JAN.]

There was a feid of old standing between the Lindsays of Forfarshire

and the Lords Glammis; but for some years the parties were put under

the restraint of _letters of assurance_. On a particular Sunday, during

this month, Sir John Lindsay of Woodhead was passing along the High

Street of Edinburgh, ‘gangand to the kirk,’ when he met Lord Glammis.

The noble and gentle, ‘for the reverence they bure to his majesty and

for observance of the assurance standing betwix them, past by other

without provocation of offence or displeasure in word or countenance

offerit by ony of them.’ As in the case of Montague and Capulet,

however, the servants were not always to be restrained by the same

feelings as the masters. After they were past, Patrick Johnston, a

servant or tenant of Glammis, ‘drew his sword, invadit and pursewit

the complenar [Lindsay] of his life, and strak and cuttit through the

shoulder of his cloak, coat, and doublet, without the allowance of Lord

Glammis, and thereby did what in him lay to have begun ane new feid and

quarrel betwixt them, whilk wald not have faillit to have fallen out

were not Lord Glammis himself and the complenar stayit it.’

[Sidenote: JAN. 13.]

Two days after, Lord Glammis appeared personally before the Privy

Council, and ‘renouncit Patrick to be his man, tenant, or servant, sae

that he sall not be repute, halden, nor esteemit to be his man, tenant,

or servant hereafter;’ further avouching that ‘he sall quarrel nor

beir grudge to nane that sall invade or pursue the said Patrick.’ The

Council at the same time charged Patrick to compeir and answer for ‘his

late violent and unhonest pursuit and invasion of Sir John Lindsay,

_without the consent, knowledge, or allowance of Patrick Lord Glammis_,

in whais company he was for the time, doing thereby what in him lay to

have brocht on and protinued furder trouble and inconvenients betwixt

the said Lord Glammis and the friends of the house of Crawford, to the

break of his majesty’s peace and disquieting of the country.’--_P. C.

R._

An order to denounce Patrick as rebel for not appearing, was given on

the 6th of March.

[Sidenote: 1600.]

We receive in this notice a rich illustration of the relation of

superior and ‘man’ in Scotland at the close of the sixteenth century.

Johnston’s crime of assault is here touched upon lightly; what is

pressed, is his committing this assault without the consent of his

lord, and endangering a further quarrel between that lord and the

assaulted man.

The affair appears to have had a sequel not less remarkable than

itself. On Sunday the 6th of August 1601, as Patrick Johnston,

designated as tenant of the Halltown of Belhelvies, was leaving the

kirk of that parish, in time of the ministration of the sacrament

of baptism, accompanied by his wife and two of his children, he was

set upon, within two paces of the door, by Lord Glammis and a party

of his lordship’s relatives and servants, and mercilessly slain with

pistols and swords. We can scarcely doubt that this was the same

Patrick who had incurred his superior’s anger by attacking Sir John

Lindsay. A complaint against Lord Glammis and his ‘complices’ for the

act was made before the presbytery of Aberdeen, by ‘the wife and aucht

fatherless bairns’ of the slain man, and by that reverend court an

effort was made, but in vain, to bring the matter to an arrangement

in their favour. The guilty parties were cited for their crime before

the Court of Justiciary in March 1602; but no punishment appears to

have followed. Lord Glammis obtained a remission for his concern in

Johnston’s slaughter, under the great seal. The ancient feudal ideas

of Scotland were still too strong to allow of such a case being deemed

one of common murder.[243] The fact did not prevent Lord Glammis from

receiving advancement in court-favour and elevation in rank. He was

made Earl of Kinghorn in 1606. It is also somewhat curious to reflect

that to his taste and munificence we owe much of what is grand in the

architecture of Glammis Castle.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: FEB.]

At this time arrived in Edinburgh the young Earl of Gowrie, and his

brother, Alexander Ruthven, from Padua, where they had been studying

for some years. To all appearance, they were disposed to be peaceable

subjects of the king, notwithstanding the hard measure which had been

dealt out to their father sixteen years before. When, some months

afterwards, they came to so tragical an end, a circumstance, which

occurred not long after their arrival in Edinburgh, was remembered, as

betraying a state of mind different from what appeared on the surface

of their general behaviour.

[Sidenote: 1600.]

A certain Colonel Stuart of Houston, who, as commander of the royal

guard, had been employed in seizing the late unfortunate Earl of

Gowrie, was still employed at court. One day in June, as the young

earl, accompanied with seven or eight of his servants, was passing

along the long gallery of the palace, on his way to the king’s chamber,

he observed Colonel Stuart come forth from an interview with his royal

master. To avoid a too close meeting with one so painfully associated

with his family history, he stepped aside a little, in order to let

Stuart pass by. ‘The same being espied by ane of the said earl’s

servants, going in the rank before him, callit Mr Thomas Kinrosser,

[he] said ardently till him: “What, my lord, are you going back for ony

man here? Come forward, my lord, bauldly!” Whilk going aside and then

coming forward again, being seen by Colonel Stuart, he went in again to

the king.

“Sir, it will please your majesty hear ane strange matter, that, for

guid service done to your grace, I sould be so evil rewardit as I am.

Here comes in the Earl of Gowrie, and I see he minds to begin first at

me; but beware next of the best of you all.”

Herewith the said earl enterit in his majesty’s chalmer, and the

colonel went out thereof; but there was nothing of that purpose spoken

betwixt his majesty and the earl at that time. But, the colonel’s words

to the king being reported to the earl, he answered: “_Aquila non

captat muscas_.”‘--_Jo. Hist._

* * * * *

[Sidenote: MAR. 14.]

The king, returning from a General Assembly in Edinburgh to his palace

of Falkland, crossed the Firth of Forth by the ferry between Leith and

Kirkcaldy. The weather was fair at starting, but became foul on the

passage, and the mariners were obliged to run their boat upon the sands

at Kirkcaldy, where the king was taken out on horseback. ‘He exclaimed

with execration, that he was ever in danger of his life in going to

those assemblies.’--_Cal._

* * * * *

[Sidenote: APR. 2.]

[Sidenote: 1600.]

‘... being the Sabbath-day, Robert Auchmuty, barber, slew James

Wauchope at the combat in St Leonard’s Hill, and upon the 23d, the said

Robert [was] put in ward in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh. In the meantime

of his being in ward, he hang ane cloak without the window of the

iron house, and another within the window there, and, saying that he

was sick, and might not see the light, he had aquafortis continually

seething at the iron window, while [till] at the last the iron window

was eaten through. Sae, upon a morning, he causit his prentice-boy

attend when the town-guard should have dissolvit, at whilk time the

boy waited on, and gave his master ane token that the said guard were

gone, by the show or wave of his handcurch. The said Robert hung out

ane tow whereon he thought to have come down. The said guard spied the

wave of the handcurch, and sae the said Robert was disappointit of his

intention and device; and sae, on the 10 day, he was beheadit at the

Cross, upon ane scaffold.’--_Bir._

* * * * *

[Sidenote: MAY.]

We possess the rental-sheet of the Marquis of Huntly for this date, and

obtain from it a striking idea of the worldly means resting with that

noble and potent lord. In the first place, the document extends over

fifty-nine pages of print in small quarto, detailing the particulars

of money and produce due from each farm on his lordship’s various

estates--in the lordship of Huntly, the lordship of the Enzie, the

lordship of Badenoch, the barony of Fochabers, the lands of Marr,

the Cabrach, and Lochaber. The sum of ‘silver mail’ or money-rent is

£3819, besides £636 of teind silver. The ‘ferm victual’ payable to his

lordship was 3816 bolls, besides which there were 55 bolls of custom

meal, 436 of multure beir, 108 of custom oats, 83 of custom victual,

167 marts (cattle for slaughter), 483 sheep, 316 lambs, 167 grice

(young pigs), 14 swine, 1389 capons, 272 geese, 3231 poultry, 700

chickens, 5284 eggs, 4 stones of candle, 46 stones of brew tallow, 34

leats of peats, 990 ells of custom linen, 94 stones of custom butter,

40 barrels of salmon, 8 bolls of teind victual, 2 stones of cheese, and

30 kids. The large proportion of payment in kind speaks of a country in

which there was little industry or commerce beyond what was connected

with husbandry and store-farming; but it is easy to see what an amount

of power the noble marquis would derive from possessing the means of

feeding so many retainers.

[Sidenote: 1600.]

