The curious book, entitled ‘_Satan’s Invisible World Discovered_,
by Mr George Sinclair, late professor of philosophy at the college
of Glasgow,’ was endowed by the Lords of the Privy Council with a
copyright of eleven years; all persons whatsoever being prohibited
‘from printing, reprinting, or importing into this kingdom, any copies
of the said book,’ during that space of time. This little volume,
which was often reprinted during the eighteenth century, and so lately
as 1814, contains, in the language of its own title-page, a ‘Choice
Collection of Modern Relations, proving evidently _against the Atheists
of this present age_, that there are Devils, Spirits, Witches, and
Apparitions, from authentic records and attestations of witnesses of
undoubted veracity.’
[Sidenote: 1685.]
To maintain the efficacy of witchcraft and the reality of spirits and
apparitions was at that time a part of the external Christianity of the
country, and it was a recognised part of ‘atheism,’ as all freedom of
judgment was then called, to entertain a doubt about either. The work
of Mr George Sinclair was an example of a series in which the popular
beliefs on these subjects were defended as essential to orthodoxy. One
of the most remarkable of these treatises was the _Antidote against
Atheism_, published by Dr Henry More in 1655; in which we find, first,
a most ingenious, and, for the age, well-informed exposition of the
arguments for a God from the remarkable adaptations and provisions
seen, throughout animated nature--next, and in close connection, a
deduction of theism and providence from examples of bewitched persons,
ghosts, vampires, guardian genii, &c. The heading of one of his
chapters is: ‘That the evasions of Atheists against Apparitions are so
weak and silly, that it is an evident argument that they are convinced
in their own judgment of the truth of these kinds of phenomena, which
forces them to answer as well as they can, though they be so ill
provided.’ Not less remarkable was the _Saducismus Triumphatus_ of
Joseph Glanvil, printed in 1681; in which are presented many narratives
regarding both witches and spirits, including the celebrated one
of the Drummer of Tedworth, all evidently deemed as necessary by
the author for the overthrow and refutation of one of the prevalent
forms of infidelity. It is equally worthy of notice, that when John
Webster, ‘practitioner in physic,’ ventured before the world in 1677
with his book, _The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft_, in which he
threw ridicule on the whole popular code of ideas regarding the doings
of witches, his greatest solicitude was to guard himself against the
imputation of being one who treated lightly anything of the nature of
scriptural evidence.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MAR. 3.]
Robert Mean, of the Letter-office, had written a report to London, to
the effect that the westland people were again in arms, and the king’s
forces marching against them. Lord Livingstone consequently posted down
from London, to take command of the forces. When his lordship arrived
and found the report false, he made a complaint against Robert, who
was consequently imprisoned for his indiscretion, being not the first
or second time he had been in trouble for similar offences. Colonel
Worden, a friend of the new king, felt that it was hard to make Mean
suffer where his intention was so good; so he procured a royal letter
in favour of the postmaster. On a penitent petition, Robert was
liberated, and allowed to resume his office, but with a warning ‘that
if he shall be found in any fault of his office hereafter, he shall be
severely punished therefor.’--_Foun._ _P. C. R._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: APR. 8.]
The Duke of Queensberry, the Earl of Perth, and the Archbishop of St
Andrews, arrived in Edinburgh from London, ‘having been only eight days
by the way.’--_Foun._
[Sidenote: 1685.]
This must have appeared as rapid travelling in those days, for, twelve
years later, the stage-coach from York to London spent the whole lawful
days of a week upon its journey. This fact we learn from a passage
in the diary of George Home of Kimmerghame, in Berwickshire,[316]
where the following statement is made: ‘Thursday, October 21 [1697],
Sir John Home of Blackadder set out post for London, at two o’clock.
It afterwards appears that he tired of posting [as slow], and [for
expedition, doubtless] got into the stage-coach at York on Monday the
25th, and was expected to reach London in it on Saturday the 30th.’
* * * * *
[Sidenote: APR. 16.]
