PREFACE.
THE two previous volumes of Extracts from the Burgh
Records of Glasgow, published in 1876 and 1881,
contain selections from these records, so far as known
to exist, (fn. 1) from January 1573–4 till 20th December, 1662. This
volume brings down the series from 17th January, 1663, till the
Revolution Settlement in 1690.
In 1894 a volume of Charters and other Documents relating
to the City was issued, containing the charters from that of
William the Lion to the Bishop of Glasgow in 1175–8 to that of
Charles I. in favour of the Magistrates and Council of the City
in 1648—the Latin charters being accompanied by translations.
A preface to that volume was issued in 1897, and in it—drawing
upon the two volumes of extracts above referred to—an attempt
was made to sketch what may be regarded as the constitutional
history of the burgh from its foundation till the end of the
reign of Charles I. on 30th January, 1649.
In view of the importance to the city, both in an historical
and business aspect, of having the charters brought down till the
latest date, arrangements may, it is to be hoped, be made by the
Corporation for having this work completed, even should no further
progress be made with the publication of extracts from the
records. The position which the city now claims to occupy
among the municipalities of the kingdom, may well lead the
corporation to deal with the matter, in view, especially, of what
is being done by other public bodies.
Apart from much that is of interest otherwise as to the
general history of Glasgow during the period between the
restoration of Charles II. and the Revolution Settlement in 1690,
the present volume deals with the final relief of the city
from subordination to the archbishop of Glasgow, or to the
lay successors of the archbishop, in the election of its own
magistrates.
The development of the city—from its original subordination
to these superiors till it acquired its present position of
independence as a royal burgh—has passed through four
successive stages—first, as a burgh of barony, in the enjoyment
of many of the rights and privileges of a royal burgh; second, as
a burgh of regality, with regality rights; third, as a royal burgh
holding of the crown, but subject to the right of the archbishops
to select the magistrates; and fourth, as a royal burgh emancipated
from that subjection, and entitled to elect its own magistrates.
To these successive stages reference has to be made, and specially
to the stages third and fourth above mentioned. (fn. 2)
The charter by William the Lion to Joceline, Bishop of
Glasgow, circa 1175–8, authorised the bishop and his successors to
have a burgh at Glasgow and a market there on Thursdays, "with
all the freedoms and customs which any of my burghs in my whole
land best, most fully, quietly, and honourably has." The charter
of James II. to Bishop William, of 20th April. 1450, again, confirmed to the bishop and his successors the city of Glasgow,
barony of Glasgow, and lands called Bishopforest, (fn. 3) "in free, pure,
and unmixed regality." But whatever privileges the citizens may
have had under these charters, the right to elect their
magistrates belonged to the bishop, and one illustration of the way
in which it was exercised is recorded in the year 1553. On the
Tuesday next after the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, when
the new bailies used to be elected, the provost and the whole
council presented to Archbishop Beaton, in the inner flower garden
of the palace, where he was conversing with some of the canons
of the chapter, a schedule containing the names of some of the
most worthy and substantial men of the city, and, from it, he
selected the bailies for the following year. Before the municipal
election of 1561 came round, however, the Reformation had
occurred, and the archbishop had gone to France. Nevertheless,
the town council did their accustomed part. They proceeded to
the Bishop's Palace to obtain the prelate's choice, but, finding that
he had disappeared they proceeded to elect the magistrates
themselves. Owing to the loss of council records, further
particulars regarding elections are not available till 1574; but it is
probable that during the absence of the archbishop, and before
the appointment of his successor, the procedure was similar
to that of 1561.
In 1560 the Scottish Estates approved of the Confession of
Faith, revoked all acts authorising any form of belief or worship
other than was set forth in that document, and abjured the
authority of the Pope. (fn. 4) But the old spiritual estate still subsisted,
and its dignitaries remained one of the estates of the realm. The
only secular difference effected by the Reformation of 1560 was
the substitution of protestants, and these frequently laymen, for the
old church dignitaries. For a short period the temporalities of the
archbishopric appear to have been held by John Porterfield,
minister of Kilmarnock, the licence for whose election was issued on
8th February, 1571–2. Matters, however, were altered by the
concordat of Leith in 1572, which provided for the maintenance
of the titles of archbishops and bishops, and the existing
boundaries of dioceses. Under this new form of episcopacy,
archbishops were appointed to the sees of St. Andrews and
Glasgow, and bishops to the other sees. This concordat was
approved by the General Assembly at Perth in 1572, and James
Boyd, of Trochrig, minister of Kirkoswald, was promoted to the
archbishopric. The licence for his election was dated 30th
September, 1573, and when the earliest extant records of the city
commence he was archbishop, and his kinsman, Robert Lord Boyd,
of Kilmarnock, was provost of the city. These relations between
the archbishop and his kinsman continued till the General Assembly,
held in Edinburgh, on 24th October, 1578, when the archbishop was
accused by the presbyterian party of neglecting his duties, and was
required to make submission. This he did on 7th July, 1579. (fn. 5) He
was succeeded as archbishop by Robert Montgomery, from Stirling,
who was deposed on 24th April, 1582, by the General Assembly,
which had previously decided against the continuance of bishops.
