Topology, 2/E James Munkres

Visit to download the full and correct content document:

https://ebookmass.com/product/topology-2-e-james-munkres/
 Topology
Second Edition

James R. Munkres
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle NJ 07458

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Munkres, Jame8 R
Topology/James Raymond Munkres --2nd ed
p cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-13-181629-2
1 Topology I. Title.
QA61I P482 2000
514--dc2l 99-052942
CIP

Acquisitions Editor: George Lobell

Assistant Vice President of Production and Manufactunng David W Riccardi
Executive Managing Editor Kathleen Schiaparelli
Senior Managing Editor. Lrnda MihoIov Behrens
Production Editor Lynn M. Savino
Manufactunng Buyer. Alan Fischer
Manufactunng Manager. Trudy Pisciotti
Marketing Manager. Melody Marcus
Marketing Assistant Vuwe Jansen
Director of Marketing John
Editonal Assistant Gale Epps
Art Director Jayne Conte
Cover Designer Bruce Kensdaar
Composition MacroTeX Services

© 2000, 1975 by Prentice Hail, Inc.

Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

All ngbts reserved No part of this book may

be reproduced, in any form or by any means,
without permission in wnting from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of Amenca

10 9 8 7

ISBN 0—3.3—3.83.629—2

PRENTICE-HALL INTERNATEONAL (UK) LEMETED, LONDON

PRENTECE-HALL OF AUSTRALEA PrY LEMETED, SYDNEY
PRENTICE-HALL CANADA, INC , TORONTO
PRENTECE-HALL HESPANOAMERECANA, S A , MExICO
PRENTECE-HALL OF INDIA PREVATE LEMITED, NEW DELHE
PRENTECE-HALL OF JAPAN, INC , ToKYo
PEARSON EDUCATEON ASEA PTE LTD
EDETORA PRENTICE-HALL DO BRASEL, LTDA , RIO DE JANEERO
For Barbara
Contents

Preface xi
A Note to the Reader xv

Part I GENERAL TOPOLOGY

Chapter 1 Set Theory and Logic 3
1 Fundamental Concepts . 4
2 Functions 15
3 Relations 21
4 The Integers and the Real Numbers 30
5 Cartesian Products 36
6 Finite Sets 39
7 Countable and Uncountable Sets 44
*8 The Principle of Recursive Definition 52
9 Infinite Sets and the Axiom of Choice 57
10 Well-Ordered Sets 62
*11 The Maximum Principle . . . . . 68
Supplementary Exercises: Well-Ordering 72

vii
viii Contents

Chapter 2 Topological Spaces and Continuous Functions 75

12 Topological Spaces 75
13 Basis foraTopology 78
14 The OrderTopology 84
15 The Product Topology on X x Y 86
16 The Subspace Topology 88
17 Closed Sets and Limit Points 92
18 Continuous Functions 102
19 The ProductTopology 112
20 The Metric Topology 119
21 The Metric Topology (continued) 129
*22 The Quotient Topology 136
sSupplemental.y Exercises: Topological Groups . 145

Chapter 3 Connectedness and Compactness 147

23 Connected Spaces 148
24 Connected Subspaces of the Real Line 153
*25 Components and Local Connectedness . 159
26 Compact Spaces 163
27 Compact Subspaces of the Real Line 172
28 Limit Point Compactness 178
29 Local Compactness 182
sSupplemental.y Exercises: Nets 187

Chapter 4 Countability and Separation Axioms. 189

30 The Countability Axioms 190
31 The Separation Axioms 195
32 Normal Spaces 200
33 The Urysohn Lemma
34 The Urysohn Metrization Theorem 214
*35 The Tietze Extension Theorem 219
*36 Imbeddings of Manifolds 224
Exercises: Review of the Basics '228

Chapter 5 The Tychonoff Theorem 230

37 The Tychonoff Theorem 230
38 The Stone-tech Compactification . 237

Chapter 6 Metrization Theorems and Paracompactness 243

39 Local Finiteness 244
40 The Nagata-Smirnov Metrization Theorem 248
41 Paracompactness . 252
42 The Smirnov Metrization Theorem . 261
 Contents ix

Chapter 7 Complete Metric Spaces and Function Spaces 263

43 Complete Metnc Spaces 264
*44 A Space-Filling Curve 271
45 Compactness in Metric Spaces 275
46 Pointwise and Compact Convergence 281
47 Ascolis Theorem 290

Chapter 8 Baire Spaces and Dimension Theory 294

48 Baire Spaces 295
*49 A Nowhere-Differentiable Function 300
50 Introduction to Dimension Theory 304
Exercises: Locally Euclidean Spaces 316

Part II ALGEBRAIC TOPOLOGY

Chapter 9 The Fundamental Group 321
51 Homotopy of Paths 322
52 The Fundamental Group 330
53 Covering Spaces 335
54 The Fundamental Group of the Circle 341
55 Retractions and Fixed Points 348
*56 The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra 353
*57 The Borsuk-Ulam Theorem 356
58 Deformation Retracts and Homotopy Type 359
59 The Fundamental Group of S" 368
60 FundamentaL Groups of Some Surfaces

Chapter 10 Separation Theorems in the Plane 376

61 The Jordan Separation Theorem 376
*62 Invariance of Domain 381
63 The Jordan Curve Theorem 385
64 Imbedding Graphs in the Plane 394
65 The Winding Number of a Simple Closed Curve 398
66 The Cauchy Integral Formula 403

Chapter 11 The Kampen Theorem . 407

67 Direct Sums of Abelian Groups 407
68 Free Products of Groups 412
69 Free Groups 421
70 The Seifert-van Kampen Theorem 426
71 The Fundamental Group of a Wedge of Circles
72 Adjoining a Two-cell 438
73 The Fundamental Groups of the Torus and the Dunce Cap 442
x Contents

Chapter 12 Classification of Surfaces 446

74 Fundamental Groups of Surfaces 446
75 Homology of Surfaces 454
76 Cutting and Pasting 457
77 The Classification Theorem 462
78 Constructing Compact Surfaces 471

Chapter 13 Classification of Covering Spaces 477

79 Equivalence of Covering Spaces 478
80 The Universal Covering Space 484
*81 Covering Transformations 487
82 Existence of Covering Spaces 494
ssuppLementary Exercises: Topological Properties and 499

Chapter 14 Applications to Group Theory. 501

83 Covering Spaces of a Graph 501
84 The Fundamental Group of a Graph 506
85 Subgroups of Free Groups 513

Bibliography 517
Index 519
Preface

This book is intended as a text for a one- or two-semester introduction to topology, at

the senior or graduate level.
The subject of topoLogy is of interest in its own right, and it also serves to lay the
foundations for future study in analysis, in geometry, and in algebraic topology. There
is no universal agreement among mathematicians as to what a first course in topology
should include; there are many topics that are appropriate to such a course, and not all
are equally relevant to these differing purposes. In the choice of material to be treated,
I have tried to strike a balance among the various points of view.
Prerequisites. There are no formal subject matter prerequisites for studying most of
this book. I do not even assume the reader knows much set theory. Having said that,
I must hasten to add that unless the reader has studied a bit of anaLysis or "rigorous
calculus:' much of the motivation for the concepts introduced in the first part of the
book will be missing. Things will go more smoothly if he or she already has had some
experience with continuous functions, open and closed sets, metric spaces. and the
like, although none of these actually assumed. In Part II, we do assume familiarity
with the elements of group theory.
Most students in a topology courst have, in my experience, some knowledge of
the foundations of mathematics. But the amount varies a great deal from one student
to another. Therefore, I begin with a fairly thorough chapter on set theory and logic. It
starts at an elementary level and works up to a level that might be described as "semi-
sophisticated." It treats those topics (and only those) that will be needed later in the
book. Most students will already be familiar with the material of the first few sections,
but many of them will find their expertise disappearing somewhere about the middle

xi
xii Preface

of the chapter. How much time and effort the instructor 11 need to spend on this
chapter wilL thus depend Largely on the mathematical sophistication and experience of
the students. Ability to do the exercises fairly readily (and correctly!) should serve as
a reasonable criterion for determining whether the student's mastery of set theory is
sufficient for the student to begin the study of topology.
Many students (and instructors!) would prefer to skip the foundational material
of Chapter 1 and jump right in to the study of topology. One ignores the foundations,
however, only at the risk of later confusion and error. What one can do is to treat
initially only those sections that are needed at once, postponing the remainder until
they are needed. The first seven sections (through countability) are needed throughout
the book; I usually assign some of them as reading and lecture on the rest. Sections 9
and 10, on the axiom of choice and well-ordering, are not needed until the discussion
of compactness in Chapter 3. Section 11, on the maximum principle, can be postponed
even longer; it is needed only for the Tychonoff theorem (Chapter 5) and the theorem
on the fundamental group of a linear graph (Chapter 14).
How the book is organized. This book can be used for a number of different courses.
I have attempted to organize as flexibly as possible. so as to enabLe the instructor to
follow his or her own preferences in the matter.
Part I, consisting of the first eight chapters, is devoted to the subject commonly
called general topology. The first four chapters deal with the body of material that,
in my opinion, should be included in any introductory topology course worthy of the
name. This may be considered the "irreducible core" of the subject, treating as it does
set theory, topological spaces, connectedness, compactness (through compactness of
finite products), and the countability and separation axioms (through the Urysohn
metrization theorem). The remaining four chapters of Part I explore additional topics;
they are essentially independent of one another, depending on only the core material
of Chapters 1-4. The instructor may take them up in any order he or she chooses.
Part II constitutes an introduction to the subject of Algebraic Topology. It depends
on only the core material of Chapters 1—4. This part of the book treats with some
thoroughness the notions of fundamental group and covering space, along with their
many and varied applications. Some of the chapters of Part II are independent of one
another; the dependence among them is expressed iii the foLlowing diagram:

