Historical preface: 1616-25

Pages cclxxix-cccx

Charters and Documents Relating To the City of Glasgow 1175-1649 Part 1. Originally published by Scottish Burgh Records Society, Glasgow, 1897.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.



On 15th February, 1616, a proclamation of the king's intention to visit Scotland in the following year was issued, and strict observance, meanwhile, of the laws against hunting or shooting deer, hares, and wild fowl was enjoined till September, 1617, so that there might be abundance of such game for the recreation of his majesty and of his retinue when they arrived. Among the places to which this order was made applicable was an area within eight miles of Glasgow. (fn. 1) In anticipation also of this visit, a charge was given on 1st May to all who had the king's tapestry to return it, (fn. 2) and on 22nd May several lords appeared before the privy council and reported what of the royal tapestry they had. Lord Loudon stated that Andrew Dalrymple, who had been servant to his sister, the late duchess of Lennox, could explain what had become of any royal tapestry or other effects which may have been in her grace's possession. He was accordingly examined on oath, and said that there was a chamber "within the dungeon of the castle of Glasgow" hung with tapestry, and that there was a silk bed in the castle; that, on her removal from the castle, the duchess "kept all her movables and household stuff within it;" and that the archbishop of St. Andrews, then archbishop of Glasgow, and James Stewart in Glasgow "mellit" (meddled) with the said castle and all that was within it by direction from the duke of Lennox. (fn. 3)

On 4th July, 1616, the convention of burghs at Perth appointed every burgh, and specially Glasgow and St. Andrews, to produce at the next convention the form of election of their magistrates, councillors, and deacons of crafts at Michaelmas following, and to proceed in such election conform to the acts of parliaments and burghs. (fn. 4)

Considering the fact that Episcopacy was at this time practically established in Scotland, it seems strange that the bishops should be found desirous to have recourse to a general assembly. (fn. 5) Yet a meeting of that body afforded the best means of effecting such further changes in the ecclesiastical constitution and order of service of the northern church as would bring it into greater harmony with that of the south. In compliance, therefore, with the bishops' application the king authorised an assembly to be convened, and on 18th July, 1616, the privy council issued a proclamation ordering it to meet on 13th August at Aberdeen, where presbyterian sympathies were least active. (fn. 6) Accordingly on that day the assembly met, with the earl of Montrose as royal commissioner. Spottiswood occupied the chair as moderator, in virtue of his primacy, and, after passing various acts against popish practices, the assembly sanctioned a new confession of faith; a new catechism; a new liturgy; a new book of canons; and new rules for baptism, confirmation, and the administration of the sacrament of communion. (fn. 7) To the changes thus agreed to by the assembly the king gave his sanction, accompanying it by an expression of regret that these had not been more thorough in several respects. But Spottiswood was able to satisfy him that the time was not yet ripe for further innovations.

M'Ure and Cleland state that on 1st October James Hamilton was re-appointed provost, (fn. 8) and Mathew Turnbull, James Bell, and Robert Rowat were elected bailies. (fn. 9)

On 31st December the king addressed a letter to the magistrates and council of Glasgow, in which he intimated his intention to visit Scotland during the ensuing summer, and his desire, for the honour of the kingdom, that the noblemen and other strangers who would accompany him should see no evidences of incivility or appearances of scarcity and want during his visit. He had accordingly appointed a convention of the estates to be held at Edinburgh in March following, to resolve upon the best means by which, with the least hurt to his subjects, all defects might be supplied, and the honour and reputation of the kingdom preserved. He therefore required them to send commissioners to that convention with ample powers. (fn. 10) Six weeks later, viz., on 10th February, 1617, the privy council issued an order in which, having regard to the near approach of the king's visit, and the necessity for having the works at the castle of Edinburgh and the palace of Holyrood completed before his arrival, the magistrates of Glasgow were required to send to Holyrood, within four days, seven masons, named in the order, with their tools, to be employed on the work. The magistrates of Linlithgow were, in like manner, required to send two masons, also named. (fn. 11) In obedience to the king's letter of December, James Inglis was appointed to represent the burgh at the convention held on 7th March, 1617; and at that convention a voluntary taxation of £200,000 to defray the expenses of the visit was voted. £100,000 of that amount was appointed to be borne by the spiritual estate; £66,666 13s. 4d. by the barons, freeholders, and feuars of the king's lands; and £33,333 6s. 8d. by the burghs. (fn. 12) On 2nd June, 1617, proclamation was made at the market cross of each of the chief burghs, intimating the king's intended visit, and requiring the inhabitants to conduct themselves in an orderly manner, under pain of death. (fn. 13) Extensive preparations were also made for his reception at Holyrood, and for the celebration of worship in the chapel of the palace according to the ritual of the English church. On the 13th of May the king entered Scotland, and arrived at Edinburgh on Friday, the 16th of May. He was attended by a numerous retinue of noblemen and gentlemen, among whom were the duke of Lennox, five English earls, viz., the earls of Arundel, Southampton, Pembroke, Montgomery and Villiers, Lord Zouch, a number of knights, including Sir Thomas Lake, one of the secretaries of state, the bishops of Ely, Lincoln, and Winchester, all high church anglicans, and a number of other ecclesiastics, including one, even then,—as Dr. William Laud—known to be an extreme churchman, but destined as bishop successively of St. David's, Bath and Wells, and London, and finally as archbishop of Canterbury, to be one of the ablest and most determined opponents of puritanism in England and of presbyterianism in Scotland. The king was cordially received in the capital of his northern kingdom, and entered at once upon a round of gaieties which lasted during his stay in Scotland. A parliament had been summoned to meet on the 17th of May, but was prorogued till the 13th of June—the interval being filled up with visits to several burghs, where he was welcomed with every expression of loyalty.

At this parliament, in which Glasgow was represented by James Hamilton and James Stewart, the king attended in person, and delivered a long speech, after which a series of acts were passed as to church matters. By these—(1) the mode in which archbishops and bishops should be elected was prescribed—the archbishop of Glasgow by the three bishops of his diocese (Galloway, Argyle, and the Isles), with the ordinary chapter; (2) provision was made for the restitution of deans and chapters, and the plantation of kirks; (3) limitations were placed on the power of archbishops, bishops, and other prelates, to set in tack any portion of their patrimony for a longer period than nineteen years, and of inferior beneficed persons to set any part of their benefices for a longer period than their own lifetime, and five years afterwards; and all such tacks were appointed to be registered in the lord clerk register's books; (4) the act 1606, c. 2, anent the dilapidation of benefices was ratified, with an addition; (5) provision was made for necessaries for the ministration of sacraments; and (6) the duties of justices and constables were prescribed. (fn. 14) A register of reversions, sasines, &c., was also appointed to be kept at Glasgow for the whole lands lying within the bounds of the sheriffdom of Renfrew and barony of Glasgow. (fn. 15) Besides these, the king desired an act to be passed to declare that what soever he, with the advice of the archbishops, bishops, and a competent number of the clergy, should determine as to the external government of the church should have the strength of law. The object of this proposal, it was not concealed, was the supercession of general assemblies, and it was accepted by the lords of the articles. But it alarmed the ministers, who represented their opposition to the king, and though he resented their interference, he did not press his proposal in parliament, remarking that he could do, by virtue of his prerogative, more than the article declared. (fn. 16) He did not, however, forget the action of the ministers who had opposed his project. Two, whom he considered ringleaders, were deprived of their offices and cast into prison, and Calderwood who had supported them was banished from the country. (fn. 17)

On the 15th of July a proclamation was issued by the privy council requiring all the inhabitants of Glasgow and other specified towns, who were owners and occupiers of lodgings and stables, to allow them to be inspected and set apart for the use of the noblemen and other members of the royal train; prohibiting the letting of these premises to any persons other than such members; and requiring the occupiers to prepare them for the accommodation of those members of the royal train who might be billeted to them. Such inhabitants as failed to give obedience to this order were appointed to be apprehended and committed to prison, and otherwise punished. (fn. 18) On the 22nd the king arrived in Glasgow, and was received on his entry by William Hay of Barro, commissary of Glasgow, who delivered a laudatory speech in English; by principal Robert Boyd of Trochrig, who, on behalf of the college, welcomed him in a Latin oration and verses; and by David Dickson, who recited Greek verses in his honour. He appears also to have been presented by the town with a gilt cup, in the form of a salmon. (fn. 19) On the 24th he proceeded to Paisley, but returned on the 27th (a Sunday) to Glasgow, where, as in Edinburgh, he held an important meeting of the privy council, which was attended by the duke of Lennox, the archbishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow, and the bishop of Aberdeen. (fn. 20) Calderwood also mentions that a gentleman's child was baptized in the king's presence chamber in Glasgow by an English bishop,—the king himself being present. (fn. 21) He afterwards proceeded on a series of visits to the marquis of Hamilton, at Hamilton palace; to lord Sanquhar, at Sanquhar; to Sir William Douglas, at Drumlanrig castle; thence by Lincluden to Dumfries and Annan, and so, on 4th August, across the border to Carlisle. (fn. 22)

