|
THE most active and capable of the
managers of the civic affairs in the latter years of the seventeenth
century has hardly till now received the attention which his
services and somewhat dramatic career seem to deserve. The Andersons
of Dowhill were merchants whose family estate lay close to the burgh
boundary on the east. They represented the Andersons of Stobcross,
who held that property on Clydeside as rentallers under the
Archbishop as early as 1545. [Mitchell, Old Glasgow Essays, p. '79;
Senex, Old Glasgow, p. 16.] The Dowhill, or Dew-hill, is mentioned
in the twelfth-century Life of St. Mungo as a favourite resort of
that holy man. It rose beyond the Molendinar, on the line of the
present Gallowgate, and was the site, in the feudal centuries, of a
fane known as Little St. Mungo's Kirk. In the middle of the
eighteenth century it became the site of the famous Saracen Head
Inn. Dowhill estate extended from the Molendinar eastward to the
Butts, and from the Gallowgate northward to the College grounds. The
Andersons of Dowhill come into the limelight of Glasgow history as
men of substance in the years following the Restoration of Charles
II. McUre, the earliest Glasgow historian, says they were the first
to import cherry sack direct to Glasgow. That delicacy had
previously been procured only through Leith and Edinburgh. In 1663
and again in 1665, probably to preserve the amenities of his own
estate adjoining, John Anderson, elder, took a lease of the grass of
Little St. Mungo's Kirkyard at the rent of a rix-dollar. His
position as a man of substance is shown by the fact that in 1665 he
advanced considerable sums for the purchase of land by the town.
Among his other enterprises he was a partner with Sir George Maxwell
in the famous Whalefishing Company of 1667. [Cleland's Annals, ii.
367.] He was provost in 1655 and again in 1667, and it was under his
guidance that in the latter year the burgh acquired the great estate
of Provan from Sir Robert Hamilton of Silvertonhill. Among his
possessions the laird of Dowhill owned a tenement in the Saltmarket,
which was destroyed in the great fire of 1677. In rebuilding it two
years later he availed himself of the subsidy, amounting to £1507
Scots, offered by the magistrates, and when a dispute occurred
between him and his neighbour regarding a mutual gable, the
magistrates built the gable and deducted the cost from their
subsidy. [Burgh Records of dates named; Regality Club Transactions,
i. 1-7.] More was to be heard of this tenement at a later date. In
his latter days the fortunes of this worthy man seem to have
suffered something like eclipse, for in 1684 he was reduced to
supplicate the Town Council, in view of his heavy loss by the fire,
the decay of trade, and "the ill condition he was in," to forgive
him a debt of £370. This they duly did.
But much more notable than John
Anderson, elder, was John Anderson, younger, of Dowhill. There are
records of his disbursing sums for the town's purposes in 1665 and
1666. When the magistrates were looking for a location for a new
harbour on the firth in 1667 he was commissioned to go to Greenock
with the provost and the deacon-convener to settle the purchase of
the lands of Kilburnie. He was chosen a bailie in 1666 and in 1683,
and in 1669 he was elected Dean of Guild. In the following year he
was sent to London to endeavour to secure for the burgh from Charles
II. the free election of its own magistrates, as well as the rights
of the bailiary and barony of Glasgow, with liberty to spend what he
pleased in the enterprise. And in 1677, after the great fire, he was
one of the commission sent to Edinburgh to secure help from the
Privy Council for the rebuilding of the town. But his greatest
triumph was his mission to London in 1689 already described, in
which he obtained from King William that right of free election of
the provost and magistrates which had been coveted by Glasgow since
the Reformation. His success on that occasion was probably helped by
the fact that he was of the party which supported the Revolution. He
had suffered for his views in 1671 when his leet for the election of
magistrates was rejected, and in 1674, when his complaint on the
subject was over-ruled, and he was excluded from the council for
refusing to take the Declaration. Also, during the provostship of
the notorious John Barnes in 1685, he had been deposed from the town
council for non-attendance at its meetings.
