text:
Pages vii-xliii
Extracts From the Records of the Burgh of Glasgow Vol. 3, 1663-1690. Originally published by Scottish Burgh Records Society, Edinburgh, 1905.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
THE two previous volumes of Extracts from the Burgh Records of Glasgow, published in 1876 and 1881, contain selections from these records, so far as known to exist, (fn. 1) from January 1573–4 till 20th December, 1662. This volume brings down the series from 17th January, 1663, till the Revolution Settlement in 1690.
In 1894 a volume of Charters and other Documents relating to the City was issued, containing the charters from that of William the Lion to the Bishop of Glasgow in 1175–8 to that of Charles I. in favour of the Magistrates and Council of the City in 1648—the Latin charters being accompanied by translations. A preface to that volume was issued in 1897, and in it—drawing upon the two volumes of extracts above referred to—an attempt was made to sketch what may be regarded as the constitutional history of the burgh from its foundation till the end of the reign of Charles I. on 30th January, 1649.
In view of the importance to the city, both in an historical and business aspect, of having the charters brought down till the latest date, arrangements may, it is to be hoped, be made by the Corporation for having this work completed, even should no further progress be made with the publication of extracts from the records. The position which the city now claims to occupy among the municipalities of the kingdom, may well lead the corporation to deal with the matter, in view, especially, of what is being done by other public bodies.
Apart from much that is of interest otherwise as to the general history of Glasgow during the period between the restoration of Charles II. and the Revolution Settlement in 1690, the present volume deals with the final relief of the city from subordination to the archbishop of Glasgow, or to the lay successors of the archbishop, in the election of its own magistrates.
The development of the city—from its original subordination to these superiors till it acquired its present position of independence as a royal burgh—has passed through four successive stages—first, as a burgh of barony, in the enjoyment of many of the rights and privileges of a royal burgh; second, as a burgh of regality, with regality rights; third, as a royal burgh holding of the crown, but subject to the right of the archbishops to select the magistrates; and fourth, as a royal burgh emancipated from that subjection, and entitled to elect its own magistrates. To these successive stages reference has to be made, and specially to the stages third and fourth above mentioned. (fn. 2)
The charter by William the Lion to Joceline, Bishop of Glasgow, circa 1175–8, authorised the bishop and his successors to have a burgh at Glasgow and a market there on Thursdays, "with all the freedoms and customs which any of my burghs in my whole land best, most fully, quietly, and honourably has." The charter of James II. to Bishop William, of 20th April. 1450, again, confirmed to the bishop and his successors the city of Glasgow, barony of Glasgow, and lands called Bishopforest, (fn. 3) "in free, pure, and unmixed regality." But whatever privileges the citizens may have had under these charters, the right to elect their magistrates belonged to the bishop, and one illustration of the way in which it was exercised is recorded in the year 1553. On the Tuesday next after the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, when the new bailies used to be elected, the provost and the whole council presented to Archbishop Beaton, in the inner flower garden of the palace, where he was conversing with some of the canons of the chapter, a schedule containing the names of some of the most worthy and substantial men of the city, and, from it, he selected the bailies for the following year. Before the municipal election of 1561 came round, however, the Reformation had occurred, and the archbishop had gone to France. Nevertheless, the town council did their accustomed part. They proceeded to the Bishop's Palace to obtain the prelate's choice, but, finding that he had disappeared they proceeded to elect the magistrates themselves. Owing to the loss of council records, further particulars regarding elections are not available till 1574; but it is probable that during the absence of the archbishop, and before the appointment of his successor, the procedure was similar to that of 1561.
In 1560 the Scottish Estates approved of the Confession of Faith, revoked all acts authorising any form of belief or worship other than was set forth in that document, and abjured the authority of the Pope. (fn. 4) But the old spiritual estate still subsisted, and its dignitaries remained one of the estates of the realm. The only secular difference effected by the Reformation of 1560 was the substitution of protestants, and these frequently laymen, for the old church dignitaries. For a short period the temporalities of the archbishopric appear to have been held by John Porterfield, minister of Kilmarnock, the licence for whose election was issued on 8th February, 1571–2. Matters, however, were altered by the concordat of Leith in 1572, which provided for the maintenance of the titles of archbishops and bishops, and the existing boundaries of dioceses. Under this new form of episcopacy, archbishops were appointed to the sees of St. Andrews and Glasgow, and bishops to the other sees. This concordat was approved by the General Assembly at Perth in 1572, and James Boyd, of Trochrig, minister of Kirkoswald, was promoted to the archbishopric. The licence for his election was dated 30th September, 1573, and when the earliest extant records of the city commence he was archbishop, and his kinsman, Robert Lord Boyd, of Kilmarnock, was provost of the city. These relations between the archbishop and his kinsman continued till the General Assembly, held in Edinburgh, on 24th October, 1578, when the archbishop was accused by the presbyterian party of neglecting his duties, and was required to make submission. This he did on 7th July, 1579. (fn. 5) He was succeeded as archbishop by Robert Montgomery, from Stirling, who was deposed on 24th April, 1582, by the General Assembly, which had previously decided against the continuance of bishops. The privy council, however, supported him, and a conflict between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities took place. The parliament, which met in Edinburgh in May, 1584, annulled the proceedings of the ecclesiastical courts against Montgomery, and ordained that he might enjoy all honours, dignities, and benefices, as if these ecclesiastical proceedings had never been taken. (fn. 6) Against this action by parliament the kirk protested, as an invasion of its rights, but Montgomery resumed his functions, nominating the provost and bailies at the election in October of that and the subsequent year. In 1585 he seems to have entered into arrangements with the King and William Erskine, parson of Campsie, the latter of whom was vested in the archbishopric by a charter under the great seal, dated 21st December, 1585. (fn. 7) On 29th July, 1587, the parliament then held at Edinburgh annexed to the crown, to remain therewith in all time coming, all lands, lordships, and other rights and properties which at that time belonged to any archbishop, bishop, or other ecclesiastic or beneficed person, save such as were specially excepted, including the castles, mansions, and gardens of archbishops and other prelates. This act was ordered to receive effect as at Martinmas, 1587, and by a charter, dated 3rd November of that year, the king conveyed to Walter Stewart, commendator of Blantyre, the lands and barony of Glasgow, the city and burgh of regality of Glasgow, and other lands therein specified, with all patronages which had belonged to the archbishop, and the offices of bailiary and justiciary of the whole regality; and under this charter the commendator exercised the right to nominate the provost and bailies. (fn. 8) Previous to 2nd January, 1595–6, the commendator denuded himself, in favour of the king, of certain lands which belonged to the archbishopric, and apparently also of the right to nominate the provost and bailies, as that power of nomination was in some unexplained way transferred to the Duke of Lennox. On 5th October, 1596, the town council applied to the duke as "having power by the king's grace to the nomination of bailies," and he selected the provost and bailies for the year. On 16th December, 1597, an act of parliament conveyed to the duke the superiority of the archbishopric for his lifetime. On 17th November, 1600, he got a formal grant of the right to elect the magistrates, and to exercise jurisdiction over the temporalities of the archbishopric, and on 7th April, 1603, he obtained a charter of the lordship of Glasgow. On 29th June, 1598, the Convention of Estates had passed an act whereby, in consideration of the great services rendered to Queen Mary and to King James by Archbishop Beaton, the king and the estates restored him to all the heritages, honours, dignities, benefices, and offices which had previously belonged to him, and declared that he should enjoy his whole heritages and benefices, though he had never made confession of his faith or acknowledged the religion then professed in Scotland. (fn. 9) From this restitution, however, the right of choosing the provost and bailies of the burgh of Glasgow was excepted. On 2nd October, 1599, the Duke of Lennox selected the provost and bailies, and in each of the two following years similar appointments were made by him. (fn. 10)
Archbishop Beaton died at Paris on 25th April, 1603, and on 20th July, 1603, the king appointed John Spottiswood, parson of Calder, to the See, but he was not consecrated till 21st October, 1610. After his appointment to the archbishopric, Spottiswood became the king's chief adviser as to the measures by which the hierarchy was re-established in Scotland, and it was at his earnest request that the king, on 8th April, 1611, granted a charter under the great seal, by which he not only confirmed to the burgh and city all the rights, privileges, and immunities which it had enjoyed, but erected it into a free royal burgh, with all the rights and privileges thereto belonging, to be held in feu farm heritage and free burgage for ever, for the service of burgh used and wont, and the annual payment to the archbishop and his successors of sixteen merks Scots (11s. 1⅓d. sterling). The grant was so restricted as to place the city in a position much less favourable than that of Edinburgh, Dundee, and the other royal burghs of the period. These had long enjoyed the right to elect their own magistrates, and to exercise jurisdiction, relieved from all control save the supervision of the Lord High Chamberlain. But, under the charter of 1611, this privilege was withheld, and it was declared that it should in no degree prejudice the freedoms and privileges granted by the crown to the archbishop, his power of electing the magistrates as then in use, and the privilege of regality, nor the emoluments, duties, maills, customs, or other commodities belonging to him and his successors. (fn. 11) An attempt had been made in 1606 to procure for the citizens the right to choose their magistrates, and the draft of an act to effect that object was prepared, but, in consequence of opposition by interested parties, the proposal did not receive legislative sanction. (fn. 12)
On the death of Archbishop Gledstanes of St. Andrews, Archbishop Spottiswoode was transferred to that see, and was installed on 6th August, 1615. Spottiswoode was succeeded in the archbishopric of Glasgow by James Law, bishop of Orkney, who was appointed by the king on 20th July and installed in September of that year. He held that office till his death in November, 1632.
