makes people start yet. Strong built and dark, with rough
eyebrows, powerful eyes, threatening lips, and a low
growling voice, he was like a formidable blacksmith. His
accent and his dialect were exaggerated Scotch; his language,
like his thoughts, short, strong, and conclusive.”
“It is impossible to condemn his conduct as a criminal
judge too gravely, or too severely. It was a disgrace to the
age. A dexterous and practical trier of ordinary cases: he
was harsh to prisoners even in his jocularity, and to every
counsel whom he chose to dislike.... It may be doubted if he
was ever so much in his element as when tauntingly repelling
the last despairing claim of a wretched culprit, and sending
him to Botany Bay or the gallows with an insulting jest;
over which he would chuckle the more from observing that
correct people were shocked. As he once said to an eloquent
culprit at the bar: ‘Ye’re a verra clever chiel, man, but
ye wad be nane the waur o’ a hanging.’ Hang was his phrase
for all kinds of punishment.... He, as the head of the
Court, and the only powerful man it contained, was the real
director of its proceedings. The reports make his abuse of
the judgment-seat bad enough; but his misconduct was not
so fully disclosed in formal decisions and charges as it
transpired in casual remarks and general manner. ‘Let them
bring me prisoners, and I’ll find them law’ used to be
openly stated as his suggestion when an intended political
prosecution was marred by anticipated difficulties.... Mr.
Horner, one of the jurors, in Muir’s case, told me that
when he was passing behind the bench to get into the box,
Braxfield, who knew him, whispered, ‘Come awa, Maister
Horner, come awa, and help us to hang ane o’ thae daamned
scoondrels.’”――Lord Cockburn’s _Memorials of his Time_,
pages 113‒117.
Muir admitted that he had agitated concerning the representation of
the people in parliament, but denied having used seditious language or
disseminated seditious literature. The judges were prepossessed against
him, the jury was packed, and there was little hope for the prisoner at
the bar; nevertheless, Muir addressed the jury in a memorable speech,
which occupied three hours in its delivery. When he concluded, a
shout of applause was raised by the audience in the gallery and the
passages of the court, the echo of which is not even yet spent. In
vain Lord Braxfield shouted “Clear the court,” and he then said, that
this applause which the prisoner had received had only confirmed his
conviction that it would be dangerous to allow Muir to remain in the
country. He next concentrated all his powers, and rose to sum up and
address the jury, and amongst other and equally remarkable things, his
lordship said:――
“This is the question for consideration. Is the panel guilty of
sedition or is he not. Now, before this question can be answered,
two things must be attended to that require no proof. First, that the
British Constitution is the best that ever was since the creation of
the world, and it is not possible to make it better. For is not every
man secure? Does not every man reap the fruit of his own industry,
and sit safely under his own fig tree? The next circumstance is that
there was a spirit of sedition in this country last winter which made
every good man uneasy. Yet Mr. Muir had at that time gone about among
ignorant country people, making them forget their work, and told them
that a reform was absolutely necessary for preserving their liberty,
which, if it had not been for him, they would never have thought was
in danger. I do not doubt that this will appear to the jury, as it does
to me, to be sedition.
“The next thing to be attended to is the outlawry. Running away from
justice――that was a mark of guilt. And what could he do in France
at that period? Pretending to be an ambassador to a foreign country
without lawful authority, that is rebellion; and he pretends to have
had influence with those wretches, the leading men there. And what
kind of folks were they? I never liked the French all my days, and
now I hate them. The panel’s haranguing such multitudes of ignorant
weavers about their grievances might have been attended with the worst
consequences to the peace of the nation and the safety of our glorious
Constitution. Mr. Muir might have known that no attention could be paid
to such a rabble. What right had they to representation? I could have
told them that the parliament would never listen to their petition. How
could they think of it? A government in every country should be just
like a corporation, and in this country it is made up of the landed
interest, which alone has a right to be represented. As for the rabble,
who have nothing but personal property, what hold has the nation of
them? What security for the payment of their taxes? They may pack
up all their property on their backs and leave the country in the
twinkling of an eye, but landed property cannot be removed.”¹
¹ _The Martyrs of Reform in Scotland_, by A. H. Millar, F.S.A.
Scotland.
Muir, as a matter of course, was found guilty, and sentenced to
transportation for a period of fourteen years. Other persons were tried
this year and the following one for similar offences, and every one
of them for a first offence were sentenced to transportation. Amongst
those were Gerald, Hargarot, and Palmer. Political discussion and
political meetings were completely suppressed for a considerable time
in Scotland. But these trials left a deep impression upon the popular
mind, and on the minds of all thinking men. In 1844, a stone monument
was erected to their memory on the Calton Hill burying ground,
Edinburgh.
The Government employed a set of spies, who often brought innocent and
unsuspecting persons into the iron grasp of the criminal law. After
the trials of 1793 and 1794, the Government seems to have imagined that
Glasgow was the chief revolutionary centre in Scotland, although, in
fact, there was no such thing in the nation, save what the Government
itself was creating. When any Government purposely employs and pays
men to discover sedition among a peaceful community, these men, in
the interest of their trade, will soon create a show of the article
required by their employers. This was what occurred in Glasgow between
1816 and 1820; that there was distress, and consequently discontent, in
Glasgow, is well-known; but that there was anything like an organised
conspiracy against the Government there is no evidence whatever.
