Historical preface: 1647-49

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

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


'Historical preface: 1647-49', in Charters and Documents Relating To the City of Glasgow 1175-1649 Part 1, ed. J D Marwick( Glasgow, 1897), British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/glasgow-charters/1175-1649/no1/cdlxxv-dxix [accessed 15 July 2024].

'Historical preface: 1647-49', in Charters and Documents Relating To the City of Glasgow 1175-1649 Part 1. Edited by J D Marwick( Glasgow, 1897), British History Online, accessed July 15, 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/glasgow-charters/1175-1649/no1/cdlxxv-dxix.

"Historical preface: 1647-49". Charters and Documents Relating To the City of Glasgow 1175-1649 Part 1. Ed. J D Marwick(Glasgow, 1897), , British History Online. Web. 15 July 2024. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/glasgow-charters/1175-1649/no1/cdlxxv-dxix.


In consequence of the existence of the plague in the town, the estates, on 14th January, 1647, after considering a report by their committee on the subject, empowered the magistrates to provide barns and other houses in which the two regiments then quartered in it might be lodged and provided for by the citizens. They were also authorised to muster these regiments every tenth day, so that the actual number of effective men might be ascertained. Moreover, in respect of the great burden which the maintenance of these regiments imposed on the town, the officers were forbidden to uplift any money within it, but were appointed to get free quarters at the sight of the magistrates. Major-general Middleton was also directed to order the officers to prevent their men from going out into the country, and to see that they remained in the quarters provided for them. (fn. 1) On the 26th of the same month principal Baillie says, "that all that may were fled out of the town"; and, on 20th February, James Robinson, baker, was appointed visitor of the muir where the unclean people were, and was ordered to set down in a register daily all occurrences in relation to the plague. (fn. 2) A constant watch by night and day, and also a check watch were ordered; and the officers who warned the ordinary watch to go upon duty were required to report daily, at the town clerk's chambers, the names of the persons so warned, that the check watch might see whether they did their duty, and report defaulters to the magistrates for punishment. (fn. 3)

On 16th January the estates made a declaration in which—after setting forth the professions of the king when he came to the Scottish army, and on the faith of which he was received; of his failure to give effect to these professions; of the consequent necessity for both kingdoms co-operating in providing for their security; and of their wish to satisfy his majesty's desire and that of the parliament and estates, in regard to his residing in some of his houses near the parliament—they declared their concurrence in his residing in Holmby House, or one or other of his houses in or about London, until he gave satisfaction to both kingdoms on the propositions of peace. But they were careful to stipulate that "no harm, prejudice, violence, nor injurie" should, in the meantime, be done to his royal person, that no change of government other than had existed for the three previous years should be made, and that his posterity should in no wise be prejudiced in their lawful succession to the crown and government of the kingdoms. To this declaration were appended the "desires of the kingdom of Scotland," and the first of these set forth that a committee of both kingdoms should be appointed to attend the king and press him further to grant the propositions of peace, and, in case of his refusal, to determine what was further necessary for strengthening the union between the two kingdoms according to the covenant and treaties. No peace or agreement it was declared should be made with either kingdom without the other. (fn. 4)

In the beginning of this year the officers of the regiment of the earl of Cassilis presented a petition to the estates, in which they set forth that the town having been ordered by the estates to advance to the regiments of lieutenant-general Baillie and the earl of Cassilis 10,000 merks—6,000 merks of that amount had been paid to the former, and only 1,000 merks to the latter. By another order, also, the town had been required to provide quarters for fifteen baggage horses to each of these regiments, and that order had been fulfilled as regarded general Baillie's regiment, but not as regarded the regiment of the earl of Cassilis. The officers of the latter, therefore, petitioned the estates to issue an order on the town to pay them the balance of 3,000 merks owing them, and also the allowance due them for their baggage horses. On consideration of this petition, the estates, on 4th February, made the orders craved. (fn. 5) On the 20th the town council resolved to borrow on bond the 3,000 merks so ordered to be paid. (fn. 6)

On 6th February the estates, on consideration of a report by a committee as to the mode in which payment should be made to the regiments of the lord-general, the lieutenant-general, and major-general Middleton for their service at Philiphaugh, and for disbanding the army, found that there were due to these regiments for their month's pay, £31,766 13s. 4d. This sum the estates ordered to be paid by the burghs and shires, and the proportion for which Glasgow was declared to be liable was stated to be £1,530. (fn. 7)

The king left Newcastle on 3rd February, 1647, under the charge of the commissioners of the English parliament, and travelling amidst evidences of popular rejoicing, and by easy stages—touching sufferers from scrofula or king'sevil as he proceeded—passed through Ripon, Leeds, and Nottingham, on his approach to the last of which towns he was met by Fairfax, who kissed the king's hand. He reached Holmby on the 16th, but his unguarded utterances, which were reported to the house of commons, produced irritation, and on 2nd March it refused to provide a household for him, or to allow his own chaplains to attend him. (fn. 8)

Meanwhile, independency had become strong in the army, and was looked at so unfavourably by the presbyterian leaders that they desired to disband the troops, and renewed negotiations with the king, which, if they had proved successful would, there can be little doubt, have been welcomed by the nation, a large portion of which sighed for peace. A scheme for reducing the army and disbanding the infantry, except in garrison towns, was accordingly proposed and carried on 19th February, but only by the narrow majority of ten. (fn. 9) It was also resolved to demolish a number of fortifications, and to render walled towns easily accessible. (fn. 10) On 4th March, however, the lords refused to continue the assessment for the payment of the army, but the commons subsequently authorised an assessment of £60,000 a month, the amount which had previously been levied, to be continued. On the 5th, an ineffectual attempt was made in the commons to supersede Fairfax in the command of what was proposed to be continued of the regular army; and on the 8th, resolutions were carried, without a division, to the effect that, with the exception of Fairfax, no officer should hold military rank higher than that of colonel, that no member of the house should hold any command in England, and that no one who refused to accept the covenant should be an officer. The Independents, however, ventured to challenge a further proposal that all officers should conform to the government of the church established by parliament, but were defeated by a majority of 136 to 108. (fn. 11) All this created great indignation in the army, but Cromwell seems up to this time to have contemplated no resistance, and even appears to have placed himself in communication with the Elector Palatine with a view to transferring his sword, and that of such of his old companions in arms as might accompany him, to the battlefields of Germany. (fn. 12) Events, however, speedily occurred, which determined him to remain in England. The army, to which was due large arrears of pay, appealed to the parliament in the end of March, but its petition was treated with neglect if not contempt. Its dissatisfaction then became intense, and a project seems to have been conceived by some of the soldiers of effecting an arrangement with the king.

Meanwhile, the Scottish leaders were regarding with jealousy the growth of military power in England, which boded ill for the realization of their schemes, and in April commissioners were dispatched by the committee of estates to London, ostensibly to press the king to accept the propositions submitted to him at Newcastle, but with secret instructions to be content if he would accept the propositions forwarded to him by the French minister Belliòure and the queen, in the end of January. To these latter propositions, in a modified form, the king agreed on 12th May, and they were accepted by the English presbyterians and the Scottish commissioners as a basis of accommodation. (fn. 13) All this was watched narrowly and apprehensively by the army, who could not fail to be impressed with the advantage which would accrue to them from having possession of the person of the king. The danger of such a contingency was equally apparent to the presbyterians, and they decided, after long deliberation, to remove him to Scotland. (fn. 14) Parliament also resolved on the 25th and 27th to proceed, on 1st June, (fn. 15) with the disbandment of the army, commencing with the infantry. This infuriated the soldiers, whose leaders also contemplated with strong opposition, the prospect of the return to England of a Scottish army, and it was resolved, at a meeting in Cromwell's house on 31st May, to get possession of the person of the king. (fn. 16) The execution of this was entrusted to Joyce, a cornet of Fairfax's guard who, on 2nd June rode to Holmby with a body of horse, and with every demonstration of respect brought the king to the army at Newmarket. (fn. 17) On the 4th a review of the troops took place, and within a few days the whole army, 21,000 strong, concentrated at Newmarket and issued a manifesto, demanding, as a condition precedent to being disbanded, satisfaction for themselves, the removal of their accusers, and a real settlement of the kingdom.

While these things were taking place in England, the last remnant of royalist struggle in Scotland was crushed. The marquis of Huntly, who had kept aloof from Montrose during his campaign, and had been ordered by the king in June and July, 1646, to disband his forces, prepared in obedience to a secret countermand to continue the struggle. Colketto, too, was little dis posed to abandon his attack on the territory of the Campbells. (fn. 18) Accordingly, after Montrose left Scotland, Huntly and the Gordons were in arms in the east, and Colketto and his Irish forces in the west. (fn. 19) It became necessary, therefore, for the covenanters to crush both, and on the return of the Scottish army from England, in February, 1647, a new model army was selected out of it, and placed under the command of David Leslie. It consisted of 5,000 foot and 1,200 horse, and proceeded to deal with Huntly, all of whose country Leslie overran before the end of March, capturing the stronghold of the marquis and driving him into flight. (fn. 20) This part of the work having been accomplished, lieutenant-general Middleton was left to follow the fugitive, and Leslie, crossing the mountains, entered Argyle's country. There he was joined by Argyle, and the joint forces burst upon Colketto in Kintyre. Unable to meet this attack, he escaped to Islay in May, while his followers had to surrender at discretion, and were afterwards slaughtered almost to a man. For a short time he held out in Islay, but soon returned to Ireland, and Scotland was at peace within its own borders. (fn. 21)

On 4th May, 1647, the town council appointed a committee to "end with the cleansers with all convenient diligence." (fn. 22) On 17th July, 1647, one of the councillors, to be appointed weekly, accompanied by a man to be chosen by him, was ordered to go to the muir twice or thrice, and take up a list of the poor persons there. They were also authorised 'to disburse such moneys as were required for the maintenance of these poor, and to give in their accounts each Saturday, with a list of all those on the muir and of such as had died during the week. (fn. 23) On the 26th it was resolved to agree with Dr. M'Lure to attend the visitation of the town for a month, and to give him, for his encouragement, ten dollars for his bygone service; (fn. 24) and on the 31st it was ordered, for the better securing of the cleansing of the houses, that two men should be "made cleane cleansers;" that other two should cleanse "the rest of the foul houses;" and that two should cleanse the clothes on the muir. Two horses were also ordered to be bought, one to draw forth foul clothes and sweepings, and the other to be used by the attendant on the muir. (fn. 25) In view, moreover, of the apprehended increase of the sickness, and the inability of the magistrates to perform all the duties devolving on them, two able men were ordered, on 14th August, to be appointed weekly for each of the four quarters of the town, to attend on the magistrates and put their orders into execution; (fn. 26) and on the 28th the dean of guild and deacon convener were directed to convene the merchants and craftsmen respectively, and arrange for each sustaining the poor of its own vocation. (fn. 27) On 18th September £40 were ordered to be paid to John Hall, for "sichting and viseiting" such as had died of the pestilence; and the deacon convener and John Graham were appointed to speak to Doctor M'Lure as to what should be given him for his services. (fn. 28) On 19th October it was ordered that no house should be cleansed without the knowledge of the bailies, who, if the residents were poor, should first agree as to the sum to be paid for the cleansing, but, if the residents were able to do so, should themselves pay. (fn. 29)

On 13th July, 1646, £40 were ordered to be paid for building the West Port, and £30 for building the East Port. (fn. 30) On 27th February, 1647, the dyke at Little St. Mungo's kirkyard, near the Gallowgate port, was ordered to be built, and the port to be causewayed. (fn. 31) On 20th March the Blackfriar kirkyard dyke and the High kirkyard dyke were appointed to be built up with timber; and on 27th March a "penneit" gate was ordered to be built in the High kirkyard dyke opposite the "laich" steeple. On 3rd April the New Kirkyard dyke was directed to be repaired (fn. 32); and on the 23rd a pillory was ordered to be erected with all diligence. (fn. 33) On 22nd May St. Roques kirkyard was appointed to be "casten about" and an entry made to it; (fn. 34) and on 5th June all persons who had their "closefoots" open were ordered, under a penalty of £10, to have them closed. (fn. 35)