On 7th August, 1621, Archbishop Law, "as lord of the barony of Glasgow," granted a charter to Ludovick Duke Lennox, therein designed Earl Darnley and Richmond, Lord Methven, Tarbolton and St. Andrews, Great Admiral and Chamberlain of Scotland, and his heirs male and successors, heritably, of the office of bailiary, regality, and justiciary within the lordship and barony of Glasgow, as well within as without the burgh of Glasgow, with special power to appoint deputes, hold courts in civil and criminal cases, and to repledge from other jurisdictions. This grant proceeded on the narrative that the duke and his predecessors had enjoyed those offices beyond all memory, and that by their assistance the tenants and inhabitants had been kept in steadfast service and obedience to the archbishop. The offices thus described were appointed to be held blench under the archbishop, for the yearly payment of a penny at the castle of Glasgow, and the duke and his successors were taken bound to have one of their deputes continually resident in the burgh, and ready on every occasion to apprehend, incarcerate, and punish transgressors according to the measure of their fault. (fn. 13)
Duke Ludovic died on 16th February, 1624, and was succeeded by his brother Esme, son of Esme, the first duke. Esme, the third duke, died on 30th July, 1624, and was succeeded by his eldest son James, then a minor.
Archbishop Law was succeeded by Patrick Lindsay, who was translated by Charles I. from the see of Ross, conform to Charter, dated 16th April, 1633. (fn. 14)
In May, 1633, King Charles visited Scotland, accompanied by the Duke of Lennox, the Marquis of Hamilton, the Earl of Morton, Dr. Laud, bishop of London; and Dr. White, bishop of Ely, and on 20th June he opened the Scottish Parliament at Edinburgh. By this parliament an act was passed in favour of Glasgow, confirming its several charters, without prejudice, however, to the rights of the Duke of Lennox and his successors, in their offices of bailiary and justiciary of the barony and regality, and to those also of the archbishop and his successors, as regarded the right to elect and nominate the magistrates of the burgh, and their right to lands and privileges. (fn. 15)
On 16th October, 1636, the king granted to the city another charter by which he confirmed all its previous grants and rights, and of new created it a royal burgh, to be held in free burgage for the yearly payment to the crown of twenty merks, and to the archbishop of sixteen merks. The charter, however, reserved to the Duke of Lennox and his successors the whole liberties and privileges within the burgh and regality of Glasgow, which he or his predecessors had used or possessed in any time past, including those to which they and their bailies and deputes were accustomed in relation to the fair of Glasgow. (fn. 16) The archbishop and chapter and the authorities of the college seem to have been apprehensive that the extensive grants conferred by this charter were prejudicial to their rights, and to remove these objections the town council granted a bond, dated 6th December, 1636, by which it was declared that the charter should in no respect prejudice either the see or the college and that the rights conferred by it should not, so far as these parties were concerned, extend beyond those granted to the burgh by James II. on 8th April, 1611, and 21st December, 1613. (fn. 17)
Archbishop Lindsay and others of the Scottish bishops were deposed and excommunicated by the General Assembly on 13th December, 1638. The archbishop left Scotland in consequence, and proceeded to England, where he died a few years afterwards.
On 17th August, 1639, the General Assembly of the Kirk passed an act ordaining episcopal government and civil places and power of kirkmen to be held as unlawful in the kirk. (fn. 18) This act was ratified and confirmed by the parliament held at Edinburgh on 6th June, 1640; and all acts in prejudice thereof were rescinded and annulled. (fn. 19)
On 6th September, 1641, King Charles granted a charter under his privy seal, in which, after narrating that the temporality of the archbishopric of Glasgow had fallen to his disposal by the abolition in Scotland of the estate of bishops and archbishops, and referring to the close connection which existed between him and the family of Lennox, and to the fidelity and service of James, Duke of Lennox and Richmond, he, with the consent of the officers of state, disponed to the duke and his heirs male, whom failing, to his heirs and assignees whomsoever, the lands and barony of Glasgow, with the castle, city, burgh, and regality thereof, and all lands which had in ancient times belonged to the archbishop, wherever situated, with the heritable right to nominate and annually elect the provost, bailies, and other officers of the city as freely as the archbishops had done. He also constituted the duke and his successors lords of regality of the barony of Glasgow, with all the powers that attached to that office. He further granted to the duke and his heirs male the superiority of the subjects so conveyed, and appointed the farmers, tenants, and possessors thereof to hold of the duke and his heirs in feu, for the yearly payment of the fermes and duties specified in their infeftments. He moreover incorporated the lands, lordship, baronies, burgh, and regality into a temporal lordship and regality, to be called "the lordship of Glasgow," to be held by the duke and his successors for the yearly payment to the crown of two hundred merks scots (£11 2s. 22/3d. sterling), but without prejudice to an act of parliament in favour of the burgh concerning its liberties. (fn. 20)
That act, passed on 16th November, 1641, proceeded on the narrative that, in the election of magistrates, the burgh had heretofore required the assent and approbation of the archbishop, and, during such time as episcopacy was not allowed, that of the then late Ludovick, Duke of Lennox and Richmond, who was heritably infeft in the archbishopric, with the privileges belonging thereto, and specially the nomination of the magistrates of the town of Glasgow. The burgh being then, however, "one of the best peopled and pryme burghes within the kingdome, it is most agreeable to reasone that they should have free liberty to elect and choyse such persones as should be most fit both to serve the Prince and governe the burghe itselfe, as other burghs of this kingdome." The king, therefore, with the advice of the estates, and the consent of James Duke of Lennox and Richmond, ordained that the burgh should, in all time coming, have as free liberty in the election and choosing of their magistrates, yearly, at the accustomed times, as any other burgh in Scotland, "with this speciall provisione and conditione"—a provision and condition absolutely inconsistent with the narrative and the intention therein expressed—"that the proveist, baillies, and counsell of the burghe and their successoures shall present yeirlie, in all tyme coming, ane leit of three persones to be proveist of the said burgh," to the duke and his successoures, "of the whilke nomber the said" duke and his successors "shall nominat one to be proveist for the yeir followeing, whom they shall be obleist to receive and admit to be their proveist the same year; provyding the said duke and his foiresaidis, be themselves or ther commissioner, be present yeerlie within the said burghe at the castle which belongs to the duke and his successoures the tyme of the electione of ther magistrates; and in case of ther absence, in that caise it shall be lauchfull to them to goe on in the election of their proveist for that yeir of ther absence allenerly." (fn. 21)
To give effect to the arrangement set forth in the charter of 1641 and the act of parliament of 1641, c. 103, the town council, by its minute of 4th October, 1642, set forth the procedure to be followed in the future election of the provosts, and having selected a leet of three for the provostship, sent it up to the castle in order that the duke or his commissioner might nominate the provost. There the council's deputation were received by a number of the duke's "freinds and servands," who produced a commission by the duke in favour of four persons, with power to them, conjunctly and severally, to choose the magistrates. The deputation, however, declined to recognise this commission, as being disconform to the act of parliament which bore "onlie ane commissionar, and power to nominat ane to be provest out of an lyt of thrie persones." Upon this "informalitie and disconformitie" the deputation took instruments, and having reported their proceedings to the council, William Stewart was elected provost, and two merchants and one craftsman were elected bailies. On the 7th, the town councillors were elected. A similar course was adopted in the elections for 1643 and 1644, and thereafter, till 1647, the condition of the city was such that the committee of the estates practically took the appointment of the provosts, bailies, and council into their own hands. Matters had, however, so far reverted to the old condition that, on 5th October, 1647, the commissioner for the Duke of Lennox nominated the provost, who was duly elected for the following year; but at the date of the annual election in 1648 neither the duke nor his commissioner was in Glasgow.
On 30th January, 1649, King Charles I. was executed, and his son, Charles II., landed in Scotland on 23rd June, 1650, to endure bitter humiliations as a condition of succession to the crown of Scotland. These accepted, however, he was crowned at Scone; on 1st January, 1651; was defeated by Cromwell on 3rd September; escaped to Normandy on 15th October; lived an exile, without character or means, for three years in France, nearly two at Cologne, and three in the Low Countries; and then, on the termination of the Protectorate, was recalled to England, to live a venal profligate life as its sovereign.
Reverting to the conditions under which the provost and bailies of Glasgow were appointed,—on 2nd October, 1649, the duke and his commissioner were absent, and the provost was elected by the magistrates and council. Under similar circumstances the provost was elected on 1st October, 1650, and on 30th September, 1651. But on 23rd March, 1652, the commissioners of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England appointed the neighbours and inhabitants of Glasgow, "according to thair former rites and customs," to choose their magistrates, and they elected a provost and bailies to hold office till the ordinary time of election at Michaelmas following. On 5th October, 1652. the commissioner of the Duke of Lennox elected one of a leet of three to be provost, and he with three bailies were elected. No reference to an election in 1653 and 1654 appears.
On 30th March, 1655, Duke James died, and was succeeded by his son, Esme.
