The Festival of the Rosary. St Piat, apostle of Tournay, martyr, about 286. St Remigius, confessor, archbishop of Rheims, 533. St Wasnulf or Wasnon, confessor, patron of Condé, about 651. St Bavo, anchoret, patron of Ghent, 7th century. St Fidharleus of Ireland, abbot, 762.
Born. – Paul I., emperor of Russia, 1754.
Died. – Michael II., the Stammerer, Greek emperor, 829; Pierre Corneille, great tragic dramatist, 1684, Paris.
FESTIVAL OF THE ROSARY.
The rosary, as is well known, ism in the Roman Catholic Church, a series of prayers, consisting of fifteen Pater Nosters and a hundred and fifty Ave Marias, which, for the convenience of worshippers, are counted on a string of beads. Each rosary, or string of beads, consists of fifteen decades, each of which decades contains one Pater Noster, marked by ten smaller beads. The festival of the rosary was instituted to implore the divine mercy in favour of the church and all the faithful, and return thanks for the benefits conferred on them, more especially for the victory of Lepanto, in 1571, over the Turks. This success, believed to be obtained through the intercession of the Virgin, who is so specially invoked in the devotion of the rosary, was ordered by Pius V. to be annually commemorated under the title of St Mary de Victoria. This epithet was, however, changed by his successor, Gregory XIII., into the title of the Festival of the Rosary. The victory of Prince Eugene over the Turks at Belgrade, in 1716, was ordered by Clement XII. to be included in the benefits which this office specially commemorates.
On this Day in Other Sources.
The accounts of the Scottish historians of this battle [of Largs], containing few particulars, we shall follow Mr. Dillon in his account drawn from the Norwegian annalists. Haco, having made a detachment with part of his fleet which sailed up Lochlong, and committed considerable devastations in Lennox, he lay some time in his ships without landing his army. During this interval he renewed his proposals for a peace; but afterwards sent a message declaring the truce at an end, and challenging the Scots to fight him. On Monday night the first of October (1263) a violent storm came on, in consequence of which some of the ships began to drag their anchors, and a transport ran foul of the king’s ship. The cable of the transport was cut, and next morning (Tuesday 2d October) she ran ashore on the Ayrshire coast, along with a galley. The storm still continued, and the king’s ship was secured by additional anchors. Haco himself went ashore at the Cumbraes in his boat, and ordered mass to be sung; but in the mean time the fleet was by the storm driven up the channel towards Largs. Some of the ships were forced to cut away their masts, and five of them ran aground.
The Scots on shore did not omit to take advantage of the Norwegian distress. The main army was not in sight, but the parties posted to observe the motions of the fleet, attacked the ships that were driven on shore with missile weapons, while Haco found it necessary to send in boats with reinforcements. He at length came ashore himself, but soon afterwards retired. The Norwegians remained on shore during the night, but the Scots plundered the transport which had run aground. In the morning of next day, when the weather had probably moderated, Haco again landed with a numerous reinforcement. Soon after the Scottish army appeared, and it was so numerous that it was supposed the king of Scotland, Alexander III. was present, though this is doubtful as he was at that time only twenty years of age. It was commanded by Alexander the Steward of Scotland, and probably consisted chiefly of his vassals and retainers, as his territories were more immediately threatened.
From the Norwegian accounts as well as the tumuli, stone coffins with human bones, memorial stones, and other marks of a battle which have been found upon the spot, the principal engagement seems to have taken place between the house of Hailey about a mile south of Largs and the sea. Haco stationed a party on the high ground not far from the shore, where he took up his main position in front of his stranded ships. The Scots skirmished with the Norwegians on the high ground; but Haco appears to have returned to his ships in the roads. The Norwegians represent the appearance of the Scottish army as highly respectable. There were conjectured to be about 1500 on horseback, the horses having breastplates, and some of the Spanish steeds clad in complete armour; and a numerous army on foot armed with bows and spears. The Norwegians on the hill were driven in confusion to the shore, throwing those stationed there also into confusion, who in their turn rushed to their boats, several of which, from being overloaded, were sunk, and a number of men drowned. Others pushed the boats off, and though called by their companions to return, few did so. Haco of Steini, a relation of the king, here fell. The Scots now severely pressed those who remained on shore; and drove them southward toward Kelburne. At this attack there fell a Scottish knight called Peras or Ferash, which are corruptions of his real name which was Piers or Peter de Corrie. He is described as being armed and accoutred in the most magnificent manner, having a helmet plated with gold, and adorned with precious stones, and the rest of his armour as in a style of equal splendour.
