Chapter XXX: Section I: Prior to the Reformation

IN the preceding volume the characteristics of the government and the institutions of the kingdom were described; the general traits of feudalism, the powers and privileges of the nobles, and their action, as exhibited in the history of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Resuming the social history of the people from that period, it is unnecessary to dwell on matters of a similar kind to those treated in the foregoing chapters. The aim of this work will be attained by giving a connected view of the social relations of the people, and thus present a continuous account of their development, while noting the causes adverse or favourable to their progress. In the main the present chapter is a continuation of the chapters in the first volume, with this difference, that the habits and the institutions of the people are now assumed to be more familiar, so that only the changes and modifications, and especially those consequent on the revolutionary movement, have to be noticed at length. Such is the method which will be followed, in order to throw light on this interesting department of human activity.

The Crown of Scotland had few great royal prerogatives which it could wield at pleasure; the government was, at all points, essentially aristocratic. The pretentions to prerogative which the kings sometimes assumed, were soon dashed to the ground by the dominant faction of the nobles. While in other nations of Europe the kings were augmenting their power by curtailing the privileges of their nobles, the Scottish nobility had gradually, during the last two centuries and a half, been increasing their power, till, at the time of the Reformation, they became supreme. But from that time onward other influences came into operation which slowly undermined their power.

In 1533 James V. remodelled the Court of Session, as the supreme court for the administration of justice in civil cases. From this date the Court of the Lords-Auditors ceased; but the Privy Council still retained the judicial power of the old Lords of Council. The theory of these courts seems to have been that the Council could administer justice by its inherent prerogative, and therefore it should interfere if the strict rule of law inflicted a wrong; while the Court of Session was supposed to proceed according to the rules of law. In consequence of this distinction, the lords of the Privy Council assumed something like a right of superiority over the Court of Session, and on critical occasions the former sometimes took a very emphatic and decisive attitude.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 317‒318,
520‒526, 620, _et seq._ The Records of the Privy Council for
the greater part of the 16th century are still preserved.
Two volumes of the Register, embracing the period from 1545
to 1579, have recently been published under the authority
of the Record Commissioners, and these volumes have been
ably edited by Dr. Burton, who has conferred a great boon on
historical students by rendering this valuable record easily
accessible.

The ordinary official staff of the executive comprised the sheriffs of the counties and their deputes, the bailies of the hereditary regalities, baronies, lordships, stewardships, and their subordinate officers. In time of peace throughout the Lowlands, this organisation afforded a comparative measure of rough order and security to the inhabitants, though, even in the best settled parts of the kingdom, acts of violence and lawlessness were very common, and, owing to the defective means for detecting and apprehending them, and the want of simplicity in criminal procedure, the offenders often escaped unpunished. Upon the Borders and in the Highlands, on the other hand, the state of society was little removed from intermittent anarchy. In both regions the small clan system prevailed; feuds were frequent and bloody. At short intervals, when the excesses rose to an unusual height, the government proceeded to punish and repress them. The chiefs of the clans were made responsible for the action of their followers, but this was soon found to be but a very imperfect restraint. When, as it frequently happened, the chiefs and their men were both engaged in the same lawless depredations, it often became necessary for the government to interfere directly. The usual mode of treating the Borderers was this: the king mustered an armed force, and proceeded against the reivers and notorious thieves, and executed justice upon them by seizing and hanging them on the spot, or by occasionally bringing some of them to Edinburgh to be hanged. The national records during this century are full of such raids on the border thieves and reivers. The mode of dealing with the Highlanders was much the same, only the Crown often delegated its power to a local noble, as to the Earl of Huntly in the north, and the Earl of Argyle in the west.

During the minority of James V. the administration of justice was wretchedly neglected in every quarter of the kingdom. But in 1530 disorder on the Borders had risen to such a crisis that the King, at the head of an army, scoured the glens of Yarrow and Ettrick, and seized Cockburne of Henderland, and Scott of Tuschielaw, two of the most notorious offenders. They were taken to Edinburgh, and tried for extorting black-mail from the poor tenants, and for common theft and reset. Both were convicted and executed, and their lands forfeited to the Crown.¹ In connection with this raid the king summoned the Earl of Bothwell, the Lords of Home and Maxwell, the Lairds of Buccleuch, Fernihirst, Johnstone, and Mark Ker; all of them were imprisoned, and Bothwell was at last banished. At the same time the King compelled about fifty other barons and lairds in the counties of Berwick, Roxburgh, Peebles, and Selkirk, to find security to appear before the Justiciary when required. In this way the Crown sought to bridle the reivers and cattle-lifters by making their superiors and neighbours responsible for the crimes and depredations of those who lived and harboured upon their lands.² The same year the King made another raid on the Borders, partly for pleasure, but at the same time prepared to punish any noted thief who came within his grip. He was accompanied by the Earls of Athole, Huntly, Argyle, and many other barons, and it was reported that they killed eighteen score of deer. It was on this occasion that the famous John Armstrong was taken, a border marauder who, it seems, operated chiefly on the English side of the marches. He is represented as surrounded by his followers, and coming to meet the king to offer him homage; but when James saw him and his company mounted on horseback, he ordered the chief and most of his men to be immediately hanged, without the formality of a trial. Armstrong’s fate excited great commiseration amongst the people of the district, and his memory is commemorated in a stirring ballad.³ By repeating these harsh measures, the King for a time reduced the borderers to comparative quiet,⁴ but it is doubtful whether the severe punishment he inflicted on them was at all calculated to promote the permanent peace of the district. Excessive severity often defeats itself; and, besides, the lawlessness of the borderers could be effectually remedied only by changing their circumstances; harsh treatment might aggravate existing evils, but could not reform them.

¹ Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume I., pages 144‒145. There
is an exceedingly spirited and touching ballad――“The Widow’s
Lament”――which is supposed to refer to the fate of Cockburne.
Though rude and turbulent, the Borderers had some fine
traits of character; even this reiver and king of thieves
had some estimable qualities.

² Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume I., pages 146‒148.

³ Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, pages 152‒154; Veitch’s
_History of the Poetry of the Scottish Borders_, pages
287‒294; 1878.

⁴ Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume I., pages 171‒173.

After the death of the King the borderers broke out in greater excesses than ever; and throughout the regencies of Arran and the Queen mother, they grew worse and worse. In the end of the year 1546 the Council resolved that the regent should pass with an army towards the Borders and restore order; but the government being then occupied with the siege of the Castle of St. Andrews, had not a sufficient force. Accordingly an Act of Council was passed in March, 1547, calling a muster of the local forces to accompany the regent to the Borders to assist in stanching the theft, reif, and oppression of the thieves and reivers. Five years later the Queen regent again attempted to remedy the evils of the borders, but the people there daily became more disorderly. The Master of Maxwell in 1553 declined to accept the Wardenship of the West Marches which his deceased brother had held. The government offered him five hundred pounds yearly, and some other reward, such as a benefice or the like, but he still refused to undertake the office till the offenders against the public authority were punished, or a sufficient force was placed at his command to punish them. This could not be done, and Sir James Douglas of Drumlanrig took the office, but threw it up in less than a year, and the troubles of the region thickened.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 28, 57, 64,
120‒125, 132, 137, 140, 143‒146, 152, _et seq._

The social state of the Highlands resembled that of the Borders in many particulars, but there were some differences between them. The peculiarities of race which have been made so much of, were in reality of little consequence. The social condition of the Highlanders was the result of a long chain of causes, rather than of any peculiarities belonging to the race. This is well shown by the quickness with which the Highlanders adapt themselves to the requirements of a higher civilisation so soon as their surroundings are changed. If they had been the incapable and erratic savages that some have represented them, how came it, that on being removed from the mountains and glens, and placed under a course of training for a few months, they proved themselves amongst the best soldiers in the British army? If idleness, thieving, and fighting, for the mere love of such things, had been essential features in the Celtic population of the Highlands, why was it that they were so easily and readily cast aside when the circumstances of the Highlander were changed? The fact is that the social condition of the Highlands was due to a long chain of circumstances by which the inhabitants were forced into those habits of living that characterised them, and which were explained in the preceding volume. To talk, therefore, of their social condition being due to their defects or peculiarities as a race is inapt and misleading, and calculated to distort justice and obscure history. The main difference between the Borderer and the Highlander consisted in the more complete dependence of the latter on his chief. The vassals and dependents of the Highland chief stood by him with a fidelity and love in misfortune as well as in prosperity, which we do not meet with among the Borderers. In this respect, one of the moral elements of clanship was decidedly higher in the Highlands than on the Borders.

The heads of the clans Cameron and Ranald having failed to appear before the Council at Inverness, the case of the latter was entrusted to the Earl of Argyle. In 1552 Argyle reported to the government that the captain of the clan was loyal to their authority, and that he would have attended before the justiciary if the charge had reached him previous to his departure for Ireland. Argyle was ordered to continue his proceedings, and to cause the head of the clan to appear before the regent and council before Christmas, and take their orders for the good government of the district. If he failed, Argyle was to make war upon the clan, and to pursue them with fire and sword, according to the Act passed at Inverness. At the same time the Earl of Huntly was ordered to proceed against the Camerons and to pursue them in the same fashion.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 125‒126.

In the autumn of 1553 it was recorded that for a long time there had been great slaughter, reifs, enormities, and oppression, committed upon the people in the northern quarters of the kingdom, and especially by the strife between the Earl of Caithness and M‘Kay, and their kin and adherents. The Earl of Caithness was summoned to meet the Earl of Huntly and the Bishop of Ross at Inverness, in order to concert measures for restoring order in the county; but he neither appeared nor condescended so much as to answer the Regent’s letters. The Council then directed the officers at arms to charge the Earl of Caithness to come to Inverness and meet the Earl of Huntly and the Bishop of Ross, and to bring sufficient pledges for himself, his kin, and his allies, that he would maintain better order in future, under the penalty of rebellion and horning.¹

¹ _Ibid._, page 147.

There was one enemy of peace and civilisation common in the Highlands, the Borders, and the Lowlands; this was the numerous feuds which had sprung up and accumulated during centuries of internal strife, till they were spread throughout the entire nation. The bonds of manrent by which the different clans and families became bound and banded together, and against one another in all their causes and quarrels, constantly tended towards anarchy and confusion. An injury, or the slaughter of a member of the clan, was never forgotten by the surviving kin; and an intense feeling of revenge had been fostered so long that it had assumed an almost incredible strength, as the feud had in many cases been transmitted from father to son, and from kindred to kindred, through many generations. In Catholic times the Church recognised its power by leaving the right hand of male children unchristened, that it might deal the more unhallowed and deadly a blow to the enemy.¹ This sentiment now appears to us extremely shocking, but it is one which belongs to all stages of predatory society. It was nursed, not only among the Highlanders and the Borderers, but also among the Lowland aristocracy, and was encouraged and prolonged by the weakness of the central authority. The feuds among the Lowland nobles in the sixteenth century were notorious, and often formed the subject of parliamentary enactments and acts of Council.² Some of the bonds which they entered into for gaining their ends through deeds of violence have long been matter of history. The habits of the Scottish nobles always tended towards lawlessness. Whatever party was at the head of affairs, there was always sure to be another party plotting, scheming, or fighting against them, and thus the nation was continually kept in a state of insecurity. Revolutions in the government followed each other so rapidly that no encouragement whatever was afforded for peaceful industry among the people.

¹ Scott’s _Minstrelsy of the Scottish Borders_; Veitch’s
_History of the Poetry of the Scottish Borders_, page 299;
Evan’s _Ballads_, Volume III., page 106.

² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III.; _Register
of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 133‒134, 150‒151.

