Chapter XXX (3)

Besides the devotion of Sunday to religious exercises, there were daily morning and evening prayers in the churches of the burghs, and preaching on two or three days of the week, and this was continued until near the end of the seventeenth century. In the records of the burghs, and of the Church courts, there are many acts, rules, and notices touching the week-day meeting and preaching. In Edinburgh, in 1650, there was a lecture every afternoon, and the ministers of the city performing the duty by turns. The town council of Aberdeen, in 1694, appointed the week-day sermons to be held in the new church; but the next year, the council found that the morning and evening prayers were not frequented as in former times, and therefore they were to be discontinued.¹ As the energy of the people became more directed to trade and industry, the preaching and the religious exercises in the churches on week-days gradually fell into disuse, though in some towns the practice has lingered on to the present time.

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 315, 317.

But the religious feeling of the age had yet another channel in which it occasionally sought emphatic expression, under the form of the national fast or humiliation. The General Assembly appointed the national fasts, and gave the reasons why they should be held. One was appointed in 1615, to begin on the last Sunday of March, and to be continued to the first Sunday of April; and to enhance the solemnity of the fast, it was enjoined that there should be public preaching in all the burghs of the kingdom every day in the week, preceding the two Sundays. “For many weighty causes moving the Church thereto, and among the rest, by reason of the great number of Jesuits and seminary priests come into this Island, and spread through all the corners thereof, pressing by all possible means to subvert the true religion established in this Isle.” In 1644, a fast was proclaimed throughout the kingdom, chiefly on account of backsliding from the Covenant, the prevalence of vice, and to entreat the favour of God for the parliamentary armies; and also to pray that the King’s heart might be filled with the spirit of reformation. A public fast was appointed to be held on the last Sunday of August, 1649, for the following reasons:――“The sins of the land, especially the sin of witchcraft; and the interruption of the Lord’s work in England and in Ireland; to entreat the Lord to deliver our King from the hands of malignants, and incline his heart to give satisfaction in those things that concern religion; to pray for steadfastness to this land, and especially to those in charge of public affairs; to entreat the Lord to carry on his work in England and in Ireland against all opposers of the same; and lastly, for a blessing upon the harvest.”¹ In 1696, the Assembly appointed a national fast to be observed on the 21st of January, to deprecate the wrath of God, “which is very visible against the land, in the judgments of great sickness and mortality in most parts of the kingdom, as also of growing dearth and famine threatened, with the imminent hazard of an invasion from cruel enemies abroad――all the just deservings and effects of our continuing and abounding sins, and of our great security and impenitence under them.”²

¹ _Acts of the General Assembly_; _Selections from the Records
of the Kirk-Session of Aberdeen_, page 82.

² _Acts of the General Assembly._

Besides the national fasts appointed by the Assembly, the local authorities occasionally ordered fasts to be observed within the limits of their jurisdiction. Thus the magistrates of Aberdeen commanded fasts to be observed in the city in January, 1658, and in 1669; and on the latter occasion the council, “considering the prevalence of all sorts of sins within this burgh, such as drunkenness, uncleanness, cursing, and the like, to the effect that the just judgments of God may be averted, finds it expedient to indict a fast, to be kept by the inhabitants of this burgh, and recommends to the magistrates to intimate this to the ministers.” The Synod of Aberdeen ordered a fast to be observed on the 28th of November, 1651, for the sins of the land.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 170, 177, 253.

Drunkenness seems to have been rather prevalent. The light wines of France were the common drink among the gentry, and ale among the people, but stronger spirits were often used. The kirk-sessions frequently took cognisance of cases of drunkenness. In the beginning of the year 1604, the Kirk-Session of Aberdeen had before them Robert Cuthberd, a shoemaker, and Thomas Hay, a tinkler, and they were seriously admonished to abstain from their excessive drinking and night-walking; and that they should never entice Alexander Smith, shoemaker, to drink, or draw him out for that purpose in the night, under the penalty of being punished as night-walkers and drunkards. The Session in 1606 cited Alexander Mortimer and John Leslie for having abused themselves by inordinate drinking of aquavitæ (whisky), and bringing slander on this congregation by their drunkenness. In 1611, the Privy Council renewed the former acts against night-walkers in Edinburgh, and idle and debauched persons who went about the streets at night, indulging their evil passions and frequently committing serious crimes. Direct reference was made to several persons of this character, some of them strangers, who wallowed in all kinds of excesses, riot and drunkenness, committing enormities upon peaceable citizens, and cruelly attacking the officers appointed to watch the city, and unmercifully slaying them. The Council ordered that in future no one should remain on the streets after ten at night. In 1619, Robert Hunter and James Hay were admonished by the Kirk-Session of Aberdeen, to behave themselves better, and to desist from their drinking. The town council of Aberdeen, in 1625, passed an act, “that no person should at any public or private meeting presume to compel his neighbour to drink more wine or beer than what he pleased, under the penalty of forty pounds.”¹

¹ _Selections from the Records of the Kirk-Session of
Aberdeen_, pages 29, 50, 78; _Register of the Privy Council_;
_Burgh Records of Aberdeen_.

