In Byways of Scottish History

by Louis A. Barbé

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.