During the half century immediately preceding the Reformation, the national records disclose a deplorable state of crime among all ranks of society. Murder, slaughter, mutilation, and theft in the form of cattle lifting, were extremely prevalent. Theft in these times often led to assault, which usually ended in slaughter, or something like robbery and murder. Parliament passed many Acts against these crimes, and the phraseology of the Acts themselves vividly recalls the state of society. Homicide and slaughter were so common that many respites and pardons were granted every year. In the end of the year 1501 the Master of Errol, the son of the Earl of Errol, and three others, were granted a remission for stealing thirty-one oxen from Sir William Keith of Inverugy. In 1508 a remission was given to Lord Oliphant and two of his accomplices for the oppression of Lord Drummond, by casting down the dykes between the lands of Drymane and Balloch, “and for the murder of John, Earl of Buchan, in Perth, after the slaughter of James Oliphant, committed by the said Earl and his accomplices, and for all other oppressions, felonies, and crimes.” Here we see the action of the feeling of revenge; the Earl of Buchan had murdered an Oliphant, Lord Oliphant then murdered the Earl, and we may pretty safely assume that Lord Drummond was an ally of the Earl of Buchan. To grant pardons for these crimes was perhaps the best thing that the government of the time could do. If every one had been hanged who committed slaughter and murder, there would have been two or three executions every day of the year. In 1517 “The Master of Glencairn, the son of the Earl of Glencairn, and twenty-seven others, obtained a remission for the cruel murder of Sir Matthew Montgomery, Archibald Caldwell, and James Smyth, and for hurting John Montgomery, the son of the Earl of Eglinton.” The Earl of Argyle, in 1532, and ninety-two of his followers, obtained a remission for treasonable fire-raising in the Islands, with his standard unfurled. “The King and his Council dispensed with the general act, on the condition that the Earl satisfied the kin of Donald Ballo M‘Ancrum, Donald Crum M‘Cowuane, Farquhar M‘Sevir, and others having lawful claims.”¹ These few cases of pardon for crimes are merely a selection from hundreds of a similar character; and though the criminal records for the first half of the century are very incomplete, an examination of what remains discloses a state of society absolutely lawless.

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 250,
282, 347, 372, 492; Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume I.,
pages 102, 108, 234, 247.

Although in 1528 Parliament attached a severe penalty to the crime of rape, this crime was often passed over with a very light punishment. Bigamy and adultery were common offences, and in 1551 Parliament enacted a measure which proposed severe penalties against them. The Act proceeds to deal with married persons “that are open, manifest, and common, and incorrigible adulterers, and will not desist nor cease therefrom, for any fear of the spiritual jurisdiction or the censure of holy Church, to the great peril of their own souls,” and directs that such persons shall be visited with the processes of the Church, and then denounced as rebels and put to the horn. Divorce was also extremely common among the upper class in Scotland, and was encouraged by the fashion of granting papal dispensations.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 298,
377, 486; Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume I., pages
28‒406; _Statutes of the Scottish Church_, Volume II.; A.
Robertson’s _Lectures on the Government, Constitution, and
Laws of Scotland_, pages 133‒134, 183; 1878.

As indicating the absence of respect for the law, and the defectiveness of the police organisation, the treatment which the executive officers and messengers often met with may be instanced. Their summonses and letters were often taken from them and torn to tatters; “and the evildoers boasted, menaced, disobeyed, struck, and pursued the officers, and sometimes killed them outright.” In 1546 the Lords of Council passed an Act imposing severe penalties upon offenders of this description; and it was resolved to grant no respites to any one guilty of such crimes for three years to come. On the other hand, the officers of the law were often guilty of oppression and corruption. They took bribes from the rich and powerful and permitted them to remain at home, so that when the pursuer’s case came on before the court, there was not a sufficient number of jurymen, and the case broke down, while the injured party lost all the value involved, and the trouble and the expense of the action. They were accused of summoning poor and simple persons as jurymen, who had no knowledge to enable them to decide upon doubtful matters. In 1531 twelve messengers-at-arms were by one sentence proclaimed fugitives from the law and rebels, and forbidden to exercise their office on pain of being hanged and drawn. In 1539, again, thirty-three messengers-at-arms were convicted at once, and deprived of their offices, for common oppression of the people, “by the false and unjust exercise of their office, and frustrating them in their just actions through their ignorance.” After the Reformation attempts were made to remedy the defects among the officers at arms.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 66‒660;
Volume II., pages 74, 176, 365‒367; Pitcairn’s _Criminal
Trials_, Volume I., pages 48, 74‒75, 154‒157, 217.

The municipal organisation of the burghs was pretty complete, but owing to various causes the state of society in them was by no means peaceful or secure. In 1529 it was stated in the Town Council of Edinburgh that in past times there had been slaughters and murders in the burgh, because the officers and citizens had not been careful to resist and punish evildoers, and that thus the character of the town had been defamed. It was therefore enacted, “That every merchant and craftsman should always have beside them in their shops ready for use an axe or two or more, according to the number of their servants, that they might be prepared to fortify and assist the magistrates in the administration of justice.” Those failing to comply with the Act were to be fined forty shillings for the first fault, and for the second, forty pounds. This Act was repeated in 1539, and again in 1553, when it was stated that there had been great slaughters and tussles in the town, which were likely to recur. It was therefore enacted that “all persons who occupied shops or chambers in the Highgate should have long weapons therein, such as a hand axe, a Jedburgh staff, or a halbert, and that after the ringing of the common bell, or when they saw or apprehended any brawls on the streets, they should immediately turn out and assist the officers in stanching and quelling the disturbance. Those who absented themselves from a tussle on the streets, after being warned, were to be deprived of their freedom for ever. Each bailie was ordered to search his own quarter of the city to see that the statute was obeyed.”¹ Similar regulations for meeting sudden brawls on the streets were enforced in all the burghs of the kingdom. In 1522 the citizens of Aberdeen unanimously ordained that all men dwelling in the town, both burgesses of guild and other craftsmen, should always have in their shops and office-houses a good fencible weapon, such as an axe, a halbert, or a Jedburgh staff, for the defence of their persons, goods, and the commonweal of the city. But in 1530, at a meeting of the whole citizens called by the provost, it was resolved that――“Considering the cruel slaughters, murders, and oppression done to them and their neighbours by gentlemen of the country, ... every neighbour dwelling in the town should wear daily his weapon on his person, until some remedy be found how this good town may be freed from such cruel oppressors; and that every craftsman have his weapon beside him in his workshop, and when he passes into the street to truss it in his hand, that they may be able at all times to defend themselves and their neighbours.”²

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume II., pages 7‒8, 93, 177.

