The Great Pestilence in
Kintyre
Alastair M. Maiden, M.B, Ch.B.
There may be many gaps in our knowledge, but we have a reasonable clear account ot the siege at Dunaverty, and the subsequent massacre of the garrison by the government forces under Argyll and Leslie. Much more nebulous are the stories of the great pestilence which subsequently swept Kintyre. In his excellent work "Kintyre in the 17th Century" McKerral (1) writes, "We have no contemporary account of the disease (plague) in Kintyre or exact details of the extent of its ravages."
The fragmentary reports we have indicate that the pestilence broke out shortly after the departure of Leslie's army, that the area was depopulated, and that, when it was at its height smoke issued from only three chimneys in Kintyre: Craig, Keil and Knockhanty. (Johnston (2) and others). Peter McIntosh (3), quoted by McKerral, tells us that by oral tradition "....the plague came from Ayr to Dunaverty in a white cloud, and spread over most of Kintyre." "In a short time the ravages made were dreadful, turning houses into graves, and multitudes fleeing for their lives, not knowing whither to go, the living fleeing from the dead." Such was the fear of the contagion that the dead were frequently left unburied. McTaggart (4) recounts the story of a man digging his own grave, crawling into it to die, while his neighbours honoured a promise to cover him with earth. The disease was sudden, highly infectious, and led to rapid death, sometimes within hours. It was characterised by 'great swelling in the body and that if the swelling would break, they had a chance of recovering and getting well.! This in fact happened and one man 'became very useful in performing the kind act of interring many of his fellow creatures.' This description suggests the buboes, or abscesses, characteristic of, but not unique to bubonic plague. Development of these was generally believed to herald an early death. Those fortunate anough to recover developed immunity.
Bubonic plague is a specific, and highly infectious disease common to man and other animals (especially rats). It is characterised by fever, swollen glands (buboes) mostly in armpits and groins, a rapid course and high mortality. (5). Although there are variants, for the purpose of this article, it may be assumed that the germ is transmitted to humans only by the rat-flea, which acquires it from infected rats on which it normally lives. Thus an epidemic of bubonic plague is inevitably preceded by an outbreak of plague in rats.
From the descriptions quoted, there is evidence for the presence of bubonic plague in Kintyre in 1647, but one must ask, 'Is this the whole story?' For reasons given below, McKerral identifies the epidemic categorically as bubonic plague, and assumes it was introduced by Leslie's army. Smout (6) writes, however, 'No one knows for certain what the disease was. The usual statement that it was bubonic plague is unproven. It is possible that it was typhus, an epidemic of which appeared in Denmark a few years later in similar circumstances and killed some twenty per cent of the population.' The writer feels that, before indulging in wider speculation, the validity of McKerral's three main assumptions should be examined.
1. 'Plague was prevalent during the Civil War, and was carried from town to town by the besieging armies... .it was brought to Scotland after the storming of Newcastle by the Covenanting army in 1644.(1)(p76).
In his definitive "A History of Bubonic Plague in Britain" Shrewsbury (7) writes of this period. "The influence which the Civil War exerted upon the dissemination of plague is easier to assess, because the immutable aetiology (pattern of causation) of the disease renders it absolutely certain that only armies that are static for lengthy periods of time can provide the requisite conditions for rat plague, without which there can be no genesis or dissemination of the human disease." He adds that sieges were of short duration and epidemics did not affect the armies except in 1643 at Reading, where typhus and possibly later plague struck the Parliamentary forces, and at Newcastle in 1645.
Creighton (8) however, records that this outbreak was in fact in Tynenouth and neighbouring villages, and that the Scots were infected after Tynemouth Castle was taken on Oct 27, when 'The pestilence having been five weeks among them, they (the garrison) were glad to yield, and to scatter thenselves abroad: but to the great undoing and infecting of the country about.' Newcastle, itself, however, seems to have remained free of plague, as Alexander Leslie thereupon took up winter quarters there. As some months earlier, in the spring of 1644, plague had already broken out in Scotland in Edinburgh, Kelso, Perth and other places (7) it would seem unjustified to blame the army for its introduction.
2. In May 1647, General David Leslie records in his first despatch of the campaign, his desire to get away from Dunblane, owing to the fact 'that the pestilence was in the neighbourhood.' (1)(p.77).
If this were so, surely it means not that his army was infected with plague, but that he was anxious to avoid infection. The Scots had experienced outbreaks of plague for over two hundred years, and went to considerable lengths to prevent its spread. A prudent General would do likewise. This lethal scourge of unknown origin caused recurrent terror in the community and all who could fled from it. Suspected sick and contacts were isolated - in huts remote from the towns. Draconian measures had been directed against any who concealed the disease, harboured infected persons or handled their clothing or bedding. The penalties had included cutting off a hand, branding on the cheeks and banishment from the town, and even hanging, (or in the case of women, drowningt)(9). By the early 17th century, the penalties were less severe, but the Scots Privy Council undoubtedly did its best to keep plague out, and quarantine measures were strictly enforced. In these circumstances, it is highly improbable that Leslie would have released a plague-force into the countryside.
