‘Through one dim lattice, fring’d with ivy round,Successive suns a languid radiance threw,To paint how fierce her angry guardian frown’d,To mark how fast her waning beauty flew!’”
‘Through one dim lattice, fring’d with ivy round,Successive suns a languid radiance threw,To paint how fierce her angry guardian frown’d,To mark how fast her waning beauty flew!’”
‘Through one dim lattice, fring’d with ivy round,Successive suns a languid radiance threw,To paint how fierce her angry guardian frown’d,To mark how fast her waning beauty flew!’”
Her husband, Seymour, regained his liberty. Charles I. created him marquis of Hertford; and, under Charles II., the dukedom of Somerset, which had been lost to his family by attainder for ancient defections, was restored to it in his person. He “retained his romantic passion for the lady of his first affections; for he called the daughter he had by his second lady by the ever beloved name ofArabellaStuart.”[198]
Nothing remains to mark the character of this noble-minded female, but the scanty particulars from whence the present are gathered, with some letters and a few rhapsodies written while her heart was breaking, and her understanding perishing. At that period she wrote the letterherebrought to light towards gratifying a natural curiosity for every thing relating to her character and person; with the same intent her handwriting is faithfully traced, and subjoined from her subscription to the original.
The lady Arabella’s suitor to her majesty lady Jane Drummond, was thirddaughter of Patrick, third lord Drummond. She married Robert, the second earl of Roxburghe, and was mother to Hary, lord Ker. She possessed distinguished abilities, was one of the ladies of the queen’s bedchamber, and governess to the royal children. She died October 7, 1643. Her funeral was fixed on by the royalists as a convenient pretext to assemble for a massacre of the leading covenanters, but the numbers proved too inconsiderable for the attempt. She was hurried in the family vault in the chapel-royal, Holyrood-house: the vault was long open to public view. The editor of “Heriot’s Life,” in 1822, gives her autograph as “Jane Drummond,” and speaks of having seen her coffin and remains thirty years before, shortly after which period he believes the vault to have been closed. In the “Gentleman’s Magazine” of February, 1799, plate II., there is a fac-simile of her autograph, as countess of Roxburghe, from her receipt, dated May 10, 1617, for “500l., part of the sum of 3000l., of his majesty’s free and princely gift to her, in consideration of long and faithful service done to the queen, as one of the ladies of the bedchamber to her majesty.”
Mean Temperature 58·15.
[195]General Biographical Dictionary.[196]Communicated by Mr. Johnson, of Newark.[197]“Arabella Stuart,” in Evans’s Old Ballads; supposed to have been written by Mickle.[198]Mr. D’Israeli.
[195]General Biographical Dictionary.
[196]Communicated by Mr. Johnson, of Newark.
[197]“Arabella Stuart,” in Evans’s Old Ballads; supposed to have been written by Mickle.
[198]Mr. D’Israeli.
This was king George the Third’s birth-day, and therefore during his reign was kept at court, and in many towns throughout the kingdom.
At Bexhill, on the coast of Sussex, where the inhabitants, who scarcely exceed 800, are remarkable for longevity and loyalty, on the 4th of June, 1819, they celebrated the king’s birth-day in an appropriate and remarkable manner. Twenty-five old men, inhabitants of the parish, whose united ages amounted to 2025, averaging eighty-one each (the age of the king) dined together at the Bell Inn, and passed the day in a cheerful and happy manner. The dinner was set on table by fifteen other old men, also of the above parish, whose united ages amounted to seventy-one each, and six others, whose ages amounted to sixty-one each, rang the bells on the occasion. The old men dined at one o’clock; and at half-past two a public dinner was served up to the greater part of the respectable inhabitants to the number of eighty-one, who were also the subscribers to the old men’s dinner. The assembly room was decorated with several appropriate devices; and some of the old men, with the greater part of the company, enjoyed themselves to a latehour.[199]
To the Editor of the Every-Day Book.
