Historical preface
1581-87

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Author

J.D. Marwick (editor)

Year published

1897

Supporting documents

Pages

118-145

Citation Show another format:

'Historical preface: 1581-87', Charters and Documents relating to the City of Glasgow 1175-1649: Part 1 (1897), pp. CXVIII-CXLV. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=47906 Date accessed: 22 October 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Contents

1581–87

On 4th February, 1580–1, the king, by two precepts under his privy seal, directed to the bailies, burgesses, and communities of Renfrew and Rutherglen, and all others whom it effeired, prohibited them from troubling any of the lieges coming with goods and merchandice to Glasgow. (fn. 1)

On 28th May, 1581, archbishop Boyd, chancellor of the university, with consent of the chapter, granted a deed of mortification in favour of the college, by which, in order that the yearly duty paid to it from the customs of Glasgow might not be impaired but rather augmented, he mortified to it all the customs of the tron, great and small customs, and those of fair or market, and of measure and weight, within the burgh, to be held of him and his successors in all time coming. (fn. 2) This document was confirmed by the king on the 17th of June thereafter, by a letter under his privy seal, (fn. 3) and both were ratified by parliament on 29th July, 1587. (fn. 4)

On 5th August, 1581, the earl of Lennox was created duke of Lennox, earl Darnlie, lord of Aubigny, Tarboltoun, and Dalkeith; (fn. 5) and on 13th December following he received another charter of the earldom and lordship of Lennox, &c., the office of sheriff of Dunbarton, the lands of Cruikisford, Inchinan, and others specified in the charter of 5th June, 1581, above referred to, all of which lands were incorporated in one free dukedom, lordship, barony, and regality, to be called the dukedom of Lennox. (fn. 6)

On 3rd October a leet of eleven persons was submitted to the archbishop, and he selected three to be bailies for the next year, but no reference is made in the records of the council to the election of the provost, (fn. 7) though he is referred to in acts of the town council dated 5th October, and subsequently. On 17th November, however, Sir Matthew Stewart is named as provost, and on 16th June, 1582, a letter from the duke is engrossed, in which he refers to the laird of Mynto as provost. (fn. 8)

The execution of the earl of Morton had placed what was practically absolute power in the hands of the earl, afterwards duke of Lennox, and captain Stewart, who was now earl of Arran. The duke, as has been mentioned, had made profession of adherence to presbytery, but nevertheless he, along with a large proportion of the nobility, warmly sympathised with the desire of the king to establish episcopacy. This desire was, however, opposed to repeated acts of the general assembly, and to the feeling of the great mass of the burghers, and middle and lower classes of the people. But on the death of archbishop Boyd, on 21st June, 1581, the king was induced by Lennox to appoint Mr. Robert Montgomery, minister of Stirling, to the archbishopric, (fn. 9) and in connection with that appointment a struggle between the crown and the kirk took place, which lasted till the close of 1585. In that struggle Lennox and Arran warmly supported the views of the king, and otherwise made themselves obnoxious to a large number of the nobility, of whom Gowrie, Mar, Lindsay, and others, were the leaders. A league was accordingly entered into to remove the king from their influence, and, towards the end of August, 1582, advantage was taken of his being on a hunting expedition at Ruthven castle,—while Lennox was at Dalkeith and Arran at Kinneil,—to take possession of his person and to restrain his liberty. On hearing of the king's seizure, Arran hastened to his relief, but was seized and imprisoned, first at Ruthven and afterwards at Duplin. Assured of the sympathy, and if necessary, of the support of Elizabeth, the leaders of the revolution, which was known as the "raid of Ruthven," rejected the overtures of Lennox to come to terms, and advised the king, who resented the proceedings of the raiders, and meditated escape and revenge, to command Lennox to return immediately to France. At the same time they required the duke to deliver up Dunbarton castle, to leave the country within twelve days, and meanwhile, to confine himself to either of his houses of Aberdour or Dalkeith. Notwithstanding these orders, however, Lennox fled to Dunbarton, but on 1st September applied for an extension of the time within which he was to leave the country. This was granted, under certification that if he remained beyond the time so extended, he would be pursued as a traitor with fire and sword. (fn. 10) He did not leave, however, at the time so assigned, or till the end of December, when he passed through England into France. He died at Paris on 26th May, 1583. (fn. 11)

On the return of the annual period for electing the provost and magistrates of Glasgow, leets of the bailies were prepared, and on 2nd October, 1582, sent to the archbishop's castle, but he was not there, and the council thereupon elected John Graham, Master Adam Wallace, and Hector Stewarde to fill the office. (fn. 12) Graham and Stewarde, however, appeared on the following day, and intimated that if the council would relieve them of the office they would demit it, otherwise Graham protested that the office which he held at the request of the provost, Sir Mathew Stewart, should "na wayes tend to the alteratioun of the libertie of the toune in his former electioun, nor be na preparative in time coming to do the like." The provost, therefore, "be the aduice of the priour of Blantyre, his brother, direct from the king's maiestie, with commission to the nominatioun of the bailies for this year," nominated William Cuningham, Master Adam Wallace, and Robert Stewarde, for the following year. Thereafter the prior requested his brother, Sir Mathew, "conform to his credit and commissioun of the king's maiestie, to accept the provostrie upon him for this year to cum," and he answered that "he walde be aduysit." On the 4th Graham and Stewarde protested that nothing connected with their election should prejudice the liberty of the town. Cuningham and Wallace also made similar protestation. (fn. 13)

On 9th October the general assembly met at Edinburgh, and not only cordially approved of the raid, but directed every minister to explain to his congregation the imminent perils from which it had delivered the nation, and to institute proceedings against all who expressed a different opinion. (fn. 14)

During these months the king had been secretly chafing against the restraint in which he was held by the raiders, and anxious, so long as Lennox lived, to secure his restoration. The intelligence of his death, and the message which the duke, on the last day of his life, sent him, affected the king deeply, and embittered his feelings towards the raiders. Concealing his intentions, however, he succeeded, on 25th June, 1583, in making his escape to St. Andrews, whither he summoned his supporters, and so effected a counter revolution, which completely overthrew the power of the confederate lords. The leaders of the raid, who had held him in restraint during the previous ten months, fled, and Arran was recalled to power. A royal proclamation was issued, declaring the raid to have been treason, and a convention of the estates held on 7th December passed an act declaring the raid to be "a crime of high treason of pernicious example, and meriting severe punishment," (fn. 15) and appointing the act of parliament of 19th October, 1582, approving of the raid, (fn. 16) to be deleted. This act of convention was confirmed by parliament on 22nd May, 1584. (fn. 17)

On 30th September, 1583, a new election of provost and magistrates took place. John, earl of Montrose, (fn. 18) lord Graham, &c., appeared before Sir Mathew Stewart, provost, and the bailies and council of the previous year, and presented a letter from the king nominating him to be provost for the following year. This nomination was accepted, and the earl admitted provost accordingly. Two days later leets for the bailies were prepared and sent to the castle, but the archbishop was not there, and the bailies of the preceding year were re-elected. (fn. 19)

After the king had succeeded in emancipating himself from the control of the raiders, he recalled Arran, who presented himself at court on 5th August, and the management of the public business passed into his hands. His administration had, however, become so hateful to a large number of the nobility and people of Scotland that a new rebellion was secretly organised, with the connivance of Elizabeth and her agents, and the earl of Gowrie, who had been pardoned for his participation in the former conspiracy, took an active part in secretly arranging the plans of the contemplated insurrection. Of his movements and schemes, and those of the other conspirators, Arran seems to have been fully informed, and he allowed the plot to be matured till his enemies had taken the field and committed themselves to an overt act of rebellion. He then seized Gowrie at Dundee and carried him a prisoner to Edinburgh, where the royal levies to crush the rebels were being collected. With an army of twelve thousand men the king advanced to Stirling, but the rebels, unable to meet this force, fled to England, leaving a small garrison in the castle of Stirling, which speedily surrendered. Gowrie was then brought to trial at Stirling on 2nd May, 1584, and, being condemned, was executed on the same day. (fn. 20)