On 22nd May, 1647, the town council directed a proclamation to be made, prohibiting the citizens from casting down or meddling with the trench around the city till the estates had been informed. (fn. 36) On 18th September £40 were ordered to be paid to Matthew Thomson, maltman, for building a stone dyke "for furthering the trench" when it was begun to be made; and it was declared that the dyke was his own, and might be disposed of at his pleasure. (fn. 37)

On the same day the town council engaged that, so soon as they obtained payment of the £20,000 lent to the public for the use of lieutenant—general David Leslie, and the interest thereof, they would repay to the persons from whom the amount had been borrowed their respective advances as these were recorded on 27th September, 1645. The town clerk was directed to give an extract of this act to any person who required it, and the particular sum advanced by each applicant was appointed to be stated in the extract. (fn. 38)

The suppression of Huntly and Colketto enabled the authorities in Scotland to offer assistance to Charles, provided he would comply with their conditions, and shortly after the king's arrival at Newmarket, on the 8th of June, Argyle made proposals to him with that view, which, however, he rejected. (fn. 39) But a few days later he indicated a disposition to renew negotiations with the English presbyterians. The relations between the house of commons and the army became, however, more and more strained, and this tension induced the latter, which retained possession of the king's person, to conciliate him by acceding to his requests, which had been previously refused. (fn. 40) On 4th July Charles had interviews with Cromwell at Caversham, where he then was, and between the 8th and the 11th Believre, the French ambassador, acting in the interest of the king, had interviews with him, Fairfax, and Cromwell. If at this time Charles would have agreed to concede liberty of conscience to protestants and Roman catholics he might have secured the support of the army and of the independents, but his inveterate tergiversation shook all confidence in him. About the middle, or towards the end, of July, "heads of proposals," prepared by Ireton, and designed to secure the king's assent to some form of real constitutional government, were submitted to him, but he refused to entertain them, hoping to get from the Scots more favourable terms. (fn. 41) With that view he opened negotiations through the earl of Lauderdale with the Scottish commissioners in London. But at this stage the relations between the army and the parliament became so hostile that the army entered and occupied London on the 6th of August, and this was followed by the purging of the house of commons by Cromwell on the 20th of that month, and the establishment within it of a majority of independents. (fn. 42) In this condition of affairs the army was anxious, if possible, to come to terms with the king, and modifications of the heads of proposals were submitted to him about the middle of August. But the Scottish commissioners were hostile to an arrangement being effected with the king on terms inconsistent with the demands of their countrymen, and, as the result of their action, the house of commons, on the 26th, largely to conciliate them, reintroduced, and with slight amendments adopted, as a basis of settlement with the king, the presbyterian propositions of Newcastle. These propositions, which the independents did not oppose in the house, were presented to Charles on 7th September, (fn. 43) but both Cromwell and Ireton urged him not to assent to them, and he was not indisposed to act on their advice, while, at the same time, he was equally resolved to reject the modified heads of proposals. To obtain delay now became his object, as he believed that dissensions among the Scots might enable him soon to secure their support on his own terms. Under the influence of the duke of Hamilton in Scotland, the feeling in the committee of estates was becoming more favourable to the king, who, playing a double game, so continued his negotiations with Cromwell and Ireton as to secure from them a promise of support in his dealings with the English parliament. But Cromwell soon discovered that his efforts to effect an accommodation with the king were not to be attended with success, while they exposed himself to much suspicion. Nevertheless the leaders of the army made a fresh attempt in October to come to terms with the king, but it too proved abortive, and the probability of a Scottish army entering England to support him excited grave apprehension. (fn. 44)

While these events—fraught with so much importance as affecting the future destiny both of England and Scotland—were taking place, matters in Glasgow were proceeding wholly irrespective of them.

On 5th October a leet of three persons was presented to Sir Ludovic Houston, commissioner for the duke of Lennox, and he nominated James Stewart to be provost for the following year. Robert Mack, John Graham, and William Lychtbody were at the same time elected bailies; and on the 8th thirteen merchants and twelve craftsmen were appointed councillors. (fn. 45) On the 13th William Dunlop was elected dean of guild; Thomas Scott, deacon-convener; John Miller, treasurer; Archibald Sempill, visitor of maltmen; John Wallace, water bailie; and Thomas Brown, master of work. (fn. 46)

On the 22nd of the same month Loudoun, Lauderdale, and Lanark visited the king at Hampton Court, having previously assured him that if he would satisfy them otherwise as to religion, he would not be pressed to take the covenant, and would be assisted by the Scots in re-establishing his authority in England. Shortly afterwards, moreover, they, accompanied by a suite of fifty horsemen, returned and urged him to make his escape under their escort, but he peremptorily refused until he had relieved himself of his pledge not to attempt to escape. That pledge, however, he now in an equivocal manner withdrew, and his guard was in consequence strengthened, and on 1st November most of his attendants were ordered to leave Hampton Court. (fn. 47) Both in the army and in the commons feeling was rapidly turning against the king, and perceiving this he resolved to make his escape to the Isle of Wight, where he hoped to obtain better terms either from the Scots or from the army than had hitherto been offered, and failing that to pass over to France. Accordingly on 11th November he made his escape from Hampton Court and rode to lord Southampton's house at Titchfield, whence, on the 14th, he proceeded to Carisbrooke castle. Thence on the 16th he sent a letter to both houses proposing terms of settlement, (fn. 48) and continued to pursue his tortuous dealing with the army, the presbyterians, and the Scots. It would seem, however, that Cromwell and Ireton discovered his duplicity by intercepting communications between him and the queen, and thereupon determined that he could never be trusted with any share in the future government of the country. (fn. 49) The demands of the presbyterians, as formulated in four bills passed by parliament on 14th December, were presented to Charles on the 24th of that month, but found no favour with him, and on the 26th he entered into an "Engagement" with the Scottish commissioners, defining the terms on which the Scots were, in the last resort, to send an army into England to settle a lasting peace. (fn. 50) Having done this he, on the 28th rejected the four bills. On the same day he prepared to make his escape during the temporary absence of Hammond, the governor of Carisbrooke, but a change of wind made the passage which he intended to take by boat impossible, and on Hammond's return the gates of Carisbrooke castle were shut, its guards were doubled, the king's attendants were ordered to leave, and Charles found himself in practical captivity. On 3rd January, 1648, the house of commons resolved that no more addresses to the king would be made, and no more messages from him received, and this resolution was accepted by the lords on the 15th. (fn. 51) On the 24th the Scottish commissioners left London after having arranged for a rising in England simultaneously with the entry into it of a Scottish army. To counteract these plans, however, the English parliament resolved to send commissioners to the parliament then about to meet in Edinburgh to endeavour to induce it to adhere to the English alliance and oppose the royalist party in Scotland. They were also empowered, on the 29th, to offer payment to the Scots of the instalment of £100,000 payable on 3rd February under the agreement made at Newcastle. (fn. 52)

Meanwhile in Scotland the nobles who—largely with a view to profiting by the transfer of church lands to themselves—had first supported the Reformation, and had afterwards deserted Charles in his efforts to establish episcopacy, were restive under the domination of the presbyterian clergy. They therefore favoured the policy of the marquis of Hamilton, which aimed at restoring the old alliance between the crown and their order, and were prepared to listen with favour to an appeal which Lauderdale on 15th February made to the committee of estates against the English parliament and in favour of war. But the ministers petitioned that no forward step in that direction should be taken without their knowledge, and Argyle, supporting their desire, obtained a promise to that effect. (fn. 53) On 2nd March, 1648, a new triennial parliament met in Edinburgh, and Hamilton, supported by a large majority of the nobles, was enabled to carry out his policy against that of Argyle and the clergy. By a large majority a resolution to put the nation in a posture of defence was carried. (fn. 54) In coming to this resolution the parliament virtually broke with the church, which, as represented by the commission of the assembly, (fn. 55) remonstrated violently against the proceedings of the parliament. They declared that the king's concessions were not enough, and insisted that the king must not only take the covenant himself, but compel all others to take it also; that he must not only established presbyterianism in England, but establish it permanently and at once, and become a presbyterian himself. (fn. 56) The ministers, moreover, denounced from their pulpits all who favoured war on behalf of a king who rejected the covenant, but their influence though great among the masses did not prevent the progress of warlike preparations. (fn. 57)

A plot meanwhile was laid in England to secure the escape of the king, and the attempt was made on 20th March but failed. (fn. 58) What might have been the result had it succeeded?" "There can be no doubt," says Gardiner, "that, if the king had been really at large, a welcome would have been accorded to him before which even the army would have found it difficult to stand. In London, at least, the overwhelming preponderance of opinion was in his favour," (fn. 59) and throughout the kingdom royalist feeling was strong. Cromwell and the Independents were, in consequence, prepared to restore Charles under certain limiting conditions, and secret negotiations seem to have been opened with him, but came to no result. (fn. 60) Under these circumstances the second civil war broke out in England in April. Wales rose in insurrection; in the north a strong body of cavaliers mustered; and outbreaks arose in Essex, Surrey, and the southern counties. Chester, Pembroke, and Colchester were held for the king, and the fleet revolted. To meet these dangers Cromwell was sent to Wales, Lambert to the north, and Fairfax to Colchester. (fn. 61) On 11th April the Scottish estates voted that the treaty between the two kingdoms had been broken, and that the English parliament should be required to renew negotiations with the king. Anticipating that this demand would be rejected, the estates named the colonels of the regiments to be raised in the several counties to serve against the enemies of religion. (fn. 62) On the 28th of the same month Berwick and Carlisle were surprised by parties of royalists from Scotland, who, however, undertook to surrender these places to the Scots whenever called on to do so. On 3rd May the resolutions adopted by the Scottish estates on 11th April were communicated to the English parliament, and on the 6th both houses replied in terms which largely met the Scottish demands. (fn. 63) Meanwhile the royalist party in England were making demonstrations which evidenced a growing desire for peace on the basis of the re-establishment of the king's authority, (fn. 64) and though the city of London declared for the parliament on 19th May, it requested on the 23rd that negotiations with the king should be renewed. (fn. 65) Five days later a second plot for the escape of the king was betrayed and frustrated, but on the previous day the Scots resolved that their army should consist of 30,000 men, that Hamilton should have the command-in-chief, and that Callander should be his lieutenant-general. (fn. 66) The command of the horse was pressed upon David Leslie, but, as the kirk was using all its influence against the enterprise, he refused. (fn. 67) On 9th June the Scottish estates adjourned their meetings for two years, delegating their functions to the committee of estates, (fn. 68) in which Hamilton being supreme was able to overbear the opposition of Argyle and the ministers. The levying of troops was then pushed forward; the command of the horse was given to Middleton, while that of the foot was entrusted to Baillie. Difficulties were experienced, however, in levying the required troops. Fife resisted for a time, but was compelled to give in. Clydesdale, in which the influence of the ministers was also strong, offered more strenuous opposition, but Sir James Turner was sent to Glasgow to enforce the orders of the committee of estates, and he tells how he broke down the resistance there. "I shortly learned to know," he says, "that the quartering of two or three troops and half-a-dozen muskets was an argument strong enough in two or three nights' time to make the hardest headed covenanter in the town to forsake the kirk and to side the parliament." Resistance to the levies thus ordered was offered by a body of about 2,000 men who assembled at Mauchline, but Middleton speedily routed them, and open resistance collapsed. (fn. 69)