On 22nd September, 1617, the king addressed a letter to the magistrates and council, from his manor at Theobald, in which, after referring to the disputes which had existed in the city twelve years previously, in respect of the inequality between the representation of merchants and craftsmen on the council, and which disputes had been removed by the king's command that both the parties should have equal representation, he set forth that he was given to understand that certain troublesome persons sought to have his command set aside. The effect of this, he stated, would doubtless be to renew discord, and to prevent this he directed that no alteration should be made on the order he had previously prescribed. (fn. 23) Cleland states that on the 30th of this month James Stewart was appointed provost, and Gabriel Cunningham, William Weems, and Robert Rowat were elected bailies. (fn. 24)

In the year 1601 the magistrates and council obtained from the king a right to levy, for the repair of the bridge of Glasgow, an impost, for the space of nineteen years, on all goods crossing the bridge of Glasgow, and "lossit and laidnit within the freedom of the same citie upoun the water of Clyde." By means of this impost, supplemented by voluntary contributions, the bridge was maintained, the sands were removed, and "calsays" were built along the Green at the river side. (fn. 25) But two years previous to the expiry of the time for which the impost was granted, it was found to be necessary to apply for an extension of that period. Accordingly, in 1618, an application was presented to the privy council, setting forth the necessity for such extension, and authority was obtained on 5th February to levy for five years after 1620 a toll on various articles in continuation of what had been granted in 1601. (fn. 26)

Previous to his return to England the king had consented to the calling of a general assembly to give its sanction, as he was assured it would do, to the Five Articles "which he had withdrawn from the consideration of the assembly in August, 1616." By these articles the king proposed to introduce into the church the following practices:—(1) kneeling at the communion; (2) private communion in urgent cases; (3) private baptism in similar cases; (4) confirmation of children by the bishop of the diocese; and (5) observance of fast days and other sacred anniversaries. An assembly was accordingly convened to meet and did meet at St. Andrews on 25th November, 1617, but, in the course of its sitting, proved to be less pliant than was anticipated. It was only induced to allow private communion in cases of urgent necessity, and to direct that in the administration of the sacrament the bread and wine should be given directly by the minister to the communicant. The final determination of the king's other proposals was deferred till another assembly. This result was highly resented by the king, who was only prevented from adopting extreme measures by the bishops, who counselled moderation to admit of the ministers being operated upon within their several dioceses. (fn. 27) Under that process the ministers were found so much more complaisant as to lead the bishops to obtain the royal consent to convene another assembly, which was held at Perth on 25th August, 1618. Previously the privy council, under the direct order of the king, had, on 22nd January, issued a proclamation requiring the observance of the five holidays of Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension day, and Whitsunday. (fn. 28) At this Perth assembly, Spottiswood, as archbishop of St. Andrews, took the chair as of right, and ruled that only those ministers who held commissions to attend could vote, and that a similar right belonged to those noblemen and gentlemen who appeared in obedience to royal missives. Debate then ensued as to whether the subjects to be brought before the assembly should be discussed in open court, but ultimately it was decided to refer them to a committee. By it accordingly the royal proposals were keenly discussed; their adoption was carried; and its report was brought up to the assembly. There also the proposals were keenly opposed, but a vote was taken on the articles as a whole, all or none, when eighty-six members voted for the articles, forty-nine voted against them, and three declined to vote. It is noticeable that all the representatives of the burghs voted with the majority. (fn. 29) With the victory thus obtained the king was highly pleased, and he intimated his satisfaction on 29th September to the privy council, who, on 21st October ratified the acts of the assembly, and ordered all the lieges to give dutiful respect and regard to their observance. It was also ordered that no kind of labour and handiwork should be done on the five annual festival days specified in the proclamation of 22nd January. (fn. 30) But notwithstanding these injunctions, and the terrors of the Court of High Commission, the powers of which were extended by the king's order of 15th June, 1619, (fn. 31) the popular antagonism to his high-handed action, and the subservience of the bishops and those who supported it, was strongly manifested through considerable portions of the country. In Glasgow, however, save on the part of those connected with the college, (fn. 32) there does not seem to have been general opposition to it.

Cleland states that on 6th October, 1618, James Stewart was reappointed provost, and Gabriel Cunningham, William Stewart, and James Braidwood were elected bailies. (fn. 33)

On 2nd March, 1619, queen Anne died, in the forty-sixth year of her age, but Calderwood states that the event caused "little or no lamentation among the people." (fn. 34)

It appears incidentally in a petition and complaint to the privy council on 11th March in this year that the wearing of swords by the inhabitants of Glasgow had been wholly discontinued at this time. (fn. 35)

In the beginning of this year Patrick Maxwell of Newark instituted legal proceedings against the magistrates and council, in which he complained that some of the inhabitants of the city, who traded in merchandise and fishing, unwarrantably and to his annoyance discharged their commodities on his lands, and committed other acts of "oppression" upon him. He had in consequence succeeded in compelling them to find security against the continuance of that state of matters. The magistrates and council therefore sought relief from the privy council on the ground that they and the whole body of the citizens stood on good terms of friendship with Maxwell, that there was no matter in dispute between them, and that he had no cause to fear oppression from them or from the citizens. In times of storm and severe weather some Glasgow fishing boats and little vessels, no doubt, sought shelter in his harbour, but this afforded no just ground for what he asked, inasmuch as all harbours and ports in the kingdom afforded such shelter to strangers. But if any townsman failed in his duty to him he should deal with the defaulter and not with the general community, who had nothing to do with it, and were about twenty miles distant. Moreover, the magistrates and council held office but for a year, and could not afterwards be held responsible. Provost Stewart appeared before the council on behalf of the magistrates and council, and Maxwell appeared for his own interest, when the privy council suspended the proceedings. (fn. 36)

A minute book of processes before the privy council for the month of April, 1619, mentions a process at the instance of the laird of Minto against the magistrates of Glasgow "for emitting of oppressive acts," but contains no further information on the subject. (fn. 37) In the absence of the council records for the period also, the cause of the process and its result cannot be ascertained. But it may possibly have had reference to the sub-dean's mills, which belonged to the laird. If so, the dispute may have been settled by the town having acquired the mills. At all events, in September of that year the town council entered into a contract with Sir Walter Stewart of Minto and his wife, under which the town acquired the two corn mills and malt mill, called the sub-dean's mills, adjacent to the burgh, the little mill connected therewith; the thirled multures, sucken, and sequels thereof, and the kilns of the same; the multures, sucken, and sequels of the lands of Easter and Wester Craigs, dams and water draught attached to these mills, with their passages, and whole privileges and pertinents; the privilege of casting and winning stones, fuel, feal, and divot for repairing the mills, dams, and other subjects, and enlarging and upholding the little kiln; the superiority and thirlage of twenty-three kilns then built, and the yards adjacent thereto, which kilns were astricted to the mills; and the whole feu-duties addebted and astricted furth of these kilns and yards, and belonging to Sir Walter. And in consideration of this acquisition the town became bound to pay yearly to Sir Walter and his successors nine hundred merks (£50 sterling), at Whitsunday and Martinmas proportionally, as feu-duty in respect of the mills, superiorities, and other properties so acquired. (fn. 38) In further fulfilment of the arrangements set furth in that contract, Sir Walter, by a charter dated 5th May, 1620, confirmed the above agreement, and sold to the town council, for behoof of the community of the city, the several subjects described in the contract, for payment annually of the sums of money therein and above specified. (fn. 39)

On 5th October, 1619, according to Cleland, James Inglis was appointed provost, and Mathew Turnbull, Robert Fleming, and Patrick Maxwell were elected bailies. (fn. 40)

In a charge for fraud and assault preferred on 4th November, 1619, by John Anderson, skipper in Glasgow, against Robert Campbell, and for assault against Colin Campbell, reference is made to a voyage by Anderson from Glasgow to Bordeaux with merchandise. This indicates the existence of foreign trade at this time. (fn. 41) A complaint by the king's advocate and a searcher on 20th July, 1620, against Archibald Anderson, burgess of Glasgow, and James Denniston, skipper of a vessel called the "Yacht," for illegally exporting tallow to foreign countries, is another indication of such trade. (fn. 42)

On 3rd October, 1620, James Inglis' tenure of office as provost was renewed for the following year, and Mathew Turnbull, William Stewart, and Patrick Maxwell were elected bailies. (fn. 43)