Meanwhile, on the 8th of November, 1583, the king and the privy council passed an act of revocation, more comprehensive and peremptory than had previously been issued, of all gifts and grants out of the property of the crown. From this revocation, however, were excepted, among others, the assignations of the thirds of the bishopric of Caithness and priory of St. Andrews to Robert, earl of March, and the thirds of the abbey of Arbroath assigned to Ludovick, duke of Lennox, eldest son of Esme, the former duke. (fn. 21) Ludovick, at this time a lad of about thirteen years of age, was then on his way from France, by invitation of the king, and arrived at Leith on the 13th, accompanied by the master of Gray and five or six other attendants. On the following day the earls of Huntly, Crawford, Montrose, and others, met and escorted him to Kinneil, where the king was. James received him gladly, (fn. 22) and restored him to his father's honours and estates, but, in respect of his youth, committed him to the government of the earl of Montrose, (fn. 23) and on 9th December the earl, who had been constituted, by royal commission, sheriff of Dunbarton, and bailie of the dukedom and earldom of Darnley, "and havand commandiment of the manrent of all and sindrie his hienes lieges inhabitantes of the said dukrie and erledome and of the baronie and cietie of Glasgow, voluntarlie and benevolentlie" demitted these honours, "seing the noble and michtie lord Lewes, now duke of Lennox, is now becum in this realme, and sesit and enterit in the said duikrie and erledome, with all honouris, offices, and possessiones quhilkis pertenit to his umquhile fader, now resting with God, and Robert, erll of Marche, his greit-uncle and lauchfull tutour, in his name, be thameselffes and his deputtes, may bruke and enjoy the saides offices and manrent." Proclamation was thereupon ordered to be made at the market cross of Glasgow charging the inhabitants of the dukedom, earldom, barony, and city, to obey the duke and his tutor in these offices and manrent. (fn. 24)

The execution of Gowrie and the flight of his co-conspirators left Arran in possession of practically unrestrained power in Scotland, and he heartily co-operated with the king in his determination to maintain episcopacy. He obtained the command, first of the castle of Stirling, and afterwards also of the castle of Edinburgh, and on 15th May, 1584, secured a gift of the reversion of the office of chancellor of the kingdom, then held by Colin, earl of Argyle, who died in October of that year. (fn. 25) On the 20th of the same month parliament passed acts confirming the power of the king over all his states and subjects; declaring the supreme power, dignity, and authority of the three estates; discharging all jurisdictions and judgments not approved by parliament, and all assemblies and conventions without the king's special licence; prescribing the mode of deposing ministers and other beneficed persons; prohibiting ministers from being judges or exercising any other functions which might abstract them from their office; ratifying the declaration by the king and the estates regarding the raid of Ruthven and its aiders; disinheriting the posterity of the earl of Gowrie; annexing forfeited lands and rents to the crown; ratifying the king's revocation; annulling the proceedings of the ecclesiastical courts by which archbishop Montgomery had been excommunicated, and ordaining that he might enjoy all honours, dignities, and benefices as if these proceedings had never been taken. (fn. 26) Against the action of this parliament the kirk vehemently protested as an invasion of its rights. (fn. 27) The protest was presented to the king at the parliament held in December, 1585, and within twenty-four hours the king drew up with his own hand an answer in which he explained and vindicated his action. (fn. 28) Another session of parliament was held in August of the same year, and at it Arran's rule was confirmed, and acts were passed disinheriting the posterity of such persons as had been, or might afterwards be, convicted of the treasonable proceedings at Stirling in April; ordaining all beneficed persons—ministers, readers, and masters of colleges and schools—on being required by their bishop or commissioner, to subscribe an obligation to give dutiful submission and fidelity to the king, to obey the statutes of the previous parliament, and to give obedience to their bishop or commissioner in the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction, under pain of deprivation of their benefices, livings, and stipends; annulling the title to the possessions of abbeys, priories, and nunneries obtained from the king "in the troublous times of his minority;" annexing forfeited lands and rents to the crown; requiring all feus of kirk lands or long tacks set since 8th March, 1558, to be confirmed by the king under pain of nullity; and ratifying to the earl and countess of Arran all grants of lands, lordships, baronies, and others, made by the king to them. (fn. 29) A large portion of the forfeited estates was divided among Arran and his supporters; and Montrose, who had been made lord treasurer, received the lordship of Ruthven. (fn. 30) On the 5th of October, in the same year, Arran procured his election to the provostship of Edinburgh, (fn. 31) and, as if all this had not been enough, he was declared general lieutenant over the whole kingdom. "In a word," says Spottiswoode, "whatever he pleased was done, and without him nothing could be done." (fn. 32)

After the annulment by parliament in May, 1584, of the sentence of excommunication pronounced against him by the ecclesiastical courts, archbishop Montgomery resumed his functions, and on 7th October of that year leets for the bailies were presented to him, from which he selected three, George Elphinstone, William Conyngham, and Robert Rowat, and they were duly elected. At the same time he presented Sir William Livingstone of Kilsyth to be provost, and the requisite commission was granted to him by the bailies and council. Sir William, his son William, and Alexander Livingstone of Burnside, were afterwards made burgesses, and two days later Sir Matthew Stewart of Mynto and twenty-six other persons were elected councillors. (fn. 33) At the annual period for the election of magistrates, on 5th October of the following year, the archbishop appeared personally in the council and nominated Sir William for election, and he was elected accordingly. From a leet of eight persons submitted at the same time to the archbishop he selected three to be bailies, Robert Rowat, John Graham, and Robert Steward, and they also were appointed. Four days later Sir Matthew Stewart and thirtythree others were appointed councillors, the provost protesting that, the number being in excess of the accustomed number, the "ancient liberty of the town in choosing a reasonable number in time coming according to the number before observed" should not be prejudiced. (fn. 34)

The indignation with which the arrogance and rapacity of Arran were generally regarded throughout the country prepared the way for the exiled lords, including the Hamiltons, who were supported and encouraged by Elizabeth, returning to Scotland, and endeavouring to overthrow his influence and government. Leaving Berwick about the 17th of October, 1585, and advancing in two sections by Kelso and Peebles, they joined at Falkirk on 31st October, about 8,000 strong. On learning the movements of the invaders, whose object he well knew was the overthrow of his power, Arran, who was in ward at Kinneil in connection with the slaughter of lord Russell, which he was charged with having instigated, joined the king and the privy council at Stirling. A proclamation was immediately issued requiring all loyal subjects to meet the king at Crawford Castle in order to crush the rebellion, but this was met by a counter proclamation in which the invaders declared their object to be the defence of the reformed religion, the deliverance of the king from corrupt councillors, and the preservation of amity with England. After a short rest at Falkirk, the insurgent force advanced to Stirling, where the king then was in the castle, and attacked and captured the town. Arran, however, made his escape, but Montrose, Crawford, and others, retired within the castle. (fn. 35) Negotiations were then opened with the king by the beseiging lords, and on 4th November, Hamilton, Angus, Mar, and other chiefs of the insurgent party had an audience, with the result that a proclamation was issued announcing Arran's rule to be at an end, and Scotland to be under a new government. (fn. 36) John, lord Hamilton, the earls of Angus and Mar, and Mr. Thomas Lyoun of Balduky, master of Glammis, were appointed privy councillors on the 7th of that month. (fn. 37) Arran was thereupon deprived of his title, which belonged to the Hamiltons, and it was resumed by the head of that family. Between the 4th and the 10th of the following month of December a parliament was held at Linlithgow, and a number of acts were passed to adjust matters to the altered circumstances created by the revolution. An act of the estates for a league with England was ratified; the banished lords and their adherents were restored and their forfeitures abolished; special acts of favour and indemnity to lords John and Claud Hamilton, the earl of Morton (lord Maxwell), the master of Glammis, and others were passed; the family of the earl of Gowrie were restored to their estates and rights, and the ministers and masters of schools and colleges who had been exiled or displaced during Arran's administration were repossessed. An act was also passed for establishing the privy council, and, as so constituted, it included the names, among others, of John, lord Hamilton, the earls of Angus, Huntly, Mar, Rothes, Morton, Patrick Adamson, archbishop of St. Andrews, and lord Claud Hamilton, commendator of Paisley. The ordinary officers of state, continued or newly appointed, included Thomas Lyon, master of Glammis, treasurer, Sir John Maitland of Thirlstane, secretary, and Walter Stewart, prior of Blantyre, keeper of the privy seal. (fn. 38)

