A few months after the above date, we find a curious reference to wool
in the Privy Council Record. The document states, that ‘in some remote
and uncivil places of this kingdom’ an old and barbarous custom was
still kept up of _plucking the wool from sheep instead of clipping
it_. The king, hearing of the practice, wrote a letter to his Council,
denouncing it as one not to be suffered; telling them it had already
been reformed in Ireland, under penalty of a groat on every sheep so
used, and was ‘far less to be endured in you.’ The Council immediately
(March 17, 1617) passed an act in the same tenor, and further stating
that many sheep died in consequence of this cruel treatment--concluding
with a threat of severe fines on such as should hereafter continue the
practice.--_P. C. R._
It is remarkable that in the Faröe Islands there is, to this day, no
other way of taking the wool from sheep than that which was then only
kept up in remote parts of Scotland.
John Faa, James Faa, his son, Moses Baillie, and Helen Brown, were
tried as Egyptians lingering in the country, contrary to a statute
which had banished their tribe forth of the realm on pain of death. In
respect no caution could be found by them to assure their leaving the
country, they were sentenced to be hanged on the Burgh-moor. It is not
known that this sentence was carried into execution; but neither is
there anything known to make such severity unlikely.
In 1624, six Faas, and two other men of the gipsy tribe, were tried for
the same offence of not voluntarily transporting themselves, and these
men were executed. A number of their women and children were mercifully
allowed to go free, on condition that they should immediately depart
from the kingdom.--_Pit._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: SEP. 16.]
‘... there arose such a swelling in the sea at Leith, that the like was
not seen before for a hundred years. The water came in with violence
beside the bulwark, in a place called the Timber Holf [Howf], where the
timber lay, and carried some of the timber and many lasts of herrings
lying there, to the sea; brake in sundry low houses and cellars, and
filled them with water. The like flowing was in Dunbar, Musselburgh,
and other parts of the sea-coast. The people took this extraordinary
tide to be a forewarning of some evil to come.’--_Cal._
* * * * *
The Chronicle of Perth notes for this year ‘great poverty of towns and
great dearth;’ probably a consequence of the stormy spring and adust
summer of the preceding year.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: OCT.]
Preparations began to be made for the reception and entertainment of
the king, who was expected to visit the country next year. Considerable
repairs and improvements were made upon the palaces of Holyrood
and Falkland. A proclamation was made that ‘beasts be fed in every
place, that there might be abundance of flesh when the king came to
the country.’ The Privy Council issued orders for the inhabitants to
prepare clean lodgings for the king’s friends and attendants, and took
order to have the streets purified.
[Sidenote: 1616.]
The chancellor’s circular to the burghs ordering them to arrange
with their butchers for the furnishing of ‘fed beef’ against his
majesty’s ‘here-coming,’ met an amusing response in the case of one
little town--Wester Anstruther--which would appear to have been most
unworthily endowed with burgal privileges. ‘Our toun,’ says this
response, ‘is ane very mean toun, yea of all the burghts of this realm
the meanest; _nather is there ane flesher in our toun_, nor any other
person that is accustomit with feeding of beef, _we being all seafaring
men and fishers_.’ Nevertheless, the two bailies inform his lordship
that they had ‘dealt with some honest men of our neighbours to feed
beef, and has enjoinit them to have in readiness the number of four fed
nolt against the time of his majesty’s here-coming; whilk may be lookit
for in our toun.’ Easter Anstruther, which has always been a better
sort of town, was equally unacquainted with ‘that trade of the feeding
of beef;’ but the bailie, nevertheless, had ‘taken such order that
there sall be in readiness to that diet twelve oxen of the best we can
get for money.’ The response of Dysart was a frank promise to have in
readiness ‘ten or twelve sufficient and weel-fed beefs upon competent
and reasonable prices, and sall feed and keep them _sae lang as we may
possibly get sufficient food for them_, according to the season, _not
doubting of your lordship’s satisfaction in case of our losses_.’--_An.
Scot._
One of the most notable preparations was the fitting up of a
chapel-royal at Holyrood--not in the Abbey-Church, which then served as
the parish kirk of the Canongate, but in a private room in the palace.
An organ of the value of £400 was sent down from London to aid in the
service. There were also timber statues of the twelve apostles and four
evangelists, well carved and gilt, for the decoration of the chapel;
but ‘the people murmured, fearing great alterations in religion,
whereupon the bishops dissuaded the king from setting them up in the
chapel.’--_Cal._
[Sidenote: 1616.]
We have a curious trait of the feeling of the people about the
refitting of the chapel at Holyrood in certain entries found at this
time in the Privy Council Record. In July, an agreement had been made
with Nicolas Stone, of London, for repairing the chapel; and next
month the Council became engaged in an altercation with James Paton,
George Coline, and others, slaters in St Andrews, who, doubtless under
religious scruples, refused to undertake any conditions of service at
the said work, though promised good and thankful payment for their
labours. Application had consequently been made to the provost of St
Andrews, requesting that he would command these his citizens to do the
work proposed to them; but he made answer in a style worthy of the name
he bore--John Knox--‘disdainfully alleging that it was not the custom
of the country to press ony man to work;’ ‘wherethrough his majesty’s
warks are hinderit, and by their [evil example] others may take
occasion to leave his majesty’s service.’ The Privy Council ordered
letters to be sent to the parties, charging them to appear and answer
for their conduct; and when the day came, and they failed to make their
appearance, they were put to the horn as rebels.--_P. C. R._
* * * * *
An act of Privy Council against beggars, March 5, 1616, describes
Edinburgh as infested with them--‘strang and idle vagabonds’--‘having
their resets in some parts of the Cowgate, the Canongate, Potterrow,
West Port, Pleasance, [and] Leith Wynd, where they ordinarily convene
every night, and pass their time in all kind of riot and filthy
lechery, to the offence and displeasure of God.’ By day, they are said
to present themselves in great companies on the principal streets.
Numbers of them ‘lie all day on the causey of the Canongate, and with
shameful exclamations and crying, not only extorts almous, but by their
other misbehaviour fashes and wearies as weel his majesty’s nobility
and councillors, as others his majesty’s subjects repairing to this
burgh; sae that hardly ony man of whatsomever quality can walk upon the
streets, nor yet stand and confer upon the streets, nor under stairs,
but they are impeshit by numbers of beggars.’ The Council therefore
ordered the magistrates of Edinburgh and Canongate to get these
wretched people expelled from their respective bounds, and suffer them
no longer to seek alms on the streets. In like manner, they commanded
that ‘the Laird of Innerleith and his bailies cause their streets and
vennels to be kept free of beggars;‘[362] as also, that ‘Mr Patrick
Bannatyne and Mr Umphra Bleenseillis remove the haill beggars out
of their houses at the foot of Leith Wynd, and suffer nane to have
residence, beild, or reset there.’ All this under threat of pecunial
fines.
[Sidenote: DEC.]
In anticipation of the king’s visit, it now became necessary to repeat
the above orders, because ‘it is like enough that when his majesty
comes to this country next summer, they will follow his court, to the
great discredit and disgrace of the country.’
[Sidenote: 1616.