It appears from the financial accounts of the burghs that drink was pretty freely used on all public occasions; and in the accounts for work done to the corporations, the sums given as drink-money are frequently stated. For half-a-day’s work at the bridge of Tweed, a workman was paid six shillings and sixpence Scots, and one shilling and eightpence for drink. In the burgh of Peebles, Stephen Grieve and his son were employed a day and a half erecting the gallows on which the witches were to be hung, and they received forty shillings, and eightpence for drink.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Peebles_, pages 50, 423, 224.

After the Restoration, among a portion of the upper classes, drunkenness greatly increased. Excessive drinking was indulged in without shame, and some men even gloried in it. Sometimes a company of these gentlemen fell a carousing, and encouraged each other by giving healths, and when they had exhausted their resources in drinking healths, “not knowing whose to give next, one of them gives the devil’s health, and the rest pledges him.”¹

¹ Robert Law’s _Memorials_, page 43.

Then, as now, habits of drinking and swearing were often associated, and in many of the Acts of Parliament both offences were classed together, and received the same kind of punishment. Besides the Acts of Council, Parliament passed a series of acts from 1617 to 1696, for the punishment of ♦drunkards; and in 1644, an act was passed which imposed penalties upon the keepers of inns and ale-houses, if they sold drink after ten at night or on Sunday. The act of 1617 asserted that the detestable vice of drunkenness was daily increasing. It enacted that public-houses should be closed at ten at night, and proposed a scale of punishments for drunkards, consisting of fines, the stocks, and imprisonment. For the execution of the act, special power was given to the sheriffs, stewards, magistrates of burghs, and to the kirk-session of every parish; and they were directed to meet and try drunkards, and do everything requisite for the execution of the law. Innkeepers who induced parties to become drunk were to be punished. The part of the act of 1617 touching the punishment of offenders is to this effect:――“All persons lawfully convicted of drunkenness, or of haunting taverns or ale-houses after ten at night, or at any time of the day, except when travelling or for ordinary refreshments, shall for the first fault pay three pounds, and in case of inability to pay, to be put in the stocks or into the jail for six hours; for the second offence to pay five pounds, or be kept in the stocks or the jail for twelve hours; for the third fault ten pounds, or twenty-four hours in the stocks or the jail; and afterwards if they transgress, to be imprisoned till they find caution for their good behaviour in time coming.” In an act passed in 1645, “against swearing, drinking, and mocking of piety,” the scale of punishments was stated thus: “Whosoever shall swear or blaspheme, and whosoever shall drink excessively, especially under the name of healths ... who shall be found guilty of all or any one or other of the foresaid vices, by any kirk judicatories to which they are subject, having been once already censured by these courts for the same vice, shall after the second conviction be censurable in the following manner: Each nobleman shall pay twenty pounds for the second conviction, and for each one thereafter; each baron twenty merks; each gentleman, proprietor, and burgess, ten merks; each yeoman forty shillings, each servant twenty shillings, and each minister the fifth part of his year’s stipend. And that wives who offend against this act shall be punished according to the rank of their husbands, and the husbands shall be liable for the payment of their wives’ fines.” The money raised by these fines was to be applied to pious uses in the parishes where the offenders resided. The act against swearing and excessive drinking of 1661 repeats the scale of fines of the act of 1645, with this addition, “and if any of the parties offending be unable to pay the foresaid penalties, then to be exemplarily punished in their bodies according to the degree of their faults.”¹

♦ “drunkarks” replaced with “drunkards”

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.; Volume
VI., page 128; Volume VII., pages 195, 262.

There was a constant struggle against immorality and drunkenness; and in 1696, parliament passed an act ratifying and renewing “all former laws and acts of parliament made against drunkenness, Sabbath-breaking, swearing, fornication, uncleanness, mocking and reproaching religion and the exercise thereof, and generally all laws made against profaneness, and ordained the same to be put in full and vigorous execution. And further, considering how much profanity and immorality do abound over all the nation, to the dishonour of God, the reproach of religion, and the discredit and weakening of the Government, notwithstanding the many good laws that have been made against profaneness,” therefore it was anew enacted that all those in authority in every parish in the ♦kingdom should be obliged and required to put these acts against profanity and immorality into full and due execution. This act declared “that no pretence of different persuasion in matters of religion shall exempt the offender from being censured and punished for such immoralities as by the laws of this kingdom are declared to be punishable by fining.” The Estates also recommended to the Lords of the Privy Council to take such further steps as seemed requisite “for restraining and punishing of all sorts of profanity and wickedness.”¹

♦ “kingdon” replaced with “kingdom”

¹ _Ibid._, Volume X. pages 65‒66.