Sir,—Inpp. 161-2, vol. ii., your correspondent H. H. N. N. of Newark, informs us of the custom of ringing a bell at six o’clock in the morning, and eight in the evening; likewise of a set of “hand bells” kept in the church there; and desires to be informed of their use. Although I cannot inform him of the particular origin of ringing the bell at particular hours in that town, yet by stating the practice in some other towns, it may, perhaps, contribute to unravel its meaning. With regard to the “hand bells,” it seems probable that they were originally placed in churches for the use of the ringers, who employed their leisure in practising and amusing themselves in the evenings when not engaged in the belfry, as is the case at the present time in some parts of London. Although I do not recollect where the hand bells are used in town, yet I have more than once lately heard it mentioned in Fenchurch-street and its neighbourhood, that the ringers were in the practice of amusing themselves with hand bells at a public-house where they assembled for the purpose of practising; and it is more than probable, that some of your readers in that neighbourhood can furnish you with further particulars.
In most of the towns in the west of England, they have a custom of ringing one of the church bells (generally the treble bell) in the morning and evenings. Among other towns I noticed atDorchester, Dorset, the practice of ringing a bell at six in the morning in the summer, and seven in the winter, at one o’clock at noon, and at eight in the evening, concluding after ringing at eight o’clock with striking as many strokes as the month is days old; and this practice I was thereinformed was for calling people to work in the morning, the time for dinner, and for leaving work in the evening.
At another town in Dorsetshire,Sherborne, they have an almost endless “ding-dong,” “twing-twang,” or “bim-bome,” throughout the day. Happening to be lately there on a market-day (Saturday) I was awakened in the morning, atfouro’clock, by the ringing of the “church treble bell;” atsixo’clock the church “chimes” were in play; at a quarter beforeseventhe “almshouse bell” began, and continued to ring tillseven, which is said to be for the purpose of calling the scholars of king Edward the Sixth’s grammar school to their studies, who were no sooner assembled than the “school bell” announced the master’s approach. Athalf-past eightthe “almshouse bell” summoned the almsmen and women to prayers; atninethe “chimes;” ateleventhe “wholesale market bell;” attwelvethe “chimes;” atonethe “school bell” for dinner; athalf-past onethe “retail market bell;” atthreethe “chimes,” and the church “greatbell”[200]tolled twice at a short interval, when, what is appositely enough called the “tanging bell,” rang until the minister and religiously inclined had assembled for prayer; atfourthe “almshouse bell;” atsixthe “chimes;” atseventhe “school bell” for supper; ateightthe “church bell,” which rang a quarter of an hour, and concluded by giving eight strokes; atninethe “chimes,” and the “school bell” for bed.
So much bell ringing and tolling naturally led to an inquiry of the several causes that gave rise to it. By some, the first morning and eight o’clock bell is called the “curfew bell,” and the practice of ringing it is said to have been continued from the time of William the Conqueror, who, by one of his laws, ordered the people to put out their fires and lights, and go to bed at the eight o’clock curfew bell; and others affirmed it to be, for the purpose of summoning the people to their labours.
The practice of ringing a church bell in the morning and evening is common in most towns where they have a bell, although its origin is seldom inquired about or noticed. I have often made inquiries on the subject, and have always received one of the above answers, and am inclined rather to believe its origin is the “curfew bell,” although it now serves more the purpose of warning people to their labours, than for the “extinction and relighting of all fire and candle lights.”
I am, &c.
R.T.[201]
Mean Temperature 59·22.
[199]Sussex paper.[200]This bell is said to weigh 3tons5cwt., and to be the treble of a ring of bells brought from Tournay by cardinal Wolsey, whereof one is at St. Paul’s, one at Oxford, one at Lincoln, and one at Exeter. The motto on the crown of this bell, which is called thegreat bell, is said tobe—“By Woolsey’s gift I measure time for all;For mirth, for grief, for church I serve to call.”R. T.[201]For the “Curfew Bell,” and ‘curfew,’ see vol. i. p. 242, &c.
[199]Sussex paper.
