Further additions and corrections to the Preface
Pages ci - ccl

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Author

J.D. Marwick (editor)

Year published

1897

Supporting documents

Pages

551-577

Citation Show another format:

'Further additions and corrections to the Preface: Pages ci - ccl', Charters and Documents relating to the City of Glasgow 1175-1649: Part 1 (1897), pp. DLI-DLXXVII. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=50505 Date accessed: 30 October 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Contents

Page ci., line 3 of first column of footnote, after "Glasgow" insert:—See his life by Wodrow—Collections (Maitland Club), I., part i., pp. 71–96.

— line 13 of first column of footnote, after "Lothian" insert:—Wodrow's Collections, I., part i., pp. 205–230. James Melville's Diary, p. 37. M'Ure's History of Glasgow, p. 31.

—line 17 of first column of footnote, for "1574" read "1574–5."

—line 14 of second column of fotnoote, after "year" insert—1578.

Page cii., line 8, after "lord" insert as foonote:—See Carlyle's picturesque description of Tulchan Bishops in Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches (1857), I., p. 33.

—line 5 of second column of footnotes, after "19" insert:—Wodrow's Collections contain a life of archbishop Boyd. He was married to Margaret Chambers, a daughter of James Chambers or Chalmers, baron of Gadgirth. By her he had two sons, Thomas and Robert. Wodrow supposes he had daughters also, but says that no accounts of them had come into his hands [Maitland Club, I., part i., pp. 205–230]. See also James Melville's Diary, p. 37. M'Ure's History of Glasgow, p. 31. As to the influence of the Boyds at Glasgow see Wodrow, ut sup., App. pp. 523–525.

—add to footnote 3:—From the grant to the college the chaplainry of Allhallow or All Saints was specially excepted. It had been previously granted to the master of the Grammar School to remain for ever with him and his successors, preceptors for the time being, "free from payment of the third part of the fruits thereof" [Glasgow Charters, vol. I., part ii., p. 161].

Page ciii., line 4, after "provost" insert as a footnote:—Gibson states that in 1573 archbishop Boyd revived the claim of the bishop to appoint the magistrates, but that the town council protested against it, and chose their own magistrates [History of Glasgow, p. 84].

Page cv., line 4, delete "Dunbar" and substitute "Beaton."

—add to footnote 1:—A letter, dated 6th May, 1573, written in cypher to those in the castle of Edinburgh by some one sent from them to France for aid, states that the archbishop of Glasgow was then engaged in negotiations at the French court for assistance to the queen's supporters in Scotland, but that the king would give none [Cecil Papers. Royal Com. Hist. MSS., II., p. 50].

Page cvi., between lines 19 and 20, insert:—To obviate the great inconveniences occasioned by the multitude of strangers applying to be made burgesses,—some "be sick requeistis as may nocht gudlie be denyit, and sum throucht the small fynes, geving far les nor vther townis taks for thair freedome,"—the town council, on 20th June, 1574, ordained that "ilk persoun that beis burges, or desyris to be burges and freman of this gude town, sall paye for thair fynes to the thesaurer of the toun, to the commone weale thairof, the sum of ten poundis money in tymes cuming" [Council Records, I., p. 17].

Page cviii., between lines 5 and 6 insert:—In consequence of the application of the sons of burgesses for admission as burgesses on more favourable terms than were granted to strangers, it was ordered on 22nd September, 1575, that the practice of other towns in regard to the matter should be ascertained. Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, Ayr, and others, were accordingly appointed to be written to, to ascertain their practice [Council Records, I., p. 39].

Page cviii., between lines 11 and 12, insert:—On 24th June, 1576, every stranger admitted burgess was ordained to pay twenty merks; the sons of burgesses of the town, whether their fathers were alive or not, £5, without prejudice to the eldest as heir of his father, "to be handelit conform to use and wont;" and the husband of every daughter of a burgess—if such daughter were a maiden, and not previously married—£5 [Council Records, I., p. 52].

On 28th October charges for bringing "furmes, coilles, and peittis fra the castell" [Council Records, I., p. 461], and on 28th November for "bringing down of the counsalhous burd furth of the castell" (MSS. Council Records) were authorised to be paid; and from these entries local historians have inferred that previous to the Reformation, and for sometime afterwards, meetings of the town council were held in the bishop's castle, and that in and after 1576 such meetings took place in the tolbooth at the foot of the High Street. It is ascertained from the council records, however, that from 1573, when they begin, the meetings of council were regularly held in the tolbooth; while from protocol books and other sources it appears that the tolbooth was the usual place for conducting municipal business both before and after the Reformation.

Page cix., between lines 2 and 3, insert:—On 28th May, 1577, the town council having regard to the multitude of strangers coming to the town desiring to become freemen, and being of opinion that the effect of their admission would be to oppress the town, ordered that all applicants not being the sons of burgesses should pay £20 of entry money to the treasurer [Council Records, I., p. 59].

Page cxii., add to footnote 4:—Thomas Hutcheson, chamberlain of the archbishop, charged the rioters, on 17th January, in name of the archbishop and of the earl of Lennox, bailie of the regality, to proceed no further with the work of demolition, but they nevertheless continued it [Privy Council Register, III., p. 99].

Page cxiv., between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:—The first meeting of the convention of burghs in Glasgow, of which a record is preserved, took place on 24th, 25th, 26th, and 27th February, 1579, and at it the burgh was represented by George Elphinstone and William Cunynghame, bailies [Printed Records of Convention, I., pp. 83–90; II., pp. 502–3, 543].

Writing in 1578 bishop Leslie refers to Glasgow as a "noble toune quhair is ane archibishopes seat. Surelie Glasgw is the most renouned market in all the west, honorable and celebrated. After the haeresie began thair was ane academie, nocht obscure, nather infrequent or of ane small number, in respect baith of philosophie and grammar and politick studie. It is sa frequent and of sick renoune that it sendes to the easte countrayes verie fatt kye, herring likewyse, and salmonte, oxne-hydes, wole and skins, butter lykewyse than nane bettir, and cheise. Bot contrare to the west (quhair is a people verie numerable in respect of the commoditie of the sey cost), by vthir merchandise, all kynd of corn to thame sendes" [Scotland before 1700, by P. Hume Brown, p. 120].

Page cxv., line 10, before "in" insert:—On the death of earl Mathew of Lennox, the father of lord Darnley, at Stirling on 4th September, 1571, the earldom merged in the crown, and remained there till the following year, when new charters of the earldom were granted to Charles Stewart, the king's paternal uncle, and his heirs male. He died, however, in 1576, leaving only one daughter, the unfortunate Arabella Stewart. The earldom was then bestowed in 1578 upon Robert Stewart, second son of John, third earl of that race. Two years later, however, viz.,

Page cxv., add to footnote 5—"Birrell's Diary, p. 22."

Page cxvi., line 26, after "three" insert—"viz., George Elphinstoun, William Cunynghame, and Robert Rowatt."

Page cxvii., line 11, after "Lennox," insert as footnote:—See No. 173 Appendix to Third Report of Historical MSS. Commission. Duke of Montrose, p. 394.

Page cxviii., add to footnote 2:—Gordon's Scots Affairs, I., pp. 39–41. Spalding, II., pp. 37–40.

Page cxix., between lines 5 and 6, insert:—On 21st July, 1581, the privy council ordered that no confirmation of feus, tacks, gifts of pensions, or other titles of lands, teinds, or other fruits or duties, belonging to the archbishopric, granted by archbishop Beaton, or any of his predecessors, should be granted, but should cease till the king, with the advice of his nobility or council, should take further order in the matter [Privy Council Register, III., p. 398].

—between lines 12 and 13, insert:—The king, accompanied by the duke of Lennox, the earl of Arran, lords Ruthven, Seaton, Ogilvie, and others, were in Glasgow in September, 1581 [Bain's Calendar of Border Papers, I., pp. 74, 75]. He went there on 28th August and remained in the west country till 16th October [Calderwood, App. VIII., p. 212]. Meetings of the privy council took place in Glasgow on 6th, 18th, 19th, and 20th September [Privy Council Register, III., pp, 419–422]. He was again in the town on 15th March, 1581–2, when the accounts of the burgh show a payment of 20s. to Margaret Ross "for ane disione given be her to the bairnis makeris of the pastyme" to the king; and on the 20th of the same month 13s. 4d. were given for "twa quartes of wyne proponit to the king being in this toune" [Council Records, I., p. 470].

— line 17, after "Stewart" insert as footnote:—This Sir Mathew was the son of Sir John Stewart of Minto, to whom, as bailie of the regality and keeper of the castle of Glasgow, and provost of the burgh, reference has frequently been made. The prior of Blantyre was the son of Sir John by a second marriage.

A dispute appears to have arisen subsequently between archbishop Montgomery and the college as to which of them was entitled to receive the small customs from Mathew Boyd, by whom they appear to have been drawn, and that this dispute was submitted to the court of session, which, on 19th December of that year, ordained them to be paid by the college [Mun. Alme Univ., Glasg., I., p. 135, No. 74].

In 1581 parliament passed an act for executing the statutes against the casting down and holding down of cruives and yairs, and constituted the provost and bailies of Glasgow, Renfrew, and Lanark, justices to execute the act on the Water of Clyde [1581, c. 15, Acts of Parliament, III., p. 218].

—add to footnote 5:—See addition to p. cxxix., Additions and Corrections.

Page cxxi., line 35 of first column of footnote, insert:—See Wodrow's Life of Mr. Robert Pont. Collections (Maitland Miscellany), I., part i., pp. 164, 101.

—line 2, second column, after "1582" insert:—[Bain's Calendar of Border Papers (4th May), I., p. 82, No. 121. (30th June), I., p. 86, No.128].

— line 10, second column, insert:—See letters from Henry Woddryngton to Sir Francis Walsingham, dated 11th and 26th April, 1582. In the latter it stated that the duke of Lennox had said that Montgomery "shal be bishopp in spyte of all them that wold the contrary. And so the duke is at present at Glasco establishing him bishopp of Glasco—which proceedings of the dukes makethe great suspicioun and murmuracion universally in Scotland—fearing he intendeth alteracion of religion by all the pollicie and device he can practise or go about" [Bain's Calendar of Border Papers, I., p. 79 (No. 116), and 81 (No. 119)].