In July, 1621, a parliament was convened in Edinburgh, and was opened on the 25th of that month. One of the main objects of the meeting was to obtain ratification of the Five Articles of Perth, but to remonstrate against this a number of ministers came to Edinburgh and drew up a petition to be submitted to the parliament. They were, however, charged to leave the town, and were prevented from even protesting against the ratification. The marquis of Hamilton appeared as royal commissioner, and forty-nine burghs were represented, James Inglis attending on behalf of Glasgow, and being also elected one of the lords of the articles, to whom were referred the various measures to be submitted to the parliament. By them a subsidy to the king was first passed, and then the "Five Articles" came up for consideration. The ratification of these articles was opposed, but was carried, four members voting against it, of whom the only burghal representative was the provost of Stirling. On the 4th of August the ratification of the "Five Articles" was carried after a struggle, eighty-one voting for it, and fifty against it. Calderwood gives a list of the representatives of burghs which voted—forty-four in number, and of these twenty-four voted against the ratification. Of the twenty-two representatives of the sheriffdoms who voted, eleven also voted against the ratification. Of the fifty noblemen who voted, fifteen voted refuse, the others voted for it, as did also the fifteen bishops who were present. This parliament, it may be noticed, was the last of the Scottish parliaments of the reign of king James. (fn. 44)

On 7th August, 1621, archbishop Law, as "lord of the barony and regality of Glasgow," granted a charter at Edinburgh in favour of Ludovick, duke of Lennox, therein named and designed earl Darnley and Richmond, lord Methven, Torbolton, and St. Andrews, great admiral and chamberlain of Scotland, by which, on the narrative that the duke and his predecessors had enjoyed the office of bailiary, regality, and justiciary within the bounds of the lordship and barony of Glasgow beyond all memory, and that by their assistance the tenants and inhabitants had been kept in surer service and obedience to the archbishop, he disponed that office to the duke and his heirs male, and successors heritably, within the bounds and whole parts of the regality; with special power to appoint deputes, hold courts in civil and criminal causes, to repledge from other jurisdictions, &c. And the archbishop appointed the office to be holden under him blench for payment of a penny at the gate of the castle of Glasgow. (fn. 45) But the duke and his successors were taken bound to have one of their deputes continually resident in the burgh, and ready on every occasion to apprehend, incarcerate, and punish transgressors according to the measure of their fault. And these deputes, whether resident in or outwith the burgh, were required to wait on the archbishop and his successors with all worship and reverence. If these deputes failed in any of their duties the duke and his successors were required, on complaint by the archbishop and his successors, duly verified, to remove them from office, and to substitute others "more attentive, obedient, and favourers of justice." The archbishop also reserved to himself and his successors the right to constitute bailies, clerks, sergeants, and other needful officers of courts within the lordship and barony, before whom his factors and chamberlains might sue tenants and vassals, and other debtors, for payment of rents and other duties due to the archbishop, and to hold courts for that purpose.

On 2nd October, 1621, James Hamilton was appointed provost, and Gabriel Cunningham, Robert Fleming, and Thomas Morrison were elected bailies. (fn. 46)

On 20th December, 1621, archbishop Law, and the other visitors of the college, separated the charge of the parish of Govan from the office of principal of the college, fixed the stipend and emoluments of the minister of that parish, and ordained the patronage to be in the chancellor, rector, dean of faculty, principal, and regents of the college. (fn. 47)

In 1621 and 1622 three trials for witchcraft are referred to as having occurred in Glasgow. In the first of these, on 10th October, 1621, the privy council appointed four gentlemen, with Sir Walter Stewart of Minto, bailie of the regality of Glasgow, and the magistrates of Glasgow, or any three of them —Stewart being always one—to try the suspected witch. In the second, on 19th February, 1622, the 20th of March following was fixed by the privy council for the trial of another woman suspected of witchcraft; and in the third the privy council appointed the magistrates, or any two of them, to be justices for the trial of a third woman suspected of witchcraft, and who had "confessed sundry points" of the charge. (fn. 48)

In 1622 a complaint was presented to the privy council by the magistrates and council of Renfrew against the magistrates of Glasgow, in which they set forth that the community of Renfrew mainly consisted of seafaring men, who had no other trade and industry than that of fishing, the produce of which they brought for sale to the bridge of Glasgow; that during the years 1619, 1620, and 1621 they had been "heavily troubled by the magistrates of Glasgow," (fn. 49) who had oppressed them so as to compel them to leave the fishing trade, and that by unauthorisedly levying a tax of thirty-two shillings upon every inhabitant of Renfrew who came to the bridge with herring and other kinds of fish; that the gross sums so levied amounted to £25 12s. annually upon every inhabitant of Renfrew, and was the greatest taxation "that in the memory of man had been raised in Scotland, either by the king or otherwise;" that for payment of the tax the magistrates of Glasgow not only arrested the boats of the complainers, but poinded the fish sold by them to merchants and others; and that if a remedy were not provided the old burgh of Renfrew would be "overthrowne and miserablie undone." In support of the complaint the provost and two of the bailies of Renfrew appeared before the privy council on 18th June, 1622, while one of the bailies of Glasgow represented that burgh. In defence it was pleaded that the "couparis" (dealers) who brought the herrings to the bridge "wailled" (picked or selected) their herrings after they were bought from the fishermen, and, retaining the best for their own use, brought only the "outwail" (what was left) and smallest to the city for the supply of the country, and sold them at as high prices as if the herrings had not been so "wailled,"—the result being that the dearth of herrings increased, and the country was not well served. The magistrates of Glasgow had therefore, by an act dated 4th October, 1589, and renewed in August, 1613, ordered that no herrings should be "wailed" before they came to the bridge, and that the water bailie should "fense" (take charge of) the herring, as well of free as of unfree boats, till the owners appeared before the bailies and made oath that the herring had not been "wailled." Violation of this order was appointed to be punished by a fine of £5. Under these acts, it was further stated that the magistrates of Glasgow had taken proceedings against the people of Renfrew, but had dealt with them more favourably than the acts prescribed. After hearing the parties, the privy council found that the acts of council referred to were "well made to prevent abuse, and ordered them to remain in force, but declared that violation of them should only be punished by imprisonment in the tolbooth of Glasgow, and that a pecuniary penalty should not be imposed. (fn. 50)

It may be noticed, as illustrating the relative importance of some of the burghs in 1621 and 1622, that in commutation of the income tax, authorised by the act 1621, c. 2, already referred to, the king accepted from Edinburgh a slump sum of £40,000, while from Glasgow a sum of £815 12s. 6d. was accepted; while Aberdeen paid £1,450, and Linlithgow undertook to pay £163 2s. 5d. Hamilton got off for one hundred merks. (fn. 51)

On 6th October, 1622, James Hamilton was re-elected provost, and Gabriel Cuningham, John Rowat, and Thomas Morrison were appointed bailies. (fn. 52)

At the time of the Perth assembly the principalship of the college of Glasgow was held by Robert Boyd, a son of James Boyd, who had been titular archbishop of Glasgow. (fn. 53) The son is said to have been a learned and good man, but did not share his father's love for Episcopacy. On the contrary, he, with the other professors and the students, was opposed to the action of James and the assembly, and as the king was anxious that the influence of the heads of the universities should be exercised in support of that action, Boyd was compelled to resign in 1622. He was succeeded by John Cameron, a native of Glasgow, who possessed a high reputation as a scholar and theologian, and was a strong supporter of the royal prerogative, but he only retained the office for about a year, after which he returned to France, and died there in 1625. (fn. 54)

An act of the privy council, dated 20th August, 1623, indicates the restrictions imposed on foreign vessels coming to Glasgow for purposes of trade, and the relations between the city and Dumbarton at this time. A Friesland vessel, laden with deals, arrived at Ayr, and the master offered her cargo to the magistrates of that burgh, but they were supplied, and recommended him to carry it to Glasgow, some of the magistrates and burgesses of which came to Ayr and bought the whole. Her master accordingly took his vessel to Inchgreen, and proceeded to unload, but the provost and bailies of Dumbarton, with twenty-four or thirty of the townsmen, boarded the vessel, carried the master to Dumbarton and imprisoned him there, and seized and took away seventy deals, forming part of the cargo, in payment of the customs which they charged. In these circumstances, the master complained to the privy council; which, after hearing the parties, found that the complainer had been detained in ward the first night after his seizure, though he had offered caution. The defenders were accordingly ordered to pay the complainer £20 for his expenses during the night of his imprisonment, and were prohibited from leaving Edinburgh till that amount was paid. But in respect that Gabriel Cuningham, bailie, and the town-clerk, both of Glasgow, who had assisted the complainer, had apparently advised him to remain in ward beyond the first night, Cuningham, as representing the city, was ordered to pay £3 to every one of the witnesses in the case. (fn. 55)

At the convention of burghs held in Dundee in July, 1623, Glasgow was represented by Gabriel Cuningham, who was appointed on the 3rd of that month, along with the representatives of sixteen of the other burghs, to represent to the king certain grievances under which the burghs laboured. (fn. 56) He accordingly attended the particular convention in Edinburgh on 9th July, which prepared a statement of these grievances. (fn. 57)