² _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., page 103, 111, 131,
448‒449.

In 1529, during the months of October and November, there were nineteen persons, male and female, banished from Edinburgh for various offences. Margaret Clapane was banished for buying oysters to regrate contrary to the statutes; William Cawdor was banished for buying wild fowls contrary to the statutes; Janet Brown for her demerits was banished for all the days of her life; David Christeson was banished because he was a young stark fellow, who begged and would not work for his living. An Irishman that sung with a lass, and begged through the streets of the town, was banished because he was a stout young fellow, and would not work; if he failed to depart out of the city, he was to be burned on the cheek. Luke Jamison was expelled for regrating herring; and Andrew Gibson for regrating the king’s money. In 1536 all the vagabonds without masters were ordered forthwith to decamp from the town under the penalty of imprisonment, and thereafter to be banished. The same year, vagabonds who would not pay their debts, were to be banished from the burgh; and vagabonds who had no occupation, nor anything to live upon, nightwalkers, and players at dice and cards, were all commanded to remove out of the city, under the penalty of imprisonment. No beggars were to be allowed to live in the town, except those who had been born in it, and of these such only as were feeble and unable to work for their living, under the penalty of burning of their cheeks and banishment. It appears, however, from other statutes that the beggars in Edinburgh were many. In 1538 Agnes Wright was convicted for causing a disturbance, and was sentenced to be put in irons at the market cross, or else above the cross on the scaffold, that the people might see her, when her offence was to be openly proclaimed, and thereafter she was to be banished. In 1551 all the sergeants of the burgh were dismissed for failing in the execution of their duties, and the bailies were commanded to receive others in their places.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume II., pages 8‒16, 73, 80,
88, 90, 156.

Among the sums disbursed by the Treasurer of Edinburgh for the year 1554‒55, we find the following: “For taking of a great gibbet off the nether Tolbooth, and bringing it to the top of the Dow Crag, to have hanged hummil Jok on, and bringing it down again to St. Paul’s Work, the sum of twelvepence; and for cords to bind and hang him with, eightpence. In November, for cords to bind and hang a thief, who was convicted before the sheriff, eightpence. The same month, a great long chain of iron for the thieves’ hole, with four arms extended from it, and four locks and bolts, weighing eleven stones and three quarters, made by John Ahamnay, blacksmith, and the price of each stone was eleven shillings and fourpence――the total sum six pounds fourteen shillings and twopence: and for bringing it from the workshop, and helping to fasten it――eightpence. For cords to bind and hang Tom Gelirson, and to bind a woman when she was burned on the cheek――two shillings. For cords to bind Nicoll Ramsay when he was hanged――sixpence. For cords to hang the man that burnt Lord James’ corn――eightpence.” In the month of February, 1557, the Town Council ordered their treasurer, “To pay to John Wauchlott, officer and surgeon, the sum of three pounds for curing and mending of James Henderson’s leg, which was broken in the town’s service at the taking of Ramsay, a thief who was slain in the taking.”¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume II., pages 294, 295,
_et seq._; Volume III., page 16; _Old Dundee prior to
the Reformation_, pages 350, 208, _et seq._, by Alexander
Maxwell, 1891.

The surgeons of the period had considerable work in attending to the broken heads and limbs which resulted from brawls and assaults, and it appears that the injury inflicted by an assailant was usually assessed upon their judgment. “When David Arthor hurt Wille Terbat, it was ordered that the Leech, by the great oath, deponed how many days Wille might not work through the hurt, and David to pay each day eightpence, and also pay the leech-craft.” So also “when Rob Dawson struck Wille Pangell, he was ordained to pay the Leech for his craft of Wille’s head breaking, and give Wille twelve pence each day that the Leech deponed that he might not freely labour through the hurt.”

Persons appearing before the burgh court were required to show due respect to it, and to give the bailies becoming honour. On the 13th of March, 1551, in the burgh court of Dundee, Andro Kynneris was sentenced to pay “to Our Lady light two pounds of wax for causing a disturbance in the court.” Three years later David Spankey was fined ten shillings, and ordered to ask the bailies’ forgiveness, for saying in their presence “that there was no justice done in the Tollbooth.” Subsequently the Head Court of the burgh enacted: “That if any person be found disobeying or slighting any officer holding office, he shall pay to Our Lady Kirk five pounds of money; and the person convicted of such an offence shall come to the High alter and offer a pound of wax in a candle, and, if he disobeys, to lose his freedom. But, if he has not goods or gear, in that case, he shall lie forty-eight hours in the stocks, and on the following Sunday shall pass about the Kirk, afore the procession, in linen clothes, and a wax candle of two pounds in his hand; and if he fails to perform this, to be banished from the town for a year and a day.” Shortly after this Act was made, Robert Peblis disturbed the court and uttered defaming words to the bailies, for which he was fined five pounds.

In 1556 harlots were ordered to wear a distinctive dress when they appeared on the streets of Edinburgh. The Town Council of Dundee, on the 10th of January, 1559, said that “It had been reported to the great defame, slander, and shame of honest men’s wives, their daughters, and women servants, that they have been seduced by panders and procurers to use themselves unlawfully in fornication; for remedy of which the Council ordered that if there be any such men or women panders in the burgh, they despatch themselves off within twenty-four hours, under the penalty of being openly taken to the Market Cross, and there banished for ever.” Regarding the places where immoral practices were carried on, it was enacted “that from this day forth no brothels should be permitted within the burgh.” The custom of “hand-fasting” was then not uncommon, which was an agreement between a man and a woman to live together either for a limited or an indefinite yet a terminable time.¹

¹ _Ibid._, Volume II., pages 248; see also _Burgh Records of
Aberdeen_, and _Old Dundee_, page 285.