In old times, so wealthy a lord was a kind of kinglet, owning, indeed,

the superiority of a sovereign, but at the same time enjoying among

minor lords and gentlemen a sway which barely owned a restraint in

the royal authority. Men approaching him in influence were glad to

form alliances with him, either through the ties of marriage, or by

direct _bonds of manred_, in which they mutually agreed to support

each other in all causes, against all living or dead, excepting only

the king’s grace. Of such bonds, the Gordon charter-chest exhibits a

grand series, extending from 1444, when James of Forbes ‘becomes man

till ane honourable and mighty lord, Alexander of Seton of Gordon ...

again all deadly,’ down to 1670, when Alexander Rose of Tillisnaucht,

gave George, Marquis of Huntly, an engagement to live peaceably under

his protection; being a hundred and seven in all. Even within the

last seventeen years, during which the now existing marquis had been

conducting his own affairs, the house had been receiving bonds of

manred from a remarkable number of important men in the Highlands. The

Earl of Argyle, in 1583, promised to ‘concur and take aefald, true, and

plain part’ with the Gordon, ‘in all his honest and guid causes against

whatsomever that live or die may, our sovereign lord and his authority

alone excepted.’ Two years later, Macleod of Lewis receives promise of

maintenance on the condition of obedience. At the same time, the chief

of the Clan Kenzie, Colin of Kintail, enters into a bond of faithful

service, ‘contrair all persons.’ His lordship received the like

engagements from Monro of Foulis, the chieftain Glengarry, Macgregor

of Glenstrae, and Drummond of Blair. In 1586, Kenneth Mackenzie of

Kintail, Donald Robertson, the heir of Strowan, Donald Gorm of Sleat

(progenitor of the present Lord Macdonald), John Grant of Freuchie, and

the Lady Menzies of Weem, entered into similar undertakings. In 1587,

Rattray of Craighall binds himself, with his dependents, ‘to serve the

said earl in all his actions and adoes, against all persons, the king’s

majesty only excepted, and sall neither hear nor see his skaith, but

sall make him foreseen therewith, and sall resist the same sae far as

in me lies, and that in respect the said earl has given me his band

of maintenance.’ The remaining bonds before 1593 are from the Earl of

Orkney, Menzies of Pitfoddles, Lord Lovat, Menzies of that Ilk, Scott

of Abbotshall, the Laird of Melgund, Mackintosh of Dunnachtan, Innes

of Innermarky, Lord Spynie, Cameron of Locheil, the Clan Macpherson,

sundry barons of Moray, and the Laird of Luss. We may thus see what a

formidable person this Earl of Huntly was to the Protestant interest

in the year last named, and what a problem it must have been to the

pacific King James to give him effectual opposition, however well he

had been so inclined.[244]

[Sidenote: 1600.]

The Marquis of Huntly chiefly dwelt in an ancient seat called

Strathbogie Castle, situated where the rivulet Bogie joins the Doveran,

near the village of Huntly, in Banffshire. He had another seat, called

the Castle of the Bog or of Bogaugicht, on the extensive plain at the

embouchure of the Spey, in the same county. The migrations of the

family between the two places, and between them and a town-mansion

in Aberdeen, are frequently alluded to by the annalist Spalding. In

1602, the marquis rebuilt Strathbogie Castle in a handsome style; and

the remains of the house yet attest a grandness of living suitable

to the wealth and political importance of the family. ‘A spacious

turnpike-stair leads to what has been a very grand hall, and still

bears the marks of splendour and magnificence. Its length is about

forty-three feet, its breadth twenty-nine, and its height sixteen.

There is another grand apartment over this, thirty-seven feet in

length, and twenty-nine in breadth. The chimneys of both are highly

ornamented with curious sculpture of various figures.... Most of the

apartments are still in tolerable preservation, particularly the

ceilings, which are ornamented with a great variety of paintings in

small divisions, containing many emblematical figures, with verses

expressive of some moral sentiment in doggerel rhyme.’[245]

* * * * *

[Sidenote: JULY 2.]

John Kincaid of Warriston, near Edinburgh, was married to a handsome

young woman, named Jean Livingstone, daughter to a man of fortune and

influence, the Laird of Dunipace. Owing to alleged maltreatment, the

young wife conceived a deadly hatred of her husband. A base-minded

nurse was near, to whisper means and ways of revenge, and the lady was

induced to tamper with a young man named Robert Weir, a servant of

her father, to become the instrument. At an early hour in the morning

marginally noted, Weir came to Warriston, and, being admitted by the

lady into the gentleman’s chamber, there fell upon him with his fists,

and soon accomplished his death. While Weir fled, the lady remained at

home, along with the nurse. Both were immediately seized, subjected to

a summary kind of trial before the magistrates, and condemned to death.

[Sidenote: 1600.]

In the brief interval between the sentence and execution, this

unfortunate young creature--she was only twenty-one--was brought,

by the discourse of an amiable clergyman, from a state of callous

indifference to one of lively sensibility and religious resignation.

Her case was reported in a small pamphlet of the day. She stated that,

on Weir assaulting her husband, she went to the hall, and waited till

the deed was done. She thought she still heard the pitiful cries

uttered by her husband while struggling with his murderer. Afterwards,

by way of dissembling, she tried to weep; but not a tear could she

shed. She could only regard her approaching death as a just expiation

of her offence. Her relations, feeling shamed by her guilt and its

consequences, made interest to obtain that her execution should be as

little public as possible, and it was accordingly arranged that, while

the nurse was being burnt on the Castle Hill at four in the morning,

and thus attracting the attention of any who might be out of their

beds, the lady should be conducted to the Girth Cross, at the opposite

extremity of the city, and there despatched by the Maiden.

According to the contemporary pamphlet: ‘The whole way, as she went to

the place of execution, she behaved herself so cheerfully, as if she

had been going to her wedding, and not to her death. When she came to

the scaffold, and was carried up upon it, she looked up to the Maiden

with two longsome looks, for she had never seen it before. This I may

say of her, to which all that saw her will bear record, that her only

countenance moved [her countenance alone would have excited emotion],

although she had not spoken a word. For there appeared such majesty in

her countenance and visage, and such a heavenly courage in her gesture,

that many said: “That woman is ravished with a higher spirit than man

or woman’s!”’ After reading a short address to the multitude at the

four corners of the scaffold, she calmly resigned herself to her fate,

uttering expressions of devotion till the descent of the axe cut short

her speech.

Weir, being taken four years after, was broken on the wheel (June

26, 1604), a severe death, scarcely ever before inflicted in

Scotland.--_Pit._ _Bir._

* * * * *

[Sidenote: JULY 21.]

In Edinburgh, this day, ‘at nine hours at even, a combat or _tulyie_

[was fought] between twa brether of the Dempsters, and ane of them

slain by John Wilson. [He], being tane with het bluid, was execute at

the flesh-stocks, where he had slain the man the night before.’--_Bir._

[Sidenote: JULY 25.]

Quick as legal vengeance was in this instance, we have proof of its

being of little avail for prevention of like outrages. Alexander

Stewart, son of James Stewart of Allanton, had applied for admission

to the king at Holyroodhouse, at a time ‘when his majesty desirit to

be quiet,’ and Alexander Lockhart, one of the ushers of the chamber,

had accordingly denied him admittance. The young man, conceiving deadly

hatred at Lockhart for this, trained him out of his house unarmed, and

there set upon him with sword and bended pistol to take his life. For a

wonder, Lockhart escaped with only two wounds in the head. The guilty

youth was denounced rebel for not answering for his offence.--_P. C. R._

* * * * *

[Sidenote: JULY.]

[Sidenote: 1600.]

The calamities of dearth, want, and a high mortality continued this

year to press upon the people, in almost all parts of the country. ‘A

sheaf of oat-straw was sold for forty shillings in Edinburgh. There

was also a great death of little children; six or seven buried [in

Edinburgh] in a day.’--_Cal._

In October, the pest was in the town of Findhorn, in consequence of

which there was an edict of the Privy Council, charging all the people

there and thereabouts to keep at home, lest they should spread the

infection.--_P. C. R._ We find the magistrates of Aberdeen in December

ordaining a fast ‘in respect of the fearful infection of the plague

spread abroad in divers parts of Moray.’--_Ab. C. R._

* * * * *

‘The year of God 1600, fourteen whales, of huge bigness, were casten

in by the sea, upon the sands under the town of Dornoch in Sutherland.

They came in alive, and were slain immediately by the inhabitants, who

reaped some commodity thereby. Some of these fishes were ninety feet in

length.’--_G. H. S._

* * * * *

[Sidenote: AUG. 5.]

In the midst of a time unmarked by great events, great excitement was

caused by the attempt of the Earl of Gowrie and his brother upon the

king’s liberty or life, at Perth. James Melville notes that ‘a little

before or hard about the day of this accident, the sea at an instant,

about low-water, debordit and ran up aboon the sea-mark, higher nor at

any stream-tide, athort all the coast-side of Fife, and at an instant

reteired again to almaist low-water, to the great admiration of all,

and skaith done to some.’

[Sidenote: AUG. 6.]

While Robert Bruce and some others of the clergy professed to regard

the conspiracy with incredulity, the great bulk of the people, going

with their loyalty, as often happens, far beyond the merit of its

object, manifested all tokens of extreme satisfaction at the king’s

escape. On the arrival of the news, ‘there was sic joy, that the

cannons shot, the bells rang, the trumpets sounded, the drums strake.

The town rase in arms, with shooting of muskets, casting of fire-works,

and banefires set forth; the like was never seen in Scotland, there was

sic merriness and dancing all the nicht.’--_Bir._

The same day, the state-officers, with some other nobles, went to the

Cross, ‘and there heard Mr David Lindsay make ane orison, and the haill

people sat down on their knees, giving thanks to God for the king’s

deliverance out of sic ane great danger.’--_Bir._

[Sidenote: AUG. 11.]

[Sidenote: 1600.]

A few days later, the king returned from Perth to Edinburgh. ‘The town,

with the haill suburbs, met him upon the sands of Leith in arms, with

great joy and shooting of muskets, and shaking of pikes. He went to the

kirk of Leith, to Mr David Lindsay’s orison. Thereafter, the town of

Edinburgh having convenit, and standing at the Hie Gait [High Street],

his majesty passed to the Cross, the Cross being hung with tapestry,

and went up thereon with his nobles. Mr Patrick Galloway being there,

made ane sermon upon the 124 psalm; he declared the haill circumstances

of the treason proposed by the Earl of Gowrie and his brother, whilk

the king testified by his awn mouth, sitting on the Cross all the time

of the sermon.’--_Bir._

* * * * *

[Sidenote: SEP. 11.]

