Chapter XXXIII: Section II: After the Reformation (3)

There is little mention of iron mining till a comparatively late period, but coal was a common article of commerce in ♦1425. In 1542 the annual value of the coal haughs of Wallyfurd and Preston, which belonged to the Crown, was 1100 merks. Coal was worked at Culross in 1572, and in 1584, Lord Sinclair had a coal pit at Dysart. In 1592 Parliament passed an Act relating to the working of coal, which enacted that any person who wilfully set fire to coal haughs, from motives of revenge and spite, should incur the penalty of treason, if found guilty of this crime. In 1600 it was enacted, that as the King’s coal haughs could not be worked within the bounds of his annexed territories unless at great expense; in consequence of this his Majesty neither received coal for the royalty, nor any profit, it was therefore resolved to separate them from the Crown lands and let them in feu.¹

♦ date uncertain; probably “1525”

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 10,
424; Volume IV., page 229.

In the sixteenth century there was not much commerce between England and Scotland. The Low Countries, France, and the Baltic kingdoms, were the places where the Scots mostly traded. During the war between the two countries in the reign of Henry VIII., within a very short time, the English took twenty-eight trading ships from the Scots. In 1545 the treaty between the Emperor and Scotland touching the commerce of the Scots with Flanders was renewed; thus the Flemings were exempted from attacks of the Scottish ships commissioned for warfare. But difficulties arose between this country and Flanders, and several Scottish ships were detained there. It was stated in 1550 that “when our ships came to Flanders as to our friends for traffic of merchandise, after they had been well received, and were ready to depart, the whole fleet of fourteen ships, richly laden with Flemish wares, were taken, held, and disposed of, and the merchants imprisoned by the Emperor’s subjects.” The same year the Lords of Council had to interfere to protect the Scots from the ships of Holland and the Lowlands of Flanders, the subjects of the Emperor; they were daily committing enormities upon the Scots within the Firths and other places. As many of the Scottish war ships as could be put into a seaworthy state, were commissioned and instructed to proceed against them; they were commanded to take, and chase these pirates off the coasts and out of the waters of Scotland. But they were specially restricted from interfering with the ships of England, France, Denmark, Sweden, and Hamburg. It seems however that trade was not long interrupted between Scotland and Flanders. In 1552 the Lords of Council passed an act complaining that the flesh of the country was barrelled, packed, sold, and sent out of the kingdom to other countries, and especially to Flanders, which had caused a great dearth of meat at home whereby the people had been much hurt; and its exportation was therefore prohibited under the penalty of confiscation and death.¹ New regulations were passed by the Council in 1565 for the guidance of the Scotch Conservator in Flanders; these were very minute and bear upon the merchants as well as the Conservator, touching the hours of business and such matters as the following: “That no merchant when he has bought his goods should bring them home himself, but should employ others to carry his gear to his lodgings or his cellar like a merchant, under a fine of five shillings. That no merchant who buys his meat in the market should truss it home upon his sleeve or on the point of his knife, under the same fine. That no one should deal in merchandise unless he be honestly able like a merchant; and if he be not well dressed the Conservator should warn him to clothe himself better, and if he fail to do that, then the Conservator should take as much of his goods as will clothe him properly withal.”²

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 18, 40, 41,
92, 104, 127; Macpherson’s _Annals of Commerce_, Volume II.,
page 93.

² _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 332‒334.