On 30th September a messenger produced to the council a letter from the archbishop requesting them to admit Gabriel Cuningham to be provost for the following year, and he was admitted accordingly; and from a leet of nine the archbishop nominated John Rowat, John Cunyngham, and Walter Douglas to be bailies. Three days later twentyfive councillors were elected—thirteen, including Hamilton, the provost of the preceding year, being merchants, and twelve being craftsmen; and on 8th October the following elections were made—Mathew Turnbull, dean of guild; John Padie, deacon-convener; William Neilson, visitor of maltmen and mealmen; and William Neilson, treasurer. (fn. 58)

Defects in the letter of guildry appear to have been discovered at this time, and on 11th October the council appointed six merchants and six craftsmen to deliberate and conclude as to what amendments the council should be recommended to make upon it. (fn. 59)

It might have been expected that the strength of the minority which, in the parliament of 1621, had resisted the confirmation of the articles of Perth, would have impressed the king with the prudence of moderation. But on the contrary it seems to have increased his determination to enforce conformity to his views, and to press upon the Scottish bishops the adoption of severer measures against recusants. (fn. 60) These measures, however, as was represented to him by the earl of Melrose in 1623, only inflamed popular resentment, and the knowledge of this induced him to turn a deaf ear to the councils of Laud, then prebendary of Westminster and bishop of St. Davids, who urged him to adopt more strenuous measures to compel the Scottish kirk to conform to the practice of the English church. (fn. 61)

The years 1622 and 1623 were years of great famine and excessive mortality in Scotland, and, in consequence, the privy council passed several acts prohibiting the export of victual, (fn. 62) the forestalling of the markets by the wholesale purchase by merchants and others of foreign victual coming into port, (fn. 63) authorising license to be granted to honest householders to beg, and ordering idle and sturdy beggars to be compelled to work on the roads, (fn. 64) and directing a tax to be levied in every shire and burgh on all the capable inhabitants for the support of the destitute poor. (fn. 65)

On 16th February, 1624, Ludovick, duke of Lennox and Richmond, (fn. 66) died in the forty-eighth year of his age, and was buried in Westminster Abbey on 19th April. (fn. 67) He left no heirs of his body, and was succeeded by his brother Esme—the second son of Esme, the first duke. (fn. 68)

In 1624 the condition of the Cathedral was such as to require repair. On 21st February the town council ordered deals to be sawed for "sylloring" of the "Laich" Kirk, (fn. 69) and on 15th May they directed the "laich" steeple of the High Kirk (fn. 70) to be covered with lead. (fn. 71)

On 10th June and 24th July, 1624, by the king's command proclamation was made prohibiting all conventicles and private meetings in houses by night. (fn. 72)

At the convention of burghs held at Linlithgow from 6th to 9th July, 1624, Glasgow was again represented by its provost, Gabriel Cuningham. (fn. 73) He also attended the particular convention held in Edinburgh on the 12th of the same month, when a reply was made to the answers of the royal commissioners to the complaints submitted to the king by the convention of 1623. (fn. 74) The result was that the royal commissioners proposed a meeting with some of the commissioners of burghs to discuss these grievances, and Cuningham was appointed one of them. (fn. 75)

Esme, third duke of Lennox, died on 30th July, 1624, and was succeeded by his eldest son, James, who was then only twelve years and three months old, and his godfather, king James, being also the nearest heir male of the family then of age, became, by the law of Scotland, the tutor and guardian of the minor. He accordingly appointed commissioners for the management of the estates, personally superintended his education, and settled several pensions on him and his mother. (fn. 76)

On 22nd September, 1624, the privy council issued an order in which, after referring to the acts of the general assembly held at Perth in August, 1618, (fn. 77) and sanctioned by parliament in August, 1621, (fn. 78) and to the duty of all the king's subjects to obey these enactments, but to the failure in many burghs of the people to give effect to them, and of the magistrates to enforce them, charges were appointed to be given to all burghs not to make choice of any persons to be magistrates for the following year, save those of whose "obedience and conformitie to the ordours of the church" they had "good assurance." (fn. 79)

On 5th October, 1624, Gabriel Cuningham was continued provost for the ensuing year at the request of the archbishop, on whose nomination also William Stewart, George Barclay, and John Padie were elected bailies; and three days later thirteen merchants and twelve craftsmen were appointed councillors, all for the following year. (fn. 80)

On 9th October, 1624, the town council, probably as the result of a report from the committee appointed by them on 11th October of the previous year, interpreted articles 1 and 2 of the letter of guildry, (fn. 81) and declared them to mean that the dean of guild, who had held office for two years, could not be reelected or put on the leet for a longer tenure of that office. Four days afterwards Patrick Bell was elected dean of guild, David Scherar, deacon-convener, William Neilson, visitor of maltmen and mealmen, and Thomas Norvell, treasurer. (fn. 82) On the 23rd of the same month it was also ordered that in future the master of works should be elected at the same time as the dean of guild, convener, and visitor were appointed. (fn. 83)

On 4th November, 1624, the privy council issued an order requiring precautions to be adopted against the introduction into Scotland of the plague, which was then raging in Holland "and sindrie pairts of the Easter seas, quhair the subjects of this kingdome hes thair most frequent intercourse and trade of marcheandice." (fn. 84) Notwithstanding, the plague appears to have reached Edinburgh on the 28th of that month, (fn. 85) and on the 30th the privy council issued another order, in which, after referring to the concourse of people to the city from all corners of the kingdom to attend to their business in council and session, and to the consequent risk of having the sickness extended throughout the country, it was ordered that the privy council, session, and college of justice should cease to meet; that all diets before the privy council and justice-general should be deserted; and that all inferior judicatories within the city, such as the commissariat, the admiralty, and the sheriffs, should immediately rise, and not resume their sittings till 7th January following. (fn. 86) This state of matters seems to have alarmed the town council of Glasgow, for on 1st December they appointed quartermasters for the several specified districts of the city "to search, seik, and tak order with all persons within the boundis of thair tred and calling," to make a list of their names, and to produce it upon the following Saturday. Ten days later fifty-nine persons were appointed to be constables, within the districts assigned to them respectively, for the following six months; and all persons within the burgh were ordered, previous to the following Friday, under a penalty of £10, to make their yard ends fencible, and to close up the passages thereat, so that no person might have access thereby. (fn. 87) On 4th February, 1625, the privy council extended the time during which the several courts were not to hold their sittings in Edinburgh, by reason of the pestilence, till the 9th of March, when they were appointed to meet in Stirling. (fn. 88) The plague continued to rage after that time, and, on 23rd July, the town council of Glasgow, in consequence of information as to the increase of pestilence in England, and in view of the large number of Glasgow merchants and burgesses who repaired with merchandise to that country and returned with wares to Scotland, and specially to Glasgow, prohibited all burgesses and inhabitants of the city from going to England without previously informing the magistrates, that their names and destinations might be recorded, in order that they might "return" testimonials with them. The then "customer" was prohibited from giving "custom bill" to such as did not obey the above order; and all persons then in England were prohibited from being received within the burgh till the magistrates had been informed, and had taken order with them. (fn. 89)

On 2nd March, 1625, James, marquis of Hamilton, died at Whitehall, not without suspicion of having been poisoned, (fn. 90) and the king, who is said to have observed with reference to the event that "if the branches be thus cut down, the stock cannot long continue," was himself seized with an illness which was called the "tertian ague." He died at Theobald's at mid-day on Sunday, the 27th of the same month, (fn. 91) in the fifty-seventh year of his age, and his son Charles was proclaimed his successor on the afternoon of the same day. Charles, then in the twenty-fifth year of his age, was proclaimed at the market cross of Edinburgh on 31st March. (fn. 92)

Two years previously Charles, then prince of Wales, accompanied by the duke of Buckingham, had gone on a romantic journey to Madrid in the expectation of being able to conclude the marriage treaty which his father had contemplated, and of bringing back as his bride the Infanta, sister of king Philip. Having by this ill-advised step, which king James was with great difficulty induced to allow, placed himself at a disadvantage in the conduct of the requisite negotiations with the Spanish court, and shrinking from a return to England without accomplishing his object, he was induced to make concessions to demands by Philip and his ministers which would probably never have been advanced had he remained in England, and finally to engage to give immunities to the English catholics, which immunities he undertook to have ratified by parliament within three years. But even this engagement did not effect his object, and finding that, though the marriage were solemnized, his bride would not be allowed to accompany him to England, he returned home, after an absence of nine months, deeply incensed, and ultimately broke off the match three days before the marriage ceremony had been arranged to be performed. In little more than a year later a marriage treaty between the prince and the princess Henrietta Maria, youngest daughter of Henry IV. of France and of his queen, Mary de Medici, and sister of Louis XIII., was signed by the ambassadors of England and France, and ratified by the prince and his father on 12th December, 1624. In the negociations for the marriage the French court insisted, as the Spanish court had done, that the Roman catholics of England should not be subjected to disabilities, and the condition was accepted by both James and Charles, notwithstanding the assurance which had previously been given to the English parliament that no such favour to Roman catholics should be conceded. Charles was thus, after his marriage, placed in the position of violating his engagement, either to his own subjects or to his queen and the king of France. The illness and death of James led to the postponement of the marriage, but on 1st May, 1625, it was celebrated by proxy in Paris, and on 12th June the young queen, then a sharp bright-eyed girl of fifteen, landed at Dover, where on the following morning she was met by the king. On the 16th they entered London. (fn. 93)