On 2nd October thereafter a leet for the election of the provost was sent to the duke at the castle, whereupon Sir George Maxwell, of Nether Pollok, produced a "commissioune subscrivit be some of the said Duke of Lennox freinds." This, however, was held by the council to be "cleir contrair and disconforme to" the act of parliament of 1641, and was disregarded by the magistrates and council, who elected John Anderson to be provost for the year to come. On 30th September, 1656, a leet of three persons having been submitted to "Sir George Maxwell of Nether Pollok, knight, cled with ane commissioune granted to him be the Dutches of Lennox, quha is tutrix to the young duik, her sone," he nominated John Andersone to be reappointed provost for the year to come, and he was accordingly re-elected. On 29th September, 1657, the provost submitted to the town council a letter from the Lord Protector, desiring the election of the magistrates of the burgh to be deferred till he was more fully informed in regard to the matter. The election was, on 6th October, accordingly deferred, subject to a protest that the delay should not in future be prejudicial to the magistrates and council anent their ordinary election of magistrates as formerly, "conforme to the friedome and libertie grantit to this burghe thairanent and thair use and consuetude thairuntill of befoir." The letter of the Protector, it appears, caused considerable alarm, not only in Glasgow, but in the burghs generally, as leading possibly to an invasion of their constitutional privileges. In December, accordingly, the three former magistrates were commissioned to maintain and defend the liberties and privileges of the burgh in regard to the election of its magistrates and council. These commissioners appeared before a committee appointed by the council of state to investigate and report, and, after negotiation, they, on 4th January, 1658, reported that, in the interest of peace, they had consented that at the next election at Michaelmas nine persons of the existing council should be removed, and a similar number "of that pairtie quha ar awned be Mr. Patrick Gillespie, and sould be named be Lord Desbrowie," should be put in their places. This proposal was communicated by Lord Desbrough to Gillespie, and the town council also appointed it to be submitted to him, but he refused to receive their offer. The matter, therefore, appears to have been relegated to Edinburgh, and in obedience to an order of the council of state the town records for the years 1645 and 1648 were sent there, and certain persons were appointed to appear on the 23rd and 24th of February, 1658. The result of this hearing before the council of state was that, on 27th February, an order by them, dated 24th February, was received, appointing a new election of magistrates, to take place on the following Tuesday—the councillors to be chosen on the next Friday, and the dean of guild, deacon convener, and other members on the Wednesday thereafter, "conforme to old use and wont." On 2nd March, accordingly, a leet of three for the provostship was sent up to the castle, when Sir George Maxwell produced a commission by the duke of an old date, but the representatives of the burgh declined to recognise it, "it beiring to mak ane nominatioune as aforesaid at the ordinarie electioune of the said provest, and that this election was for ane tyme extraordinar." Returning to the council, and reporting what had been done, John Anderson was elected provost, three persons were elected bailies, and thirteen merchants and twelve craftsmen were elected councillors, all till Michaelmas following. On 5th October, 1658. Lord Cochrane, as commissioner for the Duke of Lennox, nominated John Bell, who was elected provost. On 4th October, 1659, John Bell was re-elected provost on the nomination of the commissioner for the tutrix of the Duke.
On 18th June, 1660, proclamation was ordered to be made of the "happie returne" of King Charles II., and his restoration to his throne and dignity.
Esme Duke of Lennox died on 14th August, 1660, unmarried, and was succeeded by his cousin Charles, sixth Duke.
On 2nd October, in the same year, a letter from the Earl of Glencairn, then high chancellor of Scotland, was produced to the town council desiring that the magistrates who had been most unjustly thrust from their places in 1648 might be made use of as magistrates for the following year. Obedience was agreed to be given to the desire, and Colin Campbell, elder, was re-elected provost—neither the duke nor his commissioner being found at the castle to exercise their right.
On 14th November, 1661, Andrew Fairfoul was nominated to the archbishopric by the king, and was consecrated at London on 15th December of the same year.
On 23rd September, 1661, the town council, apprehending that by the restoration of bishops the manner of electing the magistrates was likely to be inverted, otherwise than was set down in the act of parliament, 1641, c. 103, appointed a committee to consider as to petitioning the king to vest these elections in the hands of the council, as was done in regard to other free royal burghs. Under this remit Sir John Nisbet, advocate, prepared the requisite supplication to the king; but, if it was presented, it did not meet with success. On 1st October, 1661, the duke and his commissioner being absent from the castle, the council re-elected Colin Campbell to be provost.
On 30th September, 1662, the council having assembled to elect the magistrates for the following year, William Forbes, servitor to the archbishop, produced a nomination by the archbishop of John Bell of Hammilton Ferm, merchant, to be provost. The council, on a vote, accepted the nomination and elected Bell, but before he took the oath he protested that the archbishop's nomination "should not be prejudiciall to the toune heirafter anent their former right" to elect their magistrates. On 6th October, 1663, the archbishop and the provost appear to have been attending the parliament then sitting, but the bailies and council convened for the usual elections, when a letter from the archbishop, stating the cause of his absence, desired that the magistrates then in office should be continued for the following year. This request was agreed to, and the provost and bailies were continued in office, under protestation that this "should be nowayes hurtfull or prejudiciall to the townes liberties heirafter." The provost thus elected appeared and took the requisite oath, but at the next meeting the council renewed an act to restrain "the great abuses" which might take place in the election of the town council "through the unboundarie limit of the provost" in their election.
On 18th January, 1664, Alexander Burnet was promoted from Aberdeen to the archbishopric of Glasgow, and was installed at St. Andrews on the 11th of April of that year.
On 4th October thereafter, at the meeting of the town council for the election of the provost and magistrates, a presentation by the archbishop in favour of William Anderson, merchant, to be provost, was submitted. But Anderson was not a member of the council at the time, and three members were sent to the archbishop to represent that the custom had ever been to present for the provostship one of the merchant rank who was a member of the council, and to request him to issue a new presentation. The archbishop, however, declined to alter his presentation. Anderson was thereupon sent for to the council, was elected, and took the requisite oath. Leets for the bailies were then made up and sent to the archbishop, and he having chosen three, the persons so selected were appointed bailies. On 3rd October, 1665, 2nd October, 1666, 1st October, 1667, 6th October, 1668, and 5th October, 1669, a similar course was followed. William Anderson was re-elected in 1665 and 1666; John Anderson, of Dowhill, elder, was elected in 1667; William Anderson was re-elected in 1668; and James Campbell in 1669.
Whenever a befitting opportunity occurred the town council appear to have sought to have the elections of the provost and magistrates placed in their own hands, and such an opportunity presented itself when, on 24th December, 1669, Archbishop Burnet resigned the see and retired into private life. His resignation is said to have been caused by a desire to obviate proceedings against him by Lauderdale, then secretary of state, for revealing proceedings in the privy council, "so as to reach the ear of the sovereign through another channel, in behalf of the presbyterians, who had engaged in the rebellion and skirmish at Pentland."
Negotiations were then opened with Bishop Leighton, of Dunblane, to accept the see of Glasgow, but he was averse to the proposal, and his reluctance was only overcome by his being induced to believe that the articles which he submitted to the government, with a view to constitutional rule and toleration for the covenanters, would be carried into effect. While he remained Bishop of Dunblane, he acted for a time as commendator or administrator of Glasgow.
On 16th April, 1670, the provost reported to the town council that he had been thwarted by some persons in his endeavour to get the elections of the provost and bailies placed in the town's own hands. But on 10th May the dean of guild was commissioned to go to London and petition the king to grant this privilege, and also to obtain the right of the bailiary and barony of Glasgow. The provost, moreover, was appointed to go to Edinburgh "to advyse quhat is neidfull to be done therintill." As the result apparently of the negotiations in London, the dean, on 18th June, reported "that the duke of Lennox will be lyklie to quyt any priviledge he hes over the toune as bailie of the regalitie," and on this report he was authorised to "deall to gett that done if nocht the whoill."
Charles Duke of Lennox was present in the parliament which met in Edinburgh on 22nd July, 1670, and visited Glasgow in that year. As Bishop Leighton had not been invested with the bishopric in time for the election of the magistrates in 1670, the king, by letter dated 24th August of that year, required the town council to receive William Anderson to be provost for the ensuing year, and remitted to them to elect the other magistrates. Obedience was given to this letter. On 3rd October, 1671, a letter from Lord Lauderdale was submitted to the council, requiring them to reappoint William Anderson to be provost for the ensuing year, and this was done. On 1st October, 1672, a letter from Archbishop Leighton of that date was presented to the council, desiring to know, "as being himselfe impartiall," whom they would have to be their provost, and intimating that "the persone whom they should recommend (unless his grace upon very weightie reasons to the contrair) sall lykly be nominat be the archbishop." On receipt of this communication the council nominated William Anderson, and the archbishop having accepted that nomination, he was forthwith elected.
In October, 1672, Charles Duke of Lennox died at Elsinore, while acting as ambassador at the court of Denmark. As he had no issue, the dukedom, with the bailiary of the regality of Glasgow reverted to King Charles II., who on 6th July, 1680, was served nearest collateral heir in special of the duke his cousin, but the liferent of the Lennox estates was settled on the duchess, who survived till 1702. The bailiary was bestowed by the king on William Duke of Hamilton for his lifetime, and he was invested in the office in 1673, according to M'Ure, the local historian, who was present at the ceremony, and states that the office was held by him till his death in 1694.