Even in the latter part of the sixteenth century the foreign trade of Scotland was comparatively small. The exports were comprised within very narrow limits, but the imports were more varied. There were some very curious regulations imposed in connection with the exports, which strikingly brings before us the state of society and the character of the times. It was noticed that there were acts prohibiting the exportation of gold and silver; and there were other things which were allowed to be exported under limitations one year, while the next they were absolutely prohibited. A considerable quantity of salt was produced at the various salt works throughout the country, but the export of salt was only permitted under certain contingencies. The Council in 1573 passed an act stating that it was unlawful to export any salt until the whole people and the carriers to all the markets in the kingdom were supplied with a sufficient quantity of it, which had to be sold at the salt-pans for eight shillings the boll. Then whatever quantity of it remained after satisfying the people, was allowed to be exported to other countries. But the owners and carriers of it were obliged to buy six ounces of silver for every chalder of salt exported, and this silver had to be delivered to the master coiner within eight days after their return to Scotland, and for every ounce of which the owner of the salt was to receive from the master coiner thirty shillings. It was further provided, that in the event of the exporters of salt buying up the stipulated proportion of silver, and not buying it from abroad, the silver so bought should be forfeited to the crown, and the exporters of the salt condemned to pay a sum equivalent to the silver they should have brought from foreign parts. To ensure the fulfilment of this condition the custom officers were ordered not to give the exporters of salt a cocket, till they came to the coining-house and gave security to bring home the required quantity of silver.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume II., pages 264‒265,
290, 293; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volumes II.,
III.

This rather peculiar arrangement, which was contrary to acts of parliament, did not prove to be satisfactory. In 1574, the Lords of Council discharged the granting of licenses to export salt, on account of the exorbitant dearth of small salt at home. “As experience now teaches,” they said, “the granting of such licenses has been very prejudicial to the commonweal of the nation, as the conditions for furnishing and serving the people at the prices mentioned in the Acts of Parliament has in nowise been observed; but our sovereign lord’s subjects have been constrained to buy salt at exorbitant and unreasonable prices, and likely from day to day to rise to greater extortion, if timely remedy be not provided. Therefore all the licenses for exporting salt out of the kingdom were henceforward discharged.”¹ Three weeks after their lordships had passed this act, however, they granted a license to Robert Paterson, the master of the ship called “The Grace of God,” to export to Norway six chalders of salt for curing fish; and another to William Ker, the master of the “Swallow,” to export four chalders; and two burgesses of Edinburgh became sureties that the salt should not be converted to any other use. At this time the authorised price of salt was eight shillings per boll, but there were many complaints of parties selling it at a higher rate.² Only white salt was allowed to be exported in 1584; and the export of salt was prohibited in 1587; there was a duty on salt exported.

¹ _Ibid._, Volume II., pages 406‒407.

² _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume II., page 285;
Volumes III., IV. On the 30th of August, 1573, the owners
of thirty-eight salt-pans, of Preston and Musselburgh, gave
security to supply Scotsmen with salt at eight shillings the
boll.――_Ibid._, page 296.

Several other articles were dealt with in the same way. Licenses were now and again granted by the Lords of Council for exporting things which were prohibited by parliament. The exportation of coal was prohibited by Act of Parliament; but the Council, in 1573, resolved to grant licenses for exporting smithy-coal. In the same year, on the other hand, Walter Scott, in Dysart, became bound that the coals loaded in a ship of that port should not be exported;¹ the export of coal was forbidden in 1586, and in 1597. The trade of the country was carried on under the same changing and disturbing influences as its politics; and, so few of the resources of the country were as yet developed, and such restrictive and conflicting agencies were in operation that the merchants were greatly hampered. The regulations touching the export of lead were of the same varying character. Lead might be exported, but there was a royalty placed upon it; the exporter had to pay fifteen ounces of silver for every thousand stones of lead shipped.²

¹ _Ibid._, Volume I., page 340; Volume II., page 290, Volumes
IV. V.; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II.,
page 543.

² _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume II., pages 102, 507,
626.

Licenses were sometimes granted for exporting grain, but owing to bad harvests, and the frequent neglect of agriculture from war, it was often deemed necessary to prohibit the export of corn and wheat. There were frequently seasons of dearth, and many attempts to fix the price of grain were made. In September, 1567, the Regent and Council stated that the merchants and others had exported great quantities of grain, under the pretence of licenses granted “by the Queen’s grace, our Sovereign Lord’s dearest mother, to the great increase and dearth of the same; the corn of this year’s crop being at God’s pleasure plagued and spoiled with rain, and so in all appearance scarce enough to sustain the inhabitants of this country.” Therefore the Council resolved to revoke all such licenses, and ordered that no grain should be exported hereafter, under the penalty of the confiscation of the ship and her cargo. In 1574, the Regent and Council ordered the comptroller to ascertain the quantity of grain exported that year, by whom, and at what ports, and other points concerning it. The Council, in the winter of 1577, agreed to allow the free export of grain for the following reason: “In times of dearth this country has received large help and support of victuals out of France, Flanders, and England, whereby the people have been greatly relieved; and the like favour and good neighbourhood, charity, and amity ought to be extended towards the people of these countries in this present year, when it has pleased God to visit them with the like dearth and scarcity, and this realm with such increase and plenty of grain, as some part thereof may, without prejudice of the State, be spared to the relief of our neighbours’ necessities.”¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 402, 571,
572; Volume II., pages 252, 589.