The weather made it difficult for the Norwegians to afford assistance to their countrymen: two reinforcements, however, gained the shore under the command of Ronald and Eilif. Ronald was driven back to the ships; but Eilif behaved so heroically that the Norwegians were enabled again to get into order. However, the Scots got possession of the rising ground from which the enemy had been driven, whom they from thence annoyed with showers of missiles. Towards evening the Norwegians made a desperate charge against the Scots on his ground, who driven from thence retired to the mountains behind, while the Norwegians returned to their ships, and the battle was thus closed with the day. From this account there appears to have been nothing like a pitched battle as supposed by our historians; but only an irregular skirmishing between the shore, and the high grounds. Only the advanced parties of the Scottish army would seem to have been engaged, although the rest was in sight.
Next morning the Norwegians returned in search of the bodies of the slain; and it is said that Haco ordered his dead to be carried to a church. Although we are not told so by the Norwegian annalists, yet there can be little doubt that this could only be in consequence of a truce with the Scots; as they could easily have prevented the collecting and burying so many dead bodies, which must have taken up considerable time, not to speak of erecting of the tumuli and other monuments. There can be little doubt the cairns refer entirely to the Norwegian dead, for the Scots would of course bury their dead in church yards, while the Norwegians were obliged to bury theirs in the field. Eight or nine tumuli have been found in the neighbourhood of Largs, some of which have been opened, and some are now removed. One of these was very remarkable. It was of great extent, and was found to cover a building of stones, in the centre of which was found the remains of a body, and around it a number of others supposed about thirty.
– Select Views, pp.143-146.
The 1st of October this same year , King James calls a parliament, at Edinburgh; wherein were enacted many laws about the office and duty of Sheriffs, crowners, and inferior judges; against delinquents, and such as refuse obedience to the laws of the land; as also that all actions be pursued before the Judge Ordinary. In this same parliament also, in respect of the [forfeiture] of Alexander, Duke of Albany, Earl of March, Mar and Garrioch, Lord of Annandale and Mann, the said lands and lordships are annexed to the crown.
– Historical Works, pp.189-214.
About the beginning of this year, 1516, the Lord Home, with his two brothers, submit themselves to the Governor’s mercy, and fall at his feet. He sends them prisoners to Edinburgh castle, to the custody of [James Hamilton] the Earl of Arran; where they remained until the 1st of October this same year, from whence they all, with Arran, escape, and are declared rebels.
– Historical Works, pp.238-275.
The first transaction of importance connected with it was its occupation by the English, in 1547, after the battle of Pinkie. The party of English by whom Broughty castle was garrisoned, had scarcely secured themselves within the fortress, when they were blockaded by Arran; who sat down before it on the 1st of October, 1547, but on the 1st of the following January hastily raised the siege. Immediately after his departure, the English fortified the neighbouring hill of Balgillo, and ravaged great part of the county of Angus.
– Scotland Illustrated, vol, 2, p.143.
Elizabeth’s next intimation to the harassed Shrewsbury was of the appointment of Cecil, the Secretary, and Mildmay, the chancellor of the exchequer, as negotiators with the Scotish Queen. Those able men arrived, at Chatsworth, on the 1st of October 1570, to treat with the captive Queen, who was now to rely on her own address for the success of a treaty, which, owing to Elizabeth’s jealousy, must end, in disappointment. What treaty could be made with such a Queen, as Mary, under her circumstances!