Chapter 9 The Fundamental Group

Chapter 10 Separation Theorems in the PLane

Chapter 11 The Seifert-van Kampen Theorem

Chapter 12 Classification of Surfaces

Chapter 13 Classification of Covering Spaces

Chapter 14 Applications to Group Theory

 Prefac-e xiii

Certain sections of the book are marked with an asterisk; these sections may be
omitted or postponed with no loss of continuity. Certain theorems are marked sim-
ilarly. Any dependence of later material on these asterisked sections or theorems is
indicated at the time, and again when the results are needed. Some of the exercises
also depend on earlier asterisked material, but in such cases the dependence is obvious.
Sets of supplementary exercises appear at the ends of several of the chapters. They
provide an opportunity for exploration of topics that diverge somewhat from the main
thrust of the book; an ambitious student might use one as a basis for an independent
paper or research project. Most are fairly self-contained, but the one on topological
groups has as a sequel a number of additional exercises on the topic that appear in later
sections of the book.

Possible course outlines. Most instructors who use this text for a course in general
topology will wish to cover Chapters 1—4, along with the theorem in Chap-
ter 5. Many will cover additional topics as well. Possibilities include the following:
the Stone-tech compactification metrization theorems (Chapter 6), the Peano
curve Ascoli's theorem and/or §47), and dimension theory I have,
in different semesters, followed each of these options.
For a one-semester course in algebraic topology, one can expect to cover most of
Part H.
It is also possible to treat both aspects of topology in a single semester, although
with some corresponding loss of depth. One feasible outline for such a course would
consist of Chapters 1—3, followed by Chapter 9; the latter does not depend on the
material of Chapter 4. (The non-asterisked sections of Chapters 10 and 13 also are
independent of Chapter 4.)

Comments on this edition. The reader who is familiar with the first edition of this
book will find no substantial changes in the part of the book dealing with general
topology. I have confined myself largely to "fine-tuning" the text material and the
exercises. However, the final chapter of the first edition, which dealt with algebraic
topology, has been substantially expanded and rewritten. It has become Part II of this
book. In the years since the first edition appeared, it has become increasingly common
to offer topology as a two-term course, the first devoted to general topology and the
second to algebraic topology. By expanding the treatment of the latter subject, I have
intended to make this revision serve the needs of such a course.

Acknowledgments. Most of the topologists with whom I have studied, or whose

books I have read, have contributed in one way or another to this book; I mention
only Edwin Moise, Raymond Wilder, Gail Young, and Raoul Bott, but there are many
others. For their helpful comments concerning this book, my thanks to Ken Brown,
Russ McMillan, Robert Mosher, and John Hemperly, and to my colleagues George
Whitehead and Kenneth Hoffman.
The treatment of algebraic topology has been substantially influenced by the excel-
lent book by William Massey EM], to whom I express appreciation. Finally, thanks are
xiv Preface

due Adam Lewenberg of MacroTeX for his extraordinary skill and patience in setting
text and juggling figures.
But most of aLl, to my students go my most heartfelt thanks. From them I learned
at least as much as they did from me; without them this book would be very different.
JR.M.
A Note to the Reader

Two matters require comment—the exercises and the examples.

Working problems is a crucial part of learning mathematics. No one can learn
topology merely by poring over the definitions, theorems, and examples that are worked
out in the text. One must work part of it out for oneself. To provide that opportunity is
the purpose of the exercises.
They vary in difficulty, with the easier ones usually given first. Some are routine
verifications designed to test whether you have understood the defInitions or examples
of the preceding section. Others are less routine You may, for instance, be asked to
generalize a theorem of the text. Although the result obtained may be interesting in its
own right, the main purpose of such an exercise is to encourage you to work carefully
through the proof in question, mastering its ideas thoroughly—more thoroughly (I
hope!) than mere memorization would demand.
Some exercises are phrased in an "open-ended" fashion Students often fInd this
practice frustrating. When faced with an exercise that asks, "Is every regular Lindelöf
space normal?" they respond in exasperation, "I don't know what I'm supposed to do!
Am I suppose to prove it or find a counterexarnple or what?" But mathematics (outside
textbooks) is usually like this. More often than not, all a mathematician has to work
with is a conjecture or question, and he or she doesn't know what the correct answer
is. You should have some experience with this situation.
A few exercises that are more difficult than the rest are marked with asterisks. But
none are so difficult but that the best student in my class can usually solve them.

xv
xvi A Note to the Reader

Another important part of mastering any mathematical subject is acquiring a reper-

toire of usefuL examples. One should, of course, come to know those major examples
from whose study the theory itself derives, and to which the important applications
are made. But one should aLso have a few counterexampLes at hand with which to test
plausible conjectures.
Now it is all too easy in studying topology to spend too much time dealing with
"weird counterexamples." Constructing them requires ingenuity and is often great
fun. But they are not really what topology is about. Fortunately, one does not need
too many such counterexamples for a first course; there is a fairly short list that will
suffice for most purposes. Let me give it here:

the product of the real line with itself, in the product, uniform, and box topolo-
gies.

Re the reaL line in the topology having the intervals [a, b) as a basis.

Sc2 the minimal uncountable well-ordered set.

the closed unit square in the dictionary order topology.

These are the examples you should master and remember; they will be exploited
again and again.
Part I
GENERAL TOPOLOGY
Chapter 1

Set Theory and Logic

We adopt, as most mathematicians do, the naive point of view regarding set theory.
We shall assume that what is meant by a set of objects i5 intuitively clear, and we shall
proceed on that basis without analyzing the concept further. Such an analysis properly
belongs to the foundations of mathematics and to mathematfcal logEc, and it is not our
purpose to initiate the study of those fields.
Logicians have analyzed set theory in great detail, and they have formulated ax-
ioms for the subject. Each of their axioms expresses a property of sets that mathe-
maticians commonly accept, and collectively the axioms provide a foundation broad
enough and strong enough that the rest of mathematfcs can be built on them.
It is unfortunately true that careless use of set theory, relying on intuition alone,
can lead to contradictions. Indeed, one of the reasons for the axiomatization of set
theory was to formulate rules for dealing with sets that would avoid these contradic-
tions. Although we shall not deal with the axioms explicitly, the rules we follow in
dealing with sets derive from them. In this book, you will learn how to deal with sets
in an "apprentice" fashion, by observing how we handle them and by working with
them yourself. At some point of your studies, you may wish to study set theory more
carefully and in greater detail; then a course in logic or foundations will be in order.

3
4 Set Theory and Logic Ch. 1

§1 Fundamental Concepts
Here we introduce the ideas of set theory, and establish the basic terminology and
notation. We also discuss some points of elementary logic that, in our experience, are
apt to cause confusion.

Basic Notation
Commonly we shall use capital letters A, B,... to denote sets, and lowercase letters
a, b, ... to denote the objects or elements belonging to these sets. If an object a
belongs to a set A, we express this fact by the notation

a E A.
If a does not belong to A, we express this fact by writing

a A.

The equality symbol = is used throughout this book to mean logical identity. Thus,
when we write a = b, we mean that "a" and "b" are symbols for the same object. This
is what one means in arithmetic, for example, when one writes = Similarly, the
equation A = B states that "A" and "B" are symboLs for the same set; that is, A and B
consist of precisely the same objects.
If a and b are different objects, we write a b; and if A and B are different sets,
we write A B. For example, if A is the set of all nonnegative real numbers, and B
is the set of all positive real numbers, then A B, because the number 0 belongs to A
and not to B.
We say that A is a subset of B if every element of A is also an element of B; and
we express this fact by writing

A C B.

Nothing in this definition requires A to be different from B; in fact, if A = B, it is true

that both A c B and B c A. If A C B and A is different from B, we say that A is a
proper subset of B, and we write

Aç B.