The records of the town council furnish details as to the manner in which the action of the committee of estates was received in Glasgow. During April and May considerable negotiations took place between the town council and the committee of the shire of Lanark as to the quartering of men on the town. On 24th April a deputation was sent to Hamilton to negotiate with the committee for the relief of the town from local quarterings, and from payment of the maintenance of those quartered. In the event, however, of no arrangement being effected, the council approved of an engagement, which its representatives had previously entered into, whereby the town was to pay till Tuesday following four shillings a day to each of 152 soldiers. The deputation was further authorised to undertake to pay till further orders the proportion effeiring to the town of the money which the shire had to pay to the officers and soldiers of the general artillery. (fn. 70) On 16th May, again, the dean of guild and deacon-convener were appointed to consult their respective constituents, and report to the town council their advice as to letters from the committee of the shire and from the duke of Hamilton as to a levy. (fn. 71) The general import of these negotiations may possibly be explained by an act of the 23rd of May, in which the council directed a supplication to be presented by the dean and convener and four others to the committee of the shire, setting forth the general unwillingness of the town council and community to engage in a war, of the lawfulness of which they were not satisfied, and their intention to address parliament "for further cleiring of thair lordships proceedings to the satisfactioune of all the weel affectit, quhairby we may be enabled more cheirfully to geive obedience to thair commandis." Until the pleasure of parliament on that address was made known, the committee of the shire was urged to forbear to press the council and community" to concurr in such a course as we conceave cannot be promoted by us with a safe conscience." (fn. 72)

A summons and charge was however given the town to appear before the estates and answer for "not outreiking" the levy, and on 25th May three persons were appointed to attend and answer this charge. (fn. 73) The result was that a number of the members of the town council were incarcerated in the tolbooth of Edinburgh, and on 2nd June the estates remitted to a committee to call those persons before them, and examine them as to their disobedience. This committee were, however, empowered to release the prisoners upon receiving assurance of their ready obedience to the orders in regard to the levies. (fn. 74)

On the following day the duke of Hamilton, lord-general, produced in parliament eight papers subscribed by a number of residenters in each of the eight wards of the town, setting forth their willingness to obey the orders of the estates, and, in consequence, the estates approved of the duke quartering forces on the town, and ordained him to thank the subscribers of these papers, and to ease them of their quarterings, provided they "put forth their dew proportione of men" in the levy. (fn. 75) On the same day the estates, on a report by their committee, ordered James Stewart, provost, Robert Finlay and John Fleming, both merchants, three of the persons incarcerated, to be released from prison, but to be confined in their lodgings in Edinburgh during the pleasure of parliament. (fn. 76) Three days later all the other magistrates and councillors, thirteen in number, with the town clerk, were ordered to be released from prison, but were required, with the provost, Finlay and Fleming (who had previously been confined within their lodgings in Edinburgh), to be confined within the town and ports of that city during the pleasure of the estates or its committee. At the same time the estates remitted to the committee to consider as to the government of the towns of Glasgow and Lanark, and all others in a similar condition, and as to what should further be done to the persons so relieved from prison. (fn. 77) On 10th June the estates had under consideration a report by their committee on a supplication by merchants, tradesmen, and burgesses of Glasgow, desiring that they might enjoy their freedom and privilege to elect their magistrates, and that those magistrates who should have had the election at Michaelmas, 1645, but were put from it, might be put in and continued magistrates till Michaelmas next, and then have the election for the following year. That report set forth that the provost and bailies and sundry others who were cited in the suppli cation having appeared before the committee, had declared that they had nothing to say why the desire of the supplication should not be granted, but that they were put in their offices by the parliament, and that it concerned the estates to look to it. On considering that supplication, and the disobedience of the magistrates and council and other office-bearers in regard to the levy, all the then magistrates and office-bearers who had so refused obedience were deprived of office in the burgh, and those who held office in 1645, and such of the then magistrates as had given or were willing to give obedience to the parliament, were ordained to make a new free election on the 14th of the month, without prejudice either to the right of the duke of Lennox to elect the provost of the burgh or to the freedoms and liberties of the town. All the magistrates and councillors, with the town clerk, who had been incarcerated in the tolbooth of Edinburgh, and afterwards confined in the town and ports of Edinburgh, were also liberated and allowed to return to their own homes. (fn. 78) Accordingly on the 13th James Bell, who had been provost in 1645, with two of the persons who had been bailies in that year, and a number of those who had been councillors, met in the council house, and had submitted to them a letter enclosing the act of parliament above referred to. These documents were ordered to be engrossed in the council record, and immediately proclaimed at the market cross, and all the persons then living who had borne office in 1645, with Gabriel and Andrew Cunninghame, David Shearer, and James Duncan, who were of the last council, and were held as willing to give effect to the orders of parliament, were appointed to meet on the following day to elect the magistrates, councillors, and other officers conform to the tenor of the act. (fn. 79) On the following day the office-bearers and councillors of 1645, with five members of the last council, attended and elected William Yair, notary, to be town clerk. They then nominated Colin Campbell to be provost, and, in his absence, selected a leet of six, out of which John Anderson, elder, and James Train were chosen bailies of the merchant rank. Out of a leet of three selected by the craftsmen of the council William Neilsoune was elected third bailie, and all the bailies then accepted office and took the requisite oaths. (fn. 80). Two days afterwards the newly elected provost and others chose twelve councillors to hold office till Michaelmas following. (fn. 81) On the 17th captain John Lymburner was elected captain of one of the town's companies; James Moresoune, litster, was elected lieutenant; and John Bell, son of the deceased John Bell, elder, minister, was elected to be "ancient" [ensign]. At the same time order was given to summon by tuck of drum all male inhabitants to repair to the green on the following Tuesday, with fixed arms, under pain of forfeiture of their freedoms, these to be "diligentlie searchit and apprehendit for goeing out on this present expeditioune." (fn. 82) On the 21st James Hamilton was elected dean of guild; Manasses Lyill, deaconconvener; John Miller, treasurer; Walter Stirling, water bailie; John Louk, master of work; and Archibald Semple, visitor. (fn. 83)

On 15th July proclamation was made requiring, under pain of rigourous punishment, the inhabitants and others who had strangers in their houses or who might come to them, and were suspected to be runaways from the army, to report them to the magistrates, so that they might be sent back to the army.

Reviving the negotiations which for some reason were discontinued in 1635, (fn. 84) the town council, on 5th February, 1648, appointed George Porterfield, former provost, and Ninian Gilhagie, to proceed to Edinburgh and purchase the lands of Gorbals; and James Bell, former provost, and Colin Campbell, were earnestly requested to co-operate with them for that effect. The superiority of the lands to be thus purchased was appointed to be vested in the burgh, while the right of property was to be vested in the town and Hutchesons' Hospital, of which latter the town council were trustees.

Whatever negotiations took place under that remit no definite result was secured, for on 30th December thereafter the provost and William Lightbody were commissioned to treat for the purchase with Sir Robert Douglas of Blackerston, who in the meanwhile had acquired the lands, and to report. (fn. 85) As the result of their negotiations, these commissioners appeared to have got an offer of the lands, for, on 30th January, 1649, the town council, after mature deliberation in regard to it, empowered the provost to offer Sir Robert 110,000 merks (£6, 111 2s. 3d. sterling), with some little more before giving up the negotiations. (fn. 86) That little more was, on 3rd February, fixed to be 5,000 merks (£277 15s. 6d. sterling). The purchase was not effected, however, till the following year. On 12th January, 1650, the council authorised the bargain as to the Gorbals to be closed, (fn. 87) and on the 27th of the following month, the provost reported that he and those who went to Edinburgh with him had settled with Sir Robert, by agreeing to pay him 120,000 merks (£6,666 13s. 4d. sterling), "with twa thousand merks (£111 2s. 2d. sterling) to his ladie." The purchase was stated to be made for behoof of Hutchesons' Hospital, the Crafts Hospital, and the town, in the proportions after specified. (fn. 88) In implement of their part of the bargain, Sir Robert and Dame Susana Douglas, his wife, on 23rd and 28th February, and 28th May following, granted to the magistrates and council a disposition of the lands, with coals and coalheughs, &c., and the heritable offices of bailiary and justiciary of the same, as follows:—one-fourth part on behalf of the community of the burgh ; two-fourth parts on behalf of Hutchesons' Hospital; and onefourth part for behoof of the Trades Hospital. (fn. 89) This disposition was judicially ratified by Dame Susana Douglas on 28th May, 1650, (fn. 90) and was followed by two charters granted by Sir Robert and his wife, in favour of the council, for behoof of the community, Hutchesons' Hospital, and the Trades Hospital, as above— the holding in one of the charters being of the granters, and in the other of the superior of the lands. (fn. 91) Upon these charters two infeftments were expede on 1st June, and registered on 20th June in the register of sasines for the sheriffdom of Renfrew, regality of Paisley, and barony of Glasgow. (fn. 92) Charters of confirmation of these titles were also obtained from the commissioners of the duke of Lennox, and from archbishop Burnet of Glasgow, the respective superiors of the lands—the former charter dated 8th September, 1655, (fn. 93) and the latter dated 20th June, 1665. (fn. 94)

Under the remit made to Porterfield and the town clerk on 7th December, 1647, to get the king's grant to the town of the spirituality of the archbishopric passed by the lords of exchequer, they seem to have made effective representation to their lordships, for, on 18th February of the following year, they passed an act in which, after referring to the signature of mortification granted to the town by the king on 17th November, 1641,—which signature was directed to the then commissioners of the treasury,—a new signature of mortification of the spirituality of the archbishopric, with the lands great and small, parsonage and vicarage lately annexed thereto, was ordered to be rewritten and passed in exchequer. (fn. 95) On the same day, accordingly, the great seal was adhibited to a charter by the king, mortifying and disponing to the burgh, and to the provost, bailies, councillors, and community, for the support of a minister to serve the cure in place of the archbishop, for the repair of the high kirk, and for the assistance of schools and hospitals, the whole teinds specified in the signature of 17th November, 1641, under reservation to the crown of the right of patronage and presentation of the minister to serve the cure of the kirk, and subject to the condition that the magistrates and councillors should support the minister so appointed, and also pay to the other ministers of Glasgow the stipends therein mentioned, viz., to the minister of the Barony six chalders, and to the minister of the new kirk in Trongate five chalders. (fn. 96)

At this time the town was still suffering from an outbreak of the plague, (fn. 97) and on 21st July, 1648, the magistrates and council issued a proclamation prohibiting all persons from going out to the foul muir without the special warrant of the magistrates, under pain of being obliged to remain there as foul persons suspected of the pestilence. (fn. 98) On the following day also they ordered quarter-masters to be chosen weekly to go through the town as they were warned, and take up the names of young and old within their several divisions who were to be presented to them every morning. Such sick or dead persons as were found were appointed to be immediately reported to the magistrates. All persons were also prohibited, under pain of being punished both in person and goods, from repairing to wine or alehouses, but required to keep their own families, and to abstain from idle wandering through the streets, or visiting sick persons, or drinking publicly with any person enclosed, by which injury had previously come and might follow. (fn. 99) The orders to the quarter-masters were renewed on the 29th, (fn. 100) and on 5th August the pestilence having "growne hotter" than had ever previously been known, the magistrates fearing its increase, and being unable to go about and oversee all things, chose ten persons to have the oversight of the town during the continuance of the trouble, and they were empowered to exercise all the powers of the magistrates in regard to the pestilence. On the 12th proclamation was ordered to be made prohibiting all persons from repairing to Edinburgh without a testimonial in conformity with the desire of the provost and bailies of that burgh. All persons were also inhibited from bringing "sybous or ingons" to the Cross to be sold during the time of pestilence, or from drying lint or lint bolls on the High Street, and were required to remove all fulzie from the street, under a penalty of £20 and punishment of their persons. The treasurer was ordered to have a warrant of £142 6s. 6d. Scots (£11 17s. 2d. sterling) disbursed for fifteen bolls one firlot of meal purchased for distribution among the poor people on the muir. On the same day the town council passed an act in which it was set forth that the pestilence, which was more severe than had been seen or known to any then living, had necessitated the removal of many families to the muir who were sustained on the charge of the town, and that in addition to any poor persons who were enclosed in their houses; and that most of the inhabitants who were able to bear burden had left the town. Under these circumstances, apprehending that the poor people who were then labouring or might fall under the disease might be subjected to great straits for want of sustenance, and seeing that the town's revenues, which ought to be otherwise employed, were unable to sustain so great a burden, it was resolved to uplift from the earl of Wigtown, and apply to that object, and to the refunding of the money already expended, a sum of 2,000 merks (£111 2s. 2d. sterling) which had been collected some years previously for the supply of poor distressed people, but had been reserved and lent to the earl. Meanwhile the treasurer was authorised to borrow a corresponding amount in order to its application to these purposes. (fn. 101) On 26th August John Hall, surgeon, was ordered to be paid 100 merks (£5 11s. 1d. sterling) for his services in relation to the pestilence till Michaelmas next, (fn. 102) and on 2nd October he was authorised to be paid £40 Scots (£3 6s. 8d. sterling) more in respect he took nothing from either poor or rich for his pains. (fn. 103)