‘For divers guid respects and considerations,’ the king in council

ordered that thenceforth the Castle of Stirling, in which his son was

kept, should not be accessible to the whole trains of the nobility and

gentry at such times as the king himself was not present; but every

earl should ‘have access with four persons only, every lord with twa

persons, every baron with ane person, and every gentleman and other

person single, and all, ane and all, without armour, saving their

swords.’ All except the earls, lords, and barons, to ‘lay their swords

fra them at the yett.’--_P. C. R._

Soon after, there was an edict for restricting the number of persons

brought to court by noblemen in their trains. An earl was enjoined to

bring not ‘mony mae’ than twelve persons; a lord, eight; and a baron,

four. The indefiniteness of the order amusingly marks the want of all

stern will in King James.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: SEP. 14.]

This being the Rood Fair-day in Jedburgh, a party of rough borderers,

Turnbulls, Davidsons, and others, to the number of twenty, came to the

town, armed with hagbuts and pistols, and there presented themselves

before the lodging of Sir Andrew Kerr of Ferniehirst, ‘fornent

the market-cross, and after divers brags, insolent behaviour, and

menacings, in contempt of him and his servants,’ slew his brother,

Thomas Kerr, and one of his servants. Eleven persons stood a trial for

this act, when it appeared that they were only, _more suo_, executing a

horning of the sheriff of Roxburgh against Thomas Kerr. Sir Andrew Kerr

and others stood a counter-trial for resisting the execution of the

horning. But the only practical result was, that one Andrew Turnbull,

brother of Turnbull of Bewly, was beheaded at the Cross of Edinburgh

(Dec. 16) for the slaughter of Thomas Kerr.--_Pit._

* * * * *

[Sidenote: OCT. 8.]

[Sidenote: 1600.]

Francis Tennant, a wealthy merchant of Edinburgh, was hanged at the

Cross of Edinburgh for uttering pasquils against the king and ‘his

maist noble progenitors.’ Tennant had been an active friend of the

Earl of Bothwell, and when that nobleman was at his last extremity,

towards the end of 1594, this merchant-burgess had undertaken to get

him delivered up to the king. ‘But by the contrair, howsoon he came

to Bothwell, he revealit the cause of his coming to him, and shew[ed]

what reward he had gotten, and offerit himself with all his guids in

Bothwell’s will, affirming that he would not betray him for all the

gold in the warld.’ It was in a ship furnished by Francis Tennant that

the forlorn Bothwell escaped to France.

Francis appears to have consequently forfeited his position in his

native country. Having now fallen into the king’s hands, he was

arraigned for writing a calumnious letter against the king, dated

at Newcastle, January 17, 1597, addressed to Mr Robert Bruce, the

minister, and another to Mr John Davidson, both being under fictitious

signatures; and which letters ‘he had laid down in the kirk of

Edinburgh, to the effect the same might have fallen in the hands of

the people, thereby to bring his majesty in contempt, and steir up

his people to sedition and disobedience.’ King James must have been

stung to an unusual degree of wrath by these pasquils, for, after the

trial, he sent a warrant to the justice-clerk, ordering for sentence,

that Francis Tennant should ‘have his tongue cuttit out at the rute,’

and then be ‘hangit.’ Four days later, indeed, he departed from this

cruel order, and sent a second warrant, stating that, ‘for certain

causes moving us, we have thought good to mitigate that sentence, by

dispensing with the torturing of the said Francis, other [either] in

the boots, or by cutting out of his tongue, and _are content_ that ye

only pronounce doom agains him to be hangit.’

* * * * *

[Sidenote: DEC. 23.]

The baptism of the young prince, subsequently Charles I., took place

this day at Holyroodhouse. The manner in which the king obtained the

means of holding any such ceremonial is illustrated by the following

letter (printed _literatim_),[246] which he addressed on the occasion

to the Laird of Dundas:

[Sidenote: 1600.]

‘Richt traist friend, we greet you heartily well. The baptism of our

dearest son being appointit at Halyrudhouse upon the xxiii day of

Decem^r instant, wherat some princes of France, strangers, with the

specialis of our nobility, being invyted to be present, necessar it

is that great provisions, gude cheir, and sic uther things necessary

for decorations thairof be providit, whilks cannot be had without the

help of sum of our loving subjects, quhairof accounting you one of

the specialis, we have thought good to request you effectuously to

propyne with vennysons, wyld meit, Brissel fowlis,[247] caponis, with

sic other provisions as are maist seasonable at that time and errand.

To be sent into Halyrudhouse upon the 22 day of the said moneth of

December instant, and herewithall to invvte you to be present at that

solemnitie, to take part of your awin gude cheir, as you tender our

honour, and the honour of the country; swa we committ you to God. From

Lithgow, this 6th of Decem^r. 1600--JAMES R.’

* * * * *

At the close of the century, in the midst of the order of things

arranged under the care of the reformed church, we may be said to have

arrived at a point where it may be proper to take a general survey of

the customs and manners of the people. We are enabled to do this with

comparative ease by the copious extracts which have been published from

the session-records of Perth, Aberdeen, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, the

burgh-records of these cities and other documents.

[SUPERSTITIONS AND SUPERSTITIOUS PRACTICES.]

Of some of the superstitions of the people, particularly that regarding

the pretended power of witchcraft, abundant illustrations have been

presented in the chronicle of the bypast forty years. It may now be

remarked, that, besides the witches of malevolent character, who were

objects of dread to the community, there were ‘wise women,’ who were

understood to possess the power of curing diseases generally, and

restoring the health of sickly children, by charms and other means. We

hear, in 1623, of one Janet at Black Ruthven, near Perth, of whom ‘the

bruit went that she could help bairns who had gotten ane dint of ill

wind.’--_P. K. S. R._ At Ruthven, or Huntingtower, there was a well

the water of which was believed to have sanative qualities when used

under certain circumstances. In May 1618, two women of humble rank were

before the kirk-session of Perth, ‘who being asked if they were at

the well in the bank of Huntingtower the last Sabbath, if they drank

thereof, and what they left at it, answered, that they drank thereof,

and that each of them left a prin [pin] thereat; which was found to be

a point of idolatry, in putting the well in God’s room.’--_P. K. S. R._

They were each fined six shillings, and compelled to make public avowal

of their repentance. In August 1623, Janet Jackson was cited before the

same court for following a witch’s advice in employing the deceased

Isobel Haldane ‘to go silent to the well of Ruthven, and silent back

again with water to wash her bairn.’ It was admitted that ‘Isobel

brought the water and washed the bairn therewith, and put the bairn

through a cake made of nine curns of meal gotten from women, married

maidens,’ which was said to be ‘a common practice used for curing

bairns of the cake-mark.’

At St Wollok’s Kirk, a ruin in the parish of Glass, Aberdeenshire, are

two pools by the river’s side, amongst high rocks, and known far and

wide by the name of St Wollok’s Baths, Wollok having been an anchoritic

saint who dwelt here in the fifth century, and is reckoned as the first

bishop of Aberdeen. These pools, always full of water even in times of

the greatest drought, were resorted to so lately as the seventeenth

century, if not later, for the bathing of sickly children. Near by was

St Wollok’s Well, also believed to have a supernatural virtue for the

healing of diseases.[248]

It was customary for great numbers of persons to go on a pilgrimage

barefooted, on the first of May, to Christie’s Well, in Menteith, and

there perform certain superstitious ceremonies, ‘to the great offence

of God and scandal of the true religion.’ In May 1624, the Privy

Council issued a commission to a number of gentlemen of the district,

enjoining them to post themselves at the well and apprehend all such

superstitious persons and put them into the Castle of Doune.

At the Bay of Nigg, near Aberdeen, was a well dedicated to St

Fiacre, and commonly called St Fittich’s Well, which was long held

in the greatest veneration for its efficacy in disease. On the 28th

of November 1630, Margaret Davidson, a married woman, residing in

Aberdeen, was adjudged in an unlaw of five pounds by the kirk-session,

‘for directing her nurse with her bairn to St Fiack’s Well, and washing

her bairn therein for recovery of her health ... and for leaving an

offering in the well.’ The prevalence of this custom is indicated by

the decree of the session on the same day, threatening heavy censure

and punishment to all who should be ‘found going to Sanct Fiack’s Well,

for seeking health to themselves or bairns.’

This Fiack was a Scottish saint--believed to be a son of Eugenius IV.,

king of Scotland--and it is curious to be assured, as we are, that

‘the name _fiacre_ was first given to hackney-coaches, because hired

carriages were first made use of for the convenience of pilgrims who

went from Paris to visit the shrine of this saint.’[249]

When we consider that sanative effects are attributed in our own time,

by a great number of practitioners, to pure water, we may be the more

disposed to believe that there was some natural ground for the faith

which the simple people of old entertained regarding saints’ wells,

the saintly connection being assumed of course as indifferent in the

case. It is remarkable, moreover, how long this faith continued to be

maintained even in its most superstitious form. We are told in the _New

Statistical Account of Scotland_, that a well dedicated to the Virgin

Mary, at Sigget in Aberdeenshire, continued, till within the memory of

living persons, to be resorted to on Pasch Sunday, the votaries always

taking care to leave money or some other article beside the venerated

lymph on departing. In Easter Ross, there are wells which are still

resorted to by some of the more ignorant portion of the rustic classes.

Charms for the healing of sores and gunshot wounds were in great vogue.

In May 1631, Laurence Boak and his wife were before the kirk-session

of Perth, accused of using such charms, and they admitted that the

following was the formula employed for sores:

‘Thir sairs are risen through God’s wark,

And must be laid through God’s help;

The mother Mary, and her dear son,

Lay thir sairs that are begun.’

