t, and public worship on
alternate Sundays was performed there till the beginning of this
century. In 1669 the previous church was still standing, and in such
repair that an application was made to the Synod to require the lairds
of Monzievaird, Ochtertyre, Fordie, Clathick, &c., to attend the Church
of Strowan in consequence of Monzievaird Church having become ruinous
and past repair. The Commissioners of Teinds had ordered one church to
be built near the present site, but the heritors of each of the united
parishes did their best to evade complying. Two graves are deserving
of special mention. One is the resting-place of "fair Helen of
Ardoch"; the other marks the place of repose of the eldest son of the
House of Strowan, who laid down his life on the sands of Tel-el-Kebir,
bravely advancing to the charge against the Egyptian lines.

St. Ronan's Bell is preserved at Strowan House. It is small, circular,
and looks as if it had been made to be grasped by the hand. Tradition
says it was rung under the bell-man's gown when mass was said in Romish
times. The tongue is wanting. Some say it never had one, but was
meant to be struck from without. It never could have been heard afar
off. Close scrutiny proves it to be slightly cracked. But worthless
for music, it is excellent for law! It is the symbol of tenure of
Ballindewar or Dewarland. (Dewar is from the Gaelic for keeper). The
Dewars were the hereditary beadles of Strowan, and keepers of St.
Ronan's bell. They held their croft free of all cess, stipend, or
public burden, as it still remains. When the present Laird of Strowan
negotiated at a high price the purchase of this piece of land, he
received with "the bellman's pendicle" the bell itself as the charter
of the feu lands, and as custodier of all rights of the same.

The saddest feature in making this short survey of the united parish is
the great and continuous decline of the population. In 1755 there were
1460 people; in 1793 there were 1025; in 1891 the number had sunk to
490. No doubt the livelier prospects of town life allure many. No
doubt many have profited by the fact of removal. The agricultural
outlook appears gloomier than ever, which tends to restrict the area
under cultivation. But it cannot be gainsaid that many have had to
remove from the mistaken policy of adding land to land and field to
field. It is breaking down when viewed in the sole interest of the
proprietor; how much more