By the operations of the spies and paid agents of the Government, three
or four men were arrested and imprisoned in the Castle of Edinburgh
in 1816, where they were kept for a considerable time. When the trial
of these men began, it at once became evident that the whole affair
had been manufactured to order; and it was shown in open court that
the Advocate-depute had tampered with a witness, and endeavoured to
corrupt him. The trial broke down, and “the prison and castle gates
were instantly opened, and all the kindred prisoners walked forth.”
But in the year 1820, three men, Hardie, Baird, and Wilson, were
executed for political offences which they were led into by the agents
of the Government of the day; and other fifteen men were, at the same
time, and for the same offence, sentenced to transportation.
Liberal principles in politics, and freedom of discussion, slowly
advanced in Scotland; and incidents occasionally happened to convince
the party in power that they were not quite immortal. The younger
class of Whigs, represented by the _Edinburgh Review_, fought bravely
and effectually, and by and by the clouds began to disperse, and the
political atmosphere became clearer. The calm and reasonable teaching
of Adam Smith and of Dugald Stewart had begun to tell; the press, too,
was beginning to gather some influence; but the most powerful wave
which was rapidly increasing in volume and momentum issued from the
commercial and trading class. The wealth of this class was increasing,
and it was them especially which rendered the first Reform Bill,
not a matter of choice to be decided by this or that party, but a
matter of absolute necessity. The new bill, therefore, gave this class
power, and free trade won the day; but, though this great measure of
reform swept off innumerable abuses, and introduced a better system of
representation, it was far from satisfactory. The body of the people
were still left outside the Constitution, and outside the legislature;
they had no vote or voice in the government of their country. Hence,
agitation for political reform, instead of being abated, shortly became
more general and intense than it had ever before been, and the Chartist
movement arose.
As might have easily been foreseen, the Chartist movement commenced
almost immediately after the passing of the Reform Bill. They were,
however, more troublesome in England than in Scotland. Their programme
of reform was enounced in distinct terms and published to the world,
and consisted of the following points:――(1) Universal Suffrage; (2)
Vote by Ballot; (3) Annual Parliaments; (4) Payment of Members; (5)
Abolition of the Property Qualification; and in 1848, they adopted the
principle of equal electoral districts or proportionate constituencies.
The more important of these points have already been embodied in the
political system of the country; and the Chartists are, therefore,
entitled to be considered as the real and only fruitful political
reformers since 1833. From about 1843 to 1851, they had associations,
clubs, and meeting-houses in Scotland; and many of their lecturers
travelled through the country and delivered speeches at public
meetings in the centres of population. One of their last meetings was
a Democratic Conference, held in Edinburgh, in 1852.
In fact, many of the workmen in the chief towns of England: Manchester,
Birmingham, Nottingham, Newcastle, and the chief seats of industry in
Lancashire and Yorkshire, as well as in the chief towns of Scotland,
were extremely disappointed with the Reform Bill of 1832; as it was
merely drawn to admit the commercial and middle class to political
rights and power. So the cry for political reform was continued; and
one responsible statesman ventured, about 1862, to announce that, in
his opinion, the time had arrived when an extension of the franchise
might safely be made. The announcement was received by many of the
organs of public opinion with utter amazement, and by some it was
treated with scorn and contempt. But shortly after the death of Lord
Palmerston, the subject of representative reform was taken up by
Earl Russell’s Administration, and in the spring of 1866, a measure
called “The Representation of the People Bill” was introduced in
parliament. It proposed a £7 franchise for burghs, and some other
forms of qualification for a vote; the Government, a little later in
the session, also introduced “The Redistribution of Seats Bill;” but,
properly speaking, the two halfs were intended to form one measure. The
whole measure was fiercely assailed in its principle and its details
by Mr. Robert Lowe, then member for the burgh of Calne. In the course
of the debates on the measure, he delivered three or four powerful
and long speeches against it; in one of which his peroration was as
follows:――
“I have said that I am utterly unable to reason with the Chancellor of
the Exchequer for want of a common principle to start from; but there
is happily one common ground left to us, and that is the second book
of the Æneid of Virgil. My right honourable friend, like the moth which
has singed its wings in the candle, has returned again to the poor
old Trojan horse, and I shall, with the permission of the House, give
them one more excerpt from the history of that noble beast.... The
passage which I am about to quote is one which is, I think, worthy the
attention of the House, because it contains a description not only of
the invading army of which we have heard so much, but also a slight
sketch of its general:――
‘The fatal horse pours forth the human tide,
Insulting Sinon flings his firebrands wide――
The gates are burst; the ancient rampart falls,
And swarming millions climb its crumbling walls.’
I have now traced, as well as I can, what I believe will be the
natural results of a measure which, it seems to my poor imagination, is
calculated, if it should pass into law, to destroy one after another,
those institutions which have secured to England an amount of happiness
and prosperity which no country has ever reached, or is ever likely
to attain. Surely the heroic work of so many centuries, the matchless
achievements of so many wise heads and strong hands, deserve a nobler
consummation than to be sacrificed at the shrine of revolutionary
passion, or the maudlin enthusiasm of humanity! But, if we do fall,
we shall fall deservedly. Uncoerced by any external force, not borne
down by any internal calamity, but in the full plethora of our wealth
and the surfeit of our too exuberant prosperity, with our own rash
and inconsiderate hands, we are about to pluck down on our own heads
the venerable temple of our liberty and our glory. History may tell of
other acts as signally disastrous, but of none more wanton, none more
disgraceful.”