Page cxxv., line 13 of first column of footnote, after "108-9" insert:—Wodrow, on the authority of Calderwood, states that in the beginning of July, 1584, the provost, bailies, and council of Glasgow came to the high kirk and took down Mr. David Wemyes, ministers, out of the pulpit and placed the excommunicated bishop, Mr. Robert Montgomery, at the king's command. The regents would not go to the bishop's sermon because he was excommunicated. They were sent for by the king and council, and being asked what reason they had for not attending the bishop when preaching? they answered he was cursed. It was answered the king and council had loosed him. They replied, they had no power to absolve Mr. Montgomery from that sentence. "Perhaps," says Calderwood, " I have elsewhere noticed that the four regents were in ward—two of them in the castle of Edinburgh, and the other two in the castle of St. Andrews—and immediately thereafter, by an open proclamation, the college of Glasgow was discharged, and the scholars commanded to go home till new masters were provided" Wodrow's Life of Wemyss—Collections (Maitland Miscellany), vol. II., part ii., pp. 4, 5.

— line 26 of second column of footnote, after "701" insert:—See also letters from Carvylle to Walsingham, 3rd August, 1587 [Bain's Calendar of Border Papers, I., p. 265, No. 528].

Page cxxvi., add to footnote 2:—Esme, duke of Lennox, married Katherine Balsac, daughter of Balsac, Seigneur d'Antragues in France, by whom he had two sons—(1) Ludovic, who succeeded him, and was second duke of Lennox, and (2) Esme, lord d'Aubigny, afterwards duke of Lennox. He also left two daughters—lady Henrietta, married to George, first marquis of Huntly, and lady Mary, second wife of John, earl of Mar, lord high treasurer of Scotland in the reign of James VI. [Stuart's Genealogical History of the Stewarts, p. 260].

Page cxxvii., between lines 5 and 6, insert:—On 18th June, 1583, Glasgow applied to the convention of burghs for aid in repairing the kirk of the burgh. The application was continued till the next convention, but is not afterwards referred to [Convention Records, I., p. 180].

Page cxxviii., after "240," add to footnote:—He is referred to as provost on 28th September, 1583 [Calendar of State Papers of Scotland, I., p. 458].

Page cxxix., line 4, delete "Meanwhile" and insert:—The affection which the king had entertained towards Esme, duke of Lennox, was continued, after the duke's death, to his family [see page cxxvi.]. Immediately after the king succeeded in emancipating himself from the restraint imposed on him by the raiders, he took measures to invest Ludovic, duke Esme's eldest son, in his father's honours and estates. On 31st July, 1583, he executed two charters, under the great seal, in his favour, by the first of which he granted to him the commendatorship of Arbroath [Great Seal Register, 1580-1593, p. 184, No. 594]; and by the second he granted to him and his heirs male whomsoever, the lands, earldom, and lordship of Lennox, as these had been previously conferred on duke Esme, but subject to the provision that the grant should not prejudice the rights to various lands which had been previously bestowed on the commendator of Blantyre, and Sir Robert Melville of Murdocairny, knight, nor infeftments granted by duke Esme to John Smollett of Kirktoun, to David Makgill of Neisbett, king's advocate, and to William Stewart of Caberstoun, captain of the castle of Dumbarton [Ibid., pp. 184–5, No. 596]. In the charter by the king to duke Esme in 1581 (Antea, p. cxviii.) the grant was limited to the duke and the heirs male of his body, whom failing, it was to return to the king. But in the charter to duke Ludovic of 1583 the grant was to him and his heirs male whomsoever. In virtue of this extended grant, Charles II., in 1680, claimed and established his title to the dukedom as the nearest collateral heir male, though not lineally descended from any of the dukes of Lennox [Andrew Stuart's Genealogical History of the Stewarts, p. 261].

— line 10, delete "eldest son of Esme, the former duke."

— line 2 of first column of footnote, after "384" insert—Birrell's Diary, p. 23.

Page cxxx., footnote 1, add—A letter from Mr. Bowes to Sir Frances Walsingham, dated 23rd November, 1583, states that the earl of Montrose was besieging Glasgow castle [Cal. of State Papers (Scotland), by Thorpe, I., p. 462.

— footnote 4, add—Calderwood, IV., pp. 62–73. Tytler, VIII., pp. 177-9.

Page cxxxi., line 15, after "them" insert:—The passing of these acts was regarded by the presbyterian ministers with consternation, and those who protested against them had to seek safety in flight. The masses of the people, however, sympathised with the ministers, and openly evinced their hostility by subjecting the bishops to every species of indignity. The obnoxious statutes were designated "The Black Acts." It cannot be denied, however, that the action of some of the leading clergy, and the approval which the general assembly gave to the "Raid of Ruthven," must have influenced the king in his endeavours to curb the ministers, and restrict the high claims of the kirk. After a time most of the ministers gave in their submission; but many of their leaders, who had been obliged to leave the country, contrived still, by correspondence, to fan the flames of popular discontent, and bided their time. Meanwhile a

— add to footnote 1—Calderwood, IV., pp. 209–211, 246, 247.

Page cxxxiii., add to footnote 1—Tytler, VIII., pp. 229, 242.

— add to footnote 2—Birrell's Diary, pp. 23, 24.

— line 8 of first column of footnote, after "was" insert—"born about 1568, and"

—line 2 of second column of footnote, after "king" insert—"before 1580."

Page cxxxiv., between lines 21 and 22, insert:—Nevertheless, the state of feeling in the country made it apparent to the court that concessions must be granted with regard to the ecclesiastical arrangements. A compromise was accordingly effected between the privy council and some of the leading ministers, and the terms of it were submitted to the general assembly which met in Edinburgh on 10th May, 1586. It was attended by the king, who took an active part in its deliberations, and ultimately a modified form of episcopacy was accepted. It was agreed that bishops should be regarded simply as described by St. Paul, that they should be assigned by the assembly to special districts, but that their oversight of these districts should be subject to the advice of the provincial synod; that the presbytery of the district within which a vacant benefice lay should direct the bishop in receiving presentations and collating to the benefice; and that every bishop should be subject to the jurisdiction and control of the general assembly. Annual assemblies were also agreed to be held; a scheme of presbyteries was adopted; and the relative jurisdiction of kirk sessions, presbyteries, and provincial synods was defined [Book of the Universal Kirk, May, 1586].

—line 3 of footnote, first column, after "589," insert:—See also Charters, No. 1128, dated 12th December, 1586, and No. 1483, dated 7th March, 1587-8 [Great Seal Register, 1580–1593, pp. 374, 507].

Page cxxxv., line 3, for "25th" read "21st."

Page cxxxviii., add to footnote 1:—The fourteenth report of the Hist. MSS. Commissioners, voce Lord Kenyon, refers to the dean of Peterborough's account of the execution of Mary, queen of Scots, and other particulars connected with her trial and execution [p. 36]. The account itself is given in Appendix IV., p. 575.

Page cxl., line 13, after "had" insert "on 19th June, 1587."

Page cxli., add to footnote 1 the following:—This comprehensively sweeping enactment proceeded on the statement that the crown had been impoverished in past times by grants of the greatest part of its patrimony to abbeys, monasteries, and the clergy, that the necessity for continuing these endowments had ceased, and that the burden of taxation for the support of the sovereign would be greatly reduced if the patrimony so alienated were, with certain specified exceptions, reclaimed. The act, therefore, annexed to the crown, subject to these exceptions, "all and sindrie landis, lordshippis, baronies, . . . burrowis in regality and baronie, &c.," and those pertaining to "quhatsumevir archibischope, bishop . . . . or other prelate, or ecclesiastical or beneficit persoun, . . . to quhatsumevir abbay, convent, cloister, . . . ordour of freris or nunis, monkis, or channonis, howsoevir thai be nameit, and to quhatsumevir college kirk," prebendary or chaplainry, and "sic like all and sindrie commoun landis bruikit be chaptouris of cathedrall kirkis, and chantorie colleges." It, however, reserved the usual teinds for the maintenance of the clergy, with their manses and glebes, and the principal castles and residences also of the archbishops, bishops, commendators, and other possessors of the great benefices. Calderwood asserts that archbishop Adamson of St Andrews consented to this reclamation of the property which had been held by the church [Calderwood, IV., p. 640]. But archbishop Spottiswood states in effect that the passing of the measure was secured by misrepresentation. The king, he says, "was made to believe that the reservation of the prelates houses and precincts, with the tithes of the churches annexed to their benefices, would suffice to maintain their dignity and estate," while it was whispered privately, to such of the ministers as sought the subversion of episcopal government, that this was the only way to undo the prelacy, for, there being no livings to maintain them (as in this case there would be little or nothing remaining, most of the bishoprics being founded on temporal lands, and having but few churches annexed), none would be found to accept those places, which also proved true. Hopes besides were given to those ministers that they should have the tithes to use and dispone at their pleasure. Yet it was not long ere the king did find himself abused, and when he saw "that the spiritual estate was by this means utterly decayed, the priors and abbots being all turned temporal lords, he did sore forthink the passing of the act, calling it a vile and pernicious act, and recommending to the prince, his son, the annulling thereof." The ministers that looked for restoring the tithes, perceiving themselves likewise deluded, began also to reclaim and condemn the course, howbeit somewhat too late [Spottiswoode, II., pp. 376, 377]. By whatever means the passing of the act was secured, however, it paved the way, as is stated by Dr. M'Crie, for the abolition of episcopacy. It virtually divested the bishops of their right to sit in the national judicature which was founded on their baronial possessions, and consequently removed the principal plea upon which the court had hitherto upheld them. . . . This induced the presbyterian ministers to wink at the alienation of the ecclesiastical property. Nor do the bishops appear to have made any formal opposition to this sweeping statute. Existing solely by the favour of the prince, and dreading the entire suppression of their order, they silently acquiesced in a measure which stripped them of such valuable possessions, and left them exposed to the persevering attack of their adversaries [Life of Melville, p. 185]. Could the king have forseen the future, or have anticipated his own subsequent policy, or, still more, that of his unfortunate son, the act of annexation would never have received his sanction. Both did their utmost in subsequent years to undo its effects, and the act itself was rescinded, but the hierarchy never regained its former prestige and opulence.