The privy council, however, supported him, and a conflict between
the civil and ecclesiastical authorities took place. The parliament,
which met in Edinburgh in May, 1584, annulled the proceedings of
the ecclesiastical courts against Montgomery, and ordained that he
might enjoy all honours, dignities, and benefices, as if these
ecclesiastical proceedings had never been taken. (fn. 6) Against this action
by parliament the kirk protested, as an invasion of its rights,
but Montgomery resumed his functions, nominating the provost
and bailies at the election in October of that and the
subsequent year. In 1585 he seems to have entered into
arrangements with the King and William Erskine, parson of
Campsie, the latter of whom was vested in the archbishopric by
a charter under the great seal, dated 21st December, 1585. (fn. 7) On
29th July, 1587, the parliament then held at Edinburgh annexed
to the crown, to remain therewith in all time coming, all lands,
lordships, and other rights and properties which at that time
belonged to any archbishop, bishop, or other ecclesiastic or
beneficed person, save such as were specially excepted, including
the castles, mansions, and gardens of archbishops and other
prelates. This act was ordered to receive effect as at Martinmas,
1587, and by a charter, dated 3rd November of that year, the king
conveyed to Walter Stewart, commendator of Blantyre, the lands
and barony of Glasgow, the city and burgh of regality of Glasgow,
and other lands therein specified, with all patronages which had
belonged to the archbishop, and the offices of bailiary and justiciary
of the whole regality; and under this charter the commendator
exercised the right to nominate the provost and bailies. (fn. 8)
Previous to 2nd January, 1595–6, the commendator denuded himself, in favour of the king, of certain lands which belonged to the
archbishopric, and apparently also of the right to nominate the
provost and bailies, as that power of nomination was in some
unexplained way transferred to the Duke of Lennox. On 5th
October, 1596, the town council applied to the duke as "having
power by the king's grace to the nomination of bailies," and he
selected the provost and bailies for the year. On 16th December,
1597, an act of parliament conveyed to the duke the superiority of
the archbishopric for his lifetime. On 17th November, 1600, he
got a formal grant of the right to elect the magistrates, and to
exercise jurisdiction over the temporalities of the archbishopric,
and on 7th April, 1603, he obtained a charter of the lordship of
Glasgow. On 29th June, 1598, the Convention of Estates had
passed an act whereby, in consideration of the great services
rendered to Queen Mary and to King James by Archbishop Beaton,
the king and the estates restored him to all the heritages,
honours, dignities, benefices, and offices which had previously
belonged to him, and declared that he should enjoy his whole
heritages and benefices, though he had never made confession of
his faith or acknowledged the religion then professed in Scotland. (fn. 9)
From this restitution, however, the right of choosing the provost
and bailies of the burgh of Glasgow was excepted. On 2nd
October, 1599, the Duke of Lennox selected the provost and bailies,
and in each of the two following years similar appointments were
made by him. (fn. 10)
Archbishop Beaton died at Paris on 25th April, 1603,
and on 20th July, 1603, the king appointed John Spottiswood,
parson of Calder, to the See, but he was not consecrated
till 21st October, 1610. After his appointment to the archbishopric, Spottiswood became the king's chief adviser as to
the measures by which the hierarchy was re-established in Scotland,
and it was at his earnest request that the king, on 8th April,
1611, granted a charter under the great seal, by which he not
only confirmed to the burgh and city all the rights, privileges,
and immunities which it had enjoyed, but erected it into a free
royal burgh, with all the rights and privileges thereto belonging,
to be held in feu farm heritage and free burgage for ever, for
the service of burgh used and wont, and the annual payment to the
archbishop and his successors of sixteen merks Scots (11s. 1⅓d.
sterling). The grant was so restricted as to place the city in
a position much less favourable than that of Edinburgh, Dundee,
and the other royal burghs of the period. These had long enjoyed
the right to elect their own magistrates, and to exercise jurisdiction,
relieved from all control save the supervision of the Lord High
Chamberlain. But, under the charter of 1611, this privilege was
withheld, and it was declared that it should in no degree prejudice
the freedoms and privileges granted by the crown to the archbishop,
his power of electing the magistrates as then in use, and the privilege
of regality, nor the emoluments, duties, maills, customs, or other
commodities belonging to him and his successors. (fn. 11) An attempt
had been made in 1606 to procure for the citizens the right to
choose their magistrates, and the draft of an act to effect that object
was prepared, but, in consequence of opposition by interested
parties, the proposal did not receive legislative sanction. (fn. 12)
On the death of Archbishop Gledstanes of St. Andrews,
Archbishop Spottiswoode was transferred to that see, and was
installed on 6th August, 1615. Spottiswoode was succeeded in
the archbishopric of Glasgow by James Law, bishop of Orkney, who
was appointed by the king on 20th July and installed in September
of that year. He held that office till his death in November, 1632.
On 7th August, 1621, Archbishop Law, "as lord of the
barony of Glasgow," granted a charter to Ludovick Duke
Lennox, therein designed Earl Darnley and Richmond,
Lord Methven, Tarbolton and St. Andrews, Great Admiral and
Chamberlain of Scotland, and his heirs male and successors,
heritably, of the office of bailiary, regality, and justiciary within the
lordship and barony of Glasgow, as well within as without the
burgh of Glasgow, with special power to appoint deputes, hold
courts in civil and criminal cases, and to repledge from other
jurisdictions. This grant proceeded on the narrative that the
duke and his predecessors had enjoyed those offices beyond all
memory, and that by their assistance the tenants and inhabitants
had been kept in steadfast service and obedience to the archbishop. The offices thus described were appointed to be held
blench under the archbishop, for the yearly payment of a penny
at the castle of Glasgow, and 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. (fn. 13)
Duke Ludovic died on 16th February, 1624, and was succeeded
by his brother Esme, son of Esme, the first duke. Esme, the third
duke, died on 30th July, 1624, and was succeeded by his eldest son
James, then a minor.
Archbishop Law was succeeded by Patrick Lindsay, who was
translated by Charles I. from the see of Ross, conform to Charter,
dated 16th April, 1633. (fn. 14)
In May, 1633, King Charles visited Scotland, accompanied by
the Duke of Lennox, the Marquis of Hamilton, the Earl of Morton,
Dr. Laud, bishop of London; and Dr. White, bishop of Ely, and
on 20th June he opened the Scottish Parliament at Edinburgh. By
this parliament an act was passed in favour of Glasgow, confirming
its several charters, without prejudice, however, to the rights of the
Duke of Lennox and his successors, in their offices of bailiary and
justiciary of the barony and regality, and to those also of the
archbishop and his successors, as regarded the right to elect and
nominate the magistrates of the burgh, and their right to lands and
privileges. (fn. 15)
On 16th October, 1636, the king granted to the city
another charter by which he confirmed all its previous grants
and rights, and of new created it a royal burgh, to be held
in free burgage for the yearly payment to the crown of twenty
merks, and to the archbishop of sixteen merks. The charter,
however, reserved to the Duke of Lennox and his successors
the whole liberties and privileges within the burgh and regality
of Glasgow, which he or his predecessors had used or possessed
in any time past, including those to which they and their
bailies and deputes were accustomed in relation to the fair of
Glasgow. (fn. 16) The archbishop and chapter and the authorities
of the college seem to have been apprehensive that the extensive
grants conferred by this charter were prejudicial to their rights,
and to remove these objections the town council granted a
bond, dated 6th December, 1636, by which it was declared that
the charter should in no respect prejudice either the see or
the college and that the rights conferred by it should not, so
far as these parties were concerned, extend beyond those granted
to the burgh by James II. on 8th April, 1611, and 21st
December, 1613. (fn. 17)
Archbishop Lindsay and others of the Scottish bishops were
deposed and excommunicated by the General Assembly on 13th
December, 1638. The archbishop left Scotland in consequence,
and proceeded to England, where he died a few years afterwards.