A considerable number of the Liberal members followed Mr. Lowe in
his opposition, and on a division the measure was thrown out; and
Earl Russell’s ministry resigned. The country was soon in a flame of
agitation. Demonstrations in favour of parliamentary reform were held
in every city and town of any importance throughout Scotland. This time
the manifestations were determined and unmistakable, and it was seen
that longer resistance to the united voice of the people was hopeless.
Accordingly, the Conservatives introduced a Reform Bill, which, as
every one knows, was worked into form by the Opposition in committee,
and in its reamended state finally passed. But I have perhaps come down
far enough, and shall only observe that at present a single division
of Lanarkshire or of Aberdeenshire contains twice as many voters as
all the counties of Scotland put together had at the end of the last
century.
At the beginning of the present century, the position of the working
classes with respect to civil, municipal, and political rights were
very different from the status in which they now stand. In short,
as we have seen, the people had no political rights, nor political
freedom, till a recent period. The struggle to obtain those rights was
a long and severe one; but various influences and circumstances have
contributed to place the people in the commanding position which they
at present enjoy.
The gradual diffusion of education and intelligence, and organisation
and association among themselves for mutual benefits and ends, have
done much to advance the body of the people. Trades unions have been
viewed from very different standpoints; but without entering into a
discussion or endless details, by attempting to justify the principles
and the action of those unions in all the varied directions of their
operation, I take them as a whole, and consider their results. When
the liberty of the subject was so restricted that it was a crime to
unite or associate for mutual benefits and ends, the effect of this
was that Trades Unions in the early part of the present century were
unlawful associations, and treated as such. Now injustice always begets
injustice in some form. It is not surprising, therefore, that in their
early stages trades unions were not always reasonable and fair in their
proceedings. The Combination Laws were only partly repealed in 1825.
Upon the lines just indicated, there can be no doubt that those unions
have done a vast amount of good. They have enabled workmen in some
degree to hold their own, to obtain equal justice, and civil and
political rights. In short, in the intense struggle of competition
during the last fifty years, workmen could not have existed without
their unions.
CHAPTER LII.
_Ecclesiastical Movements._
THE aim of this chapter is mainly expository. It will, therefore,
proceed on the fundamental conceptions and principles of the polity of
the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. In the first place it will touch
on the original conception of this polity; in the second, the effect of
external power and circumstances upon it; and third, the modifications
which it has undergone.
The conceptions of the Scotch Reformers were not elaborated at once:
religion and secular government were often mixed in the early stages
of the Reformation. A Church distinct from and independent of the State
was a conception quite alien to the forms of thinking which prevailed
among the Reformers; on the other hand, a secular government distinct
from and independent of the Church was an idea scarcely entertained
by any statesmen of the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. Both the
Church and State held the common notions of theocracy, as being both
under the direction of God, should therefore be associated. In itself
the theocratic idea is grand and inspiring in contemplation. But in
practical operation it appears that the Church and State both claim
a supremacy; and they often hold very different views as to what is
the will of God, or how far and in what circumstances the Word of
God should be followed. The King may maintain that he alone under God
has a supremacy of power over the Church and everything else within
his kingdom, as was done by James VI., Charles I., Charles II., and
James VII., in Scotland. Whoever wishes to understand the Church
of Scotland and her many struggles should form a clear conception
of this theocratic principle, as it is the key of the history of
Presbyterianism in this country.
According to the authoritative and historic polity of the Church, the
doctrine of the spiritual and civil powers were as follows:――“This
power and ecclesiastical polity is different and distinct in its own
nature, from that power and polity which is called the civil power, and
belongs to the civil government of the commonwealth; albeit, they are
both of God, and tend to the same end, if they be rightly used――namely,
to advance the glory of God and to have godly and good subjects. This
power ecclesiastical flows immediately from God and the Mediator,
Christ Jesus, and is spiritual, not having a temporal head in earth,
but only Christ, the only spiritual King and Governor of His Church.
Therefore this power and polity of the Church should lean upon the
Word of God immediately, as the only ground thereof, and should be
taken from the pure fountains of the Scriptures, hearing the voice
of Christ, the only spiritual King, and being ruled by His laws....
Notwithstanding, as the ministers and others of the ecclesiastical
estate are subject to the civil magistrate, so ought the person of
the magistrate in spiritual matters to be subject to the Church and
in ecclesiastical government.
“The civil power should command the spiritual to exercise and perform
their office according to the Word of God. The spiritual rulers should
require the Christian magistrate to administer justice and punish
vice, and to maintain the liberty and quietness of the Church within
their bounds.... The magistrate ought neither to preach, minister the
Sacrament, nor execute the censures of the Church, nor yet prescribe
any rule how it should be done, but command the minister to observe
the rule commanded in the Word of God, and punish the transgressors
by civil means. The ministers do not exercise civil jurisdiction, but
teach the magistrate how it should be exercised according to the Word.
The magistrate ought to assist, maintain, and fortify the jurisdiction
of the Church. The ministers assist their princes in all things
agreeable to the Word, provided they do not neglect their own charge
by involving themselves in civil affairs.