On 4th June, 1625, an act of council authorised the sons of burgesses, whose parents had died before the "doun setting" of the guildry, on production of their fathers' burgess tickets, to be received guild brethren, each for payment of £15, being the half of the ordinary fee, and other charges used and wont. (fn. 94)

On the same day the council elected Gabriel Cunningham, provost, to be their commissioner at the convention of burghs to be held in the city on the 5th of the following month, and, as he fell to be moderator of the convention, they elected James Hamilton to be second commissioner, and John Padie to be his assessor. (fn. 95) At this convention, accordingly, Cunningham was elected moderator, and the sittings extended from the 5th to the 8th of the month, when the convention was dissolved, and the next meeting was appointed to be held at Dunbar in July of the following year. (fn. 96)

On the 29th of July, James, duke of Lennox, was served nearest and lawful heir of Ludovic, duke of Lennox, his uncle, in the office of bailiary and justiciary of the barony and regality of Glasgow, as well within as without the town of Glasgow. (fn. 97)

On 6th August two hundred merks were ordered to be paid to Alexander Thomson, son of the deceased John Thomson, court clerk of the burgh, for his father's protocol books, and for his "thankful service" to the burgh during his tenure of that office. (fn. 98)

The first English parliament of the new reign was opened at Westminster on 18th June, 1625, and the king's difficulties commenced. In the relative attitudes of his parliament towards him, and of his attitude towards it, and of his high assumption of divine right and arbitrary power, are to be found the explanation of much of his corresponding action towards his subjects in Scotland, and of the opposition which he had also to encounter there. That opposition in several of its intensest forms found expression in Glasgow, and it becomes necessary, therefore, for the understanding of matters of purely local history, to refer generally to the current of events both in England and Scotland. The demand for supplies which he addressed to his first parliament to meet the expenses of the war he had declared against Spain after the conclusion of his marriage was not met, and both houses adjourned—in consequence of the plague which was then raging in London—to meet again at Oxford on 1st August. Parliament accordingly assembled there on that day, but was dissolved on the 11th, after angry debates, in which the policy of Buckingham was challenged with much heat. (fn. 99)

On 4th October, 1625, James Inglis was elected provost, on the nomination of the archbishop, (fn. 100) and from a leet of nine the archbishop selected three, viz., George Barclay, John Padie, and Patrick Bell, who were appointed bailies. Three days later thirteen merchants and twelve craftsmen were elected councillors; and on 12th October Mathew Turnbull was appointed dean of guild, William Neilson, younger, deacon-convener, John Crawford, visitor, Gavin Nesbit, younger, treasurer, and Thomas Glen, master of work. (fn. 101)

In anticipation of the king coming to Scotland to be crowned during the following year, and of the consequent charges and other expenses, the estates, on 27th October, granted a taxation of £400,000, of which the burghs were to contribute their usual share. (fn. 102)

On 12th November forty-three persons were appointed constables, and districts were assigned to them respectively. George Lyon was appointed convener. (fn. 103)

In this year the town council resolved to remove the old Tolbooth and erect a new one on its site at the north-western corner of the High Street and Trongate. The following particulars connected with that operation appear in the Council Records:—On 14th May a quantity of hewn and other stones was ordered to be provided for the building. (fn. 104) On 13th August £40 were authorised to be paid to the quarriers; and on the 20th of the same month the council directed a thousand deals to be purchased for the work. (fn. 105) On 22nd October £16 Scots were appointed to be disbursed to the workmen who "wonnes and brings hame" the stones for the building; and on 12th November the building was ordered to be proceeded with diligently—the stone work to be made small "brotchit work." On 28th January, 1626, £120 Scots (£10 sterling) disbursed to quarriers, carters, and masons, and £640 Scots (£53 6s. 8d. sterling) for timber were authorised to be paid. (fn. 106) On 11th February the magistrates were empowered to arrange with John Boyd and Patrick Colquhoun as to taking down the old Tolbooth. and "to sie quhat can be gottin doun of 300 merks (£16 13s. 4d. sterling), as thai have alreddie offerit to tak doun the same for the said sowme; and als to deill with Johne Neill, knok maker, to mak ane new knok, and to try the pryce; and als to deill with the tennentis of the buithes under the Tolbuithe that thai may remove." By the 18th of the same month the arrangements for the demolition of the old structure were so far advanced that on that day the charter chest and the whole of the town's books were ordered to be placed in the house of Mathew Turnbull, dean of guild, there to remain till the new Tolbooth was ready to receive them. On 4th March an agreement was entered into with Gabriel Smith, smith, "to work all the iron work of the new building for thirteen shillings and fourpence the stone weight"; and William Neilson, elder, and William Anderson were appointed to oversee the work. On 15th March the "grund stane" of the new building was laid, and the number of persons employed is stated as follows:—John Boyd, master of the work, and eleven others, masters of the masons; James Johnston and five other servants; and John Stutt and six other apprentices. Three days later 250 merks (£13 17s. 9d. sterling) were ordered to be paid to the wrights and masons for taking down the old building, as agreed on. (fn. 107) On 1st April a warrant was granted for £208 1s. 4d. Scots (£17 6s. 9d. sterling) paid by the treasurer to the masons, barrowmen, quarriers, carters, and others employed on the work from the 15th to the 26th of March; on the 8th Gabriel Smith undertook to sharpen the irons of the masons during the building of the Tolbooth and its steeple for £40 Scots (£3 6s. 8d. sterling), subject to the provision that if he were a loser by the job he would "refer himself" to the will of the council. (fn. 108) On 2nd April, 1627, the town's charters and books, which were deposited in the house of the dean of guild on 18th February, 1626, were ordered to be brought back and deposited in the new Tolbooth. (fn. 109) On 29th September £46 15s. were ordered to be paid for brass and copper for the cock and fane of the Tolbooth; and William Duncan was ordered to be paid twenty merks for making the same, besides being allowed to keep the clippings. £44 1s. 3d. were paid to Gabriel Smith for fourteen stones eleven pounds of iron for the cock, bell, and fane, and for his work he was allowed fifty merks, while his servants got a dollar as drink silver. John Boyd, master of work, was allowed £100 "for his bountethe and diligens in building the Tolbooth." The quarrier and his men were also ordered to be paid £10 of drink silver. (fn. 110) On 13th October forty shillings were paid to James Wood for making a ladder "to hing the tung of the bell;" and on the 20th of the same month Valentine Ginkingye was authorised to be paid £30 "for gilding the cock and fanes, and collouring the same yellow, with the globe and standart and stanes about the stepill heid." (fn. 111) On 17th November John Neill was ordered to be paid £10 "for chainging the knok and bywork." (fn. 112)

Having regard to the injury done to royal and free burghs by the feuing out of their common lands to "neighbours," some of whom conveyed the lands so feued to noblemen and gentlemen in the neighbourhood, who were thus enabled to encroach on the liberties of these burghs, the particular convention of burghs held at Edinburgh on 4th November, 1625, directed the attention of the next general convention to be called to the subject, and appointed all the burghs to send their commissioners to that convention duly instructed to set down such orders as might remedy the evil, and prevent its recurrence. (fn. 113) Accordingly the general convention held in Dunbar on 6th July, 1626, prohibited every burgh from letting any part of its common lands, fishings, waters, mills, and other portions of its common good, in feu or tack, to any person save at the highest feu-duty or rent, and only to its neighbours, actual residents, merchants, and craftsmen, bearing all portable charges within the burgh; and declared that if a burgess conveyed his feu or tack to any person save an actual resident, merchant, or craftsman, then it should revert to the town without process of law. Farther, it was ordained that if any burgess conveyed his feu or tack to persons of other degree or quality, then the burgh should refuse to receive such assignee or disponee under a penalty of £100 to be paid by the delinquent burgh to the other burghs. Patrick Bell represented Glasgow in this convention. (fn. 114)