In the summer of 1648 the town, as the result of several negotiations with the representatives of lord Blantyre, acquired his right to the parsonage and vicarage teinds of the bishopric. These negotiations were commenced by commissioners appointed for the town on 18th September, 1647, (fn. 104) and on 11th October George Porterfield, late provost, was authorised to "wair and bestow" such charges and expenses as he considered expedient in effecting this object. (fn. 105) On 6th November the town clerk was directed to go to Edinburgh and consult the town's advocates on the matter. (fn. 106) Negotiations appear thereafter to have taken place between Porterfield and Sir William Cochrane of Cowdone, on behalf of lord Blantyre, and Porterfield reported to the town council that the lowest price which would be accepted was eleven hundred merks for each chalder of meal, and thirteen hundred merks for each chalder of bear—the vicarage being included—and that the lowest price for the tack of the teinds of Drimont, unpaid for previous years, and to be paid during the remainder of the tack, was £2,000 Scots (£166 13s. 4d. sterling). The town council on 7th December, considering that the acquisition of the teinds on these terms would benefit the city, empowered Porterfield and the town clerk to deal with lord Blantyre's friends on the subject; and also to get the gift of the spirituality of the archbishopric, previously granted to the city by the king, with advice of the estates, passed by the lords of exchequer in the most commodious wasy. (fn. 107) This commission was renewed on 29th January, 1648, (fn. 108) and on 16th May Porterfield reported that, in his negotiations for the purchase, he had become bound for 2,000 merks (£111 2s. 2d. sterling) so as the better to have the bargain closed. Of this undertaking the town conncil engaged to relieve him, (fn. 109) and four days later an act of the town council sets forth that the bargain with lord Blantyre and his curators for his teinds of the parsonage was concluded for a price of £20,000 (£1,666 13s. 4d.), with 2,000 merks (£111 2s.2d.) farther when his lordship attained majority and ratified the town's right. In respect, however, that they had no money wherewith to pay the price, it was resolved to borrow the amount from the several persons specified, and also to grant a bond to lord Blantyre for the 2,000 merks payable on his ratification of the town's title. In addition to these sums it appears that the town had paid 600 merks [£33 6s. 8d.], and provided a horse and "his furniture" which had been given to lord Blantyre. (fn. 110) Under this arrangement the town seems to have acquired right to receive the teinds of the parsonage for crop 1647 and subsequent years, and a collector was appointed to uplift the teinds. (fn. 111)

On the 8th of July—two days after a royalist diversion in England under the earl of Holland had been crushed by the parliamentary troops at St. Neots—the Scottish army, under Hamilton, crossed the border and entered Carlisle, but it numbered only 10,500 men, little more than a third of the force he had expected to lead, and composed mostly of raw recruits. (fn. 112)

He had no artillery, and was so scantily supplied with provisions that he was obliged to plunder the country and so to alienate the population. Advancing from Carlisle on the 16th the Scots established themselves at Kirkby Thore to wait for reinforcements and ammunition, but meanwhile laid siege to Appleby castle. They had the mortification, however, to learn, when so engaged, that the Prince of Wales refused to come to Scotland save on conditions which were obnoxious to its leaders, and that the aid, in arms and money, which had been expected from France, was not to be provided. To these discouragements were added the fulminations of the general assembly which met on the 12th, and denounced Hamilton as a traitor to the covenant. Meanwhile Cromwell, who had captured Pembroke, was hastening northward to meet the Scots. On the 31st Appleby castle surrendered, and on the 2nd of August Hamilton reached Kendal, where he received intelligence that an Irish contingent under Munro had crossed the border. These veteran soldiers would have stiffened the raw levies from Scotland had they been permitted to join them, but the jealousies of Hamilton's officers prevented this, and Munro was ordered to remain behind and form a separate army of 4,000 or 5,000 men after he had been joined by an English force under Sir Philip Musgrave. On the 9th Hamilton advanced to Hornby, where he remained till the 13th, and on that day Cromwell joined forces with Lambert between Knaresborough and Wetherby. Cromwell's combined force did not exceed 8,600 men, while be reckoned the Scots at from 21,000 to 24,000 men. (fn. 113) With this force, and leaving his artillery behind, he pushed forward to Gisburn on the 15th, and on the following day fixed his quarters at Stonyhurst park. Then, only, the news of his approach reached Hamilton, whose army was scattered over the country foraging. His cavalry also proceeded on the same day under Callander and Middleton to Wigan sixteen miles distant. Arriving at Preston on the morning of the 17th he directed Baillie to cross the Ribble with the infantry and proceed on the forward march, but before the order could be executed intelligence arrived that Sir Marmaduke Langdale, who had drawn up his force of about 3,000 foot and 600 horse on the north-west of the town, and in the line of Cromwell's approach, was being attacked by the parliamentary troops. The order to cross the Ribble was at once countermanded, and Baillie was directed to support Langdale, while a messenger was despatched to recall the cavalry. But this prudent order was disputed by Callander, who urged that the infantry should cross the river and join the cavalry on their arrival, leaving Langdale and his English force to hold their own, or, if necessary, to retreat through Preston and cross the river by the bridge. To this counsel Hamilton yielded, but collecting a small body of cavalry which formed his rear guard he rode out to join Langdale, who was resisting a force of veteran soldiers more than double the number of his own. Notwithstanding this disparity of force Langdale held his position for four hours with the utmost gallantry, but was ultimately forced to give way and retire upon the town, where the greater part of his infantry surrendered—his cavalry, with those which accompanied Hamilton to the field, escaping to the north and joining Monro. Langdale himself succeeded in crossing the Ribble by the bridge and joined the Scots under Baillie, while Hamilton, who had gallantly adhered to Langdale during the fight, managed to cross the river by a ford and rejoined his own force. Later in the day the Scots were driven further south. (fn. 114) During the night it was resolved, at a council of war, on the proposal of Callander, to retire immediately, and Hamilton was three miles off before his retreat was discovered by Cromwell, who followed him with 5,500 men, and detached 4,000 men to hold Preston against Monro and Musgrave. The Scottish horse under Middleton rejoined Hamilton after his retreat was commenced, and did efficient service in checking the enemy's cavalry, but at Warwick Cromwell attacked the Scots on the 19th, and after a hard fight in which they lost 1,000 killed and 2,000 prisoners they continued their retreat. (fn. 115) Disaster and surrender followed, (fn. 116) and on the 20th Cromwell left Lambert to continue the pursuit, while he turned back to crush Monro, who, with Musgrave, had about 7,000 men under their command. On the 22nd Hamilton capitulated at Uttoxeter, (fn. 117) but Callander and Langdale had left Hamilton before the capitulation. Langdale and a small party of his English friends were, however, captured near Nottingham, while Callander succeeded in reaching London, and thence escaped to Holland. In September those of the Scottish prisoners who had been compelled to serve under Hamilton were released on engaging never again to enter England as soldiers without the leave of the English parliament, while the others were shipped to Virginia or Barbadoes or to Venice. (fn. 118) This overwhelming disaster to the Scottish army paralysed the schemes not only of Lauderdale who had arranged for prince Charles joining Hamilton, but of the presbyterians in England who were preparing to support the king. (fn. 119) Meanwhile Monro, who was not on good terms with his English allies, retired through Durham to Scotland, and crossed the Tweed on 8th September. (fn. 120) In the end of that month, or early in October Musgrave surrendered at Appleby.

The defeat of Hamilton presented to Argyle the opportunity of recovering his power, and the Scottish ministers used all their influence throughout the country on his behalf. Lord Eglinton, at the head of the stern presbyterians of the west, (fn. 121) marched to Edinburgh, where the castle was secured by Leven. David Leslie also placed his sword at the service of Argyle. Under these circumstances the committee of estates removed to Stirling, where Monro with his troops joined them. There they were followed by the Whiggamores, reinforced by a number of Argyle's highlanders, and by the followers of a number of lowland nobles who supported him. The earl of Lanark (Hamilton's brother) and Monro were desirous to attack this heterogeneous body, but the committee of estates, recognising that the country was now against them, deemed it prudent rather to open negotiations with Argyle's party, and these negotiations resulted, on 26th September, in the abandonment by the committee of the government of the country, the return of Monro and his soldiers to Ireland, and the withdrawal by all holders of offices of trust in Scotland from their respective offices. (fn. 122)

This change in the condition of affairs seems to have been immediately felt in Glasgow, for, in consequence of letters received by the magistrates and council in regard to a supply of levies, they resolved on 11th September, 1648, to provide and furnish half a troop of horse. In respect, however, that most of the considerable inhabitants who had left the city during the pestilence had not yet returned, and that a stent could not therefore be advantageously imposed, advances were ordered to be made out of the first and readiest proceeds of the excise and moneys received from the late bailies to meet the necessary expense. (fn. 123) Four days later they resolved to "outreik" and "deliver" to lieutenant-colonel Menzies thirty horses with troopers well mounted, as agreed with him, (fn. 124) and on the 23rd they ordered proclamation to be made of an order by the committee of Lanarkshire requiring all gentlemen, soldiers, and others, as they tended the good of religion, king, and kingdoms, to appear before the magistrates and enrol themselves to that effect on good and honourable conditions. (fn. 125)

While the negotiations between the committee of estates and Argyle's party were taking place, Cromwell was pushing northward in the full knowledge that he possessed the sympathies of the marquis and his supporters. On 13th September the latter urged that Berwick and Carlisle should be restored to England, and three days later Cromwell demanded the restoration of these towns from the committee of estates. On the 21st he crossed the Tweed with his army, and on the 22nd held a conference with Argyle at Mordington, with the result that on the 30th he entered Berwick, and a few days later Carlisle surrendered. (fn. 126) In order still further to secure the transference of the government to the party which he led, Argyle arranged to obtain the services of an English force. Lambert was accordingly ordered to proceed with all despatch to Edinburgh at the head of six regiments of horse and one of dragoons, and a body of foot was directed to follow in support as far as Cockburnspath. Thus fortified the whiggamore leaders—who had some days previously at their own hand constituted themselves a committee of estates—continued to direct the affairs of the country. On 4th October Cromwell arrived in Edinburgh, where he was honourably received and lodged in the house of the earl of Moray, and there, on the same evening, Argyle and Johnston of Warriston supped with him. He was also entertained at a banquet in the castle, and Argyle, Leven, and other leaders of the covenanters, were present. Next day Cromwell demanded from the self-constituted committee of estates the removal from all offices of trust of those who had supported the late Engagement, and on receiving their assurances that this would be done he left Edinburgh on his return to England, Lambert remaining with two regiments of cavalry to protect the new committee of estates. (fn. 127)

On 27th September the self-constituted committee of estates passed an act in which they declared that the deposition of the former magistrates, town councillors, and office-bearers of Glasgow for refusing to join in the late Engagement was contrary to "the constant custom of burghs, and all equity and reason." The then magistrates, councillors, clerk, and other office-bearers were accordingly commanded to desist from the exercise of their respective offices, and the previous magistrates, council, clerk, and other office-bearers were reponed as freely and fully as if they had not been removed—the rights of the duke of Lennox and the freedoms and liberties of the burgh being fully reserved. It was farther ordered that in the new election of magistrates and councillors for the ensuing year the act of the committee of estates, dated 22nd September, should be duly observed. The act of 27th September was publicly intimated at the market cross, and on 3rd October produced to the town council, when from a leet made up by the old magistrates, and in the absence of the duke of Lennox and his commissioner, George Porterfield was elected to be provost for the ensuing year. Ninian Anderson, Thomas Allan, and Peter Johnstone were at the same time appointed bailies, and on the 6th thirteen merchants and twelve craftsmen were elected councillors. On the 11th William Dunlop was appointed dean of guild; William Lightbody, deacon convener; James Kincaid, treasurer; John Wallace, visitor of maltmen; Peter Cumyng, water bailie; and Edward Robisone, master of work. (fn. 128)