The equestrian statue of Charles II., which had cost £1000, though only
formed of lead, was set up in the Parliament Close, Edinburgh. ‘The
vulgar people, who had never seen the like before, were much amazed at
it. Some compared it to Nebuchadnezzar’s image, which all fell down and
worshipped, and others foolishly to the pale horse in the Revelations,
and he that sat thereon was death.’--_Foun._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: APR.]
Sir Alexander Forbes of Tolquhoun, in Aberdeenshire, having entertained
in his house Alexander Ogilvie of Forglen, Sir John Falconer, and
Lord Pitmedden, missed immediately after two mazer cups on which he
set great value. He wrote to Ogilvie, mentioning the fact of the cups
being missed, and asking if he could tell anything about them. Ogilvie,
though feeling that this was scarcely civil, returned a friendly
answer, assuring Sir Alexander that he had never even seen the cups,
and knew absolutely nothing directly or indirectly about them. Hereupon
Sir Alexander replied apologetically, and for some years he conducted
himself in the most friendly way towards Ogilvie, as if to make up for
his former incivility.
[Sidenote: 1685.]
Afterwards, on Ogilvie refusing to take part with him in some quarrels
with a third party, Sir Alexander appeared to conceive a malicious
feeling towards him. To wreak this out, he raised an action against him
in the Court of Session, on the allegation that he had fraudulently
abstracted the fore-mentioned cups. ‘And when the case was called,
Tolquhoun had the confidence to appear personally at the bar and own
and countenance the same, and crave [Ogilvie’s] oath of calumny anent
that defamatory libel.’ After Ogilvie had thus acquitted himself,
Tolquhoun craved permission to enter on a proof of the libel by
witnesses; which the lords assented to. While the matter was pending,
Tolquhoun frequently upbraided Ogilvie with the terms _cup-stealer_
and _cup-cheater_: nor did he hesitate to resort to legal quirks for
keeping the charge as long as possible over the head of the accused.
At length, the case came on, and, being found wholly without sound
evidence, was pronounced to be altogether founded in malice.
[Sidenote: APR. 30.]
A subsequent process by Forglen against Tolquhoun for oppression and
defamation was undefended by the latter, and ended in his being amerced
in twenty thousand merks Scots, whereof one-half was adjudged to the
aggrieved party.--_P. C. R._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JUNE.]
A dog being stolen out of the house of the Earl of Morton in Peebles,
it chanced that the Earl’s son, the Hon. George Douglas, soon after
observed the animal following the Laird of Chatto on the High Street
of Edinburgh. On Douglas claiming it, the Laird of Chatto very civilly
gave it up. Some days after, as Douglas was walking the street,
followed by the dog, John Corsehill, a footman of Chatto, came up and
attempted to take the animal into his possession, doubtless believing
that it was his master’s property. Douglas bade him forbear, as the
dog was his; but John Corsehill, not being satisfied, gave him some
foul language, and when Douglas soon after returned along the street,
Corsehill renewed his attempt; whereupon Douglas called him a rascal,
to which the lackey responded in the same terms. ‘Which being such an
indignity to any gentleman, [Douglas] did step back, and make to his
sword; but before he got it drawn, the footman did hit him twice with
a cudgel over the head, and did continue violently to assault him,
[Douglas] still retiring, and with his sword warding the blows; but
the footman was so furious, that he run himself upon the point of the
sword, and so was killed.’
The excuse of Douglas for this unhappy chance was, that Corsehill had
been the first aggressor, and that ‘no gentleman could endure publicly
to be called a rascal without resentment.’ He protested that he had
only acted in self-defence.--_P. C. R._
Another, though less fatal quarrel took place soon after, in
consequence of a similar circumstance. Captain Scott, of the King’s
Guard, having lost his dog in the college of Edinburgh, adopted the
belief that it had been appropriated by Mr Gregory, the professor of
mathematics. On this notion he acted so far as to fall upon the learned
gownsman and give him a hearty beating. The other professors took up
the case, and on their complaint to the Chancellor, Scott was compelled
to crave pardon.--_Foun. Dec._
[Sidenote: 1685.