There are two interesting examples at this time of the circumspection shown by military commanders towards bubonic plague. At the end of his successful 1645 campaign in Scotland, Montrose, although receiving the submission of Edinburgh, did not establish himself there, but remained 4 miles outside the city, because plague was raging there. 'Montrose was in control of Scotland, but plague controlled the capital.' Some authorities consider that in 1643, Charles I eschewed the obvious target of London, and marched West to Gloucester, because of what he believed to be plague in the Parliamentary Forces at Reading - referred to above. (7)
3. Argyll stated in 1661....'But Coll (McGillespick) being taken, and the fort surrendered, David Leslie came home with his army and left the pestilence in the country (p.77). Argyll is described by McKerral (p.43) as being, in 1645, 'in a sense, the uncrowned King of Scotland with most extensive powers,' and later (p.65) as having 'a superstitious mind. Certainly at the centre of Power, he would be very familiar with the measures the Committee of Estates and local authorities found necessary to combat plague. He would be well aware that King, Parliament, presbyteries and all who could, removed themselves repeatedly and precipitately from the plague. Their attitude is well expressed in a letter from Lady Hamilton dated 2 Oct, 1635. Her husband 'afrayit aneuch'(scared stiff) of the plague, was preparing to flee 'and said yester nicht at the burd that the best remeid he kneu quhen any vos in supetion of the plaig vos to flit sum and far of and to be a long cumin bak agane.'(7). So great was the fear of the plague that it is inconceivable that Argyll would have willingly consorted with a force carrying the disease.
These speculatious are supported by modern knowledge of bubonic plague. It is now known that epidemics start in the rat population, especially among urban or house-rats (Rattus rattus) and the first warning sign may be an increase in rat mortality. (The writer personally recalls an instance of this in India in World War II.) The rat-flea, (see note) becomes infected by feeding on the blood of the rat. As the rats sicken and die, the fleas are forced to seek other feeding, attack other mammals, including man, who thus becomes infected.
It was recognised in the 17th century, that clothing and bedding in contact with plague could be infectious, though the reason was not known. (Such clothing was normally burnt.) However, though fleas spread infection, they cannot alone maintain an epidemic without a reservoir of infected rats. In other words, infected rats, fleas, and man must all be present to keep an epidemic going.
Shrewsbury (7) comments that the house-rat is not migratory, and that travellers at that time did not take their rats with them. In a country with few roads capable of taking a wheeled vehicle, and none of of them in Argyll (6) Leslie could not play the role of a Devil's Pied Piper luring plague rats into Kintyre.
Shrewsbury further points out that, at that time, sea and river ports were the main sites of plague. (Strict quarantine rules for shipping in the Forth were introduced as early as 1564.) The area of the country affected was relatively small. He adds with some acerbity "It is obvious that the restricted area of the disease in Scotland (at that time) exposes the nonsense, so often encountered in the literature of plague sweeping like a "Black Death" at terrifying speed universally over this or any other land." This, of course, was one of the traditional features of the pestilence in Kintyre. (Incidentally, the term "Black Death" was first applied to bubonic plague by an English historical writer - Mrs. Penrose - in 1823 - over 250 years after its disappearance. It is a singularly inappropriate term, plague being no blacker than many other diseases! The term "plague" was applied to any epidemic or pestilence, especial]y if regarded as a sign of divine displeasure (cf. Exodus 9:14). Bubonic plague was venously described as "plague" or "plaig," "pestilence," "mallochi's pest," "botsche" (swelling), and when first encountered in Scotland in the 14th century, "the foule death." This is all rather confusing to the would-be historian! While bubonic plague could spread rapidly in towns, where there was a density of both human and rat population, spread in the rural areas (in which over 80% of the population lived) was inevitably slower, and tended to affect households or hamlets in an apparently haphazard manner. No first-hand accounts of the disease in Argyll have been found, though secondary sources suggest true localised epidemics at Glenshira (10) and Kilellan (see note).
Note:- The rat-flea (Xenopsylla cheopis) is quite different from the human flea (Pulex irritans) which does not transmit plague.
"The plague came from Ayr to Dunaverty in a white cloud." Was this old tradition fantasy, or an attempt to blame the Lowlanders for a natural calamity? Or has it a kernel of truth? There is no record of plague in Ayr that year, though the town had suffered heavily in 1606. Indeed, it seems unlikely that, after the massacre, Leslie would have met with the Provost of Ayr (and presumably his party) in Lochhead had the disease been rife in either town. ((1).p.67.) In the summer of 1647, however, Largs suffered a severe plague epidemic, which reached its peak in August and September. So calamitous was the situation that the neighbouring presbytery had to rush money and victuals to the town after an ultimatum that failing help, 'the people wald be forcit to break out athort the countrie.'
