In 1605 Glasgow could lay no claim to the position of second city of the
kingdom that had virtually, though not yet legally, become United by
reason of the accession of James VI of Scotland to the English throne.
It was not in the first rank, even on its own side of the Tweed, and in
a gracious and flattering reference to its condition and estate His
Majesty could not go beyond the qualified statement that, "in quantitie
and number of trafficquers and others inhabitants", it was inferior to
few of the cities and burghs in his northern dominions.[276] There was,
indeed, one matter with regard to which it stood on a lower municipal
level than either Edinburgh or Perth, Stirling or Dundee. In the choice
of its Provost and Magistrates it did not enjoy the full freedom that
was the privilege of those more important centres of population.
Prior to the Reformation, and as late after it as the closing year of
the sixteenth century, the nomination of the Provost and the selection
of the Bailies lay with the Archbishops as temporal, no less than
spiritual, superiors of Glasgow. In 1600, however, the King, by a
charter dated November 17th, granted to Ludovic, Duke of Lennox, the
castle of Glasgow and the heritable right of appointing the civic
rulers.
On September 30th of the same year, Sir George Elphinstone of Blythswood
appeared before the Town Council, and presented a letter from Duke
Ludovic nominating him Provost for the ensuing year. He was also the
bearer of an official communication from the King himself, whose friend
and favourite he was, and who warmly recommended him for the dignity.
The nomination of Sir George, a clever lawyer, who subsequently rose to
the rank of Lord Justice-Clerk, appears to have been popular, and he was
duly accepted.
With regard to the election of Bailies, the Council was less
accommodating. The letter brought by Elphinstone directed that the leet
from which a selection was to be made should be submitted, not to
himself, but to the Sheriff, to whom he delegated his authority. Such a
course was objected to as being both derogatory and contrary to use and
wont; and the Council firmly refused to present the leet to any
substitute, or to recognize any nomination but such as came from his
Lordship's own mouth. In accordance with the resolution arrived at in
vindication of their dignity, the Corporation sent Thomas Pettigrew, as
its commissioner, to Brechin, where the Duke was staying at the time,
and, through him, submitted a list of eight names from which Lennox was
to select three.
Unprepared as was Duke Ludovic for such prompt and resolute action on
the part of the Glasgow Municipality, he adopted the judicious course of
yielding temporary acquiescence to its claims, and on October 7th,
Pettigrew was able to report, as the successful result of his mission,
that Robert Rowat, James Forett, and Alexander Baillie had been chosen
to fill the vacant magisterial seats. Owing to a regrettable gap of
nearly four years in the Burgh Records, it is impossible to ascertain
what further steps were taken by either side during the period extending
from October 27th, 1601, to June 13th, 1605. The only available
information bearing on this point is to be gathered from the Register of
the Privy Council of Scotland. From a statement to be found there, it
appears that Lennox had not maintained his conciliatory attitude towards
the Town Council, but that, persisting in his original course, he had
devised a means by which the Stewarts of Minto had, under him, "the
exercise of the officeis of the said town in their personis".[277]
By August 3rd, 1605, the Municipal Authorities had realized that a
greater power than theirs was required to secure for them the free
exercise of what they claimed to be rights and privileges sanctioned by
the King. On that day a deputation, headed by Sir George Elphinstone and
consisting of the Dean of Guild, of one of the Bailies, and of four
Councillors, was appointed to go to Edinburgh to settle and end the
matter by an appeal to the Privy Council. This further step having
proved unavailing, the Corporation, on the 27th of the same month,
"ernestlie requestit and desyrit" their Provost to undertake a journey
to London, in order to invoke the intervention and aid of James himself.
Thanks to Sir George's personal influence and to the favour in which he
stood with his sovereign, as much, perhaps, as to the justice of his
cause, Lennox was at length prevailed upon to grant the persistent
petitioners "the full libertie, fredome, and priviledge of the electioun
of thair Magistrattis", without, however, renouncing in any other
respect his right of justiciary and bailliary of regality within and
around the city.