[200]This bell is said to weigh 3tons5cwt., and to be the treble of a ring of bells brought from Tournay by cardinal Wolsey, whereof one is at St. Paul’s, one at Oxford, one at Lincoln, and one at Exeter. The motto on the crown of this bell, which is called thegreat bell, is said tobe—
“By Woolsey’s gift I measure time for all;For mirth, for grief, for church I serve to call.”R. T.
“By Woolsey’s gift I measure time for all;For mirth, for grief, for church I serve to call.”
“By Woolsey’s gift I measure time for all;For mirth, for grief, for church I serve to call.”
R. T.
[201]For the “Curfew Bell,” and ‘curfew,’ see vol. i. p. 242, &c.
1826.First Monday in June.
A solemn festival in the Scottish metropolis is ordained by the “Statutes of George Heriot’s Hospital,” (cap. ii.) in the following words:—“But especiallyupon the first Monday in June, every year, shall be kept a solemn commemoration and thanksgiving unto God, in this form which followeth. In the morning, about eight of the clock of that day, the lord provost, all the ministers, magistrates, and ordinary council of the city of Edinburgh, shall assemble themselves in the committee-chamber of the said hospital; from thence, all the scholars and officers of the said hospital going before them two by two, they shall go, with all the solemnity that may be, to the Gray Friars church of the said city, where they shall hear a sermon preached by one of the said ministers, every one yearly in their courses, according to the antiquity of their ministry in the said city. The principal argument of the sermon shall be to these purposes: To give God thanks for the charitable maintenance which the poor maintained in the hospital received by the bounty of the said founder, of whom shall be made honourable mention. To exhort all men of ability, according to their means, to follow his example: To urge the necessity of good works, according to men’s power, for the testimony of their faith: And to clear the doctrine of our church from all the calumnies of our adversaries, who give us out to be the impugners of good works. After the sermonended, all above named shall return to the hospital, with the same solemnity and order they came from it, where shall be paid to the minister who preached, to buy him books, by the treasurer of the hospital for the time being, out of the treasury or rents of the hospital, the sum of .”
By appointment of the governors, Mr. Robert Douglas, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, preached a sermon on the first Monday of June, of the year 1659, in commemoration of the founder; for this sermon he received the sum of one hundred marks “to buy him books,” agreeably to the statutes. From that time the usage has been continued annually, the ministers of Edinburgh preaching in rotation, according to their seniority of office, in the old Gray Friars church.
On this occasion the statue of the founder is fancifully decorated with flowers. Each of the boys receives a new suit of clothes; their relations and friends assemble; and the citizens, old and young, being admitted to view the hospital, the gaiety of the scene is highly gratifying.
It was formerly a custom with the boys to dress Heriot’s statue with flowers on the first of May, and to renew them on this anniversary festival when they received their newclothes.[202]
It should seem, therefore, that the floral adornment of the statue annually on this day, is derived from its ancient dressing on the first of May.
The statue stands beneath the centre tower of the north or principal front, and over the middle of a vaulted archway leading to the court-yard of the hospital. Grose says, the Latin inscription above the figure signifies, “that Heriot’s person was represented by that image, as his mind was by the surrounding foundation.”
George Heriot was jeweller to king James VI., subsequently James I., of England. He was born about June, 1563, eldest son to George Heriot, one of the company of goldsmiths in Edinburgh. The elder Heriot died in 1610, having been a commissioner in the convention of estates and parliament of Scotland, and a convener of the trades of Edinburgh at five different elections of the council. The goldsmiths were then the money-dealers in Scotland; they consequently ranked among the most respectable citizens, and to this profession the subject of this memoir was brought up by his father.
It appears that so late as the year 1483, the goldsmiths of Edinburgh were classed with the “hammermen” or common smiths. They were subsequently separated, and an act of the town council on the twenty-ninth of August, 1581, conferred on the goldsmiths a monopoly of their trade, which was confirmed by a charter from James VI., in the year 1586.
A century afterwards, in 1687, James VII. invested the goldsmiths with the power of searching, inspecting, and trying all jewels set in gold, in every part of the kingdom; a license to destroy all false or counterfeit work; to punish the transgressors by imprisonment or fines, and seize the working tools of all unfree goldsmiths within the city.