– Life of Mary, pp.235-244.
In the earlier times when the interests of the bishops depended so much on the prosperity and influence of their burgh, the provosts were selected not from among the citizens, but from among noblemen and gentlemen of rank whose position and power would prove useful to the bishop and the town in cases of emergency. Thus we find such persons as the Earl of Lennox, Lord Boyd, Sir George Elphinston,* Crawford of Jordanhill, the Stewarts of Minto, Houston of that Ilk, Hamilton of Cochno, and others occupying the position of chief magistrate. Latterly it came to be the practice with the archbishops to give grants of the office during their own life. An example of this occurred when Archbishop Boyd appointed his kinsman Lord Boyd to be provost during his (the archbishop’s) lifetime.1
– Old Glasgow, pp.215-237.
1 1st October, 1577.
* This is the same George Elphinstone who’s Gorbals Mansion House is depicted in one of the Thomas Fairbairn Lithographs already scanned and uploaded.
This parliament ordained all chiefs of clans both in the Borders, Highlands and Isles, to find sufficient [caution] to the King and his privy counsel, before the first of October in this same year , for their deportment and civil carriage, and peace of the country; and that all highlanders and borderers return to [the] place where they were born; and that it shall not be [legally permissible] in times coming [for] a Scots borderer to marry with [another] in England.
– Historical Works, pp.340-416.
ALEXANDER CAMPBELL THE LAIRD OF CALDER
HIS PURSMAISTERIS COMPT.
The first of October  being Fryday.
Item giffin for ane queyt bridill to the geldin broun
Item giffin to the Lawland harper
vj s. viij d.
Item your collatioun at evin that day the saidis gentill men all with yow, ane point Frence wyne
vj s. viij d.
– Sketches, Appendix VIII.
Oct. 1 . – A supplication was this day given in to the town-council of Glasgow by one Robert Marshall, showing that he was willing, if permitted, to exercise the calling of a house-painter in the city. The council, having had it represented to them that there was ‘but one the like within this burgh, and not ane other in all the west of Scotland,’ gave Robert permission to wash and paint houses to any who pleased to employ him. – M. of G.
– Domestic Annals, pp.278-301.
At the foot of the High Street stood the city cross – the one erected after the ancient cross at the head of the street was superseded. Of what form it was there is no authentic record. At the beginning of the seventeenth century – perhaps earlier – the guard-house was built against or round it, and when the guard-house was in 1659 removed farther west – having been found an obstruction to the street – the cross was found to have been so defaced that it was thought necessary to remove it also. The minute of council which records this is interesting: “The same day [1st October, 1659,] the Magistrats and Counsall having receavit warrand and ordours for downe taking of the guard house was buildit about and wpon the Croce, and in regard the samyn Mercat croce throw the building of the said guard house thairupon, was altogether defaced, it is therefore now concludid to remove the samyn with all convenient diligence and mak it equall with the ground.”
– Old Glasgow, pp.140-150.
As regards other professions no one was permitted to practise in Glasgow without the special license of the magistrates, and, in some cases, not until they had shown evidence of their skill. On one occasion, in , a house painter applies for permission to practise his craft. In his supplication he sets forth that “he hes skill in washing and pynting of housses, that ther is but one the lyk within the samyn brughe, and not ane vthir in all the wast of Scotland,” and that his occupation is “rather ane science nor ane craft.”1 The permission is granted.
– Old Glasgow, pp.276-289.
1 1st Oct. 1659.
A few instances occur of the encouragement of literature by the magistrates in a small way. In 1661 the sum of ten dollars is ordered to be paid “to James Cerss, Philomath, for dedicating his Almanack to “the toune.”1 I have not seen any copy of this Almanack, but it was no doubt a continuation of it that was printed by Robert Sanders in 1667 and subsequent years.
– Old Glasgow, pp.215-237.
