Domestic Annals of Scotland from the Reformation to the Revolution, Volume 2 (of 2)Chambers, Robert
History
Domestic Annals of Scotland from the Reformation to the Revolution, Volume 2 (of 2)
Chambers, Robert
Scotland -- History -- 16th century; Scotland -- History -- 17th century
Wodrow tells us that this ‘mean mock of the work of reformation,’ was
chiefly managed by Robert Miln, then bailie of Linlithgow, and Mr James
Ramsay, the minister of the parish, subsequently bishop of Dunblane;
both of whom had a few years before ‘solemnly entered into, and renewed
these covenants, with uplifted hands to the Lord.’ ‘The first in
some time thereafter came to great riches and honour [as a farmer of
revenues], but outlived them, and the exercise of his judgment too, and
died bankrupt in miserable circumstances at Holyroodhouse.’
[Sidenote: 1662.
JUNE 16.]
One Grieve, a maltman at Kirkcaldy, was deliberately murdered by his
son, in consequence of family quarrels. The wretched youth took some
cunning measures for concealing the murder, but in vain. ‘He is had to
the corpse; but the corpse did not bleed upon him (for some affirm that
the corpse will not bleed for the first twenty-four hours after the
murder): however, he is keepit, and within some hours after, he is had
to the corpse again, and, the son taking the father by the hand, the
corpse bleeds at the nose; but he still denies. Also, the man’s wife is
brought, and they cause her touch her husband; but he did not bleed.’
The lad afterwards confessed, and was hanged.--_Lam._
* * * * *
This was a year of uncommon abundance, in both grain and fruit, ‘the
like never seen heretofore.’ ‘The streets of Edinburgh were filled full
of all sorts of fruits ... sold exceeding cheap.’--_Nic._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JULY 3.]
Decision was given in the Court of Session of a singular case, in which
several of the peers of the realm were concerned. ‘Lord Coupar, sitting
in parliament, taking out his watch, handed it to Lord Pitsligo, who
refusing to restore it, an action was brought for the value. Lord
Pitsligo said, that Lord Coupar having put his watch in his hand to
see what hour it was, Lord Sinclair putting forth his hand for a sight
of the watch, Lord Pitsligo put it into Lord Sinclair’s hand, in the
presence of Lord Coupar, without contradiction, which must necessarily
import his consent. Lord Coupar answered that, they being then sitting
in parliament, his silence could not import his consent. The Lords
repelled Lord Pitsligo’s defence, and found him liable in the value of
the watch.’[207]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1662.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account