In January, 1587, George Heriot married Christian, the daughter of Simon Marjoribanks, an Edinburgh merchant. On this occasion, his father gave him 1000 marks, with 500 more to fit out his shop and purchase implements and clothes, and he had 1075 marks with his wife. Their united fortunes amounted to about 214l.11s.8d., which Heriot’s last biographer says, was “a considerable sum in those days; but rendered much more useful by the prospect of his father’s business, which would at this time naturally be transferred to the younger and more active man.”
In May, 1588, Heriot became a member of the incorporation of goldsmiths. “Scotland which was then an independent kingdom, with a court in the metropolis, though poor in general, was probably in a state not less favourable to the success of Heriot’s occupation than at present. A rude magnificence peculiar to the age, atoned for want of elegance, by the massy splendour of its ornaments. The nobles were proud and extravagant when their fortunes would permit; and Ann of Denmark, the reigning queen, was fond of show and gallantry.” During this period, Heriot was employed by the court. In 1597, he was made goldsmith to thequeen, and so declared “at the crosse, be opin proclamatione and sound of trumpet.” Shortly after, he was appointed jeweller and goldsmith to the king, with a right to the lucrative privileges of that office.
Heriot rose to opulence, and lost his wife; he afterwards married Alison, eldest daughter of James Primrose, clerk to the privy-council, and grandfather of the first earl of Roseberry. On the accession of James to the throne of England, he followed the court to London, where he continued to reside almost constantly. He obtained eminence and wealth, and died there on the twelfth of February, 1624, in the sixtieth year of his age, and was buried at St. Martin’s in the Fields.
In a volume of original accounts and vouchers relative to Heriot’s transactions with the queen, there are several charges which illustrate the fashion of the times in these expensive decorations,viz.—
In an account of “jewells and other furnishings,” which were “sould and deliuered to the Queene’s most excellent matie.from the xth.of April, 1607, to the xth.of February followinge, by George Heriote, her Highnes’ jewellor,” there is the following
“Item, deliuered toMargarett Hartsydea ring sett all about with diamonds, and a table diamond on the head,which she gaue me to vnderstand was by her Mats.direction, pricexxxli.”
This item in reference to Margaret Hartsyde is remarkable, because it appears that this female, who had been in the royal household, was tried in Edinburgh on the 31st of May, 1608, for stealing a pearl, worth 110l.sterling belonging to the queen. She pretended that she retained these pearls to adorn dolls for the amusement of the royal infants, and believed that the queen would never demand them; but it appeared that she used “great cunning and deceit in it,” and disguised the jewels so as not to be easily known, and offered them to her majesty in sale. The king by special warrant declared her infamous, sentenced her to pay 400l.sterling as the value of the jewels, and condemned her to be imprisoned in Blackness castle till it was paid, and to confinement in Orkney during her life. In December, 1619, eleven years afterwards, “compeared the king’s advocate, and produced a letter of rehabilitation and restitution of Margaret Hartsyde to her fame.”
Heriot’s Hospital.
Heriot’s Hospital.
There is a memorial of queen Anne of Denmark’s fondness for dogs in a large whole-length portrait of her, surrounded by those animals, which she holds in leashes. In Heriot’s accounts there are charges for their furniture: e. g.