Those at the head of the Government may not always have shown a good example, but the magistrates of the burghs and the kirk-sessions struggled manfully against drunkenness and immorality. In December, 1648, the town council of Aberdeen had before them a request from the ministers, “desiring them to take notice of all the country people found in the town, either drunk, swearing, or otherwise debauching themselves, and notify their names to the ministers, who were then to send such names to their own ministers, so that these offenders may be punished as their own session thinks fit.” The council enacted “that all persons, of whatever rank, found drunk, swearing, or debauching themselves, should be ♦apprehended, imprisoned, and punished, at the discretion of the magistrates.” In 1655, the council enacted that no mariners, masons, stablers, slaters, millers, or any unfree person, should presume to brew, vent, or sell ale, strong waters, or aquavitæ, without a special licence from the council. The synod of Aberdeen, in 1667, commanded all the ministers in the diocese to be careful to execute the censures of the Church on drunkards, swearers, and Sabbath-breakers. But in 1680, the synod had to announce that, notwithstanding the glorious gospel vouchsafed to the people, with plenty of temporal benefits, “iniquity does exceedingly abound in this diocese, and part of the Church and kingdom, and especially the sins of drunkenness, whoredom, and horrid cursing and swearing.”¹ The habit of swearing and using imprecations had descended from pre-Reformation times, and was extremely difficult to eradicate.

♦ “appreheneed” replaced with “apprehended”

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 93, 156;
_Selections from the Register of the Synod of Aberdeen_,
pages 284, 332.

Under the authority of the acts of parliament, the town councils throughout the kingdom framed rules from time to time for restraining this heinous offence. In 1642, the town council of Aberdeen stated that the sin of swearing was increasing; and for curbing and punishing all offenders of this character, they resolved “to ratify and approve of all the acts passed by their predecessors in bygone times, and particularly an act of the 7th of December, 1605, and anew ordained that every master and mistress of a family in the burgh, as often as any of them happens to be found banning and swearing any sort of oath, shall pay eighteenpence to the poor, and each servant fourpence, which shall be presently exacted of them by the master of the family, and a box to be kept in every family for this purpose. For restraining of children from swearing, there should be palmers in every family wherewith to punish the children on their hands as often as they were found swearing; and those of the poorer classes thus offending, as beggars, scolds, and vagabonds, having no means to pay the penalties, to be put in the stocks, and to stand there for three hours or longer, according to the degree of their fault.” As swearing was most common on the streets, at the burn-head, the flesh, the fish, the malt, and the meal markets, and at the cross, where coals, fruit, and such things were sold, the magistrates appointed captors and searchers to note all persons found swearing at any of the above places. The names of the captors and their several districts were minutely stated, and they were empowered “to execute the penalties above specified; and if anyone resisted and refused to give obedience, then the captors were to note down their names and hand them to the magistrates, that they may take steps for punishing and censuring the offenders according to the tenor of this act.” These captors were also to visit families once a month, to see if the act was obeyed and if any reformation was effected, and to report those who had failed to obey to the kirk-session, to be treated as they should think fit. Moreover, the captors had to report if parents were careful in training their children, or if they neglected them; and if there were idle and wicked rogues living without all order and persisting in their evil ways, these were to be brought to the correction-house, and there under the eyes of the captors themselves, properly punished.¹ In 1678, the council commanded that all persons found swearing on the streets, or in any other public place, should be sharply punished.

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume III., pages 279‒281.

The relation of the different sexes was still somewhat lax; and complaints were occasionally made of men and women living together as married persons, though not lawfully married. Sometimes parties who could not obtain marriage by the law and constitution of Scotland, went to neighbouring countries and got themselves married; but in 1641, Parliament prohibited this under severe penalties. An act was passed in 1661 against clandestine and unlawful marriages, which also imposed severe fines and penalties on the parties who entered into such unions, and enacted “that the celebrators of such marriages shall be banished from the kingdom, never to return thereto, under the pain of death.” In 1695, an act was passed against clandestine and irregular marriages, and another in 1698. The latter act enjoined for the better suppression of these marriages, “that over and above the penalties contained in the acts of 1661 and 1695 against clandestine and irregular marriages, the celebrator of them shall be liable to be summarily seized and imprisoned by any ordinary magistrate or justice of the peace, and further punished by the Lords of his Majesty’s Privy Council, not only by perpetual banishment, but also by such pecuniary or corporal pains as the council shall think fit to inflict.”¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., page 388;
Volume VII., page 231; Volume X., page 149.

