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.