Site icon Random Scottish History

13th of April

St Hermengild, martyr, 586. St Guinoch, of Scotland, 9th century. St Caradoc, priest and martyr, 1124.

Born. – Jean Pierre Crousaz, Swiss divine, philosopher, and mathematician, 1663, Lausanne; Philip Louis, Duke of Orleans, 1747, St Cloud
Died. – Henry, Duke of Rohan, French military commander, 1638, Switzerland; Charles Leslie, controversialist, 1722, Glaslough; George Frederick Handel, musical composer, 1759; Captain Hugh Clapperton, traveller, 1827; Sydney Lady Morgan, miscellaneous writer, 1859, London.

On this Day in Other Sources.

Having sent for Knox, to meet her, at Lochleven, he had an interview with her here, on the 13th of April [1563,] when she desired him, to endeavour to reconcile the Earl, and Countess of Argyle: On the morrow, he again met the Queen, at the hawking, on the westward of Kinross. 

– Life of Mary, pp.78-98.

The marquis of Huntly, who suspected Frendraught to be the author of the fire, afterwards went to Edinburgh and laid a statement of the case before the privy council, who, thereupon, issued a commission to the bishops of Aberdeen and Moray, Lord Carnegie, and Crowner Bruce, to investigate the circumstances which led to the catastrophe. The commissioners accordingly went to Frendraught on the thirteenth day of April, sixteen hundred and thirty-one, where they were met by the Lords Gordon, Ogilvie, and Deskford, and several barons and gentlemen, along with whom they examined the burnt tower and vaults below, with the adjoining premises, to ascertain, if possible, how the fire had originated. After a minute inspection, they came to the deliberate opinion, which they communicated in writing to the council, that the fire could not have been accidental, and that it must either have been occasioned by some engine from without, which was highly improbable, or raised intentionally within the vaults or chambers of the tower.1 

– History of the Highlands, pp.287-313.

1  Spalding, p. 11, et. seq. 

Instructions having been given to the earl of Antrim, to raise the Irish levy, and Sir James Cochran having been dispatched to the continent as ambassador for the king, to procure foreign aid, Montrose left Oxford on his way to Scotland, taking York and Durham in his route. Near the latter city, he had an interview with the marquis of Newcastle for the purpose of obtaining a sufficient party of horse to escort him into Scotland, but all he could procure, was about one hundred horse, badly appointed, with two small brass field pieces.1 The marquis sent orders to the king’s officers and to the captains of the militia in Cumberland and Westmoreland, to afford Montrose such assistance as they could, and he was, in consequence, joined on his way to Carlisle by eight hundred foot and three troops of horse, of Cumberland and Northumberland militia. With this small force, and about two hundred horse, consisting of noblemen and gentlemen who had served as officers in Germany, France, or England, Montrose entered Scotland on the thirteenth of April, sixteen hundred and forty-four. He had not, however, proceeded far, when a revolt broke out among the English soldiers, who immediately returned to England. In spite of this discouragement, Montrose proceeded on with his small party of horse towards Dumfries, which surrendered to him without opposition. After waiting there a few days in expectation of hearing some tidings respecting the earl of Antrim’s movements, without receiving any, he retired to Carlisle, to avoid being surprised by the covenanters, large bodies of whom were hovering about in all directions. 

– History of the Highlands, pp.314-341.

1  The duchess of Newcastle says, in the memoirs of her husband, that the number was 200. 

“From WYE’S LETTER, April 11.

   Remainder of the Protest (beforemention’d) entered against passing the Salt Bill, viz.

   Because as this Excise is proposed, without apparent Necessity or Conveniency to the Publick, or even any real Advantage (as is suggested) to the Landed Interest, it must necessarily create a Jealousy in the People, that it is a Step and Introduction to a more general one; than which nothing can be more odious and dreaded, but a standing Army, that must necessarily attend the Execution of it. Because Scotland being charged only with One Shilling per Bushel on Salt, which is not a third Part of the Duty, introduceth an inequality in Trade, contrary to that which seems established by the Articles of the Union, and tends to keep up invidious Distinctions between the two Parts of the United Kingdom. It may justly be doubted, if the Exemptions from the Duty of the Time of the Union is a sufficient Reason for the like now; since the Duty was appropriated to the Debts of England, contracted before, and is now revived for the current Service of this Year, yet under the Appearance of Favour; the People of Scotland will at least, pay in three Years, the full Sum of 24,672 l. for the saving of One Shilling in the Land Tax in the current Year, amounting to less than 12000 l…” 

– Derby Mercury, Thursday 13th April, 1732.

– Treaty of Union Articles, 1700-1750.

The old Physic Garden, which had been [James Sutherland’s] own, eastward of the bridge, continued to be used as such till the time when the chair of botany was occupied by Dr. John Hope, who was born at Edinburgh in 1725, and was the grandson of Sir Alexander Hope, Lord Rankeillor. On the 13th April, 1761, he was appointed king’s botanist for Scotland, and elected a few days after, by the town council, Professor of materia medica, and of botany. 

Old and New Edinburgh, pp.359-363.

Exit mobile version