The church courts had frequently to deal with irregular and scandalous marriages. All incestuous connections were severely treated both by the civil law and by the Church. In 1668, the synod of Aberdeen passed an act for restraining scandals at marriages. “It being represented to the bishop and the synod that there had been frequently disorderly marriages contrary to the authorised custom of the Church, to the great offence of God and scandal of Christian people; therefore, for curbing and restraining these enormities, the bishop and synod have ordained, that ministers take diligent notice in their respective parishes of such scandalous persons, and that whoever shall be convicted of having violently carried away unmarried women, shall be censured to remove the scandal in the same manner as it is enjoined for adulterers, even should he afterwards extort the woman’s consent to marry him; and if it be found that the woman carried away has been privy to the same, and in collusion with the man, without the knowledge of her parents, then the woman also should be censured. And further, it is enacted that all those found guilty of accession to such scandalous violence in covering and assisting any man in carrying away a woman, shall also be enjoined to remove the scandal of his conduct in sackcloth, ... and the persons so censured, in case of disobedience, to be excommunicated.” It was also ordered that persons cohabiting together and pretending that they were married by popish priests, should be proceeded against until they made public acknowledgement of their sin of disorderly marriage, in the face of the congregation. “Also, all persons cohabiting together as married, who allege that they have privately plighted their faith to one another; but if it be found that there was no intimation of their purpose to the congregation, nor the marriage solemnised nor blessed by any minister, then all that have so cohabited shall be censured as fornicators, yea, and until they separate from each other, and having removed the scandal, be lawfully married according to the order of the Church. In like manner, when two persons come before a minister in private or in public, declaring that they take each other as husband and wife, and do forthwith cohabit together, and will not wait the public intimation of their purpose to the congregation, or its solemnisation by the minister, according to the order of the Church, it is ordained that those guilty of this, for the time that is bygone, shall make their public appearance in their own parish church, and there, in the presence of the minister and of the congregation, confess and crave God’s forgiveness of their sin, and thereupon receive the orderly blessing to their marriage from the minister.”¹

¹ _Selections from the Register of the ♦Synod of Aberdeen_,
pages 290‒292. Some of the particulars of irregular marriage
indicated in the above quotation are exactly similar to
those which the reformed clergy had to deal with after the
Reformation in the sixteenth century, which I noticed in the
second volume, pages 261‒264.

♦ “Sgnod” replaced with “Synod”

Some of the old customs associated with marriages and burials still survived. The custom of casting knots at marriages was occasionally practised, but then punishable as a form of enchantment. In 1666, James Smith was cited by the minister of Cluny, before the Synod of Aberdeen, “for using enchantment by casting of the knots at marriages, for unlawful ends, and the Synod ordained that he should give evidence of his repentance in sackcloth.”¹ It had been long customary among the people when a young couple were married, to receive a mixed company and hold a sort of ball, while each person contributed something towards the expense, a part of which was usually left over for the benefit of the newly-wedded pair. This custom soon drew the attention of the reformed clergy, and the kirk-sessions endeavoured to suppress these promiscuous merry-makings, called “penny bridals;” and in 1581, Parliament passed an act limiting the expense of marriages and banquets, and similar acts were passed in 1621 and 1681. The General Assembly passed an act against penny bridals, which enjoined the presbyteries to use severe means to restrict them. In the Burgh Records of Aberdeen, references to the act on superfluous banqueting at baptisms and other meetings frequently occur, and in 1633, the Town Council made the following additions to this act: “That none be found dancing through the town at marriage feasts; nor any person invited to night-wakes hereafter, but a few of the nearest neighbours of the deceased, ... and ordains this to be proclaimed from the pulpits of both the churches of the burgh.” They repeated this act, “in all points,” in 1636, again in 1661, and once more in 1671, with this addition, “that no inhabitant of the burgh, of whatever rank, shall invite more persons to the baptism of their children than four men and four women,” under the penalty of a fine for each person above that number. The Act of Parliament of 1681, for restraining the expense of marriages, baptisms, and burials, enacted, “that at marriages, besides the married persons, their parents, children, brothers, and sisters, and the family wherein they live, there shall not be present at any marriage above four friends on either side, with their ordinary domestic servants. And that neither bridegroom nor bride, nor their parents or relations, shall make above two changes of raiment at that time or upon that occasion,” under the penalty of forfeiting the fourth part of their annual income or a fourth part of their goods. The number of the company at baptisms was limited the same as at marriages. The number of persons permitted to attend the funerals of the different ranks are also stated in the act.¹

¹ _Selections from the Register of the Synod of Aberdeen_, page
280.

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume III., pages 54, 105;
Volume IV., pages 213, 274; also, _Burgh Records of Glasgow_;
and _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., page
350.

It seems that at penny marriages fights and other excesses sometimes occurred, and that intoxicating spirits were freely indulged in. In some parts of the country the lairds bound their tenants to hold all their marriages at an alehouse.¹

¹ Dr. Davidson says, “Alehouses were largely established by
the lairds in order to the sell and consumption of the bear
crops in malt, and their tenants were required to make all
their weddings penny bridals, and held at an alehouse; where
the innkeeper supplied the eatables on the occasion gratis,
finding his profit in the ale consumed during the festivities,
which were prolonged for days.”――_Inverurie, and the Earldom
of the Garioch_, pages 319, 340.

In 1643 the Town Council of Aberdeen resolved to correct the disorders connected with the dead, as ringing of bells and other superstitious rites at funerals. They henceforth “discharged the tolling of bells at funerals, and laying of the bier and mortcloth on the graves of deceased persons; and prohibited all the inhabitants from inviting the master doctor of the grammar school to sing or read at likewakes, under a penalty of forty pounds.”¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., page 6.