On 2nd May, 1673, the merchants of the burgh having learned that Archbishop Leighton was in London, intending to demit his office, and fearing that, if his demission were received, great prejudice to the burgh and country would result, entreated the magistrates and council to apply to such persons at court as they might think proper on the subject. On 30th September, 1673, a leet of three persons for the provostship having been presented to the archbishop at the castle, he selected William Anderson, who was appointed provost for the following year.
About this time Archbishop Leighton resigned the see and subsequently retired to England. When on a visit to London, and resident in an inn, he died on 25th June, 1684. On his demission Alexander Burnet was restored to the see by the king on 7th September, 1674, and received his patent on 12th March thereafter. Thus restored, Burnet, who during his retirement had made himself more agreeable to the authorities, became the pliant tool of Lauderdale.
On 6th October, 1674, Archbishop Burnet nominated John Bell, formerly provost, for election as provost, and he was thereupon elected. Bell seems to have carried matters with a high hand from the time of his taking office, and to have assumed a position of hostility to William Anderson, his immediate predecessor. Anderson, and others who protested against the provost's action, accordingly withdrew from the council. On 26th October, the council disavowed the action of Provost Anderson as their commissioner at a previous convention of burghs, and authorised letters of disavowal to be issued, and assurances to be given of the readiness of the council to serve the king in all his commands. On 5th October, 1675. the archbishop having nominated John Bell to be continued provost, the council admitted him accordingly. On similar nominations, James Campbell was elected provost on 3rd October, 1676, and 2nd October, 1677. On 1st October, 1678, John Bell, former provost, was nominated by the archbishop to be reappointed provost, and was thereupon elected.
On 30th September, 1679, a letter from the king, dated 12th September, was produced to the council, in which, "seeing by the translatione of Alexander, lait lord archbishop of Glasgow to St. Andrews (in whom was the legell right of election) that archbishoprick is void" he required the then provost and magistrates to be continued in office for the following year. To this order the council gave immediate effect. The installation of archbishop Burnet to the see of St. Andrews, mentioned in the king's letter, does not appear to have taken effect till the 28th of October.
On 23rd October, Arthur Ross, bishop of Galloway, was appointed archbishop of Glasgow, and was installed at St. Andrews on the same day as that on which archbishop Burnet was installed as archbishop of St. Andrews.
About this time the Duke of Hamilton was sheriff of Lanarkshire and bailie of the regality of Glasgow, but on 20th August, 1680, King Charles granted the bailiary to his natural son, Charles Duke of Lennox and Richmond, to be held by him as vassal of the archbishop, under reservation of the liferent of William Duke of Hamilton. This grant was ratified by Parliament in the following year. (fn. 22)
On 5th October, 1680, and 11th October, 1681, John Bell was re-elected provost on the nomination of the archbishop. (fn. 23) On the 14th of the last mentioned month the magistrates of that and each of the two preceding years, elected thirteen merchants and twelve craftsmen to be on the council. The provost thereupon petitioned the privy council to approve of the election, but on 8th November the king's commissioner and the privy council, found it to be irregular, and ordered a new election to be made on the 18th instant, under certification that if this were not done the archbishop would be recommended to appoint new magistrates, and they would themselves nominate a council for the burgh. A new and formal election of the council for the following year was thereupon made, and on the 18th the provost, bailies, and council took the oath and test, and signed the same in presence of Lord Ross.
On 25th April, 1682, a letter from the Marquis of Montrose to the magistrates and council was produced. In it he intimated that the king had appointed him bailie of the regality, and that, out of respect for the city and kindness to Bailie Nisbet, then dean of guild, he had appointed him depute bailie of the regality. The marquis further declared his intention to continue the office o the dean's successors in office, if there were no "indispensible caws to the contrary." In reply to this communication a letter of thanks was forthwith sent to the marquis. On 1st July of the same year a minute of the town council sets forth that "in respect it does not consist with the knowledge of the magistrates and council who is bailie of the regality," it was agreed that the fair of Glasgow for that year should be proclaimed in name of the king, the archbishop, and magistrates, without naming any bailie of the regality. What the grounds were of the dubiety thus expressed as to who was bailie of the regality does not appear. Possibly the town council were not able to reconcile the facts. William Duke of Hamilton, who survived till 1694, held a liferent appointment, and one of the king's natural sons, Charles Duke of Lennox and Richmond, held a grant of the office subject to the liferent. How, under these circumstances, therefore, the king could have appointed the Marquis of Montrose to hold the office needed explanation. It is curious to notice that, notwithstanding the doubt thus expressed, a deputation of the council was appointed on 26th August to thank the marquis for his favours and kindness to the town and "to think and try for something to be given to his lordship and his lady, by way of complement."
On 3rd October, 1682, John Barnes was appointed provost on the nomination of the archbishop, and thereupon he, notwithstanding the protest of John Bell, the former provost, proceeded, according to Bell's statement, to appoint councillors without the sanction of the town council, and contrary both to the provost's burgess oath and all previous practice. On 1st October, 1683, James Campbell, a former provost, protested against the misapplication of public funds, and was answered tu quoque. This controversy affords a curious illustration of the mode in which public funds were applied at that time. On the following day John Barnes was continued provost on the archbishop's nomination. On 27th September, 1684, the magistrates and council considering "the great pains and trouble the provest has been at in ryding and doing the touns affaires these twa yeirs, they ordain the thesaurer to delyver him wp his band of £1,706 12s. 6d.," due by him to the town, without payment, and declared him to be free of the same. Three days afterwards, on the nomination of the archbishop, John Johnston of Clachrie was elected provost.
On 31st October Archbishop Ross was translated to St. Andrews, and on 4th November the council passed an act by which they rescinded the act of 27th September, ordaining the bond for £1,706 12s. 6d. to be delivered up to Barnes without payment; they also declared that his accounts were exorbitant and far beyond any allowance given to former provosts. They caused the bond to be delivered up to the treasurer of the burgh, and instructed him to put it to execution against Barnes. This order seems to have been carried into effect, for the Court of Session, on 3rd March, 1685, gave decree against him. The magistrates and council appointed in 1684 also challenged, as embezzlement of the town's revenues and common good, bonds, and acts of council, granted by the former magistrates, and among them a bond for 20,000 merks granted to Archbishop Ross, then bishop of St. Andrews.
Alexander Cairncross, bishop of Aberdeen, was appointed archbishop of Glasgow, through the influence, it is said, of William Duke of Queensberry. Letters patent in his favour were issued on 3rd December. He was appointed on the 18th, and installed at St. Andrews on the 25th of that month.
On 6th February, 1685, King Charles II. died, and so ended what has been termed "the worst reign in English history." He was succeeded by his brother, James VII., to whom, on 28th February, the provost, magistrates, and council took the oath of allegiance. On 13th March they voted an address to the king.
On 19th September, 1685, the places of four councillors, who had failed to give attendance at the council, were declared vacant, and other persons were appointed. On 6th October Johnston was re-elected on the nomination of Archbishop Cairncross, but on 26th June, 1686, an order of the privy council, dated on the previous day, and following on a letter from the king, dated 19th March, directed the archbishop to require the town council to dismiss Johnston from the magistracy, and to install John Barnes, the former provost, in that office. The archbishop having communicated this order to the council, Barnes was appointed provost, and took the requisite oaths. Johnston's offence seems to have been against Archbishop Ross, and in obedience to an order of the privy council, dated 25th June, he appeared before the magistrates and council on 5th July and craved pardon "for his cryme and injurie done to his grace the Archbishop of St. Andrews." On 25th September a letter from the Earl of Perth, Lord High Chancellor in name of the privy council, intimated a letter from the king, dated 12th September, ordering all elections in royal burghs to be suspended till his royal pleasure was known, and authorising the magistrates and council then in office to continue till farther order. To this requirement the magistrates and council "consented with all humilitie and submission." On 18th November the archbishop appeared in the council chamber and produced a letter from the privy council, dated 11th November, by which they nominated and appointed John Barnes to be provost, three persons to be bailies, and other three to be dean of guild, deacon convener, and treasurer, respectively, with twenty-four councillors, a deacon of each of the eleven crafts, a visitor of the gardeners, and a visitor of the victual. In consequence of Archbishop Cairncross having refused, it is said, to agree to the measures of the court in regard to popery, and of the offence which he thereby gave to the king, he was deprived of the archbishopric on 13th January, 1687. He was succeeded by John Paterson, bishop of Edinburgh, who was recommended by the king on 21st January, elected on 24th February, appointed 23rd March, and installed at St. Andrews on 1st May, 1687.
On 4th October, 1687, the privy council, acting under the order of the king, dated 8th September, prohibited any new magistrates or councillors from being elected during the year. But on 3rd January, 1688, the archbishop appeared in the town council, and produced an act of the privy council, dated 22nd December, 1687, whereby, in obedience to a letter from the king, dated 9th December, the archbishop was recommended to see His Majesty's instructions, as therein set forth, fully put to execution in every way. These instructions were, that the magistrates and council for the year to Michaelmas, 1688, should be chosen in the ordinary way. In accordance with this order the archbishop named Walter Gibson, merchant, to be provost, and from leets presented to him, he appointed Colin Bell and John Gilhagie, merchants, and John Waddrope, craftsman, to be bailies. Thereafter, on 4th January, thirteen merchants and twelve craftsmen were appointed to be on the council, and the dean of guild, deacon convener, treasurer, and other officers, were also appointed.