1 1st October, 1661.
Oct. 1 . – The Egyptians or gipsies still roamed in a lawless manner over the country, without attracting much notice from the authorities, their conduct being now probably less troublesome than it had been in the reign of King James. Two bands of these people, the Faws and the Shaws, on their way from Haddington fair to Harestanes, in Peeblesshire, where they expected to meet and fight two other tribes, the Baillies and Browns, fell out among themselves at Romanno about the spoil they had lately acquired, and immediately engaged in battle. ‘Old Sandie Faw, a bold and proper fellow,’ and his wife, then pregnant, were killed on the spot, while his brother George was very dangerously wounded. The Laird of Romanno apprehended ‘Robert Shaw; Margaret Faw, his spouse; James, Patrick, Alexander, and Thomas Shaws, their sons; and Helen Shaw, their daughter; Robert and John Faws; John Faw, younger; Agnes and Isobel Shaws; Isobel Shaw, younger; and George Faw, and did commit them prisoners within the Tolbooth of Peebles;’ whence they were speedily removed to Edinburgh to be tried. We soon after find the Council despatching a warrant to the Laird of Romanno and Mr Patrick Purdie to send to Edinburgh ‘the money, gold, gold rings, and other things which they had fought. An account of expenses sent by the magistrates of Peebles was disallowed, excepting only £15 Scots (£1, 6s. 8d. sterling) for the sustenance of the company while in jail. – P. C. R.
– Domestic Annals, pp.322-337.
On the occasion of the Duke of York coming to Glasgow, Provost Bell, a zealous royalist, announced the fact, and appointed “the haill counsell to attend vpon the magistrates for waiting on him; that the handsomest of the younge men of the toune be warined to beir partizains in their hands to wait wpon him, and ordaines the inhabitants to put out baill fyres at the heid of ilk closs at such tymes as they be warned by ringing of the bells.”1 The magistrates appear to have spared no trouble or expense on this occasion, for we find from a subsequent minute that their outlay amounted to 4001 pounds 12 shillings scots, a considerable sum in those days. On this occasion the duke lodged in Provost Bell’s house in the Bridgegate.
– Old Glasgow, pp.162-175.
1 1st Oct. 1681.
“… To our misfortune, our ministers, in some of our former reigns, got the better in this contest, and got such punishments inflicted upon what the lawyers called treason, as must be allowed to be both unjust and cruel. Cruel they certainly are; so cruel that, I believe, the punishment is now seldom, if ever, inflicted according to the express words of the sentence; and it must be allowed to be unjust, to punish the innocent child for the sake of a guilty father. Nay, our laws against treason go farther: they punish, as far as within the reach of human power, even those that are dead and in their graves; for if it be a reward to a man who has deserved well of the publick, as it certainly is, to ennoble his posterity as well as himself, to degrade his posterity must be looked on as a punishment upon him.
These cruel and unjust punishments have long been complained of, and frequent attempts have been made to get them altered; but, my Lords, the revengeful and avaritious influence of ministers, which at first got them established, has hitherto, and I am afraid will for ever, prevent their being abolished. It was this, my Lords, and not the danger we were in either from a republican or a Jacobitish spirit, that prevented any law being made for this purpose in the reigns of K. Charles, K. James, K. William, and the first six years of Q. Anne; and it was an extraordinary concurrence of causes that enabled us to get some little conquest over that influence in the 7th year of Q. Anne. In that year, our ministers wanted to have the English laws of treason introduced into Scotland. The Scots had in the year 1690 so far got the better of their ministers and men in power, as to get a law then passed for preventing innocent childrens being punished for the crimes of their fathers. This valuable law the Scots, who were then members of the British Parliament, would not part with; and the English members who were friends to the people, took advantage of this contest, in order to get some such law introduced in England. Our ministers found, they could not gain their favourite point, without yielding something; but they were resolved to yield as little as possible. They agreed to the introducing this law in England; but with this proviso, That it should not take place till after the decease of the pretender, and three years after the immediate succession to the crown, upon the demise of the then Queen, should take effect; which proviso they pretended was necessary, because of the danger that might ensue upon the demise of the Queen, and the introduction of a new family to the throne. This, I say, was their pretence; but their true reason, I am convinced, was, because they thought, if such a proviso enlarged from time to time, so as to prevent the law from ever taking effect: and I wish it may not now appear, that they were not mistaken in their judgment; for if what is now offered, be agreed to, I shall despair of ever seeing this salutary law begin to take effect.