Page cxliii., line 17, after "England," insert as a footnote:—Grub, II., pp. 245, 246.

Page cxliv., line 27, after "successors," insert:—The commendator had previously got a tack of the parsonage of Glasgow [infra, p. dlx.], and, on 12th August, 1587, he obtained a decree of the lords of council and session against all heritors, feuars, tacksmen, rentallers, parishioners, and others, intromitters with the teind sheaves, profits, and emoluments which belonged to the parsonage of Glasgow, for payment of the teind sheaves, &c., of the same— he having right thereto by tack [Acts and Decreets, vol. CXII., fol. 365].

—add to footnote 1 the following:—On 20th December, 1587, a warrant was granted by the king and Ludovick, second duke of Lennox, authorising Walter, commendator of Blantyre, to receive and admit Thomas Crawford as a kindly tenant of the mill of Partick, mill lands, and others thereof, for payment of the feu-duty, used and wont [The Lennox, by Sir William Fraser, Vol. II., p. 330].

See Nos. 177, 178, 180, and 181, p. 395 of Hist. MS. Commission App. to Third Report. Duke of Montrose, p. 395. Also Nos. 165, 166, p. 394, and Nos. 193 to 196, p. 396.

Page cxlv., between lines 3 and 4, insert:—A meeting of the privy council was held in Glasgow on 8th September, 1587 [Privy Council Register, IV., p. 212].

In 1587 the proportions in which every £100 of taxation laid on the burghs of Scotland were to be borne by each of the five larger burghs were fixed as follows:—Edinburgh, £38 2s. 8d., afterwards restricted to £29 15s. ; Dundee, £9 10s. 8d.; Perth, £7 12s.; Aberdeen, £7 4s.; Glasgow £2 13s. 8d., afterwards increased to £3 5s. [Municipal Corporation Reports (1835), Glasgow, II., p. 5].

At this time the west coast of Scotland seems to have suffered from pirates, and the convention of burghs held at Dundee in July passed an act in which they undertook to relieve the burghs of the west country, such as Glasgow, Irvine, Ayr, and Dumbarton, of such sums as they might disburse in "outredding" a ship for the suppression of these pirates [Convention Records, I., p. 242].

Page cxlvi., between lines 8 and 9, insert:—

The convention of burghs met in Glasgow from the 2nd to the 6th of July, 1588, and was presided over by James Fleming, senior commissioner of the burgh [Convention Records, I., pp. 274–294; II., p. 547]. One of its first acts was to order that on each day of preaching the commissioners should meet in the over Tolbooth at 6 a.m., and remain till they went to the preaching. They had to meet again at 2 o'clock and sit till 6 o'clock. On other days the meetings commenced at 8 o'clock and continued till 12, when they were adjourned till 2, and closed at 6. Such commissioners as failed to attend at these hours were subjected to a fine of 6s. 8d. for each failure. The convention also ratified an act of the convention held at Edinburgh on 30th October, 1587, under which those commissioners who did not attend on the first day of the convention were fined £20. If, however, they appeared on the second day and remained till the close of the convention, and then signed the minute book, the fine was restricted to £10 [Ibid., I., p. 266].

—add to footnote1:—Birrell's Diary, pp. 24, 25.

Page cxlvii., between lines 12 and 13, insert:—On 18th January, 1588-9, the town council directed the then treasurer, during his term of office, to take from the sons of burgesses a fine of £5 on their admission as burgesses, and from those marrying burgesses' daughters who were not widows a similar sum of £5 [Council Records, I., p. 127].

Page cxlviii., between lines 15 and 16, insert:—In the exercise of their general jurisdiction as magistrates of the city, the bailies held what were known as "coble courts" at the Broomielaw. A reference to this court is contained in a minute of 21st April, 1589, which set forth that it was then held by James Fleming and Robert Stewart, bailies, that after suits had been called and the court confirmed—the dempstar being present—Ninian Hutcheson, who had wrongfully deprived John Clark of two salmon, and had complained that John had taken a "schot" of fish [i.e., a draught of fishes made by a net] which belonged to Ninian, was ordained to pay John nineteen shillings as the value of these two fish. Whereupon "doom was given" [Council Records, I., p. 133].

Previous to the Reformation the parsonage of Glasgow formed one of the prebends of the cathedral called Glasgow Primo; while the vicarage formed another prebend under the name of Glasgow Secundo. When the valuation of benefices was made up at the time of the Reformation, the parsonage, which included the teinds of the parish, was valued at £60 4s. 8d., 32 chalders 8 bolls meal, 9 chalders 3 bolls bear, 3 barrels herring, and 10 merks money. The vicarage, with its revenues derived from "corps presents, umest claiths, teind lint and hemp, teinds of the yairds of Glasgow, a third part of the boats that arrives to the brig, Paschmes teinds of the browsters, and the oblations at Pasche," was leased for 103 merks [Origines Parochiales, I., p. 2]. In the year 1561 Mr. Henry Sinclair, dean of the metropolitan church, is mentioned as liferenter (usufructuarium) of "Glasgow Primus" [Glasgow Protocols, III., No. 643]. The benefice appears to have become vacant shortly afterwards, as on 28th January, 1565, King Henry and Queen Mary granted to William Baillie, lord Provan, a tack of the third of the parsonage, and particularly of the teind sheaves of the lands of Provan, for payment of a yearly rent of £88 18s. Scots. In 1566 the parsonage was held by Mr. Alexander Lauder, designated "parson of Glasgow" [Privy Council Register, I., p. 492], and after his death it was on 25th August, 1570, conferred by the crown on Mr. Archibald Douglas, grandson of John, second earl of Montrose, and then a lord of session [Dr. Murray's "Rottenrow" (Regality Club), II., pp. 60, 61. Fasti Ecclesiæ, III., p. 2]. On 1st November, 1576, Douglas, designated "persone of Glasgw," with consent of the dean and chapter, renewed the tack to lord Provan of the teinds of Provand, &c., for the period of 19 years, at the same yearly rent of £88 18s. The tack was confirmed by crown charter on 15th July, 1581 [Great Seal Register, V., No. 232], and the tacks as well as the charter were ratified by act of parliament on 29th November same year [c. 66, A.P.S., III., p. 242]. On 20th October, 1571, a feu charter was granted by "Mr. Archibald Douglas, rector of the parish church of Glasgow," with consent of the archbishop, dean, and chapter, to Thomas Crawfurd of Jurdanhill and Janet Ker, his spouse, of the parsonage house and manse, described as lying between the manses of the sub-dean and treasurer, and the castle and cemetery of Glasgow; but reserving to the rector a chamber and stable, with entry to the yard, when he resided in Glasgow [Confirmed by Crown Charter, 21st May, 1572. Great Seal Register, IV., No. 2068. The property is referred to in the charter as ruinous, and not capable of being repaired, except at great cost; and the purchaser seems to have commenced rebuilding or repairing it without much delay, as on 30th May, 1574, there is notice of a "questione of lyneyng and nychtbourheid betuix Thomas Crawfurd of Jurdanhill, fewar of the persone of Glasgwis mans, and Maister David Conyghame, fewar of the Sub-deynes mans" [Glasgow Records, I., p. 12]. Other property of the parsonage was likewise disposed of. On 1st May, 1573, "Mr. Archibald Douglas, canon of Glasgow, and prebendary of Glasgow Primo," granted in feu farm to Mr. David Rollok of Kincladye and his spouse thirteen acres, called the "Personis-croft" near the Stabill-grene, lands lying near the Brumelaw, and lands called "Personis-haugh" near Stobcors [Confirmed by Crown Charter, 10th January, 1579–80. Great Seal Register, IV., No. 2954]. In or about the year 1586, Douglas had granted to Walter Stewart, commendator of Blantyre, tacks of "the fruitis, teynd scheaves, and other profittis of the personage of Glasgow," consisting probably of the whole benefice, except the manse and crofts, and tack of Provan teinds above referred to; but in consequence of the parson's complicity in the murder of Darnley, his estates had been forfeited, and the commendator was secured in his rights by a confirmation from parliament obtained on 29th July, 1587 [c. 81, A.P.S., III., p. 484.

Under contract between Archibald Douglas and David Weems, first minister of Glasgow subsequent to the Reformation, the latter was entitled to a stipend of £200 Scots from the fruits of the parsonage, beginning at Whitsunday, 1572 [Privy Council Register, II., p. 114], and in the Register of Ministers, &c., containining assignations of stipends for the year 1576 [Maitland Club Publication, p. 83], the following entry occurs:—"Maister David Weims, minister, his stipend ijc li to be pait be the persone of Glasgw, according to the contract maid betuix thame thairupoun." It appears that Douglas demitted the parsonage about the year 1597, and it was shortly afterwards conferred on David Weems, minister; but on the restoration of episcopacy in 1605, he resigned it in favour of archbishop Spottiswood [Glasgow Charters, part i., pp. 52, 53; Abstract, Nos. 450-2]. In 1609 the archbishop granted a tack of the parsonage to James, master of Blantyre, and his successors [Ibid., p. 62, No. 489]; and this tack was continued till 1648, when the town acquired lord Blantyre's rights in the teinds of the parsonage at the price of £20,000 Scots (£1,666 13s. 4d. sterling), with the promise of 2,000 merks (£111 2s 2d. sterling), when the transaction should be ratified by Lord Blantyre on attaining majority [Council Records, II., pp. 132-3, 325]. In the period between 1638 and 1661, when there was no bishop, the parsonage (which included the tack duty payable by lord Blantyre before the termination of the tack in 1648) seems to have been held by the community, and the revenues applied for support of the ministry [Glasgow Charters, part II., pp. 415, 417-425]. The parsonage was again in the possession of the bishops between 1661 and 1688, but since the Revolution settlement it has been vested in the crown [See also infra, p. dci.].