The chief of fallen spirits was the subject of a strange superstition,

which dictated that a piece of every farm should be left untilled

for his especial honour. It went by the respectful appellation of

the _Goodman’s Croft_. In May 1594, the General Assembly had under

their attention that such a weird custom was rife in Garioch,

Aberdeenshire; and it called for an act of the Estates ‘ordaining

all persons possessors of the said lands, to cause labour the same,

betwixt and a certain day to be appointed thereto; otherwise, in case

of disobedience, the said lands to fall into the king’s hands, to be

disponed to such persons as please his majesty, who will labour the

same.’--_Cal._

So lately as 1651, at a visitation of the kirk of Rhynie in

Aberdeenshire, it was admitted by Sir William Gordon of Lesmore, that a

part of his _mains_ or home-farm was given away to the _Goodman_, and

used not to be laboured; ‘but he had a mind, by the assistance of God,

to cause labour the same.’[250]

Some religious practices of the Romish Church continued to be in

vogue for many years after the Reformation, notwithstanding all that

the Presbyterian kirk could do for their suppression. There had been

a custom of pilgrimising, for penitential purposes, to certain holy

places, precisely as there still is in the more Catholic districts of

Ireland. We may presume that, as in the sister-island, people went

barefooted to the sacred spot, walked on bare knees repeatedly round

it, repeating prayers, and afterwards formally confessed their sins

to the priests who superintended the ceremonial. In these reformed

times, the affair would be of course shorn of many of its rites; but

certainly the habit of going on pilgrimage was still such as to give

great concern to presbyteries and general assemblies. One of the chief

places still in vogue was the Chapel of Grace, on the western bank of

the Spey, near Fochabers--a mere ruin, but held in great veneration,

and resorted to by devout people from all parts of the north of

Scotland. Another was the Chapel of the Virgin, at Ordiquhill in

Banffshire, where also there was a well believed to possess miraculous

virtue. We find the General Assembly which met at Linlithgow in 1608,

recommending that, for remedy of the growth of papistry, ‘order be

taken with the pilgrimages’--specifying these two, and a well in the

district of Enzie. Of course Catholics were most disposed to making the

pilgrimages. In 1592 Robert Wauchope of Caikmuir, suspected papist,

was accused before his presbytery of going yearly _barefooted_ in

pilgrimage to the Cross of Peebles, and he admitted having been guilty

of such proceedings a few years back, but now he had given it up as a

‘rite unprofitable and ungodly.’ We hear of Lady Aboyne going to the

Chapel of Grace every year, being a journey of thirty Scotch miles, the

two last of which she always performed on her bare feet.[251] About the

time of the National Covenant (1638), what remained of the Chapel of

Grace was thrown down, with a view to putting a stop to the practice;

but this seems to have been far from an effectual measure. In a work

written in 1775, the author says: ‘In the north end of the parish [of

Dundurcus] stood the Chapel of Grace, and near to it the well of that

name, to which multitudes from the Western Isles do still resort, and

nothing short of violence can restrain their superstition.’[252]

There were even practices of an obviously heathen origin still

flourishing in the country. That of kindling fires at Midsummer and

on St Peter’s Eve seems to have been among the most difficult to

eradicate. In July 1608, several inhabitants of Aberdeen were accused

before the kirk-session, of having had fires kindled in front of their

houses on one of these evenings. Gilbert Keith of Achiries, ‘a common

banner and swearer,’ confessed the fault. Mr Thomas Menzies, bailie,

gave an equivocating answer. Others alleged that the fires had been

kindled by their servants and children.--_A. K S. R._

[HOLIDAYS AND POPULAR PLAYS.]

The observance of Yule (Christmas), Pasch (Easter), and the various

saints’ days, had been sternly repressed at the Reformation. So were

the May-games and other holiday amusements in vogue under the ancient

faith. Nevertheless, we still find all of these matters enjoying a sort

of twilight life. They assert their vitality by the very efforts made

from time to time to extinguish them. Passing over the Robin Hood play

and other Edinburgh May-sports, to which repeated reference has been

made in the chronicle, we may advert to the corresponding doings at the

Fair City of the Tay.

The people of Perth had been in the habit, before the Reformation, of

observing Corpus Christi Day (second Thursday after Whitsunday) and

St Obert’s Day. On the former, it was customary to have a play. After

the change of religion, there was a great inclination to keep up these

old practices, which the church, however, condemned as ‘idolatrous,

superstitious, and slanderous.’ In 1577, the kirk-session of Perth

prosecuted several persons for taking part in the Corpus Christi

play. Thomas Thorsails, who had borne the ensenyie or flag, had to

submit himself to the discipline of the kirk, and promise ‘never

to meddle with such things again,’ in order that he might have his

bairn baptised. A considerable number of persons had to make the like

submission that they might be at peace with the session. Nevertheless,

on the ensuing 10th of December, being St Obert’s Eve, there was a

procession as usual; and several citizens were brought to submission,

‘in that they superstitiously passed about the town, disguised, in

piping and dancing, and torches bearing.’ John Fyvie afterwards

confessed that on this occasion ‘he passed through the town striking

the drum, which was one of the common drums of the town, accompanied

with certain others--such as John Macbeth, William Jack riding upon ane

horse going in men’s shoes.’--_P. K. S. R._

In Aberdeen, December 30, 1574, certain persons were charged before

the kirk-session of Aberdeen ‘for playing, dancing, and singing of

filthy carols on Yule Day [Christmas Day] at even, and on Sunday at

even thereafter.’--_A. K. S. R._ January 10, 1575-6, ‘the haill deacons

of crafts within this burgh are ordained to take trial of their crafts

for sitting idle on Yule Day last was.’--_Ibid._ In Perth, January

10, 1596-7, ‘William Williamson, baxter, is accused of baking and

selling great loaves at Yule, which was slanderous, and cherishing a

superstition in the hearts of the ignorant.’--_P. K. S. R._

[FROLICS AND MASQUERADINGS.]

The sessions appear to have everywhere had great battlings with

old-accustomed habits of festival-keeping and merry-making, in which

the people indulged, probably without any idea of committing a sin.

Some of their habits were connected with superstition, and thus gave

double offence.

There was a cave called the Dragon-hole, on the face of the Kinnoul

Hill near Perth. It was of difficult access, and old tradition had her

stories about it. The common sort of people were accustomed to make a

merry procession to the Dragon-hole once a year in May; perhaps they

had continued to do so since the days of heathenrie. May 2, 1580,

‘because that the assembly of minister and elders understand that the

resort to the Dragon-hole, as well by young men as women, with their

piping and drums striking before them through this town, had raised no

small slander to this congregation,’ they therefore ordain that each

person guilty of this practice shall pay twenty shillings to the poor,

and make public repentance.

Notwithstanding all efforts at repression, cases of excessive

conviviality and of questionable frolics are not infrequent in these

moral registers. It seems to have been a favourite prank to interchange

the dresses of the sexes, and make a parade through the town by night,

singing merry songs. At Aberdeen, February 9, 1575-6, Madge Morison

is ‘decreit to pay 6s. 8d. to the magistrate, and Andrew Caithness is

become caution for her repentance-making when she is required, and that

for the abusing of herself in claithing of her with men’s claiths at

the lyke [wake] of George Elmsly’s wife.’ A month after, in the same

place, a group of women, ‘tryit presently as dancers in men’s claiths,

under silence of night, in house and through the town,’ are assured

that if found hereafter in the same fault, ‘they sall be debarrit fra

all benefit of the kirk, and openly proclaimit in pulpit.’

At some blithesome bridal which took place in Aberdeen in August 1605,

a number of young men and women danced through the town together,

‘the young men being clad in women’s apparel, whilk is accounted ane

abomination (Deut. xxii. 5), and the young women with masks on their

faces, thereby passing the bounds of modesty and shamefacedness,

whilk aught to be in young women, namely [especially] in a reformed

city.’ The matter was referred to the provincial assembly, and severe

penalties threatened for future instances of the offence.--_A. K. S. R._

At Perth, in 1609, we find the kirk-session dealing with an ultra-merry

company, composed of Andrew Johnston, James Jackson, and David Dickson,

and three women, two of whom were the wives of the first two men.

They were accused of having gone about the town on the evening of the

preceding Tuesday, disguised, and with swords and staves, molesting

their neighbours. They stated that they had been supping, and after

supper, from mere merriness, had gone about the town, but without

molesting anybody. ‘It was certainly found that they were disguised;

namely, Andrew Johnston’s wife having her hair hanging down, and a

black hat upon her head; her husband with a sword into his hand; James

Jackson having a mutch [woman’s cap] upon his head, and a woman’s

gown; and that they hurt and molested several persons.’ The matter

was aggravated by the consideration that it was a time of plague, and

the offenders were convalescents new come in from the fields, with

‘the blotch and boil’ still on their persons. A public repentance was

decreed to them.--_P. K. S. R._

The chief element of conviviality among the common people, at this

time, and for several generations later, was a light ale which the

keepers of taverns made at home; hence _browster-wife_ came to be

a synonym for a woman keeping a public-house. The fierier and more

fatal whisky was, however, not unknown. In the Aberdeen Kirk-session

Register, under March 1606, we have two men brought up for ‘abusing

themselves last week by extraordinar drinking of aqua-vitie.’

[OBSERVANCE OF SUNDAY.]

The Protestant Church took the observance of Sunday as a Sabbath

from the ancient church; and the Presbyterians of Scotland adopted

it fully, while rejecting all the other festivals--a fact with which

Ninian Winzet did not fail to taunt them as an inconsistency in his

_Tractates_, published immediately after the Reformation.[253] Not

merely ecclesiastical acts, but several statutes of the realm, were

put in effect for the purpose of enforcing the observance of the day

as a day of rest and of religious exercises. From the terms of these,

however, and from the accounts we have of frequent punishments for

their neglect or infraction, it is evident that many years elapsed

before the people of Scotland attained to that placid acquiescence in

the order for the day which we now see.