  • 1. Privy Council Records, X., p. 459.
  • 2. Ibid., X., p. 515.
  • 3. Ibid., X., p. 521.
  • 4. Convention Records, III., p. 21.
  • 5. There had been no general assembly since that held at Glasgow in June, 1610, when the episcopal system promoted by the king had been established.
  • 6. Privy Council Register, X., pp. 580, 581.
  • 7. Calderwood, VII., pp. 220–242. Spottiswood, II., pp. 305, 306. Privy Council Register, X., pp. cii., ciii., 598, 601. Grub, III., pp. 235, 236. Cunningham, I., pp. 482, 483. Burton, VII., p. 14. To this assembly the credit belongs of having given effect to the king's far-sighted proposal to have a register kept by every clergyman of all baptisms, marriages, and deaths in his parish. It is to be observed, however, that the provincial council, held at Edinburgh in 1551, which confirmed the canons of the council of 1549, added a canon (14) to which, according to Lord Hailes, "the present age unknowingly owes the establishment of the registers of proclamation of banns, of marriages and baptisms. The solicitude of the council for rendering such registers perfect is highly laudable. The reasons assigned for this solicitude are sensible." [Historical Memorials of Provincial Councils in Annals of Scotland, III., p. 263.] "The registration of deaths or burials may, perhaps," (says Dr. Joseph Robertson) "have been thought already sufficiently provided for by the synodal statute of St. Andrews, No. 161." [Statuta Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ, vol. II., p. 70. Dr. Joseph Robertson's Note, p. 299.]
  • 8. M'Ure, p. 249.
  • 9. Ibid. Annals of Glasgow, p. 97. MS. Protocol Books.
  • 10. Council Records, I., pp. 338–9.
  • 11. Privy Council Register, XI., p. 31.
  • 12. Acts of Parliament, IV., pp. 581–5.
  • 13. Balfour, II., p. 66.
  • 14. 1617, c. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Acts of Parliament, IV., pp. 524, 529–534, 535–541.
  • 15. 1617, c. 16, Ibid., IV., p. 545.
  • 16. Spottiswood, III., pp. 241–245. Calderwood, VI., p. 250, et seq. Burton, VI., p. 45, 46. Cunninghame, I., pp. 484, 485.
  • 17. Calderwood, VII., pp. 257–276–282.
  • 18. Privy Council Register, XI., p. 186.
  • 19. This cup, with a gilt basin given by Edinburgh on his arrival there, and another gilt cup presented to him by the town of Carlisle, the king, by a warrant signed at Hitchinbroke on 23rd October, 1618, gave to Sir Gideon Murray of Elibank. [Analecta Scotica (edited by Maidment), I., p. 52.]
  • 20. Privy Council Register, XI., pp. 198, 202, 206.
  • 21. Calderwood, VII., p. 272.
  • 22. Privy Council Register, XI., pp. 206, 207, 210, 211. A detailed account of the king's visit to Scotland is given by Dr. Masson in his Introduction to volume XI. of the Register, pp. viii.–xliii.
  • 23. Council Records, I., pp. 339, 340.
  • 24. Annals of Glasgow, p. 97. MS. Protocol Books.
  • 25. Privy Council Register, XI., pp. 304, 305. Dr. Masson calls attention to a phrase in this act "doun the water," which has since been, if it was not previously, a household expression in Glasgow.
  • 26. In the application of 1618 the condition of the bridge in 1601 is described as having been very far decayed and at the point of ruin—the pillars, pend, and under-props being so shaken and "brugille" by the inundation, force, and violence of the water of Clyde, as to have become altogether loose, to the apparent overthrow of the bridge. Divers parts of the river beneath the bridge had also become so overblown with sand as to have become unnavigable by boats and vessels of small burden, by which all the commodities of the city were for the most part brought to and from it.
  • 27. Calderwood, VII., pp. 284–286. Spottiswood, III., pp. 248, 252. Privy Council Register, XI., Introduction, pp. lviii., lix., 270, 271. Grub, II., p. 310. Cunningham, I., pp. 487, 488.
  • 28. Privy Council Register, XI., pp. 296, 297. Calderwood, VII., pp. 290, 291.
  • 29. Privy Council Register, XV., pp. lxv., lxvi. Calderwood, VII., pp. 303–332. Spottiswood, III., 252–257. Grub, II., pp. 314–319. Cunningham, I., pp. 488–490. Burton, VI., pp. 47–52.
  • 30. Privy Council Register, XI., pp. 454–456.
  • 31. Calderwood, VII., pp. 384–388.
  • 32. Grub, II., pp. 326, 327, and the authorities therein cited. "In Glasgow," Calderwood says, "archbishop Law discharged all persons to come to the communion table on Easter day, save such as proposed to kneel; whereupon the principal of the college, Mr. Robert Boyd, the regents and the scholars, and the town minister, Mr. Robert Scott, communicated not.
  • 33. Cleland's Abridgment, p. 97. MS. Protocol Books. Stewart is also referred to as provost in the privy council register on 27th July [vol. XII., p. 37], when he was charged by one, William Knox, for assault of a very serious kind, followed by illegal imprisonment, but the matter seems to have been hushed up [Ibid.].
  • 34. Balfour's Annals, II., p. 77. Calderwood, VII., p. 351.
  • 35. Privy Council Records, XI., p. 540.
  • 36. Privy Council Register, XI., pp. 522, 523. No further reference to this dispute appears, and probably some amicable arrangement was come to. Obviously during the time of the Commonwealth the magistrates and council were in negotiation with the authorities in regard to the harbour of Newark, for on 2nd May, 1659, James Hamilton was appointed to write to judge Ker and ascertain when he could go "and sight the harberie at Newark." [Council Records, II., p. 418.] On 21st May this instruction was renewed, and bailie Rae and John Walkinshaw were appointed to attend him when he came to make the inspection. [Ibid., II., p. 420.] What followed upon this does not appear. But in 1636 a charter under the great seal, granted by king Charles I., and afterwards referred to, conferred on Glasgow the freedom of the river, on either bank, from the burgh of Glasgow to the Clochstane, with freedom and immunity for roadsteads of the roads of Inchgreen, Newark, Pot of the Rig, or any other of the roadsteads between these two points, for loading and unloading of merchandise and goods belonging to the burgh, as well imported as exported, in ships and other Scottish vessels. Notwithstanding this grant, frequent disputes arose between Glasgow on the one hand and Dumbarton and Renfrew on the other as to the right of the two last-named burghs to levy rates on ships and boats passing up the river. Negotiations subsequently took place with a view to the erection, by Glasgow, of a harbour at Dumbarton, but the project was opposed by the latter. In these circumstances Glasgow turned its attention to the south side of the Clyde, and in 1668 acquired from Sir Patrick Maxwell of Newark land on the bay adjacent to the village of Newark, with a right to construct a harbour there. The right so granted was forthwith confirmed by the king, who conferred baronial jurisdiction and a variety of other powers on the grantees; and on the land so acquired the town and harbour of PortGlasgow were constructed. [Inventure of City Wrytes and Evidents, p. 18, b. 3, No. 3.]
  • 37. Privy Council Register, XI., p. 570.
  • 38. Original Contract in the Archives of the City, dated 13th and 14th September, 1619. Glasgow Charters, part II., pp. 302–308, No. XCIX.
  • 39. Original in the Archives of the City. Glasgow Charters, I., pp. 309–314. Upon this charter infeftment was expede by John Thomson, town-clerk, on 9th May, 1620. Original in the Archives of the City. Both the contract and the charter were ratified by the Act of Parliament, 1661, c. 235. Acts of Parliament, VII., p. 220 (new edition).
  • 40. Cleland's Abridgment, p. 97. MS. Protocol Books.
  • 41. Privy Council Register, XII., p. 113.
  • 42. Ibid., XII., p. 330.
  • 43. Cleland's Abridgment, &c., p. 98. MS. Protocol Books.
  • 44. Acts of Parliament, IV., 596, 597. Privy Council Register, XII., pp. lxxxii.–lxxxvi., 549, 550, 557. Calderwood, VII., pp. 464– 504. Spottiswood, III., pp. 261–263. Balfour, II., pp. 84–91. Burton. VI., 52, 53. Cunningham, I., p. 492. Burton observes that the act of the estates authorising the Five Articles is the only statute on the face of the records of the Scots' parliament which either authorises or dictates on matters of religious ceremonial. It was suspended by various laws passed during the civil war; but these were collectively repealed or "reschinded," as it was termed, at the restoration. According to the English doctrine of statute law, the act called "a ratification of the Five Articles of the general assembly of the kirk holden at Perth" would be actual law at the present day; but according to the practice of Scotland, it passed into oblivion, and thus ceased to be law. It is another peculiarity of Scots legislation, that although the act "statutes and ordains" the articles "to be obeyed and observed by all his majesty's subjects as law in time coming," there is no punishment or penalty laid on those who disobey the injunction.
  • 45. Great Seal Register, 1620–33, No. 1397. Glasgow Charters, part ii., p. 314, No. CI.
  • 46. Cleland's Abridgment, &c., p. 98. MS. Protocol Books.
  • 47. Original Act in the Archives of the University. Munimenta Alme Universitatis Glasguensis, vol. I., pp. 521, 522.