Page cxlix., add to footnote 1:—As to the repair of kirks in Glasgow see Wodrow's Life of Wemyss (Maitland Club), pp. 9-11.

Page clii., add to footnote 4:—Calderwood, V., pp. 67, 72, 94, 96. Spottiswood, II., pp. 399-408. Tytler, IX., pp. 27-34.

—add before "For" on first line of second column of footnote 5:—Miscellany of the Wodrow Society, I., pp. 469-520. Calderwood, pp. 5, 6, 72-77. Macgregor states that in 1588 the kirk session consisted of two ministers, thirty-eight-elders, and twenty-six deacons; and the elders and deacons were sworn not to reveal anything that should be voted upon in the session, or how the members had voted. The stipend of the minister of the first charge was in this year 500 merks (£27 15s. 62/3d. sterling), and that of the minister of the second charge 300 merks (£16 13s. 4d. sterling). Two years afterwards the town council, in consideration of their special favour to John Couper, the occupant of the second charge, granted him an additional sum of 50 merks (£2 15s. 62/3d. sterling) together with four dozen loads of coals and £20 Scots (£1 13s. 4d. sterling) for house mail [History of Glasgow, p. 146].

Page cliii., before line 1, insert:—On 12th April, 1589, the town council had under consideration a missive from the king requiring them to equip and furnish sixty hagbutters for service in the north. This number, however, was considered more than the town could provide, unless to its "great hurt," and forty men with their commanders were ordered to be raised and furnished. A taxation of £500 was appointed to be levied for this purpose, and persons were appointed to stent and ingather the amount [Council Records, I., pp. 131, 132]. This company appears to have gone on the king's service, and to have returned with a recommendation from his majesty previous to the 10th of May, for on that day the council had under consideration how the men were to be "gratified." The taxation of £500 had not then been levied, but was ordered to be collected forthwith, and the hagbutters were appointed to be paid one hundred merks over and above a daily wage to each of ten shillings during the term of their service. The two commanders were also authorised to be "gratified" at the discretion of the provost and bailies [Ibid., I., pp. 134., 135]. The "gratification" thus authorised was, on 3rd June, appointed to be the fines of three burgesses, besides their ordinary wage and daily allowance [Ibid., I., p. 139]. On 21st June, however, the council had to deal with another charge from the king, requiring Glasgow and all other burghs and towns to proceed to the north to attend the royal service. The king was then in Hamilton, and the three bailies and four others were appointed to wait upon him, and ascertain if, by any "moyan," a dispensation from attending the raid might be obtained [Ibid., I., p. 139]. The result of this application does not appear.

Page cliv., between lines 4 and 5, insert:—On 21st February, 1589-90, the council authorised the burgh treasurer to take, till the following Whitsunday, from burgess' bairns, and those who married burgess' daughters, a fine of £5 [Council Records, I., p. 150].

Page clv., between lines 3 and 4, insert:—Meetings of the privy council were held there on 13th and 14th April, 1591 [Privy Council Register, IV., p. 607]. On 7th February, 1591-2, the earl of Moray, a descendant of the regent, was murdered at Donibristle by Gordon of Buckie, in association with the earl of Huntly, and the public indignation which the murder excited was, to some extent, directed against both the king and the chancellor Maitland. In consequence, Spottiswood says, his majesty not esteeming it safe to abide in Edinburgh removed with the privy council to Glasgow [Spottiswood, II., p. 420]. The privy council sat in Glasgow on 25th February; and the king and court would appear to have been there also, ostensbly in pursuit of Bothwell, but partly no doubt to escape the clamour in the capital. [Privy Council Register, IV., p. 729].

—add to footnote 3 the words:—It was also ratified on 7th June, 1690, by the act 1690, c. 7 [Acts of Parliament, IX., p. 133].

Page clvi., add to footnote 4:—At this convention Glasgow, Ayr, and other burghs complained that Kirkcudbright uplifted from their freemen four bolls "greit salt, land measure," of every ship and barque which arrived in its harbour [Ibid., I., p. 380]. At the next convention in Dysart on 11th June, 1593, Kirkcudbright failing to appear, though cited, was fined £20, and the case was continued till the following convention at Stirling on 28th June, 1594 [Ibid., I., p. 397]. The Commissioners of Kirkcudbright and the complaining burghs then all appeared, but as they were at issue as to the facts, a proof was ordered for 27th June, 1595 [Ibid., I., p. 434]. On that date, accordingly, proof was partially led by Kirkcudbright, but a number of witnesses cited having failed to appear, farther proof was continued till the next convention held in Aberdeen on 3rd July, 1596, when farther proof was led by Kirkcudbright [Ibid., I., p. 455]. In the absence of other persons cited, however, the case was again adjourned, and afterwards dropped out of notice [Ibid., I., p. 484].

Page clvii., between lines 8 and 9, insert:—

An act of the convention of burghs held at Kirkcaldy on 17th June, 1592, shows one way, at least, in which that body enforced obedience to its orders. The burgh of Rothesay would neither attend conventions nor pay the extents and fines imposed upon it. Glasgow and three other burghs were accordingly ordered to apprehend the burgesses of the recalcitrant burgh, and to fence and arrest their goods, holding the same till Rothesay found caution to pay the agent and collector of the burghs the stents and fines due. These burghs were also ordered not to "esteem or use" the burgesses of Rothesay as freemen [Convention Records, I., p. 390].

At the same convention Glasgow complained of Ayr levying greater dues for the upholding of its bridge than it was authorised to do. Both parties were accordingly ordered to appear at the following convention, and Ayr was required then to produce the gift under which these dues were levied [Ibid.]. On the 12th June, 1593, accordingly the case was again resumed by the convention at Dysart, when the commissioner of Ayr produced the gift under the privy seal. But inasmuch as he refused to produce other documents required, the commissioners of burghs suspended all warrant which he could pretend to have from them, and ordered their agent to concur with Glasgow in obtaining suspension of the gift, and in having it annulled in the next parliament [Ibid., I. p. 400].

Page clviii., line 4 of first column of footnote, after "sterling," insert:—Local historians have usually represented that it was the stones of the castle which were used for this purpose. This, however, is a mistake which seems to have arisen from a misreading of the entry in the Council Record, the words "East Port" having perhaps been misread for "Castle" by some one unacquainted with the handwriting.

Page clxi., line 13, after "provost," insert as footnote:—On 11th September, 1593, and 8th October, 1594, applications were made by the presbytery of Glasgow to Sir Mathew Stewart, as bailie of the barony and regality, to interpose his authority in support of their ecclesiastical jurisdiction [Presbytery Records, pp. 65-66]. On 5th November, 1594, he was invited to attend a meeting of presbytery on the 12th, to advise "as to providing a minister for the 'parochin' of Glasgow" [Ibid., I., p. 180]. As bailie of the barony he was present in the presbytery during the trial of one John Stirling, and, after Stirling had been found guilty, Sir Mathew ordered him to be imprisoned in the castle of Glasgow [Ibid., p. 254]. Thus the secular power supported that of the church courts.

— add to footnote 1 the following:—

On 1st July, 1594, Dumbarton complained to the convention of burghs at Stirling that Glasgow received unfreemen and "regratouris," and suffered them to trade to the prejudice of Dumbarton [Ibid., I., p. 437]. Both burghs were in consequence ordered to appear before the next convention to have the complaint disposed of [Ibid.]. The loss of some leaves of the record of the following convention, however, prevents the result of the enquiry being ascertained.

Page clxv., between lines 7 and 8, insert:—

On 24th April, 1595, a meeting of commissioners from Ayr, Glasgow, Irvine, Dumbarton, Renfrew, Rothesay, and Rutherglen was held in Glasgow to deliberate as to various matters affecting the interest of burghs, and among other things determined in accordance with an act of the general convention of burghs held at Stirling on 3rd July, 1594, that the magistrates of each of these towns should require all burgesses, trafficking as freeman or holding any common lands within these burghs, to resort to and make residence in their respective burghs, and bear burdens with the other burgesses previous to 15th June, thereafter, under pain of being deprived of their freedom, and dealt with as unfreemen [Convention Records, I., p. 446]. This act of the seven burghs was ratified by the convention of burghs at Burntisland on 6th July, 1597 [Ibid., II., p. 11], and at Glasgow on 3rd July, 1598 [Ibid., II., p. 31].

Sir Mathew Stewart of Mynto, knight, bailie of the barony and royalty of Glasgow, was provost of the burgh on 20th May, 1595 [Maitland Miscellany, I., 71].

—between lines 13 and 14, insert:—Charters under the great seal bear to have been granted by the king at Hamilton on the 1st of September, 1595, Glasgow on the 5th, and at Falkland on the 6th [Great Seal Register, 1593-1608, pp. 117, 118]; and this would seem to indicate that he was in these places at these respective dates. It must, however, be observed that the fact of a royal charter bearing to be granted by the king at a particular place cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence of his having been actually there.

Page clxvi., line 6, after "Lambhill," insert as footnote:—Dr. Hill's History of Hutchesons' Hospital, p. 7. George Hutcheson, the founder of Hutchesons' Hospital, was born between 1550 and 1568 [Ibid., p. 18]. He was an unsuccessful competitor for the office of clerk to the dean of guild and his council on 14th February, 1605—the other candidates being Archibald Heygait, court clerk [town clerk] of the burgh, Hew Blair, and John Craig. Heygait was, however, elected. [History of the Merchants' House, p. 88. History of Hutchesons' Hospital, p. 19. Crawford's Sketch of the Trades' House, pp. 49, 50].