The Government deemed it a duty to regulate the dress of the people, and to prescribe the exact habit which each rank should wear. In 1621 Parliament enacted that no one should wear gold or silver lacing on their clothes, nor any velvet, satin, or silks, save the nobles. The King’s councillors, lords of Parliament, lords of session, and barons with a yearly rent of six thousand merks of silver, were allowed to appear in silk and satin apparel; while the provosts and magistrates of the principal burghs, and the rectors of the universities, were to be permitted to wear fine dresses under the condition “that they should have no embroidering or lace or passements upon them, save only a plain welting lace of silk upon the seams and borders of their garments, with belts and hatbands embroidered with silk; and that their wives, their eldest sons, their unmarried daughters, and the children of all noblemen, should wear their dress in the aforesaid manner only, under a penalty of a thousand pounds.” All other persons were prohibited from having pearling or ribboning upon their ruffles, shirts, napkins, and socks; if the people still resolved to have pearling upon their clothes, it should be produced in Scotland. “Further, that no one should wear upon their heads buskings or feathers; that no other persons except those privileged should wear any pearls or precious stones, under the penalty of a thousand merks. It was also stated that no persons should wear upon their bodies tiffanies, under the penalty of a hundred pounds; that no servants should wear any clothing save that made of cloth, fustians, canvas, or stuffs produced in the kingdom; they should have no silk upon their clothes except the buttons and button-holes, and silk garters without pearling or roses, under the penalty of a hundred merks. But it was declared to be lawful for them to wear their masters’ old clothes. It was also declared that heralds, trumpeters, and minstrels, were exempted from the act. It was further enacted that no one save the privileged classes should wear damask napery brought from abroad, under a penalty of a hundred pounds. It was likewise statuted that no more mourning weeds should be made at the death of an Earl or a Countess than twenty-four at the utmost, and for a lord of Parliament or his wife not more than sixteen, and for all other privileged persons, twelve; and that none but these should have any honours carried, and that no mourning weeds should be given to the heralds, trumpeters, or sachs, except by the Earls, the lords of parliament and their wives, and that the number of sachs should be exactly according to the mourning weeds, under the penalty of a thousand pounds. It was enacted that the fashion of clothes then in use should not be changed by man nor woman, under the penalty of forfeiting the clothes and a hundred pounds to be paid by the wearers thereof, and as much by the makers of the clothes. And also that no castor hats should be used or worn but by the privileged classes, under the penalty of a hundred pounds. That the husbandmen and the labourers of the land should wear no clothing but grey, white, blue, and serge black cloth, made in Scotland, and that their wives and their children should wear the same, under the penalty of forty pounds. Finally, it was enjoined that after the publication of this act, no clothes should be made but according to the manner and the style before expressed, and that none of the former discharged clothing be worn by anyone after Martinmas, 1623, under the respective penalties above stated.”¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.

This act, with some alterations, was re-enacted in 1672, and again in the following year, with the removal of some of the former restrictions touching the wearing of white lace or pearling made of thread, and some other explanations. But as late as 1696, a proposal was mooted in Parliament for a constant fashion of clothes for men, and another for women. Two years after, Parliament had under consideration an act for restraining the expense of apparel; and a debate ensued on the point whether the prohibition of gold and silver on clothes should be extended to house furniture, and it was carried that it should. It was then put to a division, whether gold and silver lace manufactured in Scotland should be allowed on clothes, and the majority voted against it; and thereupon, an act was passed prohibiting the wearing of gold and silver lace, and also the importation of the same, under the penalties of burning of the articles on which it was found, and five hundred merks of a fine imposed upon the person wearing it.¹

¹ _Ibid._, Volume VIII., pages 71‒72, 212; Volume X., Appendix,
page 6, pages 142, 144, 150.

The dress of the common people was made of a plain cloth, called hodden gray, spun at home and manufactured from the undyed wool. In summer the women usually went barefooted, and the children generally ran about without shoes or stockings in summer.

In the preceding periods, the defective sanitary condition of the towns was noticed, and with it the consequent and frequent recurrence of pestilence. One of the first requisites of a town where a large population is located within a limited space, is a constant and sufficient supply of clean water; but in the seventeenth century, even the capital of Scotland had not a constant supply of pure water. It is recorded in 1654, that owing to the drought of the summer the wells ran dry, and the inhabitants of Edinburgh could not get enough of water for cooking their food, and some of them had to go a mile and more before they could obtain clean water. In Glasgow, notices of the public wells occur in the records of the city from the latter half of the sixteenth century onward to the present time. The magistrates, in 1610, authorised a well to be built upon the side of the Highgate, “so that it be built five quarter height above the ground, with asler work for the safety of the bairns and other persons ... and the well to be common to all men of this town.” In 1630, they ordered that the new well in the Trongate should be slated in the best form, and two pumps attached to it, and that it should be cleaned as soon as possible; and in 1638, some improvements were made on the common wells.¹

¹ Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of Scotland_, Volume II., page
226; _Burgh Records of Glasgow_, pages 312, 390. In 1575, the
provost and council of Glasgow ordered that “the new common
wells in the Gallowgate shall be opened daily in the morning
and locked at even, and appointed a man to attend thereto,
and to keep the well and the key thereof, and to get forty
shillings of fee for his trouble during the year.”――_Burgh
Records of Glasgow_, page 39.