Her majesty’s perfumes seem to have derived additions from Heriot. He furnished her with “5 ounces and a half of fyne civett, atli.4 the ounce:” also
There are no particulars of the private life of Heriot. From small beginnings, he died worth 50,000l., and acquired lands and houses at Roehampton, in Surrey, and St. Martin’s in the Fields, London. It does not appear that he had children by either of his wives, but he had two illegitimate daughters. To one of these, named in his will as “Elizabeth Band, now an infant of the age of ten years or therabout, and remaining with Mr. Starkey at his house at Windsor,” he gave his copyholds in Roehampton. To the other, whom he mentions as “Margaret Scot, being an infant about the age of four years, now remaining with one Rigden, a waterman, at his house in the parish of Fulham,” he left his two freehold messuages in St. George’s in the Fields, which he had lately purchased of sir Nicholas Fortescue, knight, and William Fortescue, his son: his leasehold terms in certain garden plots in that parish, held of the earl of Bedford, he bequeathed to Margaret Scot; and he directed 200l.to be laid out at interest, and paid to them severally when of age or married. He gave 10l.to the poor of St. Martin’s parish, 20l.to the French church there, and 30l.to Gilbert Primrose, preacher at that church; and after liberally providing for a great number of his relations, he bequeathed the residue of his estate to the provosts, bailiffs, ministers, and ordinary town-council of Edinburgh, for the time being, for and towards the founding and erecting of a hospital in the said town, and purchasing lands in perpetuity, to be employed in the maintenanceand education of so many poor freemen’s sons of the town as the yearly value of the lands would afford means to provide for. He appointed the said town council perpetual governors of the institution, which he ordained should be governed by such orders or statutes as he made in his lifetime, or as should be formed and signed after his decease by Dr. Balcanquel, one of his executors.
Heriot’s Statue at his Hospital, Edinburgh.“So stands the statue thatadornsthegate.”
Heriot’s Statue at his Hospital, Edinburgh.
“So stands the statue thatadornsthegate.”
“So stands the statue thatadornsthegate.”
“So stands the statue thatadornsthegate.”
The residue of Heriot’s estate amounted to 23,625l.10s.3d.which sum was paidby his executors, on the 12th of May, 1627, to the town-council of Edinburgh. He had directed a large messuage in Edinburgh, between Gray’s close and Todrick’s wynd, to be appropriated to the hospital; but the governors, in conjunction with Dr. Balcanquel, finding it unfit for the purpose, purchased of the citizens of Edinburgh, eight acres and a half of land near the Grass Market, in a field called the “High Riggs,” and they commenced to lay the foundation of the present structure on the 1st of July, 1628, according to a plan of Inigo Jones. The stones were brought from Ravelstone, near Edinburgh; and the building was conducted by William Aytoune, an eminent mason or architect, with considerable deviations from Inigo Jones’s design, in accommodation to the supervening taste of Heriot’s trustees. In 1639, the progress of the work was interrupted by the troubles of the period till 1642. When it was nearly completed, in 1650, Cromwell’s army occupied it as an infirmary for the sick and wounded. It remained in such possession till general Monk, in 1658, on the request of a committee of governors, removed the soldiers to the new infirmary in the Canongate, at the expense of Heriot’s trustees; and on the 11th of April, 1659, the hospital being ready, thirty boys were admitted. In the following August they were increased to forty; in 1661, to fifty-two; in 1753, to one hundred and thirty; in 1763, to one hundred and forty; and in 1822, the establishment maintained one hundred and eighty.
The children of Heriot’s eldest daughter, Elizabeth Band, were among the early objects who benefited by the endowment. She had married in England, but being reduced to great difficulties, resorted to Edinburgh for relief. The magistrates allowed her one thousand merks Scots annually, till her sons were admitted into their grandfather’s hospital. She had 20l.afterwards to support her journey to London, and a present of one thousand merks.
Heriot’s hospital cost 30,000l.in the erection. The first managers purchased the barony of Broughton, a burgh of regality, about a quarter of a mile northward of the city, a property which, from local circumstances, seemed likely to rise in value. On this and other adjacent land, the “new town” of Edinburgh now stands. The greater part of the valuable grounds from the bottom of Carlton-hill eastward, reaching to Leith, and to the east road to Edinburgh, is the property of the hospital, which will derive great additional revenue when the buildings on these lands complete the connection of Leith with Edinburgh. In 1779, Heriot’s hospital possessed a real income of 1800l.per annum: its annual income in 1822 was supposed to have amounted to upwards of 12,000l.