—add to footnote 1 the following:—The duties of the lord treasurer are stated in detail by Dr. Dickson in his Preface to the Accounts of that Officer. He adds—"At first the treasurer appears not to have had a defined official precedence, but only that belonging to his personal rank. The importance and dignity of the office were, however, greatly enhanced when James VI., soon after his accession to the English throne, united with it the offices of comptroller, collector, and treasurer of new augmentations. The administration of the whole of the royal revenues was thus again committed to one high officer of State, who took precedence, as the great chamberlain had formerly done, next after the chancellor. This precedence was formally recognised in 1623 [MS. Regist. Sec. Concilii, 20th February, 1623], and again by parliament in 1661 [Acts of Parliament, VII., p. 21]. The usual designation of this office was 'the treasurer' or 'lord treasurer.' It was not till after 1603 that the English title of 'lord high treasurer' came into use in Scotland" [p. xxv.-vii.].

Page clxviii., add to footnote 2 the following:—Calderwood's description is just, says Dr. Grub, so far as it applies to the ascendancy of the ecclesiastical opinions held by that historian, but if it is understood to refer also to the religious and moral condition of the people, it can hardly be reconciled with what he relates a few pages further on, in the very words of the General Assembly, which met on the 24th of March, 1596—"A more frightful state of corruption in a Christian nation."

Page clxix., add to footnote 6:—Birrell's Diary, pp. 39-41.

Page clxxi., add to footnote 1:—Birrell's Diary, pp. 41-43.

Page clxxii., add to footnote 1:—Grub, II., pp. 272–274.

—add to footnote 3:—Calderwood, V., pp. 628, 647. Spottiswood, III., pp. 58–60.

Page clxxiii., between lines 19 and 20, insert:—On 28th April and 2nd and 22nd May, 1597, reference is made to the following list of vessels at Glasgow as engaged in the wine trade, and with reference to the payment of impost:—

The "James" of Glasgow, belonging to James Temple, 23 tons.
The "Diana" of Pittenweem, 60 "
The "Grace of God" of Glasgow, 21½ "
The "William" of Aberdeen, 38 "
The "Pelican" of Glasgow, 50 "
The "Lyon" of Glasgow, 43 "
The "Marie Gawane" of Glas-gow 50 "
The "Phœnix" of Dundee 65 "
The "Marie and John" of Pittenweem 48 "
The "Antelope" of Glasgow 92 "

Of these vessels six, with an aggregate tonnage of 279 tons, appear to have belonged to Glasgow, and all of them were employed in the import of "Howtopas" [Haultpoyis] wine, with the exception of one which is represented as carrying "Byone" wine [Council Records, I., p. 187].

On 20th August another charter under the great seal bears to have been granted by the king in Glasgow [Great Seal Register, 1593-1608, p. 200].

Page clxxv., between lines 13 and 14, insert:—A convention of burghs was held in Glasgow on 1st July, 1598 [Convention Records, II., pp. 23-41. Privy Council Register, V., p. 479]. At this meeting the town council applied for liberty to petition the king for authority to levy an impost for the repair of the bridge, the prevention of the sanding of the Clyde, and the construction of calsays and bridges, the want of which was leading to the destruction of the Green. The authority sought was granted—the levying of the impost being limited to a period of nine years as regarded unfreemen, and three years as regarded freemen. At the termination of those periods the town council were taken bound to account to the convention for the application of the proceeds of the impost, and not to continue to levy it for a longer period without the authority of the convention [Convention Records, II., pp. 34, 35].

On the same day the convention (1) empowered Glasgow to obtain from the king an impost to be uplifted by it at the bridge of Kirkintilloch for three years for repairing and upholding that bridge, but under obligation to account to the burghs for the collection and application of the sum so raised. Glasgow was also authorised to employ a part thereof in supporting the decayed parts of the bridge of Inchberrie [Ibid., II., pp. 36, 37]; and (2) ordained Glasgow to send four men to examine as to the state of Rutherglen and its common rent, and to report to the convention of burghs through the commissioner for Glasgow the result of their inquiries [Ibid., II., p. 37].

Meetings of the privy council were held in Glasgow on 7th and 8th September, 1598 [Privy Council Register, V., pp. 483-486].

It is interesting in connection with one so closely connected with Glasgow as the prior of Blantyre at this time was, to notice a historical incident in which he was closely concerned, and which reflects honour on the court of session of that time.

In March, 1598-9, the prior, who was both an extraordinary lord of session and lord treasurer, gave great offence to the king. In the trial of a case between James and his former favourite minister, Mr. Robert Bruce, Blantyre, who was present in the earlier stages, indicated his leaning in favour of Bruce, and, as this surprised and irritated the king, who was present, Blantyre was induced by his brother judges to abstain from attendance during the subsequent discussion. At the close of the hearing, the king, who saw that the opinion of the court was adverse to him, openly dared the judges to oppose his will, but lord Fyvie, the president, declared that, so long as he and his colleagues sat as judges, they would administer justice, even against the king himself. Lord Newbattle and the other judges were equally firm, and an unanimous judgment was given in favour of Bruce. This judicial independence greatly displeased the king, and he punished Blantyre by committing him to the castle of Edinburgh, and requiring him to resign his treasurership. Blantyre, however, refused to resign until his accounts were made up, and he had been paid the balance due to him. But it was ultimately arranged that he should demit office in favour of the earl of Cassillis—the cause of whose selection is explained by Spottiswood [III., p. 70]. On 20th March the earl accepted the office, and subscribed certain articles relating to it, and on the 27th entered into a contract with Blantyre as to the succession, which contract was confirmed on the 29th. He seems, however, afterwards to have rued the appointment, and retired to the country. On the 14th of April, 1599, an act of the privy council was passed, requiring him to return and assume office within ten days [Privy Council Register, V., p. 547]. But under these circumstances, and apparently having doubts as to whether Blantyre's demission of the treasurership was complete, he sent his uncle, Sir Thomas Kennedy of Culzean, to obtain full information as to the position of matters. Sir Thomas attended a meeting of the privy council on 17th April, when he was informed that the demission of Blantyre—who was then out of prison and attending the council—was complete, and that, as the earl had not entered upon the treasurership, or even authorised his uncle to adhere to his acceptance of it, he must bear the consequences [Ibid., V., p. 549]. Accordingly, on the 19th of April, Alexander, master of Elphinstone, elder brother of secretary Elphinstone, was appointed treasurer, and as such appeared at the privy council [Ibid., V., p. 551]—the inference being that Cassillis was held to have forfeited the office which he had so dubiously held for about a month.

On 2nd June, 1599, the council ordered that each burgess fine should not be less than forty merks, but the treasurer might take twenty pounds and no less for each burgess privately [Council Records, I., p. 193].

Page clxxv., lines 5 to 10 of second column of footnotes, for the words beginning "These" and ending "parish" substitute the following:—These two ministers, with the ministers of the disjoined or sub-divided parishes in the barony, such as Calton and Springburn, are alone entitled to draw their stipends from the teinds of the parish. The district over which the charge of the "first minister" extends is confined within comparatively narrow limits by the division of the city.

Page clxxix., between lines 17 and 18, insert:—As an indication of the close connection which existed between the kirk session and the burghal magistrates, it is noticeable that on 4th October, 1599, the former enacted that whosoever should afterwards be chosen provost or bailie should be enrolled as elder for the following year [Wodrow's Life of Weems (Maitland Miscellany), II., part ii., p. 51]. This combination of ecclesiastical and secular offices gave immense power to the session, which claimed and exercised the right to interfere with a practically unrestricted range of matters, and when ecclesiastical discipline failed, the aid of the civil power was requisitioned to supplement it. In truth, the kirk dominated everything, and when the estates truckled to the self-asserting power of clerical leaders and ecclesiastical judicatories, it is not surprising that provosts, bailies, and councillors became non-resistant. This state of matters was not coufined to Glasgow, but existed, it is believed, in every burgh in Scotland in which presbytery was recognised.

The town council seem at this time to have been exposed to frequent applications by persons to be admitted burgesses without payment of the prescribed burgess fines or entry moneys, and, as a means of escaping from these solicitations, they resolved, on 5th October, 1599, to let the right to draw these burgess fines by roup for two or three years, under reservation of the right of the provost to receive four, of each of the three bailies to receive two, "of his own suiting and inbringing," and of the clerk and master of work, each to have one also of his "own inbringing." It was, however, provided that the tacksman should make oath not to take less from "extraneans" [strangers] than £20, while the fines exacted on admission from the sons and sons-in-law of burgesses should remain as they were, that the fines of the heirs of burgesses should be 20s., and 6s. 8d. to the poor, and that every other burgess should also pay 5s. to the poor. On the right to exact these fines being put up to sale by auction for three years, subject to these reservations, and subject also to the condition that no gratis burgesses should be admitted by the council, Thomas Pettigrew offered 260 merks per annum for three years, and his offer was accepted. It was also arranged that he should have the services of the town's officers in apprehending unfreemen burgesses; that if the town council admitted any burgesses save those reserved to the provost and the others, Pettigrew should have a corresponding deduction from the amount he was to pay [Council Records, I., p. 198].

— line 18, before "On," insert:—Among the widely diversified subjects to which the kirk session of Glasgow devoted attention at this time was the supervision of medical and surgical practice in the town. On 14th September, 1598, they considered it proper that the university, ministers, and presbytery should take cognition of those who pretended to skill in medicine, with a view to such as had the requisite qualifications being retained, and to those who had not such qualifications being rejected. This was followed on 27th March, 1599, by their sending a deputation to the town council to consider what course should be adopted in regard apparently to disqualified practitioners, but the result of their action is not known. Probably the necessity for having medical practice put on a more satisfactory footing commended itself to Peter Low, chirurgiane to the king, and chief surgeon to prince Henry, and induced him to use his influence with the king to provide a remedy. At all events.

—line 18, delete "1599."

— line 19, delete the words "Mr. Peter," "our chirurgiane, and chief chirurgiane to prince."

Page clxxix., line 20, delete "Henry."

Page clxxx., line 8 of first column of footnote, after "times," insert:—MS. Records of Presbytery of Glasgow, 8th August, 1598.

Page clxxxiii., after "296" in line 37 of second column of footnote, add:—Since pages clxxix.-clxxxiii. were printed off, "Memorials of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, 1598-1850," prepared by Mr. Duncan, the secretary and librarian of the faculty, have been published. Sketches of Low's life and work, and of Professor Robert Hamilton, have also appeared in the Memorial Catalogue of the Old Glasgow Exhibition (1894), p. 12.