The main demands of the new church were for a complete abstinence

from work and market-holding, as well as from public amusements, and

a regular attendance on the sermons. We have seen some instances of

the struggles of the church to induce mercantile people to abandon

Sunday-marketing. So late as 1596, it is evident that their wishes

were not fully attained, as we find the presbytery of Meigle then

complaining to the Privy Council of the obstinate refusal of the

people in their district to abandon a Sunday-market.[254] Two years

later, the Town Council of Aberdeen was content to ordain that ‘nae

mercat, either of fish or flesh, shall be on the Sabbath-day _in time

of sermon_‘--a clear proof that they did not look for a complete

suppression of marketing on that day, but only its cessation in time

of church-service. There are many similar indications that at this

early period taverns were allowed to be open, and public amusements

permitted, at times of the day apart from ‘the sermons.’ It is somewhat

startling to find the General Assembly itself, in 1579, expressing

indifference to marriages being solemnised on Sunday (_B. U. K._), and

only so late as January 1586, discharging ‘all marriages to be made

on Sundays in the morning in time coming.’ Nor is it less surprising

to find a kirk-session, so late as 1607, requiring that ‘the mill be

stayit from grinding on the Sabbath-day, _at least by eight in the

morning_.’[255] It clearly appears to have been common in 1609 for

tailors, shoemakers, and bakers in Aberdeen, to work till eight or nine

every Sunday morning, ‘as gif it were ane ouk day.’--_A. K. S. R._

Breach of the Sunday arrangements was usually punished by fines. In

Aberdeen, in 1562, for an elder or deacon of the church to be absent

from the preachings, inferred a penalty of ‘twa shillings;’ for

‘others honest persons of the town,’ sixpence. November 24, 1575, it

is statute that ‘all persons being absent fra the preachings on the

Sunday, without lawful business, and all persons ganging in the gait or

playing in the links [downs], or other places, the times of preaching

or prayers on the Sunday, and all persons making mercat merchandise

on Sunday within the town ... sall be secluded fra all benefit of the

kirk unto the time they satisfy the kirk in their repentance, and

[the] magistrate by ane pecunial fine.’ Notwithstanding this statute,

we find the Town Council in 1588 referring to the fact, that a great

number of the inhabitants of the burgh keep away from church both on

Sundays and week-days, and give themselves to ‘gaming and playing,

passing to taverns and ale-houses, using the trade of merchandise and

handy labour in time of sermon on the week-day;’ for which reason it is

ordained that all shall attend the sermons on Sunday, ‘afore and after

noon;’ as also every Tuesday and Thursday ‘afore noon,’ under certain

penalties--a householder or his wife, 13s. 4d.; a craftsman, 6s. 8d.;

‘and in case ony merchand or burgess of guild be found within his

merchand booth after the ringing of the third bell to the sermon on the

week-day, to pay 6s. 8d.’ These ordinances were acted upon. November

28, 1602, ‘the wife of James Bannerman, for working on the Sabbath-day,

[is] unlawit in 6s. 8d.’ ‘The same day, the session ordains that nae

baxters within this burgh work, nor bake any baken meat, in time

coming, on the Sabbath-day.’ Four Aberdeen citizens were, January 16,

1603, ‘unlawit, ilk ane of them, in 3s. 4d., for their absence fra the

sermons on Sunday last, confessit by themselves.’--_Ab. C. R._ Soon

after we find a bailie and two elders appointed to go through the town

in time of sermon, and searching any house they pleased, note the names

of all they found at home; likewise to watch the ferry-boat, and note

the names of ‘sic as gangs to Downie, that they may be punishit.’--_A.

K. S. R._

At Perth, January 8, 1582-3, ‘it was ordained that an elder of every

quarter shall pass through the same every Sunday in time of preaching

before noon, their time about, and note them that are found in taverns,

baxters’ booths, or on the gaits, and delate them to the Assembly,

that every one of them that is absent from the kirk may be poinded for

twenty shillings, according to the act of parliament.’ Soon after, a

married woman named Hunter was fined three pounds for her absence from

church during the bygone year, and other three pounds for her absence

during the time of fasting. In September 1585, tavern-keepers were

subjected to a heavy fine for selling wine and ale in time of sermon.

In 1587, the Sunday penalties were extended to the Thursday sermon.

February 21, 1591-2, John Pitscottie, younger of Luncarty, and several

other persons, ‘confessed that on the Sunday of the fast, in the time

of preaching in the afternoon, they were playing at foot-ball in the

Meadow Inch of the Muirton, and that the same was an offence; therefore

they were ordained on Sunday next to make their repentance.’

In the same town, January 29, 1592-3, ‘the Lady Innernytie being

called, and accused for absenting herself and the rest of her family

from the hearing of the word on Sabbath, compears and confesses that

she does it not, neither in contempt of the word nor of the minister,

but only by reason of her sickness, and promises when she shall be well

in health, to repair more frequently to the kirk and hearing of the

word.’ This lady was the wife of Elphinstone of Innernytie, a judge of

the Court of Session, and a Catholic. It is therefore probable that

her submission was hypocritical. July 31, 1598, ‘Andrew Robertson,

chirurgeon, being accused of breaking the Sabbath-day by polling and

razing of the Laird of ... , declared he did it quietly at the

request of the gentleman, without outgoing.’ He was ordained to make

repentance, and warned for the future. It will be understood that under

the designation of chirurgeon both surgery and the functions of the

barber were embraced.

The Perth kirk-session also exerted itself to prevent Highland reapers

from sauntering on the streets on Sunday, waiting to be hired (August

1593); and they took strong measures to put an end to the practice of

cadgers departing from the Saturday market on Sunday morning (March

1599). Four persons were rebuked in November of this last year for

‘playing at golf on the North Inch in the time of the preaching after

noon on the Sabbath’--a sport which would not now be indulged in on

Sunday in any part of Scotland. April 13, 1601, ‘George Murray [was]

accused for suffering of ale to be sold in time of preaching on the

Sabbath in his house. [He] answered that he was in the kirk himself,

and his wife also; but his servant came, and brought his wife out of

the kirk to ane daughter of Tullibardine’s [Murray of Tullibardine--the

family since become Dukes of Athole], to give her some clothes which

she had of hers in custody, and in the mean time caused fill drink to

the said gentlewoman and her servants with her.’ Murray was dismissed

with an admonition.

By a stern act of the Aberdeen town-council, passed in 1598, a severe

tariff of fines was ordained for various ranks of people on their

staying away from Sunday and week-day services in the churches,

every husband to be answerable for his wife, and every master for

his servants. A burgess of guild or his wife was to pay 13s. 4d. for

absence from church on Sunday. ‘Likewise, following the example of

other weel-reformit congregations of this realm, [the council] statutes

and ordains that the wives of all burgesses of guild, and of the maist

honest and substantious craftsmen of this burgh, sall sit in the midst

and body of the kirk in time of sermon, and not in the side-ailes, nor

behind pillars, to the effect that they may mair easily see and hear

the deliverer and preacher of the word; and siclike ordains, that the

women of the ranks aforesaid sall repair to the kirk, every ane of

them having a cloak, as the maist comely and decent outer garment, and

not with plaids, as has been frequently used; and that every ane of

them likewise sall have stules, sae mony as may commodiously have the

same, according to the decent form observed in all reformit burghs and

congregations of this realm.’--_Ab. C. R._

While it is thus apparent that observance during time of sermon and

attendance thereupon were the principal objects held in view, it

clearly appears that the day, in its totality, was then a different

thing from what it now is. It was, as in Norway still, held to commence

at sunset of Saturday, and to terminate on Sunday at sunset, or at

six o’clock. As illustrations of this fact, two curious notices may

be cited. In May 1594, the presbytery of Glasgow is found forbidding

a piper to play his pipes on Sunday ‘frae the sun rising till the sun

going-to.’[256] When a fast was ordained in Edinburgh, in December

1574, on account of impending pestilence, it was to commence ‘on

Saturday next at aucht hours at even, and sae to continue while [until]

Sunday at six hours at even.’[257] An act of the presbytery of Glasgow,

January 1, 1635, ordered that the Sabbath be from 12 on Saturday night

to 12 on Sunday night;[258] a clear proof that there was previously a

different arrangement.

Another curious fact, indicative of a progress in the ideas of the

reformed kirk as to Sabbath-keeping, is that there were ‘play-Sundays’

till the end of the sixteenth century. The presbytery of Aberdeen

ordered in 1599 that ‘there be nae play-Sundays hereafter, under all

hiest pain.’--_A. P. R._

In April 1600, in obedience to an ordinance of the General Assembly,

it was arranged at Aberdeen--and of course a similar arrangement would

be made in other places--that ‘on Thursday, ilk ouk [every week],

the masters of households, their wives, bairns, and servants should

compeir, ilk ane within their awn parish kirk, to their awn minister,

to be instructit by them in the grunds of religion and heads of

catechism, and to give, as they should be demanded, ane proof and trial

of their profiting in the said heads.’

After this arrangement had been made, the religious observances of

the citizen occupied a considerable share of his time. He was bound

under penalties to be twice in church on Sunday, to make Monday a

‘pastime-day, for eschewing of the profanation of the Sabbath-day,’ to

give Tuesday forenoon to a service in the parish church, to do the same

on Thursday forenoon, and on that day also to attend a catechetical

meeting with his family. Three forenoons each week remained for his

business and ordinary affairs. Notwithstanding this liberal amount

of external observance, the General Assembly appointed, in 1601, ‘a

general humiliation for the sins of the land and contempt of the

gospel, to be kept the two last Sabbaths of June and all the week

intervening.’