In all the proceedings connected with the changes thus effected, the king was very careful that nothing should be done to prejudice the precedence of the young duke of Lennox, and lord John Hamilton—who by reason of his nearness to the throne was named first in the new council, and curator of his insane brother who was now recognised as the true and sole earl of Arran—seems to have yielded much to the king in this particular. Much also was yielded to him in regard to his episcopal predilections, as these had been exhibited during the ascendancy of the now degraded Arran. "James' notions of kingly power," as Professor Masson observes, "were now fully formed; he was eager to give effect to them in speech and argument with those about him, and also, as far as he could, in action; and his resentment of the past severities of the presbyterian clergy in their dealings with himself, of their pulpit freedoms, and of their interferences with state affairs, had settled into an antipathy to the presbyterian system itself and a resolution to uphold the order of bishops. Hence, when the returned lords came round him, they had found him unmanageable on that point, and had been obliged to temporise or else resort to measures of compulsion which seemed undesirable in the circumstances. In vain had the two Melvilles and the other clerical leaders of the presbyterian cause admonished them of their duty. They answered, they behoved first to be settled in their own places, and then they would work wonders." (fn. 39)

About this time Montgomery seems to have entered into arrangements with the king and William Erskine, (fn. 40) parson of Campsie, and commendator of Paisley, a follower of the earl of Mar, under which he surrendered his right to the archbishopric, which was conferred on Erskine, with entry to the fruits for the year 1585, by a charter under the great seal, dated 25th December, 1585. In this charter, however, no reference is made to Montgomery, and the office is stated to be "vacant by the decease of Mr. James Boyd, the lait archbishop, or by the forfeiture of James [Beaton], sometime archbishop." (fn. 41)

While these things were being done in Scotland, the position of queen Mary was becoming more and more perilous. She had now been eighteen years a captive in England. Imprisoned there in violation of every principle of law and justice, it was her right and duty to attempt by all means to effect her escape, and if the means which she adopted to secure her liberty included negotiations with foreign powers to invade England, or plots with English subjects to subvert their sovereign, who subjected her to such restraint, she only exercised a right for which there is abundant justification. But the protracted drama was nearing its close, and the unfortunate queen was brought to trial. After consultation with her minister, Lord Burghley, on 24th September, 1586, a commission was issued by queen Elizabeth on 5th October to the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord chancellor Bromley, the lord treasurer Burghley, and forty-three other persons, peers, privy councillors, and judges to try the captive queen. (fn. 42) The demand of the French ambassador that she should have counsel assigned for her defence—a demand recognised in the case of the meanest criminal—was refused, and Elizabeth wrote Mary a letter requiring her to submit to trial and to make answer to whatever was objected against her. Against this command, as Mary regarded it, she made an indignant and dignified protest, and, on the arrival of her judges, she declined their jurisdiction. Finally she did appear before them in the great hall at Fotheringhay, on the 14th and 15th of October, and on the latter day the court adjourned till the 25th of the same month. On that day they again met at Westminster and heard witnesses, in the absence of the accused, after which they pronounced sentence against her. (fn. 43) The intelligence of this reached Scotland in the beginning of November, and two ambassadors were despatched to England to seek her release, but, as no satisfactory answer could be got to their representations, James wrote Elizabeth threatening vengeance if his mother were executed. Her ministers and parliament, however, pressed upon her the necessity, not only in her own interest, but in that of England, for having the sentence carried into effect, and on 22nd November it was intimated to Mary, and afterwards published by order of Elizabeth. Strenuous efforts were also made by the king of France to save Mary, but on 1st February, 1586–7, Elizabeth signed and delivered the warrant of execution, with incomprehensible levity, to Mr. Secretary Davison, who, by the queen's order, showed it to Walsingham, and both despatched a letter to Paulet, Mary's jailor at Fotheringhay, suggesting that he should do Elizabeth the service of putting Mary to death privately. This odious suggestion, however, Paulet immediately and peremptorily refused to execute, and Davison had to communicate the refusal to Elizabeth, who passionately declared that she would have her work executed by one Wingfield. Meanwhile, however, the privy council despatched the warrant to Fotheringhay on the 4th of February, and on the 7th its arrival was intimated to Mary. She then requested to have the services of her priest and almoner, but her request was refused. With supreme dignity and resignation she spent the night in making preparation for the tragedy of the following morning, and met her fate with a heroism which has done much to deepen the romance of her whole life. (fn. 44)

The announcement of Mary's death seems to have given rise in the mind of Elizabeth to conflicting feelings—satisfaction at the removal of a hated rival, apprehensions as to the consequences and the effect which the intelligence would produce on the civilized world, and possibly, also, remorse on account of her own action towards one who had appealed to her protection. But, with scandalous duplicity, she affected to disapprove and deeply to lament the execution; she professed indignant anger towards those who had only carried out her own commands, and overwhelmed in disgrace and ruin the unhappy Davison, who, as her secretary, had obeyed her behests.

When the intelligence of his mother's execution reached James, seven days after her death, he refused to receive the English ambassador who came to announce it; but at a meeting between two members of the Scottish privy council and the ambassador, the latter declared that the execution had been effected without the knowledge of Elizabeth, who was willing, he urged, to grant the king whatever satisfaction he might require. This offer the Scottish commissioners met by a demand for the names of the persons who had taken Mary's life, in order that they might be subjected to condign punishment. The king also determined to appoint archbishop Beaton, who had so long acted as queen Mary's faithful and trusted minister at the court of France, to perform similar service for him. Accordingly an act of the privy council, dated 17th March, 1586–7, explains that, while he had presented Erskine to the archbishopric of Glasgow, he, "meaning to imploy James, sumtyme archiebischop of Glasgow, in his service," had "restorit and reponit in integrum the said James aganis the sentenceis of foirfaltour and barratrie gevin contrare him for all offenssis and crymes thairin contenit, and utheris committit be him bipast quhairwith he may be chargeit, and to all his landis, beneficeis, rowmes, possessiounes, broukit and possesit be him at ony tyme befoir the saidis sentenceis, and as the saim had nevir bene gevin." To reconcile this with the appointment of Erskine to the archbishopric, the act declared that Erskine should have right to all the revenues of the archbishopric intromitted with by him or by others on his behalf previous to that date and in future till Beaton was fully restored by the king and parliament, until which time, however, Erskine's provision should receive effect as fully as if the king's letters had not been granted to Beaton. (fn. 45) On 20th June Erskine's appointment to the archbishopric—which had been accepted by the presbytery of Glasgow, who had admitted him, "although he was a laic and bore no charge in the church"—was submitted to the general assembly of the kirk, presided over by Mr. Andrew Melville, but was unanimously disallowed, and ordered to be annulled by the presbytery before the following Michaelmas. (fn. 46)

Reference has been made to the fact that on 6th September, 1577, archbishop Boyd granted a lease of the customs of the tron to Matthew Boyd for nineteen years. Eleven years, however, before its termination, Gavin Hamilton, as heir of his father Archibald Hamilton of Hill, captain of Arran, claimed to be in right of a prior lease, of which he was said to have been dispossessed by the archbishop, and the king directed letters to the magistrates setting forth Gavin's claim, upon which letters Archibald Heygait, townclerk, took instruments on 11th January, 1585–6. (fn. 48) Gavin then appears to have prevented the masters and regents of the college, who were uplifting these customs, in virtue of archbishop Boyd's deed of mortification of 28th May, 1581, previously referred to (fn. 49) , from continuing to do so. The college authorities accordingly, on 25th January, 1585–6, raised letters under the signet to have their claim sustained, and the magistrates ordained to continue them in its exercise till a decision was given as to the rights of the parties. Under the proceedings thus instituted the college was successful, and on 25th June, 1586, Gavin Hamilton, Allan Herbertson, and Matthew Boyd were ordained to cease from uplifting the customs, or from intromitting with them. (fn. 50) Subsequently, on 29th April, 1587, Matthew Boyd assigned his tack, which he had got from the archbishop, to Gavin Hamilton, (fn. 51) and no further reference to the dispute appears. But on 3rd November, 1595, the college granted a tack of the casualties of the tron and others to Alexander Hamilton of Haggs for nineteen years. (fn. 52)

