4th of June

St Quirinus, Bishop of Siscia, martyr, 304. St Optatus, Bishop of Milevum, confessor, 4th century. St Breacam or Breague, virgin, of Ireland. St Burian, of Ireland. St Walter, abbot in San-Serviliano, 13th century.

–

Born. – George III., of Great Britain, 1738, London. 

Died. – M. A. Muret (Muretus), commentator on the ancient classics, 1585, Rome; Marshal Davout, 1823; Marguerite, Countess of Blessington, novelist, &c., 1849, Paris; Henry Grattan, statesman, 1820, London.

–

On this Day in Other Sources.

–

The King of England and his son, the Black Prince, were at this time, fortunately for Scotland, engaged in a war with France. This gave the Scots an opportunity, and before the end of 1339 they had got into their hands Perth, Cupar, and Stirling. In 1341 Edinburgh was recovered, and soon after, in the same year, David, having been an exile in France for nine years, set sail from France with his queen, and landed at Inverbervie on the 4th June, where he was received with joy by all classes of his subjects. 

– A History of Scotland, Chapter IV. 

–

The Parliament being thus ended on the 4th of June [1563], without reforming dress, the Queen, said Randolph to Cecil, hath made her highland apparel, for her journey into Argyle. According to Spottiswoode, the rest of this summer, the Queen spent, in hunting in the countries of Athol, and Argyle. Spottiswoode, however, is quite mistaken, in supposing, that the Queen went, on that occasion, into Athol: From Inverary, she turned to the westward. 

– Life of Mary, pp.78-98.

–

June 4 [1563]. – In the parliament now sitting, some noticeable acts were passed. One decreed that ‘nae person carry forth of this realm ony gold or silver, under pain of escheating of the same and of all the remainder of their moveable guids;’ merchants going abroad to carry only as much as they strictly require for their travelling expenses. Another enacted, that ‘nae person take upon hand to use ony manner of witchcrafts, sorcery, or necromancy, nor give themselves furth to have ony sic craft or knowledge thereof, there-through abusing the people;’ also, that ‘nae person seek ony help, response, or consultation at ony sic users or abusers of witchcrafts… under the pain of death.’ This is the statute under which all the subsequent witch-trials took place.^*

– Domestic Annals, pp.13-29. 

^*  Chambers has already stated the fact of Mary’s not having arrived in Scotland until 1561. That these witchcraft acts were enacted by her in 1563. I believe that it was these that laid the foundation for “all the subsequent witch-trials”, in Scotland, that took place. His wording is suggestive of this being the basis of all witch trials everywhere afterwards which would be strange as it wasn’t even the first act against witchcraft. For that we need to go down south to England and Henry VIII.’s 1542 act condemning witchcraft as a crime punishable by death.

–

The Queen endeavoured by a fresh proclamation, on the 4th of June [1567], to disabuse the credulous; she now avowed her affections for her people; disclaimed any wish to innovate upon the established laws; and hoped, that she had placed her son, in such safe hands, that the security of his person, and the cultivation of his mind, need not be doubted, to whom those charges are committed, according to the ancient practice. But, such declarations were not much regarded. 

– Life of Mary, pp.155-184.

–

On the 4th of June [1568], Lord Herries arrived, at Greenwich, with the Scotish Queen’s letters, and solicitations, which did not make much impression on Elizabeth’s understanding, or her heart. She answered, however, by Secretary Cecil, that she meaneth to take her, and her cause, into her protection; and according to the justice of the cause, will prosecute her adversaries. Elizabeth had not received her, personally, on account of the public suspicion of so horrible a crime: Yet, she neither condemns, nor acquits her, until she hear what may be said therein. The point, wherewith Elizabeth was chiefly touched, was, that the death of her husband was not sufficiently avenged; and her marrying so early the person, who was known to be the principal murderer, who had a lawful wife alive, from whom he divorced himself, to marry her. Cecil seems, thus, to have mixed up the sweet, with the sour, so artfully, as to effect the Scotish Queen’s tenderest sensibilities. In this mixed style of flattery, and fraud, a great variety of letters, and other documents, were, during the following months, sent to the Scotish Queen, to delude, and frighten, to irritate, and tranquillize her. In the midst of this scene of deception, Elizabeth wrote an impressive letter to the Regent Murray, “to come into England, with a commission, to treat, at York, and to answer to the Scotish Queen’s complaint.” 