The statutes of the hospital ordain, that the boys should be taught “to read and write Scots distinctly, to cypher, and cast all manner of accounts,” and “the Latin rudiments, but no further.” The governors, however, have wisely gone so much “further,” as to cause the boys to be instructed in Greek, mathematics, navigation, drawing, and other matters suitable to the pursuits they are likely to follow in life. The majority of the boys are apprenticed to trades in Edinburgh, with an allowance of 10l.a year for five years, amounting to an apprentice fee of 50l.; and to each, who on the expiration of his servitude produces a certificate of good conduct from his master, 5l.is given to purchase a suit of clothes. Those destined for the learned professions are sent to the university for four years, with an allowance of 30l.annually. Six or eight are generally at college, in addition to ten bursers selected by the governors from other seminaries, who have each an annual allowance of 20l.
George Heriot confided to his intimate friend “Mr. Walter Balcanquel, doctor in divinity and master of the Savoy,” the framing and ordaining of the rules for the government of his hospital; and accordingly in 1627, Dr. Balcanquel, “after consulting with the provosts, baillies, ministers, and council of Edinburgh,” compiled the statutes by which the institution continues to be governed. By these it is directed that “this institution, foundation, and hospital, shall for all time to come, perpetually and unchangeably be called by the name ofGeorge Heriot his Hospital,” and that “there shall be one common seal for the said hospital engraven with this device,Sigillum Hospitalis Georgii Heriot, about the circle, and in the middle the pattern of the hospital.”
And “because no body can be wellgoverned without a head, there shall be one of good respect chosenmasterof the hospital, who shall have power to govern all the scholars and officers;” and therefore the governors are enjoined to have a special care, “that he be a man fearing God; of honest life and conversation; of so much learning as he be fit to teach the catechism; a man of that discretion, as he may be fit to govern and correct all that live within the house; and a man of that care and providence, that he may be fit to take the accounts of the same; a man of that worth and respect, as he may be fit to be an assessor with the governors, having a suffrage given unto him in all businesses concerning the hospital. He shall be an unmarried man, otherwise let him be altogether uncapable of being master. He shall have yearly given unto him a new gown. Within the precincts of the hospital he shall never go without his gown: in the hall he shall have his diet, he and the schoolmaster, in the upper end, at a little table by themselves.”
Theschoolmaster, whose duties in teaching are already expressed by the quality of the learning defined to the boys, also “must be unmarried.”
It is charged on the consciences of the electors, “that they choose no burgess’s children, if their parents be well and sufficiently able to maintain them, since the intention of the founder is only to relieve the poor; they must not be under seven years of age complete, and they shall not stay in the hospital after they are of the age of sixteen years complete: they shall be comely and decently apparelled, as becometh, both in their linens and clothes; and their apparel shall be of sad russet cloth, doublets, breeches, and stockings or hose, and gowns of the same colour, with black hats and strings, which they shall be bound to wear during their abode in the said hospital, and no other.”
Further, it is provided, that “there shall bea pair of stocksplaced at the end of the hall in the hospital, in which the master shall command to be laid any officer, for any such offences as in his discretion shall seem to deserve it; and the master likewise shall have authority to lay in the same stocks any vagrant stranger of mean quality, who, within the precincts of the hospital, shall commit any such offence as may deserve it: the officer for executing the master’s command; in this point of justice, shall be the porter of the hospital.” Theporteris to be “a man, unmarried, of honest report—of good strength, able to keep out all sturdy beggars and vagrant persons;—he shall have every year a new gown, which he must wear continually at the gate; and if, at any time, he dispose himself to marry, he shall demit his place, or else be deprived of the same.”
The last of many officers ordained is “onechirurgeon-barber, who shall cut and poll the hair of all the scholars in the hospital; as also look to the cure of all those within the hospital, who any way shall stand in need of his art.”
These extracts are rather curious than important; for it is presumed, that any who are interested in acquiring further knowledge, will consult the statutes “at large.” They are set forth in “The Life of George Heriot,” published at Edinburgh in 1822, from whence the preceding particulars of the hospital and its founder are derived. They especially provide for the strict religious instruction of the boys—“while in the hospital the greatest care is bestowed on them in regard to morals and health; they have certain hours allowed them daily for exercise; and their amusements generally partake of a manly character.”