In 1632, the town council of Aberdeen had under their consideration the inconvenience which the people suffered for want of clean and pure water. As the most of the water which they were then using, “coming only from the loch, is filthy, defiled, and corrupted, not only by the gutters daily running in the burn, but also by listers, and the washing of clothes, and pollution of the water in several parts, with other sorts of uncleanness,” they therefore resolved that fountains should be erected as soon as possible to supply the town with pure water. Some of the crafts objected to the payment of their share of the requisite tax; but upon the petition of the magistrates, the Privy Council empowered the town council to impose a tax to defray the expense of the new fountains, and to enforce its payment. Yet these efforts to supply the citizens with pure water were only partly successful. In 1683, the deficiency of clean water was again before the magistrates, and it was stated that the bringing in of water and of erecting fountains had often been attempted, but had not as yet been effectively accomplished. The dean of guild was requested to inquire among the inhabitants what they would be willing to contribute to forward this work, and to report; but more than twenty years elapsed ere the city was supplied with pure water. The council granted authority to purchase lead for the pipes and the cisterns required for bringing in the water from Carden well; and James Mackie and John Burnet were engaged to build the first fount at the spring of Carden’s well, for the sum of ten pounds sterling. The treasurer was allowed to borrow money for bringing in this water; and it seems that the work was completed in 1708, as the council then resolved, on account of the many obstacles which Joseph Foster, plumber, had encountered in bringing in the water, to give him a gratuity of two hundred pounds Scots, with thirty-six shillings of drink money to his servants.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume III., pages 50, 51, 55,
58, 303, 333‒334; Volume IV.

As regards cleanness, the state of the towns was most wretched. In March, 1619, the Privy Council communicated with the magistrates of Edinburgh touching the cleaning of the streets in the following terms:――“The city is now become so filthy and unclean, the streets, the vennels, the wynds, and the closes thereof, so overlaid and covered with middings, and with the filth of man and of beast, as that the noble councillors, servants, and others of His Majesty’s subjects, who are lodged in the burgh, cannot have clean or clear passage and entry to their lodgings; and because of this, their lodgings have become so loathsome to them, as they are resolved rather to make choice of lodgings in the Canongate and in Leith, or some other parts about the town, than to abide the sight of this shameful uncleanness, which is so universal and in such abundance throughout all parts of this burgh, as in the heat of summer it corrupts the air and gives great occasion to sickness. And further, this shameful and beastly filthiness is most detestable and odious in the sight of strangers, who, beholding the same, are constrained, with reason, to give out many disgraceful speeches against this burgh, calling it a puddle of filth and uncleanness, the like of which is not to be seen in any part of the world.” The plan proposed by the council was, that each householder should keep the street clean opposite his own door, as was done in other well-governed cities.¹ There was no idea of a cleaning department of police, but there was a sort of arrangement adopted for cleaning the streets of Edinburgh at stated times, though it long remained in a very defective condition. During the reign of Cromwell, more effective measures were taken for cleaning the streets, and for preventing foul water from being thrown out at the windows.

¹ _Register of the Privy Council._

In 1686, Parliament passed an act for cleaning the streets of Edinburgh, in which it was stated that there had been many complaints of the nastiness of the streets, wynds, closes, and other places of the city. And the magistrates were commanded to adopt effectual means for freeing the capital of such nastiness; and at the same time to purge it of “those numerous beggars who resort in and about the burgh, and that under the penalty of a thousand pounds Scots yearly, to be paid by the magistrates to the Lords of Session, to be applied by them for the end and use aforesaid.” The magistrates were to be authorised to impose a tax for cleaning the streets of the city.¹

¹ Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of Scotland_, Volume II., page
212; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII.,
page 595.

The arrangements for cleaning the other burghs of the kingdom were equally defective. In 1674, the town council of Aberdeen stated, that in spite of the many acts of their predecessors emitted for cleaning the streets of the burgh, and removing the middings and filth, yet there had been little observance of them. Therefore, they resolved that a fit person should be employed, and one or two horses and carts furnished to him at the town’s charge, “for keeping the streets and the common passages of the burgh clean, and for taking away the middings and dubs off the streets.” This person was empowered to go through all the streets and lanes of the town every morning, and at all other times which he thought fit, to remove all the middings and dubs which he found upon them. In this act there are some curious and amusing statements. “The man appointed to clean the streets was to apply the dung for the use of the burgh and the freedom lands of the same, and no otherwise, at such price as shall be appointed by the council; and for any red, middings, or filth, that shall be taken out of the closes and laid down upon the front streets, if the owners do not within twenty-four hours after the same is laid down, take away or remove it to a convenient place of the street, that then the aforesaid person is hereby empowered to remove it for his own use; and that if the person appointed for this purpose, coming to any midding to take it away, and the owner at the same time coming and instantly taking it to a convenient place of the street, he shall be permitted to do so. Also, it is and shall be lawful for any labourers or others to take and remove any middings and filth which they shall first attack and apprehend, and apply the same to their own use only, and no otherwise, if the owner thereof shall not instantly remove the same as aforesaid.” In 1679, the town council ordered that no one should throw out at their windows filth upon the streets, or permit it to lie before their doors on the streets, under a penalty of forty shillings.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 291, 299.