“So it appertains to the office of the Christian magistrate to assist
and maintain the discipline of the Church, and to punish them civilly
that will not obey the censures of the Church; to make laws and
constitutions agreeable to the Word, for the advancement of the Church
and her polity, without usurping anything that does not belong to the
civil sword.”¹
¹ _Second Book of Discipline._
It is obvious that this theory of the spiritual and civil powers is
grounded upon the assumption that the State and the Church ought to
assist each other and runs on lines of a co-ordinate jurisdiction. As
to supremacy in the case of the Church, the final appeal is distinctly
placed upon the Word of God and Christ Jesus, the spiritual Head and
King; in other words, it is a distinct development of the theocratic
conception. The ideas involved in the theory are irreconcilable in
practical operation, unless under peculiar conditions and circumstances
of society.
Touching the election of ministers to congregations, it is explicitly
and repeatedly stated that great care should always be taken not to
intrude any minister on a congregation, if they are not satisfied
with him. Hence, lay patronage was throughout inconsistent with the
conception and fundamental principles of this Church; and she opposed
and rejected it, and fought against it.
Having now stated the original grounds out of which the struggles
between the Government and the Church arose, which have been explained
at length in the preceding volumes of the work, it may be remarked
that patronage was abolished shortly after the Revolution, but again
restored by the British Government in 1712. After this the struggles
of the Church of Scotland were mainly internal; but they still sprang
from the conceptions and theory of the powers of the Church. The
ideas, sentiments, and feelings engendered by many long years of severe
persecution continued to be represented in the Assemblies and Courts of
the Church with more or less vigour; hence, an internal struggle arose
between the party who held firmly to those ideas and views and the new
or more modern party――called, in ecclesiastical history, the Moderate
party. At first the difference between the two parties was not great;
but about the middle of the eighteenth century the opposite views of
the popular and Moderate parties in the Church Courts and throughout
the country had become distinct and irreconcilable.
The chief practical point of polity in dispute was the settlement
of ministers in parishes against the wishes and the expressed
determination of the congregations. Cases of this character were
constantly coming before the presbyteries and the General Assemblies;
and in 1733 it was upon matters which arose out of such cases that a
secession from the church then took place. Ebenezer Erskine, minister
of Stirling, was a vehement advocate of popular election, and in
his sermon at the opening of the Synod in the autumn of 1732, he
said:――“There is a twofold call necessary for a man’s meddling as
a builder in the Church of God: there is the call of God and of His
Church. God’s call consists in qualifying a man for His work; inspiring
him with a holy zeal and desire to employ those qualifications for the
glory of God and the good of His Church. The call of the Church lies
in the free choice and election of the Christian people. The promise
of conduct and counsel in the choice of men that are to build is not
made to patrons, heritors, or any other set of men, but to the Church,
the body of Christ, to whom apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers
are given. As it is the natural privilege of every house or society
of men to have the choice of their own servants or officers, so it
is the privilege of the house of God in a particular manner. What a
miserable bondage would it be reckoned for any family to have stewards
or servants imposed on them by strangers, who might give the children
a stone for bread, or a scorpion instead of a fish, or poison instead
of medicine? And shall we suppose that ever God granted a power to any
set of men, patrons, heritors, or whatever they be――a power to impose
servants on His family, without His consent, they being the freest
society in the world?... A cry and complaint came in before the bar
of the last Assembly for relief and redress of these and many other
grievances, both from ministers and people. But instead of a due regard
had thereunto, an act is passed confining the power of election unto
heritors and elders, whereby a new wound is given to the prerogative
of Christ and the privileges of His subjects.... Only allow me to say,
that whatever Church authority may be in that act, yet it wants the
authority of the Son of God. All ecclesiastical authority under heaven
is derived from Him; and, therefore, any act that wants His authority
has no authority at all.”
Erskine was rebuked by the Synod, and by the General Assembly, for the
sentiments uttered in this sermon; but he adhered to every word that
he had said, and in Covenanting style protested at every stage of the
proceedings taken against him, along with three of his brethren who
adhered to him. They stood out boldly against every attempt of the
Assembly to threaten or to flinch them; and, accordingly, at last they
were turned out of their churches and manses in 1740. But several years
before this they had formed themselves into a presbytery, and dissent
continued to increase. In the year 1773, there were nearly two hundred
dissenting congregations in Scotland, besides Episcopalians and Roman
Catholics.
The question of patronage and the intrusion of presentees on reclaiming
congregations still occupied much of the attention of presbyteries and
the General Assembly. But, in 1752, a movement was inaugurated in the
General Assembly which had for its object the enforcement of the law of
patronage at all hazards; and the leader of it was Dr. Robertson, who,
in the policy which he persistently followed, seemed to have attained
a remarkable measure of success, yet the wisdom of the course which
he adopted may be questioned. His object was to enforce a strict and
literal observance of patronage.¹ But what did this mean? It meant that
one of the fundamental principles of Scotch Presbyterianism was to be
extinguished. It also assumed that the opinions and sentiments of the
people with regard to this principle could be suppressed by decrees of
the General Assembly, forgetting that the people had fought and bled
in opposing patronage for a period of nearly two centuries. In short,
taking all the facts and circumstances in connection with patronage
into account, it would have been a wiser policy, and more worthy of
Robertson’s historic mind, if he had employed his talents and influence
to abolish patronage. Dr. Robertson’s ecclesiastical policy had a
deadening tendency, inasmuch as those who followed it had no higher
principle than that of a cringing allegiance to patrons, so his party
lost the confidence and the respect of the people because they had cast
off the historic glory of their Church. The descent of the majority
of the Scotch clergy in the last half of the eighteenth century was
remarkable; their earnestness, spirit, and abilities, faded. Dr.
