of the conforming clergyman, was the eldest brother of our hero, who, however, is reported himself to have testified his enthusiasm by flourishing a stick with the other boys. This outburst of Presbyterian zeal freed Largo from the unpopular clergyman, and in a short time in it, as well as in the other parishes of Scotland, the Presbyterian rule was re-established.

One of the first youths in Largo to experience the stricter discipline of Presbytery, whose restoration he had celebrated, was Alexander Selkirk. His high spirits, and want of respect for any control, led him, it would appear, to be guilty of frequent misbehavior during Divine service; for under date the 25th August, 1695, is the following entry in the parish records: "Alexander Selcraig, [the ancient mode of spelling Selkirk,] son of John Selcraig, elder, cited to appear before the session for indecent. conduct in church." This seems to have been more than our hero, now in his nineteenth year, could submit to. The elder's son to appear before the session, and be rebuked for laughing in church! Within twenty-four hours after this terrible citation the young shoemaker was gone; he had left Largo and the land of kirk-sessions. behind him, and was miles away at sea. the kirk-session met, they were obliged to be content with inserting the following paragraph

When

in the record: "August 27th.-Alexander Selcraig called out; did not appear, having gone to sea." Resolved, however, that he should not escape the rebuke which he had merited, they add, "Continued until his return."

The return which the kirk-session thus looked forward to did not take place for six years, during which time we have no account of Selkirk's adventures, although the probability is, that he served with the buccaneers, who then scoured the South Seas. To have persisted in calling the young sailor to account for a fault committed six years before, would have been too great severity. The kirk-session, accordingly, do not seem to have made any allusion to the circumstance which had driven him to sea; but it was not long before a still more disgraceful piece of misconduct than the former brought him under their censure. The young sailor, coming home, no doubt, with his character rendered still more reckless and boisterous than before by the wild life to which he had been accustomed at sea, was hardly a fit inmate for a sedate and orderly household, and quarrels and disturbances became frequent in the honest. shoemaker's cottage. One of these domestic uproars brought the whole family before the session: the peace and good order of families being one of the things which were then taken

cognizance of by the ecclesiastical authorities in every parish. The circumstances are thus detailed in the session records: "November, 1701.-The same day, John Guthrie delated John Selcraig, elder, and his wife, Euphan Mackie, and his son, Alexander Selcraig, for disagreement together; and also, John Selcraig, Alexander's eldest brother, and his wife, Margaret Bell. All of them are ordered to be cited against next session, which is to be on the 25th instant."

Agreeably to this citation the parties appeared-the father, the mother, the eldest son and his wife, and our hero. On this occasion, John Selcraig, the elder, "being examined what was the cause of the tumult that was in his house, said he knew not; unless that Andrew Selcraig-another of the old man's sons who lived. in the house, and who was but half-wittedhaving brought in a can full of salt-water, of which his brother Alexander did take a drink through mistake, and he, Andrew, laughing at him for it, his brother Alexander came and beat him, upon which he ran out of the house, and called his brother John-John and his wife, Margaret Bell, would appear to have lived in a neighboring house; and Andrew had run into it to call his brother. Being again questioned. what made him-Selkirk, the father-sit upon

the floor with his back at the door, he said it was to keep down his son Alexander, who was seeking to go up to get down his pistol. And being inquired what he was going to do with it, said he could not tell." Such was the tenor of

On the same day the

the old man's evidence. culprit Alexander was called; but he had contrived to go to Cupar, to be out of the way. Directing a second citation to be issued against him for next session, the court proceeded to examine the other witnesses. The younger John Selkirk gave his evidence as follows: "On the 7th of November last, he being called by his brother Andrew, came to his father's house ; and when he entered it, his mother went out; and he, seeing his father sitting upon the floor, with his brother at the door, was much troubled, and offered to help him up; at which time he did see his brother Alexander in the other end of the house casting off his coat, and coming toward him; whereupon his father did get up, and did get betwixt them-Alexander and Johnbut he did not know what he did besides, his-John's-head being borne down by his brother Alexander; but afterward, being liberated by his wife, he made his escape." Margaret Bell, John's wife, who thus courageously rescued her husband from the clutches of Alexander, was next examined. She declared that

her husband being called out by his brother Andrew to go to his father's house, she followed him, "and coming into the house, she found the said Alexander gripping both his father and her husband, and she, laboring to loose his hands from her husband's head and breast, her husband fled out of doors, and she followed him, but called back, 'You false loon, will you murder your father and my husband both?' whereupon he-Alexander-followed her to the door; but whether he beat her or not, she was in so great confusion she can not distinctly say, but ever since she hath had a sore pain in her head." The last witness examined was Andrew Selkirk, whose laughter at his brother's mistake had been the original cause of the quarrel. Andrew, however, was able to say "nothing to purpose in the business," and the further investigation of the matter was adjourned till the next meeting.

The session met again on the 29th of November; and this time the culprit was present. The. following is the entry regarding the interview between the future Robinson Crusoe and his ecclesiastical judges: "Alexander Selcraig, scandalous for contention and disagreeing with his brothers, compeared, and being questioned concerning the tumult that was in his house, whereof he was said to be the occasion, con