessive
use of these commodies.’[231]
[Sidenote: JULY 3.]
[Sidenote: 1673.]
An effort was made to carry this law into force. On information from
Alexander Milne, collector of his majesty’s customs in Edinburgh,
the Council had up before them Sir John Colquhoun of Luss, who, in
breach of a late act of parliament forbidding the lieges to wear
clothes ornamented with ‘silk-lace, gimp-lace, or any other lace or
embroidering or silk,’ had appeared, during the bypast month, wearing
‘a black _justicat_,[232] whereupon there was black silk or gimp-lace.’
Sir John was condemned, in terms of the act of parliament, to pay a
fine of five hundred merks, ‘one half to his majesty’s cash-keeper for
his majesty’s use, and the other half to Alexander Milne.’--_P. C. R._
Nearly about the same time, Manna Kinloch, wife of James Charteris,
writer, was arraigned before the Privy Council for wearing fine apparel
contrary to the same sumptuary act, but was discharged for lack of
proof. Two legal questions arose in connection with this case. The
first was: If a woman be convicted and punished for such an offence,
ought her husband to be liable to make good the fine, or should she
alone be punished by imprisonment? Obviously, if the husband be made
liable, ‘many wives, to affront their husbands, or otherwise be avenged
on them, would break the law of purpose.’ The second point was: How
shall the offence, in most instances, be proved, if the evidence of
women be rejected--as it seems to have then been in all except certain
special cases--for it must often be that none but women have an
opportunity of observing the offence?--_Foun._
* * * * *
The summer of this year was exceedingly wet, and the harvest thereby
much endangered.--_Law._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1673.