On 8th July, 1587, a parliament was held at Edinburgh, at which it was declared that the king had attained "the lawful and perfect age" of twentyone years, (fn. 53) and the liberty of the kirk was ratified. (fn. 54) An act was also passed, on the 29th of the same month, annexing to the crown—to remain therewith in all time coming—all lands, lordships, baronies, castles, &c., burghs of regality and barony, annual rents, commodities, profits, and emoluments, as well to burgh as to land, which at that date belonged to any archbishop, bishop, prelate, or other ecclesiastical or beneficed person, or to any abbey, convent, cloister, friars, nuns, monks, or canons, or to any college kirk founded for singing, or to any prebend or chaplainry within the realm. The execution of the act in the levying of the profits was appointed to take effect as at Martinmas, 1587 ; and the king was empowered to set in feu farm such kirk lands as were not so set before. From this annexation a variety of subjects were excepted, and specially certain kirk lands which had been granted to different persons; the castles, mansions, and gardens of archbishops, bishops, and other prelates; all lands and other subjects granted for the support of masters and students in colleges and grammar schools; and for the sustentation of ministers in burghs where no other stipend was appointed to them; and all lands and other subjects granted by the king and his predecessors before the date of the act, or by any other persons to hospi tals or maison-dieus within the realm, for the benefit of the poor and needy. Burghs of regality and barony, which had previously been held of prelates, were thereafter appointed to be held of the king, in the same way as they had been held of ecclesiastical superiors. (fn. 55) On the same day also, two other acts were passed—(1) one containing the king's general revocation, by which, inter alia, he revoked all infeftments made by him in his minority, and by his governors and regents in his name, of any kirk lands, friars' lands, nuns' lands, or common lands, which in any way fell and came into his hands as crown property; except such infeftments as were made by queen Mary or himself for erecting and sustaining hospitals and ministers within burghs where no assignation or allowance of stipend was made out of the thirds of benefices for the support of these ministers; (fn. 56) (2) another by which he ratified an act passed on 10th December, 1585, rescinding and reducing all processes and dooms of forfeiture, and sentences, criminal and penal, led against any persons for acts and offences, other than murders and certain specified crimes, committed since his coronation, or contained in sentences of forfeiture led since that event, at whatsoever time these acts or offences were alleged to have been committed; and such persons were fully reponed and restored to their possessions and offices, and to their honours and dignities, as if the sentences had never been pronounced. (fn. 57) This act evidently included archbishop Beaton, as it did expressly the bishops of Ross and Dunblane, and accordingly, Robert, lord Boyd, for himself and others, protested that the benefit of pacification and restitution granted to Beaton should in no degree prejudice them in regard to any right granted to them by archbishop Boyd or any of his predecessors. (fn. 58) A similar protestation was made by John Beaton of Balfour, and also on behalf of the widow of archbishop Boyd. (fn. 59)

On the same day (29th July) the king granted a charter under the great seal to the college of Glasgow, (fn. 60) by which he conveyed to it—(1) the rectory and vicarage of Govan, with the teinds and other emoluments disponed to it on 13th July, 1577 ; (fn. 61) (2) the lands, houses, and revenues which formerly belonged to any order of friars, or to any chaplainry or altar within the town of Glasgow, disponed to it by the magistrates and council on 8th January, 1572–3, and ratified by the king and parliament on the 26th of the same month; (fn. 62) (3) the customs of the tron, granted by archbishop Boyd on 28th May, 1581, and confirmed by royal letters, dated 17th June, 1581; (fn. 63) and (4) immunity from taxation, confirmed by the king's letter of 26th May, 1579. (fn. 64) Paliament, also, on the same day, passed acts (a) ratifying to the college the charters and letters Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, above referred to, and also a charter granted by queen Mary to the magistrates of Glasgow on 16th March, 1566–7; (fn. 65) and (b) granting commission to Robert lord Boyd, Walter prior of Blantyre, the provost and bailies, and other persons, to take order for relief of the decay and necessity of that part of the city above the Greyfriar Wynd, either by appointing the market for salt to be at the Over Port, or the bear and malt market to be at the Wynd Head, or such other part thereabout as the commissioners might think most expedient. This commission was granted on a supplication of the inhabitants, setting forth that the part of the city above the Greyfriar Wynd, which, previous to the reformation, had been upheld by the resort to it of the bishop, parsons, vicars, and others of the clergy, had then become ruinous and nearly wholly decayed, and that the heritors and possessors were greatly impoverished—wanting the means not only to uphold it, but to entertain themselves, their wives, children, and family. This condition of matters, however, they alleged, might be remedied if the common weal of the city were respected, and an equality used by the magistrates and others to whom such things properly appertained. The supplicants, therefore, urged that the various markets, which were then concentrated about the Cross, should be scattered over the town. It also set forth that the part of the city above the Greyfriar Wynd was the only ornament and decoration of the town, by reason of the great and sumptuous buildings of great antiquity, very proper and meet for the reception of the king and nobles at such times as they might repair thereto; and that it was lamentable "to sie sic gorgeous policie [left] to decay, that otherwys mycht be sustenit without hurt of his hienes subiectis." (fn. 66) Under this commission the salt market was placed above the Wynd Head. (fn. 67) But in 1594 a change was again made in the locality of the market, which will be afterwards referred to.

In this parliament the Scottish nobles gave expression to their indignation at the execution of queen Mary, and vowed to hazard their lives and fortunes in avenging it. (fn. 68)

In France and Spain also the intelligence of the queen's execution excited profound indignation, and quickened the preparations of the latter for the invasion of England. So menacing became the political aspect, that Elizabeth realised the necessity of conciliating the Scottish king and people. She therefore wrote James, professing profound sorrow for what she called "the miserable accident" of his mother's death. Whatever his real feelings were, he, with a view to the succession to the English crown, fully recognised the imprudence of pushing matters to extremity, and, instead of allying himself with catholic Spain, as he was urged to do by Huntly and others of his nobles, he resolved to support the doctrines of the reformation and associate himself with protestant England.

On 3rd November, 1587, the king granted a charter under the great seal in favour of Walter Stewart, commendator of Blantyre, by which, on a recital of the act annexing the church lands to the crown, at the general revocation, (fn. 69) and the dissolution made by parliament for feuing them out, he, for the services done to him by the commendator, conveyed in feu farm and regality to Stewart, his heirs and assignees, the lands and barony of Glasgow, the city and burgh of regality of Glasgow, with all lands and houses within it, and all rights, duties, and privileges therewith connected, and also the other lands and baronies therein specified, and all other lands which had belonged to the archbishop within Scotland (excepting the lands and baronies of Stobo and Eddleston, with their bailiaries, which had been disponed to Maitland of Thirlstane, lord chancellor, and the barony of Carstairs and its bailiary, which had been disponed to Sir William Stewart, son of Sir Andrew Stewart of Ochiltree), with all patronages which had belonged to the archbishop, and the offices of bailiary and justiciary of the whole regality, as well property as tenandry (excepting as above). He also empowered the commendator to hold courts of bailiary and justiciary for the tenants and inhabitants and others whom it concerned; to cause suits to be called; to amerce absents; to punish transgressors; to uplift and receive issues, amerciaments, bloodwites, and escheats of these courts, and all other escheats falling within the regality, for whatever crimes might be committed by the inhabitants or any others within its bounds, crimes of treason only excepted; to uplift and apply these for their own use, and to dispose thereof at pleasure; to repledge and bring back to the privilege and freedom of the regality all its tenants and inhabitants before whatsoever judge or jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal, they might be attached and arrested; to create deputies, with other necessary officers and members of court, for whom the commendator and his successors should be answerable; and, generally, to do all things which might be necessary. The king also granted to the commendator and his successors £200 Scots yearly of fee for exercising the offices of bailiary and justiciary, which sum was to be retained by them out of the first and readiest duties therein specified; and erected the whole lands so conveyed into a temporal lordship to be called the barony of Glasgow, of which the castle of Glasgow was appointed to be the principal messuage. Farther, the commendator and his successors were empowered to set to the ancient and native tenants the lands and baronies so conveyed in feu farm; and it was declared that if the commendator or his successors should happen at any time to be forfeited, and the infeftments of the tenants to be thereby brought into question or damage, such forfeiture should in no wise prejudice these infeftments. The feu-duty payable for the lands and others thus conveyed was declared to be £500 Scots, with a duplication of that amount in the first year of the entry of heirs and successors. (fn. 70) This charter was confirmed by the king, after he had attained majority, by another under the great seal, dated 26th August, 1591. (fn. 71) Under the powers thus conferred the lands of the barony were feued out chiefly to the old rentallers, who thus became owners in fee of the properties which they had formerly rented, the annual rent being converted into a feu-duty. From such beginning dates the rise of many families which became eminent in the subsequent history of the city. (fn. 72)

