The "Heuit Bussiness" concerning James Hewat

A plan of Roxburgh Churchyard in the SRO (which dates from c1870) shows the Hewat 'lair' and 6 stones - Richard (1707-1776) and Henry (1753-1845) and four much older stones (unlabelled), three of which are now completely illegible. I find it difficult to imagine all those Hewats buried in that little patch of ground. It must be crowded down there ..... they must really be mingling dust, as the obit. says!

(AWH) I have to ask the obvious question about the 4th stone :-)

The 4th stone, partly eroded now, is that of James Hewat, tenant in Barnes (1686-1745), 'adopted' by many as our ancestor. His age, which was from all accounts quite difficult to read 100 years ago, has gone, but: "Here lyis James Hewat tenant in Barns who died August 1745" is still legible - but only just. Some family members read the age (which was probably '59') as '69' or '66'. Without access to other information, such as the kirk session minutes, it was an easy mistake to make.

My research suggests that not only did Richard's father, James, not die in 1745, it is highly unlikely that he was born 1679! I suspect that this is a case of both mistaken identity and a misread M.I (Monument Inscription). There were 3 James Hewats in Roxburgh parish at the turn of the 18th century. Fortunately the kirk session minutes for this period are quite detailed and include lists of communicants. One James, a pauper, was married to Isobel Fairningtoune, lived across the river in Heiton and probably died before 1720; another, frequently referred to in lists as 'James Hewat the younger or junior was the son of Rolland Hewat, a local merchant, (who, I believe, but have not yet confirmed, was uncle to our James) & Agnes (Nans) Bullman.

Born in 1686, this James Hewat married 3 times, was a tenant in Barnes from c1741 and died in 1745! Our James must have died sometime after 31 July 1746 - he appears as a communicant on a list of this date (his name was immediately above Richard's, exactly where it had been for the past 15 years). Although I haven't found a record of his baptism, I think I know who his parents were. The OPRs for the early 1670s, a more credible time-frame for his birth, are very damaged. He was gainfully employed sometime before 1690 - as a farm servant to James Bullman. Bullman's (d.1690) inventory includes a statement of "fies & bounteth" owing to "James Hewat in Roxburgh". (To make matters more complicated, there were two further James Hewats in late 17th century Roxburgh but, as they were both dead by the end of 1681, I am confident that this James is ours.) I am reasonably optimistic that Roxburgh Muniments and Presbytery Records, if and when I can access them, will provide some answers.

All this leads me to suspect that our James was born some time before 1679. (The first of 3 servants listed in Bullman's inventory, he is paid considerably more than the others.) Although no record of baptism has been found for 'our' James, the 'other' James was almost certainly b. 1686, the son of Rolland Hewat. (It is very easy to interpret a very eroded '59' as something which makes more sense - say, 66 or 69 - which is what I think has happened.) None of this is conclusive, but if James Hewat of Barnes was 'our' man, we'd better get busy chasing his other descendants, born of his marriage to Christian Tullie! (And I have proof that this couple not only lived in Barnes, but had daughters, at least one of whom married and produced children!)

Actually, the Christie Hewat tree I mentioned was the result of research done by Alexander Christie (1822-1915), son of Robert Christie and Isabella Hewat (daughter of George and Elizabeth Scott). John Christie (one of the aforementioned trio) has all his field notes and correspondence. I hope to spend a few days at his house soon reading through them.... We did discuss the controversial James the other day and John said that, although Alexander had put James Hewat of Barnes at the top of the tree, his notes reveal that he was not entirely happy with this. He thought our James was older but, in the absence of another, appears to have 'settled' for this one.

(AWH) Victoria is cross that I don't follow all of the above, but I hope I understand that this is her reasoning. The James in the same grave as our James' son and grandson, Richard (1707-1776) and Henry (1753-1845), was James (1686-1745) who died at age 59 (not 66 or 69 as had been read by others). The James who died in 1745 was indeed a tenant in Barnes c1741, yet a James had been on the (Roxburgh) communicant list for the past 15 years, and was still on this list on 31 July 1746 with our Richard. Victoria concludes that our James could not therefore have been the one who died in 1745.

(AWH) The James in the "Heuit Bussiness" was certainly the elder James; he had been an elder since before 1704 when the younger James was only 18. The Heuit Bussiness tells us that this elder James in 1727 had "but on[e] bairne com'd to manhood" which does sound very like Richard (1707). (There is also a mention of the "other James" (the younger) who had also taken land from William Dun). As Victoria says:

"James was an interesting character. He was made an elder of the church sometime before 1704 but, branded a 'villin and a knave', was thrown out of office in June 1727 after expanding his (land) holdings in a less than neighbourly manner. It's great historical soap-opera!"