With reference to the connection in ancient times between barbers and surgeons, Dr. John Gairdner, fellow and formerly president of the college of surgeons in Edinburgh, says:—"The barbers' emblem, the ribbon and pole—the former for tying the arm, the latter to be grasped by the patient during the operation of bleeding—are still displayed in almost every part of Europe, and bears testimony to the universality of the ancient connection of the barbers with the surgeons, and to the necessity of tracing it to some widely diffused cause which has now ceased to operate. And I have been indebted to the historical researches of my son, James, for what I conceive to be the true explanation of the phenomenon in question. The monks, as all the world knows, required to have their heads regularly shaved; but it is not by any means so well known that they required to be bled at stated periods. 'Minutus est' was the form of words descriptive of one who had undergone this operation, the meaning being that he had been minutus sanguine—i.e., deprived of blood. I find that in the monastery of St. Victoire, at Paris, there was an order which prescribed such minution to be practised five times in the year, and was in these terms:—'Prima est Septembri; secunda est ante adventum; tertia est ante quadragesimam; quarta post Pascha; quinta post Pentecosta' [Ducange sub voce Minuare]. The monks, therefore, required to have about them those who could perform both of these operations skilfully; and as they occupied most of the high and lucrative offices, both in the state and in all the professions, they could afford to reward those whose services were necessary to them.

"Habits once established in society often survive their causes—an interesting illustration of which will be found in the fact that the society of physicians and surgeons of Glasgow, an institution which took its origin thirty-nine years later than the protestant reformation, in a city eminently protestant, contained barber-surgeons from the first. They probably became obsolete there, as here, by the early institution of single barbers, who were not permitted to interfere with surgery, and by the voluntary desertion by the surgeons of the inferior occupation, as the higher became more scientific and more important. The only trace of the old connection in Edinburgh is the payment of a small annual sum to the society of barbers by the surgeons. It is a trace which, on account of old associations, I should be sorry to see done away with" [Sketch of the Early History of the Medical Profession in Edinburgh, pp. 6, 7].

Page clxxxv., between lines 9 and 10, insert:—In the Scottish municipal commissioners' reports of 1835, frequent reference is made to the irreparable injury which many, probably most, of the burghs of Scotland have sustained through the pernicious practice which prevailed in former times of town councils alienating the common lands of their burghs in perpetuity for feu-duties and casualties which, as the country advanced, became wholly illusory. In many cases this was done for the benefit of the magistrates and councillors themselves or of their personal friends, and some indication of the conditions under which such alienations were made and justified is to be found in an act of the town council of Glasgow on 12th April, 1600. It proceeded on the narrative that forseeing the danger and inconvenience which might arise from the requests of great men, that parts of the common lands of the burgh should be given to such persons as they might recommend, and which requests might not well be refused, and considering the use which the neighbours round about the commonty took of it by pasturing their animals upon it to the prejudice of the town, the council, for these and other reasons, resolved that a part of the common lands should be disposed of under reservation of the quarries, coal, limestone, and moss. The deacons present, however, reserved their consent till they had consulted all the deacons [Council Records, I., p. 205], and on the 3rd of May the whole deacons appeared and objected to any common land being dealt with, given, or set to any person in conformity with the act passed during the provostship of lord Boyd [Ibid., I., p. 206]. But this objection seems not to have checked the progress of burghal dilapidation.

Page clxxxv., line 10, between "wrights" and "painters" insert "boat-wrights."

Page clxxxvii., add to footnote 3:—Birrell's Diary, pp. 49-52. See reprint of a discourse on the Gowrie conspiracy, with notes by lord Hailes [Annals, III., pp. 345-394].

Page clxxxviii., add to footnote 5:—On 9th September, 1600, the synodal assembly ordered a solemn convention of the people within the whole burghs of the synod on the 30th of that month, to give thanks for the king's deliverance; and a similar convention on the following Sunday in every kirk within the synod. In accordance with the king's will it was further ordered that on every Tuesday thereafter there should be preaching of God's word within the burghs of the synod, in accordance with the order of the privy council and the advice and ordinances of the commissioners of the kirk. Intimation of this order was appointed to be given in every kirk within the synod upon Sunday eight days [Presbytery Records, I.-III., pp. 253, 254.

Page clxxxix., line 20, after "Bell" insert as footnote:—This seems to have been the first important commission entrusted by the town council to James Bell, who afterwards held office thrice as dean of guild in 1609, 1610, and 1612 [pp. cclii., cclix., cclxvii.], as a representative of parliament in 1612 [p. cclxvii.], and thrice as a bailie in 1614, 1615, and 1616 [pp. cclxxvi., cclxxviii., cclxxx.].

Page cxcii., between lines 21 and 22, insert:—On 19th June, 1600, a particular convention of burghs at Edinburgh granted licence to Dumbarton—which for many years had been in a very impoverished condition—to apply to the king for authority to levy an impost and duty for seven years on, inter alia, boats, etc., passing along the Clyde within the liberty of the burgh—such impost to be applied towards the preservation of the burgh from inundation by the rivers about the town. The granting of this licence was, however, opposed by the commissioner for Glasgow, James Temple [Convention Records, II., pp. 90, 91]. When the application was presented to his majesty, the bailies, both of Glasgow and Renfrew, were cited to appear and show cause why it should not be granted [Privy Council Reg., VI., p. 160]. And on 6th September the council and deacons of Glasgow unanimously resolved to oppose the imposition, and twelve persons were appointed to accompany the provost and bailies to Stirling for that purpose. It was also resolved to levy a tax on the inhabitants to meet the expenses of the opposition [Council Records, I., pp. 212, 213]. Representatives of Dumbarton, Glasgow, and Renfrew, accordingly, attended the privy council at Stirling on the 10th of that month, when the king and council authorised the impost, without prejudice, however, to the liberty of the Clyde claimed by Glasgow and Renfrew "conjunct and undivided." The trial of that liberty, together with the explanation of the act of the burghs in regard to the liberties of Dumbarton, was remitted to the convention to be held in November following, and it was intimated that the king and council would give effect to whatever decision the convention might come. Till this decision was given, however, Dumbarton was prohibited from uplifting the impost within the Clyde, and was required to account yearly in exchequer for its intromission with whatever impost it might be authorised to levy. Failing such accounting, the grant was to be of no avail [Privy Council Register, VI., pp. 160, 161. Glasgow Charters, part ii., pp. 248-50]. At the convention in Edinburgh on 7th November, representatives of the three burghs attended, and the matter having been discussed, the convention found that, without further "cognition or deliberation," they could not decide the question. But they declared, as regarded the impost, that it was not the meaning of the burghs that Dumbarton should, by virtue of the licence of 19th June, uplift the impost on the Clyde, but only in the Water of Leven. The liberty of each of the three burghs, as it existed before the granting of the licence, was not to be prejudiced [Convention Records, II., p. 95].

The kirk session records show that in 1600 a census of Glasgow was taken, and that the population of the city at that time was then ascertained to be 7,000 [M'Gregor, p. 144].

Page cxcii., add to footnote 1 the words—"See also charter under the great seal, dated 21st February, 1603, in favour of duke Ludovic" [Great Seal Register, 1593-1608, pp. 501, 502, No. 1413. Pref., p. cc].

—between footnotes 2 and 3, insert:—The supplication by the chirurgeons and barbers to the town council in 1656 for a letter of deaconhood, states that on 29th November, 1599, king James VI. granted a patent to the chirurgeons and barbers, under which they were in the practice of electing a deacon as visitor and overseer of the craft [See Council Records, II., p. 342. Duncan's Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow].

Page cxciii., between lines 27 and 28, insert:—On 6th June, 1601, the town council ordered a little custom house to be erected on the end of Glasgow bridge; and the town officers were directed each in turn to assist Thomas Pettigrew, the tacksman for the year, in gathering the custom. A copy of the A B C (a table of dues) was appointed to be affixed to the side of the house. This erection may possibly indicate an extension of the then very small river traffic [Council Records, I., pp. 221, 222].

In the end of this month a great fire destroyed a considerable part of the town. It commenced in a smithy belonging to one James Leishman, but the council on 30th June found that no blame attached to him or his servants, and they organized a subscription for the benefit of the sufferers [Council Records, I., pp. 223, 224. Birrell's Diary, p. 55].

On 16th July the kirk session of Glasgow were informed that the division of the town into parishes, which had been considered and conditionally agreed to by the town council on 21st July, 1599 [Antea, pp. clxxv-clxxix], was authorised. The session thereupon resolved to follow forth the division when a fourth minister had been provided. [Life of Weems—Collections (Maitland Club), II., part ii., p. 8. Cleland's Annals, p. 16. Enumeration, p. 5].

Page cxciv., at beginning of footnote 2, insert:—As to the great plagues of 543, 550, 664, 684, and 685 see Adamson's Life of St. Columba (Fowler's edition), p. 125, note 1.

Page cxcviii., line 27, after "Glasgow," insert as a footnote:—The king granted a charter there on 20th September, 1602 [Great Seal Register, 1593–1608, p. 476].

—add to footnote 1, after "101"—Stuart's History of the Stuarts, p. 262.

Page cxcix., between lines 10 and 11, insert:—In this year the town council obtained authority from the king to levy an impost for nineteen years on all goods carried across Glasgow bridge, and "lossit and laidnit within the freedom of the same citie upon the wattir of Clyde." The ground upon which this authority was sought was that the bridge was much 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 as to have become altogether loose, and various parts of the bed of the river beneath the bridge being so overblown with sand as to have become unnavigable by boats and vessels of small burden [Privy Council Register, XI., pp. 304–5].

Page cci., line 16, after "James," insert as a footnote:—See Lord Hailes' observations on the secret correspondence of king James [Annals, III., pp. 109–113].

—footnote 3, before "Tytler," insert:—Birrell's Diary, p. 58.

Page ccii., line 20, after "March," insert as a footnote:—Birrell's Diary, p. 58. On 3rd April, being Sunday, the king went to the kirk of St. Giles in Edinburgh, and made an oration to the people in presence of the English noblemen.