In recognition of his success in
London, Dowhill was appointed Commissioner to the meeting of the
Estates—in other words the burgh's member of Parliament, in August,
1689, and was elected Provost in October.
He was appointed to the office of
chief magistrate no fewer than four times, [The provost's term of
office was then two years. Anderson was elected in 1689, 1695, 1699,
and 1703.] and during his terms of office and out of them did much
notable service to the city. Among the acts of his provostship was
the vindication of the rights of certain incorporations of trades.
In particular the Incorporation of Surgeons secured a decision which
carried them a long way towards the position which safeguards the
public against the imposition of unqualified practitioners at the
present day. In 1679 the Town Council, without the consent of the
Surgeons' Incorporation, had granted permission to a Mr. Henry
Marshall to practise as a surgeon in the burgh. Now, twelve years
later, in their appeal to the magistrates, the Faculty cited the
grant by King James VI. in 1599, empowering them to make rules for
the admission of members, and the exclusion of unqualified persons.
In the case of a dearth of practitioners the magistrates had power
to invite a surgeon to settle in the city, but he must pay the usual
burgess fee and pass the professional tests of the Faculty.
Marshall, though from his title of "Mr.," evidently a university
graduate, had not apparently fulfilled these requirements, and the
Faculty demanded the withdrawal of the licence granted him by the
magistrates. With this demand Provost Anderson, with his bailies and
council, complied. The licence was withdrawn. At the same time the
Incorporation of Surgeons was earnestly desired to use Marshall "civillie
and discreetlie," as, it may be hoped, they did. [Burgh Records, 9th
May, 1691.]
In similar fashion the Incorporation
of Coopers complained of infringement of their privileges. Their
rule was that no piece of cooper-work should be brought into the
burgh by an outsider, and exposed for sale, without being submitted
to the deacon and other masters of the craft. If it failed to meet
their approval as an efficient piece of work it was subject to
immediate confiscation by the magistrates, and its "inbringer" was
liable to fine and other punishment. In defiance of this rule, it
appears, several persons had gone out of the town to have
cooper-work made and repaired, and had brought it back for use
without due submission. There were evidently coopers outside the
town, who were doing the work more cheaply than the Glasgow
craftsmen, and the latter, seeing their monopoly in danger, demanded
that the prices should be those fixed by their own deacon. They also
demanded that the coopers working at Port-Glasgow in the time of the
fishing should, like the craftsmen in Glasgow itself, be required to
subscribe twopence Scots weekly to a benevolent fund, half to be
used for their own poor and the other half to be remitted for the
poor of the craft in the city. A further complaint was that the
coopers of Gorbals had "forestalled" the market by buying rungs,
staves, and splits in wholesale quantities without these being first
exposed for public sale. This they demanded should be forbidden
under a penalty of ten merks each upon buyer and seller for every
offence. This petition also was granted, after due consideration, by
Provost Anderson and his council. They placed it on record that they
thought the demands "reasonable and just," a verdict which would
seem to show that the ex clusive policy of trade unions at the
present day is not so modern as some people may imagine. [Burgh
Records, 15th May, 1691.]
Two criminal events which occurred in
Glasgow in his time show the character of Provost Anderson of
Dowhill in another interesting light. A certain James Peadie was
provost when the former of these took place. By some action which
does not transpire, Peadie had given offence to Robert Brock, a
goldsmith and former bailie of the town, and in consequence, in the
house of a certain widow, and in the presence of the provost and
several other persons, Brock had told the provost exactly what he
thought of him. The opinion appears to have been expressed in
somewhat lurid language—"In manifest contempt of their Majesties
authoritie, represented in the magisstrats, and without all regard
to his burges oath, without all fear of God," he did "revile,
slander, and defame the said James Peadie, proveist, by calling him
ane villaine, ane rascall, ane cheat, ane knave, void of all
religion and fear of God, ane wolfe in sheepes cloathing, and that
he had bein the cause of ruine to the said Robert Brock and his
familie." Brock had gone even further, and declared that the provost
had hazarded the ruin of his soul by bringing him to take the name
of God in vain, a thing which he had not done for four years past,
till provoked to do so by Peadie.