On 17th August, 1639, the General Assembly of the Kirk
passed an act ordaining episcopal government and civil places and
power of kirkmen to be held as unlawful in the kirk. (fn. 18) This act
was ratified and confirmed by the parliament held at Edinburgh on
6th June, 1640; and all acts in prejudice thereof were rescinded
and annulled. (fn. 19)
On 6th September, 1641, King Charles granted a charter
under his privy seal, in which, after narrating that the
temporality of the archbishopric of Glasgow had fallen to his
disposal by the abolition in Scotland of the estate of bishops and archbishops, and referring to the close connection which existed between
him and the family of Lennox, and to the fidelity and service of
James, Duke of Lennox and Richmond, he, with the consent of
the officers of state, disponed to the duke and his heirs male, whom
failing, to his heirs and assignees whomsoever, the lands and barony
of Glasgow, with the castle, city, burgh, and regality thereof, and
all lands which had in ancient times belonged to the archbishop,
wherever situated, with the heritable right to nominate and annually
elect the provost, bailies, and other officers of the city as freely as
the archbishops had done. He also constituted the duke and his
successors lords of regality of the barony of Glasgow, with all the
powers that attached to that office. He further granted to the duke
and his heirs male the superiority of the subjects so conveyed, and
appointed the farmers, tenants, and possessors thereof to hold of the
duke and his heirs in feu, for the yearly payment of the fermes and
duties specified in their infeftments. He moreover incorporated the
lands, lordship, baronies, burgh, and regality into a temporal lordship and regality, to be called "the lordship of Glasgow," to be held
by the duke and his successors for the yearly payment to the crown
of two hundred merks scots (£11 2s. 22/3d. sterling), but without
prejudice to an act of parliament in favour of the burgh concerning its liberties. (fn. 20)
That act, passed on 16th November, 1641, proceeded on the
narrative that, in the election of magistrates, the burgh had heretofore required the assent and approbation of the archbishop, and,
during such time as episcopacy was not allowed, that of the then late
Ludovick, Duke of Lennox and Richmond, who was heritably infeft
in the archbishopric, with the privileges belonging thereto, and
specially the nomination of the magistrates of the town of Glasgow.
The burgh being then, however, "one of the best peopled and pryme
burghes within the kingdome, it is most agreeable to reasone that
they should have free liberty to elect and choyse such persones as
should be most fit both to serve the Prince and governe the burghe
itselfe, as other burghs of this kingdome." The king, therefore,
with the advice of the estates, and the consent of James
Duke of Lennox and Richmond, ordained that the burgh should,
in all time coming, have as free liberty in the election and choosing
of their magistrates, yearly, at the accustomed times, as any other
burgh in Scotland, "with this speciall provisione and conditione"—a provision and condition absolutely inconsistent with the
narrative and the intention therein expressed—"that the proveist,
baillies, and counsell of the burghe and their successoures shall
present yeirlie, in all tyme coming, ane leit of three persones to be
proveist of the said burgh," to the duke and his successoures, "of the
whilke nomber the said" duke and his successors "shall nominat one
to be proveist for the yeir followeing, whom they shall be obleist to
receive and admit to be their proveist the same year; provyding
the said duke and his foiresaidis, be themselves or ther commissioner, be present yeerlie within the said burghe at the castle
which belongs to the duke and his successoures the tyme of the
electione of ther magistrates; and in case of ther absence, in that
caise it shall be lauchfull to them to goe on in the election of their
proveist for that yeir of ther absence allenerly." (fn. 21)
To give effect to the arrangement set forth in the charter of
1641 and the act of parliament of 1641, c. 103, the town council,
by its minute of 4th October, 1642, set forth the procedure to be
followed in the future election of the provosts, and having selected
a leet of three for the provostship, sent it up to the castle in order
that the duke or his commissioner might nominate the provost.
There the council's deputation were received by a number of the
duke's "freinds and servands," who produced a commission by the
duke in favour of four persons, with power to them, conjunctly and
severally, to choose the magistrates. The deputation, however,
declined to recognise this commission, as being disconform to the
act of parliament which bore "onlie ane commissionar, and power
to nominat ane to be provest out of an lyt of thrie persones."
Upon this "informalitie and disconformitie" the deputation took
instruments, and having reported their proceedings to the council,
William Stewart was elected provost, and two merchants and one
craftsman were elected bailies. On the 7th, the town councillors were
elected. A similar course was adopted in the elections for 1643
and 1644, and thereafter, till 1647, the condition of the city was
such that the committee of the estates practically took the
appointment of the provosts, bailies, and council into their own
hands. Matters had, however, so far reverted to the old
condition that, on 5th October, 1647, the commissioner for the
Duke of Lennox nominated the provost, who was duly elected
for the following year; but at the date of the annual election
in 1648 neither the duke nor his commissioner was in
Glasgow.
On 30th January, 1649, King Charles I. was executed, and
his son, Charles II., landed in Scotland on 23rd June, 1650, to
endure bitter humiliations as a condition of succession to the crown of
Scotland. These accepted, however, he was crowned at Scone; on 1st
January, 1651; was defeated by Cromwell on 3rd September; escaped
to Normandy on 15th October; lived an exile, without character or
means, for three years in France, nearly two at Cologne, and three in
the Low Countries; and then, on the termination of the Protectorate,
was recalled to England, to live a venal profligate life as its sovereign.
Reverting to the conditions under which the provost and
bailies of Glasgow were appointed,—on 2nd October, 1649, the duke
and his commissioner were absent, and the provost was elected by
the magistrates and council. Under similar circumstances the
provost was elected on 1st October, 1650, and on 30th September,
1651. But on 23rd March, 1652, the commissioners of the Parliament
of the Commonwealth of England appointed the neighbours and
inhabitants of Glasgow, "according to thair former rites and
customs," to choose their magistrates, and they elected a provost
and bailies to hold office till the ordinary time of election at
Michaelmas following. On 5th October, 1652. the commissioner of
the Duke of Lennox elected one of a leet of three to be provost, and
he with three bailies were elected. No reference to an election in
1653 and 1654 appears.