Sir George Elphinstone's colleagues were not slow to give practical
expression to the gratitude that they felt for his public-spirited
conduct and to the value that they set on the success of his efforts on
their behalf. On October 2nd, 1665, after he had been "removeit of
Counsall", they all, with one voice, in respect of the singular care,
great zeal and love had and borne by him to the weal and liberty of the
Burgh, nominated, elected, and chose him for their Provost. On the same
day and in the further exercise of the freedom which he had secured, a
list of nine names, including those of three of the "auld Bailies", was
submitted to the remainder of the Council, who, by plurality of votes,
chose William Anderson, Mathew Turnbull, and Robert Rowat. In
recognition of the honour conferred upon them, the new Provost and
Magistrates renounced the right which the custom of the time appears to
have given them, to the fines levied for certain offences.
Amongst the citizens of Glasgow there was a minority which, looking at
the extension of municipal liberty from the point of view of personal
interest, felt deeply aggrieved by the new system of magisterial
election. It consisted of the members and friends of the house of Minto,
a family which had for many generations possessed considerable local
influence, and of which the head, Sir Mathew Stewart, had himself filled
the position of Provost. It was plain to them, however, that as long as
the Council remained united, resistance would be futile, and that their
only hope of worsting their opponents lay in dividing them.
For the attainment of this object the means that suggested itself as
most feasible was the formation of a faction amongst the craftsmen of
the city, "for the most part rude and ignorant men", of whom plausible
arguments might make blind and determined partisans. The deacons of some
of the numerous crafts or incorporations were first approached. The
Stewarts represented to them that the liberty newly acquired by the
Council was "nothing else but a manifest thraldom and tyranny against
the crafts, a dissolution of the estate of the town, and an heritable
establishing of the offices and jurisdiction of the town in the persons
of a small number". So widely and successfully did the agitators
propagate their "subtile and fals informatioun" that in the end it was
"embraced for a treuth be the haill ignorant multitude".
Encouraged by these results, Sir Mathew Stewart saw his way to give more
definite and formal shape to his opposition. Shortly before the time
when the Provost and his fellow Magistrates were to apply to Parliament
for the ratification of their liberty and freedom of election he
convoked a meeting, which was held at seven o'clock in the morning, in
the house of John Ross, a Town Councillor whom he had won over to his
side, and at which between forty and fifty prominent citizens were
present. The malcontents drew up a petition against the ratification
craved by the Town Council, and, after having appended their several
signatures to it, entrusted it to John Ross, James Braidwood,
deacon-general, and Ninian Anderson, deacon of the Cordwainers, to be
presented to the Lords of the Articles, by whom its prayer was duly
granted.
To protect themselves from the consequences of proceedings that might be
made to appear factious and seditious, seeing that the meeting had taken
place without the presence, knowledge, or consent of the Magistrates,
the Stewarts procured from the Lords of Council and Session an exemption
in favour of all who had subscribed the application.
Of the sequel there is only one detailed account. It is contained in the
complaint subsequently brought before the Privy Council by the Provost
and Magistrates, and embodying what is essentially the official view of
the case. Whilst it would be unjustifiable to impugn the veracity of
this document, there can be no doubt that it places facts in the light
least favourable to the agitators; and that in the motives and
intentions which it imputes to them it goes further than those facts
seem to warrant. It sets forth that, the further to irritate and incense
the common multitude against the Magistrates, and to make it appear that
they had credit and power to overthrow these at their pleasure, Minto
and his accomplices, accompanied by a crowd of some three or four score,
all in arms, with targets, swords, and other invasive weapons, came in a
very tumultuous and unseemly manner to the Market Cross, whilst the
Magistrates were sitting in Council close by; and that, disdaining to
ask for the key of the Cross, although it was lying in the Tolbooth
ready to be delivered to them, they clambered in, and proclaimed their
exemption, "quhilk in effect importit a liberty to thame to do quhat
they pleasit, without controlment".
It is alleged that the object of this "tumultuous and barbarous"
demonstration was to draw the Magistrates from the Council chamber, and
to tempt them to find fault with the proceedings, which would have
supplied a pretence for fastening a quarrel upon them and "persewing
them of their liveis". If such a design really existed, it was
frustrated by the conciliatory attitude assumed by the Provost and his
colleagues. Seeing the wisdom of coming to terms with the malcontents,
they made arrangements for a conference with the deacons, who, next to
the Stewarts themselves, appear to have taken the most prominent part in
the movement. The meeting was to take place on July 24th, 1606; and all
the ministers in the city, together with the regents of the College,
were summoned to attend it.