It may be quoted as an amusing incident in the annals of the establishment, that “a singular occurrence took place with the boys of Heriot’s hospital in 1681-2, the year in which the earl of Argyle was tried, and convicted of high treason, for refusing the test oath without certain qualifications. We extract the following account of it fromLord Fountainhill’s Chronological Notes of Scottish Affairs, just published: ‘Argyle was much hated for oppressing his creditors, and neither paying his own nor father’s debts, but lord Halifax told Charles II. he understood not the Scots law, but the English law would not have hangeda dogfor such a crime.’ Every lawyer of common sense, or ordinary conscience, will be of the same opinion. Lord Clarendon, when he heard the sentence, blessed God that he lived not in a country where there were such laws, but he ought to have said such judges. The very hospital children made a mockery of the reasoning of the crown lawyers. The boys of Heriot’s hospital resolved among themselves, that thehouse-dogbelongingto the establishment helda public office, and ought to take thetest. The paper being presented to the mastiff, he refused to swallow the same unless it was rubbed over with butter. Being a second time tendered, buttered as above mentioned, the dog swallowed it, and was next accused and condemned, for having taken the test with a qualification, as in the case of Argyle!”
There is “An Account of the Arraignment, Tryal, Escape, and Condemnation of theDOGofHeriot’s HospitalinScotland,that was supposed to have been hang’d, but did at last slip the halter.”
From this exceedingly rare folio paper of two pages, “Printed for the author, M. D. 1682,” now before the editor of theEvery-Day Book, he proceeds to extract some exponences in the case of “the dog of Heriot’s hospital,” by which “the reasoning of the crown lawyers,” in the case of the duke of Argyle, was successfully ridiculed.
Its waggish author writes in the manner of a letter, “to show you that the act, whereby all publick officers are obleadged to take the Test is rigorously put in execution; and therby many persons, baith in Kirk and State, throughout the haill Kingdome, by reasone they are not free to take the said Test, are incontinently turned out of their places.”
He then relates that this severity occasioned “the loune ladds belonging to the hospittal of Hariot’s Buildings in Edenbrough, to divert themselves with somewhat like the following tragi-commedy.”
He proceeds to state, that they “fell intil a debate amongist themselves, whither or no, ane mastiffe Tyke, who keept the outmost gate, might not, by reasone of his office of trust, come within the compass of the act, and swa, be obleadged to take the Test, or be turned out of his place.”
In conclusion, “the tyke thereupon was called, and interrogat, whither he wold take the test, or run the hazard of forfaulting his office.”
Though propounded again and again, “the silly curr, boding no ill, answered all their queries with silence, whilk had been registrat as a flat refusal, had not on of the lounes, mair bald then the rest, taken upon him to be his advocat, who standing up, pleaded that silence might as wel be interpreted assent, as refusal, and therupon insisted that it might be tendered to him in a way maist plausible, and in a poustar maist agreeable to his stomack.”
The debate lasted till all agreed “that ane printed copy should be thrumbled, of as little boulke as it could, and therafter smured over with tallow, butter, or what else might make maist tempting to his appetit: this done he readily took it, and after he had made a shift, by rowing it up and down his mouth, to separat what was pleasant to his pallat, and when all seemed to be over, on a sudden they observed somehat (ilke piece after another) droped out of his mouth, qwhilk the advocats on the other side said was the test, and that all his irksome champing and chowing of it, was only, if possible, to seperat the concomitant nutriment, and that this was mikel worse then an flat refusal, and gif it were rightly examined, would, upon Tryal, be found no less then Leising-making.”
The tyke’s advocate “opponed, that his enemies having the rowing of it up, might perhaps (through deadly spite) have put some crooked prin intil it; and that all the fumbling and rowing of it up and down his mouth, might be by reason of the prin, and not through any scunnering at the test itself; and that there was nought in the hail matter, that looked like Leising-making, except by interpretation, and his adversaries allowed to be the only interpreters.” Finally, he required that his client should have a fair trial before competent judges, “qwhilk was unanimously granted;” and on the trial “ther fell out warm pleading.”