The relations c and ç are called inclusion and proper inclusion, respectively. If
A C B, we also write B A, which is read "B contains A."
How does one go about specifying a set? If the set has only a few elements, one
can simply list the objects in the set, writing "A is the set consisting of the elements a,
b, and c." In symbols, this statement becomes

A =(a,b,c),
where braces are used to enclose the list of eLements.
§1 Fundamental Concepts 5

The usual way to specify a set, however, is to take some set A of objects and some
property that elements of A may or may not possess, and to form the set consistfng
of all elements of A having that property. For instance, one might take the set of
real numbers and form the subset B consisting of all even integers. In symbols, this
statement becomes

B= {x I
x is an even integer).

Here the braces stand for the words "the set of," and the vertical bar stands for the
words "such that." The equation is read "B is the set of all x such that x an even
integer."

The Union of Sets and the Meaning of "or"

Given two sets A and B, one can form a set from them that consists of all the elements
of A together with all the elements of B. This set is called the union of A and B and
is denoted by A U B. Formally, we define

AU B = {x I
x E A orx E B).

But we must pause at this point and make sure exactly what we mean by the statement
"x E A orx E B."
In ordinary everyday English, the word "or" is ambiguous. Sometimes the state-
ment "P or Q" means "P or Q, or both" and sometimes it means "P or Q, but not
both." Usually one decides from the context which meaning is intended. For example,
suppose I spoke to two students as follows:

"Miss Smith, every student registered for this course has taken either a course in
linear algebra or a course rn analysis."
"Mr. Jones, either you get a grade of at least 70 on the final exam or you will flunk
this course"

In the context, Miss Smith knows perfectly well that I mean "everyone has had linear
algebra or analysis, or both:' and Mr. Jones knows I mean "either he gets at least 70
or he flunks, but not both." Indeed, Mr. Jones wouLd be exceedingly unhappy if both
statements turned out to be true!
In mathematics, one cannot tolerate such ambiguity. One has to pick just one
meaning and stick with it, or confusion will reign. Accordingly, mathematicians have
agreed that they will use the word "or" in the first sense, so that the statement "P or Q"
always means "P or Q, or both." If one means "P or Q, but not both," then one has to
include the phrase "but not both" explicitly.
With this understanding, the equation defining A U B is unambiguous; it states that
A U B is the set consisting of all elements x that belong to A or to B or to both.
6 Set Theory and Logic Ch. 1

The Intersection of Sets, the Empty Set, and the Meaning of "If... Then"
Given sets A and B, another way one can form a set is to take the common part of A
and B. This set is called the intersection of A and B and is denoted by AflB. Formally,
we define

A flB —{x xE Aandx E B).

But just as with the definition of A U B, there is a difficulty. The difficulty is not in the
meaning of the word "and"; it is of a different sort. It arises when the sets A and B
happen to have no elements in common. What meaning does the symbol A fl B have
in such a case?
To take care of this eventuality, we make a special convention. We introduce a
special set that we call the empty set, denoted by 0, which we think of as "the set
having no elements."
Using this convention, we express the statement that A and B have no elements in
common by the equation

Afl B = e.
We also express this fact by saying that A and B are disjoint.
Now some students are bothered by the notion of an "empty set." "How," they say,
"can you have a set with nothing in it?" The problem is similar to that which arose
many years ago when the number 0 was first introduced.
The empty set is only a convention, and mathematics could very well get along
without it. But it is a very convenient convention, for it saves us a good deal of
awkwardness in stating theorems and in proving them. Without this convention, for
instance, one would have to prove that the two sets A and B do have elements in
common before one could use the notation A fl B. Similarly, the notation

C= {x I
x E A and x has a certain property)

could not be used if it happened that no element x of A had the given property. It is
much more convenient to agree that A fl B and C equal the empty set in such cases.
Since the empty set 0 is merely a convention, we must make conventions relating
it to the concepts already introduced. Because 0 is thought of as "the set with no
elements," it is clear we should make the convention that for each object x, the relation
x E 0 does not hold. Similarly, the definitions of union and intersection show that for
every set A we should have the equations

AUO=A and AflO=0.

The inclusion relation is a bit more tricky. Given a set A, should we agree that
0 C A? Once more, we must be careful about the way mathematicians use the English
language. The expression 0 C A is a shorthand way of writing the sentence, "Every
element that belongs to the empty set also belongs to the set A ." Or to put it more
§1 Fundamental Concepts 7

formally, "For every object x, if x belongs to the empty set, then x also belongs to the
set A."
Is this statement true or not? Some might say "yes" and others say 'no." You
will never settle the question by argument, only by agreement. This is a statement of
the form "If P, then Q," and in everyday English the meaning of the "if... then'
construction is ambiguous. It always means that if P is true, then Q is true also.
Sometimes that is all it means; other times it means something more: that if P is false,
Q must be false. Usually one decides from the context which interpretation is correct.
The situation is similar to the ambiguity in the use of the word "or." One can refor-
mulate the examples involving Miss Smith and Mr. Jones to illustrate the anibiguity.
Suppose I said the following:

"Miss Smith, if any student registered for this course has not taken a course in
linear algebra. then he has taken a course in analysis."

"Mr. Jones, if you get a grade below 70 on the final, you are going to flunk this
course."

In the context, Miss Smith understands that if a student in the course has not had linear
algebra, then he has taken analysis, but if he has had linear algebra, he may or may not
have taken analysis as well. And Mr. Jones knows that if he gets a grade below 70, he
will flunk the course, but he gets a grade of at least 70, he will pass.
Again, mathematics cannot tolerate ambiguity, so a choice of meanings must be
made. Mathematicians have agreed always to use "if... then" in the first sense, so
that a statement of the form "If P. then Q" means that if P is true, Q is true also, but
if P is false, Q may be either true or false.
As an example, consider the following statement about real numbers:

If x > 0. then x3 0.

It is a statement of the form, "If P, then Q," where P is the phrase "x > 0" (called
the hypothesis of the statement) and Q is the phrase "x3 0" (called the conclusion
of the statement). This is a true statement, for in every case for which the hypothesis
x > 0 holds, the conclusion x3 0 holds as well.
Another true statement about real numbers is the following:

If x2 <0, then x = 23;

in every case for which the hypothesis holds, the conclusion holds as well. Of course,
it happens in this example that there are no cases for which the hypothesis holds. A
statement of this sort is sometimes said to be vacuously true.
To return now to the empty set and inclusion, we see that the inclusion 0 C A
does hold for every set A. Writing 0 C A is the same as saying, "If x E 0, then
x E A?' and this statement is vacuously true.
8 Set Theory and Logic Ch. 1

Contrapositive and Converse

Our discussion of the "if... then" construction leads us to consider another point of
elementary logic that sometimes causes difficulty. It concerns the relation between a
statement, its contrapositive, and its converse.
Given a statement of the form "If P, then Q," its contrapositive is defined to be
the statement "If Q is not true, then P is not true." For example, the contrapositive of
the statement
if x > 0, then x3 0,

is the statement
If x3 = 0, then it is not true that x > 0.

Note that both the statement and its contrapositive are true. Similarly, the statement
If x2 <0. then x = 23,

has as its contrapositive the statement

If x 23, then it is not true that x2 <0.
Again, both are true statements about real numbers.
These examples may make you suspect that there is some relation between a state-
ment and its contrapositive. And indeed there is; they are two ways of saying precisely
the same thing. Each is true if and only if the other is true; they are logically
lent.
This fact is not hard to demonstrate. Let us introduce some notation first. As a
shorthand for the statement "If P, then Q' we write
P Q,
which is read "P implies Q." The contrapositive can then be expressed in the form

(not Q) . (not P),

where "not Q" stands for the phrase "Q is not true."
Now the only way in which the statement "P Q" can fail to be correct is if the
hypothesis P is true and the conclusion Q is false. Otherwise it is correct. Similarly,
the only way in which the statement (not Q) (not P) can fail to be correct is if
the hypothesis "not Q" is true and the conclusion "not P" is false. This is the same
as saying that Q is false and P is true. And this, in turn, is precisely the situation in
which P Q fails to be correct. Thus, we see that the two statements are either both
correct or both incorrect; they are logically equivalent. Therefore, we shaLl accept a
proof of the statement "not Q not P" as a proof of the statement "P Q."
There is another statement that can be formed from the statement P Q. It is
the statement

Q . P,
§1 Fundamental Concepts 9

which is called the converse of P Q. One must be careful to distinguish between a

statement's converse and its contrapositive. Whereas a statement and its contrapositive
are logically equivalent, the truth of a statement says nothing at all about the truth or
falsity of its converse. For example, the true statement

If x > 0, then x3 0,

has as its converse the statement

If x3 0, then x > 0,

which is false. Similarly, the true statement

If x2 <0, then x = 23,

has as its converse the statement

If x = 23, then

which is false.
If it should happen that both the statement P Q and its converse Q P are
true, we express this fact by the notation

P Q,

which is read "P holds if and only if Q holds."