Meanwhile, on 18th September negotiations between the king and commissioners of parliament had been commenced at Newport, whither Charles —liberated on parole from Carisbrooke—was allowed to take up his residence. (fn. 129) In the course of these, the king made concessions on the footing that nothing to which he might agree should be valid unless a complete understanding was ultimately come to. On the 25th the commissioners proposed that he should give his consent to the acts abolishing episcopacy and the prayer book, substituting presbyterianism and the directory, and requiring all persons, including himself, to sign the covenant. To the demand that he and others should be required to subscribe the covenant he gave an uncompromising refusal, but, as regarded the other demands, he renewed his proposals for compromise. Subsequently, and while planning to make his escape, he, on 9th October, offered further concessions, but on the 17th absolutely refused to except from pardon thirty-seven of his chief supporters, and all who had taken up arms on his behalf, or to subject his undistinguished followers to lesser penalties. In consequence, the negotiations were terminated on the 27th by a vote of the commons negativing the king's proposals. (fn. 130) Meanwhile the army was becoming impatient, and about the middle of October Ireton, Cromwell's son-in-law, prepared a manifesto, known as the "Remonstrance of the Army," in which the danger of continuing negotiations with the king was pointed out, and the "bringing of him to justice" was urged. It was about the end of 1647, says Hallam, that the principal officers of the army took the determination, which had been already mooted by some of the agitators, of bringing the king, as the first and greatest delinquent, to public justice, and throughout the year 1648 this design, though suspended, became familiar to the people's expectation. (fn. 131) When this document was submitted to a council of officers, however, it was opposed by many of the colonels on 10th November, and by Fairfax on the following day, and some days were afterwards occupied by Ireton in amending and modifying it. But while he was so engaged the council of officers submitted demands to the king, requiring him to agree to a permanent constitutional settlement. These, however, on the 17th, he refused to entertain. He had previously made preparations for escaping on the night of the 16th or 17th, but his intentions were communicated to a committee of parliament, and on 1st December he was carried off to Hurst castle, and there confined under strict surveillance. He was now for the first time a real prisoner. (fn. 133)

While these events were taking place in England the committee of estates was administering the affairs of Scotland, and in the beginning of October required the magistrates of Glasgow to furnish victual and other provision for the castles of Dumbarton and Dunglas. This order was considered by the town council on 14th October, when the provost was instructed to represent that whatever excise or maintenance had been levied on the burgh was uplifted by the previous magistrates; that nothing could for the present be obtained from that source; and that it was impossible for the town council to advance any provision. John Graham was also ordered to proceed to Edinburgh and supplicate the committee to be relieved from the requirement, and also to be eased of the burdens imposed on the town in respect of the plague and of the oppressive quarterings on the citizens. (fn. 134)

On the 21st of the same month the town council, because of the need in which the town stood of the services of a qualified surgeon, and of the "large commendation" given to Arthur Temple as one of that profession, ordained the dean of guild and his brethren to receive Temple as a burgess and guild brother "in hope of his good service." (fn. 135)

At this time the town council asserted its right to take cognizance of the election of the deacons of the crafts, to set aside the elections of deacons to which exception was taken, and to order new elections. An example of this occurred on the 28th of October, when, on a report by the deacon convener and his council as to a complaint by John Wallace, former deacon of the cordiners, and the late masters of that craft, against John Wilson, "present pretended deacon of that calling," they declared Wilson to be incapable of the office of deaconry, and directed the deacon convener to discharge him of the office, and to cause the craft to make a new election of deacon for the following year. (fn. 136) On 4th November, moreover, the town council ordered that none of the three quarter masters who took part in the election of Wilson to be deacon should have any voice in the election of the new deacon, or be himself elected. (fn. 137)

In the end of October or beginning of November the committee of Lanarkshire having ordered the burgh to fit out a body of horse, the town council, on 9th November, appointed John Graham to go to Edinburgh and obtain exemption from the order. Two days afterwards, however, ten persons were appointed to select those who should form the body of horse so ordered to be raised, but one of the bailies was appointed to proceed to Hamilton and intimate to the committee of the shire the town's dissent from their order. Supplication was also appointed to be made to the committee of estates for relief from the burden of 8d. on each pint of French wine, and 16d. on each pint of sack and "hot waters." (fn. 138) The application to the committee of estates to be relieved from the order to provide the required body of horse seems to have been unsuccessful, for on 18th November the bailies were recommended by the council to use diligence for getting in thirty horse which the town was appointed to raise. The town would appear to have been also called on to raise a body of foot, but on 25th November a discharge of the order was produced to the town council.

The rejection by the king of the overtures of the army silenced those who were anxious to effect an arrangement with him, and on 18th November the "Remonstrance of the Army" was adopted by the council of officers, and presented to the house of commons on the 20th. This document demanded (1) that the king might be speedily brought to justice for the treason, blood, and mischief of which he was guilty; (2) that the prince of Wales and the duke of York should be required to surrender for trial on pain of being declared incapable to govern, and sentenced to death if found in England or its dominions; (3) that a sufficient number of those persons who had aided the king in the civil wars should be executed and others fined; and (4) that the arrears due to the army should be paid. (fn. 139) The remonstrance was presented to the commons on the 20th, but its consideration was postponed till the 27th, and during the intervening days the king, with whom negotiations had been continued, reaffirmed his previously declared resolution not to accept several of the most important propositions submitted to him by the parliamentary commissioners. This delay, and the evident desire of the commons to come to terms with the king, irritated the army, whose demands, as embodied in the remonstrance, Cromwell was now prepared to support, even to the effect of executing justice upon all offenders without respect of persons. (fn. 140) Its irritation was increased by the commons adjourning the debate on the remonstrance till 1st December, and the council of officers determined on the 29th to insist on the house accepting their demands—the impartial administration of justice, the regular payment of the soldiers, and the speedy enactment of salutary laws. To enforce these demands, which were not expected to be accepted, the army entered London on the 2nd of December, and the soldiers were quartered around Whitehall. On the previous day, the final answer of the king to the proposals of the parliamentary commissioners was communicated to the commons, but the entry of the army into London caused the house to postpone the discussion of the report till the 4th, and then the removal of the king to Hurst castle was reported. A hot debate, which extended over the night, ensued, and on the 5th the house declared the king's removal to have been without its knowledge or consent, and adjourned the debate on his answers to the parliamentary propositions. It was now in the difficult position, as regarded these answers, of having to adopt a course which should neither break with the Scots nor with the army, and this led it, by a majority of 129 to 83, to adopt a resolution that the king's answers were a ground for the house to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace of the kingdom. (fn. 141) That resolution, however, brought matters to an issue so far as the army was concerned, and in accordance with a determination come to at a meeting of officers held on the 5th, Westminster hall and the approaches to the house of commons were occupied by soldiers, colonel Rich's regiment of horse being paraded in Palace Yard, and colonel Pride's regiment of foot in Westminster hall. Colonel Pride prevented a number of members from entering the house, and subjected forty-one to confinement. (fn. 142) Those members who were allowed to enter immediately despatched the sergeant-at-arms to liberate the imprisoned members, but their liberation was refused. (fn. 143) This act of military violence deprived the proceedings of those members who remained of all legality, and many members who had not been interfered with, but resented the domination of the army, subsequently absented themselves, so that those who approved of that action became dominant, repealed the acts and resolutions of the house on the 13th, and declared a protestation by the excluded members to be "scandalous." (fn. 144) In this purgation, Cromwell, who was absent, took no part, but on his return to town he declared that "he had not been acquainted with this design, yet since it was done he was glad of it, and would endeavour to maintain it." (fn. 145)

Assuming the right to determine the future constitution of the kingdom, the council of army officers proceeded to discuss a document called an agreement of the people prepared by Lilburne and his committee, and on the 15th of December resolved "that the king be forthwith sent for to be brought under safe guards to Windsor castle, and there to be secured in order to the bringing of him speedily to justice." In pursuance of this resolution Charles was accordingly brought from Hurst castle on the 19th, and conducted via Winchester, Farnham, and Bagshot to Windsor, which he reached on the 23rd. Here a last effort was made to extract concessions from him, and overtures with this object were appointed to be submitted to him by the earl of Denbigh, with, it is said, the approval of Cromwell and other officers, but Charles refused to receive the earl, and all subsequent efforts to save him were abandoned. On the 27th it was determined that he should no more be served upon the knee, that all ceremonies of state to him should be discontinued, and that his attendants should be much fewer and at less charge. (fn. 146) On the following day the commons, giving effect to the demands of the army, read a first time an ordinance instituting a special court for the trial of the king; it was read a second time on the 29th, and finally passed on the 1st of January, 1649. By this ordinance three of the judges were appointed to act with one hundred and fifty commissioners, of whom twenty were constituted a quorum. By the lords, however, the ordinance was rejected, but on the 3rd of January the commons passed a new ordinance creating a high court of justice, and renewed the resolution rejected by the lords. By this ordinance the services of the judges were dispensed with, and the court was composed of one hundred and thirty-five commissioners, who were to act both as judges and jury. On the following day the commons also passed resolutions declaring its enactments to be law without the consent of king or lords. (fn. 147) On the 6th the ordinance, now termed an act, was passed.

Two days previously, viz., on the 4th January, 1649, the Scottish parliament met in Edinburgh, and the earl of Loudoun, chancellor, was elected president. It was entirely composed of persons who were either opposed to, or had renounced the Engagement, and only fourteen peers were present. On the 9th instructions were given to the Scottish commissioners in London to intimate to the parliament of England that, without "approving or countenancing any force used upon either house or its members," the Scottish parliament was about to disclaim and repeal all acts for the late unlawful Engagement; that it desired to keep the union of the two kingdoms, and had no intention to meddle with what concerned the exclusive interest of England; yet, having regard to the joint interests of both kingdoms in the king's person, and the assurance given to Scotland by both houses of the English parliament of their resolution to preserve their interests, the commissioners should earnestly press for all proceedings against the king's person being delayed till Scotland had been informed as to them, and had time to consider them and to represent its interests and desires. If, however, the English parliament should proceed against the king's life, the commissioners were directed to declare their dissent, and to protest that Scotland and its parliament were free from the act and from all the calamities and miseries that might ensue. In the event of any proceedings being taken against the king as a prisoner of war in a martial court, the commissioners were also directed to protest, and to set forth the dangerous consequences of such unheard of action, and the strange procedure of the army becoming accuser, judge, and executioner of the king. They were further directed to represent how heavy it would be to the spirit of the Scottish nation to see any violation of the solemn assurances as to the king's personal safety given by both houses of the English parliament, on the faith of which assurances he was given up at Newcastle. The document containing these and other instructions was transmitted to the Scottish commissioners by an express messenger. (fn. 148) On the same day an act, known as the "act of classes," was passed, to give full effect to the bargain made with Cromwell in Edinburgh as to the exclusion from public office of all persons who had been concerned in the Engagement. By this act all acts of parliament or conventions made for the Engagement were repealed, and the protestation and opposition against it were ratified. (fn. 149)

Additional instructions were also on 23rd January transmitted to the commissioners in England to apply to the general or lieutenant-general of the English army, and to such others as they might think fit, for the safety of the king's person, wherein both kingdoms were so much concerned. (fn. 150)