It was already mentioned that, in the sixteenth century, swine were allowed to run about the streets of the burghs, and the magistrates of Aberdeen passed many acts for expelling them from the streets of the city. But in spite of this, swine were still kept within the town in greater numbers than formerly; and in 1696, they had become a great nuisance and an unseemly sight in the burgh. Therefore, the council enacted that parties who had swine in the town should remove them all out of the burgh, and a quarter of a mile beyond it, before two o’clock the next day; and that in future all the swine found on the streets or within doors should be confiscated, and one half of the proceeds to be given to the poor, and the other half to those who seized the swine; and anyone who seized swine in the city was to be freed from all trouble. The act was ordered to be proclaimed at the cross and through all the streets of the town, that none might pretend ignorance. It was stated in the council “that there was a great number of swine, which formerly were not permitted to stay within this burgh, and seeing by experience they are found very prejudicial to the yards in and about the town, in digging up the same, as also by their digging in the middings and in all sorts of filth, does rise an intolerable smell, besides the danger to children by them, and the unseemliness of having such creatures within the walls of a city.”¹

¹ _Ibid._, Volume IV., page 319.

The local trade in the various burghs of the kingdom was still hampered by monopoly. It was as yet common to fix the price of articles of daily use, such as bread, ale, shoes, and tallow. In 1640, the Committee of Estates passed an act fixing the price of shoes, boots, hides, and the tanning of leather, which was approved by Parliament, and proclaimed at the cross of Edinburgh. This act commanded the shoemakers to sell their boots and shoes at the following prices:――Three-soled shoes of the best leather were to be sold at two shillings and twopence per inch, and the third quality of three-soled shoes at twentypence the inch; the best single-soled shoes at sixteenpence the inch, and the second sort at fourteenpence the inch. Children’s double-soled shoes of the best quality, sixteenpence the inch; and the second sort of lighter leather at fourteenpence the inch, and for single-soled shoes, of eight inches and under, twelvepence the inch. Women’s shoes of the best quality, timber-heeled, to be sold at two shillings and twopence per inch; the second sort, with timber heels, at one shilling and eightpence. Touching the price of boots it was enacted, “that there be allowed of the best leather for each inch of the length of the boots eight shillings and eightpence per inch, the tops being long and of the best quality.” For various reasons the Committee of Estates thought fit to fix the price of boots and shoes in Edinburgh at fourpence per inch higher than the above on the best kind of shoes, and so on in proportion for the cheaper classes of the same articles.

The penalties to be imposed on all who refused to sell at the stated prices, and the fines for using insufficient materials, were to be divided, one half to the informer, and the other half to the judge, for the public use. If any of the shoemakers refused to work and left off, they were to be fined forty pounds, besides other punishment which might be inflicted upon their persons.

The Town Council of Aberdeen, in 1656, fixed the price of shoes at the following rates:――Double soled shoes made of foreign leather, three shillings per inch; double-soled shoes made of Scotch leather, two shillings and sixpence the inch; single soled shoes without walts, sixteenpence the inch; and children’s shoes, double-soled, eightpence the inch. Those who broke the above prices rendered themselves liable to a penalty of five pounds.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., page 163.

In the year 1659, the tailors of Inverness petitioned the magistrates, that they were much injured in their trade by its being encroached upon and taken away by outlandish men, dwelling around the burgh, and evading the taxes, and yet they came and stole away the trade of the place, “to our great and apparent ruin.” The authorities listened to their complaint, and empowered them to restrain all outlandish tailors, and to seize their work, and then bring the whole affair before the magistrates. But two years later they were again petitioning the magistrates and complaining of the outlandish hands, and they argued that all unfreemen should be prevented from usurping the rights of freemen, and from keeping apprentices or employing servants.

Troubles of a bitter character sometimes arose from corporation privileges. All attempts of unfreemen to work within the royal burghs were met with measures of obstruction and punishment. In October, 1692, William Somerville, a wright, and a burgess of Edinburgh, was engaged in repairing the Earl of Roxburgh’s house in the Canongate, but Thomas Kinloch, the deacon of the wrights of the latter burgh, assisted by a party of his associates, took away all the workmen’s tools. This was done to prevent the Edinburgh wrights from working in a district where they were not free. Somerville shortly after demanded the restoration of his workmen’s tools, but they were distinctly refused. The Earl of Roxburgh was a minor, but his curators were irritated at the proceedings, and concurred with Somerville in summoning the deacon of the Canongate wrights before the Privy Council, for riot and oppression in the Earl’s house. It seems, if the Earl’s house had been subject to the jurisdiction of the Canongate, the Privy Council would have been precluded from giving any redress, but when the Earl’s ancestor relinquished the superiority of the Canongate, he still continued to hold his mansion of the Crown, so it was argued that the Canongate corporation had no jurisdiction in this case, and consequently no right to interfere with the action of his Lordship in the choice of craftsmen to perform work in his own house. The Council remitted this point to the Court of Session, which at once ordered the restoration of the workmen’s tools.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council._ Chambers, in his _Domestic
Annals_, gives an instance of oppression by the Merchant
Company of Edinburgh, who had the sole right of dealing in
cloth of all kinds within the city. Volume III., page 70.