In Catholic times a form of penance was sometimes imposed on offenders as a part of their punishment. In the year 1523, John Pitt, a tailor in Aberdeen, was convicted, on his own confession, for disobeying David Anderson, one of the bailies. The tailor had refused to take his proper place, with the sign of his craft, in the Candlemas procession, and he abused the bailie and the merchants of the town by calling them “coffers, and bidding them take the salt-pock and the fire-brush in their hands.” For this offence he bound himself before the council to appear the next Sunday bare-headed and bare-footed in the church, in the time of high mass, with a wax-candle in his hand, and to offer it to their patron saint, Nicholas; he also promised to have the usual token of his craft on his breast――that is, a pair of patent shears; and then to sit down humbly on his knees and beseech the provost to remit his fault. Bessie Dempster was convicted in 1538, before the council by a jury, for the aspersion of David Reid, both by word and deed; and a part of her punishment was that, on the next Sunday, she should go before the procession, with nothing on her but her shift, and enter the High Church with a wax-candle in her hand, and offer it “to the holy blood light;” and then sit down on her knees, and beseech the magistrates and the good men of the town to request David to forgive her. In 1544 the Town Council commanded Mage Durtty, who had been twice convicted before, and at this time for disturbing Janet Lesly, that she must go the next Sunday, with a wax-candle burning in her hand, into the church, and sit down on her knees, and ask Janet to forgive her. But if ever she again committed such offences, they ordained that “her crag should be put in the jougs.” Thomas White was convicted by the bailies, in 1549, for interfering with David Reid, an officer, in the execution of his duty, and for assaulting Duncan Fraser. He was ordered to appear on Sunday in the church, in the time of high mass, bare-headed and bare-footed, with a wax-candle in his hand, and then sit down on his knees, and ask the magistrates and council to forgive him, and the officer, Duncan Fraser; and, finally, to offer the candle to St. Nicholas light.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., pages 93, 154, 155,
198, 206, 212, 271, 272, 429, 445.

There is little variation in these cases of public penance, but they enable us to understand some of the peculiar features of the Catholic system; and it will be found that something of the old forms of penance passed into the discipline of the Reformed Church. Although the hierarchy in Scotland was tottering to its fall, and was upon the very brink of destruction, yet within a few years of the Reformation the surface of things was seemingly little disturbed. In 1555, John Sandris, a couper, and his wife, were tried and convicted by the bailies of Aberdeen, for striking and drawing blood of Thomas Gellane and his wife; and their sentence was that they should pay Thomas twenty shillings, to be given to the barbour for curing his wounds; and to go next Sunday to St. Nicholas Church, in the time of high mass, each of them with a candle of wax in their hands, and there ask forgiveness of Thomas and his wife. The same year, other two persons in Aberdeen underwent penance in a similar form for their offences.

In Dundee between the years 1520‒3 the bailies in the burgh court, among other cases, disposed of the following, which have the characteristic of penance. Willy Marshall for disobedience to the bailies, and not paying the King’s tax, was sentenced to go to the kirk “on Sunday before the time of high mass in shirt and gown, barefooted and bareheaded, with a candle of a pound of wax, and ask the bailies’ forgiveness, and offer the candle where they command him: and, if he fails, to come next Sunday with a candle of four pounds; and, if he fails the third Sunday, to pay a stone of wax to Our Lady.” Reche Crag had threatened the town’s officers with a dirk, and having confessed the fault, he was “ordered to come on Sunday in the time of high mass, and the knife drawn in his hand by the point, and on his knees ask the provost’s forgiveness, and give him the knife to be placed where he pleases.” If he failed to do this, he was to pay half a stone of wax to Our Lady light.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, pages 282, 285, 288; also _Old
Dundee_, pages 17, 18.

All classes of the people were in the habit of swearing. The literature of the period contains ample evidence of the number of oaths which were then common among the Scots. The writings of Sir David Lindsay alone exhibit upwards of fifty forms.¹ Parliament, in 1551, passed an act touching “the abominable swearing, execration, and blaspheming of the name of God, swearing in vain by His precious blood, body, and wounds; devil stick, cummer-gor, reist or rife them, and other vulgar oaths and execrations against the command of God. Yet, both among the high and low, it has come into such vain-glorious use that the people may be heard daily and hourly blaspheming openly God’s name and majesty.” The remedy proposed was a graduated scale of fines for those who could pay them; and the poor people found guilty were to be put in the stocks or imprisoned for four ♦hours; but women guilty of swearing were to be treated according to their blood and station, and the parties with whom they were coupled.²

¹ In a note on Lyndsay’s _Satire of the Three Estates_,
Chalmers says――“The one-half of conversation in that age,
both in England and in Scotland, was made up of swearing.”
And he then gives a list of the most fashionable oaths which
occur in Lyndsay’s play, and they amount to thirty-three.
Among them may be mentioned the following:――“By God’s wounds;
by God’s cross; by God’s bread (that is, the altar); by Him
that made the moon; by Him that herried hell; by our Lady;
by St. Mary; by sweet St. Gile;” and so on.――_Works of Sir
D. Lyndsay_, Volume I. pages 360‒363.

♦ “honrs” replaced with “hours”

² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., page 435.