Horses and cattle were occasionally exported, but Acts of Parliament and Council frequently prohibited this; and on the whole the regular export trade of Scotland was as yet very small. It consisted mostly of raw materials, such as hides, wool, and the like; but the imports were more varied, and comprised a variety of articles, and especially large quantities of wines. There were Acts of Parliament and Council which prohibited the importers of wines from selling any to the people till the king, bishops, earls, lords, and barons, were first well stocked.¹

¹ _Ibid._, Volume I., pages 282, 298, 191, 285, 402, 571‒572;
Volume II., pages 128‒129, 505, 515, 662, 675, 693; _Acts of
the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III.

The trade between the Highlands and Lowlands chiefly consisted of cattle and wood. The Highlanders had long been accustomed to bring their cattle to the Lowland markets; but sometimes parties in the Lowlands seized their flocks under the pretence that they were authorised by the Government, which was not the case. They brought the timber down the rivers in floats to the towns and sold it to the citizens.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 401,
470‒471; Volume II., pages 500‒501; _Burgh Records of
Aberdeen_, Volume II., page 33.

The internal trade of the country was still carried on, under the strict principle of monopoly. The price of manufactured articles and goods, as well as of food and provisions, was fixed by law and regulated by the local authorities. The guild or merchants openly insisted on their exclusive right of commerce, not only in foreign trade, but also within the burgh, and often over the county in which it was situated.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volumes II., III.,
IV.; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volumes I., II., III.

Among the many regulations fixing the supply and the price of provisions, perhaps those relating to the sale of ale and spirits are the most instructive. Ale had long been a beverage in common and daily use, and large quantities of it were consumed by all classes of the people. The Acts of Parliament and Council fixing the price of malt and ale were numerous; and the statutes and regulations of the burghs touching the supply and the price of these two necessaries were endless. In 1535 Parliament passed an Act stating that the inhabitants of Edinburgh and the people who frequented it were greatly oppressed by the maltmakers of Leith, and others in that neighbourhood, exacting four, five, and even six shillings more for the malt than they paid for the barley. It was therefore enacted that maltmakers should produce and sell their malt at a competent profit, and charge only two shillings more for the boll of malt than the current price of the boll of barley. “Those who disobey these acts, it was ordained, shall be called and punished as oppressors of the King’s subjects, and particular courts shall be set for them, and the King shall give commission to such as he pleases to call the offending maltmakers before them in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, to execute justice upon them as they may think fit, and to cause this statute to be observed in all points.”¹ In 1551 the Regent and the Lords of Council, taking into consideration the high prices of all kinds of victuals “whereby the poor were at the point of perishing,” issued a commission under the great seal to the provost of Edinburgh, authorising him to deal with all the maltmakers, maltsellers, bakers, and regraters, within a circle of four miles of Edinburgh; and to bring them to punishment according to the Acts of Parliament and the laws of the kingdom. When Queen Mary visited Jedburgh in October, 1566, it seems that the good citizens of that town raised the price of provisions. Whereupon her majesty called together her council and the authorities of the burgh, who passed an act fixing the price of everything during the stay of the court in that quarter. The pint of good ale was to be fourpence, and sixteen ounces of fine bread fourpence. The price of a man’s dinner, “being served with beef, mutton, and roast at the least, was sixteenpence. For the use of a furnished bed the charge was to be twelvepence each night; and for stabling to a horse for the space of twenty-four hours, twopence.”² In 1573 the price of ale was four shillings the gallon; in 1589 the pint of ale was eightpence; and from this time to the end of the century it ran from one shilling to one and fourpence the pint.³ In 1571 the magistrates of Edinburgh enacted that Dutch drinking beer should not be sold higher than sixpence the pint.