On 30th March, 1655, Duke James died, and was succeeded
by his son, Esme.
On 2nd October thereafter a leet for the election of the provost
was sent to the duke at the castle, whereupon Sir George Maxwell, of
Nether Pollok, produced a "commissioune subscrivit be some of the
said Duke of Lennox freinds." This, however, was held by the council
to be "cleir contrair and disconforme to" the act of parliament of
1641, and was disregarded by the magistrates and council, who elected
John Anderson to be provost for the year to come. On 30th
September, 1656, a leet of three persons having been submitted to
"Sir George Maxwell of Nether Pollok, knight, cled with ane commissioune granted to him be the Dutches of Lennox, quha is tutrix
to the young duik, her sone," he nominated John Andersone to be
reappointed provost for the year to come, and he was accordingly
re-elected. On 29th September, 1657, the provost submitted to the
town council a letter from the Lord Protector, desiring the election of
the magistrates of the burgh to be deferred till he was more fully
informed in regard to the matter. The election was, on 6th October,
accordingly deferred, subject to a protest that the delay should not
in future be prejudicial to the magistrates and council anent their
ordinary election of magistrates as formerly, "conforme to the
friedome and libertie grantit to this burghe thairanent and thair
use and consuetude thairuntill of befoir." The letter of the
Protector, it appears, caused considerable alarm, not only in Glasgow,
but in the burghs generally, as leading possibly to an invasion of
their constitutional privileges. In December, accordingly, the three
former magistrates were commissioned to maintain and defend the
liberties and privileges of the burgh in regard to the election of its
magistrates and council. These commissioners appeared before a
committee appointed by the council of state to investigate and
report, and, after negotiation, they, on 4th January, 1658, reported
that, in the interest of peace, they had consented that at the next
election at Michaelmas nine persons of the existing council should
be removed, and a similar number "of that pairtie quha ar awned
be Mr. Patrick Gillespie, and sould be named be Lord Desbrowie,"
should be put in their places. This proposal was communicated by
Lord Desbrough to Gillespie, and the town council also appointed
it to be submitted to him, but he refused to receive their offer.
The matter, therefore, appears to have been relegated to Edinburgh,
and in obedience to an order of the council of state the town
records for the years 1645 and 1648 were sent there, and certain
persons were appointed to appear on the 23rd and 24th of February,
1658. The result of this hearing before the council of state was
that, on 27th February, an order by them, dated 24th February, was
received, appointing a new election of magistrates, to take place on
the following Tuesday—the councillors to be chosen on the next
Friday, and the dean of guild, deacon convener, and other members
on the Wednesday thereafter, "conforme to old use and wont."
On 2nd March, accordingly, a leet of three for the provostship was
sent up to the castle, when Sir George Maxwell produced a commission by the duke of an old date, but the representatives of the
burgh declined to recognise it, "it beiring to mak ane nominatioune
as aforesaid at the ordinarie electioune of the said provest, and that this
election was for ane tyme extraordinar." Returning to the council,
and reporting what had been done, John Anderson was elected
provost, three persons were elected bailies, and thirteen merchants
and twelve craftsmen were elected councillors, all till Michaelmas
following. On 5th October, 1658. Lord Cochrane, as commissioner for the Duke of Lennox, nominated John Bell, who was
elected provost. On 4th October, 1659, John Bell was re-elected
provost on the nomination of the commissioner for the tutrix
of the Duke.
On 18th June, 1660, proclamation was ordered to be made
of the "happie returne" of King Charles II., and his restoration
to his throne and dignity.
Esme Duke of Lennox died on 14th August, 1660, unmarried,
and was succeeded by his cousin Charles, sixth Duke.
On 2nd October, in the same year, a letter from the Earl
of Glencairn, then high chancellor of Scotland, was produced
to the town council desiring that the magistrates who had been
most unjustly thrust from their places in 1648 might be made
use of as magistrates for the following year. Obedience was
agreed to be given to the desire, and Colin Campbell, elder,
was re-elected provost—neither the duke nor his commissioner
being found at the castle to exercise their right.
On 14th November, 1661, Andrew Fairfoul was nominated
to the archbishopric by the king, and was consecrated at London
on 15th December of the same year.
On 23rd September, 1661, the town council, apprehending
that by the restoration of bishops the manner of electing
the magistrates was likely to be inverted, otherwise than
was set down in the act of parliament, 1641, c. 103, appointed
a committee to consider as to petitioning the king to vest
these elections in the hands of the council, as was done in regard
to other free royal burghs. Under this remit Sir John Nisbet,
advocate, prepared the requisite supplication to the king; but,
if it was presented, it did not meet with success. On 1st
October, 1661, the duke and his commissioner being absent
from the castle, the council re-elected Colin Campbell to be
provost.
On 30th September, 1662, the council having assembled
to elect the magistrates for the following year, William Forbes,
servitor to the archbishop, produced a nomination by the
archbishop of John Bell of Hammilton Ferm, merchant, to be
provost. The council, on a vote, accepted the nomination and
elected Bell, but before he took the oath he protested that
the archbishop's nomination "should not be prejudiciall to
the toune heirafter anent their former right" to elect their
magistrates. On 6th October, 1663, the archbishop and the
provost appear to have been attending the parliament then sitting,
but the bailies and council convened for the usual elections, when
a letter from the archbishop, stating the cause of his absence,
desired that the magistrates then in office should be continued
for the following year. This request was agreed to, and the
provost and bailies were continued in office, under protestation
that this "should be nowayes hurtfull or prejudiciall to the
townes liberties heirafter." The provost thus elected appeared
and took the requisite oath, but at the next meeting the
council renewed an act to restrain "the great abuses"
which might take place in the election of the town
council "through the unboundarie limit of the provost" in
their election.
On 18th January, 1664, Alexander Burnet was promoted from
Aberdeen to the archbishopric of Glasgow, and was installed at St.
Andrews on the 11th of April of that year.