Some of the habits of the people and their modes of living were extremely defective. This appeared most in the deplorable sanitary state of the towns. The necessary conditions of health were but little understood, and usually disregarded, till pestilence reached a height which compelled the authorities to take active measures, and endeavour to mitigate the suffering. The streets of the towns, and the houses of the poorer classes, were in a wretched state; and throughout this century the country was never long free from the pest. Many acts of parliament and council were passed for dealing with the pestilence, and the records of all the burghs are full of regulations about it; but they are chiefly remarkable for the single idea, that to prevent contact with the persons affected with the disease was the only remedy and protection against it. The efforts of the authorities were mostly directed to this, and thorough cleanliness seems to have been greatly undervalued and neglected. The authorities, however, often showed commendable energy to prevent the spread of the pest by actual contact; they exerted themselves to separate those affected with the disease from the healthy portion of the people; and, in carrying out their regulations on this point, they frequently acted with great determination.¹ On the second of October, 1559, the Town Council of Dundee ordered “that all persons, either rich or poor, having middens in any place within the boundary of the burgh, should remove them before Wednesday night, and lay no more in time coming.” Each bailie was enjoined to visit the quarters where they were, and to cause the Act to be put into execution. Subsequently the town’s officers were ordered to pass through the burgh once every twenty-four hours, and enforce the Act. But, although repeatedly prohibited, the offensive heaps still continued. It is now well known, though as yet only imperfectly acted upon, that the rational mode of preserving health depends on the proper sanitary conditions of the country, and especially of the great centres of population――thorough drainage and sewerage arrangements, which tend to promote the general vigour of the entire population of the Island.

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volumes II., III.;
_Register of the Privy Council_, Volumes I., II., III., IV.,
V., VI.; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow,
Peebles, Perth, and Dundee_.

In Scotland the streets, even of the chief towns, were not lighted at night. The Town Council of Edinburgh, in November, 1554, ordained that, “for eschewing of the evil doings of the vagabonds and others who go in the burgh in the night, stealing and robbing within the same, there be nightly, from this day forth till the 24th of February, lanterns and bowets set up and lighted at five o’clock in the evening, and to burn till nine, by the following persons:――Each barber on the highgate, each candlemaker on the highgate, each apothecary, each taverner, each baker, and each common cook, to have a lantern or bowet burning in front of their shops and houses during the said hours; and likewise each brewer in the closes and outwith should furnish a bowet; and also that all the persons dwelling in closes must furnish bowets night about, as they shall be ordered by the bailies: and where it happens that two candlemakers or barbers dwell near to each other, then the bailies shall put one of their bowets to any other place as he pleases; and these parties were required to comply with this statute under a fine of two shillings.”¹ This was a primitive enough mode of lighting the streets of the capital of a kingdom.

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume II., pages 204‒205;
_Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, 262.

In 1557 Bessie Campbell having been brought before the magistrates of Edinburgh, promised that she would desist from making _aqua vitæ_, or selling it in the burgh, except on the market days. It appears from various records that the use of spirits was quite common amongst all classes of the people; and drink-money and drink-silver was a very common phrase in the accounts paid to the different classes of workmen by the Town Councils throughout the kingdom.

Reference has already been made to the oppressive burdens which were imposed upon the tenants, the occupiers, and the tillers of the land. Contemporary literature abounds with evidence of the wretched state of these classes of the people. Sir David Lyndsay enumerates by name several of the burdens which the landlords enforced upon their tenants; such as “the great fine on the renewal of leases,” and the fines which had to be paid on the marriage of their daughters.¹ In the _Complaynt of Scotland_, which was published in 1549, the oppression of the tenants and labourers of the ground is touchingly related. Their corn and cattle were often reft from them, and they were then turned out of their holdings. The poor especially were excessively oppressed.² Prior to the Reformation, however, some efforts were made to relieve them. In 1535, Parliament enacted that the poor who cannot work should be supported by the parishes in which they were born.³ In 1553, James Henderson laid proposals before the Town Council of Edinburgh for the improvement of the burgh; and it was then suggested that a new hospital should be built, with forty beds, for helpless men and women, with a priest, a surgeon, and a doctor attached to it. The scheme, does not appear to have been carried out; but about the same time the necessity of some mode of assisting the helpless poor was recognised. The Town Council, in 1555, appointed a committee to devise means for supporting the poor, and expelling sturdy beggars from the town. The next year the Council appointed two men to receive the bread and the silver collected for the poor, and to distribute them till the next term. In 1557, the Council resolved to provide for the maintenance of the poor in the meantime, and passed several Acts in 1559 for expelling beggars who did not belong to the town. It was also proposed to make provision for the poor, according to the Act of Parliament and the statutes of the burgh. The most common mode of dealing with the poor in the burghs seems to have been to grant to those who were born in the town liberty to beg, and to expel all other beggars.⁴ Many of the hospitals for the sick and infirm which had formerly existed in many places throughout the country,⁵ had fallen into a state of decay; and as yet there was no definitely organised scheme for giving assistance to the poor, although the matter had frequently engaged the attention of public bodies.

¹ _Works_, Chalmers’s Edition, Volume II., pages 6‒7, 118;
Volume III., page 147.

² Dr. Murray’s Edition, page 123, _et seq._

³ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II.

⁴ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume II., pages 169‒172, 232,
261; Volume III., pages 50‒51; see also _Burgh Records of
Aberdeen_, Volume I., page 234.

⁵ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
I., page 434.