From this account of the law now under our consideration, your Lordships must see, that it was a sort of compact between the two nations, and that the very clause which is now to be suspended, or rather repealed, was what chiefly induced the Scots to give up for a time their law of the year 1690. Therefore, what is now proposed may be looked on as a breach of that compact, and, consequently, as a breach of the articles of the union: for, by the 18th article of the union, it is expressly provided, That, even by the parliament of G. Britain, no alteration, shall be made as to laws concerning private right, except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland. I am very sure, it cannot be said, that the suspension of their law of the year 1690, if it had been but for one day, could ever be said to be for the utility of the subjects of Scotland; consequently it must be allowed, that this proviso was at first an incroachment upon the articles of the union, which the parliament of G. Britain had no right to make: and, if the Scots were induced to agree or submit to a temporary suspension of the force of their law of the year 1690, in hopes that the time of that suspension would never be prolonged; from what is now proposed, they will conclude, if it should be agreed to, that they have been deluded, and that they must never expect to have that beneficial law restored to them. What their members of this or the other house may do upon this occasion, I shall not pretend to determine; but I am convinced, the Scottish nation in general will never agree to what is now proposed; especially when they consider, how much they have suffered, and how many of their ancient Noble families have been destroyed by the temporary suspension they submitted to in the 7th year of the late Q. Anne.
When I say this, my Lords, I hope no one will think that I approve of, or that I intend to justify the rebellion that broke out in Scotland soon after his late Majesty’s accession. No, my Lords; I condemn that rebellion as much as any Lord in this house. I think, those that were guilty and suffered, met with nothing but what they deserved. But why should their innocent children have been made to suffer? why should the merit of their ancestors be forgot, their memories buried in the dust, and their families annihilated, on account of one of their posterity’s having been guilty of a crime against the state?..”
– The Scots Magazine, Monday 1st October, 1744.
– Treaty of Union Articles, 1700-1750.
After four years’ delay the city was obliged to set about building the bridge without having any Bill for it. By the patriotic exertions of Provost Drummond a portion of the loch was drained in 1763, and a proper foundation sought for the erection, which, however, is only indicated by two dotted parallel lines in Edgar’s plan of the city, dated 1765, which “shew ye road along ye intended bridge,” which was always spoken of as simply a new way to Leith.
The first stone was deposited on the 1st of October, 1763, and Kincaid relates that in 1794 “some people vary lately, if not yet alive, have positively asserted that Provost Drummond declared to them that he only began to execute what the Duke, afterwards James VII., proposed.”
This auspicious event was conducted with all the pomp and ceremony the city at that time afforded. George Drummond, the Lord Provost, was appointed, as being the only former Grand-Master present to act in this position, in the absence of the then Grand-Master, the Earl of Elgin. The various lodges of the Freemasons assembled in the Parliament House at two in the afternoon; from thence, escorted by the City Guard and two companies of militia, they marched three abreast, with all their insignia, the junior lodges going first, down Leith Wynd, from the foot of which they turned westward along the north bank of the old loch, to the excavation where the stone lay. As they proceeded a “band of the fraternity,” says the Edinburgh Museum for 1763, “accompanied with French horns and other instrumental music, sung several fine airs, marches, &c. The Grand-Master, surrounded by about 600 brethren, and in view of an infinite crowd of spectators, after having applied severally the square, the plumb, level, compass, and the mallet, and used other ceremonies and symbols common on such occasions, laid the stone, amid the acclamation and applause of all present.”