Robertson retired from the management of ecclesiastical affairs in 1780.
¹ “Some friends and companions having been well informed
that a great majority of the General Assembly, 1751, were
certainly to let Mr. Adams, of Falkirk, the disobedient
brother, escape with a very slight censure, a select company
of fifteen were called together in a tavern, a night or
two before the case was to be debated in the Assembly, to
consult what was to be done. There met, accordingly, in
the tavern the Right Honourable the Lord Provost Drummond;
the Honourable William, Master of Ross; Mr. Gilbert Elliot,
junior, of Minto; Mr. Andrew Pringle, advocate; Messrs.
Jardine, Blair, Robertson, John Home, Adam Dickson of Dunse,
George Logan of Ormiston, Alexander Carlyle of Inveresk,
and as many more as made fifteen, two of whom, viz., Logan
and Carlyle, were not members of the Assembly. The business
was talked over, and, having the advice of two able lawyers,
Messrs. Elliot and Pringle, we were confirmed, in our
opinion, that it was necessary to use every means in our
power to restore the authority of the Church, otherwise
her government would be degraded, and everything depending
on her authority would fall into confusion; and although
success was not expected at this assembly, as we know that
the judges, and many other respectable elders, besides the
opposite party of the clergy, were resolved to let Mr. Adams
and the disobedient Presbytery of Linlithgow escape with an
admonition only, yet we believed that, by keeping the object
in view, good sense would prevail at last, and order be
restored. We did not propose deposition, but only suspension
for six months, which, we thought, was meeting the opposite
party half way. John Home agreed to make the motion, and
Robertson to second him.... Home made a spirited oration,
though not a business speech, which talent he never attained.
Robertson followed him, and not only gained the attention
of the Assembly, but drew the praise of the best judges
... whom I overheard say, that Robertson was an admirable
speaker, and would soon become a leader in the Church
courts.”――_Autobiography of the Rev. Dr. Alexander Carlyle_,
pages 246‒248.
“It was in the Assembly of 1752 that the authority of
the Church was restored by the deposition of Gillespie.
Robertson and John Home, having been dissenters, with some
others, from a sentence of the Commission in March that year
in the affair of Inverkeithing, gave them an opportunity
of appearing and pleading at the bar of the Assembly, which
they did with spirit and eloquence. The minds of the leaders
of the Assembly having been now totally changed, a vigorous
measure was adopted by a great majority. The presbytery
of Dunfermline were brought before the Assembly, and
peremptorily ordered to admit the candidate three days after,
and report to the Assembly on the following Friday. They
disobeyed, and Mr. Gillespie was deposed.... At a general
meeting of the party, after Gillespie was deposed, it was
moved that it would be proper to propose next day that the
Assembly should proceed to depose one or two more of the
offending brethren. Mr. Alexander Gordon of Kintore, and
George Logan, and I, were pointed out as proper persons to
make and second the motion. I accordingly began, and was
seconded by Gordon in a vigorous speech, which occasioned
great alarm on the other side, as if we were determined
to get rid of the whole Presbytery; but this was only
_in terrorem_, for by concert, one of our senior brethren
proposed that the Assembly should rest content with what
they had done, and this was carried.”――_Ibid._, pages
255‒256.
Another secession sprang from Gillespie’s deposition, which
soon increased in numbers.
In 1781 the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr presented overtures to the
General Assembly touching patronage, which insisted that no call
should be sustained unless it was signed by a majority of the heritors,
elders, and communicants of the parish. But the Assembly dismissed this
proposal because it was of a dangerous tendency. The Synods of Dumfries,
Perth, and Stirling overtured the Assembly to state explicitly what was
meant by a call, but these, too, were simply dismissed. The following
year the Synods of Glasgow and Ayr, Perth and Stirling, Fife, Galloway,
Lothian, and Tweeddale, unitedly appeared before the Assembly and
stated that several presbyteries had recently inducted ministers
without the moderation of a call, and prayed the Assembly to prohibit
such proceedings in the future. Dr. George Hill, who had then assumed
the leadership of the Moderate party, opposed the prayer of the synods,
and said that the Assembly might at once dismiss the overtures; but to
quiet the minds of the people, and prevent persons from spreading an
opinion that the Church was deserting her Presbyterian principles, he
moved that the Assembly should declare that the moderation of a call
was the immemorial practice of the Church, and dismiss the overtures
as unnecessary. Another eminent Moderate, Dr. Macknight, then moved
that the resolution should be: “The Assembly, having considered
overtures, declare that the moderation of a call in settling ministers
is agreeable to the immemorial practice of the Church, and ought to be
continued.” The popular party voted for this motion, and it was carried;
but as to what constituted a call was left undefined. Again, in 1783,
the synods of Perth, Stirling, and Fife brought this point before the
Assembly; the kingdom of Fife was stamped with the spirit of Melville,
and never deserted the popular cause. They implored the Assembly to
make the utmost efforts to get the Act of 1712 repealed and the Act
of 1690 restored. The Moderate party wanted to throw out the overtures
without a debate; but the popular party proposed that Presbyteries
should be instructed to consult with the landed gentry within their
bounds, and report the result to the next Assembly. In the debate, it
was stated that the aversion of the people to patronage was invincible,
and could never be overcome; but the proposal was defeated by a
majority of nine. Once more, in 1784, the synods of Glasgow and Ayr,
Perth and Stirling, appeared before the Assembly, praying for the
removal of patronage. It was proposed that the landed gentry should
be consulted touching the divising of some means to remedy this
insufferable evil; but the Moderate party became enraged, and carried
a motion declaring that the overtures were ill founded and dangerous
to the welfare of the Church. They further declared that henceforth
patronage was not to be considered as a grievance.