Footnotes

1 No. LXXI., pp. 189.
2 No. LXXII., pp. 189–191.
3 No. LXXIII., pp. 191, 192.
4 1587, c. 87, Acts of the Parliaments, III., 487.
5 Privy Council Register, III., 413.
6 Great Seal Register, IV., 96, No. 294.
7 Council Records, I., 89, 90. On the same day the duke of Lennox was made burgess and freeman of the town, and gave his oath of fidelity thereto. If he had not been a burgess previously, then the nomination of him, as earl of Lennox, by the archbishop in the previous year to fill the office of provost, would seem to have superseded the necessity for his being a burgess before becoming a magistrate. At the same time, lord Ogilvie, lord Newbottle, the archbishop of Glasgow, and others, were also admitted burgesses and freemen. [MSS., Council Records.]
8 Council Records, I., 94.
9 Robert Montgomery was minister at Stirling at the time of his appointment to the archbishopric. He had previously been a vehement supporter of the anti-episcopal party [Spottiswoode, II., 281], but in 1581 agreed to accept the archbishopric under a simoniacal paction with the duke of Lennox, who practically exercised the patronage of the kingdom, and through whose influence he received the appointment. Under this paction, it is understood, the archbishop was to receive an annual sum of £1,000 Scots, with some horse corn and poultry [Ibid., II., 282. Calderwood, VII., 212. Moysie, p. 34. Gibson, pp. 60, 61. Caledonia, III., 626. P.C.R., III., 419], while all the remaining revenues of the see were to be paid to the duke and his heirs. The archbishop's appointment was intimated to the General Assembly at its meeting on 17th October, 1581, but the assembly had, in July, 1580, condemned the office of bishop as unlawful, and was in no mood to recognise his appointment. Instead, however, of challenging it on that ground, or in respect of its simoniacal character, the assembly formulated its accusation against him on the ground of his pulpit teaching and action, and ordained him to remain in the ministry at Stirling, and not to enter upon the bishopric under pain of excommunication. [Calderwood, III., 577– 583.] Undeterred by this action, however, Montgomery proceeded with an armed escort to Glasgow, and entered the cathedral, the pulpit of which, apparently by the order of the presbytery of the district, was occupied by a minister who refused to give way to him. To avoid tumult, the archbishop thereupon withdrew [Ibid., III., 595], but the presbytery of Stirling, to which the case had been remitted by the General Assembly, suspended him from ministerial functions, and charged him to attend the synod of Lothian to hear sentence of excommunication passed upon him for contempt of the assembly's order. [Ibid., III., 619, 620.] On the other hand, the privy council took action to vindicate the king's appointment, and cited the kirk session of Glasgow to appear before it. [Spottiswoode, II., 285. Moysie, p. 36, 37.] The king himself went to Glasgow on the 28th of August, and remained there till the 16th of October. Whether this visit had any direct reference to Montgomery's case does not appear, but on the 3rd of the latter month a letter from the king, of the same date, was presented to the town council, requiring them "to acknowledge, and recognosce, and use Montgomery, now bishop of Glasgow, not only in presenting of the leets to him for his election and admission," as their predecessors had done, but "alswa in all other thingis concerning thair dewitie to the bischop as thai wald answer to his hieness, vpon thair obedience and report thair speciall thankis thairanent as to him to quhome our soueraine lord had conferrit and gifin the said archbischoprik, with all preuilegeis, imuniteis, proffeitis, and dewiteis pertenyng thairto." To this letter the council promised obedience in all points. Leets for the bailies were thereupon prepared and submitted to the archbishop, who selected the three persons to be elected, and they were elected accordingly. [Council Records, I., 89, 90.] Thus supported, the archbishop disregarded the charge of the presbytery of Stirling, and the privy council cited the presbyteries of Glasgow, Stirling, and others who had resisted him, to appear before it on 20th March, 1581–2, and answer for their conduct. But the ministers declined its jurisdiction. The archbishop thereupon charged the synod of Lothian, assembled at Edinburgh on 3rd April, 1582, to appear before the privy council at Stirling on 12th April, and meanwhile to desist from further process. The case of the eldership of Glasgow was continued to the same day. On 11th April a meeting between representatives of the synod and session took place at Stirling, and common action was resolved upon, with the result that on the following day they all declined the jurisdiction of the privy council, but offered to state their case extra judicium. This offer was, however, not entertained, and the privy council declared that the right of disponing the bishopric had devolved into the king's hands by the neglect of the persons representing the dean and chapter of the cathedral to elect [Book of the Universal Kirk, Part II., 571–3. Privy Council Register, III., 474–6], and discharged the presbyteries of Edinburgh, Stirling, and Dalkeith, and all other presbyteries, provincial synods, and general assemblies of the kirk, from proceeding against Montgomery. On behalf of the kirk, Master Robert Pont protested against this order. [Book of the Universal Kirk, Part II, pp. 573–5. P.C.R., III., 476–7. Calderwood, III., 596–7.] On the following day several of the ministers waited on the king, but without result, and before leaving they summoned Montgomery to appear before the next General Assembly, which met at St. Andrews on 24th April, 1582. This he did, but in a contumacious mood, and the assembly, which was presided over, for a second time, by Andrew Melville, held the suspension by the presbytery of Stirling to be valid, and proposed to proceed further against him, when a letter was presented from the king, requiring them, in terms of the order of the privy council, to desist from interfering with the king's jurisdiction. The assembly were, nevertheless, about to take further action, when they were charged by a messenger-at-arms to desist under pain of being denounced rebels and put to the horn. Still the assembly persisted, and deprived. Montgomery of his ministerial office. Excommunication was to follow, when he appeared before the assembly, and promised to do nothing further in relation to the archbishopric without leave and direction from the assembly. [Book of the Universal Kirk, Part II., p. 565. P.C.R., IV., 486. Spottiswoode, II., 287.] On 9th May commissioners from the assembly waited on the king to report their proceedings, and were courteously heard, but Lennox and Arran expressed themselves very strongly against the action of the assembly. Montgomery, however, on returning to the court was induced to resile from the promise given by him to the assembly, and, undertaking of new to adhere to and insist on his appointment to the archbishopric, was furnished with letters from the king calling on persons in the west to assist him. With these he proceeded to Glasgow to preach on the following Sunday, and the presbytery of the district met to deal with him. But while they were deliberating, Sir Mathew Stewart of Minto, provost, with the bailies and some of the citizens, entered, prohibited them from proceeding, and cited them to appear before the] privy council. The presbytery refused, however, to comply, and the magistrates, it was alleged, put violent hands on the moderator, Master John Howeson, smote him on the face, rent his beard, struck out one of his teeth, and thereafter committed him to ward in the tolbooth [Calderwood, III., 621], where he remained for three or four days. [Spottiswoode, II., 287, 8.] The students in the college supported the presbytery, some fighting took place, and a serious tumult was apprehended, when the magistrates by tuck of drum and peal of bells called on the citizens to support them. Nevertheless, the presbytery gave its decision. On the night of the Saturday before the Sunday on which the archbishop was to preach, a number of the students took possession of the cathedral, and excluded him, while principal Smeaton occupied the pulpit, and, preaching from the text, "He that enters not by the door, but by the window, is a thief and a robber," inveighed against the archbishop for his simoniacal entry, and the levity he had shown in all his proceedings. [P.C.R., III., 486.] On the 22nd of May, principal Smeaton, with another minister, proceeded to Edinburgh to report Montgomery's relapse to the presbytery there, and the archbishop was summoned to appear before them on the following Saturday, but he appealed to the civil court, which, notwithstanding the king's express wish, supported the action of the ecclesiastical court. The privy council, nevertheless, proceeded on 23rd and 30th May to deal with several of the ministers of Edinburgh in relation to sermons which they had preached in connection with the matter, and one of them was ordered to be removed from that city at the sight of the magistrates. Moreover, on 8th June, the presbytery of Glasgow was ordered to attend the privy council and answer for their continued opposition to the admission of the archbishop, and for the riots of the students. But on the following day the presbytery of Edinburgh excommunicated Montgomery, and on Sunday, the 10th of June, their sentence was published in the church of Libberton. [Book of the Universal Kirk, Part II., 579, 580. Calderwood, III., 621. Spottiswoode, II., 289.]