– Life of Mary, pp.206-234.

–

The liberal terms accorded to those who had thus rescued the bell, and the anxious provision made for its safety by taking security from the person intrusted with it for its careful preservation, shows the value attached to it, and the veneration in which it was held as a relic dating from the foundation of the city. In October of the following year the treasurer’s accounts contain a charge of two shillings “for ane tong to St. Mongowis bell.” And under date 4th June, 1590, there occurs the following entry:- “The quhilk day the provest baillies and counsall hes gevin thair twa commoun bells viz the Mort and Skellat bells togedder with the office of pwnterschipe to George Johnstoune for ane zeir to cum bund for the soume of thrie scoir pundis to be payit in maner following:” and then follow the terms of payment and names of sureties. 

– Old Glasgow, pp.19-29.

–

   Kelso, in 1639, made a prominent figure in one of the most interesting events in Scottish history, – the repulse of the armed attempt of Charles I. to force Episcopacy upon Scotland by the army of the Covenanters under General Lesley. This army, amounting to 17,000 or 18,000 men, rendezvoused at Dunse, and marching thence, established their quarters at Kelso. The king, personally at the head of his army of prelacy, got intelligence at Birks, near Berwick, of the position of the Covenanters, and despatched the Earl of Holland, with 1,000 cavalry and 3,000 infantry, to try their mettle. A letter from Sir Henry, who was with the king, to the Marquis of Hamilton, who had, as his majesty’s high commissioner for Scotland, made a vain attempt to effect a compromise between the Liturgy and the Covenant, will show the result:- 

   “MY LORD, – By the dispatch Sir James Hamilton brought your lordship from his majesty’s sacred pen, you were left at your liberty to commit any act of hostility upon the rebels when your lordship should find it most opportune. Since which, my Lord Holland, with 1,000 horse and 3,000 foot, marched towards Kelsey; himself advanced towards them with the horse (leaving the foot 3 miles behind), to a place called. Maxwell-heugh, a height above Kelsey: which, when the rebels discovered, they instantly marched out with 150 horse, and (as my Lord Holland says) eight or ten thousand foot; five or six thousand there might have been. He thereupon sent a trumpet, commanding them to retreat, according to what they had promised by the proclamation. They asked, whose trumpet he was. He said, my Lord Hollands. Their answer was, He were best be gone. And so my Lord Holland made his retreat, and waited on his majesty this night to give him this account. 

   “This morning advertisement is brought his majesty, that Lesley, with 12,000 men, is at Cockburnspath, that 5,000 men will be this night or to-morrow at Dunce, 6,000 at Kelsey; so his majesty’s opinion is, with many of his council, to keep himself upon a defensive, and make himself here as fast as he can; for his majesty doth now clearly see, and is fully satisfied in his own judgment, that what passed in the gallery betwixt his majesty, your lordship, and myself, hath bin but too much verified on this occasion;¹ and therefore his majesty would not have you to begin with them, but to settle things with you in a safe and good posture, and yourself to come hither in person to consult what counsels are fit to be taken, as the affairs now hold. And so, wishing your lordship a speedy passage, I rest, 

“Your lordship’s 

                        “most humble servant, 

                                   “and faithful friend, 

“H. Vane.”    

“From the camp at Huntley-field, 

        this 4th of June, 1639.” 