According to the official account, the Stewarts were apprehensive of the
result of the appointed conference, and resolved "to procure some
trouble and unquietness in the citie", for the purpose of preventing it
from being held. Three of them, it is alleged--Sir Walter, John, and
Alexander--knowing that Sir George Elphinstone had arranged to shoot off
an archery match at the Castle butts, on the evening of July 23, lay in
wait for him near the Drygate with a band of some forty men close at
hand at the Wyndhead--all "bodin in feir of weir", that is, equipped for
a warlike expedition, with steel bonnets, secret armour, plait sleeves,
longstaffs, and other weapons. As the Provost and his friends, who were
but five in number and bore no arms but their unbended bows, reached the
Drygate, one of them, James Forrett, left the party for the purpose of
fetching some arrows from his house. Before he could reach it, Sir
Walter, uttering insulting language, attacked him with drawn sword. By
this time Sir George had reached the Castle gate, but hearing the
altercation, he turned back and endeavoured to pacify the assailant with
"fair and gentle" words. "Sir," he said, "I pray you to go youre way; no
man sal offend you." His request was unheeded; and then, by the
authority of his office, as Provost of the city, he commanded Sir
Walter, in His Majesty's name, to go his way.
At this moment the alleged accomplices made their appearance on the
scene, and "concurring together, maist cruelli and feirslie set upoun
Sir George, and be force and violence drave him and his company back to
the Castell porte, quhair he was fred and relevit of the present
danger". Thereupon the Stewarts and their party retired to the Wyndhead,
where they remained, whilst James Braidwood, by their direction, ran
down the High Street, crying: "Arme you! arme you! They are yokit!" This
brought up a reinforcement of some two score "airmed men of the
seditious faction", headed by Sir Mathew Stewart. With united forces and
"with grite furie", the rioters made an onset on the Castle gate, where
the Provost was still in shelter. They were checked by the Earl of
Wigtown, the Master of Montrose, and the Laird of Kilsyth, three of His
Majesty's Privy Councillors, who happened to be at hand.
Being unable to get at Sir George with their longstaffs and weapons,
they spitefully threw a volley of stones at him, then rushed
tumultuously and apparently aimlessly, "doun the gait to the Barras yet,
far beneth the Croce". The tumult, however, was not yet over. Once again
the crowd made for the Castle gate, swollen by the accession of some 300
of the "rascall multitude", whom the prospect of plunder had attracted,
and who, as they trooped on, indicated their intentions by calling out
to each other, "I sall have this buith and thou sall have that buith".
Before their arrival the Provost had been removed to the shelter of the
Earl of Wigtown's mansion. An attempt was made to storm it; but the
Privy Councillors again intervened, and succeeded in dispersing the
rioters.
The Privy Councillors, to whose opportune intervention the quelling of
the disturbance was mainly due, at once took vigorous measures to
prevent the recurrence of outbreaks. The Lairds of Minto were confined
by them to the Castle of Dumbarton, whilst Sir George Elphinstone and
James Forrett were interned in that of Glasgow. On August 9th, the ward
was changed in both cases to the town of Stirling, where the several
parties were bound to remain under caution in sums ranging from 5000
merks to £5000, to keep the king's peace. Of the other persons
implicated, some were charged to enter ward in Perth, others in Dundee.
The 28th of the same month was appointed for the meeting of the Council
in Stirling, "to tak tryell in this commotion of Glasgow". The venue
was, however, subsequently changed owing to the breaking out of the
plague.