Page ccvii., between lines 21 and 22, insert:—During 1603 and 1604 the plague raged in the town [Birrell's Diary, p. 61. Cleland's Annals, p. 16], and so spread in May and during the heat of July as to induce those inhabitants who could leave the town to do so [Chambers's Domestic Annals, I., p. 382]. The Chronicle of Perth mentions that in June, 1603, the pestilence which had for some time been raging in England then affected the south of Scotland, and continued till the end of February. In July, 1604, it broke out in Edinburgh, Leith, St. Andrews and other parts of the kingdom, claiming its victims from all classes. Among the first houses infected in Edinburgh was that of the chancellor Dunfermline, whose only son and a niece died of it [Chambers's Domestic Annals, I., p. 384].

At the convention of burghs in Perth on 5th July, 1604, Dumbarton complained of Glasgow uplifting a custom of one penny at its bridge in virtue of a licence granted by the convention, but which licence had long previously expired, and Glasgow was ordered to answer the complaint at the next convention [Convention Records, II., p. 178]. The matter was accordingly taken up by the convention at its meeting in Dumfries on 2nd July, 1605, when Glasgow alleged that the licence under which the custom was levied had not expired, but the allegation was not supported by exhibition of the licence which was ordered to be produced at a meeting of the burghs to be held in Edinburgh on 6th August [Ibid., II., pp. 201, 202]. No record of that meeting exists to show what was then done, but on the 27th of the month the town council of Glasgow appointed six commissioners to confer with the magistrates of Dumbarton on the subject, and £12 were ordered to be paid towards their expenses [Council Records, I., p. 232]. On 19th October, again, ten or twelve "of the worthiest of the council," or such of the bailies as chose, were appointed to treat with the commissioners of Dumbarton at the Bornis on the 23rd, and those who failed to attend after due warning were appointed to be subjected to a fine of £5 [Ibid., I., p. 237]. The matter in dispute may then have been adjusted, for nothing further in regard to it appears in the records either of the convention or of the council.

Page ccx., between lines 7 and 8, insert:—It appears from the act book of the dean of guild court that in 1604 there were in Glasgow 213 burgesses of the merchant rank, and 361 burgesses of the trades rank. The latter were apportioned among the several incorporations as follows:—The hammermen, 27; the bakers, 27; the tailors, 65; the cordiners, 50; the weavers, 30; the fleshers, 17; the bonnetmakers, 7; the dyers, 5; the skinners, 21; the surgeons, 2; the coopers, 23; the masons, 11; the wrights, 21; and the maltmen. 55.

On 20th October, 1604, king James, by proclamation, assumed the title of king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith [Prothero's Select Statutes and Documents of Elizabeth and James I., p. 393].

Page ccxix., between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:—Crawford observes, in his Sketch of the Trades House, that the letter of guildry, not having proceeded from the crown or parliament, was void in law. Whether that opinion be well founded or not, the document was, as he says, acted upon. The dean of guild and the deacon convener were yearly and continuously elected under its provisions, and took their seats at the council board; and as these persons were in some respects the representatives of the burgesses, their presence tended to remove the odium which attached to the town council as a self-appointed body. Some circumstances, however, had evidently occurred during the cruel persecution of the covenanters which induced a desire to have the document confirmed by parliament, and the act 1672, c. 129, confirmed it [pp. 83, 84].

While this letter of guildry appears to have conferred upon the merchants of Glasgow their first definite constitution, they seem to have previously possessed some organization, and probably a voluntary constitution, under which—though not confirmed by the ruling power—they managed their common affairs. Such an organization appears to be referred to in a notarial act recorded on 22nd July, 1569, in the protocol book of Henry Gibson, notary and town-clerk of the burgh. That document sets forth that John Campbell, citizen of Glasgow, and Marion Gayne, spouses, appeared in presence of the notary and witnesses, and sold and alienated to James Flemyng, as president and in name of all the merchants of the burgh and city of Glasgow, an annual rent of 40s. Scots, yearly payable, furth of an upper tenement, with the lower south merchant booth under the same, and a small back cellar, belonging to the said fore tenement, lying in the city of Glasgow on the west side of the street leading from the Market Cross to the South Port, between the lands of David Lyone on the north, the lands of Andrew Campbell on the south, and a back tenement on the west; and that for relief of John and Marion of the sum of £32 10s. owing by them to the merchants of the city for the price of certain wine purchased by John from them. Sasine was thereupon given by Richard Ros, bailie, to Flemyng, as president and in name of all the other merchants of the city present and future [MS. Protocol Book of Henry Gibsone, I., p. 203].

Page ccxxi, between lines 6 and 7, insert:—The annual fair in Glasgow granted by king William between 1189 and 1198 commenced on 6th July and lasted for eight days [Antea, pp. vi., viii., x., and xiii.]. The gatherings at these fairs not unfrequently gave rise to disturbances, against which the magistrates of the burgh had to guard, and the council record of 3rd July, 1605, affords an illustration of this. At that time the council ordered twenty of the merchant rank, with two of each craft chosen by the respective deacons, to keep the fair of the burgh with corslet and pike [Council Records, I., p. 228]. This prudent precaution seems, however, not to have prevented a disturbance on the first day of the fair by two craftsmen burgesses, who were, in consequence, imprisoned during the pleasure of the provost and bailies, and deprived of their freedoms till they made such amends as the town council enjoined. At the same time all the inhabitants of the burgh were certified that whoever committed the like offence would be deprived of his freedom, and banished from the burgh for ever [Ibid., I., p. 229].

Page ccxxii., line 26, delete—"3rd August, 1605," and substitute "the same day."

Page ccxxiii., line 1, after "liberty," insert:—What the precise object of this deputation was, the loss of the records of the burgh for the period from 27th October, 1601, till 13th June, 1605, makes it impossible to ascertain. Obviously, however, the town council and the citizens generally had been anxious that the privileges which all royal burghs possessed of freely electing their own magistrates should be extended to Glasgow; and this desire had been represented to the king. When, or through what medium, his majesty had been approached does not appear. But he had been favourably impressed, and had induced, or expected to be able to induce, the duke of Lennox to give up the right which he possessed—in succession to the bishops and archbishops of the city—of nominating the magistrates. The king had, in consequence, granted a letter conceding to the burgh the free election desired. This letter is probably that referred to in a minute of the town council of 4th July, 1605, in which it is stated that "his majesties lettre direct to this burgh for erecting of the samin in ane frie burgh regall" had been delivered to Mathew Trumble (or Turnbull), dean of guild [Council Records, I., p. 228]. Misled, apparently by the phraseology of this letter (which is not now extant), into the belief that the king designed to confer upon the city all the privileges of a royal burgh —i.e., to make it hold directly of the sovereign, and to emancipate it from the regality rights and jurisdictions of the Lennox family—the town council appointed the deputation to proceed to Edinburgh and adjust the terms of the requisite charter.

Page ccxxvii., line 12, before the words "In view," insert:—During this year the plague, says Balfour, spread over the more populous districts with frightful rapidity. It ravaged so extremely all corners of the kingdom, that neither burgh nor land were free. The burghs of Ayr and Stirling were almost desolate, and all the judicatories of the land were deserted.

Page ccxxvii., line 20, after "there," insert as a footnote:—It was not till the middle of winter that the plague sensibly declined in Scotland. It ravaged Dundee in July, and broke out in Perth in August, continuing there till the following May [Chambers's Domestic Annals, I., pp. 395, 400, 410, 413].

Page ccxxx., between lines 6 and 7, insert:—At the convention of burghs held in Dundee in July, 1606, William Anderson appeared as commissioner for Glasgow, and, on the 11th of that month, the burgh was empowered to "impetrate" from the king a gift of an impost for the repair of its "calsayis and brigis," to endure for nine years, in conformity with the licence granted by the convention at Glasgow in 1598. From this impost, however, Renfrew was exempted, but was bound to pay to Glasgow £4 during its currency [Convention Records, II., p. 217].

On the 8th of the same month the convention also authorised Renfrew to apply to the king for the gift of an impost for five years to be employed in repairing its harbour, rendering annually to the convention an account of the expenditure of the money so raised [Ibid., I., pp. 213, 214].

On the same day the privy council, in consideration of the fact that the licence granted to Dumbarton on 10th September, 1600, to levy an impost for the protection of the inhabitants against inundation had almost expired, and that the commissioners of burghs had authorised it to apply for an extension of the grant for nineteen years [Ibid., II., p. 220], continued the right to levy the impost for that period [Privy Council Register, VII., p. 431].

The condition of Dumbarton had previously been brought under the consideration of the king, who appointed the earl of Glencairn and others to visit it, and report what sums would be sufficient to meet the cost of such works as would protect it "from the injury of the water." He had also, by a letter to the lords of the articles in July, 1606, recommended them to adopt some effectual means of protection, and the privy council having ascertained from lord Glencairn and others that £30,000 would be necessary, the lords of the articles consented to that amount being raised by taxation. This was intimated to the king by the privy council on 10th July, 1606 [Privy Council Register, VII., p. 497]. What immediately followed on this letter does not appear, but an act of the town council of Glasgow, dated 12th February, 1607, sets forth that Dumbarton had instituted proceedings against them, and that they had been required to appear before the privy council on the 16th, to see an act set down authorising an impost to be levied by Dumbarton on all goods passing into or out of the Clyde for a period of nineteen years. Two of the bailies of the city, with two merchants and two craftsmen, were accordingly appointed to ride to Edinburgh and attend to the city's interest in the matter [Council Records, I., p. 260]. The result of this mission does not appear, but on 11th August in the same year an act of parliament was passed authorising a taxation of £30,000 Scots to meet the cost of works for protecting Dumbarton from the encroachments of the river Leven and the sea. Of this taxation the spiritual estate was required to provide £8,333 6s. 8d., the barons and freeholders £8,333 3s. 4d., and the burghs £4,160 8s. 10d. [Acts of Parliament, IV., p. 376, 1607, c. 15]. On the same day a particular convention of burghs appointed James Wynraham, its agent, to collect the burghs' proportion of the tax [Convention Records, II., pp. 247, 248]. Thomas Fallisdaill and John Sempell, commissioners for Dumbarton, were at the same time appointed collectors depute "for the rest of the extent according to the act." On 7th July, 1608, the convention of burghs commissioned Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stirling, Ayr, and Irvine to elect and depute persons to meet with Dumbarton, and see the work properly executed [Ibid., II., pp. 264–266. See also Acts of Convention, 6th July, 1609, II., p. 282; 5th July, 1610, II., p. 298; 4th July, 1611, II., p. 318; 9th July, 1612, II., p. 354; 1st August, 1612, II., p. 376; 9th July, 1613, II., p. 412; 8th July, 1614, II., p. 459; 8th July, 1615, III., p. 16; 8th July, 1625, III., p. 204].

