Page images
PDF
EPUB

and I believe never gave any signs of penitence, and suffered in his usual apparel of coloured clothes. He appeared in his latest. moments to have been in a fit of anger, throwing away the signal handkerchief as far as his bound arms permitted. Through some mismanagement the drop fell but imperfectly-his feet clung to it, and for a few minutes, between it and the rope, his body was only half suspended. The vociferations of the crowd were deafening. The hangman, whether he had speedily retired or was frightened from his duty, never came forth. One of a company of soldiers who always guarded the scaffold on these occasions, generously mounted it, and extricated the criminal's feet with his bayonet.

From a deep rooted antipathy that functionary, the executioner of the law, was regarded with abhorrence, and by men even of more than ordinary minds. I recollect of a hangman who had a house within a public market, then on the east side of Montrose Street. It was perhaps convenient that he might be there located, to collect from particular commodities sold what were called the "hangman's dues." He kept to his market domain very closely; but woe to him when he ventured out. Any sort of indignity was deemed too lenient for such a wretch. The most of schoolboys had a deadly hatred to him, and I cannot conscientiously clear myself of not, along with other juveniles, throwing stones at him, when we judged ourselves at a safe distance from "Hangy." Very considerately did the magistrates set apart a lodging in the new Jail, or the "Stone Frigate," near the Clyde, for the last of the tribe, Mr. Thomas Young. It must be allowed that in respectability he was of the best of his order. The quiet old gentleman (who was known but to few of the public) I frequently saw in a good black suit (none of the oldfashioned glaring livery) taking his forenoon walk round the Green, accompanied by his dog, and when they had both snuffed sufficiently the "caller air," rested themselves on one of the 66 summer seats." A venerable citizen, of varied learning and information, an intimate acquaintance of mine, was in like manner accustomed to take his forenoon walk in the Green; and, by-the-bye, frequently fell into conversation with Mr. Young, whom he described to me as a civil, communicative man. I knew he was not aware of his accidental companion, and I presumed on the liberty one day of explaining to him the status of his associate. Could you conceive of one who had been struck by a thunderbolt, and immediately again recovering his senses, then you have an idea of the surprise of my acquaintance.

A shower of his youthful verdant reminiscences of contempt for the official at once became powerful, and I believe that, for a considerable time afterwards, he denied himself the pleasure of his favourite walk in the Green, in case of being recognised by the functionary.

In the foregoing remarks, I have brought before the members of the Society, a few, perhaps, of the more striking points belonging to the Old Tolbooth of Glasgow. I claim for them no originality whatever. My purpose is served if they assist in inducing the members to future investigation and discovery, as the field is wide, and also important and curious, in illustrating many sections of Glasgow Archæology. The Tolbooth and the Cross were both long the scenes of the principal stirring events which occurred; and around and near them may be said to have been concentrated the largest proportion of the wealth, industry, and intelligence displayed by our ancestors. When I began this Paper I had no idea it was to be so lengthy, for which I claim the indulgence of the Members. Commencing such a subject, I am ready to run to an extreme; besides, to adopt the language of an elegant writer, "It is a useful exercise of the mind to pursue any truth through a course of circumstantial evidence."

NO. III.

ON THE LETTER OF GUILDRY, AND THE MERCHANTS'

AND TRADES' HOUSES.

BY

LAURENCE HILL, Esq., LL.B.

[Read at a Meeting of the Society held at Glasgow on 6th December, 1858.]

IN the carefully prepared "History of the Guildry and Merchant House of Glasgow," by the late Mr. James Ewing, many years Dean of Guild, it is stated that, "in the sixteenth century, violent contests arose between the merchant and the trades' ranks respecting the government of the city. The merchants had exercised the whole sway, monopolised the magistracy, and assumed the sole right of managing the funds. The trades, who were more numerous, insisted on a participation of office. The animosities which had arisen from this source were at last allayed by a submission to Sir George Elphinston, then provost of the city, the parson of Glasgow, and two ministers of the city, 'anent their privileges, places, ranks, and prerogatives." The award of these arbiters is the Letter of Guildry ; and as during many years prior to the enactment of the late Parliamentary and Municipal Reform Bills, by which it was so effectually altered, I had the honour of holding the office of Collector and Director of the Merchant House, and had much occasion to observe both the accuracy and liberality of Mr. Ewing, I confess I was surprised, and perhaps mortified somewhat, to find in a recent publication, not merely the accuracy of our Merchants' House account and traditions impugned, but an undue attempt to disparage the character or zeal and regard of the mercantile class, or those who, whether de facto or de jure, or both, were in the government of the city at the time, for the reformed religion, by exalting the character or regard in that respect of the sister house of which the Guildry consists, and a flippant and scornful allusion to some of our ancestry as "serfs," and