In spite of this resolution of the majority, the synod of Perth and
Stirling and the presbytery of Dumfries again appeared before the
Assembly of 1785, with overtures touching the repeal or alteration
of the law of patronage. But it was of no avail, the overtures were
rejected by a large majority. The popular party, though in a minority
in the Assembly, were not in a minority among the people; as they
wielded the greatest influence on the heart and soul of the nation.
A grand revolution was preparing, unlike anything which had before been
evolved, insomuch that scarcely a man in the British Parliament could
comprehend its principles or understand its end. The changed state and
circumstances of society in Britain rendered the original theocratic
conception impracticable, while the original and fundamental principles
of Presbyterianism were almost incomprehensible to politicians and
lawyers beyond the Tweed. Hence their futile, and laughable efforts to
check the evolution of the movement.
As an attempt to redress the evils involved in patronage, the popular
party proposed in the General Assembly of 1833, that when a majority
of a congregation objected to the minister presented by the patron, the
presbytery of the bounds should not proceed with the settlement. The
proposal was debated at great length; both parties exerted themselves
to the utmost. At last Dr. Cook moved that the proposal should be
approved, and a committee appointed to consider the best means of
carrying it into execution; and this was carried by a majority of
four. The Assembly of 1834 passed it into an Act; and the effect of
the Act was simply this, that when a clear majority of the male heads
of families, being members of the congregation, and in full communion
with the Church, deliberately objected to the presentee’s settlement
as their minister, in that case the presbytery of the bounds should not
proceed to thrust him upon the congregation. This famous regulation is
elsewhere called “The Veto Act.” It was on this simple and reasonable
rule that the grand struggle which issued in the Disruption was fought.
This was the hinge on which the conflict externally turned, although,
of course, there were other principles involved in it.
The ultimate issue of such a conflict greatly depended upon the
prevailing ideas touching the rights of man, as a reasonable
and responsible agent, a free and social agent, a being not only
accountable to external authorities, but also to his own conscience and
to God. If the body of the people are merely conceived to exist for the
convenience, pleasure, and glory of the privileged and ruling class,
it follows as a consequence that the Church will be conceived and used
as an instrument of the Government, as a mere prop of the power of the
State. But to the credit of Scotland in the struggle under review, the
first class of conceptions indicated above, gave such a manifestation
of their vitality as astonished the British Government.
Without entering into many details, I shall present a summary of the
leading steps in the revolution. For some time the Veto Act worked
beneficially, and the internal discipline and order of the Church was
improving. But self-interest and love of power are strong and often
blind motives; so it was determined to maintain patronage in its most
rigorous and offensive form. In 1834 the Earl of Kinnoul presented Mr.
Robert Young, preacher of the gospel, to the parish of Auchterarder,
in Perthshire; and the presbytery of the district proceeded according
to the usual forms to admit him; but only two of the parishioners
signed his call, and therefore the presbytery could not settle him in
the parish. The case, in due course, was brought before the Court of
Session; and in March, 1838, a majority of the Lords gave judgment to
the effect that the presbytery had acted contrary to the provisions of
the statute of Queen Anne, of 1712. The General Assembly met in May,
1838, and the Rev. Robert Buchanan, of Glasgow, proposed a motion which
affirmed the spiritual independence of the Church. It was opposed by
Dr. Cook, who moved an amendment. But after a long and vehement debate,
Buchanan’s motion was carried by a majority of forty-one.
The collision between the Church and the civil power was begun in
earnest, and could not continue long. The Auchterarder case was
appealed to the House of Lords――the English Law Lords; and they came
to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the civil court, even in a
matter which involves the spiritual act of ordination, is supreme, and
must be obeyed; consequently, they affirmed the judgment of the Court
of Session. This settled the point that the rejection of a patron’s
presentee, entirely on the ground of the dissent of the congregation,
was illegal; but it also implied and involved the conclusion that the
congregation had no legal standing at all in the settlement of their
minister. Their simple and only duty in the matter was to submit
quietly to whoever the patrons thought fit to place over them.
The General Assembly met on the 16th of May, 1839, and intimation of
the grounds of the final struggle was given. Dr. Cook, the chief of
the Moderate party, at once announced that he himself, and those who
acted with him, had resolved to conduct the affairs of the Church in
accordance with the decrees of the civil courts. Dr. Chalmers then
intimated that he would submit some motion to the Assembly. The debates
were long and animated. Dr. Cook insisted that the Veto Act, by the
decisions of the courts, was rendered not an Act of the Church at all,
as the Church had been acting under an error. Dr. Chalmers’ motion was
in effect that the Church bowed to the decision of the court so far
as matters of civil rights were concerned, but avowed that――“Whereas
the principle of non-intrusion is one coeval with the reformed Kirk of
Scotland, and forms an integral part of its constitution, embodied in
its standards, and declared in various Acts of Assembly; the General
Assembly resolved that this principle cannot be abandoned, and that no
presentee shall be forced upon any parish contrary to the will of the
congregation.