The only action noticed in the records of the town council in connection with this riot seems to have been taken on a letter from the duke of Lennox, which was presented to the council on 16th June, and in which he authorised them to resist the violence and boasting of the college, in case they "incur any skaith by the town through thair own occasion." In that letter the ministers were said to be the instigators of the trouble which had taken place, and intimation was made to the college of the king's charge that the offence should not be repeated, and should be suppressed if attempted. The council thereupon ordained those burgesses who, contrary to their oaths, had used weapons against the bailies and town to appear on the 19th of June, and hear their accusation preferred by the common procurator. [Council Records, I., 94.]
On the 27th of June the general assembly met in extraordinary session, and after an opening sermon by the moderator, Melville, who inveighed against the interference of the privy council with the ecclesiastical courts, appointed commissioners to represent its complaint to the sovereign, and also instituted proceedings against the magistrates of Glasgow, the duke of Lennox, the lord advocate, and others, who had abetted Montgomery subsequent to his excommunication. The result of these proceedings was that the offence of the provost and his accomplices was held to be proved, and deserving of excommunication. But, at the request of the king, the pronouncement of sentence was delayed till 6th July, and commissioners were appointed, if not previously satisfied, to proceed between that date and the 24th of the same month, or sooner at their discretion. [Calderwood, III., 626.] The privy council, however, adhered to the position it had assumed, and on 2nd July caused proclamation to be made at the cross of Edinburgh, in name of the king, of Montgomery's legal institution into the bishopric, and of the nullity of his excommunication. [P. C. R., III., 489, note. Calderwood, III., 598, 634. Melville's Diary, 128–133.] On 6th July the commissioners of the kirk presented to the king, at an assembly of the nobility or convention of the estates in Perth, where the court then was, a statement of fourteen grievances, after which they were dismissed. [Book of the Universal Kirk, Part II., 582–3.] On 11th July the privy council ordered the students who had opposed Montgomery, the principal and others who had assisted them, and various persons who could give evidence as to what had actually been done, to appear before them on 10th September. [Privy Council Register, III., 489–90, note.] On 20th July the privy council also passed an act by which, on the narrative that Montgomery was lawfully provided to the archbishopric, with all the lands, rents, regalities, and emoluments which at any time previously belonged to the temporality and spirituality thereof since the time of the Reformation, but that the feuars, tenants, and other intromitters with the fruits and duties would not obey, and make payment to him of the same unless compelled, therefore, letters in four forms were ordered and issued, and they were charged to pay to him, or his factors and chamberlains, the whole fruits of the archbishopric, as well temporality as spirituality, for the crops and years 1581 and 1582, and annually thereafter during his lifetime, under pain of warding in the castle of Inverness. [Ibid., III., 496.]
While Montgomery was thus supported by the privy council, his position must have been well nigh intolerable. He was subjected to all the indignities to which an excommunicated man was in these days liable. He was compelled to abstain from presenting himself in the streets of Edinburgh; he was refused admission to the courts to which he desired to appeal; he was stoned and subjected to every species; of indignity, and compelled to seek safety in flight in the city. In this persecution the magistrates seem to have taken part rather than to have afforded him protection, and, to crown all, the king seems to have regarded his treatment as a matter of amusement. [Calderwood, III., 634. Tytler, VI., 317–319.]
Before the date fixed by the privy council to deal with the riot in Glasgow, viz., September, 1582, the Raid of Ruthven had taken place, and the Earls of Gowrie, Mar, Glencairn, and others, having obtained possession of the king's person, had assumed the direction of affairs. The earl of Arran was imprisoned, and the duke of Lennox, who had left Scotland in December, died at Paris on 16th May, 1583. [P. C. R., III., 537–8. Balfour, I., 374–6. Spottiswoode, II., 290.] Under the government of the raiders, which extended from August, 1582, till June, 1583, the leaders of the presbyterian movement were in entire ascendency; Montgomery received no aid from the court, and, wearied out by the hostility to which he was exposed, he applied to the presbytery of Glasgow to be restored, made confession of his offences, and offered to underlie their inquisition. He was, however, referred to the general assembly, by whose order he had been excommunicated. He then made a similar application to the presbytery of Edinburgh, on 13th November, 1582, but that application received a similar answer. [Calderwood, III., 690.] Sir Mathew Stewart, the provost, and several other persons in Glasgow who had associated with Montgomery after his excommunication, also found it convenient to make submission to the kirk, and the general assembly remitted to the presbytery of Glasgow to deal with them. [Book of the Universal Kirk, Part II., 598–600.] On 25th June, 1583, however, the king succeeded in emancipating himself from the raiders, and recalled to the court the earl of Arran, whose power became greater than it had ever been.
On his appointment to the archbishopric, Montgomery seems to have obtained from the king for his son, also named Robert, a gift of the stipend,—money and victuals,—which he had himself enjoyed when minister of Stirling. This was complained of, however, by the general assembly in October, 1582, and on 29th October, 1583, the privy council revoked the gift, in order that James Anderson, then minister of the parish, might enjoy the benefit. [Privy Council Register, III., 606–7.] But Montgomery still retained the benefice of the archbishopric, and on 18th December, 1583, the court of session, on advising letters at his instance against sundry persons for payment of the maills, teinds, and duties of two parts of the bishopric, granted decree against the defenders. [Acts and Decreets, Vol. 97, pp. 237, 334.]
Under the altered conditions, consequent on the resumption by the king of the administration of the affairs of the country and the recall to power of the earl of Arran, the desire of the king to repress the assumptions of the kirk and to favour episcopacy, a parliament was held at Edinburgh on 19th May, 1584, and on the 22nd passed a series of acts subversive of the rights claimed by the kirk. At the same time, on the petition of Montgomery, it declared that the privy council proceeded regularly in commanding the censure of the ministers upon him to be stayed, and added,—"Since the estate of bishop is established now of new in the present parliament, it is found and declared that the excommunication deduced against the said master Robert is null and of no effect, and that he may possess all honours, dignities, and benefices as if the same had never been done." But it was ordered that the bishops and commissioners to be appointed by his majesty for deprivation of any unworthy in the charge should try Montgomery on all other things that might be laid to his charge. [1584, cs. 2, 20, 31. Acts of Parliament, III., 292–311.] These measures, and the action of the king against such ministers and others as resisted or failed to give obedience to the law, excited the opposition especially of the masses of inhabitants in the larger towns. Montgomery, in particular, was most unpopular, and whilst living in Ayr was mobbed whenever he made his appearance on the streets by crowds of women and boys, who stigmatised him as an atheist, a dog, a schismatic, an excommunicated beast, and as one unworthy to live. [Tytler, IX., 418, 9.] But this condition of the popular feeling did not deter the king from following out his arbitrary policy. On 21st June, 1584, he addressed a letter to the town council of Glasgow, which was presented to them on 8th