The religious feelings and opinions of the people themselves, as manifested in their daily life during this revolutionary period, is a highly interesting subject; and an attempt will be made to show what they were immediately before the crisis of the Reformation. In 1514, the Town Council of Aberdeen resolved to impose a tax for buying ornaments and books to the church of their “glorious patron Saint Nicholas.” At the same time an act was passed by which no burgess was admitted, nor any unfreeman licensed to sell, without the payment of a certain sum of money for the repairing of St. Nicholas church and choir. This act was often repeated, and others similar to it were enacted with the consent of the whole community of the city.¹ The citizens also gave voluntary contributions for furnishing ornaments to the altars of their “glorious Saint Nicholas”; and in many other ways they exhibited their feelings by bestowing a liberal share of the good things of the earth and of the waters on the Church.² The Town Council of Edinburgh, in 1518, ordained that the servants of the guild and the beadle should keep the College Church of St. Giles and its choir free from all evil persons in the time of matins, high mass, and evensong; and that no beggars should be permitted to enter the church at such times. In 1521, the Town Council resolved that the dean of guild and seven others should form a committee, to meet every Friday, and sit one hour, and deliberate and advise touching the good of the church and the making of freemen and guild brethren. The Council, in 1546, ordered that all the fines taken from those who had broken the price of wine, should be applied to the reparation of the high altar; and the following year the magistrates resolved that the tavern keepers should be poinded for the dues which they owed to St. Anthony’s altar. In 1552 the magistrates entered into a contract for making the stalls of the choir of St. Giles; and in 1555 they appointed a man to sing in the choir at the masses of Our Lady and the Holy Blood, for which service he was to receive twenty merks a-year. The same year the council ordered the musicians who played before St. Giles on that saint’s day to be paid out of the town’s funds. In the beginning of the year 1556, the provost and bailies granted to Alexander Scott a pension of ten pounds for one year only, for his attendance and singing in the choir on all the festival days, and for playing on the organ when he was requested by the authorities of the town. On the 5th of November, 1557, the Town Council granted the benefice of St. Andrews altar in St. Giles’ church to Robert Craig, the son of a goldsmith, “who promised to be a priest within two years, or else renounce his prebendary.” The great church of St. Mary in Dundee had upwards of thirty altars, and a large staff of priests and officials. There was a peal of five bells in the tower, on which a chime of one hundred and twenty-nine strikes was rung three times daily, to call the people to matins, mass, and evening song. In such churches, and in the grand cathedrals of the kingdom, the magnificence of the ritualistic service was exceedingly imposing. The varied and beautiful decoration of the whole interior of the churches, the altars adorned with cloth of gold, silver vessels, and fine service books, the beautiful hues of the vestments of silk and tissues of gold, the sacred crucifix, and the greatly venerated relics of the saints, and withal, the vocal chanting of touching hymns to the resonant harmony of the organ, were all carefully calculated to touch the devout hearts and impress the souls of the humble worshippers.³

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., 88, 89, 96, 178, 176,
218, 235, 248.

² _Ibid._, 119‒120, 149, 151, 180, 279, 299.

³ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume I., pages 177, 208;
Volume II., pages 125‒127, 142, 174, 218, 220, 236; Volume
III., page 12; _Old Dundee_, Maxwell, page 13, _et seq._

Touching the processions in which the craftsmen joined on notable saint days, pretty full accounts are contained in the Records of Aberdeen, where they were an important institution. It appears, however, that these displays sometimes ended in bickerings, that is, in a general uproar, especially among the young.¹ In 1531 the Town Council of Aberdeen passed the following statute: “According to the lovable custom and right of this burgh, and of the noble burgh of Edinburgh, of which rite and custom the provost has received a copy: that is to say, that in the name of God and the blessed Virgin Mary, the craftsmen of this burgh, in their best array, keep and decorate the procession, as on Corpus Christi day and Candlemas day, as honourably as they can, every craft with their own banner, with the arms of their craft thereon, and they shall pass each craft by themselves, two and two, in this order:――First the fleshers, and next the barbers; next the skinners and furriers together; next the shoemakers; next the tailors; after them weavers, walkers, and listers together; next them the bakers; and last of all, nearest to the Sacrament, passes all the hammermen――namely, smiths, wrights, masons, ♦coupers, slaters, goldsmiths, and armourers. And every one of the said crafts, in the Candlemas procession, shall furnish their pageants, according to the old statute of the year of God 1510.” The crafts were ordered to furnish their pageants as follows:――“The fleshers, St. Bestian and his tormenters; the barbers, St. Lawrence and his tormenters; the skinners, St. Stephen and his tormenters; the shoemakers, St. Martin; the tailors, the coronation of our Lady; the listers, St. Nicholas; the weavers, walkers, and bonnetmakers, St. John; the bakers, St. George; the hammermen, the Resurrection and the Cross.”²

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume II., pages 8, 73.

♦ “coupars” replaced with “coupers” for consistency

² _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., pages 449‒451.

Turning to another class of illustrations of the religious sentiments of the people, the shoemakers of Edinburgh were incorporated by a seal of cause, 1510, which contained rules touching payments to the altar of the craftsmen. “For augmentation of divine service at the altar of St. Crispin, in the College Church of St. Giles, we desire that the following statutes, articles, and rules, should be sanctioned by your authority.” Every apprentice at his entry to the craft had to pay six shillings and eightpence, for upholding of divine service at the altar of St. Crispin; and when a shoemaker commenced business as a master, he had to pay four marks to the altar of St. Crispin. Every master had to pay one penny weekly for keeping the altar in repair, and each of his servants a half-penny. All the fines for breaking the rules of the craft, or disobeying the kirk-master, were also to be applied to the service of the altar of St. Crispin. The candlemakers were incorporated in 1517; and it was stated in their seal of cause, “that when they set up shop, each master must pay to St. Giles’ work half a mark of silver, and to the reparation and upholding of the light of any altar in St. Giles’ Church, where the deacon and craftsmen think it most needful, half a mark weekly; ay, and until they be furnished with an altar of their own. And, likewise, each master of the craft, in honour of Almighty God and his Blessed Mother St. Mary, and of our patron St. Giles, and of all the saints of heaven, shall give the sum of ten shillings yearly to the helping and furnishing, either of light or any other needful thing to any altar in the church of St. Giles.” The bakers were incorporated in 1523, and their patron was St. Cuthbert, whose altar was in St. Giles; and they kept a chaplain of their own to perform divine service at their altar. All the fines for disobeying the rules of the craft were to be devoted to the altar, chiefly in the form of wax candles to lighten the church and enliven the worship. The tailors had St. Ann for their patron; and they also had an altar and a chaplain of their own, “who said prayers.” The bonnetmakers were under the protection of St. Mark. The skinners and furriers of Edinburgh were incorporated in 1533. “In example of others, and for augmentation of divine service at the altar of St. Christopher our patron, in the college church of St. Giles. Seeing that all virtuous practices depend on a good beginning, thence persevering and advancing to the end, therefore all those who set up as skinners and furriers should pay five pounds for the maintaining of divine service at their altar of St. Christopher; unless, indeed, they be skinners’ sons within this burgh, in which case, they shall only pay ten shillings. Every master who has a shop, should pay one penny weekly to the reparation of the ornaments of our altar and sustaining of the priests’ meat thereof, as it comes about.” Indeed almost every craft had its special saint and altar. Toward the end of the fifteenth century the weavers of Dundee resolved to found an altar to St. Severus, their patron saint, and the erection having been sanctified, they then framed rules, which were presented to the town council. In 1512, the council granted a seal of cause, incorporating the weavers, “for the supplying and upholding of divine service and reapparelling of their altar of St. Severus, uphorlden by them in Our Lady Kirk, and for the government of their work and labours. It was provided that the fees and fines exacted for infringement of the rules of the craft should go to the upholding of the altar, and that each man and woman engaged in the craft, who gives not to the priest of the altar his meat in the year, as the rest does, shall pay every week to the altar a penny, to be collected by the deacon of the craft.” In 1516, the town council incorporated the glovers, and the craft became bound, “in honour and loving of God Almighty, and of the glorious Lady the Virgin Mary, and of St. Duthac, our patron, to the reparation of our altar in the parish kirk, for the upholding of God’s service daily at the said altar, and to the honest sustentation of a chaplain daily to sing and say at the altar;” and to collect from every person engaged in the craft forty shillings, for upholding the altar and the service thereof, except freemen’s sons of the craft, who should pay only six shillings and eightpence. St. Cuthbert was the baker’s patron saint, and they founded and maintained his altar in St. Mary’s Church, and appointed their chaplain annually. In 1515 the guild merchants of Dundee, with the consent of the town council, resolved to erect an altar in St. Mary’s Church, “to the loving of God Almighty, of Christ’s precious blood, and to his blessed mother the Virgin Mary, and to appoint a chaplain daily to sing and say divine service there, and for singing mass solemnly every Thursday in honour of the Holy Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” For the reparation of the altar and the upholding of the service, the merchants were empowered to elect a dean, who was authorised to exact duties on all goods exported, to tax all merchants beginning business, and to exact fines from those who encroached on the High Market Gait with their goods.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume I., pages 127‒129,
170‒172, 214, 215; Volume II., pages 22‒24, 48‒50, 52‒55,
61‒66, _et seq._; _Burgh Records of Dundee_.

