18th of January

St Peter’s Chair at Rome. St Paul and Thirty-six Companions in Egypt. St Prisca, virgin and martyr, about 275. St Deicolus, abbot, 7th century. St Ulfrid, bishop and martyr, 1028.

–

Born. – Dr. John GIllies, historian, 1747. 

Died. – Archangelo Corelli, 1713; Sir John Pringle, 1782.

–

On this Day in Other Sources.

–

HAMILTON’S CHANGE IN FORTUNE.

The town of Hamilton, stands at no great distance from the Palace. It is the seat of the Sheriff Court, and the residence of a Sheriff Substitute for the middle ward of Lanarkshire. In 1456, it was erected into a burgh of barony, and in 1548 into a royal burgh. In consequence of the resignation of its rights and privileges as a royal burgh, it was on 18th January 1668, erected into a burgh of regality, by a charter of Charles II. in favour of Anne, Duchess of Hamilton, and this charter was ratified by Parliament in 1669.

– Select Views, pp.39-46.

–

MACGREGOR OF GLENSTRAE HANGED WITH 11 FRIENDS.

Some time after, the Earl of Argyll sent a message to Macgregor, desiring him to come and confer with him, under promise to let him go free if they should not come to an agreement. He ‘came with the Earl of Argyll to Edinburgh’ (January 9, 1604), ‘with eighteen mae of his friends.’ The remainder of the transaction is narrated by the diarist Birrel. Macgregor ‘was convoyit to Berwick by the guard, conform to the earl’s promise; for he promised to put him out of Scots grund. Sae he keepit ane Hielandman’s promise, in respect he sent the guard to convoy him out of Scots grund; but they were not directed to part with him, but to fetch him back again. The 18 of January [1604], he came at even again to Edinburgh, and upon the 20 day, he was hangit at the Cross, and eleven mae of his friends and name, upon ane gallows; himself being chief, he was hangit his awn height above the rest of his friends.’

– Domestic Annals, pp.177-227.

–

EAR NAILED TO POST FOR FORGERY.

Taken seriatim, the records of the Tolbooth contain volumes of entries made in the following brief fashion:-

…

1728, Oct. 25. – John Gibson; forging a declaration, 18th January, 1727. His lug nailed to the Tron, and dismissed.

…

– Old and New Edinburgh, pp.123-138.

–

“THE WALLACE AND BRUCE DESIGNS.

January 14, 1889.

SIR, – Having read with interest your description of the designs which have been brought forward for the projected memorial to Wallace and Bruce, may I offer a remark on detail which, there is no reason to believe, is open to criticism? 

You mention that in one of the designs Wallace is represented with “his great double-handed sword grasped by the right hand.” Now, I am aware that a two-handed sword exists which goes by the name of “Wallace’s sword,” but I believe that it can be shown that, notwithstanding the firm belief and reverence with which that ancient weapon is regarded, it has been ante-dated by a century at least. To assign a two-handed sword to the time of Wallace and Bruce is clearly an anachronism. Such a style of weapon was then unknown. It will, I believe, be found on examination that the fourteenth century was far advanced before it was introduced. 

Our principal authorities for the dates of ancient arms and armour are, after the Bayeux tapestry, monumental effigies, ancient sculptures on and in churches, &c.; and the illuminations of ancient manuscripts, some of which, as for instance the beautiful copies of Froissart in the British Museum – they dating, however, from the end of the fourteenth century – afford many valuable examples. I believe that among none of these can contemporary authority be found for the existence of the two-handed sword in the days of Wallace and Bruce, nor for some decades thereafter. A single-handed sword, with a cross guard and broad blade, rather short in proportion to its width, appears to have been the weapon wielded by the contemporaries of our favourite heroes, and, no doubt, by themselves also. – I am, &c.  

E.S.A. SCOT.”

– Newspaper Article [Friday 18 January 1889, p.7, Scotsman]

– Scots Lore, pp.280-282.

–

Selections from this Day 1875-1900.

“ENGLISH INTRUSION IN SCOTTISH HERALDRY.

   SIR, – I live far away from any good library where I can read over the articles of the Scottish Union. Is it not embodied therein that the office of Lyon King-at-Arms should always be upheld? How, then, comes it that the honours of knighthood and baronetcy to Scotsmen of Scottish blood and land have of recent years been sometimes emblazoned in the Herald’s College in London, and not in the office of Lyon King-at-Arms in Edinburgh? Some society which looks after Scottish rights should take up this question, and the more so now that Scotland has a Secretary of her own. The recent English Peerages of the Dukedom of Gordon, Baronies of Marjoribanks (extinct), Tweedmouth, Hamilton, and sic like may go, if they like, to Herald’s College, as by the Treaty of Union no new Scottish Peerages can be created since 1701. – I am, &c.  

TIGLATH PILEZER.”    

– Scotsman, Saturday 18th January, 1890.

…

   “Mr Morley devoted a great part of his time to a discussion of the Irish grievance, but he did not on this occasion forget that he is a Scottish member. Perhaps he was reminded of the fact by crossing the Border, and it may be hoped that he will not forget it when he crosses it again going south. While claiming for Ireland a right to special consideration in matters of finance, he insists apparently on an equal right for Scotland. Perhaps that is putting it too strongly, but at any rate he claims some right for Scotland to have its financial relations also considered. This of course means that the financial relations of the three Kingdoms should be carefully examined, and to this no Unionist will raise objections. Mr Morley himself recalled the fact that there should be such an inquiry, though it came to nothing. That Government would not agree to a lopsided inquiry into Irish finance alone, which could never be anything but misleading. It would only consent to an inquiry which included Scotland. But a Home Rule Government came in and an Irish inquiry was instituted, and every appeal from Scottish representatives to include Scotland was rejected. And now it is very questionable if Mr Morley’s Irish friends will thank him for urging the claims of Scotland; for it is not equal justice that they want, but what they call justice to Ireland at the expense of England and Scotland.”  

 – Scotsman, Monday 18th January, 1897.

…

   “Mr. Morley, discussing the subject entirely from the non-party stand-point, did the State an excellent service by the reminder that the Irish claim for consideration is based upon most explicit arrangements in the Treaty of Union on which Unionists are always taking their stand. Not only is it imperative that the whole question of the financial relationships of Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom should be reconsidered, but Mr. Morley hinted that Scotland, too, should have her claims examined, and he quoted Mr. Goschen in support of his contention. Probably he had been reading a protest which has just been issued by the Scottish Home Rule Association, comparing the revenue derived from the different parts of the United Kingdom, and contrasting the expenses of Government in Scotland and Ireland. The population of Scotland is considerably over half a million fewer than the population of Ireland. Yet Scotland produces £10,247,388 of revenue, and Ireland only £6,895,807. The Government of Ireland, on the other hand (according to the figures of the Scottish Home Rule Association), costs £4,586,370, while the Government of Scotland only costs £1,919,058, annually. These are not figures from which hasty inferences should be made; but they do enforce Mr. Morley’s demand for a thorough investigation. “  

– Sheffield Independent, Monday 18th January, 1897.

– Treaty of Union Articles, 1875-1900.