It was known even then that shipping was a prime source of infection. It is quite possible that either during the rat-epidemic, which would precede the outbreak in humans, or by deliberate quarantine-breakers later, infected rats (and their fleas),could be transported by ship from Largs to Dunaverty and other points on Kintyre.
(Note: The writer made a note of this in 1968, but the source has unfortunately been lost.)
This could lead to localised epidemics, sufficiently severe and dramatic to earn a permanent place in local tradition. And the white cloud? Is it too fanciful to suggest (not too seriously) that the epidemic broke out when Dunaverty was experiencing a spell of summer haar?
Criticism of previous orthodoxy on the role of plague in 1647, although set out at some length, is not, of intent, destructive, for it clears the way to the question "If the epidemic was not plague, what was it?" Tradition links it with the presence of Leslie's army, and Argyll's claim, in 1661, may well have been perfectly true. There were, of course, other epidemic diseases in 17th century Scotland. Dysentery, smallpox and measles (to name only three) could have played a part, but consideration here must be limited to the most likely candidate, a disease closely associated with armies and war - typhus fever.
Typhus is an acute illness, with high fever, delirium and a typical blotchy rash. In certain forms, buboes may occur. It is primarily transmitted by the human louse. (Pediculus spp.) but probably also directly by droplet infection. Normally less acute than plague, associated with dirt, overcrowding, famine and starvation, its impact can be devastating, spreading and killing with frightening speed. Napoleon's Grand Army in Russia (1812) was reduced from 300,000 to 40,000 mainly by typhus, which, in European Russia (1917-1921) it is estimated, caused 2.5 to 3 million deaths.(11). Zimmer and McArthur have described it as "the most important disease in history."
Although believed to have occurred from ancient times, typhus became firmly established in Europe during the Thirty Years War (1618-48). In 1643, it broke out among the Parliamentary Forces around Reading. Initially it appears to have been thought due to environment. A contemporary blames "putrid exhalations from stinking matters, dung, carcasses of dead horses and other carrion," diet, incorrect brewing of beer, but above all, the army. Although some suspected it to be contagious, typhus did not evoke the rigid quarantine of plague.
Smout (6) records that the Covenanting army, was "stiffened by mercenaries from service in the Thirty Years War." There is, therefore, a strong probability that Leslie's force could be harbouring typhus fever. In the warmer part of the year, it would be less active, due to less favourable breeding conditions for lice, and also perhaps to a level of immunity in the army. Unlike rats, lice travel with man, and lice infestation was so widespread in 17th century Scotland that their presence would awake no suspicion. Whereas it seems certain that Leslie, before leaving on his expedition, would have rid himself of plague victims or contacts, he would have had no knowledge to remove bearers of typhus.
In Kintyre, the army would encounter a community impoverished and with poor living conditions and hygiene, to which years of war had added famine and starvation. It is also possible that the community had not previously been exposed to typhus. The circumstances were almost ideal for the development of a fulminating and devasting outbreak of the disease.
There is no place for dogma in medical history of so remote a time. The full story of the great pestilence is lost probably for ever in the mists of the past. Even if fresh records were to come to light, descriptions of epidemic disease in the 17th century are so imprecise and unsystematic, that we should still be reduced to speculation. Nevertheless, the writer submits two tentative conclusions:~
(1) The assumption that the pestilence was bubonic plague introduced by Leslie's army is invalid.
(2) While bubonic plague and other epidemic diseases may have been present, the story is compatible with an outbreak of typhus fever, a disease which "marches with armies" and thrives on the ravages of war, famine, and starvation.
The Great Pestilence in Kintyre - References
(1) McKerral.A. "A History of Kintyre in the 17th Century." (1948)
(2) Johnson. K. "Southend through the Ages."
(3) McIntosh. Peter. "History of Kintyre." (1861)
(4) McTaggart. C. "Life in Campheltown in the 18th Century."
(5) Manson-Bahr. P H. "Manson's Tropical Diseases." (1954)
(6) Smout. T.C. "History of the Scottish People." 1560-1830 (1970)
(7) Shrewshury. J.F.D. "A History of Bubonic Plague in Britain." (1970)
(8) Creighton. C. "A History of Epidemics in Britain." Two vols. 1891-1894.
(9) Comrie. J.D. "History of Scottish Medicine to 1860." (1927)
(10) Campbell. Lord Frederick. "Records of Argyll."
(11) Cartwright. F.F. "Disease and History." (1972).
Page 3: Crops Grown in Kintyre Around 1800
Page 4: Campbeltown's American Trade in the 18th Century
Page 7: Campbeltown Dialect
Herring Fishing Regulations
in 1811