In disregard of the remonstrances and protests of the Scottish commissioners made on the 6th, the 19th, and the 22nd, (fn. 151) and of the opposition of the English house of lords, the house of commons, acting as the creatures of the army, and setting aside the prerogatives of the lords as of the sovereign, pressed forward the proceedings against the king, and the high court of justice thus created met for the first time on the 8th of January, but only fifty-two out of the one hundred and thirty-five members appeared. The court accordingly adjourned without proceeding to business till the 10th. (fn. 152) Reassembling on that day only forty-five members attended, but they elected sergeant Bradshaw to be president, and, after meeting again on the 12th and 13th to make arrangements, had a draft of the charge against the king submitted on the 15th. On the 17th the king was ordered to be lodged in Cotton House near Westminster Hall, and his trial was appointed to begin on the 20th. On the 19th Charles was brought from Windsor to St. James' Palace, whence on the following day he was taken first to Whitehall and afterwards to Cotton House. Thence he was conveyed to Westminster Hall where the high court, consisting of sixty-eight members, were assembled. On being brought in the king, gazing round at the soldiers, showed no sign of respect to the court, and the charge against him having been read, and he called upon to answer it, he challenged the authority of the court, and refused to reply to the charge till his challenge had been answered. On the 22nd he was brought back to the court and, in repudiating Bradshaw's reassertion of its authority, fearlessly denounced the court as opposed "to the freedom and liberty of the people of England." He was again removed, and on the following day another attempt was ineffectually made to induce him to plead. Bradshaw then directed the clerk "to record his default," and the court adjourned to the painted chamber. No public sitting of the court took place on the 24th. Meanwhile strong popular feeling was being manifested against the king's trial. The presbyterian clergy, equally with the Scottish commissioners, were opposed to it, and the proceedings of the court were unpopular. Influenced probably by all this, and by the division of opinion which existed, it is said, among the judges themselves, and as a means of gaining time, the court on the 24th intimated its intention to take evidence for its own satisfaction. Two days were occupied in reading depositions to scanty attendances, and were also employed, it is said, by Ireton and Cromwell "in steeling the hearts of the weak," with the result that on the 25th it was resolved "that the court will proceed to sentence against Charles Stuart, king of England; that the condemnation of the king shall be for tyrant, traitor, and murderer; that the condemnation of the king shall be likewise for being a public enemy to the commonwealth of England; that this condemnation shall extend to death." Only fifty-six members of the court passed this resolution, and at the same time appointed a committee to draw up a sentence on the king. On the following day the sentence so prepared was accepted by the court, then attended by sixty-two commissioners, and the king was ordered to be brought to Westminster on the 27th to hear it pronounced. On Saturday the 27th the king was brought before the court, sixty-seven members being present. Then Charles demanded to be heard before the lords and commons, but the demand was refused, and the sentence was read by the clerk. (fn. 153) After this the king's demand to be heard was refused, and he was removed first to Cotton house, afterwards to Whitehall, and still later to St. James' palace, whence he was taken to Whitehall and there beheaded on the afternoon of the 30th. (fn. 154) His body, after being embalmed, was taken to St. James' palace, and on the 7th of February removed to Windsor, where, on the following day it was interred in St. George's chapel.

On the 3rd of February the Scottish Parliament adjourned till the 6th, but on receiving intelligence of the king's execution, it re-assembled on the 5th and proclaimed prince Charles to be king of Britain, France, and Ireland, subject to the declaration that, before his admission to the exercise of his royal dignity, he should give satisfaction to the kingdom of Scotland in those things that concerned the security of religion, the union between the kingdoms, and the good and peace of Scotland according to the national covenant and the solemn league and covenant. (fn. 155) This proclamation was made at the Cross of Edinburgh on the same day by the lord advocate, Sir Archibald Johnstoun of Warriston, who took instruments in the hands of Sir William Scott of Clerkington, clerk of the parliament, in the presence of the earl of Loudoun, high chancellor, the marquis of Argyle, and other noblemen, the commissioners of shires, the provost of Edinburgh, and other commissioners of burghs, with all the solemnities prescribed by statute. (fn. 156) On the following day all the Scottish commissioners in London were instructed to take special care that nothing was done prejudicial to king Charles II., and that no changes were made in the fundamental government. If anything was done in the contrary, they were required to enter their dissent and protestation in the name of Scotland, and seeing their longer stay there, in the then condition of affairs, "was conceaved no more necessarie" they were directed "to come away in what way and tyme and in what manner they thought good." (fn. 157)

It is noticeable that no reference to the king's execution appears in the records of the town council of Glasgow. The only allusion to the succession of king Charles II. appears in an act of the 10th of February. It sets forth that "the proclamatioune anent the Kings most excellent majestie only came to the magistrats hands yesternight late," and proceeds as follows—"They thairfor, and the haill persones of counsell," mentioned in the record, "ordaines the said proclamatioune to be procleamit this day at xi. houris, with the gritest solempnitie." For this effect bailie Ninian Anderson was ordained to read the proclamation to the messenger who cried it out, and the whole council were appointed "to goe to the crose be twaes in ane comelie maner and to stand thairon uncoverit." The people present were also ordered to stand uncovered during the reading of the document, and all the bells of the town were to be rung from the ending of the reading till 12 o'clock in the day. (fn. 158)

In accordance with the instructions given to them by the Scottish parliament the commissioners in London, on 24th February, gave in a paper to the parliament of England, which it answered on the 26th by issuing a declaration to the effect that the paper contained reproachful matter against the English parliament, and assumed power over the laws and government of that nation, with a design to raise sedition and lay the grounds of a new war in that land. It further ordered a message to be sent to the Scottish parliament to know whether it would acknowledge that paper; and without waiting a reply, put the commissioners, who were under orders to return to Scotland, under restraint, setting a guard upon them. On receipt of that message the Scottish parliament, on 6th March, despatched a letter to the speaker of the English parliament, declaring that the action of the commis sioners had been ordered by it, and defending the course taken by Scotland as consistent with the treaty and covenant. (fn. 159) Upon this followed negotiations between the two parliaments, which resulted in a subsequent rupture, and hostilities between the two countries. These, however, are beyond the scope of the present work.


