History of Leith, Edinburgh

Click on image to enlarge
(c) John Arthur

Click on image to enlarge
(c) John Arthur

Click on image to enlarge
(c) John Arthur

Click on image to enlarge
(c) John Arthur

Translation-“This Collegiate Church was commenced
in the year of our Lord 1429, and that
same year Master Nicholas Bannachtyne
was provost of the said College, who,
lying here below, died in the year
147-. Commemoration of him and his
successors shall be celebrated and
observed on the 14th day of June
for which a yearly rent of £4 is set
apart from the lands of Kirk Cramond.
Pray for the Pope and for him.”

Click on image to enlarge
(c) John Arthur
Source-A.S.Cowper,Historic Corstorphine and Round About

Click on image to enlarge
Source-A.S.Cowper,Historic Corstorphine and Round About

Maitland tells us in his history that this hospital stood on the eastern side of the Kirkgate and at the south-west corner of the churchyard; that it was founded by the kirk session in the year 1614 and endowed with certain lands and tenements anciently belonging to the preceptory
of St. Anthony of the Knights Templars and the chapel of St. James. He mentions also that it was appropriated for the entertainment of aged women belonging to the crafts of maltmen, trades and traffickers, the number of the inmates seldom being greater than twelve, each of whom had a convenient apartment with fire and candles and a weekly pension for their subsistence.

This foundation being confirmed by a Charter of King James VI.. it received the appellation of King James’s Hospital. The situation of the hospital is well marked by the line of tombs in the Kirkgate, where it
stood until the year 1822. The first title dealing with the property is a Sasine which followed upon a charter of 1496 granted by Simeon
Logan to William Lauder and his spouse, wherein it is described as lying betwixt the kirkyard of the new kirk of the Blessed Virgin Mary in
Leith on the north, the lands of Simeon Logan on the south, the common way going up from Leith towards Edinburgh on the west, and the land of St. Christopher’s on the east parts. This is one of the earliest references to the Kirkgate, which probably became a roadway after South Leith church had been built for some time.
The part of Leith where houses were first erected was probably the area north of the Tolbooth Wynd and lying between the Rottenraw
and the Shore. This district used to be called the ” closets,” because of the narrowness of the passages, and it still is densely covered
with buildings. Outwith this area there were numerous mansion houses, Leith having been a fashionable place of residence since the days
of Mary of Guise, who built a house here, and whose example was followed by ” divers of the nobility, bishops and other persons of distinction of her party.” Maitland, writing in 1753, says that several of their houses then remained, ” as may be seen in sundry places by their
spacious rooms, lofty ceilings, large staircases, and private oratories or chapels for the celebration of Mass.”

The titles relating to the site of the hospital seem to have been numerous, and it is difficult to follow the various transactions, but they
hardly bear out what the histories tell us, viz., that the hospital was built in 1614. Some familiar names are met with, e.g., Robert Logan
of Restalrig (1559) ; James Logan of Craighouse (1559); Andrew Logan of Coatfield (1618); Bailie Alexander Uddert of Edinburgh (1573); John Balfour, Unicorn Pursevant (1559). In 1618 the kirk session made a contract to purchase the subjects in question from one Patrick Balfour for 900 merks. The lands were thereupon resigned in the hands of the town council of Edinburgh, the superiors thereof, upon which
a Charter was granted by the city to the kirk session, which declared that the subjects were conveyed for the use of the South Kirk of Leith,
and chiefly for the augmentation of the kirkyard thereof. Upon this Charter sasine followed on llth August 1618.

Another series of titles deals with a house near the kirk lying betwixt Balfour’s property on the south, the kirk style on the north, the kirk yard on the east, and the high street on the west. A charter of this property was granted by the kirk session to Henry Hall in 1598, which bears the signatures of the ministers, elders and deacons, with the seal of the kirk and session attached. This interesting title has
often been referred to, and a reproduction of the seal is given in the first volume of the Records. It is a fortunate circumstance that the original document with the seal, all in good condition, are now restored to the church. In 1619 James Hall reconveyed the property to the kirk session, in whose hands it has remained since that date.