On 2nd October, 1688, the privy council, under instructions from the king, by letter dated 13th September, empowered the magistrates of all royal burghs to continue in their respective offices till His Majesty's further pleasure was signified. And, on 4th December, the privy council, again, under instructions from the king, by letter dated 12th November, authorised the election of the provost, bailies, and other office-bearers, to proceed as usual. Thereafter, the archbishop appointed Walter Gibson to continue provost till Michaelmas following, and from leets submitted by him appointed three persons to be bailies.
The manifold arbitrary acts of King James raised against him widespread popular indignation, and led to his expulsion from the throne. In response to formal solicitation from influential persons, his son-in-law, William Prince of Orange, landed with an army, in England, on 4th November, 1688, and the king fled to France on 23rd December. On 24th January, 1689, the provost submitted to the council an address to be presented to the Prince, which was approved and signed by the majority. With obvious caution, however, the provost was appointed to advise as to whether the address should be sent, and if sent, by what persons it should be presented. It was probably sent, for the citizens were in sympathy with it. King James returned to Ireland with a body of French troops, but was defeated at the Battle of the Boyne, on 1st July, 1690, and returned to France, where he died on 6th September, 1701.
On 13th February, 1689, a Convention Parliament in England, having declared the throne vacant, William and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. On 4th April the Scottish Estates also declared the throne vacant, and on the 11th of that month agreed to offer the crown of Scotland to the English sovereigns. This offer was accepted by them, and they took the coronation oath in a form prescribed by the Estates.
On 22nd July prelacy and all superiority of any office in the church above presbyters were abolished by an act of parliament which rescinded the acts in favour of episcopacy in the reign of Charles II., and all other acts inconsistent with that then passed.
On 24th June, 1689, the royal commissioner and the privy council, acting under orders from the sovereigns, directed a new and free election of the bailies, dean of guild, treasurer, and town council, on 2nd and 3rd July, by "a poll of habile burgessis bearing burden, scot and lot." The persons so elected were appointed to remain in office till Michaelmas following, and were required to send to the king a list of three persons, of whom one might be elected provost.
The king's letter granting this privilege to Glasgow appears to have excited discussion in the parliament held at Edinburgh in June. A letter, addressed by Andrew Kennedy, of Cloburne, to William Denham, of Westshiell, in London, dated 22nd June, states that the king's letter displeased the commissioner, the Duke of Hamilton:—
"It was said to be lyke the old tread of letters, bot uthers thought that Glasgow should have hade this liberty or now, and in effect it deserves better at King Williams hands then any toun in Scotland; and many think that the King will erect it in ane absolut burgh royal. But you know Duke Hamiltoun was made baillie of the regality for his life, when the King succeeded as aire to the Duke of Lenox; and it is pretendit that now, in the vacancie of the Bishoprick, the right made to the Duke of Lenox after the 38 revives. Bot this is thought a vaine pretence, because by the act 1662, restoring Bishops, the Dukes right was made void; so that now upon their abolishing, it is falen in the Kings hand, and the King, as come in the Bishops place, hes the only power of election; for the Duke of Lenox, as baillie, never had it, nor pretendit to it. However, the mater was remitted to be examined by the Kings advocat." (fn. 24)
The information thus given is supplemented by a letter from John Anderson, of Dowhill, and Robert Spreull to Lord Melville, the Secretary of State, dated 25th June, 1689. It is as follows:—
"My Lord,—By Saterday's poast I gave your lordship informatioune of what past in councell in relatione to his Majesties letter in favours of the towne of Glasgowe, his grace the Duke of Hamilton putteing a stope to that benefit his Majestie had given us, pretending that the King had not been rightly informed of his interest." [A petition to the lords of councill was accordingly put in] "desyring that in respect of the urgent necessite of the publick safetie, and the difficulties of the towne, their lordships wold be pleased to allowe them the benefitt of the act of the estates, conforme to his Majesties letter, always reserving his Majesties right untill his pleasure be known. After som debait in councell concerning it, they have allowed ane electione of the bayllies and councell, and that they should send up a list of thrie persons to the King, owt of whiche his Majestie may nominat on to be provest. Now, my Lord, this is nather confoirme to the Kings mynd, nor to the towns priviledge; for the Kings mynd is that we should have full and ample libertie to elect our magistrats as freely as any other brughe in the kingdome, and caries no restrictione, and also it puts the towne in a worse condition then it was; for all that the towne was obliged to doe according to the settlement by act of parliament to the Duke of Lennox (in whose place his Majestie now stands) [was] only to present a list of thrie persons to the Duik or his commissioner, especially commissioner for that effect, at the Castle of Glasgow. If his grace, or non from him wer there, they proceeded to the electione of there provest as the act of Parliament authorised them; and very frequently they have done, when either there was no commissioner at the castle, or that his commission did not exactly meet with the matter. Now, my Lord, by this act of councell, the towne is highly prejudged, and the end of his Majesties letter is frustrat. Wherfor I humbly crave that your lordship will be pleased to infoirme his Majestie heirof, that his Majestie may renew his letter to the councell, dispensing with this his right, and authorising the people to elect there provest as freely as any other brughe hath done. My Lord, the publick interest and safetie of the natione and of the place calls for this, and also the people hopes for his Majesties favour and goodness in it. My Lord, for your cleirer informatione I have sent to Mr. Nairne the copie of the act of councell, as alsoe the just double of the act of parliament, whereby your lordship will find wherein they disagrie. His grace the Duck of Hamiltone did mantaine this debait very hotly. My Lord, I humbly beg that this may not be delayed, both for the publick good and the privat concerne of the towne, for both can hardly admitt any delaye. I am, my Lord, your lordships oblidged servant, [Subscribed] Jo. Anderson. Ro. Spreull." (fn. 25)
The Duke of Hamilton, on the other hand, represented his views to Lord Melville in a letter dated Holyrood House, 4th July, 1689, in which he said:—
"Upon receiving the Kings letter to the counsill, it not appearing that the King had been informed of his right in choysing of the provest of Glasgow, and, having seen ane act of parliament ratefeing ane agreement betuixt the toune and the Duke of Lennox, that he should choyse out of a leet of three to be presented to him, the provost; the counsill therfore did appoynt them to goe choyse their magistrats, according to his Majesties letter, and to send a leet of three to his Majestie to choyse the provost. And accordingly thay took out their act, and I hear are about making their elections, and, his Majestie being now in the place of the Duke of Lennox, it is ane intrest I think so much for his service, that he should not departe from it, seeing he hes good right to it in law, which I hope your lordship will let him know. And, if your lordship at distance procure things from the King, that may relate to his service here, yow will find the inconveniency of not first advysing these matters with those the King trusts here; and why they should make any complaint I cannot understand, since they have taken out their act, and are proceeding in their electione." (fn. 26)
In virtue of the order by the privy council of 24th June, a free election of the bailies and council, by a poll of the burgesses, took place on the 3rd of July in presence of Sir William Fleming, of Ferme, and George Anderson, town clerk, and it was resolved to ascertain whether the king desired the leet for the provostship to be submitted by the council or by the burgesses. No reply appears to have been received to the letter which John Anderson and Robert Spreule wrote to Lord Melville on the 25th of June, and Anderson again wrote his lordship on the 6th of August intreating him to obtain—
"his Majesties allowance to the present magistrats and councell of Glasgow to elect there provest, signified to them by a line from his Majestie. The bearer, Mr. Sprule, who is goeing for London upon som particulare of his owne, can infoirme your Lordship how muche it tends to the hurt and prejudice of the towne that we have not a Provest. I knowe your Lordship is takene up about the great and weghtie concernes of the natione, to which this ought to give waye. But, my Lord, this being of soe much concerne to this poor place, I entreat your Lordships most convenient and spare hower to obtaine it." (fn. 27)
The result of this correspondence does not appear further than may be inferred from the fact, recorded in the town council's minute of 26th August, that on that day the double of a Signature or Letter of Gift was produced and read, which was to be presented to the King and Queen "for getting the election of the proveist and baillies in their owne hands (bishops now being abolished)." (fn. 28) This document was approved, and John Anderson, of Dowhill, was appointed to proceed to London and present it to their Majesties "for getting the same made effectual." With a view to this, a formal commission was given in favour of Anderson. As the result of this action their Majesties granted the privilege sought, and on Anderson's return he presented to the council an account of his expenses and necessary outlays, amounting to £424 19s. Scots. On 1st October, 1689, the ordinary day for the election of the provost and bailies of the burgh, a letter from the king, dated 19th September, was produced to the council, allowing them "to elect and choose as well your proveist as other magistrates for the ensuing year." Thereupon John Anderson was elected provost, and John Leckie, John Gibson, and George Nisbet were elected bailies. The temporary privilege thus conferred on the city was made perpetual by a Letter of Gift by the king and queen, which Provost Anderson produced to the town council on 18th January, 1690. By this letter a charter was ordered to be issued, under the great seal, confirming all charters, grants, and privileges by previous sovereigns in favour of the city, and farther their Majesties, as having come in place of the archbishop, granted to the city and the town council full power and liberty "to choise and elect their proveist, baillies, and haill other magistrats in the ordinar maner and at the ordinar tyme, as freelie as any other royall burgh in the kingdome doe or may choise their proveist, bailies, and magistrats," beginning the first election at Michaelmas following, and so to continue in all time coming. Having thus, at last, succeeded so far, the provost was appointed on 1st February to proceed to Edinburgh and get the grant passed the great seal. At the same time he presented an account of his personal expenses and disbursements, including the dues of the secretary and his servants and gifts to "persones of qualitie who were the touns freinds in dealling with his Majestie to procure the said Letter of Gift." That account amounted to £3,673 Scots, with £57 paid for the exchange of £215 sterling of that sum. This account was unanimously approved and ordered to be paid, and the provost was most heartily thanked. An address to their Majesties was also voted. The provost lost no time in executing the commission granted to him on the 1st, for on the 24th he produced to the council the confirmation under the great seal of the Letter of Gift above mentioned, (fn. 29) and the treasurer was directed to pay the charges connected with the gift, and the provost's personal expenses, amounting in all to £681 12s. Scots.