“And whereas, by the decision above referred to, it appears that
when this principle is carried into effect in any parish, the legal
provision for the sustentation of the ministry in that parish may be
thereby suspended, the General Assembly being deeply impressed with
the unhappy consequences which must arise from any collusion between
the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, and holding it to be their
duty to use every means in their power, not involving dereliction of
the principles and fundamental laws of their Church constitution, to
prevent such unfortunate results, do hereby appoint a committee for
the purpose of considering in what way the privileges of the national
establishment and the harmony between Church and State may remain
unimpaired, with instructions to confer with the Government of the
country.”
This motion was finally carried by a majority of forty-nine, and a
deputation from the committee appointed under it proceeded to London;
but the Government then in office was weak. In short, the Government
were never anxious to grapple with the different views which were taken
of the operation of patronage, or to interfere by legislation on the
limits and extent of the ecclesiastical power of the Church of Scotland.
Then their almost utter ignorance of the real merits of the matters in
dispute was another reason for the apathy of the British Government. So
little were they aware of the true facts of the case, that they never
dreamed of such an event as the Disruption.
The excitement in the country was rising fast. In the end of the year
1839, the seven rebellious ministers of the presbytery of Strathbogie
were suspended, to prevent them from proceeding with the settlement
of Mr. Edwards in the parish church of Marnoch, to which he had been
presented several years before, it became manifest that the crisis
was approaching its issue. The seven suspended ministers placed their
faith upon the Court of Session, and in that quarter they showed great
energy. They obtained first an interdict to prevent the minority of
the presbytery, and all others, from using the church, churchyard,
and school-house, in executing the sentence which the commission
of the General Assembly had pronounced. They next obtained a formal
warrant from the Court of Session for continuing in the exercise of
the ministry themselves: and in moving this Lord Gillies said that “it
appeared to him that the position which the non-intrusion party of the
Church of Scotland had taken up in opposition to the established law of
the country was the most arrogant that any established Church had ever
attempted.” The second interdict also prohibited all the individual
ministers, from various parts of the country, who had been appointed
by the commission to execute the sentence of suspension, from even
intruding into their parishes; but this part of the interdict was
disregarded. Many ministers from the south and west entered into the
presbytery of Strathbogie and preached on the turnpike roads and in
the fields to vast crowds of the people, published the sentence of
suspension, expounded the principles then at stake, and preached the
gospel with a vigour and earnestness which had not been heard in that
region since the middle of the seventeenth century.¹
¹ Although I was only six years of age, being living in the
heart of Strathbogie, I recollect these proceedings quite
clearly. One of the suspended ministers was our family
minister, and subsequently I knew five of them very well,
and have frequently heard them preaching. The last of them
died about ten years ago.
When the General Assembly met in May, 1840, a firm attitude was assumed
by the popular party, who were still in a majority, and the suspension
of the Strathbogie ministers was confirmed by a majority of eighty-four.
The debate on this matter was long and animated. The final motion to
continue their suspension was carried by a majority of sixty-four.
The Moderate party in the Church now threw in their lot with the
Strathbogie ministers, and the position which they soon drifted into
was something like this: Whatever the Court of Session had declared to
effect civil rights passed at once from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction
to that of the civil courts; the Church could not finally determine
it, therefore she must submit to the dictation of the civil courts.
This, they said, was the law of the land, and obedience to it was the
first duty of all loyal subjects. They made few or no allusions to the
fundamental conception and the original principles of Presbyterianism.
It became pretty evident, too, that so far as the British government
had any ideas upon the matter, they were most akin to those avowed by
the Moderate party. They therefore resolved to carry on the conflict
with a high hand. The popular party were equally resolute, and, with a
clear aim in view and a firm grasp of principles, they already foresaw
the ultimate issue of the struggle, and were prepared to face it.
The commission of the General Assembly met in Edinburgh on the 12th
of August, 1840, when a motion to serve a libel on the seven ministers
of Strathbogie was carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty
to sixty-six; but the minority were securely covered by the Court of
Session. The following is a portion of Dr. Chalmers’ speech to the
members of the commission in reference to the libel. After remarking
on the many encroachments of the civil courts, he said: “We must stand
out against this series of aggressions thus rising in magnitude one
above the other, else the most sacred, the most sacramental of our
institutions, the very innermost recesses of the sanctuary, will be
opened to the invader and trampled under foot. I know the obloquy which
will be heaped upon us. I have heard the odious names which will be
given us for this resistance; and I am prepared for them. If not an
impartial public, at least an impartial posterity will tell whether
we are rebels or they are persecutors. And here I may say one word
to those who express the hope――and I observe that Sir Robert Peel is
among the number――that we will give up our personal feelings and do
otherwise than this. To what personal feelings he refers, he does not
specify――whether it be the feeling of irritation or of false honour,
――the pride of men who have committed themselves and gone too far to
retract without shame and degradation. If so, never was an appeal made
wider of its object. These personal feelings have no existence with us;
or if they have, it is in so slight a degree that they are altogether
overborne by principles of a depth and height and breadth and length
sufficient to engross and occupy the whole man. The principles, whether
our adversaries comprehend them or not,――the only moving forces that
have told and still tell on the Assembly,――are the full security of
our spiritual independence. The Headship of Christ, the authority of
the Bible as the great spiritual statute-book, not to be lorded over
by any power on earth, a deference to our own standards in matters
ecclesiastical, and a submission, unqualified and entire, to the
civil power in all matters civil. These are our principles; and these
principles, not personal feelings, we are asked to give up by men who
have put forth unhallowed hands upon them. I ask, is there no room for
a similar appeal to them? Have they no personal feelings,――no acrimony
arising from the anticipation of defeat,――no triumph arising from the
anticipation of victory? Have they no mortification of wounded vanity
lest their battle-cry――‘What firmness has done before, firmness may
do again’――lest that battle-cry should be rolled back by a resolute
and unyielding Church on the heads of those who used it.... I was
enumerating what may be the personal feelings of our adversaries, and
I have a right to do so. I have a right to state everything that has
occurred, whether within or without the limits of this court, that may
lead the house to a right decision. I say, is there no inward chagrin
among parliamentary friends, mourning over their abortive measures,――is
there no sense of offended dignity among the functionaries of the law,
lest it should be found that law――no impossible thing in the course of
a hundred and fifty years――had for once gone beyond its sphere? I ask,
which of the rival elements ought to give way? Whether the personal
feelings of the men who have nothing to lose in this contest, or the
personal feelings of men who are ready to risk all for principles;
and who, though many of them are in the winter of life, would, rather
than renounce their principles, abandon their homes, and brave the
prospect of being cast, with their helpless and houseless families,
upon the wide world? I ask if it was well in Sir Robert Peel, from
his high station and from his seat of silken security, to deal out
his admonitions to the Church of Scotland in this way; and while he
spares the patrician feelings of his compeers, to take no account of
the principles and feelings of those conscientious men who, humble in
station but high in spirit, are ready, like their forefathers of old,
to renounce all their enjoyments for the glory and the dignity of their
Church.”