The kirk session minutes of date 11th March 1736 refer to an enquiry made about that time into the superiorities of St. Anton’s and St. James and anent the King James Hospital, and a narrative detailing the result of this enquiry is appended to the register of that period. This narrative states that King James IV., having purchased from the Abbot and Convent of Holyroodhouse the superiority of Newhaven, consisting of 143 acres, in exchange for 112 acres of his own land at Linlithgow as per Charter dated 18th July 1505, did for the maintenance of the chaplain of St. James’s gift to him the whole annuals of the lands at Newhaven and gave an order on his bailie there to pay over the same, dated 2nd March 1508. Conform to this and other rights, the chaplains enjoyed the feus till the Reformation, and Mr John Balfour, chaplain at that time, did continue to enjoy the same long after. After his decease King James VI. made a presentation of the same to James Balfour in
Leith. In the year 1611 the session, being desired to build a hospital at Leith, purchased from the said James Balfour the whole benefice of
St. James, as appears from his resignation in the King’s hands dated 24th September 1611, and Instrument following thereon ; confirmed
in 1614 by the Golden Charter. The narrative proceeds to state that it does not appear by the records of the session in what year they did build the hospital or what the funds were out of which it was built, but it seems to have been done by the session’s money and from certain mortifications; and to have been built about the year 1620, as appears, by an inscription upon one of the windows of the hospital, and by a record of the Session, 23rd February 1626. In the Calendar of state papers mention is made about this time of a charter granted by King James for funding the hospital, the lands of St. Anton’s being directed to be used for this purpose. The only other support that appears to have been given by the King is the reversionary grant of the impost of £4 Scots per tun upon all wine vented in Leith after the
building of the kirk and steeple and plenishing it with bells, and after building the Tolbooth, as appears by the grant itself, dated 7th April
1613. The narrative refers to other endowments of the hospital, in particular the 5.5 acres of land in the east end of the Links (now Seafield Cemetery) mortified by Bishop Lamb ; and the 6 acres at Hillhousefield mortified by George Thomson, maltman, conjectured to be the person who was first master of the hospital. For many years not more than 5 or 6 old people were maintained in the hospital, but this number at the time of the narrative had increased to 13 persons chosen from the trades, malt-men and traffickers. The narrative conchides with a statement of the funds of the hospital, the last item of which is the impost on wine valued at £60.

South Leith Records-1925

John Pew. It will be remembered that this is the name of the blind pirate in ” Treasure Island.” His tombstone may be seen in the churchyard near to the Pilrig tomb, and no doubt Robert Louis
Stevenson, who belonged to the Pilrig family, got the name from this tombstone.