With a view to having the letter of gift confirmed by parliament it was ordered, on 21st April, 1690, to be sent to the provost in Edinburgh, and on 2nd June he submitted to the town council the draft of the requisite act which he was to endeavour to have passed. On 11th August he produced the act which had been passed on 14th June. Under the powers thus obtained the first free election of the provost and bailies took place on 30th September, and the councillors for the following year were appointed on 3rd October. 1690.
As regards the subsequent elections of the provosts, magistrates, and council of the city, these, like the corresponding elections in other royal burghs, were regulated by the sett of the burgh, till the introduction of a uniform system of election under the provisions of the Municipal Reform Act of 1833.
The preparation of this volume, which records the enfranchisement of the city from subjection to the archbishop, and its establishment with all the rights and privileges of the most favoured royal burgh, has been the work mainly of Mr. Robert Renwick, whose intimate knowledge of Old Glasgow is, I believe, unique. The elaborate Index, without which such a work as this is deprived of much of its value, has also been prepared by him. For such ungrudging gratuitous labour warm acknowledgement is due.
19 Woodside Terrace, Glasgow, January, 1905.


text:
Employer Identification Number
Setting up a formal business entity in California is simple. The initial member of a limited liability company (LLC) will file the Articles of Organization with the California Secretary of State. The incorporator for a corporation will file the Articles of Incorporation with the California Secretary of State. Once either of these documents is filed, a formal business entity will technically exist.
Unfortunately, filing the Articles of Organization or Articles of Incorporation is not the end of the process. There are other corporate formalities including meeting minutes, establishing officers and office locations. There are also required filings including, filing a Statement of Information, paying the initial minimum withholding fee to the California Franchise Tax Board, registering with the Department of Business Oversight, and getting an employer identification number (EIN).
A business entity must get an employer identification number. Without the EIN, for example, the business will not be able to open bank accounts or file taxes. The employer identification number is similar to a social security number or national identification number. The EIN is used to formally identify the business.
There are two ways to obtain an employer identification number. A new business entity may file a SS-4 with the Internal Revenue Service by fax or mail. The fax number and mailing addresses are below:
|If your principal business, office or agency, or legal residence in the case of an individual, is located in:
|Mail or Fax Form SS-4 to:
|One of the 50 states or the District of Columbia
|Internal Revenue Service
Attn: EIN Operation
Cincinnati, OH 45999Fax: (855) 641-6935
|If you have no legal residence, principal place of business, or principal office or agency in any state:
|Internal Revenue Service
Attn: EIN International Operation
Cincinnati, OH 45999Fax: (855) 215-1627 (within the U.S.)Fax: (304) 707-9471 (outside the U.S.)
The second path for the business entity is to apply for the EIN online. The online process only takes a few minutes and the employer identification number is received immediately.
Employer Identification Number Responsible Party
All employer identification numbers must disclose the name of a responsible party. The responsible party is typically the principal officer or owner of the business. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will contact the responsible party should there by any questions. The responsible party is typically the Chief Financial Officer or the person handling the business banking accounts and bookkeeping.
The IRS specifically describes "responsible parties" as "the person who has a level of control over, or entitlement to, the funds or assets in the entity that, as a practical matter, enables the individual, directly or indirectly, to control, manage or direct the entity and the disposition of its funds and assets."
The responsible party may be an individual or an already registered company with a different EIN. For an individual to qualify as a responsible party, that person must have either a social security number (SSN) or an individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN). The full name of the responsible party with their social security number or individual taxpayer identification number is included on the SS-4 7(a)-7(b).
Non-Resident Foreign Employer Identification Number Applicants
Non-resident foreign applicants will not have a social security number. The only path to obtain an employer identification number is by first obtaining an individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN).
An individual taxpayer identification number is a tax processing number issued by the Internal Revenue Service. Individuals are required to have a taxpayer identification number if they need to file taxes and are not eligible for a social security number. IRS Form W-7 is the application for a individual taxpayer identification number.
Applying for an individual taxpayer identification number can be tedious because the applicant must attach an original identification document or copies that are certified by the issuing agency. For example, an applicant using a passport may send the original passport to the IRS or send a copy after it has been certified by the issuing government agency.
Completed Form W-7 Application for IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number with proof of identity and foreign status documents are sent to:
Internal Revenue Service
Austin Service Center
ITIN Operation
P.O. Box 149342
Austin, TX 78714-9342
Sacramento Business Lawyers
Please feel free to contact Sacramento's business lawyers if you would like assistance with obtaining an employer identification number. Our attorneys have assisted countless companies establish limited liability companies and corporations. Our business attorney provides an online calendar to easily book appointments and offers a wide range of business services. Learn more about the business law services.
Call Us: (916) 241-3336
By: Trevor Carson Google+
*The information provided in this post does not constitute legal advice or opinion. The information is for guidance purposes only. Individual situations vary and you should contact an attorney for legal advice. Carson & Kyung, A Law Corporation includes attorneys who are well-versed in business law matters and are located in Sacramento.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Origin: a Latin derivative
meaning "Gift of the Earth."
David Stirling is a founding executive and the CEO and chairman of doTERRA. Under his visionary leadership, doTERRA has grown from a fledgling startup to the world's largest essential oil company with more than $1.5 billion in annual sales. With nearly three decades of management and executive experience across a variety of industries, David finds his greatest satisfaction in growing individuals and in growing companies.
Since doTERRA's inception, David has been steadfast in his commitment to bring essential oils to every home in the world. In this endeavor, he oversees the company's exponential growth in Europe, Latin America, Korea and Japan.
In addition to setting the strategic direction for doTERRA, and implementing and maintaining company culture, David directs the company's IT and technology processes, web development, distributor tools, and a member services workforce of more than 1,000 employees.
David and his wife Lorea have nine children. David holds both a bachelor's degree and an MBA in business, and he was recently honored as the first-ever recipient of the Distinguished Entrepreneur Award from the David Eccles School of Business.
For nearly three decades, Corey has been involved in the global world of direct selling. He has lived and worked in Hong Kong, Japan, China, Australia and, of course, the United States, solving complex business issues in global environments. Corey is a seasoned business executive having worked in senior C-level positions for two billion dollar-plus consumer product companies that market products through direct selling–one being doTERRA. He has flown millions of airline miles managing large organizations that span multiple geographies. Developing competent and loyal teams has been the hallmark of Corey's professional career. He holds a BS degree in accounting and an MBA degree, and began his professional career in 1987 working for one of the world's largest public accounting firms prior to beginning work in the direct selling world in 1990. Corey is driven by ensuring that his teams are customer focused and are always doing their very best to help every doTERRA customer and Wellness Advocate have great experiences in their interaction with the company. He loves all sports, especially golf, but Corey is quick to point out that his favorite time in life is spent with his amazing wife, his eight children, and his 16 grandchildren doing whatever it is that they want to do.
Emily has nearly 20 years of experience in the essential oil industry, having served in executive level positions for the past 13 years. Her extensive experience in all aspects of the essential oils market and leadership over the sales and marketing efforts for the United States and Canada have allowed her to combine her two loves: essential oils and people. Emily has an innate ability to see what is possible and puts her heart and soul into accomplishing the task at hand. Her belief in humanity and ability to see the individual worth of every person she meets is one of her greatest qualities. Emily's expertise and passion lies in sourcing the world's purest and most potent essential oils, educating individuals about their powerful benefits, and in developing people. She recognizes that when good people with pure hearts come together for a common cause, the possibilities are limitless. Emily's greatest accomplishment is being the mother of four beautiful children and the wife of a humble cowboy.
With extensive experience developing and managing international opportunities and markets for health and wellness companies that spans more than a quarter of a century, Greg Cook has been vital to establishing doTERRA's global footprint. In addition to his love for creating business, Greg has a keen passion for humanitarian efforts to improve the lives of individuals throughout the world. Greg continues to work with a vast network of key and trusted contacts to further doTERRA's growth and success. Recently, Greg relocated to Shanghai, China, where he is working to develop more relationships and opportunities for Wellness Advocates and doTERRA.
Rob has over 25 years of experience in product marketing and corporate communications in the direct selling industry, having served in senior executive management positions and on strategic steering committees for some of the largest direct selling companies in the world. Corporate and packaging identities that Rob has developed are familiar to millions of customers, while products he has marketed have accounted for billions in global sales. Anyone associated with the direct selling industry is likely to know Rob or be familiar with his work. His product expertise includes skin care, personal care, household consumer product, and developing and marketing nutritional wellness products and programs. Rob considers his most satisfying professional achievement to be his work with impoverished communities of the world as the director of the doTERRA Healing Hands Foundation™.