  • 48. Privy Council Register, XII., pp. 580, 651, 711. The Records of the Presbytery of Glasgow also show that the church dealt with those suspected of witcheraft. See 31st July, 1599, MS. Records. Among the most deplorable of human superstitions, generally accepted by the christian church, and made the subject of legislation and judicial procedure during the four centuries ending practically in the seventeenth, was the belief in witchcraft, resulting in the torture and death of the miserable and often frenzied creatures who were convicted of this supposed crime against the laws of God and man. Thus, in 1510, one of the duties of the justiciar was to inquire whether witchcraft or sorcery was practised in the realm [Pitcairn's Criminal Trials, book I., part ii., p. 66]. The earliest case of this nature in the records of the High Court of Justiciary is that of a woman in Dunfermline, who, on 23rd May, 1563, was banished for the supposed offence [Ibid., I., part ii., p. 432]. But this sentence seems to have been considered too lenient, and on 4th June in the same year the act 1563, c. 9 [Acts of Parliament, II., p. 539], enacted that all who used witchcraft, sorcery, necromancy, or pretended skill therein, and all consulters of witches and sorcerers should be punished capitally. What judicial murders may have immediately followed upon this statute cannot now be known, but on 29th December, 1572, the records of Justiciary refer to the conviction and burning a poor woman as a witch [Pitcairn, I., i., p. 38]. In connection with the subsequent case of Bessie Dunlop tried and executed on 8th November, 1576, Pitcairn gives some curious information as to the treatment of the poor, and probably in most cases, demented creatures, who were often tortured into worthless confessions, and whose punishment it was to be "wirreit at ane staik," and then to have their bodies "brynt in assis" [Ibid., I., i., pp. 49–58]. For the further legislation of the Scottish parliament against withcraft see the general index to the Lord Clerk Register's edition of these acts, and the cases reported by Pitcairn. Reference may also be made to Hume's Commentaries on the law of Scotland respecting Crime, 2nd edition; voce "Witchcraft;" and Acts of the Privy Council on the subject given in the printed Register, volumes X., XI., and XII. Upon the act of 1563 above referred to, Erskine says; "Numberless innocent persons were tried and burned to death, upon evidence which, in place of affording reasonable conviction to the judge, was fraught with absurdity and superstition. It is now unnecessary," he adds, "to enter into a particular explication of that law, since by a British statute [9 George III, c. 5] all prosecution upon witchcraft, sorcery, or conjuration is prohibited. To discourage pretences to such arts as frequently imposed on the ignorant, all persons who shall pretend to witchcraft, or undertake from their skill in any occult science to tell fortunes or discover stolen goods, are, by the same statute, to suffer imprisonment for a year, to stand in the pillory once in every three months of that year, and to give sureties for their good behaviour for such time as the court shall direct" [Erskine's Institutes of the Law of Scotland (Nicolson's edition), II., 1181.] The punishment of the pillory was abolished by 1 Victoria, c. 23.
  • 49. The names of these magistrates are stated in the complaint to have been for 1619 James Hamilton, provost, Mathew Turnbull, Robert Fleming, and Mr. William Stewart, bailies; in 1620, James Stewart, provost, Mathew Turnbull, Patrick Maxwell, and Mr. William Stewart, bailies; and in 1621, James Inglis, provost, Thomas Moriesoun, Gabriel Cunynghame, and Robert Fleming, bailies. As given in the text the provosts are all different.
  • 50. Privy Council Register, XII., pp. 741, 742. The relations between the town's people of Renfrew and Glasgow had some years previously not been friendly. Reference has already been made to disputes between them in 1602 [Antea, p. cxcix.]. These seem to have been renewed in 1607, when, on 3rd July, burgesses of Renfrew complained to the Convention of Burghs that Glasgow troubled them in "bying of merchandrice within thair awin brugh and herbere thairof, and for vnlawing of thame and thair souerteis" [Convention Records, II., p. 240], and the complaint was remitted to the next convention. On 3rd September in the same year burgesses of Glasgow complained to the privy council that when returning from Renfrew in the previous month one of the bailies of that burgh convoked the whole of its inhabitants, "all armed with jacks, corslets, steel bonnets, picks, lances, halberts, swords, and other weapons," and followed the complainers, whom they overtook at Kilpatrick, and would have slain them, "had they not been freed by the providence of God and help of the country people." The persons complained against did not, however, appear, and were "denounced rebels" [Privy Council Register, VII., pp. 437, 438]. On 6th July, 1608, the convention continued the complaint made to it by Renfrew in July of the previous year [Convention Records, II., p. 256], and on the following day Renfrew preferred the further complaint that Glasgow admitted as burgesses persons who resided in Kilmalcolm, and had not, since being so admitted, resided in the city [Ibid., II., p. 266]. These complaints were still undisposed of in July, 1609, and Glasgow was ordered to appear and answer them at the following convention [Ibid., II., p. 277] in July, 1610, when, however, with consent of parties, the consideration of these matters was delayed till the next convention [Ibid., II., p. 293]. At that convention on 3rd July, 1611, the complaints were again, of consent, continued [Ibid., II., p. 315] till the convention on 8th July, 1612, when they were departed from by the commissioners of both burghs, pro loco et tempore, hinc inde [Ibid., II., p. 350]. On 23rd October, 1612, Renfrew is found protesting in Parliament against Glasgow and Dumbarton [Acts of Parliament, IV., p. 523]. The grounds of this protest are not stated, but if, as is possible, it was directed against the ratification on the same day of the royal charter of April, 1611 [Antea, p. cclviii.], it may indicate the existence of unfriendly feeling between the burghs at the time of the dispute alluded to in the text.
  • 51. Privy Council Register, XII., 591–593, 689– 691, 704, 747.
  • 52. Cleland's Abridgment, p. 98. Council Records, I., p. 340. MS. Protocol Books.
  • 53. Antea, pp. c., cii. When principal Melville was translated to St. Andrews in 1580, he was succeeded (1) by Thomas Smeaton, minister of Paisley, one of the most erudite men of his day; (2) by Patrick Sharpe, previously master of the grammar school of the burgh, who was appointed in 1582, and held the office till 1615; and (3) by Robert Boyd, whose presentation under the privy seal was submitted to the senate by the archbishop of Glasgow as chancellor of the University, on 30th January, 1615 [Wodrow's Biographical Collections—Life of Mr. Robert Boyd (Maitland Club), vol. II., part i., pp. 122–164]. He appears to have had the ministerial charge of Govan annexed to his office [Ibid., p. 131]. Wodrow's Collections—Life of Mr. David Weems, vol. II., part ii., p. 78.
  • 54. Wodrow's Biographical Collections, vol. II., part ii., pp. 81, 223.
  • 55. Privy Council Register, XIII., 333–335.
  • 56. Convention Records, III., pp. 138–141.
  • 57. Council Records, III., p. 147.
  • 58. Ibid., I., pp. 340, 341.
  • 59. Council Records, I., p. 341.
  • 60. Gardiner, VII., p. 275.
  • 61. Ibid., VII., p. 276.
  • 62. 19th December, 1622. Privy Council Register, XIII., pp. 129, 130.
  • 63. 31st March, 1623. Ibid., pp. 203, 204.
  • 64. 8th May, 1623. Ibid., pp. 789, 790.
  • 65. 14th June, 1623. Ibid., pp. 257, 260; 803, 804. 11th July, 1623. Ibid., pp. 287–290.
  • 66. Calderwood, VII., p. 595. Spottiswood, III., p. 269. He was created earl of Richmond, in the English peerage, in 1614 [Stuart's Genealogical History of the Stewarts, p. 262. Gardiner's History of England, II., p. 242], and in 1623 was created earl of Newcastle and duke of Richmond [Stuart, Ibid. Gardiner, V., p. 55].
  • 67. Calderwood, VII., p. 594. Balfour, II., p. 100. He was thrice married—(1) to lady Sophia Ruthven, third daughter of William, first earl of Gowrie, by whom he had no children; (2) to Jean, eldest daughter of Sir Mathew Campbell of Loudoun, by whom he had a daughter and son, who both died young; and (3) to Frances, daughter of Thomas, viscount Bindon (relict (1) of Henry Prannel, of Loudon, and (2) of Edward Seymour, earl of Hartford), and countess of Harford. [Douglas Peerage, II., p. 100.]
  • 68. Esme, third duke of Lennox, was a faithful follower of Henry IV. of France, and did homage for the seigneurie of Aubigny on 8th April, 1600. He came to Scotland in 1601; was created earl of March and lord Leighton in England on 7th June, 1619, and in 1624 succeeded his brother, Ludovick, in his Scottish titles only. He was shortly afterwards installed knight of the garter, but died on 30th July, 1624, the dukedom of Richmond having reverted to the crown. "There are," says Andrew Stuart, "no charters in the public records of Scotland in favour of this Esme, whence, it is presumed, he made up his titles to the various estates in Scotland which had belonged to his brother, by special service and retour as nearest and lawful heir to him." [Genealogical History of the Stewarts, p. 266.] In 1607 he married Catherine, daughter and heiress of Gervax, lord Clifton of Leighton, Bromeswold, by whom he had seven sons and four daughters. The sons were—(1) James, afterwards fourth duke of Lennox; (2) Henry, who died young; (3) Francis, who also died young; (4) George, afterwards lord of Aubigny; (5) Ludovick, afterwards lord of Aubigny and cardinal; (6) John, a general of horse in the service of Charles I.; and (7) Bernard, afterwards earl of Litchfield. [Douglas Peerage, II., pp. 100, 101.]