Page ccxl., line 3, after "new" insert "[St. Mary's]"

Page ccxlii., after "commissioner" on last line, insert as footnote:—An account of his expenses while he held this office, transcribed from the original in the General Register House, is given in the Maitland Miscellany, I., pp. 151–191.

Page ccxliv., before line 1, insert:—The winter of 1607–8 seems to have been very severe. This appears from an act of the town council, dated 17th September, 1608, which sets forth that the council, taking into consideration that Ninian Anderson, tacksman of the bridge custom for 1607, had sustained loss "be vehement frost quhairby the river of Clyde wes closit be the space of xvj oulkis, sua that na leadining of heiring could be at the said river during the said space, nor yit could cum to the brig of the said burghe, bot altogidder transportit be iis [ice] to sindrie pairtis of the cuntrie, and that the samin wes the only cheif commoditie of the said custome, thairfoir remittit and dischargit to him the sum of £40" [Council Records, I., p. 290].

—between lines 15 and 16, insert:—In 1607 and 1608 various schemes were devised for relieving the town of its debt, one of the proposals being that the mills, the custom of the ladles, and other revenues, should be set to tacksmen for a term of years, in consideration of their undertaking to pay so much of the debt [Council Records, I., pp. 274–6]. On 26th March, 1608, John Bornis offered to lease the customs of the bridge and ladles, with the dues of burgesses and the unlaws, for twelve years, relieving "the toune of 9,000 markis," but other arrangements were made. On further consideration, the town council resolved, "for releif of the haill debt and incres of the commowne guid heireftir," that the town and inhabitants should be thirled to their own mills, and that the mills, with 60 acres of common land, should be set to tacksmen, on condition of sufficient service being provided for grinding the malt and victual of all the inhabitants as cheap as could be got elsewhere [Ibid., pp. 276, 277]. On 9th April an act was passed thirling the inhabitants accordingly, but "without prejudice to the baxteris to grind quheit and ry in thair awin mylnis"; and certain persons were appointed to "mak moyen for mylnis in the townes name," and to report [Ibid., pp. 277, 278]. As the result of negotiations which ensued, the town acquired from the archbishop a lease for ten years of his "ald mylne of Partik," and from the laird of Minto, a lease of the sub-dean's mills at Wester Craigs for the same period [Ibid., pp. 278–80; II., p. 559]. On 17th May the bridge dues were set for a year for 500 merks, and the whole mills and ladles were set to George Andersoune of Wodsyd and James Lichtbodie, visitor of the maltmen and mealmen, for five years, for the yearly payment of 4,400 merks. The council having thus "set thair saidis mylnis and sukin, with thair ladillis for gret sowmes of money this day," forbade all persons within the burgh, and specially brewers, from brewing any kind of malt, save that ground at these mills. Such persons as disobeyed this order were appointed to pay double multure to the tacksmen, with £5 of unlaw. All persons who bought victual eight miles outside of the town before it came to market, were required to pay the custom of the ladle to the customers, as if the same had been presented at the market, under the pain of paying double custom and £5 unlaw [Ibid., I., pp. 276–81]. On the following day the bailies gave possession to the tacksman of the Old Mill of Partick, the New Mill (called Archibald Lyon's mill), the town's Old Mill (on the Molendinar), and the mills belonging to the laird of Minto called the Subdean's Mills, being two water mills and one man mill [Ibid., p. 281]. The act of the 17th as to the ladles was opposed by Sir George Elphinstoun of Blythswood, then proprietor of the lands of Gorbals, who suspended the order of the town council, and on 15th June James Inglis, bailie, and George Hutcheson, common procurator, were ordered to ride to Edinburgh and consult the town's lawyers on the subject [Ibid., pp. 282, 283]. On the 25th Matthew Turnbull and James Inglis, bailies, with the common procurator, were appointed to ride to Edinburgh to attend the hearing of the cause before the privy council on the 30th [Ibid., p. 283]. On 2nd July the town council passed an act, in which, after narrating that certain freemen, in disregard of their faith and fidelity to defend the liberty and freedom of the burgh and to observe the town's statutes, contemptuously carried their malt to other mills than those of the burgh, thereby purposing to hinder the "suckening" and profit of the town, they prohibited all persons within the town from grinding their malt at any mills save those of the town, under the penalty of giving double multure to the farmers, of paying £5 of unlaw to the town council, and of being deprived of their burgess-ship [Ibid., pp. 284, 285]. On the 16th a proclamation to the above effect was issued [Ibid., p. 286]. On 5th September reference is made in the council records to a suspension raised at the instance of James Elphinstoun of Woodside, for himself and others, and to the fact that the council had deprived the parties to that process of their freedom, and ordained them to be warded till they found caution to desist "fra ane frieman's occupatioun in all tyme cuming, vnder the pain of xx. lib., toties quoties" [Ibid., p. 288]. Five days afterwards, viz., on 10th September, the council passed another act, in which, on the narrative that some malicious persons, and specially James Elphinstoun of Woodside, who owned a mill "movit with the respect of their awin privat commoditie, quhilk they persave to be prejudgit and interest be the lawfull suckning of the toun," had maliciously opposed themselves "with consent of some of the inhabitants and freemen of the town, whom they had corrupted and seduced to do the same," and went about to corrupt and entice divers other persons to concur with the suspension," to the great trouble of the town in charges and expenses, and perjury of themselves in doing thereof,—it was ordained that such persons as had opposed, or might afterwards oppose, themselves to the sucken should never thereafter brook office in kirk or common weal of the burgh, that their freedoms should be discharged and cried down, and that they should be unlawed in the sum of £20. It was also ordered that all persons who might afterwards be admitted burgesses should be sworn to maintain and defend the thirlage [Ibid., p. 289]. An extract of this act was appointed on 17th September to be delivered to the deacon convener [Ninian Anderson], so that each craft might be informed of it before it elected its deacon. It was further ordered that before the dean of guild or deacon convener, and such as might be put on the leets for these offices, were admitted, they should give their oaths to defend and assist the sucken [Ibid., p. 290]. On the 24th the council had under consideration the suspension which was to come before the privy council on the 29th, when the provost and bailies were appointed to ride to Edinburgh to attend the advising, accompanied by twelve other persons, six to be chosen by the dean of guild, and six by the deacon convener. The expenses of the provost and common procurator were ordered to be paid by the town, while the representatives of the merchants were appointed to be "furneist" by the dean of guild, and those of the crafts by the deacon convener "as ane commoun caus" [Ibid., p. 290]. The result of this suit appears in an act of the privy council, dated 13th October, which sets forth that James Braidwood, bailie, and James Bell, one of the council, appeared as procurators for the magistrates, to answer to the complaint against them of William Anderson, James Elphingstoun, and twenty-five other persons. Neither Anderson nor any of the other complainers appeared, however, and Braidwood and Bell protested that the magistrates should not be held to answer further to the letters till again warned. The lords admitted the protest [Privy Council Register, viii., p. 179], and nothing further is recorded on the subject till 16th January, 1609. As regards Sir George Elphingstone's plea, it seems to have been still pending on 17th December, 1608, when Mathew Trumble and James Inglis, bailies, and George Muir and the procurator were appointed to ride to Edinburgh and advise with the town's lawyers in regard to it, "to treit vpone the controuerseis thairof mutuallie befoir my lord of Glasgw," and to report the result. £10 were ordered to be paid to each member of the deputation, and £10 to Ninian Anderson, deacon convener, who being already in Edinburgh was directed to remain till the others arrived there [Council Records, I., p. 297]. On 16th January, 1609, Mathew Trumble and George Hutcheson were appointed to ride with the provost to attend the convention of estates on 26th January, and also to look after the actions by James Elphinstoun and Sir George Elphingstone [Ibid., I., p. 298]. What the precise objects of these litigations were does not appear. They seem to have been directed to the relief of the complainers from liability to the customs of the bridge and the exaction of the customs of the "ladle," but the grounds on which such non-liability was claimed are not known. On 4th February certain disbursements by Trumble "in obteining decreit vpone the custome of the brig and ladill," suspended by Sir George Elphingstone, were ordered to be paid [Ibid., p. 298]; on the 17th the council met to choose two of their members to attend the calling of the summons by Sir George, for himself and his tenants, and by many other noblemen and gentlemen, in relation to the customs of the bridge and the ladle, and, having regard to the importance of the case as affecting the common rent of the town, Mathew Trumble and James Inglis, bailies, with the common procurator, were appointed to ride to Edinburgh to attend to the town's interest—their expenses to be paid out of the collection granted by the merchants and craftsmen through the dean of guild and deacon convener [Ibid., p. 299]. What the result of this litigation was does not appear.

Page ccxlix., add to footnote 4:—An act of the town council, dated 26th May, 1610, states that £40 were paid to Mr. Peter Lowe partly for his fee and partly for his expenses "in bowelling of the laird of Houston, lait provest" [Council Records, I., p. 314].

—between footnotes 9 and 10, insert:—On the night of 8th November, 1608, Glasgow was visited by an earthquake, which shook also St. Andrews, Cupar, Edinburgh, Dundee, Perth, and Aberdeen [Calderwood, VI., p. 819. Irving's Dumbartonshire, p. 173].