The wage of skilled workmen in Scotland was comparatively low, but then food was usually cheap, and it is the relation which wages bears to the price of the necessaries of life――the purchasing power of the sum at the time――that is the really important point. About the middle of the seventeenth century, from fourpence to sixpence a day, or about three shillings sterling a week, would represent the wages of a tradesman; but direct information on the subject is so scanty that a precise statement of their wages cannot be made. In 1655, two men were employed for twenty-four days slating and pointing a house; they got their food during that time, and twenty-four shillings, or twopence in sterling money per day.

The wages of servants generally, and in particular of domestic servants and agricultural labourers, were very low. As a class these were then, and for long after, in a very humble position, as compared with that which they now hold. The yearly wages of farm servants in the seventeenth century, and till the rise of modern agriculture, were only from twenty-five to thirty-five shillings sterling; women’s wages were about a third less than the men’s.

Any law that existed on the relation between master and servant was mostly on the side of the former, but there was little distinct law on the subject. In 1610, Glasgow was much annoyed with servants “who fee themselves with two masters,” and the Town Council therefore commanded, “that all such servants as hereafter fee themselves to two masters, must pay to the one into whose service they fail to enter, both the fee and the bounty which was promised to them, and also to be imprisoned for twenty days upon bread and water.” In 1610, the magistrates of Peebles had many complaints lodged about the misdeeds of servants――“for drinking on the night, running about, and refusing to do any kind of work.” They therefore enacted that no servant should drink after eight at night, under the penalty of thirteen shillings for each fault, and that no one should sell them drink on Sunday; that servants should not refuse to do any kind of work, either in or out of the house, under the penalty of six shillings and eightpence for each fault, which sum the master may deduct from their wages; that no one should engage another man’s servant, except the servant prove by two witnesses that he warned his master forty days before the term, under the penalty of five pounds, one half for the use of the poor, and the other to the master.¹ By a clause of an Act of Parliament passed in 1617, concerning the establishment of justices of peace, the justices of peace were empowered to fix the rate of wages. At their quarter sessions in August and in February, they were enjoined to fix the wages of labourers, workmen, and servants; and those who refused to work or serve for the wages thus settled, were to be imprisoned, and further punished at the discretion of the justices. To induce the servants to obey their decrees more readily, they were empowered to compel the masters to pay the servants the stated amount of wages when duly earned. This Act was repeated in 1661.² The circumstance affording a measure of justification for it was the comparatively large proportion of the population of the kingdom always living by begging and vagabondism; this class presented a real difficulty, and the Government grasped at any expedient which seemed to encourage the hope of reducing the numbers of the idle and vagrant multitude.

¹ _Burgh Records of Glasgow_; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_;
_Burgh Records of Aberdeen_. Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of
Scotland_, Volume II., page 235. _Burgh Records of Peebles_,
pages 358‒360.

² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.; Volume
VII., page 308.

Partly owing to these circumstances, and partly owing to other motives, the workmen in coal-mines and at salt-works in Scotland were kept in a state of semi-slavery for more than a century and a half. In 1606, Parliament passed an Act binding this class of workmen to perpetual service at the works in which they were engaged. This Act enjoined that no one should hire salters, colliers, or coal-bearers, without their masters’ consent, or at least an attestation of a reasonable cause for their removing, made in the presence of a magistrate of the district whence they removed. Therefore, if anyone engaged persons of this description, without conforming with the law, their former master could reclaim them, and enforce their re-delivery, under a penalty of one hundred pounds. Further, if the colliers, coal-bearers, and salters, should accept forehand wages, they were to be held and reputed as thieves, and punished in their persons. This law was re-enacted in 1661, with an addition, including the watermen engaged in drawing off the water from the coal pits,――“as they are as necessary to the owners and masters of the pits as the colliers and the bearers.” And because it was found by experience that giving high wages to colliers had been used to seduce them from their masters, therefore, it was enacted that no coalmaster in the kingdom should give a higher wage than twenty merks yearly to each man, that is, one pound two shillings and sixpence sterling. It was also found that colliers and salters, and other workers about the pits, were accustomed to stay from their work on certain holidays, accordingly it was enacted that henceforth they should work all the six days of the week, except Christmas, under the penalty of twenty shillings Scots, to be paid to their masters for each day that they failed to work, and any other corporal punishment which their masters thought fit to inflict upon them.¹

¹ _Ibid._, Volume VII., page 304.

Thus it was that from the early part of the seventeenth century till near the end of the eighteenth, the colliers and the coal-bearers, and those employed at saltworks in Scotland, remained in a state of semi-slavery. When collieries and saltworks were sold, the right of the service of the workers was transferred to the new proprietor as a portion of fixed stock. By an act of the British Parliament, in 1775, they were emancipated, but a considerable time elapsed ere they were able to take much advantage of their freedom. This act was clogged with special conditions, which many of the colliers failed to comply with, and they continued in bondage, till the act of 1799 was passed, when they became really free.