On 4th October thereafter, at the meeting of the town council for
the election of the provost and magistrates, a presentation by the
archbishop in favour of William Anderson, merchant, to be provost,
was submitted. But Anderson was not a member of the council at
the time, and three members were sent to the archbishop to represent that the custom had ever been to present for the provostship
one of the merchant rank who was a member of the council, and to
request him to issue a new presentation. The archbishop, however,
declined to alter his presentation. Anderson was thereupon sent
for to the council, was elected, and took the requisite oath. Leets
for the bailies were then made up and sent to the archbishop, and
he having chosen three, the persons so selected were appointed
bailies. On 3rd October, 1665, 2nd October, 1666, 1st October,
1667, 6th October, 1668, and 5th October, 1669, a similar course
was followed. William Anderson was re-elected in 1665 and
1666; John Anderson, of Dowhill, elder, was elected in 1667;
William Anderson was re-elected in 1668; and James Campbell
in 1669.
Whenever a befitting opportunity occurred the town council
appear to have sought to have the elections of the provost and magistrates placed in their own hands, and such an opportunity presented
itself when, on 24th December, 1669, Archbishop Burnet resigned
the see and retired into private life. His resignation is said to have
been caused by a desire to obviate proceedings against him by
Lauderdale, then secretary of state, for revealing proceedings in
the privy council, "so as to reach the ear of the sovereign through
another channel, in behalf of the presbyterians, who had engaged
in the rebellion and skirmish at Pentland."
Negotiations were then opened with Bishop Leighton, of
Dunblane, to accept the see of Glasgow, but he was averse to the
proposal, and his reluctance was only overcome by his being induced
to believe that the articles which he submitted to the government,
with a view to constitutional rule and toleration for the covenanters,
would be carried into effect. While he remained Bishop of
Dunblane, he acted for a time as commendator or administrator
of Glasgow.
On 16th April, 1670, the provost reported to the town
council that he had been thwarted by some persons in his
endeavour to get the elections of the provost and bailies placed
in the town's own hands. But on 10th May the dean of
guild was commissioned to go to London and petition the king
to grant this privilege, and also to obtain the right of
the bailiary and barony of Glasgow. The provost, moreover, was
appointed to go to Edinburgh "to advyse quhat is neidfull to be
done therintill." As the result apparently of the negotiations in
London, the dean, on 18th June, reported "that the duke of
Lennox will be lyklie to quyt any priviledge he hes over the toune
as bailie of the regalitie," and on this report he was authorised to
"deall to gett that done if nocht the whoill."
Charles Duke of Lennox was present in the parliament which
met in Edinburgh on 22nd July, 1670, and visited Glasgow in that
year. As Bishop Leighton had not been invested with the bishopric
in time for the election of the magistrates in 1670, the king, by letter
dated 24th August of that year, required the town council to
receive William Anderson to be provost for the ensuing year, and
remitted to them to elect the other magistrates. Obedience was
given to this letter. On 3rd October, 1671, a letter from Lord
Lauderdale was submitted to the council, requiring them to
reappoint William Anderson to be provost for the ensuing year, and
this was done. On 1st October, 1672, a letter from Archbishop
Leighton of that date was presented to the council, desiring
to know, "as being himselfe impartiall," whom they would
have to be their provost, and intimating that "the persone
whom they should recommend (unless his grace upon very
weightie reasons to the contrair) sall lykly be nominat be
the archbishop." On receipt of this communication the
council nominated William Anderson, and the archbishop having accepted that nomination, he was forthwith
elected.
In October, 1672, Charles Duke of Lennox died at Elsinore,
while acting as ambassador at the court of Denmark. As he
had no issue, the dukedom, with the bailiary of the regality of
Glasgow reverted to King Charles II., who on 6th July, 1680,
was served nearest collateral heir in special of the duke his
cousin, but the liferent of the Lennox estates was settled on
the duchess, who survived till 1702. The bailiary was bestowed
by the king on William Duke of Hamilton for his lifetime,
and he was invested in the office in 1673, according to M'Ure,
the local historian, who was present at the ceremony, and states
that the office was held by him till his death in 1694.
On 2nd May, 1673, the merchants of the burgh having learned
that Archbishop Leighton was in London, intending to demit
his office, and fearing that, if his demission were received, great
prejudice to the burgh and country would result, entreated
the magistrates and council to apply to such persons at court
as they might think proper on the subject. On 30th September,
1673, a leet of three persons for the provostship having been
presented to the archbishop at the castle, he selected William
Anderson, who was appointed provost for the following year.
About this time Archbishop Leighton resigned the see and
subsequently retired to England. When on a visit to London,
and resident in an inn, he died on 25th June, 1684. On his
demission Alexander Burnet was restored to the see by the
king on 7th September, 1674, and received his patent on 12th
March thereafter. Thus restored, Burnet, who during his
retirement had made himself more agreeable to the authorities,
became the pliant tool of Lauderdale.
On 6th October, 1674, Archbishop Burnet nominated John
Bell, formerly provost, for election as provost, and he was thereupon elected. Bell seems to have carried matters with a high
hand from the time of his taking office, and to have assumed
a position of hostility to William Anderson, his immediate
predecessor. Anderson, and others who protested against the
provost's action, accordingly withdrew from the council. On 26th
October, the council disavowed the action of Provost Anderson
as their commissioner at a previous convention of burghs, and
authorised letters of disavowal to be issued, and assurances to be
given of the readiness of the council to serve the king in all his
commands. On 5th October, 1675. the archbishop having
nominated John Bell to be continued provost, the council admitted
him accordingly. On similar nominations, James Campbell was
elected provost on 3rd October, 1676, and 2nd October, 1677.
On 1st October, 1678, John Bell, former provost, was nominated
by the archbishop to be reappointed provost, and was thereupon
elected.
On 30th September, 1679, a letter from the king, dated 12th
September, was produced to the council, in which, "seeing by the
translatione of Alexander, lait lord archbishop of Glasgow to St.
Andrews (in whom was the legell right of election) that archbishoprick is void" he required the then provost and magistrates to
be continued in office for the following year. To this order the
council gave immediate effect. The installation of archbishop
Burnet to the see of St. Andrews, mentioned in the king's letter,
does not appear to have taken effect till the 28th of October.
On 23rd October, Arthur Ross, bishop of Galloway, was
appointed archbishop of Glasgow, and was installed at St. Andrews
on the same day as that on which archbishop Burnet was installed
as archbishop of St. Andrews.
