St Saturninus, bishop of Toulouse, martyr, 257. St Radbod, bishop of Utrecht, confessor, 918.
Born. – Margaret, daughter of Henry VII., and queen of James IV. of Scotland, 1489.
Died. – Pope Clement IV., 1268, Viterbo; Philippe le Bel, king of France, 1314, Fontainebleau; Charles IV., Emperor of Germany, 1378, Prague; Frederick, Elector Palatine, son-in-law of James [VI. of Scotland], 1632, Metz; Prince Rupert, of Bavaria, cavalier-general, 1682, London; Marcello Malpighi, eminent anatomist, 1694, Rome; Maria Theresa, queen of Hungary, 1780, Vienna.
On this Day in Other Sources.
The lands, which had probably been purchased by the donor, and thus were not claimable at law by the heir, were transferred by delivery of the usual symbols – earth and stone: but with regard to the “guids,” which “pertenys or may perten of law tyl a burges ayr,” possession was given by delivery of a white hat. Can anyone expound the signification of this curious symbol or cite analogous instances?
The entry in the records narrating the transaction is dated 29th November, 1471, and is as follows: – “Thom Doby, burges of Peblis, with erd and stan, had resingnet and gewyn up the few of his land, with pertinentis, lyand awest half Peblis Water on the North Raw, betwixt the landis of the hous of Mewrus1 on the est sid of the ta parte, and the land of Sanct Mechallis on the west syd of the tother parte, in Wylʒam Smayllis hand, balya in that tym, and than incontinent the said balya layd that erd and stan in the hands of Thom Doby, the son of the sayd Thom, and gaf to hyn and tyl hys ayris, gattyn of hys body, herrietable stat and sessyng of the few of the sayd land with the pertinentis, reservand the frank tenement to Thom Doby, elder, his fader. And gif it happynis the said Thom Doby, yonger, to haf na barnis gottyn with his body to joys the said land and ayr it, than sal the sayd land, with the pertinentis, com agayn to the nerest and mast lauchful ayr of Thom Doby, elder. And than furthwith the said Thom Doby tuk a quhyt hat and resingnet and delyverit up all ayrchep in the sayd balyais hand, als wel his land that he had or mycht haf at the wyl of God at hys later dayes, and than incontinent the said balya delyverit and gaf possession with the said hat, in name of ayrschep, to the said Thom Doby, yonger, als fer has2 pertenys or may perten of law tyl a burges ayr to haf of quhat guidis thair is or beis in the tym after the quantyte of gudis. Befor thir wytnes: – the said balya, Wyll Dekyson, custumar, Stevyne Darlyng, Rob of Wygam, Wylle Forfayr, Wylle Robyson, Robyn of Chawmyr, John Darlyng, Rynʒyn Darling, John of Wodhaw, serjand, and Thom Yong, clerk, with other mony present.
– Scots Lore, pp.50-53.
1 The monks of Melrose had more than one property in the burgh of Peebles. One of these adjoining the cemetery of the parish church appears to be here referred to.
2 i.e., so far as. “Has” is a form of “as” common in early records; and conversely, “as” takes the form of “has.”
The 29th of November, this same year, [1512,] the ancient league and amity renewed and confirmed between the crowns of Scotland and France; at which time, the Lord ambassador de la Motte, from his master the French King, presents King James with a great ship of 35 pieces of ordnance, laden with wine and ammunition of all sorts, for war.
– Historical Works, pp.214-238.
The Queen Regent calls a parliament at Edinburgh, the 29th day of November, this year, [1558,] wherein the French ambassador presents his master’s letter to the estates, which being read, and the priviliges of Scotsmen within the realm of France, ratified in parliament, with the act of naturalisation of each, [reciprocally,] of Scots in France, and French in Scotland, without more the parliament breaks up.
– Historical Works, pp.275-340.
25. WILLIAM SPANG.
Born, 15—; died, 1608.
Apothecary. Deacon, in 1605, of the “Incorporation of Surgeons and Barbars,” in succession to their first Deacon, Robert Hamiltone (No. 31). James VI.’s Charter of Erection to the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, given at Holyrood House, 29th November, 1599, bears “that no manner of person sell any druggs, in the city of Glasgow, except the same be sighted by the saids visitors [Mr. Peter Lowe (No. 27) and Mr. Robert Hamiltone (No. 31)], and by William Spang, Apothecary, under the pain of confiscation of the druggs.” William Spang is said to have come over from Denmark in the suite of Queen Anne. He settled in Glasgow, and founded a family of some note. By his wife, Christian Hamilton, of the ancient family of Hamilton of Silvertonhill and Provan, he was father of Andrew Spang, a rich merchant in Glasgow, whose eldest son was a Cavalry Colonel, and whose second son was William Spang, minister of the gospel, appointed in 1630 by the Convention of Royal Burghs to the Scottish congregation, then first “plantit” in the “Staple Port, in the town of Campheir,” in Holland. This William Spang (II.) was the “deare and loving cusing” to whom Principal Baillie wrote so many of his letters. Spang and he were “cusings” through their mothers, daughters of Town-clerk Henry Gibson.
– Memorial Catalogue, Gallery 1.