Negation
If one wishes to form the contrapositive of the statement P Q, one has to know
how to form the statement "not P," which is called the negation of P. In many cases,
this causes no difficulty; but sometimes confusion occurs with statements involving the
phrases "for every" and "for at least one." These phrases are called logical quantifiers.
To illustrate, suppose that X is a set, A is a subset of X, and P is a statement about
the general element of X. Consider the following statement:
(*) For every x E A, statement P holds.

How does one form the negation of this statement? Let us translate the problem into
the language of sets. Suppose that we let B denote the set of all those elements x
of X for which P holds. Then statement (*) is just the statement that A is a subset
of B. What is its negation? Obviously, the statement that A is not a subset of B; that
is, the statement that there exists at least one element of A that does not belong to B.
Translating back into ordinary language, this becomes

For at least one x E A, statement P does not hold

Therefore, to form the negation of statement (*), one replaces the quantifier "for every"
by the quantifier "for at least one," and one replaces statement P by its negation.
10 Set Theory and Logic Ch. 1

The process works in reverse just as well; the negation of the statement

For at least one x E A, statement Q holds,

is the statement

For every x E A, statement Q does not hold.

The Difference of Two Sets

We return now to our discussion of sets. There is one other operation on sets that is
occasionally useful. It is the difference of two sets, denoted by A — B, and defined as
the set consisting of those elements of A that are not in B. Formally,

A— B ={x xE A andx B).

It is sometimes called the complement of B relative to A, or the complement of B in A.

Our three set operations are represented schematically in Figure 1.1.

Al

Figure 1.1

Rules of Set Theory

Given several sets, one may form new sets by applying the set-theoretic operations to
them. As in algebra, one uses parentheses to indicate in what order the operations are
to be performed. For example, A U (B fl C) denotes the union of the two sets A and
B fl C, while (A U B) fl C denotes the intersection of the two sets A U B and C. The
sets thus formed are quite different, as Figure 1.2 shows.

Figure 1.2
§1 Fundamental Concepts ii

Sometimes different combinations of operations lead to the same set; when that
happens, one has a rule of set theory. For instance, it is true that for any sets A, B,
and C the equation

Afl(BUC) = (Afl B)U(AflC)

holds. The equation is illustrated in Figure 1.3; the shaded region represents the set in
question, as you can check mentally. This equation can be thought of as a "distributive
law" for the operations fl and U.

Figure 1.3

Other examples of set-theoretic rules include the second "distributive law,"

AU (BflC) = (A U B) fl (A UC),

and DeMorgan 's laws,

A —(BUC)=(A — B)fl(A —C),

A —(BflC)=(A —B)U(A —C).
We leave it to you to check these rules. One can state other rules of set theory, but
these are the most important ones. DeMorgan's laws are easier to remember if you
verbalize them as follows:

The complement of the union equals the intersection of the complements.

The complement of the intersection equals the union of the complements.

Collections of Sets
The objects belonging to a set may be of any sort. One can consider the set of all even
integers, and the set of all blue-eyed people in Nebraska, and the set of all decks of
playing cards in the world. Some of these are of limited mathematical interest, we
admit! But the third example illustrates a point we have not yet mentioned: namely,
that the objects belonging to a set may themselves be sets. For a deck of cards is itself
a set, one consisting of pieces of pasteboard with certain standard designs printed on
them. The set of all decks of cards in the world is thus a set whose elements are
themselves sets (of pieces of pasteboard).
12 Set Theory and Logic Ch. 1

We now have another way to form new sets from old ones. Given a set A, we can
consider sets whose elements are subsets of A. In particular, we can consider the set
of all subsets of A. This set is sometimes denoted by the symbol and is called
the power set of A (for reasons to be explained later).
When we have a set whose elements are sets, we shall often refer to it as a collec-
tion of sets and denote it by a script letter such as A or £. This device will help us
in keeping things straight in arguments where we have to consider objects, and sets of
objects, and collections of sets of objects, all at the same time. For example, we might
use A to denote the collection of all decks of cards in the world, letting an ordinary
capital letter A denote a deck of cards and a lowercase letter a denote a single playing
card.
A certain amount of care with notation is needed at this point. We make a distinc-
tion between the object a, which is an element of a set A, and the one-element set {a},
which is a subset of A. To illustrate, if A is the set {a, b, c), then the statements
aEA, {a)CA, and
(a) E A a A

and Intersections
We have already defined what we mean by the union and the intersection of two sets.
There is no reason to limit ourselves to just two sets, for we can just as well form the
union and intersection of arbitrarily many sets.
Given a collection A of sets, the union of the elements of A is defined by the
equation

U A = {x I
x E A for at least one A E A).

The intersection of the elements of A is defined by the equation

fl A
A€A
= {x I
x E A forevery A A).

There is no problem with these definitions if one of the elements of A happens to be

the empty set. But it is a bit tricky to decide what (if anything) these definitions mean
if we allow A to be the empty collection. Applying the definitions literally, we see that
no element x satisfies the defining property for the union of the elements of A. So it is
reasonable to say that

U A =0
A€A

if A is empty On the other hand, every x satisfies (vacuously) the defining property for
the intersection of the elements of A. The question is, every x in what set? If one has a
given large set X that is specifIed at the outset of the discussion to be one's "universe of
discourse," and one considers only subsets of X throughout, it is reasonable to let
flA=x
A€A
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
most nations, and particularly the English and Spanish, was
repudiated by this remarkable Scotsman; he proposed, on some
suitable situation in Central America, to open a trade to all the world;
he called on his countrymen not to try to enrich themselves by
making or keeping other nations poor, but by taking the lead in a
more generous system which should contemplate the good of all. He
himself embarked the few thousand pounds which he possessed in
the undertaking, and his whole conduct throughout its history
exhibits him not merely as a man of sound judgment and reflection,
but one superior to all sordid considerations.
For the further progress of the Company, the reader must be
referred onward to July 1698, when the first 1695.
expedition sailed from Leith.

Further to improve the system of correspondence throughout the

kingdom, the parliament passed an act for establishing a General
Post-office in Edinburgh, under a postmaster-general, who was to
have the exclusive privilege of receiving and despatching letters, it
being only allowed that carriers should undertake that business on
lines where there was no regular post, and until such should be
established. The rates were fixed at 2s. Scots for a single letter within
fifty Scottish miles, and for greater distances in proportion. It was
also ordained that there should be a weekly post to Ireland, by means
of a packet at Portpatrick, the expense of which was to be charged on
the Scottish office. By the same law, the postmaster-general and his
deputies were to have posts, and furnish post-horses along all the
chief roads ‘to all persons,’ ‘at 3s. Scots for ilk horse-hire for postage
for every Scots mile,’ including the use of furniture and a guide.[149] It
would appear that, on this footing, the Post-office in Scotland was
not a gainful concern, for in 1698 Sir Robert Sinclair of Stevenston
had a grant of the entire revenue, with a pension of £300 sterling per
annum, under the obligation to keep up the posts, and after a little
while gave up the charge, as finding it disadvantageous.[150]
It is to be observed that this post-system for Scotland was provided
with but one centre—namely, the capital. Letters coming from
London for Glasgow arrived in Edinburgh in the first place, and were
thence despatched westwards at such times as might be convenient.
At one time, the letters were detained twelve hours in Edinburgh
before being despatched to Glasgow! It seems at present scarcely
credible that, until the establishment of Palmer’s mail-coaches in
1788, the letters from London to Glasgow passed by this circuitous
route, and not by a direct one, although the western city had by that
time a population of fifty thousand, and was the seat of great
commercial and manufacturing industry.