About this time the Duke of Hamilton was sheriff of
Lanarkshire and bailie of the regality of Glasgow, but on 20th
August, 1680, King Charles granted the bailiary to his natural
son, Charles Duke of Lennox and Richmond, to be held by him
as vassal of the archbishop, under reservation of the liferent of
William Duke of Hamilton. This grant was ratified by Parliament in the following year. (fn. 22)
On 5th October, 1680, and 11th October, 1681, John Bell
was re-elected provost on the nomination of the archbishop. (fn. 23) On
the 14th of the last mentioned month the magistrates of that and
each of the two preceding years, elected thirteen merchants and
twelve craftsmen to be on the council. The provost thereupon
petitioned the privy council to approve of the election, but on 8th
November the king's commissioner and the privy council, found it
to be irregular, and ordered a new election to be made on the 18th
instant, under certification that if this were not done the archbishop
would be recommended to appoint new magistrates, and they would
themselves nominate a council for the burgh. A new and formal
election of the council for the following year was thereupon
made, and on the 18th the provost, bailies, and council took the
oath and test, and signed the same in presence of Lord Ross.
On 25th April, 1682, a letter from the Marquis of Montrose
to the magistrates and council was produced. In it he intimated
that the king had appointed him bailie of the regality, and that,
out of respect for the city and kindness to Bailie Nisbet, then dean
of guild, he had appointed him depute bailie of the regality.
The marquis further declared his intention to continue the office
o the dean's successors in office, if there were no "indispensible
caws to the contrary." In reply to this communication a letter
of thanks was forthwith sent to the marquis. On 1st July
of the same year a minute of the town council sets forth
that "in respect it does not consist with the knowledge of the
magistrates and council who is bailie of the regality," it was
agreed that the fair of Glasgow for that year should be proclaimed
in name of the king, the archbishop, and magistrates, without naming any bailie of the regality. What the grounds were
of the dubiety thus expressed as to who was bailie of the
regality does not appear. Possibly the town council were not
able to reconcile the facts. William Duke of Hamilton, who
survived till 1694, held a liferent appointment, and one of the
king's natural sons, Charles Duke of Lennox and Richmond,
held a grant of the office subject to the liferent. How, under
these circumstances, therefore, the king could have appointed
the Marquis of Montrose to hold the office needed explanation.
It is curious to notice that, notwithstanding the doubt thus
expressed, a deputation of the council was appointed on 26th
August to thank the marquis for his favours and kindness to
the town and "to think and try for something to be given to
his lordship and his lady, by way of complement."
On 3rd October, 1682, John Barnes was appointed provost
on the nomination of the archbishop, and thereupon he, notwithstanding the protest of John Bell, the former provost, proceeded, according to Bell's statement, to appoint councillors without the sanction of the town council, and contrary both to the
provost's burgess oath and all previous practice. On 1st October,
1683, James Campbell, a former provost, protested against the
misapplication of public funds, and was answered tu quoque.
This controversy affords a curious illustration of the mode in
which public funds were applied at that time. On the following
day John Barnes was continued provost on the archbishop's
nomination. On 27th September, 1684, the magistrates and
council considering "the great pains and trouble the provest
has been at in ryding and doing the touns affaires these twa
yeirs, they ordain the thesaurer to delyver him wp his band of
£1,706 12s. 6d.," due by him to the town, without payment, and
declared him to be free of the same. Three days afterwards,
on the nomination of the archbishop, John Johnston of
Clachrie was elected provost.
On 31st October Archbishop Ross was translated to St.
Andrews, and on 4th November the council passed an act by
which they rescinded the act of 27th September, ordaining
the bond for £1,706 12s. 6d. to be delivered up to Barnes without
payment; they also declared that his accounts were exorbitant
and far beyond any allowance given to former provosts. They
caused the bond to be delivered up to the treasurer of the burgh,
and instructed him to put it to execution against Barnes. This
order seems to have been carried into effect, for the Court
of Session, on 3rd March, 1685, gave decree against him.
The magistrates and council appointed in 1684 also challenged, as
embezzlement of the town's revenues and common good, bonds, and
acts of council, granted by the former magistrates, and among
them a bond for 20,000 merks granted to Archbishop Ross, then
bishop of St. Andrews.
Alexander Cairncross, bishop of Aberdeen, was appointed archbishop of Glasgow, through the influence, it is said, of William
Duke of Queensberry. Letters patent in his favour were issued on
3rd December. He was appointed on the 18th, and installed at St.
Andrews on the 25th of that month.
On 6th February, 1685, King Charles II. died, and so ended
what has been termed "the worst reign in English history." He
was succeeded by his brother, James VII., to whom, on 28th
February, the provost, magistrates, and council took the oath of
allegiance. On 13th March they voted an address to the king.
On 19th September, 1685, the places of four councillors, who
had failed to give attendance at the council, were declared vacant,
and other persons were appointed. On 6th October Johnston was
re-elected on the nomination of Archbishop Cairncross, but on 26th
June, 1686, an order of the privy council, dated on the previous
day, and following on a letter from the king, dated 19th March,
directed the archbishop to require the town council to dismiss
Johnston from the magistracy, and to install John Barnes, the
former provost, in that office. The archbishop having communicated this order to the council, Barnes was appointed provost,
and took the requisite oaths. Johnston's offence seems to have
been against Archbishop Ross, and in obedience to an order of the
privy council, dated 25th June, he appeared before the magistrates
and council on 5th July and craved pardon "for his cryme and
injurie done to his grace the Archbishop of St. Andrews." On
25th September a letter from the Earl of Perth, Lord High
Chancellor in name of the privy council, intimated a letter from
the king, dated 12th September, ordering all elections in royal
burghs to be suspended till his royal pleasure was known, and
authorising the magistrates and council then in office to continue
till farther order. To this requirement the magistrates and council
"consented with all humilitie and submission." On 18th November
the archbishop appeared in the council chamber and produced a
letter from the privy council, dated 11th November, by which they
nominated and appointed John Barnes to be provost, three persons to
be bailies, and other three to be dean of guild, deacon convener, and
treasurer, respectively, with twenty-four councillors, a deacon of each
of the eleven crafts, a visitor of the gardeners, and a visitor of the
victual. In consequence of Archbishop Cairncross having refused,
it is said, to agree to the measures of the court in regard to popery,
and of the offence which he thereby gave to the king, he was
deprived of the archbishopric on 13th January, 1687. He was
succeeded by John Paterson, bishop of Edinburgh, who was recommended by the king on 21st January, elected on 24th February,
appointed 23rd March, and installed at St. Andrews on 1st May,
1687.