There were placed in the cavity of the stone three medals struck for the occasion. On one was an elevation of the intended bridge, on another a profile of George III. The last one bore a repetition of the inscription, which is cut on the stone in large capital letters.
– Old and New Edinburgh, pp.334-340.
Mr. Williamson, king’s messenger for Scotland, traced the Deacon [Brodie] from point to point till he reached Dover, where after an eighteen days’ pursuit he disappeared; but by a sort of fatuity, often evinced by persons similarly situated, he gave clues to his own discovery… Mr. Williamson was once more on his track, and discovered him in Amsterdam, through the treachery of an Irishman named Daly, when he was on the eve of his departure for America;.. he was arraigned with Smith in the High Court of Justiciary, when he had as counsel the Hon. Henry Erskine, known then as “Plead for all, or the poor man’s lawyer,” and two other advocates of eminence, who made an attempt to prove an alibi on the part of Brodie, by means of Jean Watt and her servant, but the jury, with one voice, found both guilty, and they were sentenced to be hanged at the west end of the Luckenbooths on the 1st October, 1788. Smith was deeply affected; Brodie cool, determined, and indifferent. His self-possession never forsook him, and he spoke of his approaching end with levity, as “a leap in the dark,” and he only betrayed emotion when he was visited, for the last time, by his daughter Cecil, a pretty child of ten years of age. He came on the scaffold in a full suit of black, with his hair dressed and powdered. Smith was attired in white linen, trimmed with black. “Having put on white night-caps,” says a print of the time, “Brodie pointed to Smith to ascend the steps that led to the drop, and in an easy manner, clapping him on the shoulder, said, ‘George Smith, you are first in hand.’ Upon this Smith, whose behaviour was highly penitent and resigned, slowly ascended the steps, followed by Brodie, who mounted with briskness and agility, and examined the dreadful apparatus with attention, particularly the halter destined for himself;” and well might he do so with terrible interest, as he was to be the first to know the excellence of an improvement he had formerly made on that identical gibbet – the substitution of what is called the drop, for the ancient practice of the double ladder. The ropes proving too short, Brodie stepped down to the platform and entered into easy conversation with his friends.
– Old and New Edinburgh, pp.112-118.
“SCOTS JUDICATURE BILL.
I. Assimilation of the Jurisprudence of Great Britain and Ireland.
“It was from the rising of popular feeling in Scotland that religious freedom and – by consequence we may truly say – civil liberty extended itself into the southern parts of the Island. It is, therefore, not impossible that the English people may, ere long, come to regret their indifference about their Scottish neighbours, or even have to thank them for some new improvements on their own institutions, still capable, as we, here, think of being in many respects bettered.” – Letter to Mr Peel on Scots Law Courts.
It is not merely as to Scotland that we view the measure as likely to lead to beneficial consequences and improvements. The extraordinary sensation, and the spirit of public inquiry and discussion to which it has given rise in Scotland, we hope will soon be extended to the constitution of the English Courts, and the system of administering the laws of England. The Scots people even have a material interest in the improvements of the system of jurisdiction, forms of proceedings, and principles of law, followed in England and Ireland. By the treaty of Union, the Scots were admitted to a participation of the benefits of the trade and navigation of England; and that measure must be imperfect until the Scots, in their transactions with the English people, can derive benefit from the Courts and Laws of England. At present, the Scots have almost no access to or benefit from the English Courts. Both countries are considered in law as foreign to each other. In the REPORT of the Committee of Procurators before the High Courts of Admiralty, after noticing some of the defects of the English Courts, it is stated, “At present, according to the footing in which the jurisdictions and forms of proceedings of the English Courts are placed, no Scots merchant would think of resorting to them, so great is the apprehension of the difficulty and expense of conducting a process in an English Court.”
– Scots Magazine, Friday 1st October, 1824.
– Treaty of Union Articles, 1800-1850.