Glasgow—which in 1556 stood eleventh in July.

the roll of the Scottish burghs, contributing
but £202, while Edinburgh afforded £2650—appears, in the list now
made up for a monthly cess to defray the expenses of the war, as
second, Edinburgh giving £3880; Glasgow, £1800; Aberdeen, £726;
Dundee, £560; Perth, £360; Kirkcaldy, 1695.
£288, &c. ‘To account for this comparative
superiority of the wealth of Glasgow at this time, I must take notice
that since before the Restoration the inhabitants had been in
possession of the sale of both refined and raw sugars for the greater
part of Scotland; they had a privilege of distilling spirits from their
molasses, free from all duty and excise; the herring-fishery was also
carried on to what was, at that time, thought a considerable extent;
they were the only people in Scotland who made soap; and they sent
annually some hides, linen, &c., to Bristol, from whence they brought
back, in return, a little tobacco—which they manufactured into snuff
and otherwise—sugars, and goods of the manufacture of England,
with which they supplied a considerable part of the whole
kingdom.’—Gibson’s History of Glasgow, 1777.
It is probable that the population did not then exceed twelve
thousand; yet the seeds of that wonderful system of industry, which
now makes Glasgow so interesting a study to every liberal onlooker,
were already sown, and, even before the extension of English
mercantile privileges to Scotland at the Union, there was a face of
business about the place—a preparation of power and aptitude for
what was in time to come. This cannot be better illustrated than by a
few entries in the Privy Council Record regarding the fresh industrial
enterprises which were from time to time arising in the west.
December 21, 1699.—A copartnery, consisting of William Cochran
of Ochiltree, John Alexander of Blackhouse, and Mr William Dunlop,
Principal of the University of Glasgow, with Andrew Cathcart, James
Colquhoun, Matthew Aitchison, Lawrence Dunwoodies, William
Baxter, Robert Alexander, and Mungo Cochran, merchants of
Glasgow, was prepared to set up a woollen manufactory there,
designing to make ‘woollen stuffs of all sorts, such as damasks, half-
silks, draughts, friezes, drogats, tartains, craips, capitations, russets,
and all other stuffs for men and women’s apparel, either for summer
or winter.’ Using the native wool, they expected to furnish goods
equal to any imported, and ‘at as easie a rate;’ for which end they are
‘providing the ablest workmen, airtiests, from our neighbouring
nations.’ They anticipated that by such means ‘a vast soum of ready
money will be kept within the kingdom, which these years past has
been exported, it being weel known that above ten thousand pound
sterling in specie hath been exported from the southern and western
parts of this kingdom to Ireland yearly for 1695.
such stuffs, and yearly entered in the
custom-house books, besides what has been stolen in without
entering.’
In the same year, John Adam, John Bryson, John Alexander, and
Harry Smith, English traders, had brought home to Glasgow ‘English
workmen skilled to work all hardware, such as pins, needles,
scissors, scythes, tobacco-boxes, and English knives, for which a
great quantity of money was yearly exported out of the kingdom.’
They designed so far to save this sending out of money by setting up
a hardware-manufactory in Glasgow. On their petition, the Privy
Council extended to their designed work the privileges and
immunities provided by statute for manufactories set up in Scotland.
In the ensuing year, William Marshall, William Gray, John
Kirkmyre, and William Donaldson, merchants in Glasgow, projected
the setting up of a work there for making of ‘pins and needles,[151]
boxes, shears, syshes, knives, and other hardware,’ whereby they
expected to keep much money within the country, and give
employment to ‘many poor and young boys, who are and have been
in these hard and dear times a burden to the kingdom.’ To them
likewise, on petition, were extended the privileges of a manufactory.
February, 1701.—Matthew and Daniel Campbell, merchants in
Glasgow, designed to set up an additional sugar-work, and, in
connection with it, a work ‘for distilling brandy and other spirits
from all manner of grain of the growth of this kingdom.’ With this
view, they had ‘conduced and engaged several foreigners and other
persons eminently skilled in making of sugar and distilling of brandy,
&c., whom, with great travel, charges, and expense, they had
prevailed with to come to Glasgow.’ All this was in order that ‘the
nation may be the more plentifully and easily provided with the said
commodities, as good as any that have been in use to be imported
from abroad,’ and because ‘the distillery will both be profitable for
consumption of the product of the kingdom, and for trade for the
coast of Guinea and America, seeing that no trade can be managed to
the places foresaid, or the East Indies, without great quantities of the
foresaid liquors.’
On their petition, the privileges of a 1695.
manufactory were granted to them.
In the progress of manufacturing enterprise in the west, an
additional soap-work connected with a glass-work came to be
thought of (February 1701). James Montgomery, younger, merchant
in Glasgow, took into consideration ‘how that city and all the country
in its neighbourhood, and further west, is furnished with glass
bottles.’ The products of the works at Leith and Morison’s Haven
‘cannot be transported but with a vast charge and great hazard.’ He
found, moreover, ‘ferns, a most useful material for that work, to be
very plenty in that country.’ There was also, in the West Highlands,
great abundance of wood-ashes, ‘which serve for little or no other
use, and may be manufactured first into good white soap, which is
nowhere made in the kingdom to perfection; and the remains of
these wood-ashes, after the soap is made, is a most excellent material
for making glass.’ He had, therefore, ‘since March last, been with
great application and vast charge seeking out the best workmen in
England,’ and making all other needful preparations for setting up
such a work.
On his petition, the Council endowed his work with the privileges
of a manufactory, ‘so as the petitioner and his partners may make
soap and glass of all kinds not secluded by the Laird of
Prestongrange and his act of parliament.’[152]

The Bank of England, projected by the July 7.