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., page 351;
_Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume II., pages 265‒266.

² _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 115,
488‒489.

³ _Ibid._, Volume II., page 269; _Burgh Records of Glasgow_,
pages 25, 137, 162, 172, 198, 214; _Burgh Records of
Edinburgh_, Volume III., page 284.

The price of wine varied during the first half of the sixteenth century, from sixpence the pint to one shilling and fourpence; but towards the end of the century, the price of it had nearly tripled. There is much evidence that large quantities of wine were consumed in Scotland. The members of the guild claimed the exclusive right to sell wine in all the burghs of the kingdom.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volumes II., pages
373, 376, 483; Volumes III., IV.; _Register of the Privy
Council_, Volume I., pages 128‒129, 212‒213, 425‒428, 451;
Volume II., pages 505, 662, 693; Volumes III., IV., V., VI.;
_Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume II., pages 114, 115,
120, 123, 125, 127, 132, 134, 144, _et seq._; Volume III.,
pages 29, 84, 132, 156, 191, 198, 224; _Burgh Records of
Glasgow_, pages 66, 82, 107, 184, 201; _Burgh Records of
Aberdeen_, Volume II., page 149.

Whisky was known, but as yet it was not much used among the people. In 1557, as noticed in a preceding page, Bessy Campbell was brought before the magistrates of Edinburgh, and ordered to cease from making whisky in the burgh, and from selling it, except on the market-day, according to the privilege granted to the barbers, under their seal of cause, unless she was permitted by them. The use of whisky, however, was gradually becoming more common. In 1579, Parliament passed an act restricting the making and selling of it. This Act opened with a statement that grain would be scarce that year, and yet great quantities of malt was consumed in the making of aquavitæ, which was the cause of the dearth of the malt. It was enacted therefore that no person, either in town or country, should brew or sell any whisky, from the 1st of December, 1579, to the 1st of October, 1580, under the penalty of the breaking of their brewing utensils, and the confiscation of their stock of spirits. But the nobles and men of rank were permitted to brew and distil whisky from their own malt, on their own premises, for the use of their own house, families, and friends.¹ This act is very characteristic of much of the subsequent legislation relating to the sale of whisky and spirits; but it is clear that whisky had not then the hold on the people which it afterwards obtained.

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume II., page 262; _Acts
of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., page 174;
_Register of the Privy Council_, Volume II., page 269.

There were many complaints that leather and shoes were so dear that the people were unable to buy them. In 1541, a number of the shoemakers of Aberdeen were convicted by a jury for making insufficient shoes, and for selling them above the legal price. The magistrates of Edinburgh, in 1563, fixed the price of boots and shoes as follows: “The pair of double-soled shoes of the largest size, well made and of good material, three shillings and eightpence; a pair of single-soled shoes of similar size, two shillings and eightpence; a pair of the finest double-soled boots, twenty-four shillings; a pair of single-soled boots, twenty shillings;” and so on in proportion for smaller sizes. The authorities of Aberdeen, in 1580, ordained that the price for shoeing the largest horses should be six shillings and eightpence, and the charge for the smaller horses and nags, four shillings.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., pages 453‒454;
Volume II., pages 38‒39; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_,
Volume III., page 155; _Register of the Privy Council_,
Volume I.

Complaints were often made against the craftsmen that their workmanship was insufficient, and their charges too high. Complaints of this description frequently came before Parliament and the Privy Council, and acts were from time to time passed fixing the price of manufactured goods and articles. But the craftsmen struggled hard, and by their organisations they became a considerable power in the burghs. Sometimes they were rather troublesome to the guilds. Amongst the craftsmen the spirit of monopoly was excessive. The trade disputes between Edinburgh and Leith, and between the Canongate and Edinburgh, were numerous and bitter. The different bodies of craftsmen sometimes manifested an extreme jealousy of each other, and of their exclusive privileges, which was unfavourable to the development of trade and to the acquisition of skill.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., page 142; Volume,
II., pages 33‒34, 220‒221, 260, 577‒579; _Burgh Records of
Edinburgh_; _Burgh Records of Glasgow_, pages 165‒166.