July, in which, referring to the legislation of parliament in its previous session, he mentioned that he had granted commission to each bishop to see the laws then enacted put into operation within his diocese. He therefore desired that archbishop Montgomery, whom he had reponed to his former estate and appointed commissioner, might be assisted and fortified by them in the execution of that commission. The council having heard the letter, "assisted by a reasonable number of the community," rendered obedience to it, and promised to concur with, fortify, and assist the bishop. [Council Records, I., 108–9.] Subsequently, on 18th August, at the request of the archbishop, who desired the council to convoy him, with a reasonable number, to the king, and to keep the parliament, they nominated six persons to ride with him, and granted them four burgess fines to meet their expenses. [Ibid., I., 110.] On 7th October the archbishop selected three persons to be bailies, and afterwards presented Sir William Livingston of Kilsyth to be provost. [Ibid., I., 112, 113.] Meanwhile the overweening arrogance of the earl of Arran had raised up against him a powerful opposition, which, supported by the influence of Elizabeth, resulted in another revolution, followed by the flight of Arran on 31st October, and the reception of his enemies at court. This was followed by an attempt to establish a compromise between the episcopal system as recognised by statute and the system sanctioned by the general assembly, and the result was that, while both parties made considerable concessions, the cause of titular episcopacy was wrecked.
In November, 1583, Ludovick, the eldest son of Esme, duke of Lennox, arrived in Scotland from France, and was very kindly received by the king [Calderwood, III., 749. P. C. R., II., 609], who gave him all the estates and honours which had been formerly possessed by his father. The agents of both dukes, father and son, had possessed themselves of the endowments of the archbishopric, and Montgomery was no more acknowledged. His relations with the king must also have undergone a change, for on 21st December, 1585, William Erskine, parson of Campsie and late commendator of Paisley, a follower of the earl of Mar, was appointed to the archbishopric. Spottiswoode states that Montgomery had, in his distress and uncertainty, resigned his right to it in favour of Erskine. [II., 375.] The subject of the prolonged controversy between the court and the kirk being thus removed, so far as Montgomery was concerned, the king, on 20th June, 1587, applied to the general assembly to absolve Montgomery from his excommunication, and receive him to the fellowship and favour of the kirk, and the assembly agreed to dispense with some of the ceremonies used in repentance, provided the king would relax the severity of his demands in regard to two preachers who had offended him. [Book of the Universal Kirk, II., 701. Calderwood, IV., 630–1.] To this concession, however, the king would not listen, and so the matter was dropped, but renewed instructions were given by the assembly to proceed against Montgomery, and also against the archbishop of St. Andrews and the bishops of Aberdeen and Dunkeld. The general assembly held at Edinburgh on 6th February, 1588, however, on an application by Montgomery, found that he might be admitted pastor over a flock where he had not been slanderous, provided he was found qualified in life and doctrine. [Calderwood, IV., 670.] He was admitted soon after, and about 1589 he was translated to Stewarton in Ayrshire. [Spottiswoode, II., 375. Keith, pp. 261, 262. Tytler, VI., 302, 311, 318. Principal Lees' Lectures, II., 64–66. Grub, II., 227, 228. Cuningham, I., 364, 365, 366, 369. Burton, V., 209. Fasti Ecclesiæ, III., 376, 144. Denholm's History of Glasgow (3rd ed.), p. 33. M'Ure's History of Glasgow (1830), pp. 33, 64.]
10 Calderwood, III., 673.
11 Tytler, VI., 358.
12 Council Records, I., 97.
13 Council Records, I., 98.
14 Book of the Universal Kirk, Part II., pp. 594–6. Calderwood, III., 675–680.
15 Acts of Parliament, III., 330.
16 Ibid., III., 326–7.
17 1584;c. 7, Acts of Parliament, III., 294–6.
18 The earl of Montrose, thus appointed provost, was, according to Crawford, a nobleman of great courage and resolution, and acted at this time in concert with the duke of Lennox and his party. He was chancellor of the jury which found the earl of Morton guilty of the murder of Darnley, and possessed the king's confidence. During the year of his provostship he (1) had charters of the lands of Cowgask, Strathblane, and Glenshee, and of the sheriffship of Perth ; (2) was appointed one of the extraordinary lords of session—an office which he held till 9th February, 1585–6; and (3) was constituted high treasurer of Scotland. But after the revolution consequent on the return of the exiled lords in 1584, and the deposition of Arran, he was removed from the treasurership. The king, however, retained his favour for the earl, and after the death of the chancellor, lord Thirlstane, in October, 1595, appointed him chancellor on 18th January, 1598–9. After the accession of the king to the English throne, when a union of the two kingdoms was first proposed, the earl was appointed lord high commissioner to represent his majesty in the parliament which met at Perth on 11th July, 1604. Giving up the chancellorship, in compliance with the king's wish, he was, by a royal commission dated December, 1604, appointed viceroy of Scotland for life, and as such presided in the parliament held at Perth on 9th July, 1606, wherein episcopal government was restored. He died on 9th November, 1608, in the sixtyfirst year of his age. [Crawford, 152–5, 449. Douglas Peerage, II., 239, 240.]
19 Council Records, I., 105, 106.
20 Calderwood, IV., 21–35. Tytler, VI., 375–384. On 24th April Gowrie was committed to the custody of Arran [Privy Council Register, III., 659], who, with some of the privy councillors, visited him in prison on the eve of his trial, and advised him to write a letter to the king, which was afterwards used with fatal effect against him. Arran was one of the assize by which he was tried, and, after his execution, received a gift of the escheat of all his goods south of the Forth [Ibid., p. 673]. He subsequently obtained a gift of his lands, lordships, and baronies of Dirleton, Cousland, and others [Ibid., p. 684].
21 Privy Council Register, III., 609. This act was ratified by parliament on 22nd May, 1584 [1584, c. 26, Acts of the Parliaments, III., 307], and on 22nd August, 1584 [1584, c. 20. Ibid., III., 356].
22 Privy Council Register, III., 609. Calderwood, III., 749.
23 Spottiswoode, II., 306. Tytler, VI., 372.
24 Privy Council Register, III., 614, 615.
25 Crawford, p. 139. Douglas Peerage, I., 93. This grant was confirmed by Parliament on 19th May, 1584. 1584, c. 16, A. P. S., III., 300.
26 1584, c. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, 25, 26, and 31, Acts of Parliament, III., 292, 296, 301, 307, 311.
27 Calderwood, IV., 450–459.
28 Ibid., IV., 459–464.
29 1584, c. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 21, Acts of Parliament, III., 346–372.
30 Tytler, VI., 394.
31 Edinburgh Council Records (Burgh Records Society), IV., 353.
32 History of the Church of Scotland, II., 323.
33 Council Records, I., 113.
34 Ibid., I., 117. On the same day the earl of Arran was re-elected provost of Edinburgh, but on the 24th of the following month the town council of that burgh appointed commissioners to represent to the king and the privy council that the burgh was without a provost, and to crave the king's permission to elect another. This application he granted by a letter dated 26th November, and on 1st December the council deposed the earl, and elected William Little to be provost till the following Michaelmas. [Edinburgh Council Records, IV., 437, 441–443.]
The Council Records of Glasgow for the period between 27th April, 1586, and 22nd October, 1588, are unfortunately amissing.
35 Spottiswoode, II., 331. Moysie, p. 54, 55.
36 Privy Council Register, IV., 30.
37 Ibid., IV., 33.
38 Acts of Parliament, IV., 373–422.
Walter Stewart was only son of Sir John Stewart of Mynto by his second marriage with Margaret, daughter of James Stewart of Cardonald. He was brought up, along with king James, under George Buchanan, and had the priory of Blantyre bestowed upon him by the king. He is accordingly designed commendator of Blantyre in 1580, when he was appointed one of the gentlemen of the bedchamber. He was sworn a privy councillor, and constituted keeper of the privy seal, on 14th November, 1582. [Douglas Peerage, I., 231.] On 29th July, 1583, he got from the king a charter under the great seal of the dominical lands of Calderhall or Caldercleir, in the regality of Dalkeith. [Great Seal Register, IV., 183, No. 589.] Sir Mathew Stewart of Mynto was his half-brother by his father's first marriage with Johanna Hepburn.
39 Pref. to Privy Council Register, IV., 36.