noted William Paterson, amidst and by
favour of the difficulties of the public exchequer during King
William’s expensive continental wars, may be said to have
commenced its actual banking operations on the first day of this
year. Considerable attention was drawn to the subject in London,
and the establishment of a similar public bank in both Ireland and
Scotland became matter of speculation. There was in London an
almost retired merchant named John Holland, who thought
hereafter of spending his time chiefly in rural retirement. To him
came one day a friend, a native of Scotland, who was inspired with a
strong desire to see a bank established in his country. He desired
that Mr Holland would think of it. ‘Why,’ said the latter, ‘I have
nearly withdrawn from all such projects, and think only of how I may
spend the remainder of my days in peace.’ ‘Think of it,’ said his
Scottish friend, ‘and if you will enter into 1695.
the scheme, I can assure you of having an
act of our parliament for it on your own conditions.’
Mr Holland accordingly drew out a sketch of a plan for a bank in
Scotland, which his friend, in a very few days thereafter, had
transfused into a parliamentary bill of the Scottish form. He had also
spoken, he said, to most of his countrymen of any mercantile
importance in London to engage their favour for the scheme. Mr
Holland was readily induced to lend his aid in further operations,
and the project appears to have quickly come to a bearing, for, little
more than six months from the opening of the Bank of England, the
act for the Bank of Scotland had passed the native parliament.
In our country, as in England, exchanges and other monetary
transactions, such as are now left to banking companies, had hitherto
been solely in the hands of a few leading merchants; some such place
as the back-shop of a draper in the High Street of Edinburgh, or an
obscure counting-room in the Saltmarket of Glasgow, was all that we
could shew as a bank before this period; and the business transacted,
being proportioned to the narrow resources and puny industry of the
country, was upon a scale miserably small. Yet there was now, as we
have seen, an expansive tendency in Scotland, and the time seems to
have arrived when at least a central establishment for the entire
country might properly be tried in the capital.
While, unluckily, we do not know the name of the Scottish
gentleman who propounded the scheme to Mr Holland, we are
enabled, by the recital of the act, to ascertain who were the first
patrons and nurses of the project generally. Of merchants in London,
besides the English name of Mr Holland, we find those of Mr James
Foulis,[153] Mr David Nairn, Mr Walter Stuart, Mr Hugh Frazer, Mr
Thomas Coutts, and Mr Thomas Deans, who were all of them
probably Scotsmen. Of Edinburgh merchants, there were Mr William
Erskine, Sir John Swinton, Sir Robert Dickson, Mr George Clark,
junior, and Mr John Watson. Glasgow was wholly unrepresented.
These individuals were empowered by the act to receive
subscriptions between the ensuing 1st of November and 1st of
January. The whole scheme was modest, frugal, and prudential in a
high degree. It was contemplated that the 1695.
Bank of Scotland should start with a
subscribed capital of £1,200,000 Scots—that is, £100,000 sterling,
in shares of £1000 Scots each; two-thirds to be subscribed by
individuals residing in Scotland, and one-third by individuals
residing in England, no person to hold more than two shares. The
company was to be under the rule of a governor, deputy-governor,
and twenty-four directors, of the last of whom twelve should be
English, these being ‘thought better acquainted with the nature and
management of a bank than those of Scotland.’ As a further
encouragement to English assistance, the act ordained that any
person subscribing for a part of the stock, should be considered as
ipso facto naturalised.
The subscription of the £66,666, 13s. 4d. allowed to Scotland
began at the appointed time, the Marquis of Tweeddale, his majesty’s
commissioner to parliament, and his son, Lord Yester, being the first
who put down their names. The subscription of the remaining
£33,333, 6s. 8d. was effected in London in one day, the chief
adventurers being Scotsmen resident there. The heads of the concern
in Edinburgh felt themselves sadly ignorant of the arrangements
required for a public bank, and deemed it absolutely necessary that
Mr Holland should come down to advise and superintend their
proceedings. He very generously agreed to do so, reside for some
time in Edinburgh, and return upon his own charges; while they, as
liberally, took care, by a rich present to his wife, that he should be no
loser by the journey. He relates[154] that his proposals were all at first
objected to and controverted by the Scotch managers, in
consequence of their utter ignorance of banking, yet all in perfect
good-humour, and manifestly from a pure desire to get at the
expedients which were best; and all were ultimately agreed to. This
occasioned a difficulty at starting, and to this was added no small
amount of jealous opposition and distrust; nevertheless, Mr Holland
remarks that, within two months, and even while the Bank of
England was notoriously unable to pay its bills, those of the Scottish
establishment had attained to a surprising degree of credit. It may
here be remarked, that, ere long, by consent of the English
proprietors, the whole twenty-four directors were elected from the
Scottish shareholders, leaving thirteen English ones to act as
trustees, ‘to manage what affairs the company should have at
London;’ and in time, when there were no 1695.
longer so many as thirteen proprietors in
England, even this arrangement was abandoned.
Several of the prominent Scottish shareholders were members of
the African Company; but it appears that there was anything but a
concert or good agreement between the two sets of projectors.
Paterson regarded the Bank of Scotland as in some degree a rival to
his scheme, and talked of the act appointing it as having been
‘surreptitiously gained.’ While so sanguine about the African
Company, he thought the bank unlikely to prove a good thing to
those concerned in it, little foreseeing that it would flourish for
centuries after the Indian Company had sunk in its first calamitous
venture.
The Bank of Scotland set up in a floor in the Parliament Close, with
a moderate band of officials, and ten thousand pounds sterling of
paid-up capital. It had scarcely started, when the African Company
added a banking business to its other concerns, meaning thus to
overpower the project of Mr Holland. That gentleman was in
Edinburgh at the time. He saw that the African Company was in the
highest vogue with the public, while few took any notice of his
modest establishment. As governor, he prudently counselled that
they should make no attempt to enforce the exclusive privilege which
the statute had conferred upon them for twenty-one years, but to
limit themselves to standing on their guard against ‘that mighty
Company,’ lest it should try to injure or ‘affront’ them by a run upon
their cash. For this reason, by his advice, twenty thousand pounds of
the capital was called up, in addition to the ten thousand lodged at
first. The smallness of these sums is amusing to men who know what
banking in Scotland now is; yet it appears that from the first the
Bank of Scotland had five, ten, twenty, fifty, and hundred pound
notes. After a little while, it was found that banking did not succeed
with the African Company, chiefly because they lent money in too
large sums to their own shareholders, and the Bank of Scotland was
then allowed to go on without any competition. The capital lately
called up was then paid back, leaving the original sum of £10,000
alone in the hands of the bank.
The chief business of the bank at first was the lending of money on
heritable bonds and other securities. The giving of bills of exchange—
the great business of the private bankers—was, after deliberation at a
general meeting of the ‘adventurers,’ tried, with a view to extending
the usefulness of the concern as far as 1695.
possible. In pursuance of the same object,
and ‘for carrying the circulation of their notes through the greatest
part of the kingdom,’ branch-offices were erected at Glasgow,
Dundee, Montrose, and Aberdeen, ‘with cashiers and overseers at
each place, for receiving and paying money, in the form of inland
exchange, by notes and bills made for that purpose.’ But, after what
appeared a fair trial, the directors ‘found that the exchange trade
was not proper for a banking company.’ A bank they conceived to
be ‘chiefly designed as a common repository of the nation’s cash—a
ready fund for affording credit and loans, and for making receipts
and payments of money easy by the company’s notes.’ To deal in
exchange was ‘to interfere with the trade and business of private
merchants.’ The Bank of Scotland found it ‘very troublesome, unsafe,
and improper.’ One reason cited some years afterwards, by a person
connected with the bank, was—‘There is so much to be done in that
business without doors, at all hours by day and night, with such
variety of circumstances and conditions, as are inconsistent with the
precise hours of a public office, and the rules and regulations of a
well-governed company; and no company like the bank can be
managed without fixing stated office-hours for business, and
establishing rules and regulations which will never answer the
management of the exchange trade.’ As for the branch-offices, the
inland exchange contemplated there failed from another cause,
strikingly significant of the small amount of commercial intercourse
then existing between the capital and the provinces of Scotland. The
bank, we are told, found it impracticable to support the four sub-
offices ‘but at an expense far exceeding the advantage and
conveniency rising therefrom; for, though the company would
willingly have been at some moderate charge to keep them up, if they
could thereby have effectuated an answerable circulation of bank-
notes about these places, for accommodating the lieges in their
affairs, yet they found that those offices did contribute to neither of
those ends; for the money that was once lodged at any of those places
by the cashiers issuing bills payable at Edinburgh, could not be
redrawn thence by bills from Edinburgh‘—of course, because of
there being so little owing in Edinburgh to persons residing in the
provinces. So, after a considerable outlay in trying the branch-offices,
the directors were obliged to give them up, and ‘bring back their
money to Edinburgh by horse-carriage.’[155]
The company’s business was 1695.
thenceforward for many years ‘wholly
restricted to lending money, which seems to be the only proper
business of a bank, and all to be transacted at Edinburgh.’[156]

The estates of Duncan Forbes of July 17.

Culloden, in sundry parishes near
Inverness, having been much wasted in 1689 and 1690, both by the
ravages of the king’s enemies and the necessary sustentation of his
troops, he now gave in a petition shewing that his damages had in all
amounted to the sum of £47,400, 6s. 8d. Scots. The parliament
recommended his case to the gracious consideration of his majesty,
[157]
and the result was a requital, not in money, but in the form of a
perpetual privilege to the Laird of Culloden of distilling from the
grain raised on his estate of Ferintosh, upon paying of only a small
composition in lieu of excise.
The estate of Ferintosh consisted of about eighteen hundred arable
acres,[158] and the produce of barley was so considerable that a very
large quantity of whisky came to be produced within its bounds;
Hugo Arnot says nearly as much as in all the rest of Scotland
together—but Hugo, it must be admitted, is a remarkably
unstatistical author. Whatever might be the exact truth, there was
certainly a surprising quantity of usquebaugh issued forth from the
domains of Forbes, insomuch that Ferintosh came to be that quasi
synonym for whisky which ‘Kilbagie’ and ‘Glenlivet’ afterwards were
in succession. The privilege of course yielded a large revenue to the
family, and in time made ample compensation for all their patriotic
sufferings past and potential. In 1784, when at length the
government was inclined to purchase it back, there was such a
demonstration made of its lucrativeness, that the capital sum of
£21,500 assigned for it was thought to be but a poor equivalent.
The minister of Dingwall, in his account of the parish, written a
few years after the abolition of the Ferintosh privilege, tells of a
remarkable consequence of that measure. During the continuance of
the privilege, quarrels and breaches of the peace were abundant
among the inhabitants, yielding a good harvest of business to the
procurators (i. e. solicitors) of Dingwall. When the privilege ceased,
the people became more peaceable, and the prosperity of
attorneyism in Dingwall sustained a marked abatement.
It was not so subscribing a world at the 1695. May 16.
close of the seventeenth century as it is
now; yet, poor as our country then was, she kept her heart open for
important public objects, and for works in which faith and charity
were concerned.
There was no bridge over the Clyde between Bothwell Bridge and
Little-gill Bridge, a space of eighteen miles. At Lanark, there was a
ferry-boat; but the river was frequently impassable, and there were
repeated instances of the whole passengers being swept down and
engulfed in the Stonebyres Linn. Arrangements were now made,
chiefly by a collection at all the church-doors in the kingdom, for
building ‘a sufficient stone bridge’ at the foot of the Inch of
Clydeholm—this charitable measure being rendered necessary by the
poverty to which the burgh of Lanark had been reduced by spoliation
during the late reign, ‘by exactions of fines, free quarters for soldiers,
and the like.’
By order of parliament, a collection of money was made, in July
1695, in the parish churches of the kingdom, for the benefit of
Andrew Watson, skipper, and eight mariners of his vessel, who, in a
voyage from Port Glasgow to Madeira, on the 19th of November in
the preceding year, in latitude 38 degrees, had been attacked by two
Salee rovers, and by them carried as captives to Mamora, in
Marocco. In their petition to parliament, they described themselves
as resting in a slavery more cruel and barbarous than they could
express, without the proper necessaries of life, and ‘above all,
deprived of the precious gospel, which they too much slighted when
they enjoyed it,’ with no prospect before them but to die in misery
and torment, unless they have some speedy relief. The contributions
were to be handed to John Spreul, merchant in Glasgow, he finding
caution to apply them to their proper end.
‘Those of the Scots nation residing at 1697. Apr. 15.
Konigsberg, in Prussia,’ petitioned the Privy
Council by their deputy, Mr Francis Hay, for assistance in building a
kirk for their use, for which they had obtained a liberty from the
Duke of Brandenburg. A collection at all the church-doors in the
kingdom was ordained for this purpose; and it is surprising with
what sympathy the poor commons of Scotland would enter on a
movement of this kind. We find that the little parish of Spott, in East
Lothian, contributed nearly three pounds sterling towards the
Konigsberg kirk.
At the ‘break of a storm’—by which is meant the melting of a great
fall of snow—in November 1698, the southern streams were flooded,
and the bridge of Ancrum was so broken and damaged that it could
be no longer serviceable. This being the only bridge upon the water
of Teviot, on an important line of 1698.
communication between the north and
south in the centre of the Borders, and there being no ferry-boat on
the river but one seven miles further up, it was most desirable that it
should be rebuilt; but the calculated expense was betwixt eight and
nine thousand merks (from £450 to £500 sterling), and an act of
Council offering a pontage to any one who would undertake this
business altogether failed of its object. In these circumstances, the
only alternative was a collection at all the church-doors in the
kingdom, and permission to make such a levy was accordingly
granted by the Privy Council.