John Pew was a maltman in Leith, his place of business being at Bridgend, near to the Meikle brig. He was also a farmer at Laugh-at-
Leith, the name given to the farm lying between Hermitage Place and Lochend Road, so that he was, like John Gilpin, a citizen of credit and
renown. Several references to him occur in the Minutes printed in the first part of this volume. Before turning to the registers it may be said
that John was a thrawn person who quarrelled with everybody and spent a lot of time and money in litigation. The farmers in those days
had a court of their own called the Burlaw Court, and John was frequently accused before this Court of stealing his neighbours’ crops and lands. In the beginning of the 18th century there were no dykes and hedges as we have now, and the land of one farmer was divided
from the land of his neighbour by march stones. John was addicted to deeds of darkness, and under cloud of night he had a habit of shifting
these march stones and adding a rig here and a rig there to his farm. These were serious offences, and when his cup of iniquity was full, the Burlaw Court expelled him from membership, upon which he took them into the Court of Session and there maintained a guid ganging plea for
many years. We know also that he grazed his sheep on Leith Links; for which he had to pay a rent calculated on the number of his sheep,
and that he habitually grazed more animals than he paid for. He was one of those people who have a gift for quarrelling and being in trouble.
The case in the church registers began in March 1732 and engrossed the Kirk Session until the end of 1733. It was known as Wallace v.
Pew. and opens in a mysterious way by information being given to the Kirk Session that Jean Wallace, who was a servant to John Pew, had
concealed the birth of a child of which Pew was the father. Jean had disappeared before the hue and cry was raised, and a hunt was made
for her far and wide, which, for several months was unsuccessful. The Presbytery caused intimation that she was ” wanted ” to be made
from every pulpit within the bounds, and ultimately the Kirk Treasurer of Edinburgh ran her down in the Canongate and promptly hailed
her to South Leith where she was secured in the little prison belonging to the church called the Cantore. Then in July 1732 she was brought
face to face with the Kirk Session and made her judicial confession, after whicli she was released, being unable to find bail. It was John’s turn next, and when after various citations he consented to appear, it was only to deny everything that Jean had said about him. The Kirk Session now proceeded to take the evidence and this is recorded at great length and in great detail, the witnesses being sworn and purged of malice and partial counsel, and each signing his or her statement. There was a singular reluctance on the part of witnesses to appear, and suggestions that some of them had been bribed by John to stay away. Some of them denied that they had been cited, others
excused themselves because they had to attend to the harvest, and once John himself explained his absence because he was away at a funeral in the country. By slow stages the facts were being elucidated and the case was beginning to look rather ominous for John when an unexpected event happened which promised to end all the Session’s difficulties. On 28th December 1732, the register states ” This diet being principally intended for concluding the process concerning John Pew and Jean Wallace and they being called did not compear. But the
Reverend Mr John Shaw informed that John Pew came to him yesterday and acknowledged his guilt, and desired to be excused for not compearing this day and promised to compear and desired that no more witness be adduced in this affair.” It was not, however, until 8th February thereafter that John appeared, and in the interval he had given further thought to the subject, and indeed had changed his mind. The register reads: ” This day, John Pew being cited and called, compeared, and being examined, denied that ever he confessed guilt to the Rev. Mr John Shaw. Whereupon the Rev. Mr Shaw did interrogate him upon the following queries to which he answered as follows :—
” (1) Did you on such a day converse with me in my room \ Answered affirmatively.
” (2) Did you then desire to be excused from waiting on the Session next day because your affairs called you to be abroad 1 Answered
affirmatively.
” (3) Did you then desire that no more witnesses might be cited in your affair ? Answered negatively.
” (4) Did you then acknowledge your guilt in this affair ? Answered negatively.
” (5) Did your wife at your desire, or at least with your knowledge and consent, come to me some days before the above conference and acquaint me you had confessed your guilt to her ? Answered negatively that he neither knew of her coming to Mr Shaw nor did she tell him that she had said so to Mr Shaw.
” (6) Did you then upon my telling you that you behoved to be publicly censured, peremptorily declare that you would never submit but rather go over to another Communion
? Answered negatively.
” Being rebuked and seriously dealt with and exhorted to an ingenuous confession, he still denied ; being asked if he was free to swear
that he was innocent of guilt, he said he would not swear.”
The situation that now arose was a distressing one, especially for the minister, and in their perplexity the Kirk Session resolved to refer the case to the Presbytery, a course they
were in the hsbit of adopting when confronted with any unusual difficulty. Accordingly, the process and papers were transmitted to this new Court, and the case was investigated ab initio and new depositions taken. John Pew appeared before the reverend brethren of the Presbytery on several occasions and started a new defence
to the effect that one James Hay, a sailor, then in Amsterdam, had written a letter confessing that he was the father of Jean Wallace’s child. A diligent and prolonged search was made for this important piece of evidence, and ultimately it was discovered in the possession of a tailor in the Canongate who produced it at the eleventh hour. This person did not know James Hay or any person who did know James Hay, nor did lie know his handwriting, nor did he have any knowledge of the facts of the case, but he said the handwriting of this letter was
like the handwriting of another letter he had received from James Hay which unfortunately was now lost. This had the appearance of being
an artifice, but it sufficed to end the proceedings. The register states ” the Presbytery having considered the case and caused John Pew to be removed, they agreed that a narrative of the process be read out before the congregation of South Leith, and that thereafter the affair ly over till providence give further light thereon.” Accordingly the Session Clerk prepared a narrative, nothing extenuating nor setting down aught in malice ; this was revised and adjusted at two Session meetings and the Rev. John Shaw read it from the pulpit of South Leith after the morning service on the second Sunday of November 1733. when no doubt, there was a full congregation who listened to it attentively. Probably the parishioners preferred to believe their minister than the cantankerous and quarrelsome maltman. In one particular at
least the minister’s statement proved to be well founded, for John left the church and went over to the Episcopalians. In the ” Tales and
Traditions of Leith ” some extracts are given from the registers of baptisms of Bishop Forbes, one of which is as follows : ” 14th February
1748, Links of Leith, alias Laugh-at-Leith, I baptised a daughter named Mary to John Pew, farmer, his 4th and 20th child.” Three years
afterwards the birth is recorded of a posthumous child to this old patriarch, making in all 25 children of whom he was the father, without
reckoning the child who had been the cause of so much concern to our Kirk Session.

South Leith Record-1925