Copious periwigs, with curls flowing down to the shoulders, were now
in vogue, both at home and abroad. There being an active exportation
of hair for the foreign peruke-makers, the article was found to have
become dear, and the native artists began to complain. On their
petition, the Privy Council forbade the exporting of hair.--_Foun._
It may give some idea of circumstances attending this fashion, that at
a date not long subsequent to the period under our attention, a female
living in a town in the south of Scotland was accustomed to dispose of
her crop of _yellow hair_ to a travelling merchant at fixed intervals,
and always got a guinea for it.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: FEB.]
Sir James Stanfield was one of the English manufacturers who had
been induced to settle and practise their art at Newmills, in
Haddingtonshire, in order that Scotch money should not need to be sent
away for English-made goods. This respectable man was afflicted with a
profligate eldest son, whom he at length saw fit to disinherit. He had
become melancholy, probably in consequence of domestic troubles, and
on a certain day in November, he was found drowned in a pool of water
near his own house. It was debated whether he had been murdered or had
drowned himself; and it was noted that the widow and son contended for
the latter view of the case, and accordingly, without further ado, took
measures for having the body immediately buried. A suspicion, however,
arose that Sir James had met with foul play, and two surgeons were sent
by the authorities in Edinburgh, to examine the body and report.
[Sidenote: 1688.]
The corpse was raised from the grave, after it had lain there two
days; and the surgeons, having made an incision near the neck, became
convinced that death had been induced by strangulation; so that the
supposition of suicide was set aside. This inspection took place in
the church. After the cut had been sewed up, and the body washed,
and put into clean linen, James Row, a merchant of Edinburgh, and
Philip Stanfield, eldest son of the deceased, took it up, one on
each side, to deposit it in the coffin, when, behold, an effusion of
blood was observed to take place on the side sustained by the son,
so as to defile his hands. He instantly let the body fall, with the
exclamation, ‘Lord, have mercy on me!’ and rushed, horror-struck, into
the precentor’s desk, where he lay for some time groaning and in great
agitation, utterly refusing to touch the corpse again. This incident
was at once accepted in the light of a revelation of the young man’s
guilt as his father’s murderer; and he was therefore taken into custody
and brought to Edinburgh for trial.
The trial took place on the 7th of February, but brought out little
evidence worthy of attention. Nevertheless, on the strength of the
bleeding, and of his being known to have cursed his father, the
unfortunate young man was found guilty, and sentenced to death, with
sundry aggravations of punishment.
By pretending an inclination to turn papist, he got a brief respite,
but, on the 24th of the month, was hanged, protesting his innocence
to the last, and finally dying Protestant. By reason of a slip of the
rope, he came down till his knees rested on the scaffold, and it was
necessary to use more direct means of strangulation. Then his tongue
was cut out, as a retribution for the cursing of his father, and his
hand hacked off and sent to be put up on the east port of Haddington,
as a memorial of the murder. The body was hung up in chains, but
after a few days was stolen away, and found lying in a ditch among
water. It was hung up again, but a second time taken down. Both in the
strangulation on the scaffold and the being found in a ditch among
water, the superstitious remarked something like a providential notice
of the facts of the murder of which he was assumedly guilty.
It will be acknowledged that, in the circumstances related, there is
not a particle of valid evidence against the young man. The surgeon’s
opinion as to the fact of strangulation is not entitled to much regard;
but, granting its solidity, it does not prove the guilt of the accused.
The horror of the young man on seeing his father’s blood, might be
referred to painful recollections of that profligate conduct which
he knew had distressed his parent and brought his gray hairs with
sorrow to the grave--especially when we reflect that Stanfield would
himself be impressed with the superstitious feelings of the age, and
might accept the hæmorrhage as an accusation by heaven on account of
the concern his conduct had had in shortening the life of his father.
The whole case seems to be a lively illustration of the effect of
superstitious feelings in blinding justice.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MAR. 6.]
[Sidenote: 1688.]
The Privy Council considered a legal case about a very small matter.
The beautiful lake of Duddingston, under the southeast front of
Arthur’s Seat, and adjoining to the royal park of Holyrood, had been
graced by the late Duke of Lauderdale with a few swans. His too clever
duchess--who had for years been carrying on terrible legal wars with
his heirs--deemed herself entitled to take out five of these birds
at her own pleasure. Sir James Dick, the proprietor of the lake,
determined to recover the swans; so he caught three of them, and
broke a lockfast place in order to get the remaining two; and then
placed them all once more upon the loch. Hereupon the duchess raised
a process, which was now decided in her favour, on the ground that
the birds had been brought to the loch by the late duke, and that Sir
James’s tolerance of them there did not make them his. The baronet,
indignant at being thus balked, turned all the rest of the swans off
his lake; but here he was met by the Duke of Hamilton, heritable keeper
of the palace, alleging that, as the lake bounded the royal park, the
wild animals upon it belonged to him. So he caused the swans to be once
again restored to their haunt.--_Foun. Dec._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MAR.]
One Niven, a musician in Inverness, caused a girl of twelve years,
his pupil, to marry him under basely deceptious pretences. To induce
a minister to perform the ceremony, he suborned a youth to personate
the girl’s brother, and convey the consent of the father, who was
himself a clergyman. For this ‘abominable imposture and treachery,’ he
was condemned to stand with his ear nailed to the pillory, and then
banished.--_Foun. Dec._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JULY.]
For some time, we have heard little of witches; but now one appears.
An old woman at Dunbar having threatened some people who refused to
give her money, and ‘some evil accidents befalling them shortly after,’
she was seized and tried before a commission. She at first confessed,
but afterwards retracted; nevertheless, the commission condemned her.
Before proceeding to any greater extremity, they thought it well to
bring her before the Council itself, who were at first inclined to
‘assoilzie’ her; but afterwards, ‘she was remitted back to Dunbar, _to
be burnt there, if her judges pleased_.’--_Foun._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1688.