In 1562, the bonnetmakers of Edinburgh complained that various craftsmen, fleshers, wrights, shoemakers, and others, in the burgh, had enticed away their apprentices and servants, who were unfree persons, and had caused them to labour at kinds of work which belonged to their craft. The provost and council agreed that the bonnetmakers should be protected in their privileges and liberties; but they added, “That in case it pleased the goodness of God to give the gift to strangers and others resorting to this town to labour, and invent upon points a more perfect and finer fashion of hose, sleeves, gloves, and such like, than they themselves, their servants, or apprentices, could do, or has done, at any time before this, and that in such cases the said persons should not be stopped, nor the gifts of God smothered, provided always that nowhere they nor any others should be served by servants and apprentices who have had their beginning under the deacon and masters.”¹ This opinion of the Town Council was on the line which leads to improvement. In 1587, Parliament passed an act in favour of Flemish craftsmen――makers of serges, bedcovers, and other woollen fabrics belonging to their craft. They were to teach the Scots to make this class of goods, and the conditions of the bargain extended to twelve heads.²

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., page 148.

² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., pages
607‒609.

It was already observed that the reformed clergy had exerted themselves to extinguish some of the amusements of the people; and Parliament followed in the same track, and passed sumptuary enactments. In 1567, the Estates of the realm enacted that no women should adorn themselves with dress above what was appropriate to their rank, unless they were prostitutes. And Parliament, in 1581, passed an act touching dress, and another against superfluous banqueting, and the inordinate use of confectionery and drugs. The act on dress opened with a statement that there was great abuse among the common people, even of the meanest rank, inasmuch as they presumed to counterfeit the king and his nobility by their habit of wearing costly clothing of silk, and of all varieties: “Laine, cameraige, fringes, pasments of gold, of silver, of silk, and woollen cloth, brought from other countries; thus the price of these goods had been raised to such a dearth that this state of matters cannot be longer endured without great scath to the nation. Though God has granted to the kingdom sufficient commodities for clothing the people thereof within itself, if they were properly employed manufacturing them at home; and whereby great numbers of the people now wandering in beggary might be relieved, and the honesty and the wealth of the country greatly increased.” The Act prohibited all persons below the ranks of duke, earl, lord of parliament, knight, and landed gentlemen, and their wives and families, from wearing costly dresses. Minute provisions were made for carrying out the Act, and penalties were to be inflicted for its infringement. This Act also contained a clause prohibiting the exportation of wool, under the penalty of confiscation, the object of which was to give more employment to the people at home, and to confer a benefit on the nation. The act against the wearing of costly clothing was ratified in 1584, and ordered to be carried out with all rigour.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., pages 40,
220‒221, 354.

Parliament was equally anxious to put the people right in the matter of eating and drinking at marriages and baptisms. It was enacted that only bishops, earls, barons, and gentlemen who have two thousand marks of free yearly rent, or fifty chalders of grain after deducting all charges, should presume to have at their marriages and banquets, or on their tables for their daily fare, any drugs or confectionaries, brought from foreign countries. After the Reformation Acts of Parliament and Council were often passed forbidding the eating of flesh during Lent. On the 12th of February, 1562, the Lords of Council passed an Act prohibiting the eating of flesh from that date to the 29th of March, under the penalty of ten pounds for the first offence, twenty pounds for the second, and confiscation of all movable goods for the third. The Act proceeded on the ground that:――“In the spring of the year, called Lenten, all kinds of flesh decays and grows out of season, that it is not meet for eating; and also that by the tempestuous storms of the last and preceding winters, the whole stocks of cattle were so plagued, smothered and dead, that the price of flesh had risen to such extreme dearth that the like had not been within this realm; and if such dearth continued it will be to the great hurt of the commonweal.”¹ In 1567, Parliament, to save the nation from the harm entailed by the daily eating of flesh, enacted that the people should eat flesh only on four days of the week, under a penalty: and in 1568 the Lords of Council passed an act forbidding all classes to eat any flesh during Lent. It was ordered also that no fleshers, cooks, hostlers, nor tavern keepers, should slay or prepare any kind of flesh for sale during that time, under the penalty of the confiscation of their goods and the imprisonment of their persons, unless they had obtained a written license from the King upon reasonable consideration. During the time of the civil war, after the flight of Mary, the Lords of Council issued proclamations against the eating of flesh in Lent, but they were little heeded.² In 1584 it was again enacted, “because of the disorder amongst all ranks of the people by the licentious eating of flesh every day of the week, which besides producing other evils, was also the cause of the dearth of all meat.” It was then commanded that no one should presume hereafter to eat any kind of flesh on Wednesday, Friday, or Saturday, nor in the time of Lent, under the penalty of the confiscation of all their goods to the Crown. This act was again repeated in 1587 with some additions.³