At that time it was a serious matter
to shew discourtesy to a magistrate. Even to fail in raising the
bonnet to a bailie when passing him in the street might involve
unpleasant consequences. The outrageous behaviour of Brock therefore
was made the subject of formal trial before two of the magistrates.
The goldsmith was duly summoned at his own house and by the "crying"
of "three severall oyesses" at the market cross, and afterwards from
the top of the Tolbooth stair; but he failed to appear, and the
trial went on without him. Three respectable witnesses, duly sworn
and "purged of partiall counsell," testified against him. The two
first agreed without hesitation to every point made against the
accused, and rather revelled in repeating his most opprobrious
words. The third witness was Anderson of Dowhill, and his evidence
was in notable contrast. He weighed his words, testified only to the
exact expressions he had himself heard, and reduced a charge of
threatening to assault to the mere shaking of his staff in defiance
by the accused man.
In the upshot the charge was found
fully proven. Brock was fined five hundred merks, deprived of his
rights as a burgess and guild brother, and ordered to be detained in
prison till he should pay the fine. [Ibid. 14th Aug., 1693.] He
evidently, however, made his peace afterwards with the magistrates,
for he frequently in later years was employed on jeweller's work by
them.
The incident illustrates not only the
custom and attitude of mind of the time, but the calm judicial
temper of John Anderson of Dowhill.
The second occurrence of the kind in
which Dowhill played a part was much more serious. It arose out of
nothing less than the murder of the Town Clerk. The facts of the
tragedy were dramatic enough. A certain Major Menzies, commanding
Lord Lindsay's regiment, then quartered in Glasgow, had seized and
imprisoned several burgesses on the plea that they were deserters.
On complaint being made, the magistrates desired the Major to bring
the accused persons before them for trial. This he absolutely
refused to do. A conference was then arranged, at which the provost,
two of the bailies, and the Town-Clerk, Mr. Robert Park, met Major
Menzies and three of his captains in the Town Clerk's office. In the
course of the discussion a dispute arose. Menzies struck the Town
Clerk with his cane, and, the latter springing to his feet, there
was a struggle. The two were separated by the company, then, while
the Town Clerk was being held by Captain Jarvis, the Major drew his
sword and ran him through the body, so that he died instantly.
Menzies then marched off, sword in hand, to the guard-house, called
out his men, drew them up, with loaded muskets three files deep
across the street, and set them to guard the passes, while he
mounted his horse and escaped. [The large round table at which the
Town Clerk was sitting when this tragic event took place is now in
the refectory room of the South Court at the Judiciary Buildings in
Jocelyn Square.]
One of the Lords of the Privy
Council, Mr. Francis Montgomery, who happened to be at hand,
forthwith ordered such of the inhabitants as could soonest get ready
to pursue and apprehend the murderer. In obedience to this order
John Anderson, of Dowhill, with Robert Stevenson, glazier, and John
Gillespie, a tailor and burgess, set forth, and came upon the Major,
skulking in a garden at Rainfield, near the site of the present
Constitutional Club. [J. O. Mitchell, Regality Club Papers, i. 3.]
They charged him with the murder, and desired him to yield himself
prisoner, but he refused, and came at them with a drawn sword. In
the emergency of the moment a shot was fired, and Menzies fell dead.
In consequence of this unfortunate
affair the three pursuers were tried for murder in the High Court of
Justiciary at Edinburgh. The fatal shot had apparently been fired by
Gillespie, and part of the charge against the three was that Menzies
had offered to surrender. The Town Council, however, sent three of
its magistrates to witness for the defence, and the Court found the
prisoners' defence sufficient and discharged them from the bar.
[Collection of Trials by Hugo Arnot, pp. 163-9; Burgh Records, and
Nov., 1694.] The town's expenses in connection with the trial, in
which no fewer than seventy-four witnesses were retained, amounted
to £3540 0s. 4d. Scots. The fees to advocates, clerks of justiciary
and macers came to £1027 5s. 4d. [Burgh Records, 23rd Feb., 1695.] |