[LICENTIOUS CONDUCT.]

Licentious conduct was from the first an object of severe observation

to the reformed church, and many sharp measures were taken and harsh

punishments inflicted for its repression.

In 1562, the kirk-session of Aberdeen ordained as its punishment, for

the first offence, exposure before the congregation; for the second,

carting and ducking; for the third, banishment from the town. A

subsequent act of parliament imposed still severer punishment--‘That

is to say, for the first fault, as weel the man as the woman sall pay

the sowm of forty pounds, or than [else] he and she sall be imprisoned

for the space of aucht days, their food to be breid and small drink,

and thereafter present[ed] to the mercat-place of the town or parochin,

barehead[ed], and there stand fastened, that they may not remove, for

the space of twa hours.’ To this punishment some additions were made

for a second offence, as cold water for food, and a shaving of the

head. A third inferred ducking and banishment.

At Aberdeen, in 1591, in a case where a marriage relationship existed,

the punishment inferred the depth of horror with which the offence

was on that account regarded, the man being ordained to be banished

from the town, but first to be set up at the cross on three several

market-days, bound to the pillar by a pair of branks, and having a

paper-crown on his head inscribed with his crime; also to stand on

three several Sundays at the kirk-door, in haircloth, barelegged and

barefooted, while the people are assembling; after which to be exposed

in like guise at the pillar of repentance during the whole time of

worship.[259]

November 20, 1582, the kirk-session of Perth ordains John Ronaldson,

having offenders of this class in his custody, ‘to put every one of

them in a sundry house in time coming, to give them bread and small

drink, to let none of them come to the nether window [probably a

window where they could see or converse with the people passing on the

street]; and when they come to the cross-head, that they shall be fast

locked in the irons two hours, their kurchies [caps] off their heads,

and their faces bare, without ane plaid or any other covering.’

A stool or seat was raised in a conspicuous situation in each church,

where penitents under this as well as other offences had to sit during

service, and afterwards bear the rebuke of the minister. Many entries

in the session records shew the difficulty there had always been in

getting penitents, while in this situation, to remain unmuffled or

uncovered. The only correction that seems to have been available was

to ordain that such a sitting went for nothing. The Aberdeen session,

August 1608, ordain that, ‘because, in times past, most part of women

that come to the pillar to make their public repentance, sat thereon

with their plaids about their head, coming down over their faces the

haill time of their sitting on the stool, so that almaist nane of the

congregation could see their faces, or knaw what they were, whereby

they made nae account of their coming to the stool, but misregarded

the same altogether’--the officer should thenceforth take the plaid

away from each penitent ‘before her upganging to the pillar.’ The Perth

session, in August 1599, had to take sharp measures with Margaret Marr,

because being exalted to the seat of repentance, ‘she sat in the back

side with her face covered, and being desired by John Jack, officiar,

to sit on the fore side, and uncover her face that she might be seen,

she uttered words against him in a bitter manner, and extended her

voice in such sort that she was heard through all the kirk in time of

sermon, and so behaved herself uncomely in the presence of strangers,

to the great slander of this congregation.’ In very gross cases, a

paper-crown was added to the external marks of infamy inflicted on

delinquents.

As a specimen of the interference with private life to which the clergy

were led in their anxiety to suppress licentiousness--the kirk-session

of Perth (1586-7) would not suffer two unmarried sisters to continue

to live together in one house, but ordained them to go to service, ‘or

where they may be best entertained without slander,’ under pain of

imprisonment and banishment from the town.

A custom obtained in those days of entering into conjugal life

on the strength simply of a contract of marriage. It was called

_hand-fasting_. The ceremony of marriage might take place afterwards

or not, as the parties pleased. This the reformed clergy denounced as

immoral, and they set themselves to correct it. The Aberdeen session,

December 10, 1562, ordained, ‘Because sundry and many within this

town are hand-fast, as they call it, and made promise of marriage a

long space bygane, some seven year, some sax year, some langer, some

shorter, and as yet will not marry and complete that honourable band,

nother for fear of God nor love of their party’--that ‘all sic persons

as has promised marriage faithfully complete the samen betwixt this

and Fasteren’s Even next to come;’ penalty left blank. Such parties

are also ordained in the meantime to live as single persons. April

12, 1568, the same session ordained that ‘neither the minister nor

reader be present at contracts of marriage-making, as they call their

hand-fastings, nor make nae sic band.’

The kirk-session records of the period must be held as revealing on

the whole a very low state of morals, particularly among the humbler

classes of the people.

[ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE IN OTHER MATTERS.]

Ecclesiastical discipline took upon it in those days to interfere with

many matters in which it would be set at defiance in our day. It was

part of the earnestness of the general religious feeling, while as yet

no one had ventured to think that there are points which may best be

left to the private consciousness, or which, at least, it can serve no

good end to make matter of public regulation.

Of the sharp dealing of the Presbyterian preachers and their courts

with avowed Catholics, we have already seen abundant illustrations, and

more will yet be presented. Having become satisfied that the Catholic

religion was a system of damnable error, our ancestors acted logically

on the conviction, and thought no measure, however forcible or severe,

misapplied, if it could save the people of that persuasion from the

unavoidable consequences, and prevent the evil from spreading. To

purge the land of papists and idolaters was therefore an object held

constantly in view by the church-courts.

The slightest suspicion of being papistically inclined was sure to

bring any one to trouble. One David Calderwood in Glasgow being found

in possession of a copy of Archbishop Hamilton’s popish catechism,

the presbytery sent a minister ‘to try and find of the said David’s

religion.’ Another citizen of Glasgow was taken to task, on a charge of

having, in the way of his profession as a painter, painted crucifixes

in sundry houses. A Lady Livingston being suspected of unsoundness in

the faith, in order ‘that she may be won to God,’ a deputation was sent

by the presbytery to confer with her, ‘anent the heads of religion,’

and she was summoned under pain of excommunication. The same reverend

body, hearing of one James Fleming, an Irishman, sent ‘to inquire of

him his religion,’ On the 5th of June 1599, they are found taking

measures for discovering Irishmen in their bounds, and ascertaining

‘wha are papists and pernicious to others they haunt amang.’

That to receive a Catholic priest into one’s house was a serious

matter in those days, there is abundant evidence, some of which

will be found in the sequel. But even to receive or keep company

with an excommunicated papist, inferred severe pains; and in

the Perth kirk-session register there are several instances of

these being inflicted. For example, Gabriel Mercer was, in 1595,

ordered to make public declaration from his seat in church of his

offence in entertaining for three days Elphinstone of Innernytie,

an excommunicated papist. The same order was given in 1610 in the

case of Alexander Crichton of Perth, ‘who was convicted on his own

confession of haunting and frequenting the company of Robert Crichton,

excommunicate papist, eating and drinking with him in taverns, and

walking on the street.’--_P. K. S. R._

In 1598, we find the presbytery of Glasgow concerning itself about a

young man who had passed his father without lifting his bonnet. He was

judged ‘a stubborn and disobedient son to his father.’ About 1574, the

kirk-session of Edinburgh was occupied for some days in considering the

case of Niel Laing, accused of making a pompous convoy and superfluous

banqueting at the marriage of Margaret Danielston, ‘to the great

slander of the kirk,’ which had forbid such doings.

The absence of external appearances of joy in Scotland, in contrast

with the frequent holidayings and merry-makings of the continent, has

been much remarked upon. We find in the records of ecclesiastical

discipline clear traces of the process by which this distinction was

brought about. To the puritan kirk of the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries every outward demonstration of natural good spirits was a

sort of sin, to be as far as possible repressed. To make marriages

sober and quiet was one special object. It was customary in humble

life for a young couple, on being wedded, to receive miscellaneous

company, and hold a kind of ball, each person contributing towards the

expenses, with something over for the benefit of the young pair. Such a

custom has been kept up almost to our own time, but much shorn of its

original spirit. In the latter years of the sixteenth century, it was

customary for the party to go to the Market-cross, and dance round it.

At Stirling, October 30, 1600, the kirk-session, finding ‘there has

been great dancing and vanity publicly at the Cross usit by married

persons and their company on their marriage-day,’ took measures to put

a stop to the practice. It ordained ‘that nane be married till ten

pounds be consigned, for the better security that there be nae mair

ta’en for ane bridal lawing than five shillings according to order,’

‘with certification, gif the order of the bridal lawing be broken, the

said ten pounds sall be confiscat.’[260]

In like manner the kirk-session of Cambusnethan, in September 1649,

ordained ‘that there suld be no pipers at bridals, and who ever suld

have a piper playing at their bridal, sall lose their consigned money.’

And in June next year, the same reverend body decreed that men and

women ‘guilty of promiscuous dancing,’ should stand in a public place

and confess their fault.[261]

The power of the kirk to enforce its discipline and maintain

conformity, was a formidable one, resting ultimately on their sentence

of excommunication, of which the following contemporary description may

be given: ‘... whasoever incurs the danger thereof is given over in

thir days by the ministers, in presence of the haill people assembled

at the kirk, in the hands of Satan, as not worthy of Christian

society, and therefore made odious to all men, that they should eschew

his company, and refuse him all kind of hospitality; and the person

thus continuing in refusal by the space of a haill year, his goods

are decerned to appertain to the king, sae lang as the disobedient

lives.’[262]--_H. K. J._

No unprejudiced person can doubt that the Presbyterian clergy of this

age were in general correct in their own deportment, and sincerely

anxious to promote virtue among the people; but it is also evident to

us, under our superior lights, that they carried their discipline to a

pitch at once irreconcilable with the natural rights of mankind, and

calculated to have effects different from what were intended. It dived

too much into the details of private life, was too inconsiderate of

human infirmity, was extremely cruel, and altogether erred in trusting

too much to force and too little to moral suasion. Even the innocent

playfulness of the human heart seems to have been viewed by these stern

moralists as an evil thing, or at least a thing leaning to the side of

vice. On the injurious tendency of any system which equally makes a

crime out of some peculiarity of opinion, or indifferent action, and

of an actual infraction of the rights of our fellow-creatures, it were

needless to insist.