  • 1. 1647, c. 113, Acts of Parliament, VI., i., p. 655. Council Records, II., p. 110.
  • 2. Council Records, II., p. 113.
  • 3. Council Records, II., p. 113.
  • 4. 1647, c. 125, Acts of Parliament, VI., i., pp. 659–661.
  • 5. 1647, c. 162, Acts of Parliament, VI., i., p. 681. Council Records, II., pp. 111, 112.
  • 6. Council Records, II., p. 113.
  • 7. 1647, c. 174, Acts of Parliament. Council Records, II., p. 112.
  • 8. Gardiner's Civil War, III., p. 215.
  • 9. Gardiner's Civil War, III., p. 217.
  • 10. Ibid., III., p. 218.
  • 11. Gardiner's Civil War, III., pp. 219, 220.
  • 12. Ibid., III., p. 222.
  • 13. Gardiner's Civil War, III., pp. 251, 253.
  • 14. Ibid., III., p. 259.
  • 15. Ibid., III., p. 261.
  • 16. Gardiner's Civil War, III., p. 266, but see footnote2, p. 284.
  • 17. Ibid., III., pp. 267, 274.
  • 18. Gardiner's Civil War, III., pp. 132, 133.
  • 19. Ibid., III., p. 143.
  • 20. Ibid., III., pp. 251, 299.
  • 21. Ibid., III., p. 300.
  • 22. Council Records, II., p. 116.
  • 23. Ibid., II., p. 119.
  • 24. Ibid.
  • 25. Council Records, II., pp. 119, 120.
  • 26. Ibid., II., p. 120.
  • 27. Ibid., II., p. 121.
  • 28. Ibid., II., p. 123.
  • 29. Ibid., II., p. 125.
  • 30. Ibid., II., p. 95.
  • 31. Council Records, II., p. 113.
  • 32. Ibid., II., p. 115.
  • 33. Ibid., II., p. 116.
  • 34. Ibid., II., p. 116.
  • 35. Ibid., II., p. 118.
  • 36. Council Records, II., p. 117.
  • 37. Ibid., II., p. 123.
  • 38. Ibid., II., p. 117.
  • 39. Gardiner, III., p. 300.
  • 40. Ibid., III., p. 301.
  • 41. Gardiner, III., pp. 329-333.
  • 42. Ibid., III., p. 352.
  • 43. Gardiner, III., p. 357.
  • 44. Ibid., III., pp. 357-391.
  • 45. Council Records, II., p. 124.
  • 46. Ibid., II., p. 125.
  • 47. Gardiner, IV., p. 1–3.
  • 48. Ibid., IV., pp. 17–19.
  • 49. Gardiner, IV., pp. 28–29. Harrison's Cromwell, pp. 117–118.
  • 50. Gardiner, IV., pp. 39–41. He "engaged," says Burton, "to be the covenanted monarch of a presbyterian people. Given at Newcastle, this assurance would have been an open, substantial proclamation of his royal policy, unless he might have said that it was extorted by armed force. Done in secret during furtive interviews with the commissioners who atattended to look after the interests of Scotland at London, it was interpreted as an act of treachery to the English parliament and army, with which he was in open treaty" [Burton, IV., p. 410; Grub, III., pp. 130–131].
  • 51. Ibid., IV., pp. 48–53.
  • 52. Ibid., IV., p. 56.
  • 53. That appeal was founded on a verbal statement by the commissioners of the result of their negotiations with the king. Fearing that the "Engagement" might be discovered if in the commissioners' possession in England, they encased it in lead and buried it in a garden at Newport. It was understood, says Burton, that it would band the loyal presbyterians of Scotland, the old parliamentary party in England, and the cavaliers, to strive in concert for the restoration of the sovereign authority to be wielded over three covenanted kingdoms. But the church would not accept of so questionable an alliance. They felt that it would be an intercommuning with prelatical Malignants, and not only declined to accept of the "Engagement," but abjured it as a sin [Burton, VI., p. 410].
  • 54. Grub, III., p. 131. Gardiner, IV., pp. 87–89.
  • 55. This body, Dr. Cunningham points out, was not constituted as it now is, but was composed of a nominated number, and had for some years been rising into power.
  • 56. Burnet's Memoirs, p. 339; Cunningham, II., p. 63.
  • 57. Gardiner, IV., pp. 90, 91.
  • 58. Ibid., IV., pp. 91–94.
  • 59. Ibid., IV., p. 94.
  • 60. Ibid., IV., pp. 95, 96.
  • 61. Harrison's Cromwell, p. 120.
  • 62. Acts of Parliament of Scotland, VI., part ii., pp. 23–30; Gardiner, IV., pp. 111–114.
  • 63. Gardiner, IV., pp. 122–124.
  • 64. Gardiner, IV., p. 131.
  • 65. It had now become more evident than ever that the king could not be trusted. To use the words of Lord Macaulay, the vices of Charles had grown upon him. They were, indeed, vices which difficulties and perplexities generally bring out in the strongest light. Cunning is the natural defence of the weak. A person, therefore, who is habitually a deceiver when at the height of power is not likely to learn frankness in the midst of embarassments and distresses. Charles was not only a most unscrupulous but a most unlucky dissembler. There never was a politician to whom so many frauds and falsehoods were brought home by undeniable evidence. He publicly recognised the houses at Westminster as a legal parliament, and at the same time made a private minute in council declaring the recognition null. He publicly disclaimed all thought of calling in foreign aid against his people: he privately solicited aid from France, from Denmark, and from Lorraine. He publicly denied that he employed Papists: at the same time he privately sent to his generals directions to employ every Papist that would serve. He publicly took the sacrament at Oxford, as a pledge that he never would even connive at Popery. He privately assured his wife, that he intended to tolerate Popery in England; and he authorised Lord Glamorgan to promise that Popery should be established in Ireland. Then he attempted to clear himself at his agent's expense. Glamorgan received, in the royal handwriting, reprimands intended to be read by others, and eulogies which were to be seen only by himself. To such an extent, indeed, had insincerity now tainted the King's whole nature, that his most devoted friends could not refrain from complaining to each other, with bitter grief and shame, of his crooked politics. His defeats, they said, gave them less pain than his intrigues. Since he had been a prisoner, there was no section of the victorious party which had not been the object both of his flatteries and of his machinations: but never was he more unfortunate than when he attempted at once to cajole and to undermine Cromwell [History of England, I., pp. 99–100].
  • 66. The Duke of Hamilton had so far the reputation of a practical soldier that he had led the British contingent in the army of Gustavus at the battle of Leipzic, but whether he was there to give the sanction of his rank or to do the real work of a soldier is open to question. Lord Callander was lieutenantgeneral of the army. Middleton had command of the horse, and Baillie of the foot. These two were practical soldiers, but neither of them had earned a propitious reputation [Burton, VI., p. 411].
  • 67. Turner's Memoirs, p. 52. Burton, VI., p. 411. Gardiner, IV., p. 132.
  • 68. Acts of Parliament of Scotland, VI., part ii., p. 102. Gardiner, IV., p. 155.
  • 69. Turner's Memoirs, pp. 53–55. Baillie's Letters, III., pp. 47–49. Gardiner, IV., pp. 155–156.
  • 70. Council Records, II., p. 131.
  • 71. Ibid., II., p. 132. On the following day the session of the kirk of Glasgow declared "that they are not satisfied as to the lawfulness, necessity, and manner of prosecuting the war; and desire that the levy may be stopped, and that religion, loyalty, and the king may be kept in their proper places." The presbytery also refused to send chaplains or to read any of the papers of the parliament. Messrs. Baillie of the Laigh kirk, Gillespie of the Outer kirk, and Dixon were appointed to draw up a supplication and remonstrance to parliament [Clelland, p. 20; see also Baillie's Letters, III., p. 46].
  • 72. Council Records, II., p. 134.
  • 73. Ibid.
  • 74. Ibid., II., p. 135. 1648, c. 168, Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., p. 90. Repealed by the Act 1649, c. 19, Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., p. 133. The warrant for the incarceration of those magistrates appears to have been written by Sir Archibald Primrose of Carrington and Chesters, clerk of the privy council, and this formed one of the charges against him, in respect of which he was removed from that and his other offices by a decree, dated 10th March, 1649 [Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., pp. 268, 701]. But on 29th March, 1651, Parliament ratified a gift by king Charles II. of these offices in favour of Sir Archibald [Ibid., VI., part ii., p. 656].
  • 75. 1648, c. 174, Acts of Parliament., VI., part ii., p. 91. Repealed by the Act 1649, c. 19. Council Records, II., p. 135.
  • 76. 1648, c. 175, Ibid., pp. 91, 92. Repealed ut supra. Council Records, II., p. 136.
  • 77. 1648, c. 181, Ibid., p. 93. Council Records, II., pp. 136, 137. Repealed ut supra,
  • 78. 1648, c. 202, Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., p. 105. Repealed ut supra.
  • 79. Council Records, II., pp. 137-139. Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., p. 105.
  • 80. Council Records, II., pp. 139–141; Baillie, III., p. 47.
  • 81. Council Records, II., p. 141.
  • 82. Ibid., II., pp. 141, 142.
  • 83. Ibid. On the 24th of June the following ammunition was found to be in the Tolbooth:— Pikes, new and old, 136; bandoliers, 53; newdressed muskets, 101; old muskets, 60; onehalf barrel and firkin of powder; a peck full of ball; new swords, 53; old swords, 21; 4 colours [Council Records, II., p. 142]. On 15th July the treasurer was ordered to pay £30 12s. for ribbons furnished to the soldiers who went out for the town under captain Lymburner [Ibid., II., p. 144].
  • 84. Anteu, pp. cccxlv.-vi.
  • 85. Council Records, II., p. 157.
  • 86. Ibid., II., p. 158.
  • 87. Ibid., II., p. 182.
  • 88. Ibid., II., pp. 184-185.
  • 89. Inventure of Wrytes and Evidents, 1696, I., b. 4, No. 22, p. 102.
  • 90. Ibid., No. 23, p. 102,
  • 91. Ibid., No. 24, p. 103.
  • 92. Inventure of Wrytes and Evidents, 1696, I., b. 4, No. 25, p. 103.
  • 93. Ibid., No. 26, p. 103.
  • 94. Ibid., No. 27, p. 103. A detailed account of this purchase is given by Dr. Hill in his History of Hutchesons' Hospital and School, published for the preceptor and patrons of the hospital in 1881. [See also M'Ure, pp. 53, 54; Glasghu Facies, II., 11521164.] The disposition of these lands by Sir Robert Douglas and his spouse, and the charter of confirmation by the commissioners of the duke of Lennox were confirmed by parliament on 20th May, 1661 [1661, c. 235, Acts of Parliament, VII., 220–223]. The lands of Gorbals and Bridgend thus acquired by the town formed originally a part of the lands of Govan, one of the earliest possessions of the bishops and archbishops of Glasgow. Previous to being feued in 1579, the lands were let to rentallers, the earliest of whom, so far as has been traced, was John Elphinston, who appears to have possessed a rental right prior to 1520. On 22nd March, 1521, George Elphinston, his son, was rentalled in the "vj lib. land of Bryghend and Gorbaldis," under reservation of the liferent of Beatrice Wardlaw, his mother, whose rights, as widow of John Elphinston, had been preserved by the archbishop, notwithstanding her second marriage without his consent [Glasgow Diocesan Registers (Grampian Club), I., pp. 26, 78, 82]; and in 1554 the son of George Elphinston, also named George, sold or mortgaged a property in the High Street of Glasgow for the purpose of raising money to get himself rentalled in the lands [Glasgow Protocols, No. 187]. The name of the new rentaller was entered on 17th May, 1554 [Diocesan Register, I., p. 154]. On 6th June, 1563, Elizabeth Colquhoun obtained licence from the bishop to continue in possession after she entered into another marriage, "notwithstanding our actis in the contrar." This would seem to indicate that Elizabeth was the widow of an Elphistoun, and as such entitled during her viduity to continue in the possession of her husband's rental right [Ibid., p. 179]. If the statement in Brown's History of Glasgow [I., p. 116] be correct, the lands and lordship were subsequently granted in portion by archbishop Boyd to his niece, Miss Boyd, of Trochrig, who had married Sir George Elphinston of Blythswood. This statement is not confirmed in any way however; and the title deeds still extant show that the old rental right was converted into a feu holding in favour of George (not then Sir George) Elphinston on 13th November, 1579. On that date archbishop Boyd, with consent of the dean and chapter, granted the lands in feu to George Elphinston of Blythswood for payment of a yearly feu duty of £6 and 8 bolls of meal at the mill of Partick [Inventure of Wrytes and Evidents (1696), pp. 99, 100; b. 44, No. 1.] This charter, upon which sasine was taken on 8th March, 1580 [Ibid., No. 2, p. 100], was confirmed by king James VI. by charter under the great seal, dated 10th December, 1579 [Great Seal Register, 1546-1580, No. 2938. Inventure, ut sup., No. 3, p. 100]. Elphinston afterwards resigned these lands, as well as those of Blythswood, and obtained a precept from chancery authorising his infeftment in the whole of them, and they were erected into a free barony, called the barony of Blythswood. Upon this precept he was infeft on 9th February, 1595 [Inventure, ut sup., No. 4, p. 100]. On 2nd September, 1600, he was admitted a burgess of the city, under the name and title of Sir George Elphinston of Blythswood [Council Records, I., p. 211]; on 24th November, he, as Sir George, received from the king a charter of the lands and barony of Leyis [Great Seal Register, 1593-1608, No. 1108, p. 381], and on the 28th of the same month a charter by the king, in his favour, of the new park of Partick, refers in flattering terms to his services to his Majesty [Ibid., No. 1110]. On 6th October, 1600, moreover, he was, on the nomination of the duke of Lennox and the recommendation of the king, appointed provost of Glasgow [Antea, p. cxcix.], and reappointed to the same office apparently in 1602 and 1603. At all events he was reappointed in 1604 and 1605 [Antea, pp. ccx. and ccxxiv]. On 25th November, 1607, archbishop Spottiswood granted Sir George a charter of these lands, which he exempted from the jurisdiction of the bailie of the barony and regality of Glasgow; he also empowered the inhabitants of the Blythswood barony, and specially of the lands and town of Bridgend, to exercise all kinds of merchandise and trade; and constituted Sir George and his heirs heritable bailies and justiciars of the lands confirmed to him [Inventure, ut sup., No. 5, p. 100. Great Seal Register, 16091620, No. 540, p. 201]. Sasine in favour of Sir George was expede on this charter on 18th April, 1608 [Inventure, ut sup., No. 6, p. 100], and the charter and infeftment were confirmed by king James VI. by charter dated 23rd July, 1611 [Great Seal Register, 16091620, No. 540, p. 201. Inventure, ut sup., No. 7, p. 100]. On 13th September, 1616, Sir George obtained from the principal and regents of the college, &c., patrons and proprietors of the teinds and teind sheaves of, inter alia, the lands of Gorbals, a tack for nineteen years, after Lammas of that year, of these teinds and teind sheaves, both parsonage and vicarage [Inventure, ut sup., No. 8, p. 100]. But on 18th January, 1634, Sir George conveyed to Robert, viscount Belhaven, the several lands, with the office of bailiary and justiciary, which are thus described in the deed of conveyance:—"All and haill that my sex pund land of Gorballs and Briggend, with coales and coaleheuchis within the boundis of the samen lands; all and haill that my 33s. 4d. land of Woodsyde; all and haill that my 13s. 4d. land of Cowcaddens; all and haill that my 13s. 4d. land of Nether Newton, with the new park adjacent therto, called Newtoun Park, all haldin of the archbishop of Glasgow, and lyand within the baronie and regalitie of Glasgow; together with the heritable office of baillerie of the saids lands; with all the privilegis therof mentioned in my infeftment of the samen lands; and siclyke all and haill that my thrie pund land of Blythiswood of auld extent, lyand within the sherefdome of Lanark, and haldin of the person of Erskine; with castellis, towris, fortalices, maner placis, houssis, biggingis, yards, orchards, milnes, woods, fishings, shawis, medowis, annexis, connexis, insettis, outsettis, parts, pendicles, and pertinents of the samen lands and park quhatsumever, lyand as said is. And in like maner that my tenement of land, back and fore, under and above, with yarde and pertinents lyand within the citie of Glasgow, and haldin thairof; together with the dowcatt standing upon the west syde of the said citie, within the grene called the Little Grein there" [Ibid., No. 9, p. 101]. On 29th June thereafter he granted to lord Belhaven two charters of these lands, the holding in one to be of him and in the other of the archbishop. Upon these two charters lord Belhaven was infeft on 22nd August, 1634 [Ibid., No. 11, p. 101]. Immediately afterwards curators were appointed to George Elphinstoun, son and heir of Sir George, conform to act of curatory, dated 4th September, 1634 [Ibid., No. 13, p. 101], and in 1635 the minor, with consent of his curators, renounced his right of succession to his father, and ratified lord Belhaven's title [Ibid., No. 14, p. 101]. On 11th August, 1635, archbishop Lindsay not only ratified, in favour of lord Belhaven, the charters in his favour above referred to, but made a fresh grant to him of the lands and bailiary, under reservation of the escheats of the lands, excepting bludewits, and amerciaments [Ibid., No. 12, p. 101]. On 23rd September, 1636, lord Belhaven conveyed the lands, &c., to Robert Douglas of Blackerstoun, and Susana Douglas his wife, and the longer liver of them in conjunct fee, and their heirs [Ibid., No. 15, p. 101], and he also, on the same day, granted two charters to them of the lands, &c., one to be holden of himself and the other of his superior [Ibid., No. 16, p. 101]. Upon these charters Douglas and his wife were infeft on 11th October, 1636 [Ibid., No. 17, p. 101]. On 15th February, 1645, this charter by lord Belhaven to Douglas and his spouse was ratified by the commissioners of the duke of Lennox [Ibid., No. 18, p. 101]. In this charter Douglas is named Sir Robert, and five days later, viz., on 20th February, Douglas resigned the lands, &c., in favour of the duke for new infeftment in favour of himself and his spouse, whereupon they, on 19th April, were infeft conform to instrument of sasine recorded on the same day [Ibid., No. 20, p. 102].