On 4th October, 1687, the privy council, acting under the order
of the king, dated 8th September, prohibited any new magistrates or
councillors from being elected during the year. But on 3rd January,
1688, the archbishop appeared in the town council, and produced
an act of the privy council, dated 22nd December, 1687, whereby,
in obedience to a letter from the king, dated 9th December, the
archbishop was recommended to see His Majesty's instructions, as
therein set forth, fully put to execution in every way. These
instructions were, that the magistrates and council for the year to
Michaelmas, 1688, should be chosen in the ordinary way. In
accordance with this order the archbishop named Walter Gibson,
merchant, to be provost, and from leets presented to him, he
appointed Colin Bell and John Gilhagie, merchants, and John
Waddrope, craftsman, to be bailies. Thereafter, on 4th January,
thirteen merchants and twelve craftsmen were appointed to be on
the council, and the dean of guild, deacon convener, treasurer, and
other officers, were also appointed.
On 2nd October, 1688, the privy council, under instructions
from the king, by letter dated 13th September, empowered the
magistrates of all royal burghs to continue in their respective
offices till His Majesty's further pleasure was signified. And, on
4th December, the privy council, again, under instructions from
the king, by letter dated 12th November, authorised the election
of the provost, bailies, and other office-bearers, to proceed as
usual. Thereafter, the archbishop appointed Walter Gibson to
continue provost till Michaelmas following, and from leets submitted
by him appointed three persons to be bailies.
The manifold arbitrary acts of King James raised against him
widespread popular indignation, and led to his expulsion from the
throne. In response to formal solicitation from influential persons,
his son-in-law, William Prince of Orange, landed with an army,
in England, on 4th November, 1688, and the king fled to France
on 23rd December. On 24th January, 1689, the provost submitted
to the council an address to be presented to the Prince, which was
approved and signed by the majority. With obvious caution,
however, the provost was appointed to advise as to whether the
address should be sent, and if sent, by what persons it should be
presented. It was probably sent, for the citizens were in sympathy
with it. King James returned to Ireland with a body of French
troops, but was defeated at the Battle of the Boyne, on 1st
July, 1690, and returned to France, where he died on 6th
September, 1701.
On 13th February, 1689, a Convention Parliament in England,
having declared the throne vacant, William and Mary were
proclaimed King and Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. On
4th April the Scottish Estates also declared the throne vacant, and
on the 11th of that month agreed to offer the crown of Scotland
to the English sovereigns. This offer was accepted by them,
and they took the coronation oath in a form prescribed by the
Estates.
On 22nd July prelacy and all superiority of any office in the
church above presbyters were abolished by an act of parliament
which rescinded the acts in favour of episcopacy in the reign of
Charles II., and all other acts inconsistent with that then passed.
On 24th June, 1689, the royal commissioner and the privy
council, acting under orders from the sovereigns, directed a new
and free election of the bailies, dean of guild, treasurer, and town
council, on 2nd and 3rd July, by "a poll of habile burgessis
bearing burden, scot and lot." The persons so elected were
appointed to remain in office till Michaelmas following, and were
required to send to the king a list of three persons, of whom one
might be elected provost.
The king's letter granting this privilege to Glasgow appears
to have excited discussion in the parliament held at Edinburgh in
June. A letter, addressed by Andrew Kennedy, of Cloburne, to
William Denham, of Westshiell, in London, dated 22nd June,
states that the king's letter displeased the commissioner, the Duke
of Hamilton:—
"It was said to be lyke the old tread of letters, bot uthers thought that
Glasgow should have hade this liberty or now, and in effect it deserves better at
King Williams hands then any toun in Scotland; and many think that the King
will erect it in ane absolut burgh royal. But you know Duke Hamiltoun was
made baillie of the regality for his life, when the King succeeded as aire to the
Duke of Lenox; and it is pretendit that now, in the vacancie of the Bishoprick,
the right made to the Duke of Lenox after the 38 revives. Bot this is thought a
vaine pretence, because by the act 1662, restoring Bishops, the Dukes right was
made void; so that now upon their abolishing, it is falen in the Kings hand, and
the King, as come in the Bishops place, hes the only power of election; for the
Duke of Lenox, as baillie, never had it, nor pretendit to it. However, the mater
was remitted to be examined by the Kings advocat." (fn. 24)
The information thus given is supplemented by a letter from
John Anderson, of Dowhill, and Robert Spreull to Lord Melville,
the Secretary of State, dated 25th June, 1689. It is as follows:—
"My Lord,—By Saterday's poast I gave your lordship informatioune of what
past in councell in relatione to his Majesties letter in favours of the towne of
Glasgowe, his grace the Duke of Hamilton putteing a stope to that benefit his
Majestie had given us, pretending that the King had not been rightly informed of
his interest." [A petition to the lords of councill was accordingly put in] "desyring
that in respect of the urgent necessite of the publick safetie, and the difficulties of
the towne, their lordships wold be pleased to allowe them the benefitt of the act
of the estates, conforme to his Majesties letter, always reserving his Majesties
right untill his pleasure be known. After som debait in councell concerning it,
they have allowed ane electione of the bayllies and councell, and that they should
send up a list of thrie persons to the King, owt of whiche his Majestie may
nominat on to be provest. Now, my Lord, this is nather confoirme to the Kings
mynd, nor to the towns priviledge; for the Kings mynd is that we should have
full and ample libertie to elect our magistrats as freely as any other brughe in the
kingdome, and caries no restrictione, and also it puts the towne in a worse condition then it was; for all that the towne was obliged to doe according to the
settlement by act of parliament to the Duke of Lennox (in whose place his
Majestie now stands) [was] only to present a list of thrie persons to the Duik or his
commissioner, especially commissioner for that effect, at the Castle of Glasgow. If
his grace, or non from him wer there, they proceeded to the electione of there
provest as the act of Parliament authorised them; and very frequently they
have done, when either there was no commissioner at the castle, or that
his commission did not exactly meet with the matter. Now, my Lord,
by this act of councell, the towne is highly prejudged, and the end of his
Majesties letter is frustrat. Wherfor I humbly crave that your lordship will
be pleased to infoirme his Majestie heirof, that his Majestie may renew his
letter to the councell, dispensing with this his right, and authorising the people
to elect there provest as freely as any other brughe hath done. My Lord, the
publick interest and safetie of the natione and of the place calls for this, and
also the people hopes for his Majesties favour and goodness in it. My Lord,