[CUSTOMS.]

In the Council Register of Aberdeen, we obtain many notices of the

customs of the burgh, most of which were probably common to other towns.

It seems to have been the practice of the whole people to assemble,

but only at command of the council, in order to deliberate together

upon any matter of importance, and make such arrangements as were

required for the general weal. For this purpose, they were summoned by

the bellman, who went through ‘the haill rews of the town’ ringing his

bell, of which he had to make oath in order to render legal what was

ordained by the meeting.

In 1574, it was ordained at such a meeting that John Cowpar should

‘pass every day in the morning at four hours, and every nicht at eight

hours, through all the rews of the town, playing upon the Almany

whistle [German flute?], with ane servant with him playing on the

tabroun, whereby the craftsmen their servants and all others laborious

folks, being warnit and excitat, may pass to their labours and frae

their labours in due and convenient time.’

In 1576, it is ‘statute with consent of the haill town, that every

brother of guild, merchant, and craftsman, shall have in all time

coming ane halbert, Danish axe, and javelin within his booth.’ The

wearing of plaids by the citizens was at the same time strictly

forbidden, also the use of blue bonnets--for what reason does not

clearly appear. The town’s landmarks were ridden every year. The

keeping of swine within the town is (1578) forbidden, on penalty of

having the animals taken and slain.

December 5, 1582, the town-council of Aberdeen ratified a contract

with John Kay, lorimer, ‘anent the mending of the town’s three knocks

[clocks], and buying fra him of the new knock, for payment to the said

John of twa hundred merks.’ December 17, 1595, the council, considering

that ‘the twa common knocks of this burgh--namely, the kirk knock

and the tolbooth knock--sin Martinmass last, has been evil handlit

and rulit, and has not gane induring the said space, feed Thomas

Gordon, gunmaker, to rule the said twa knocks, and to cause them gang

and strike the hours richtly baith night and day.’ The employment

of a lorimer and a gunmaker in this business seems to imply, that a

clockmaker or watchmaker was not yet one of the trades of Aberdeen.

By an old custom, the boys of the grammar-school of Aberdeen had at

Christmas taken possession of the school, to the exclusion of their

masters and all authority, and a vacation of about a fortnight took

place. In 1580 and 1581, the magistrates are found exerting themselves

to enforce certain statutes by which this assumed privilege of the boys

had been abrogated and discharged; and they agreed that to make up for

the vacation, there should be three holidays at the beginning of each

quarter, making twelve in all for the year. From this and other facts,

it appears that the long vacation now customary in summer or autumn in

Scottish schools, was then unknown.

The school disorder at Yule is again spoken of in 1604 as very violent,

the boys ‘keeping and halding the same against their masters with

swords, guns, pistols, and other weapons, spulying and taking of puir

folks’ geir, sic as geese, fowls, peats, and other vivres, during

the halding thereof.’ It is ordered that, to avoid such disorders

in future, no boy from without the town shall be admitted without a

caution for his good-behaviour.

The Aberdeen magistrates, on hearing (February 22, 1593-4) how the

burghs of Edinburgh, Perth, Dundee, and Montrose had celebrated the

birth of a son and heir to the king ‘by bigging of fires, praising and

thanking God for the benefit, by singing of psalms through the haill

streets and rews of the towns, drinking of wine at the crosses thereof,

and otherwise liberally bestowing of spiceries,’ ordained that it

should be similarly observed in their burgh on _Sunday_ next, the 24th

instant, immediately after the afternoon sermon. It was ordered that

there should be ‘ane table covered at the Cross, for the magistrates

and baith the councils, with twa boyns[263] of English beer ... the

wine to be drunken in sic a reasonable quantity as the dean of guild

sall devise, four dozen buists[264] of scorchets,[265] confeits, and

confections, to be casten among the people, with glasses to be broken.’

June 7, 1596, a number of persons are cited as contravening the ancient

statutes ordaining that ‘all burgesses of guild and freemen of free

regal burghs sall dwell, mak their residence and remaining, with

their wives, bairns, servants, households, and family, hauld stob and

stake,[266] fire and flet,[267] within the burgh where they are free,

scot, lot, watch, walk, and ward.’ In the event of their not conforming

to the rule by an appointed day, they are assured that they shall lose

their privileges.

A prayer appointed (1598) to be said before the election of the

magistrates of Aberdeen is not unworthy of preservation, as a trait of

the feelings of such communities in that age: ‘Eternal and ever-hearing

God, who has created mankind to society, in the whilk thou that is

the God of order and hates confusion, has appointed some to rule and

govern, and others to be governed, and for this cause has set down in

thy word the notes and marks of sic as thou hast appointed to bear

government; likeas of thy great mercy thou has gathered us to be ane

of the famous and honourable burghs of this kingdom, and has reservit

to us this liberty, yearly to cheise our council and magistrates;

we beseech thee, for thy Christ’s sake, seeing we are presently

assembled for that purpose, be present in the midst of us, furnish us

with spiritual wisdom, and direct our hearts in sic sort, that, all

corrupt affections being removed, we may cheise baith to be council and

magistrates, for the year to come, of our brethren fearing God, men of

knawledge, haters of avarice, and _men of courage and action_, that

all our proceedings herein may tend to thy glory, to the weel of the

haill inhabitants of this burgh, and we may have a good testimony of

conscience before thee....’

In the Aberdeen council records, frequent allusions are made to ‘a

custom observit in this burgh heretofore in all ages,’ of giving an

entertainment to strangers of distinction on their arriving in the

town. Being informed, December 13, 1598, that the Duke of Lennox and

the Earl of Huntly are to be in the town this night, the council

‘ordains the said twa noblemen, in signification of the town’s guid

will and favour, to be remembered with the wine and spicery at their

here-coming.’ The articles ordered are, ‘ane dozen buists of scorchets,

confeits, and confections, together with six quarts of wine, thereof

three quarts of the best wine, to wit, Hullock and wine tent, and

three quarts of other wine.’ The Earl of Huntly got another similar

entertainment, March 28, 1599, on coming to Aberdeen, ‘for halding of

justice-courts on shooters and havers of pistols.’

A comical regulation regarding public worship occurs in the Perth

kirk-session record under 1616. The session ordained ‘John Tenender,

session-officer, to have his red staff in the kirk on the Sabbath-days,

therewith to wauken sleepers, and to remove greeting bairns furth of

the kirk.’ Acts of session referring to the practice of the bringing

of dogs into church, by which worship was much disturbed, are also

frequent.

The hours for meals were in those days of a primitive description.

King Henry, Lord Darnley, dined at two o’clock. This was, however,

comparatively a late hour. In 1589, King James, then living in William

Fowler’s house in Edinburgh, went out to the hunting in the morning,

‘trysting to come in to his dinner about ane afternoon.’--_Moy._ In

1607, the wooden bridge of Perth was carried away by a flood ‘betwixt

twelve and ane, on ane Sunday, _in time of dinner_.’ Queen Mary

was sitting at supper between five and six in the afternoon, when

Riccio was reft from her side and slaughtered. And Agnes Sampson, the

noted witch, appointed certain persons to meet her in the garden at

Edmondstone, ‘after supper, betwixt five and sax at even.’ The reader

will remember that it was after supper, and probably some conviviality

following upon it, that King James (May 1587) led forth his nobility in

procession to the Cross of Edinburgh, and delighted the citizens with

the spectacle of so many reconciled enemies.

[TRAITS OF MANNERS.]

The Aberdeen council, in 1592, ‘considering the wicked and ungodly

use croppen in and ower frequently usit amang all sorts of people, in

blaspheming of God’s holy name, and swearing of horrible and execrable

aiths,’ ordained the same to be punished by fine. To make this the

more effectual, masters were ordained to exact the fines from their

servants, and deduct them from wages; husbands to do the same from

their wives, keeping a box in which to put the money, and punish

their children for the like offence with ‘palmers’ [an instrument for

inflicting lashes on the open hand]--‘according to the custom of other

weel-reformed towns and congregations.’ In 1604, the presbytery of

Aberdeen enforced this effort of the magistracy by an edict, ordering

that, for the repression of oaths and blasphemous language, the master

of every house should keep a ‘palmer,’ and therewith punish all

offenders who have no money to pay fines.--_A. P. R._

In February 1592-3, the Aberdeen council, when expecting a visit of

the king, ordained that ‘there sall be propynit to his majesty’s house

... ane puncheon of auld Bourdeaux wine, gif it may be had for money,

and, gif not, ane last of the best and finest ale that may be gotten

within this burgh, together with ... four pund wecht of pepper, half

pund of maces, four unces of saffron, half pund of cannel, fourteen

pund of sucker, twa dozen buists of confeits, ane dozen buists of

sucker-almonds, twa dozen buists of confections, and ane chalder of

coals.’