In November, this year, [1603, Henry Brooke] the Lord Cobham, the Lord [Thomas] Grey, Sir Walter Raleigh, [Griffin] Markham, with the 2 priests, [William] Watson and [William] Clark, their treason was discovered , and they [were] apprehended, indicted and arraigned at diverse places. The heads whereon the were accused was chiefly,
- Conspiring to kill the King;
- To raise rebellion;
- To alter religion;
- To subvert the estate;
- To procure invasion by strangers.
All of them having received sentence of death, and being in the place of execution, ready to lay down their heads, received pardon and mercy from the King, except the two priests, Watson and Clerk, ringleaders of that conspiracy, who were executed [on the] 29th [of] November; and George Brook, the Lord Cobham’s brother, was beheaded… at Winchester.
– Historical works, pp.340-416.
In 1715, James Anderson, W.S., the well-known editor of Diplomata Scotiæ, obtained the office of Deputy Postmaster-General, in succession to Main, the jeweller. When he took office.., there was not a single horse post in Scotland, foot-runners being the conveyers of the mails, even so far north as Thurso, and so far westward as Inverary.
“After his appointment,” to quote Lang’s privately-printed history of the Post-office in Scotland, “Mr. Anderson directed his attention to the establishment of the horse posts on the Western road from Edinburgh. The first regular horse post in Scotland appears to have been from Edinburgh to Stirling; it started for the first time on the 29th November, 1715. It left Stirling at 2 o’clock afternoon, each Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, reaching Edinburgh in time for the night mail for England. In March, 1717, the first horse post between Edinburgh and Glasgow was established, and we have details of the arrangement in a memorial addressed to Lord Cornwallis and James Craggs, who jointly filled the office of Postmaster-General of Great Britain. The memorial states, that ‘the horse post will set out for Edinburgh each Tuesday and Thursday at 8 o’clock at night, and on Sunday about 8 or 9 in the morning, and be in Glasgow – a distance of 36 miles (Scots) by the post road at that time – by 6 in the morning, on Wednesday and Friday in summer, and by 8 in winter, and both winter and summer, will be in on Sunday night.’ ”
At this period it took double the time for a mail to perform the journey between the two capitals that it did in the middle of the 17th century. When established by Charles I., three days was the time allowed for special couriers between Edinburgh and London.
– Old and New Edinburgh, pp.353-358.
GUILDRY INCORPORATION-CURRENCY OF SCOTLAND.
A special meeting of the Guildry Incorporation was held on Wednesday last, for the purpose of taking into consideration the proposed alterations on the currency of Scotland. The chair was taken by William Thomas, Esq., Dean of Guild.
… There was a diversity in the habits and manners of the people; and, while the inhabitants of England had been accustomed to gold, the inhabitants of Scotland are perfectly satisfied with the paper currency which had so long existed amongst them. The Meeting were aware that the subject of an alteration in the currency had been under the consideration of Committees of both Houses of Parliament in 1826, and that both Committees had concurred in opinion that it was inexpedient to interfere with the currency of Scotland. Nor had anything occurred since that period to lead to an alteration of this opinion, but, on the contrary, everything had tended to establish it. An intimation – by no means indistinct – however, had been given by Sir Robert Peel, during that last session of Parliament, of his intention to assimilate the currency of Scotland to that of England, and, in particular, to substitute a metallic for a paper currency, so far as regarded one-pound notes. The amount of paper circulation in Scotland was estimated at 3,000,000l. – of which about three fourths, or 2,250,000l., consisted of small notes… We were again brought back to the question – wherefore the contemplated change? Scotland was content with her one-pound notes, but she was not seeking to introduce them into England. They were found to be an easy and convenient mode of exchange, and, having this grand peculiarity, that they were convertible on demand… When the Scotch Banks required gold, or any other accommodation, from the Bank of England, they gave full value for it in the same way as any other customers. It was also said that England had to bear the whole expense of a gold currency: And why not, if she preferred such a currency to any other? Scotland prefers a paper currency, and pays for it. But would it be reasonable to make her pay for what she does not use, and does not want? Speaking of advantages, however, had England no advantages over Scotland? Did not the whole taxes levied in Scotland flow into the English treasury? Were not the whole expenses of Government spent in England? Was it not the seat of the Army and of the Navy? And what a miserable pittance of the public money was spent in Scotland! Again, did not the wealthiest of our landed aristocracy spend three fourths of the year and still more of their incomes in England? And had not the Government lately withdrawn from Scotland the whole money in our Savings Banks to England? These were some of the advantages which England enjoyed. But, in resisting this innovation, we might stand upon the Treaty of Union itself, which declared that ‘no alterations should be made in laws which concern private rights, except for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland.’ He would be a bold man who would assert that the proposed alteration would be for the utility of the people of Scotland. The people themselves, almost to a man, think differently…
… It appeared that the present excellent Scotch system of banking was to be subjected to restraints under which it could not long exist. They were told that it was not meant to interfere with the small notes; but that all that was intended was to put a limit to the quantity of currency, which any bank could circulate, under penalties. This would be a fatal and dangerous innovation. It was the duty of all Scotsmen to oppose the introduction of such a principle; for, if the wedge were once introduced, it would be driven home to the rending of the tree…
… He was quite satisfied that the Scotch banking system was the best that ever existed, and it would be much better for England to adopt it than attempt to subvert it. The attempts already made to introduce it into England had failed in consequence of glaring mismanagement, but the prejudice against it would soon wear away.”
– Dundee, Perth, and Cupar Advertiser, Friday 29th November, 1844.
– Treaty of Union Articles, 1800-1850.