[5] The usual name for the village bellman throughout Scotland.
[6] Jockey had been guilty of an offence which, had he lived a century earlier, might have brought about imprisonment by the civil power, in addition to his seat on the ‘cock-stool.’ Even about the middle of last century the penalties were severe, and the disgrace was considered great. Feeling in the matter, however, seemed to be more prompted by a fear of consequences than by true morality. Dr. Rogers, in Scotland Social and Domestic, p. 311, thus explains the legal position of presbyteries and kirk-sessions in regard to such matters—‘At the Reformation, Presbyterian judicatories proceeded to occupy the position of Consistory Courts. They took cognisance of offences precisely similar, with the exception of such as “speaking evil of saints” and “the non-payment of offerings,” or those which bore direct reference to the Catholic faith. Under the Presbyterian system, the kirk-session exercised the functions of the Archdeacon’s Commissary, and Presbyterian Synods and the General Assembly formed an appellate jurisdiction similar to that which was exercised by the Archdeacons and Bishops and the Archbishops of St. Andrews.’
[7] The stool was placed in front of the pulpit, in full view of the congregation. In some parishes the culprits were allowed to sit, but in most cases they had to stand.
[8] The ‘sacken sark’ had a variety of names, such as ‘the harden gown,’ ‘the sack gown,’ ‘the harn gown,’ and ‘the linen.’ Each parish was supposed to have one of these habits: and in 1655 the sum of £4 4 6 Scots was expended by the kirk-session of Lesmahagow in the purchase of one. A specimen of the ‘sacken sark’ may be seen in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries in Edinburgh.
[9] A fine paid to the Kirk-Session, who distributed it, with the other moneys in their possession, among the poor of the parish. See the [second part] of The History of Buckhaven, where the culprit is made to pay ‘four pound and a groat,’ probably Scots money, equal to about seven shillings sterling.
[10] The following paragraph concludes the second part in modern editions:—‘Now Jockey and his mither went into the little byre and held a private meeting, nane present but auld Bruckie and the twa Brutes, the bits of couties, that she might give him counsel how to behave when he appeared before Mess John, to answer for his bastard; which concludes the third and last part.’ The ‘third and last part’ in these editions, however, fails to carry the story to its proper issue, and only gives a very summary account of Jockey on the cutty-stool.
[11] Ante-nuptial fornication—‘on the terms of marriage’—was lamentably common, but in such cases the law of the church, while duly put in force, was considerably relaxed in its severity, if marriage followed.
[12] The civil authorities were frequently called upon to give effect to church censures. In the seventeenth century sentence of excommunication practically carried with it all the pains of civil outlawry; but in 1690 an Act of the Estates abrogated the civil consequences of the sentence.
[13] Milled oats, or oats with the husks taken off.
[14] This is rather an original account of the rise and progress of the black-stool: but it would be difficult to say how far history supports it. In a chap-book printed in 1776 under the title of ‘An Account of the General Assembly’s Invention for the final Extirpation of the Black-stool of Repentance and the Sackcloth Gown out of the Kirk of Scotland: proposing a new and easy method of punishing sporting ladies,’ a similar account is given of the stool.