The king informed the council of Aberdeen in a letter, June 1596, that

he understood ‘that the inhabitants and others resorting to this burgh,

cease not openly to wear forbidden weapons, to the great contempt of

his hieness’ authority and laws.’ He demands, and the council agrees,

that strict order shall be taken to put down this custom, agreeably to

acts of parliament.

The council records of Aberdeen do not bear traces of such frequent

street-conflicts as prevailed in Edinburgh during this period. Such

troubles were not, however, unknown. We find, for example, one citizen

now and then drawing his whinger upon another, and either commencing

a fight, or frightening away his adversary. In November 1598, a

quarrel having taken place between a gentleman named Gordon, brother

of Gordon of Cairnbarrow, and one Caldwell, a dependent and servant of

Keith of Benholm, the magistrates immediately feared a disturbance in

which Keith’s chief, the Earl Marischal, would as a matter of course

be involved, and hearing that the parties were ‘convocating their

friends on either side to come to the cawsey and trouble the town, and

to invade others,’ they ordered that ‘the haill neighbours of this

burgh, merchants and craftsmen, should ... compear in their arms, and

specially in lang weapons ... for staying of trouble to be betwixt the

said parties ... and that the town be warnit to that effect by the

officers in particular, bell or drum, as sall be thought expedient in

general.’

Popery, not infidelity, was the bugbear of those days; but heterodox

opinions were not altogether unknown. The public notice taken of them

was of a kind which might be expected in an age of sincere faith,

unacquainted with reactions or with refined policy. At Aberdeen, one Mr

William Murdo was apprehended by the magistrates, 6th January 1592, as

‘a maintainer of errors, and blasphemer against the ancient prophets

and Christ’s apostles, ane wha damns the haill Auld Testament except

the ten commandments, and the New Testament except the Lord’s Prayer;

an open railer against the ministry and truth preached’--who ‘can not

be sufferit in ane republic.’ He was ordained to be banished from the

burgh, with a threat of having his cheeks branded and ears cropped if

he should come back.--_Ab. C. R._

There are many entries in the Council Record of Aberdeen, shewing that

the burgal authorities took upon them to inquire into cases of reckless

and disorderly life, and cases where regular communicating at the

Lord’s table was neglected. In 1599, one John Hutcheon, a flesher, was

threatened with banishment on these accounts.

The kirk-sessions were rigorous in punishing slander and scolding. That

of Aberdeen made a statute, in 1562, ordaining a fine for slander,

‘and gif the injurious person be simple and of puir degree, he sall

ask forgiveness before the congregation of God and the party, and say:

“_Tongue, ye lied_,” for the first fault, for the second sall be put in

the cockstool, and for the third fault sall be banished the town.’ The

same body ordained at the same time that ‘all common scolds, flyters,

and bards be banished the town, and not to be suffered to remain

therein for nae request;’ bards being strolling rhymers, who were felt

in those days as an oppression much the same as sturdy beggars.

At the Perth kirk-session, August 4, 1578, ‘Catherine Yester and John

Denite were poinded each in half a merk for flyting, while John Tod,

for slandering, was ordained to pay a like sum, and stand in the irons

two hours, besides asking Margaret Cunningham forgiveness.’ In May

1579, Thomas Malcolm was fined and imprisoned for ‘having called Thomas

Brown _loon carle_.’ In August of the same year, it was ordained that

such as were convicted of flyting, and not willing ‘to pass to the

Cross-head [that is, to be exposed on the Cross], according to the

act passed before, should pay half a merk money to the poor, besides

that other half-merk mentioned in the act of before.’ Subsequently

the session gave up this leniency, and finally returned to it again.

‘Money,’ it has been remarked, ‘must have been of great value at that

time, when so small a sum was proposed as the price of exemption from a

most shameful punishment.’

April 25, 1586, the kirk-session of Perth has this minute: ‘Forasmeikle

as John Macwalter and Alison Brice his spouse have been sundry and

divers times called before the assembly for troubling their neighbours,

and especially for backbiting and slandering of Robert Dun and his

wife, and of Malcolm Ferguson and his wife, and presently are convicted

of the crimes laid to their charge by Robert Dun and Malcolm Ferguson;

therefore it is ordained, first, that the said John Macwalter and his

wife be put in ward until the time repentance be found in them for

their slanderous life; secondly, they shall come to the place where

they made the offence, and there on their knees crave pardon of the

offence committed, at the persons whom they have offended; thirdly,

they shall pay a sufficient penalty to the poor, according to the act

made against flyters; lastly, if they ever be found in word or deed

hereafter to offend any neighbour, _the bare accusation shall be a

sufficient plea of conviction_, that so the act made against flyters be

extended against them, and finally to be banished the town for ever.’

November 2, 1589, the act against slandering was put in force at Perth,

on an occasion where we should have little expected it. ‘Forasmeikle as

this day was assigned to certain honest neighbours of Tirsappie[268]

to be present, and of their conscience to declare if it was true that

Guddal, spouse to Richard Watson, was ane witch, as John Watson then

alleged, or what evil likelihood they saw in her--Walter Watson, John

Cowing, George Scott, James Scott, being inquired severally, as they

would answer to God, what they knew, altogether agreed in one without

contradiction, that they saw never such things into her whereby they

might suspect her of the same, but that she was ane honest poor

woman, who wrought honestly for her living, without whose help her

husband, Richard Watson, would have been dead, who was ane old aged

man: therefore the minister and elders ordain the act of slander to

be put in execution against the said John Watson and Helen Watson his

daughter.’

[TRAITS OF THE PUBLIC ECONOMY.]

At Aberdeen, in a time of scarcity in 1579, the transportation of

victual by sea to other parts of the realm was forbidden. In 1583, it

was forbidden to take any sums of money from merchants in other towns

‘to buy wares and salmon, against the common weal.’ The exportation of

sheep-skins to Flanders was at this time prohibited, Edinburgh, Perth,

and Dundee having done the like. In 1584, a severe fine is imposed on

all who should buy grain on its way to market, ‘whilk is the occasion

of great dearth, and the cause that the poor commons of this burgh are

misservit.’ A statute aiming at the same object was passed in 1598,

because such enormities could no longer be sustained ‘without the

imminent peril and wrack of this commonwealth.’

In September 1584, when the pest raged in divers parts of the realm,

the Aberdeen authorities ordered a port to be built on the bridge of

Dee, and other ports to be built at entrances to the town, in order to

check the entrance of persons who might bring the infection. In May of

the ensuing year, the danger becoming more extreme, the magistrates

erected gibbets, ‘ane at the mercat-cross, ane other at the brig of

Dee, and the third at the haven mouth, that in case ony infectit person

arrive or repair by sea or land to this burgh, or in case ony indweller

of this burgh receive, house, or harbour, or give meat or drink to the

infectit person or persons, the man to be hangit, and the woman to be

drownit.’ Frequent notices occur in the Aberdeen Council Records of

precautions adopted on similar occasions: yet it is remarkable, that in

an act of council on the subject in 1603, it is mentioned that ‘it has

pleasit the guidness of God of his infinite mercy to withhald the said

plague frae this burgh thir fifty-five years bygane.’

October 8, 1593, the magistrates of Aberdeen found it necessary to

take order with ‘a great number of idle persons, not having land

nor masters, neither yet using ony lawful merchandise, craft, nor

occupation, fleeing as appears frae their awn dwelling, by reason of

some unlawful causes and odious crimes whereof they are culpable, whilk

are very contagious enemies to the common weal of this burgh.’ The town

was ordered to be cleared of them, and their future harbourage by the

inhabitants was forbidden.

In those days, and for a long time subsequently, there was no regular

post for the transmission of letters in Scotland. When there was

pressing or important business calling for a transmission of letters

to a distance, a special messenger had to be despatched with them

at a considerable expense. The city of Aberdeen seems to have kept

a particular officer, called the Common Post, for this duty; and

in September 1595, this individual, named ‘Alexander Taylor, alias

_Checkum_,’ was ordered by the magistrates a livery of blue, with the

town’s arms on his left arm. Other persons were occasionally employed,

and the town’s disbursements on this ground continue to occupy a

prominent place in its accounts down to 1650, if not later.

In 1574, a general assembly of the inhabitants agreed to weekly

collections for the native poor, according to a roll formerly made with

their own consents, ‘except they wha pleases to augment their promise.’

It was at the same time decreed that beggars not native should be

removed, while those born in the town should wear ‘the town’s taiken

on their outer garment, whereby they may be known.’ In 1587, the

council, ‘having consideration of the misorder and tumult of the puir

folks sitting at the kirk-door begging almous, plucking and pulling

honest men’s gowns, cloaks, and abulyment,’ ordained the repression of

the nuisance. Eight years thereafter, January 23, 1595-6, there was

another public meeting, at which it was agreed to arrange the poor in

four classes--‘babes, decayed persons householders, lame and impotent

persons, and sic as were auld and decrepit.’ Individuals agreed to take

each man ‘ane babe’ into his own house, and a quarterly collection for

the rest was agreed to; begging to be suppressed.

September 2, 1596, the council took into consideration a petition

of ‘Maister Quentin Prestoun, professor of physic, craving at them

the liberty and benefit, in respect of his debility, being somewhat

stricken in age, and sae not able to accomplish the duty without ane

coadjutor, to entertain ane apothecar and his apothecary-shop, for the

better furnishing of this burgh and of the country, of all sorts of

physical and chirurgical medicaments.’ The request was granted during

the will of the council.

April 6, 1599, four fleshers in Aberdeen were fined for contravening

the acts of parliament which forbade that ‘ony flesh should be slain or

eaten frae the first day of March _inclusive_ to the first day of May

_exclusive_.’

* * * * *

[Sidenote: 1601.