text:
Ireland's amateur golfers are on course to retain the European Team Championship title in Italy.
Mick Burns' side sensationally crushed Germany 5-2 in the semi-finals at Royal Park Golf Club near Turin today and will face England in Saturday's final.
Bidding to win the title for only the sixth time, Ireland captain Mick Burns hopes his charges show the kind of determination that helped them squeeze through the strokeplay qualifiers.
Burns said: "Our team really picked themselves up after the scare we had on day two. They realise the opportunity that lies in front of them and I have confidence in them to go on and do their best again on Saturday in what's going to be a tough encounter."
Shane Lowry and Gareth Shaw got Ireland up and running with a 5 and 4 win in the opening foursomes.
Then Jonathan Caldwell and Paul Cutler came back from one down after six to beat German duo Alexander Knappe and Maximillian Kiefer 2 and 1 and put Ireland 2-0 up going into the five afternoon singles.
West of Ireland champion Lowry lost 5 and 4 to Allen John in the bottom match but wins for Cutler and Caldwell and halves by Shaw and Paul O'Hanlon sent Ireland safely through to the decider.
England hammered favourites France 5-2 and will be looking for revenge for last year's semi-final defeat to Ireland at Western Gailes.
Germany 2, Ireland 5
Foursomes: Stephan Gross & Sean Einhaus lost to Shane Lowry and Gareth Shaw 5/4; Alexander Knappe & Maximilian Kieffer lost to Jonathan Caldwell & Paul Cutler 2& 1.
Alexander Knappe halved with Gareth Shaw; Stephan Gross lost to Paul Cutler 5/3; Sean Einhaus lost to Jonathan Caldwell 3/2; Maximilian Kieffer halved with Paul O'Hanlon; Allen John bt Shane Lowry 5/4.


text:
"With a slow turn of the knob, Darian peeked out of the slit of an opening. He frowned. "Did they send you to tell me that he was dead, Mr. Christianson?" (page 99)
Welcome one and all to Day Seven of the -Cock Fight- Dailies. We are over halfway there, folks. I hope you're enjoying this 13 day blog event as much as I am.
Darian, Isadora (whom you have already met in Blog Three), Tahlia, Aldo, Stephanie and Victor… These characters are the supporting cast for my 11th novel Cock Fight. Not to give too much away, in no particular order in this group of players we have got: a lawyer (with too big of a head), an art dealer (who plays for both sides), a scumbucket (with no style), a mommy (who leaves too soon), another scumbucket (with style out the ying-yang) and a daddy (who may have stayed too long). A pretty colorful cast of characters, huh?
Odd little characters such as these populate all my books. I love crafting all their weird angles, their warts and their beauty marks, their skewed though insightful views.
In a way they are my glass menagerie.
In the Tennessee Williams play (and subsequent movie), Laura is a girl who is crippled a little in both mind and spirit. As her mother longs for a "gentleman caller" to come knocking on their door to sweep her daughter away in love, Laura spends the bulk of her time playing with her collection of tiny glass animals.
While I can thankfully say that I am in a considerably better situation than Laura, I do have a giggle as I think of the odd little men and women that have sprung out of some odd little place in my brain sitting on my bookshelf staring back at me…
And if this whole conversation hasn't freaked you out at least a little, you are a better soul than me. My meds are calling and I, dear ones, am answering.
Until tomorrow (when I promise not to get as creepy or as oddly literary),
Chloe Stowe


text:
Sign in using Facebook or another account.
This is the name that will be used to identify you within the system. Choose wisely!
Already have an account? Log in here
By submitting this form, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.


text:
C.C. Judy McDowall has informed me that after a call about access to the Lednock Dam the Factor, is arranging for the gate to be left open this Saturday, 2nd August, from 1.00pm to 4.00pm allowing access to the dam further up the road.
He asked that folk be careful about not leaving anything eg. Litter etc and that they respect the area.
Many thanks to Judy and to the estate factor.


text:
The Phillies returned to the baseball diamond on Friday night in a rainy humid Atlanta. The first game back from the All Star Break ended in a loss for the Phils.
Something was noticed that needs to be corrected, and it's Jimmy Rollins. A bloop fly ball was hit by Ryan Howard and Rollins barely scored from third base while a charging Chase Utley nearly passed him and he scored from second base. This has been happening a lot this season, Utley is charging so fast, he is nearly catching Jimmy most of the time.
Jimmy needs to play somewhere else where he won't have to run too fast, because especially this season, he just doesn't seem like he has that hustle in him.
Enough is enough, we've seen this for too long from him and if the Phils can't trade him, bench him until he gets the message.


text:
It is summertime and that means family vacations! During my childhood, that meant loading up the family station wagon and going camping. Later, after my grandparents bought a camper, we would use that instead. For my husband, he says they went on one family vacation that didn't turn out so well with four young boys in the back seat of a Plymouth whining and fighting the entire time.
Fortunately for us, the Robbins Barstow family of Connecticut loved to camp and take home movies, too, from the early 1950s through the 1961 when they made it their quest to visit "all 48 states" (obviously, their adventure began before Alaska and Hawaii joined the Union). When Mr. Barstow was in his eighties, he decided to edit and narrate their adventures. The movies are too long to post here, but you can find them here and here if you are interested.
But their dream vacation happened in 1956 when they won a nationwide contest sponsored by 3M Corporation: A trip for a family of four to Disneyland, which had just opened the year before. They had a family of five, so the movie also shares how they made arrangements so that no one was left behind.
What I love about this old home movie is that there is no embarrassment in Mr. Barstow's voice as he describes how they managed to stretch the $300 vacation budget so that they could ensure that they were having a good time.
Modern chuckle at myself: As I was watching the Barstow's visit my "back yard," I was amazed that they stayed in Pasadena instead of Anaheim. And then I remembered that at that time, Disneyland was out in the middle of nowhere. Even well into the 1960's, the Matterhorn was the tallest structure around (aside from Anaheim stadium). They could have stayed at the Disneyland Hotel but it didn't officially open until late summer in 1956–too late for the Barstow's visit.
My husband and I also got a kick out of the matching jackets that Mrs. Barstow made for each family member. Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but I just can't imagine a modern family doing it these days. Finally, I remember when entire neighborhoods would get together to send a family off on a "big vacation" like this. Shoot, my parents threw a graduation/bon voyage party for me when I graduated from high school and took a four-week student trip to Europe. Back then, it was a really big deal. Now my students and classmates talk about flying off to Europe for a long weekend!
This film is a little over 30 minutes long and worth the time simply for the nostalgic effect. An added bonus for this film is that in December 2008, "Disneyland Dream" was named to the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress.
Click here if the player does not work for you
Subscribe (free!) to my newsletter with tips and updates PLUS get instant access to my resource library with ALL of my free printables for recipes, checklists, DIY, and more. Once subscribed, I will send you a newsletter with midcentury lessons for subscribers only and details about the new resource I've added that week. How great is that?
Enter my free printables resource library for my latest recipes, checklists, DIY, and more. ! Password is 'midcenturylove' -- please copy and paste that in at the link above. Thanks for being a subscriber!!


text:
Millions of people dream of living and working in New York. But the job search in New York is super competitive and this process is always tough and complex. For some this dream seems to be impossible while others try to do their best to make it come true. And certainly if you can make it in NY, you can make it anywhere. You need to have a clear plan of actions to make your job search in New York successful. Here are some tips and tricks one can use to land a job quickly and qualitatively. Don't worry, it doesn't matter who you are, what you are and what can you bring to the table – New York will definitely find how to exploit you for money.
Let's consider some specific recommendations for job search in New York first. Get rid of stereotypes attached to typical New Yorker who is considered to be rude, cold and impatient. These people have to comply with the city rhythm but most of them are helpful and patient. Then, you are to get familiar and learn the subway system of New York. It is so complicated and confusing that at first sight toy may get lost. But when you figure it out New York public transportation system is wonderful and very convenient. In order to have more chances to get hired you should start with the small startups. These companies are eager to find employees, who want to work hard, achieve common goals and grow with them. You may also make a submission to the reputable staffing agency website to set up some interviews. There are tens of great staffing agencies which can really assist you in your job search.
And now some general tips which can be applied for successful job search not only in New York, but also worldwide.
- Keep your resume concise and short
One single sided page is enough. Try to stay within the set volume. Your aim is to make it laconic and linked to quantifiable results. Limit your contacts to one email, one phone number and LinkedIn profile URL.
- Make a portfolio of job search docs
It is getting more and more popular to create a short portfolio of different documents related to the job search. That's what can help you to distinguish yourself from other potential employees.
- Nail your video interview skills
Hiring managers use Skype as an effective way of conducting interviews. But it is not so easy to present yourself well in a video interview so train many times to excel in Skype interview.
- Use LinkedIn, Twitter and other social networks to attract employers' attention
Using LinkedIn and other social nets in the modern competitive labor market is an essential part of job search so dive deep into it.
- Don't focus on major job boards
These job boards are effective way only when your resume consists of at least 85% of keywords form the job posting. You'd rather concentrate on job matching sites or regional and industry-specific boards.