The vicissitudes of witchcraft 1695. Aug.

jurisprudence in Scotland are remarkable.
While Presbyterianism of the puritanic type reigned uncontrolled
between 1640 and 1651, witches were tortured to confession and
savagely burnt, in vast numbers, the clergy not merely concurring,
but taking a lead in the proceedings. During the Cromwell
ascendency, English squeamishness greatly impeded justice in this
department, to the no small dissatisfaction of the more zealous. On
the Restoration, the liberated energies of the native powers fell
furiously on, and got the land in a year or two pretty well cleared of
those vexatious old women who had been allowed to accumulate
during the past decade. From 1662 to the Revolution, prosecutions
for witchcraft were comparatively rare, and, however cruel the
government might be towards its own opponents, it must be
acknowledged to have introduced and acted consistently upon rules
to some extent enlightened and humane with regard to witches—
namely, that there should be no torture to extort confession, and no
conviction without fair probation. I am not sure if the opposite party
would not have ascribed it mainly to the latitudinarianism of
Episcopacy, that the whole history of witchcraft, throughout the two
last Stuart reigns, betrayed an appearance as if the authorities were
not themselves clear for such prosecutions, and, in dictating them,
only made a concession to the popular demands.
For a few years after the Revolution, the subject rested in the
quiescence which had fallen upon it some years before. But at length
the General Assembly began to see how necessary it was to look after
witches and charmers, and some salutary admonitions about these
offenders were from time to time issued. The office of Lord Advocate,
or public prosecutor, had now fallen into the hands of Sir James
Steuart of Goodtrees, a person who shared in the highest convictions
of the religious party at present in power, 1695.
including reverence for the plain meaning
of the text, ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’ The consequence
was, that the reign of William III. became a new Witch Period in
Scotland, and one involving many notable cases.
In August 1695, two married women, Aug. 8.
named M‘Rorie and M‘Quicken, residing
respectively at the Mill-burn and Castlehill of Inverness, were in the
Tolbooth of that northern burgh, under a suspicion of being witches;
and the Privy Council, seeing the inconvenience of having them
brought to an inquest in Edinburgh, issued a commission for their
being tried on the spot by David Polson of Kinmilnes, sheriff-depute
of Inverness; William Baillie, commissar there; Alexander Chisholm,
bailie to Lord Lovat; Duncan Forbes of Culloden; —— Cuthbert of
Castlehill; and —— Duff, provost of Inverness, any three of them to
be a quorum. The arrangements for the trial were all carefully
specified in this commission; and it was intimated in the end that, ‘in
case the said judges shall find the said panels guilty of the said horrid
crime laid to their charge,’ the commissioners should adjudge them
‘to be burned or otherwise execute to death.’
In March 1696, a commission was issued in similar terms for the
trial of ‘Janet Widdrow, in the parish of Kilmacolm, presently
prisoner in the Tolbooth of Paisley, alleged guilty of the horrid crime
of witchcraft.’ Two months later, the Lord Advocate applied to the
Council for an extension of power to the commission against Janet
Widdrow, as ‘it is now informed that the said Janet doth fyle and put
out several others, and as there are some persons in these bounds
against whom there are probable and pregnant grounds of
suspicion.’ The request was complied with.
Some months later (December 3, 1696), we hear of some
informalities in the process against Janet Widdrow and Isobel
Cochrane, and the Lord Advocate was requested to report on the
matter.[159]
So much for the present; but let the reader see onward under
February 1697, March 1, 1698, &c.

It is remarked by a Presbyterian historian Aug.

of the popular class, that the time of the
‘Persecution’ was one of general abundance. God, he believed, did
not choose to let his people suffer in more ways than one. But, not
long after King William had brought days of religious security, the
seasons began to be bad, and much physical suffering ensued.
According to this historian, Alexander 1695.
Peden foretold how it would be. ‘As long,’
said he, ‘as the lads are upon the hills, you will have bannocks o’er
night; but if once you were beneath the bield of the brae, you will
have clean teeth and many a black and pale face in Scotland.’[160]
Nevertheless, the country was so much at its ease in the matter of
food in July 1695, that the Estates then passed an act for encouraging
the export of grain, allowing it to go out duty free, and ordaining that
so it should be whenever wheat was at or under twelve pounds
(Scots) the boll; bear, barley, and malt under eight; pease and oats,
under six; provided these grains should be carried in Scottish ships.
By an act passed in 1672, it was forbidden to import meal from
Ireland while the price in Scotland remained below a certain rate.
And that this was a serious matter, is proved by an order of Council
in April 1695, for staving the grain brought from Carrickfergus in
two vessels, named the James and the Isobel, and for handing over
the vessels themselves to Sir Duncan Campbell of Auchinbreck, who
had seized them on their way to a Scottish port. It never occurred to
a legislator of those days that there was a kind of absurdity, as well as
a glaring selfishness, in arranging for his own country receiving while
it should not give.
As if to rebuke such policy, the very month after good food
prospects had induced the Scottish Estates to permit of exportation,
the crop was stricken in one night by an easterly fog, and ‘got little
more good of the ground.’[161] The corn was both bad and dear. So
early as November, this produced a disorder of the cholera type,
accompanied by severe fevers: ‘all our old physicians had never seen
the like, and could make no help.’ It was not in all cases the direct
result of bad unwholesome victual, for several, who used old corn, or
sent to Glasgow for Irish meal, were nevertheless smitten with the
prevailing malady, ‘in a more violent and infectious manner than the
poorest in the land.’[162]
The price of victual having, in the western shires, ascended beyond
the importation rate fixed in 1672, the Privy Council (December 13),
‘in consideration of the present scarcity in those parts, and the
distress ensuing upon it,’ gave allowance for the importation of meal,
‘but of no other grain,’ from Ireland, to ‘any port between the mouth
of Annan and the head of Kintyre,’ between this date and the 1st of
February exclusive.
A few days later, the Council took 1695.
measures for fining certain baxters of
Glasgow and others who had imported grain before the issue of the
above licence.
On the 7th of February 1696, the Council extended the period
during which Irish meal might be imported to the 15th of April,
seeing that the price of the article in the western shires still
continued above that set down in the act of 1672. On the 25th of
February, the period was farther extended to the 15th of May.
In June, the evil having become more serious, the whole ports of
the kingdom were opened to foreign grain, while the usual
denunciations were launched against persons keeping up victual in
girnels and stacks. Now the summer was 1696. Aug.
passing into autumn, and the weather was
of such a character, or, as the Privy Council expressed it, the season
was so ‘unnatural,’ ‘as doth sadly threaten the misgiving and blasting
of the present crop, to the increase of that distress whereby the
kingdom is already afflicted.’ For these reasons, at the request of the
church, a fast was proclaimed for the 25th of August in churches
south of the Tay, and on the 8th of September in ‘all the planted
churches of the rest of this kingdom.’
Viewing the ‘pinching straits and wants’ of the poor at this crisis,
and the demands which these make upon Christian charity and
compassion, the Council recommended that on the day of the fast,
and the Lord’s Day thereafter, there should be a ‘cheerful and liberal
contribution’ at the church-doors for the indigent, ‘as the best and
most answerable expression of earnestness in the aforesaid duty.’
Another edict held out a bounty of one pound Scots for every boll of
foreign victual imported.[163]
Some Englishmen having brought a parcel of corn to the market of
Kelso, William Kerr of Chatto’s servants exacted from them a custom
he had a right to from all victual there sold—this right being one of
which his family had been ‘in immemorial possession.’ The
Englishmen resisted the exaction with scorn and violence, and
Chatto was obliged to appeal for protection of his right to the Privy
Council. Such, however, was at that time the need for foreign grain,
that the Council suspended Chatto’s right for the next three months.
Some gentlemen in Edinburgh received July 30.
information from their correspondents in
Aberdeenshire, that that county and the one next adjacent were
nearly destitute of victual, and that ‘if they be not speedily supplied,
and victual transported [thither], a good 1696.
part of that and the next county will
undoubtedly starve.’ Already, within the last fortnight, several had
died from want. In these circumstances, George Fergusson, bailie of
Old Meldrum, and Alexander Smith, writer in Edinburgh, proposed
to purchase a thousand or twelve hundred bolls of corn and bear in
the north of England, and have it carried by sea to Aberdeen, there to
sell it at any rate the proper authorities might appoint above the cost
and the expense of carriage, and the surplus to be used for any
suitable public object, the proposers having no desire of profit for
themselves, ‘but allenarly the keeping of the poor in the said shire
from starving.’ They were anxious, however, to be protected from the
risk of losing their outlay, in case the vessel should be taken by the
French privateers, and they petitioned the Privy Council accordingly.
Their wishes were recommended to the consideration of the Lords of
the Treasury.
It was reported from Roxburghshire, on the 22d December 1696,
that, in consequence of the ‘great frosts, excessive rains, and storms
of snow,’ the corns in many places ‘are neither cut down nor led in,
nor is the samen ripened nor fit for any use, albeit it were cut down
and led in.’ The boll of meal was already at twenty-four pounds
Scots, and bear, wheat, and rye at fourteen or fifteen pounds per boll.
Already many poor people and honest householders were ‘reduced to
pinching straits and want,’ and still more extreme scarcity was to be
expected.
In these circumstances, the Lords of the Privy Council granted
permission to Thomas Porteous, late provost, and Robert Ainslie,
late bailie in Jedburgh, to import victual from England without duty,
overland. If any of the said victual should be imported by sea, it
would be confiscated for the use of the poor, ‘unless it can be made
appear that the victual imported by sea was bought and paid for by
the product of this kingdom, and not by transporting money out of
the kingdom for the same.’[164]