  • 69. The "sylloring" here referred to probably meant the covering of the stalls or benches in the crypt. In a contract entered into between the dean and chapter of Glasgow and Michael Waghorne, wright, dated 8th January, 1506, Waghorne engaged to make "to the queyre of Glasgw fife silouris for the covering of the stallis, tuenty fute lang ilk siloure, on the best fassone, that is to say, the gest at the siloure standis in to be hewin and graithit be him with tua frontellis, ane on ilk syde of the gest schorne and kersit werk, with five colums to ilk siloure, and anglis as efferis, with hede and frontellis fiellis with knoppis, and with thre gret hyngaris and knoppis, with rynrufe and foure lefis about ilk knop in ilk siloure, sik lik as is in the chapel of Striviling" [Registrum Episcopatus Glasguensis, II., p. 612, 613, No. 543. Diocesan Registers of Glasgow, II., p. 152]. In a note on this contract, Mr. P. Macgregor Chalmers, architect, Glasgow, says —"The 'silouris' clearly mean the canopy work and tabernacle work to be seen still in many cathedral churches in England—in Scotland alone, at this day, in Dunblane. Michael's work was to be after the pattern of the silouris in Stirling chapel and of those over the 'hie altare in Glasgu.' There were, he adds, to be five rows or pieces twenty feet long, probably two on each side of the choir (making forty feet on each side), and one twenty feet long across the choir side of the stone rood screen, then recently erected by archbishop Blackader." This is the arrangement followed in every example known to him.
  • 70. This was the bell steeple of the north-west tower removed in 1848. The higher steeple is the one still existing.
  • 71. Council Records, I., p. 342.
  • 72. Balfour's Annals, II., p. 99. Privy Council Register, XIII., pp. 519, 577, 582.
  • 73. Convention Records, III., pp. 156, 157.
  • 74. Ibid., p. 168.
  • 75. Ibid., p. 173.
  • 76. Andrew Stuart's Genealogical History of the Stewarts, p. 268. Douglas Peerage, II., p. 102.
  • 77. Antea, p. cclxxxvi.
  • 78. Ibid., p. ccxc.
  • 79. Privy Council Register, XIII., pp. 603, 604.
  • 80. Council Records, I., p. 342.
  • 81. Antea, p. ccxii.
  • 82. Council Records, I., p. 343.
  • 83. Council Records, I., pp. 343, 344.
  • 84. Privy Council Register, XIII., pp. 622, 623.
  • 85. Calderwood, VII., p. 627.
  • 86. Privy Council Register, XIII., p. 652.
  • 87. Council Records, I., p. 344.
  • 88. Privy Council Register, XIII., p. 699.
  • 89. Council Records, I., p. 348.
  • 90. Balfour, II., p. 102. Calderwood, VII., p. 630. Spottiswood, III., p. 270. Privy Council Register, XIII., p. 703. But Gardiner regards the suspicion as unfounded [History of England, V., p. 312]. Dr. Creighton states, on the authority of Chamberlain, that the marquis died of the malignant fever which devastated London and the adjacent country in 1625 [History of Epidemics in Britain, I., p. 505, quoting Chamberlain—The Court and Times of James I. and Charles I., vol. II., p. 504].
  • 91. Calderwood, VII., p. 623. Spottiswood, III., p. 270. Balfour, II., pp. 102–115. Grub, II., pp. 333, 334. Cunningham, I., p. 494. Burton, VI., p. 72. Gardiner, V., pp. 313, 314. James' body was removed to London on 4th April, and interred in Westminster Abbey on 7th May.
  • 92. Balfour, II., pp. 115, 117, 119. Calderwood, VII., p. 633. Grub, II., p. 335. Cunningham, I., pp. 494, 495. Gardiner's History of England, V., p. 317.
  • 93. Balfour, II., p. 119. Balfour's description of the marriage ceremony, and of the subsequent feast and proceedings is, as might be expected, having regard to his office of Lord Lyon, very minute.
  • 94. Council Records, I., p. 347.
  • 95. Ibid., I., p. 346.
  • 96. Convention Records, III., pp. 185–204.
  • 97. MS. Extracts from the Records relative to the City of Glasgow (1790), p. 63. After attending the University of Cambridge the young duke was sent on his travels to France, Spain, and Italy, and was created a grandee of Spain. On his return to England, though scarcely twenty-one years of age, he was sworn as a privy councillor, appointed lord warden of the Cinque ports, and master of the household. He was also installed a knight of the garter.
  • 98. Council Records, I., pp. 348, 349.
  • 99. Gardiner, V., p. 432. "Such," says Gardiner, "was the end of this memorable parliament—a parliament which opened the flood-gates of that long contention with the crown which was never, except for one brief moment, to be closed again till the revolution of 1688 came to change the conditions of government in England.
  • 100. Council Records, I., p. 349.
  • 101. Council Records, I., p. 350.
  • 102. Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, V., p. 167.
  • 103. Council Records, I., p. 351. In Edinburgh the corresponding officer of the constables, who have been known as "High Constables" since 1805, is termed the "moderator."
  • 104. Ibid., I., p. 346.
  • 105. Council Records, I., p. 349.
  • 106. Ibid., I., p. 351.
  • 107. Council Records, I., p. 352.
  • 108. Council Records, I., p. 353. During the time that the Tolbooth was in course of erection, from 12th April, 1626, to 31st March, 1627, the meetings of the town council, which had previously been held in the council-house of the old Tolbooth, were held in the New or Trongate Kirk, with the exception of two held in the Merchant's Hospital, and one in the Tolbooth. Sir William Brereton, a gentleman of Cheshire, who subsequently distinguished himself as a general in the parliamentary army, visited Glasgow in July, 1636, and thus describes the new Tolbooth:—"The Tole-boothe, which is placed in the middle of the town, and near unto the cross and market place, is a very fair and high-built house, from the top whereof, being leaded, you may take a full view and prospect of the whole city. In one of these rooms or chambers sits the council of this city; in other of the rooms or chambers preparation is made for the lords of the council to meet in these stately rooms. Herein is a closet lined with iron; walls, top, bottom, floor, and door, iron; wherein are kept the evidences and records of the city; this made, to prevent the danger of fire. This Tole-booth said to be the fairest in this kingdom" [Travels of Sir William Brereton (p. 94 Chetham Society) quoted by P. Hume Brown. Early Travellers in Scotland (1891), p. 151]. M'Ure also furnishes a description of the Tolbooth, thus erected, and though he wrote in 1736, upwards of a century after it had been completed, his description enables a distinct impression to be formed as to its general appearance. He says—"The town-house, or tolbooth, is a magnificent structure, being of length from east to west sixty-six foot, and from the south to the north twenty-four foot eight inches; it hath a stately staircase ascending to the justice-court-hall, within which is the entry of a large turnpike, or staircase, ascending to the town-council-hall, above which there was the dean of gild's old hall; but now is turned into two prison houses for prisoners of note and distinction. The council house is adorn'd with the effigies of king James VI., king Charles the I. and II., king James VII., king William and queen Mary, queen Anne, king George the I. and II., all in full length, and a fine large oval table, where the magistrates and town council and their clerk sits. The first story of this great building consists of six rooms, two whereof are for the magistrates' use, one for the dean of gild's court, and another for the collector of the town's excise. These apartments are all vaulted from the one end to the other, and there is a new addition built, appointed for a quorum of the council to sit, in order to determine and dispatch all such affairs as may be expede without the consent of the whole; but above all, the king's hall is the finest, the length whereof is forty-three foot eleven inches from east to west, and from south to north twenty-four foot, and the turnpike upon the east end. In this great building are five large rooms appointed for common prisoners; the steeple on the east end thereof being one hundred and thirteen foot high, adorn'd with a curious clock, all of brass, with four dial plates; it has a large bell for the use of the clock, and a curious sett of chymes and tuneable bells, which plays every two hours, and has four large touretts on the corners thereof, with thanes finely gilded, and the whole roof is cover'd with lead; upon the frontispiece of this building is his majesty's arms finely cut out, with a fine dial." [History of Glasgow, edit. 1830, pp. 207, 208.]
  • 109. Council Records, I., p. 358.
  • 110. Ibid., I., pp. 361, 362.
  • 111. Ibid., I., pp. 362, 363.
  • 112. Council Records, I., p. 363.
  • 113. Convention Records, III., p. 212.
  • 114. Convention Records, III., p. 224.