  • 95. Act Book of Exchequer. Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., p. 79. Glasgow Charters, part ii., p. 417.
  • 96. Original in the Archives of the City. Great Seal Register, 1634-51, p. 917, No. 1,928. Register of the Privy Seal, vol. cxiv., folio 374. Glasgow Charters, part ii., pp. 418-423. See Note 1, p. ccccxxiv. On 11th May, 1648, the estates of parliament ratified the act of exchequer of 18th February, 1648, the charter of mortification of the same date, and the sasine following thereon [1648, c. 145, Acts of Parliament, VI, part ii., p. 79. Glasgow Charters, part ii., pp. 424, 425, No. 123], the duke of Hamilton protesting that this parliamentary ratification should not prejudice his right of patronage, and other rights and taoks of the sub-deanery of Glasgow, and of the kirks of Monkland and Calder [Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., p. 87].
  • 97. Writing from Edinburgh on 1st September, 1647, Robert Baillie says:—"The pest for the time, vexes us. In great mercie Edinburgh and Leith, and all about, which lately were afflicted with more of this evill than ever wes heard of in Scotland, are free: some few infections now and then, but they spread not. Aberdeen, Brechin, and other parts of the north, are miserablie wasted. St. Andrews and Glasgow, without great mortalitie, are so threatened, that the schooles and colledges now in all Scotland, bot Edinburgh, are scattered" [Baillie, III., p. 18].
  • 98. Council Records, II., p. 144.
  • 99. Council Records, II., p. 144.
  • 100. Ibid., II., p. 145.
  • 101. Ibid., II., pp. 146, 147. Writing on the 23rd of August, 1648, Baillie says:—"At this time I was greeved for the state of Glasgow. The pest did increase. My brother's son's house was infected ; my brother's house inclosed many in danger; one night near a dossen dyed of the sickness . . . yet the Lord hes been marvellously gracious to my brother and his son: no harme at all hes come to them ; and the danger of the towne, blessed be God, is much diminished" [Baillie's Letters, III., p. 65].
  • 102. Council Records, II., p. 147.
  • 103. Ibid., II., p. 149.
  • 104. Ibid., II., p. 123.
  • 105. Ibid., II., p. 124.
  • 106. Ibid., II., p. 126.
  • 107. Ibid., II., pp. 127, 128.
  • 108. Ibid., II., p. 128.
  • 109. Council Records, II., p. 132.
  • 110. Ibid., II., pp. 133, 513-4.
  • 111. Ibid.
  • 112. The Engagers undertook a mighty project, destined, according to their own expectations, to revolutionise the whole tenor of the events passing before their eyes. They were to raise an army and send it to England to retrieve the cause of royalty, and rescue king Charles. However essential deliberation might be for such a project, it could not be afforded. The king was as urgent as his solemn nature and the difficulty of communication through his prison walls in Carisbrooke permitted him to be. The scattered royalists cried aloud to send an army—to send it at once before the golden opportunity was lost. It was not a sufficient force deliberately embodied and trained that the exigency demanded, but a force able to march into England, and there become a centre to which the ardent royalists would hasten. It was thus to be an invasion, not with a force sufficient for its own purposes, but to co-operate on the chances of aid expected by the sanguine partisans of a broken cause, and it encountered the fate common to such ventures [Burton VI., pp. 410-11]. The character of the army so despatched is thus described by Burnet:—"The regiments were not full, many of them scarce exceeded half their number, and not the fifth man could handle pike or musket. The horse were the best mounted ever Scotland sent out, yet most of the troopers were raw and undisciplined. They had no artillery—not so much as one field piece—very little ammunition, and very few horse to carry it; for want of which the duke stayed often in the rear of the whole army till the countrymen brought in horses, and then conveyed it with his own guard of horse. Thus the precipitation of affairs in England forced them on a march before they were in any posture for it; but now they were engaged, and they must go forward" [Burnet's Memoirs, p. 355].
  • 113. "Undoubtedly," says Burton, "it was not an affair where 8,000 men met 21,000 in open battle and conquered them" [Burton, VI., p. 414].
  • 114. For accounts of this battle see Cromwell's Report to Speaker Lenthall of 20th August [Carlyle's Cromwell, I., pp. 288–296]; Sir Marmaduke Langdale's account [Remains Historical and Literary, &c. (Chetham Society), II., pp. 268–270, quoted by Burton, VI., pp. 415– 417]; Gardiner, IV., pp. 164–189; Harrison's Cromwell, pp. 121–122.
  • 115. Gardiner, IV., pp. 169–191.
  • 116. "The battle of Preston," says Frederick Harrison, "was one of the most decisive and important victories ever gained by Cromwell, over the most numerous enemy he ever encountered, and the first in which he was in supreme command. Although the enemy's forces were nearly threefold his, well armed, and of high courage, so great was the disparity in military skill, that it was rather a prolonged massacre than a battle" [Oliver Cromwell, p. 121].
  • 117. Hamilton and all with him having "the lives and safety of their persons assured to them" [Gardiner, IV., p. 192]. Notwithstanding he was arraigned before the same High Court of Justice as tried the king, and executed on 9th March, 1649, meeting his fate, says Burton, with heroic calmness [Burton, VII., p. 3].
  • 118. Burton, VI., p. 418; Gardiner, IV., pp. 192–193.
  • 119. Gardiner, IV., pp. 194–197.
  • 120. Gardiner, IV., p. 227.
  • 121. It is at this period, says Burton, that we find, for the first time in the south-west of Scotland, a zeal for the covenant, heating by degrees until it at last outflamed the zeal of the east, where the covenant had its cradle. At Mauchline, in Ayrshire, a large body of men assembled under the auspices of Lord Eglinton, a zealous covenanting potentate. They formed themselves into a military party, and marched in the direction of Edinburgh, gathering as they went [Burton, VI., p. 419]. The crowd of half-armed peasants who accompanied Eglinton on this expedition was known as the Whiggamores—whiggam being the cry, it is said, by which they encouraged their horses. Hence the expedition was afterwards known as the Whiggamore raid, giving rise afterwards to the name of the political party known as the "Whigs." See Burton, ut supra, and the references there given.
  • 122. Ibid., p. 420. Gardiner, IV., p. 228.
  • 123. Council Records, II., p. 148.
  • 124. Ibid.
  • 125. Council Records, II., p. 148.
  • 126. Carlyle's Cromwell, I., pp. 307, 308, 310, 311, 315, 318, 321. Gardiner, IV., pp. 227, 228.
  • 127. Carlyle's Cromwell, I., pp.322–329. Burton, VI., p. 420. Grub, III., p. 136. Gardiner, IV., pp. 230, 231. If Patrick Gordon of Ruthven is to be trusted the English soldiers conducted themselves with great arrogance in Edinburgh [Britaine's Distemper (Spalding Club), pp. 212, 213].
  • 128. Council Records, II., pp. 149, 150.
  • 129. Gardiner, IV., p. 214.
  • 130. Hallam's History of England, II., pp. 215217. Gardiner, IV., p. 222. Carlyle's Cromwell, I., p. 322.
  • 131. Hallam's History of England, II., pp. 222, 223.
  • 132. Gardiner, IV., p. 244.
  • 133. Ibid., IV., pp. 259,260. Harrison's Cromwell, p. 125.
  • 134. Council Records, II., p. 151.
  • 135. Ibid., II., p. 152.
  • 136. Council Records, II., p. 153.
  • 137. Ibid., II., p. 154.
  • 138. Council Records, I., p. 154.
  • 139. Gardiner, IV., p. 245. Carlyle's Cromwell, I., p. 333.
  • 140. Gardiner, IV., p. 247.
  • 141. Carlyle's Cromwell, I., p. 345-6.
  • 142. This action is known as "Pride's Purge." "Pride's Purge," says Harrison, was the most revolutionary of the three great acts of force by which the army coerced the Parliament. In August, 1647, parliament submitted to the will of the army without actual force being used, and without breach of any constitutional form. Cromwell's dismissal of the rump in April, 1652, was the virtual dissolution of the mere ghost of a Parliament by a de facto dictator. But Pride's purge was bare military violence, like any modern coup d'état. It was carried out under orders from head quarters, with the consent and in the name of Fairfax, the commander-in-chief, by the general's staff, and was mainly contrived by Ireton and Ludlow. Cromwell, like Fairfax, adopted and accepted it; but he did not direct it. He probably was not consulted. . . It is with Pride's purge in 1648, and not with Cromwell's dismissal in 1653, that the long parliament of 1640 virtually ends. Three hundred and fifty members voted in the division which occasioned it. The divisions after it did not exceed fiftythree. The house, its officials, those who sat in it, and those who accepted its decisions, after such an act as that of 6th December, were plainly content to accept the name of Parliament without the reality. . . . The purging of the house was the means to bring about the will of the army, and the will of the army was to close the era of timorous compromise by bringing to judgment "the man of blood" [Cromwell, pp. 126, 127].
  • 143. Apart from two members who were liberated after a short detention, and adding a few who were arrested some days later, the total number of members in confinement was 45, whilst 96 others who had offered no resistance had been simply turned back by the soldiers and forbidden to enter the house, making in all 143 affected by Pride's purge. In the end the prisoners were set free on giving their parole to make no attempt to return to their places in the house [Gardiner, IV., p. 273].
  • 144. Carlyle's Cromwell, IV., p. 274.
  • 145. Ibid., IV., p. 272.
  • 146. Gardiner, IV., p. 286.
  • 147. Gardiner, IV., pp. 289, 290.
  • 148. 1649, c. 13, Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., pp. 129, 130.
  • 149. 1649, c. 19, Ibid., pp. 133–138. On the same day also an act was passed for purging the judicatories and other places of public trust of such persons as had been accessory to the Engagement, or were included in any of the four several classes specified in the act of classes [1649, caps. 29, 30, and 31, Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., pp. 143–148]. These acts, prepared probably by Warriston, are, says Burton, long discursive papers, unlike the general substance of the Scots' statute books, and bearing more resemblance to the work of the ecclesiastical than of the civil power. Through all the wild work of the period, the utterances of the legislature and the supreme tribunals generally preserve a grave decorum; but these acts are full of vehement raving. They are a testimony as well as a law, and a song of triumph over a beaten enemy infused through both; in this capacity they refer to the defeat of the Scots by an English army as something like a special mercy [Burton, VI., p. 432]. On the 18th of January 1649, all the mem bers of the Scottish parliament declared on oath that they had no knowledge of, nor were accessory to the proceedings of the English army in relation to the king's person, or the houses of the parliament of England, or the restrained members thereof [1649, c. 24, Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., p. 140].
  • 150. 1649, c. 29, Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., p. 143.
  • 151. In accordance with their instructions, these commissioners wrote the speaker of the English house of commons, protesting against its action, and the letter was ordered by the Scottish parliament, on 30th January, to be printed [Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., p. 152].
  • 152. Among those present were Fairfax, Cromwell, and Ireton. Fairfax, however, did not sign the order of adjournment, and never afterwards appeared in the court [Gardiner, IV., p. 293].
  • 153. The whole of the proceedings connected with the king's trial are described by Gardiner, IV., pp. 293–313.
  • 154. Gardiner, IV., pp. 314–324. Carlyle's Cromwell, I., p. 349. Grub, III., p. 137. With the "High Court of Justice" by which he was tried and condemned, says Burton, Scotland had no concern. On England lay the responsibility of the act [VI., p. 424]. As regards the king's execution Gardiner says—"Whether the necessity really existed or was but the tyrant's plea, is a question upon the answer to which men have long differed, and will probably continue to differ. All can perceive that with Charles' death the main obstacle to the establishment of a constitutional system was removed. Personal rulers might indeed reappear, and parliament had not yet so displayed its superiority as a governing power to make Englishmen anxious to dispense with monarchy in some form or other. The monarchy, as Charles understood it, had disappeared for ever. Insecurity of tenure would make it impossible for future rulers long to set public opinion at naught, as Charles had done. The scaffold at Whitehall accomplished that which neither the eloquence of Eliot and Pym nor the Statutes and Ordinances of the Long Parliament had been capable of effecting" [Gardiner, IV., p. 329, 330]. As to the opinions expressed on the event by other historians see Hume's History of England, cap. lix., Hallam's History of England, III., p. 227. Carlyle's Cromwell, I., pp. 350, 351. Macaulay, I., pp. 100, 101. Adolph Gneist's History of English Court, II., pp. 255, 256. Harrison's Cromwell, p. 129.
  • 155. 1649, c. 52, Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., p. 157.
  • 156. 1649, c. 53, Ibid., p. 158.
  • 157. 1649, c. 56, Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., p. 159.
  • 158. Council Records, II., pp. 158, 159.
  • 159. 1649, c. 22, Acts of Parliament, VI., part ii., p. 276.