particularly to the antecedents or causes of that letter as "a mere squabble," and to elevate or change at the same time the real dispute into a case of religious warfare or feelings, which, so far as I have had occasion to observe, did not exist between the two classes of disputants. The objectionable passage, and the publication to which I allude, is by my friend Mr. George Crawford, and I particularly refer to the epistle dedication prefaced to "A Sketch of the Rise and Progress of the Trades' House of Glasgow," printed at Glasgow in the present year, 1858, and addressed to the Deacon-Convener and other respectable gentlemen, who, I daresay, will not object to, but rather fully concur in any observations I may now submit. "I soon perceived," says Mr. Crawford, "that the 14 Incorporations, of whose federal union the Trades' House is the result, existed while the inhabitants of Glasgow were the serfs of the Roman Catholic Archbishop, who ruled supreme, and as the Lord of the Barony, and latterly of the Regality, appointed the Magistrates; and as I found that some recent writers," among whom he afterwards specially enumerates Mr. Ewing, "had represented that the Letter of Guildry of 1605 proceeded from a mere squabble for precedence between the merchants and tradesmen. of Glasgow, I thought it necessary," says he, "to glance at the history of the city itself, in the view of testing the accuracy of this statement. This convinced me that what is treated as a mere squabble for precedence was the struggle of the craftsmen, who had early imbibed the principles of the Reformation, for the maintenance of these principles against the supporters of Popery, and latterly of Episcopacy in Glasgow; although it suited the interests of these supporters to represent it as a local squabble for precedence." I confess I have seen little or nothing entitled to be called a test or new evidence, or evidence at all, in my friend's publication, of any dispute either about religious principles or about this thrice repeated squabble for precedence, or even of "squabbling" at all, as preceding or resulting in the Letter of Guildry, excepting it be the old story about John Howison, which occurred in the Cathedral in 1581, or nearly a quarter of a century before; and there seems anything but the expected evidence, "or test of accuracy," in the petition to Parliament in 1587 (of which I certainly do not recollect seeing any previous publications), representing the then ruinous and decayed state of the city; and which was, before the Reformation of religion, "interlynet and uphalden by the resort of the parsons, vicars, and other clergy," and bearing the names or supplications, doubtless, of as

many honest tradesmen or craftsmen as merchants. This document is the last in date and order of the documents or facts referred to by my friend in the chapter preceding that titled "The Letter of Guildry," which sets out with the names of Mr. Ewing, and the other writers, who are there again told of their base misrepresen tation of the grand religious struggle of the crafts as a "mere local squabble," or "dispute for precedence." Now, in evidence of the greater accuracy and propriety of Mr. Ewing's account of our municipal differences, I refer you to the letter, of which I have here the original, for your inspection, under the signature of no other than His most gracious Majesty King James the Sixth, dated the 28th September, 1606, addressed to three of our citizens, two of whom at least, Messrs. Robert Rowatt and Mathew Turnbull, we find in the list of the Magistrates about that time; and there His Majesty expressly states his "understanding the chief ground of your differences at that cittie to be a question amongest the equallity of merchants and craftis in the government of the town." And he gives his recommendation that the councillors elected should be "the most wise, discreet, and peaceable men. One half of them were to be merchants, the other half crafts, according to the rules," says he, "that we have sent you enclosed." The enclosure, or rules said to be enclosed, I am, contrary to expectation, unable to lay before you. I was so fortunate as to see them for the first time about three or at most four years ago. They were also superscribed by his Majesty, and written on a large sheet or sheets of paper, in precisely the same somewhat peculiar but distinct MS. as the above letter, which last I had not then seen. I was then only in Scotland on a visit, and I had no opportunity of copying them or getting them compared with the rules of election set forth in the Letter of Guildry, or the other terms of our municipal constitution. But as the document showed clearly what the constitution was which His Majesty wished to give the city, and was now become of an interesting nature—(and in truth I do not the less so regard it from only now observing that the above letter is dated at the time of the first annual election, immediately after the award of Sir George Elphinston and the other arbiters, with which possibly His Majesty may either have then been unacquainted, or perhaps even been dissatisfied on some points)—and as I have the most distinct recollection of the paper, and of the small folio volume of several collected MSS. in which it was bound up, I announced to you my intention of applying to the gentleman in

« PreviousContinue »