for your cleirer informatione I have sent to Mr. Nairne the copie of the act of
councell, as alsoe the just double of the act of parliament, whereby your lordship
will find wherein they disagrie. His grace the Duck of Hamiltone did mantaine
this debait very hotly. My Lord, I humbly beg that this may not be delayed,
both for the publick good and the privat concerne of the towne, for both can
hardly admitt any delaye. I am, my Lord, your lordships oblidged servant,
[Subscribed] Jo. Anderson. Ro. Spreull." (fn. 25)
The Duke of Hamilton, on the other hand, represented
his views to Lord Melville in a letter dated Holyrood House,
4th July, 1689, in which he said:—
"Upon receiving the Kings letter to the counsill, it not appearing that
the King had been informed of his right in choysing of the provest of Glasgow,
and, having seen ane act of parliament ratefeing ane agreement betuixt the
toune and the Duke of Lennox, that he should choyse out of a leet of three
to be presented to him, the provost; the counsill therfore did appoynt them
to goe choyse their magistrats, according to his Majesties letter, and to send
a leet of three to his Majestie to choyse the provost. And accordingly thay
took out their act, and I hear are about making their elections, and, his Majestie
being now in the place of the Duke of Lennox, it is ane intrest I think so much
for his service, that he should not departe from it, seeing he hes good right to it
in law, which I hope your lordship will let him know. And, if your lordship
at distance procure things from the King, that may relate to his service here,
yow will find the inconveniency of not first advysing these matters with those
the King trusts here; and why they should make any complaint I cannot
understand, since they have taken out their act, and are proceeding in their
electione." (fn. 26)
In virtue of the order by the privy council of 24th June, a
free election of the bailies and council, by a poll of the burgesses,
took place on the 3rd of July in presence of Sir William Fleming,
of Ferme, and George Anderson, town clerk, and it was resolved
to ascertain whether the king desired the leet for the provostship
to be submitted by the council or by the burgesses. No reply appears
to have been received to the letter which John Anderson and Robert
Spreule wrote to Lord Melville on the 25th of June, and Anderson
again wrote his lordship on the 6th of August intreating him to
obtain—
"his Majesties allowance to the present magistrats and councell of Glasgow to
elect there provest, signified to them by a line from his Majestie. The bearer,
Mr. Sprule, who is goeing for London upon som particulare of his owne, can
infoirme your Lordship how muche it tends to the hurt and prejudice of the
towne that we have not a Provest. I knowe your Lordship is takene up about
the great and weghtie concernes of the natione, to which this ought to give
waye. But, my Lord, this being of soe much concerne to this poor place,
I entreat your Lordships most convenient and spare hower to obtaine it." (fn. 27)
The result of this correspondence does not appear further
than may be inferred from the fact, recorded in the town council's
minute of 26th August, that on that day the double of a
Signature or Letter of Gift was produced and read, which was
to be presented to the King and Queen "for getting the
election of the proveist and baillies in their owne hands
(bishops now being abolished)." (fn. 28) This document was approved,
and John Anderson, of Dowhill, was appointed to proceed
to London and present it to their Majesties "for getting
the same made effectual." With a view to this, a formal commission was given in favour of Anderson. As the result of this
action their Majesties granted the privilege sought, and on
Anderson's return he presented to the council an account of his
expenses and necessary outlays, amounting to £424 19s. Scots. On
1st October, 1689, the ordinary day for the election of the provost
and bailies of the burgh, a letter from the king, dated 19th
September, was produced to the council, allowing them "to
elect and choose as well your proveist as other magistrates for
the ensuing year." Thereupon John Anderson was elected provost,
and John Leckie, John Gibson, and George Nisbet were elected
bailies. The temporary privilege thus conferred on the city was
made perpetual by a Letter of Gift by the king and queen, which
Provost Anderson produced to the town council on 18th January,
1690. By this letter a charter was ordered to be issued, under the
great seal, confirming all charters, grants, and privileges by previous
sovereigns in favour of the city, and farther their Majesties, as
having come in place of the archbishop, granted to the city and the
town council full power and liberty "to choise and elect their
proveist, baillies, and haill other magistrats in the ordinar maner
and at the ordinar tyme, as freelie as any other royall burgh in the
kingdome doe or may choise their proveist, bailies, and magistrats,"
beginning the first election at Michaelmas following, and so to
continue in all time coming. Having thus, at last, succeeded so far,
the provost was appointed on 1st February to proceed to Edinburgh
and get the grant passed the great seal. At the same time he presented an account of his personal expenses and disbursements,
including the dues of the secretary and his servants and gifts to
"persones of qualitie who were the touns freinds in dealling with his
Majestie to procure the said Letter of Gift." That account
amounted to £3,673 Scots, with £57 paid for the exchange of £215
sterling of that sum. This account was unanimously approved
and ordered to be paid, and the provost was most heartily thanked.
An address to their Majesties was also voted. The provost lost no
time in executing the commission granted to him on the 1st, for on
the 24th he produced to the council the confirmation under the
great seal of the Letter of Gift above mentioned, (fn. 29) and the treasurer
was directed to pay the charges connected with the gift, and the
provost's personal expenses, amounting in all to £681 12s. Scots.
With a view to having the letter of gift confirmed by parliament
it was ordered, on 21st April, 1690, to be sent to the provost in
Edinburgh, and on 2nd June he submitted to the town council
the draft of the requisite act which he was to endeavour to
have passed. On 11th August he produced the act which had
been passed on 14th June. Under the powers thus obtained the
first free election of the provost and bailies took place on 30th
September, and the councillors for the following year were appointed on 3rd October. 1690.
As regards the subsequent elections of the provosts, magistrates,
and council of the city, these, like the corresponding elections in
other royal burghs, were regulated by the sett of the burgh, till the
introduction of a uniform system of election under the provisions
of the Municipal Reform Act of 1833.
The preparation of this volume, which records the enfranchisement of the city from subjection to the archbishop, and its
establishment with all the rights and privileges of the most favoured
royal burgh, has been the work mainly of Mr. Robert Renwick,
whose intimate knowledge of Old Glasgow is, I believe, unique.
The elaborate Index, without which such a work as this is
deprived of much of its value, has also been prepared by him. For
such ungrudging gratuitous labour warm acknowledgement is due.
J. D. MARWICK.
19 Woodside Terrace,
Glasgow, January, 1905.