It happened that a fortnight before the Minto riots, on July 9th, 1606,
Parliament had passed an "Act for Staying of Unlawful Conventions within
Burgh". The Glasgow disturbance was the first occurrence that called for
the application of this Act. It was embodied in a "proclamation about
Glasgow", issued by the Privy Council on July 31st. The preamble
referred to the many good Acts of Parliament made by the king and his
predecessors, with regard to the modest, good, and peaceable behaviour
of the inhabitants within burgh, and to the staying of all tumults,
unlawful meetings and convocations, "quhairby it is expressly prohibite
and forbidden that all manner of persons within burgh, of quhatsumever
rank, qualitie, or condition thai be of, presume or take upon hand,
under quhatsumever cullor or pretext, to convein or assemble
thaimselffis upon any occasion, except thai make due intimation of the
lawfull causes of thair meittings to the Provost and Baillies of the
burgh, and obtain thair licence thairto, and that nothing salbe done be
thaim in thair saids meittings quhilk may tend to the derogation or
violation of the Acts of Parliament, lawis and constitutions made for
the wele and quietness of the said burghs"; and whereby also, "the saids
unlawfull meittings, and the persons present thereat, are by the saids
Acts of Parliament declairit to be factious and seditious; and all thair
proceidings thairin to be null and of non availl, and the saids persons
ordained to be punished in thair bodies and gear with all rigour". This
was followed by a narrative of the recent disturbance between the
citizens and the Magistrates--"A thing very undecent and unseamlie and
without ony preceiding example in ony burgh within this kingdome". Then
came instructions to the officers of arms to pass to the Mercat Cross of
Glasgow and there, by open proclamation, "to command and charge the
haill inhabitants of the said citie to lay asyde thair armour
immediatelie after the publication heirof, conteyne thaimselfis in
quietness, and behave them as modest, quiet, and peaceable citizens,
forbearing to convocat or assemble upon ony occasion thaimselfis
togidder fra this tyme furth, under quhatsumever cullor or pretext,
without the knowledge, consent, and licence of the saids Magistrates,
nor yit to do, practize nor attempt anything hurtfull or prejudiciall to
the saids Acts of Parliament, lawis and constitutions of the said citie:
certifying thaim that sall do in the contrair, that thai salbe repute,
haldin, esteimit, perseuit and punisht as factious and seditious
persons, perturbers of the peace and quiet of the said citie, with all
rigour and extreamitie, conforme to his Hienes laws and Acts of
Parliament made thairanent".
Complaints had been laid before the Privy Council, on the one side by
the Provost and Magistrates of the City of Glasgow against the Stewarts
and their abettors, on the other by Sir Walter Stewart of Arthurlie
against Sir George Elphinstone and the friends who accompanied him on
the eventful evening of July 23rd. Both cases were heard in Edinburgh on
August 27th, 1606. With respect to that in which the opponents of the
Corporation were the defenders, it was declared that those persons had
committed a "verie grite insolence and ryot". For this they were
condemned to be warded in the burgh of Linlithgow till His Majesty's
will was made known concerning them. At the same time the Lords
"assoilzed simpliciter" the Lairds of Minto, elder and younger, and all
the other defenders, from forethought felony intended against the
pursuers, and from the charge of "thair lying at await" for the Provost
at the Wyndhead of the city, the pursuers having failed to prove that
part of their complaint. On similar grounds, decree of absolvitor was
pronounced in favour of Sir George Elphinstone and his fellow defenders
in the suit brought against them at the instance of Sir Walter Stewart.
The King's pleasure was made known to his Privy Council in a letter
dated from Hampton Court on October 1st, 1606. After expressing his
astonishment that the information communicated to him was so scant as to
render it impossible for him to "mak ony distinctioun of offendouris in
that ryotte, that, according to the difference of thair faultis,
directioun micht haif bene gevin for inflicting upoun several personis
the moir mylde and moir hard punishment", His Majesty directed that the
meaner offenders should be released, after being bound in "greate
pecunnial sowmes for their due obedience to the Magistrates", but that
the Lairds of Minto, elder and younger, should both be "fynned in great
sowmes", and retained in ward until these were paid.
Such is the information to be gathered concerning an incident which is
of sufficient importance in itself to be recorded with greater detail
than is given in the local histories written before the publication of
the _Register of the Privy Council_. Another circumstance that lends
interest to the happily unique collision between the municipal
authorities and the citizens, is the coincidence that it was the first
occasion for the application of an Act to which, exactly three hundred
years later, the Magistrates of Glasgow found it expedient to appeal for
the staying of such "unlawfull conventions within burgh" as the
mustering and parading of street bands.