In the preceding pages some of the religious sentiments of the people have been indicated, as manifested in their life and action; the next point is to look for the signs of the new religious opinions amongst them before the crisis of the Revolution. The magistrates of Aberdeen in 1525 received a letter from the King, stating that the bishop of the diocese had informed him that there were several persons in the district who had the books of the heretic Luther, and who favoured his opinions; and the act of parliament newly passed against heresy was ordered to be proclaimed, and a searching inquisition made of all suspected persons within the bounds of the diocese. The king’s letter and the act of parliament were both inserted in the records of the city. There was no more mention of heresy in Aberdeen till 1544, when some of the citizens were committed, and convicted for injuring the black friars; while the same year two of the townsmen were found guilty of hanging the image of St. Francis. In the beginning of the year 1559 the buildings of the black and the gray friars were attacked by some of the citizens, who were assisted by certain strangers; and the bailies then inquired whether these buildings should be preserved for the good of the town, “and the setting forth of God’s glory, and the suppression of idolatry;” notwithstanding the provost’s protest, which was adhered to by fifteen of the inhabitants, in March the whole community of “the good town” resolved to support the Lords of the Congregation. In the month of June the chaplains of St. Nicholas church petitioned the magistrates to devise some means for defending their church, and for preserving the chalices, silver work, caps, and ornaments, till the uproar and tumult of the people was quelled by the ancient and wise council of the kingdom.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., pages 206, 211,
315‒323.

In 1551, parliament had passed an act prohibiting the printing or publishing of any books or ballads, either in Latin or English, unless licensed by the king and government; and in 1554, the Town Council of Edinburgh passed an act against the makers of defamatory and blasphemous ballads. The ballads had been placed before the people, and had raised discord among them; but the parties who composed the ballads were unknown, and the bailies ordered that no one should dare to make such ballads, under the penalty contained in the common laws. On the 22nd of September, 1556, the archbishop of St. Andrews sent a document to the town council of Edinburgh, touching the images which had been taken down in the churches; and the council agreed to make inquiry concerning the matter, and to report to the justice clerk. The following day the council received a message from the Queen Regent, in the name of the primate, which she desired to be inserted in the records of the burgh. It proceeded, “as we are informed that there are certain odious ballads and rhymes lately set forth by some evil-inclined persons of your town, who have also taken down divers images, and contemptuously broken them――which is a thing very slanderous to the people, and contrary to the ordinances and the statutes of Holy Kirk――and we understand that the makers of this misorder are all dwellers and inhabitants of your town. Wherefore we charge you that immediately after the sight hereof, ye diligently inquire, search, and seek for their names, and deliver them in writ to our cousin the archbishop of St. Andrews, to be used according to the statutes of the Kirk; assuring you, if ye do not your utmost endeavours therein to bring the same to light, that ye shall be considered by us favourers and maintainers of such persons, and shall underlay the same punishment that they ought to sustain, in case we get knowledge thereof by you.”¹ Thus we see that the popular ballads had an influence on the revolutionary movement.

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume II., pages 199, 200, 251.

In June, 1559, Matthew Stevenson, a servant of a barber, was accused before the Council of Edinburgh for throwing stones at the windows of the buildings of the black and the gray friars, the last night that he was upon the watch. He pleaded guilty, and his master became bail for his appearance when required. On the 27th of June the Council appointed a number of persons to whom the vestments, the ornaments, and the gear of the church of St. Giles were committed for safety. The council met in the Tolbooth on the 29th of June, and after long reasoning upon the coming of the Lords of the Congregation to Edinburgh, they at last resolved to send a deputation to meet them at Linlithgow; and to arrange with them for the preservation of the religious buildings and the churches of the burgh.¹ There is something very touching in the anxiety and the care which the town council of Edinburgh exhibited for the preservation of the furnishings and the ornaments of their churches, which, as we have just seen, had been so long and so closely associated with their altars, and with the religion of their fathers.

¹ _Ibid._, Volume III., pages 40‒45.