The advocates against the tyke set forth, “that he was ou’r malapert, to take so mikel upon him; and that the chaming and cherking of the test belonged nought to him, nor to none like him, who served only in inferior offices; that his trust and power reached nought so far, and by what he had done, he had made himself guilty of mair nor abase refusal as was libelled.”
Those who defended the tyke, pleaded “that he could be guilty of nather, since he had freely taken it in his mouth, willing to have swallowed it down; and that ther was no fault in him, but in its self, that it passed not; since it fell a sqwabeling, one part of it hindering another;” that if it would “have agreed in its selfto have gone down all one way, he wold blaithly swallowed it, as he had done many untouthsome morsel before, as was well known to all the court.”
To this was answered, that “all his former good service could not excuse his present guilt.”
“Guilt!” quoth another, “if that be guilt he hath many marrows, and why should he be worse handled than all the rest?”
Notwithstanding what was urged in the tyke’s behalf, the jury found he had so mangled the test, and abused it, that it was “interpretative treason,” and found him “guilty of Leising-making:” wherefore he was ordered to close prison till he should be again called forth and receive sentence “to be hanged like a dog.”
While he was removing from the court, there chanced “a curate” to be present, and ask, “what was the matter, what ailed them at the dog?” whereto one answered, “that he, being in publick trust, was required to take the test, and had both refused it and abused it, whereupon he was to be hanged;” whereat the curate, storming, said, “They deserved all to be hanged for such presumptuous mockery;” but the boys, laughing aloud, cried with one consent, that “he, and his brethren, deserved better to be hanged than any of them, or the tyke eather, sincetheyhad swallowed that which the tyke refused.”
The verdict created no small dissension; “some suspected deadly fewd in the chanselor of the jury, alleadging that ane enemy was not fit to be a judg; this was answered, that he was of more noble extract then to stain his honor with so base an act, and that his own reputation wold make him favored; another objected that a tyke’s refusing so good a test, might be ill example to creatures of better reason; to this a pakie loun answered, that it could not be good, since Lyon Rampant, King of Tykes, nor none of his royal kin, wold not so much as lay ther lips, to it far less to swallow it, andtherefore——”
Here the speaker was interrupted “by one that was a principal limmer among them (a contradiction reconciler) who would needs help him with a logical distinction, wherby he, like an Aberdeen’s man, might cant and recant again.”
There were other conjectures, “requiring the judgment of the learn’d to determine which has been maist suitable:” e.g.
One fancied, that “the tyke might take the testsecundum quid, though notsimpliciter;”
Another, that he might take it “in sensu diviso, though notin sensu composito;”
A third, that “though it was deadly to take it withverbal interpretatione, yet it might be taken safe enough withmental reservatione;”
A fourth thought, that “though his stomach did stand at it,in sensu univoco, yet it might easily digest itin sensu et æquivoco;”
In this manner suppositions multiplied, and to one who proposed a “jesuitical” distinction, it was answered, that “the tyke would neither sup kail with the div’l, nor the pope, and therefore needed not his long spoon; well, said ane other, this is mair nor needs, since we are all sure that the tyke could not have kept his office so long, but he most needs have swallowed many a buttered bur before this time, and it was but gaping a little wider and the hazard was over.”
“Nay,” quoth his neighbour, “the hazard was greater than ye imagine, for the test, as it was rowed up, had many plyes and implications in it, one contrary to another; and swa the tyke might been querkened ere it had been all over, ilk ply, as it were, rancountering another, wresling and fighting.”
Then it was proposed, as the tyke had actually swallowed the better part, if not the whole test, that though he had brought it up again, yet it were better to try if he would swallow it again; “but this project was universally rejected, baith by the maist charitable, as bootless, and by the mair severe, or too great a favor.”
As regarded the condemned tyke, “matters being thus precipitat, and all hopes of reprieve uncertain, a wylie loun advised him to lay by the sheep’s (which had done him so little good) and put on the fox’s skin;” wherefore, like a sensible dog, “hiding his own tail between his legs, and griping another’s train, he passed through all the gates undiscovered and swa wasmissing:—