The Feast of St Cecilia was celebrated in 1695. Nov. 22.

Edinburgh with a concert of vocal and
instrumental music, shewing a more advanced state of the art than
might have been expected.[165] The scheme of the performances
exhibits a series of pieces by Italian masters, as Corelli and Bassani,
to be executed by first and second violins, 1695.
flutes and hautbois, and basses; the opening
piece giving seven first violins, five second violins, six flutes and two
hautbois. There were thirty performers in all, nineteen of them
gentlemen-amateurs, and eleven teachers of music. Among the
former were Lord Colville, Sir John Pringle, Mr Seton of Pitmedden,
Mr Falconer of Phesdo, Mr John (afterwards General) Middleton,
Lord Elcho, and Mr John Corse, keeper of the Low Parliament House
Records. Some of these gentlemen are described as having been
skilled in music, and good players on the violin, harpsichord, flute,
and hautbois. Among the professional men were Henry Crumbden, a
German, ‘long the Orpheus in the music-school of Edinburgh;’
Matthew M‘Gibbon, father of William M‘Gibbon, noted for his sets of
Scots airs with variations and basses; Adam Craig, a good orchestra-
player on the violin; Daniel Thomson, one of the king’s trumpets;
and William Thomson, a boy, son of the above, afterwards editor of a
well-known collection (being the first) of Scots songs, with the music.
[166]

See under 1718 for further notices of the rise and progress of music
in Scotland.

In this age, every person of any note who Nov.

died became the subject of a metrical elegy,
which was printed on a broadside, and cried through the streets.
Allan Ramsay, a few years later, makes satiric allusion to the
practice:
None of all the rhyming herd
Are more encouraged and revered,
By heavy souls to theirs allied,
Than such who tell who lately died.
No sooner is the spirit flown
From its clay cage to lands unknown,
Than some rash hackney gets his name,
And through the town laments the same.
An honest burgess cannot die,
But they must weep in elegy:
Even when the virtuous soul is soaring
Through middle air, he hears it roaring.[167]

The poetry of these mortuary verses is usually as bad as the

typography, and that is saying a great deal; yet now and then one
1695.
falls in with a quaint couplet or two—as, for example, in the piece:
ON THE MUCH TO BE LAMENTED DEATH OF WORTHY
UMPHREY MILNE, WATCHMAKER, BURGESS OF THE
METROPOLITAN CITY OF SCOTLAND, WHO DEPARTED
THIS LIFE, NOVEMBER THE 18TH, 1695.
In gloomy shades of darksome night, where Phœbus hides his head,
I heard an echo cry aloud, that Umphrey Milne was dead.
My stupid senses rose aloft and wakened with a cry,
Let Pegasus, the Muses’ horse, go through the air and fly,
To tell the ends of all the earth that he has lost his breath—

· · · · ·

I will not name his parentage, his breeding, nor his birth;
But he that runs may read his life—he was a man of worth.
He valued not this earth below, although he had it satis,
He loved to lay his stock above, and now he is beatus.

· · · · ·

Since none can well describe his worth that in this land doth dwell,
He’ll waken at the trumpet’s blow, and answer for himsell.

The street elegists got a capital subject in July 1700, when Lady
Elcho died in youth and beauty, in consequence of her clothes
catching fire.[168] Of her it is said:
Were it the custom now to canonise,
We might her in the Alb of Saints comprise.
She either was as free from faults as they,
Or had she faults, the flame purged these away.

As to her ladyship’s surviving husband:

Only well-grounded hopes of her blest state
Can his excessive agonies abate,
And the two hopeful boys she left behind,
May mitigate the sorrows of his mind.

The dies and punches required for the Dec. 13.

new coinage now about to be issued, were
the work of James Clarke, being the first time the work had ever been
executed within the kingdom. James had done the whole business in
less than a year, ‘which used to take no less than two or three years
when executed in England, and cost the general and master of the
Mint great attendance and much expenses;’ but as yet ‘he had not
received one farthing for his work,’ although it had been agreed that
he should have a half of his charges beforehand. The Privy Council,
on his petition, recommended the Treasury 1695.
to pay him two hundred pounds sterling,
being the sum agreed upon.[169]

In Scotland, justice had at this time, as Dec.

heretofore, a geographical character. It did
not answer for a Highlander to be tried too near the lands of his
feudal enemies. If, on the other hand, he was to be tried in
Edinburgh, his accusers were likely to find the distance
inconveniently great, and prefer letting him go free.
James Macpherson of Invernahaven was under citation to appear
before the Lords of Justiciary at Inverness, on a charge of having
despoiled John Grant of Conygass of certain oxen, sheep, and other
goods in June or July 1689, ‘when Dundee was in the hills.’ The Laird
of Grant being sheriff of Inverness, and other Grants engaged in the
intended trial, Macpherson, though protesting his entire innocence,
professed to have no hope of ‘impartial justice;’ yet he appeared at
the citation, and was immediately committed close prisoner to the
Tolbooth of Inverness, where he was denied the use of pen and ink,
and the access of his friends, so that he ‘expected nothing but a
summary execution.’
On his petition, the Privy Council ordained (December 10) that he
should be liberated under caution, and allowed to undergo a trial
before the Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh. He accordingly
presented himself before the Lords on the last day of the year, and
was committed to the Tolbooth of Edinburgh. On the 28th of
January, he petitioned for entire liberation, as Grant of Conygass
failed to appear to urge the prosecution; and, with the concurrence of
the Laird of Grant, a member of the Privy Council, this petition was
complied with.[170]
 Not content with the proper Physic Garden assigned to him at the
end of the North Loch,[171] James Sutherland had, in February last,
extended his operations to ‘the north yard of the Abbey where the
great Dial stands, and which is near to the Tennis Court.’ Under
encouragement from the Lords of the Treasury, he had been active in
levelling and dressing the ground. He ‘had there this summer a good
crop of melons;’ he had ‘raised many other curious annuals, fine
flowers, and other plants not ordinary in this country.’ He
entertained no doubt of being able in a few 1695.
years ‘to have things in as good order as
they are about London,’ if supplied with such moderate means as
were required to defray charges and make the needful
improvements, ‘particularly reed-hedges to divide, shelter, and lay
the ground lown and warm, and a greenhouse and a store to preserve
oranges, lemons, myrtles, with other tender greens, and fine exotic
plants in winter.’
Fifty pounds sterling had been assigned to Sutherland out of the
vacant stipends of Tarbat and Fearn in Ross-shire; but of this only
about a half had been forthcoming, and he had expended of his own
funds upwards of a thousand pounds Scots (£83, 13s. 4d. sterling).
He entreated the Lords of the Privy Council to grant reimbursement
and further encouragement, ‘without which the work must cease,
and the petitioner suffer in reputation and interest, what he is doing
being more for the honour of the nation, the ornament and use of his
majesty’s palace, than his own private behoof.’
The Council recommended the matter to the Lords of the Treasury.
[172]

Margaret Balfour, Lady Rollo, had 1696. Jan. 14.

brought her husband relief from a burden of
forty thousand merks resting on his estate, being a debt owing to her
father; and without this relief he could not have enjoyed the family
property. She had, according to her own account, endeavoured to live
with him as a dutiful and loving wife, and they had children grown
up; yet he had been led into a base course of life with a female named
Isobel Kininmont, and in October last he had deserted his family,
and gone abroad. The lady now petitioned the Privy Council for
aliment to herself and her six children. The estate, she said, being