Job search in New York is not a cakewalk but ambitious applicants always have success and land a job there. Learn some patience, be prepared, get all the stereotypes out of your head and go ahead!


text:
I am looking for a SKF to DWG converter application. Can anyone help?
There isn't a direct way to convert the SKF files to DWG, but it's possible with a little trick. First install the free image editor called XnView then Ghostscript for Windows. Open the SKF file and export the file to PDF. You can use Tools > Batch Processing. With the file opened, select PDF and save the file, then use a PDF to DWG converter and you will have your file converted from SKF to PDF.
For vector-based SKF files, this will not give a satisfactory result.
XnView can only handle bitmap files, so will only convert the bitmap preview included in the skf file. This leads to very blocky results.


text:
Exodus New Update/Version-Install Exodus On Kodi 17.4 Krypton In Firestick-2017-exodus new url-exodus new link-new exodus kodi-new exodus kodi update-exodus install kodi amazon fire stick-exodus for kodi 17.4.
This new exodus kodi add-on also works on kodi 17,kodi 17.1,kodi 17.3,kodi 16,kodi 16.1,spmc/xbmc kodi,kodi jarvis,android also.
This new exodus kodi 2017 doesn't shows installation failed,episodes not updating,not working or no stream available errors.
This exodus new releases v 3.1.25 works without fusion and has new repo.
how to install exodus on kodi 17.4 krypton:
1.Goto kodi settings – File manager – Add source.
2.Here you can enter that new exodus link/url and also enter the media source name.
3.Then goto kodi home – Addons – Drop box icon – install from zip file – sc – repository.
4.Select that zip file and wait for sometime.
5.Then goto install from repository – simply caz repo – video addons.
6.Finally click to install kodi exodus on amazon fire tv stick.
7.You can update exodus on kodi 17.4 by goto "information" option.


text:
|12 oz Canvas
|550 GSM Pearl Weave
|"Y" Side Vents
The team at Tatami Fightwear has been working hard on their latest Gi, refining the Estilo 5.0 using their years of experience in the industry along with testing and feedback from their top athletes. Guys like JT Torres, Mike Fowler, Kit Dale, Darragh O'Connell... the list goes on! Tatami logos are embroidered on the shoulders and thighs, featuring a flat center surface and merrowed edges for a subtle but unique finish. New Tatami branding is also used throughout the interior of the Gi via woven graphic taping, used to cover all of the inner seams at the sleeve cuffs, pant openings, and jacket skirt. Something that has never been utilized for the Estilo before is the sort of sublimated yoke panel inside the jacket. And we love it! This beautifully done graphic panel runs all throughout the shoulders and not only looks great but also reduces sweat absorption, as the sublimated material doesn't absorb moisture as easily as cotton Gi weave. In typical Estilo fashion, the 5.0 is built from super durable fabrics: 550 GSM Pearl for the top, 12 oz. canvas cotton for the trousers. Tatami introduces us to their Y-shaped side vents, which replace the conventional straight split vents at each side of the jacket skirt. This angled Y cut lets the skirt to rest more naturally around the waist whether you're standing or on the ground scrambling. Both the top and bottom are ready for battle thanks to the heavy rows of stitching, reinforcement panels, and double-layered knees. Pants are equipped with slightly wider loops that better guide the cord drawstring. In addition to the graphic embroideries, there are few woven labels tastefully added. One at the pants waist hidden under the jacket skirt and one hidden inside the jacket opening (outlining the care instructions). Pick up your Estilo 5.0 today and see why Tatami is widely regarded as one of the premier BJJ brands across the world!
- 550 GSM Pearl weave jacket
- 12 oz. canvas pants
- Embroidered logos
- New sublimated interior yoke panel
- Woven seam taping along the inner cuffs and skirt
- Unique "Y" side vents
Our policy lasts 30 days. If 30 days have gone by since your purchase, unfortunately we can't offer you a refund or exchange.
To be eligible for a return, your item must be unused and in the same condition that you received it. It must also be in the original packaging.
Several types of products are exempt from being returned.
Refunds (if applicable)
Once your return is received and inspected, we will send you an email to notify you that we have received your returned item. We will also notify you of the approval or rejection of your refund.
If you are approved, then your refund will be processed, and a credit will automatically be applied to your credit card or original method of payment, within a certain amount of days.
Late or missing refunds (if applicable)
If you haven't received a refund yet, first check your bank account again.
Then contact your credit card company, it may take some time before your refund is officially posted.
Next contact your bank. There is often some processing time before a refund is posted.
If you've done all of this and you still have not received your refund yet, please contact us at email@example.com.
Sale items (if applicable)
Only regular priced items may be refunded, unfortunately sale items cannot be refunded.
Exchanges (if applicable)
We only replace items if they are defective or damaged. If you need to exchange it for the same item, send us an email at email@example.com.
If the item was marked as a gift when purchased and shipped directly to you, you'll receive a gift credit for the value of your return. Once the returned item is received, a gift certificate will be mailed to you.
If the item wasn't marked as a gift when purchased, or the gift giver had the order shipped to themselves to give to you later, we will send a refund to the gift giver and he will find out about your return.
To return your product, you should email at firstname.lastname@example.com. You will receive RMA for return. You will be responsible for paying for your own shipping costs for returning your item. Shipping costs are non-refundable. If you receive a refund, the cost of return shipping will be deducted from your refund.
Depending on where you live, the time it may take for your exchanged product to reach you, may vary.
If you are shipping an item over $69.99, you should consider using a traceable shipping service or purchasing shipping insurance. We don't guarantee that we will receive your returned item.


text:
Too seldom are cultural and ethnic barriers bridged between Chicago's black and brown minority and immigrant communities, according to Alie Kabba, an immigrant from Sierra Leone and executive director of the Chicago-based United African Organization (UAO).
Dubbed the Racial Justice Roundtable, UAO hosted its third and final workshop on the effect of racism and racial inequality on immigrant and minority communities over the weekend. The workshop highlighted different forms of racial inequality, including institutional and structural racism, and discussed the need for all communities of color to come together on a unified mission for social justice.
"Too often we work within different silos and we are never really connected," said Kabba regarding Illinois' numerous immigrant rights and advocacy organizations. "We want to make sure those of us engaged in the work of social justice are building black-brown alliances and starting to use a racial justice lens in our discourse about public policy issues and their impact on our communities."
Kabba said UAO extended invitations to the Racial Justice Roundtable to various community organizations such as the Latino Policy Forum; the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities (NALACC); the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC); the Arab American Action Network (AAAN); and Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago.
"When I say the word 'immigrant,' what's the first face that pops to your mind? Latino," said Bryan Echols, principal at BE-The Change Consulting and facilitator of Saturday's workshop. "[We need to] expand the commentary of who immigrants are and what the struggle looks like."
Echols said all minority and immigrant communities are united under the umbrella of oppression and racism. He said the "race for wealth and privilege" in America started in 1492, well before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when minorities could "get a good footing and join" the competition.
Here's more from Echols:
"Racism is primarily characterized by white domination, also called white supremacy — the preferential treatment, privilege and power for white people at the expense of Black, Latino, Asian Pacific Islander, Native American, Arab and other racially-oppressed people," reads a booklet Echols passed to the rountable's attendees. "Racism condemns millions to poverty, inadequate health care, substandard jobs, violence and other conditions of oppression."
Kabba said one issue a black-brown alliance could address with a unified front is how minority communities are treated within America's criminal justice system.
"Too often it's easy to railroad black kids into the criminal justice system, that has become the way to address urban problems," he said. "At the same time, we see in immigrant communities, the rate of deportations devastates families."
One out of every 15 African American males aged 18 years or older was incarcerated in 2008, according to a study by the Pew Center on the States.
Meanwhile, a record number of people — more than 400,000 — were deported last year, amounting to more than 1,100 deportations each day.
"Black and brown communities need to frame a common dialogue around the quest for much more inclusive democracy that works for all of us," Kabba said. "The criminal justice system is disproportionately affecting black and brown communities and we need to address that."
Kabba added that community organizations representing different minority groups in Chicago could also join forces to fight for better schools in urban neighborhoods and combat the staggeringly high unemployment rates in the city's Latino and African American populations.
Also, African immigrants' voices are not often heard during discussion of fixing America's "broken immigration system," Kabba added.
There were 1.6 million African immigrants in the U.S. in 2010, according to the Immigration Policy Center. Nearly half of that population, the research and policy center reports, had citizenship.
With 42,300 residents, Chicago has the fifth-largest population of African immigrants in the U.S., according to a recent report by the Chicago Tribune. Kabba said 49 of the 54 African countries are represented in the Windy City.
Kim Hunt, executive director for Affinity Community Services, said cultural transformation and building bridges between different community groups can often be a difficult task. Hunt attended Saturday's workshop in an attempt to become more "culturally competent."
"We need to bring black, and also LGBT, voices further into the immigration conversation," she said. "We need to build bridges to different communities in the hopes of eventually creating deeper relationships that can be harnessed for additional human rights work."
Kabba said he views the Racial Justice Roundtable series as the beginning of a long-term engagement with various community organizations that are addressing issues of concern to the broader immigrant community.
"For us to move forward it is important for all communities, especially communities of color, to understand [that] in order to make systemic changes, we have to join forces and look at the problems through a racial justice lens," he said. "It's time to level the playing field so we all can compete evenly."