Discordantly with the intelligence which this letter shows the king’s scouts to have brought him, General Lesley concentrated his whole forces, and next day, to the surprise of the royal camp, took up his station on Dunse-hill, interposing his arms between the king and the capital, and exhibiting his strength and his menaces in full view of the English forces. The king, now fully convinced of the impracticability of his attempt on the public conscience of Scotland, held a consultation two days after with the leaders of the Covenanters, made them such concessions as effected a reconciliation, and procuring the dispersion of their army, returned peacefully to England.

– Gazetteer of Scotland, Kelso, pp.79-87.

¹  “What passed in the gallery” was an opinion unfavourable to the invasion of Scotland by English forces, to impose a hated form of worship, at the expense of provoking antipathies and warfare. 

–

We are indebted also to the public spirit of the magistrates of that time for the portraits of royal personages which we have in the Corporation Galleries. In 1670 there is a minute by which “it is appoynted that the provest wrytt to London to the Deane of Gild to buy for the tounes use the portrators of King Charles the First and Secund as also ane carpett.”¹ But the dean succeeded in getting only one portrait – that of Charles I., and two months afterwards there is a warrant for the price of it: “twenty fyve punds starling for the kings portratour.” Seven years afterwards the order is repeated to procure the other, “that it may be hung in the Counsell-house with the rest now there.” 

– Old Glasgow, pp.215-237. 

¹  4th June, 1670.

–

   “Tuesday’s Gazette announces that Lord Panmure has been appointed Keeper of the Privy Seal in Scotland. The Earl of Home has also been appointed Keeper of the Seal appointed by the Treaty of Union, in place of the Great Seal of Scotland.” 

– Gloucestershire Chronicle, Saturday 4th June, 1853.

– Treaty of Union Articles, 1850-1875.

–

168. JOHN GRAHAM GILBERT of Yorkhill, R.S.A.

Born, 1794; died at Yorkhill, Glasgow, June 4th, 1866. 

Portrait painter. His father was a West India merchant. He showed so much ability and such a strong predilection for art, that he was permitted to follow the path which he had marked out for himself. He became a student of the Royal Academy, London, and gained first the silver and then the gold medal. He then went to Italy, and remained two years. He settled first in Edinburgh, latterly in Glasgow. Though rich, he followed his profession to the last with great industry, filling up spare time by painting female figures in Italian or Scottish costume. He married, in 1834, Jane, niece and heiress of Andrew Gilbert of Yorkhill. He formed an admirable small collection of pictures by the old masters, which he left to his native city. 

– Memorial Catalogue, Gallery 4.

–

Glasgow Evening Post, Tuesday 4th June 1895, p.7.

   SINGULAR DEATH OF A SCHOOLBOY. – Adam Johnston, ten years of age, son of James Johnston, miner, Little Raith Colliery houses, Fifeshire, died on Sunday under peculiar circumstances. In the course of Saturday the boy had been at Cowdenbeath, where there was a number of swingboats, &c., and when he returned home in the evening he complained of headache and sore throat. After being bathed he was put to bed, and although he vomited during the night he was not supposed to be seriously ill. In the morning he was found dead. The cause of death has not been ascertained. 

– Curious and Interesting Deaths.

–

   “It is high time, indeed, that the common practice of including the whole United Kingdom in the word ‘England’ should be stopped. Such a practice forms a direct breach of the terms of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland and the wonder is that long ere now the people of this country have not insisted upon their rights in the matter. Fortunately, through the medium of a petition, Scotsmen are now making their voices heard on the question. Many thousands have already signed the petition, and the signatories include representatives of all classes of society. Among those who have signed it, for example, are the Duke of Sutherland, the Marquis of Bute, the Earl of Kinnoull, and upwards of thirty Scottish members of Parliament. It is gratifying, too, to learn that many of these members of Parliament are Unionists, and that the movement is, consequently, devoid of all political significance. It is, of course, as much the interest of Unionists as it is that of Separatists to see that Scotland is fairly and honourably treated.” 

– Dundee Courier, Friday 4th June, 1897.

– Treaty of Union Articles, 1875-1900.