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, page 221; _Register
of the Privy Council_, Volume I., page 200. The same year it
was stated: “Forasmuch as the tempest and storms of weather
fallen this last winter, the most part of the sheep of
Scotland are perished and dead, which causes the dearth
thereof so to increase that the poor cannot well abide the
same; and if the lambs be likewise wasted and consumed,
the dearth shall not only increase, but also the sheep of
the country shall so decay that few or none shall be left
therein, for the sustaining of the people of this kingdom.
For remedy thereof, it is statuted by the Queen’s Majesty,
with the advice of the Lords of Council, that no manner of
lambs be slain or eaten by any of the people of this realm
for the space of three years to come, under the penalty of
the confiscation of all the movable goods of the persons who
contravene this statute.”――_Register of the Privy Council_,
Volume I., pages 200‒201.

² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., pages 40;
_Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., page 611; Volume
II., pages 337, 431, 500, 593.

³ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., pages
353, 453.

After the Reformation several of the old amusements of the people were proscribed. This however need occasion no great regret, for with the spread of refinement and the progress of civilisation they would have died out of themselves. The citizens of Edinburgh had a pastime called “bickering,” and this word itself partly explains the character of the amusement. The bickering seems to have consisted of a company of people, mostly the young, who made a mock attack upon certain places, which however often ended in serious mischief. On the 11th of April, 1567, the Town Council of Edinburgh:――“ordered the bellman to pass through the town and discharge the bickerers, under the penalty of hanging those come to age, and the scourging of such as are not of age.”¹ The people were still in the habit of amusing themselves pretty freely. There were rude stage plays; the field games of golf, of football, and many others, which the humblest of the people enjoyed. Towards the end of the century parliament passed an act that enjoined Monday to be observed as a holiday for pastime and amusement, that every one in the nation might have one day in the week for their own enjoyment. The King himself had a fancy for rope-dancers, in the year 1600 James Melville records in his diary “that in Falkland, I saw a Frenchman play strange and incredible pranks upon stretched ropetakle in the Palace close, before the King, the Queen, and the whole Court.” In the accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, in August, 1600, the sum of £333 7 shillings 8 pence is entered as the payment of this rope-dancer, so it seems he was handsomely rewarded for his performance. In 1598 an English juggler, “played such supple tricks upon a rope, which was fastened between the top of St. Giles’s Kirk steeple and a stair beneath the cross, the like was never seen in this country, as he rode down the rope and played so many pavies on it.” For the performance of this trick the King ordered him to get twenty pounds.²

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., pages 229‒230.

² _Burgh Records of Glasgow_, page 193; _Burgh Records
of Aberdeen_, Volume II., pages 179, 180; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.; Melville’s _Diary_,
pages 17, 29, 30, 487.

The general influence of the Reformation on the social state of the people was in the main salutary and beneficial. It is true that some of the commons and tenants were in better circumstances under the Roman Catholic churchman than after the Reformation, and the fact is undeniable that many of the tenants of land were excessively oppressed by the nobles after that event.¹ The evidence adduced in this volume is sufficient to prove that the exertions of the reformed clergy to lighten the burdens of the people were not in vain; while the benefits of the revolution were far reaching and immense.

¹ Pinkerton’s _Ancient Scottish Poems_, Volume II., page 321;
1786.