40 William Erskine appears first as parson of Campsie and chamberlain of Paisley. The abbacy of Paisley had been held by lord Claud Hamilton, but on his forfeiture had reverted to the crown, for whose behoof apparently it was administered by Erskine. As chamberlain, he, on 24th September, 1579, presented a complaint to the privy council setting forth that he had been interfered with in the execution of his office and the collection of the dues of the tenants, and the council ordered that he should be allowed to receive all the duties unpaid or to be paid, conform to his letter of chamberlainry and factory, till lord Semple, who claimed to be infeft in the lands, and to have right to the rents, had established his title before the judges ordinary. [Privy Council Register, III., 219, 220.] On 20th November in the same year, the king, with the consent of the privy council, granted a charter under the great seal to "his domestic servitor," William Erskine, rector of Campsie, for his lifetime, of the monastery, place, and abbey of Paisley, with the lands, lordships, and others belonging thereto, and with the regality of the same, vacant by Hamilton's forfeiture. [Great Seal Register, III., p. 803, No. 2922.] An act of the privy council, dated 14th February, 1579–80, referring to this grant, shows that it was made under burden of the payment annually of 4,000 merks for the furnishing of the king's house so long as Erskine remained possessor and titular of the abbey. [Privy Council Register, III., 267.] On 23rd March, 1579–80, the king granted a charter under the great seal to Erskine, designed rector of Campsie, and to Michael Elphingstoun, brother german of lord Elphingstoun, and their heirs equally, of the lands of Kittymure in Lanarkshire, which had fallen in to the crown by the forfeiture of Gavin Hamilton, sometime of Roploch. [Great Seal Register, III., p. 821, No. 2990.] On 30th April, 1580, the king discharged the obligation on Erskine to pay the 4,000 merks annually stipulated to be paid by him in the charter of 14th February, 1579–80 [Privy Council Register, III., 285]; and on 22nd February, 1581–2, recalled, as prejudicial to himself and to the commendator, his confirmation of a tack for nineteen years, granted by lord Claud Hamilton while commendator to Robert Dalziel of that ilk, of the teind sheaves of Culbowie and Barnis, in the parish of Kilpatrick and sheriffdom of Dunbarton. [Ibid., III., 454–5.] Erskine took part, along with his relative, the earl of Mar, in the revolution known as the raid of Ruthven, which was effected on 22nd August, 1581, and he appears in the sederunt of the privy council in October, 1582. But in June, 1583, the king made his escape and recalled Arran to power; and on 30th July issued a proclamation in which he characterised the raid as an act of treason. [Tytler, VI., 361.] Erskine was ordered to enter into ward in the castle of Blackness, but on 2nd December was relaxed from the horn till 10th December, and received the wand of peace. [Privy Council Register, III., 613.] He seems, however, to have been afterwards imprisoned in Doune Castle; but on 24th December, Erskine of Dun, Stirling of Keir, and Murray of Tullibardine, granted a bond of caution for £10,000 that within three days after being released from the castle he would enter in ward in Renfrewshire, and remain there till set free. [Ibid., III., 623.] The raiders, however, reasserted themselves, and on 17th April, 1584, took possession of the castle and town of Stirling. Erskine appears to have again made common cause with the raiders, for he, with Mar, Glammis, and others, were charged by the king to surrender the castle and burgh [Ibid., p. 657]; on 10th May he was charged to surrender the abbey, place, and fortalice of Paisley [Ibid., p. 663]; and on the following day he and others were charged to leave the realm by 1st June, and not to return to Scotland under the penalty of death [Ibid., p. 664]. At the parliament held at Edinburgh on 20th August, 1584, the lord advocate produced a summons of treason executed against the earls of Angus, Mar, Erskine, and others, and an act was passed disinheriting the posterity of such persons as had been, or should afterwards be, convicted of the treasonable attempt at Stirling. [Acts of Parliaments, III., 332, 346. 1584, c. 1.] The overthrow and flight of Arran in November, 1585, and the return to power of the promoters of the raid of Ruthven, however, removed these disabilities, and on 21st December the king, with the advice of the privy council, granted a charter under the great seal, whereby he conveyed to Erskine during his lifetime the archbishopric, with all the churches, lordships, and possessions, as well spiritual as temporal thereof, vacant by the decease of archbishop Boyd, and the forfeiture of archbishop Beaton, with entry to the fruits of the archbishopric as from 1585, under burden of a pension granted by the king to Nicolas Carncross. [Great Seal Register, IV., 290–1, No. 903.] This was followed on 17th March, 1586–7, by an act of the privy council, setting forth that the king had presented Erskine to the archbishopric of Glasgow, but that, "meaning to employ archbishop Beaton," he had restored him to all the lands, benefices, and possessions which he had enjoyed previous to the pronouncing of the sentences of forfeiture and barratry against him. It was, however, declared that Erskine should have right to all the emoluments of the office previous to the date of the act, and till archbishop Beaton was fully restored by the king and parliament. [Privy Council Register, IV., 154.] Though Erskine was a layman, and "bare no charge in the church," he seems to have been a favourite with the clergy, and the presbytery of Glasgow admitted him to the archbishopric, but the general assembly of the kirk, at its meeting on 20th June, 1587, unanimously held his admission to be unlawful, and ordered the presbytery to annul it prior to the following Michaelmas. [Spottiswoode, II., 375. Book of the Universal Kirk, Part II., 693. Calderwood, IV., 615–638. Privy Council Register, IV., 191.] In consequence of this decision, probably, Erskine gave up the archbishopric; but [he appears to have retained the parsonage of Campsie, for in a minute of the privy council, dated 30th March, 1588, he is designed as holding that office. [Privy Council Register, IV., 266.]
41 Great Seal Register, IV., 290, No. 903.
42 Camden Annales, I., 413–417, quoted in Prothero's Select Statutes, &c., pp. 140–141.
43 Camden Annales, I., 431–2, quoted by Prothero, pp. 142–143.
44 Tytler, VII., 69, 121. Mary Queen of Scots and her Accusers, by Hossack, 2nd edition, II., 412–467, 489–493. History of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, by Petit, translated by De Flandre, II., 65–116. Burton, V., 251–259. History of England, by Froude, VI., 275–343.
45 Privy Council Register, IV., 154. The eager desire which James felt to secure his accession to the English throne induced him to adopt measures which gave much offence to his subjects. With the view of conciliating the Roman Catholics he sent a secret embassy to the pope. The odium of the letter addressed in his name to his holiness was afterwards thrown on his secretary; but it has been suspected, not without some reason, that James acted the same part to lord Balmerino in this affair which Elizabeth did to secretary Davison respecting the execution of queen Mary. With the view of gratifying the pope, and procuring his support to the king's title, a project was set on foot to grant a toleration to the papists in Scotland; and archbishop Beaton was not only appointed ambassador at the court of France, but restored to the temporalities of the see of Glasgow. These steps, though taken with great secrecy and caution, did not escape the vigilance of the ministers. M'Crie's Life of Andrew Melville (1856 edition), p. 224.
46 See footnote, p. cxxxvi.
47 P. cx.
48 Inventure (1696), p. 33, B.C., b. 8, No. 2.
49 P. cxviii.
50 Mun. Univ. Glasg., I., 142, No. 79.
51 Inventure (1696), p. 33, B.C., b. 8, No. 1.
52 Ibid., p. 34, B.C., b. 8, No. 3.
53 1587, c. 1, Acts of Parliament, III., 429.
54 Ibid., c. 2.
55 1587, c. 8, Acts of Parliament, III., pp. 431–7; No. LXXIV., pp. 192–207.
56 Ibid., c. 14, pp. 439–442.
57 Ibid., c. 60, pp. 467–470.
58 Ibid., p. 470.
59 Ibid., p. 471.
60 No. LXXV., pp. 207–211.
61 See p. cix.
62 See p. cii.
63 See pp. cxviii., cxix.
64 See p. cxv.
65 See p. lxxxix.; No. LXXVI., pp. 211–213.
66 1587, c. 113; Acts of Parliament, III., 505, No. LXXVII., pp. 213–215.
67 1594, c. 56, Acts of Parliament, IV., 79.
68 Moysie, p. 61. Tytler, VII., p. 134.
69 Page cxl.
70 Great Seal Register, IV., pp. 483, 484, No. 1406; No. LXXVIII., pp. 215–225. Douglas states that the king was pleased to commit to the commendator's care the feuing-out of his majesty's lands within the regality of Glasgow, which he performed to good purpose. Peerage, I., 213.
71 Great Seal Register, IV., p. 652, No. 1932; No. LXXX., pp. 227–242.
72 Diocesan Registers of Glasgow (Grampian Club). Prefeace by Joseph Bain and Dr. Charles Rogers, pp. 30, 31.