Alluding to the excitement and what was going on throughout the country,
he ventured on an anticipation of future changes, which have since been
fully realised:――“As we were not permitted to regulate the call, let
the right of nomination be so regulated as to anticipate the call; and
for this purpose let us, in the name of all Scotland――and I am sure
of nineteen-twentieths of her people――seek, through the medium of the
legislature, to modify, and, if less will not do, utterly to abolish
the system of patronage. It is a consummation to which I look forward
without uneasiness.... The time is fast approaching when our political
constitution will be greatly more popularised; and it is one of the
reasons why I plead so strongly at present for the independence of the
Church, that if we are obliged to give it up now to the patrons, we
must give it up then to the people.”
Under an order from the Court of Session, the suspended ministers of
Strathbogie inducted Mr. Edwards in the church of Marnoch, on the 21st
of January, 1841. The proceedings, which took place on this memorable
occasion have been fully described by eye-witnesses, are well known,
and need not be repeated. But the majority of the General Assembly, the
non-intrusion body, had been driven into a position by the decisions,
interdicts, decrees, and orders issued from the Court of Session,
which had rendered it impossible for them to entertain any compromise,
or recede from their original conception and fundamental principles.
Accordingly, the General Assembly of 1841 deposed the Strathbogie
ministers. Very different views have been taken of the action of the
majority of the Court of Session, for, on the main principle involved,
the bench, as a whole, never agreed. Looking at the matter as a
historian, all forms of constitutional law and common law are grounded
upon history and usage. The first point for consideration therefore is,
was the interference and consequent decisions of the Court of Session
historically justifiable? It is a fact, that the theory of the Court
of Session since its institution, in 1533, has been that it was a
court for the administration of justice in civil cases; it was never
specially empowered to determine ecclesiastical cases or issue orders
for proceedings in such cases. There were always courts for settling
ecclesiastical matters within their own jurisdiction. Of course, from
the Reformation to the Revolution the powers assumed and exercised in
the courts of the Presbyterian Church were often questioned, interfered
with, and their decisions and proceedings reversed and repealed by
the Government of the country, but not by the Court of Session; or
if it ever intermeddled in ecclesiastical cases, it was under special
instructions from the Government of the day, not from any power
inherent in its own constitution. This was the state of the question
till the Revolution.
After the Revolution in 1690, the Presbyterian polity was
re-established by statute. At the same time, patronage was abolished
in this way: when a vacancy occurred, the heritors and elders had
to nominate a minister for the approval of the congregation, and if
the congregation disapproved of the nominee, they were required to
adduce their reasons before the Presbytery, and in its hands the final
settlement was left.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
196‒197.
In the Treaty of Union, by a special and emphatic article, the polity,
privileges, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Presbyterian Church
of Scotland were to continue inviolable “to the people of this land in
all succeeding generations,” There is no reservation to the effect that
the Court of Session shall have the power of overriding the proceedings
of her courts.
But, contrary to the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Union, and to
all conceptions of a just and wise policy toward the Scottish nation,
the British Government imposed upon Scotland a new Patronage Act in
1712. It is historically true, however, that this Act was not generally
enforced against the sentiments and feelings of the people, even by the
ecclesiastical courts, till past the middle of the eighteenth century;
and it was observed in a preceding page that the sentiments of the
people were invincibly against its practical application. Keeping
within the lines of just and reasonable historic exposition, the point
under consideration naturally assumes this form:――When an effort was
made by the supreme ecclesiastical court of the nation not to violate
the highest sentiments and aspirations of the people by intruding
spiritual instructors upon congregations, what had the Court of Session
to do with that? This is the historic and constitutional question.
It seems obvious that this was not a question for the Court of Session
at all, but one for the British Government, if the ecclesiastical court
had not the power to settle it. The Court of Session has no legislative
functions, hence when it interfered in this matter, it only looked at
one side of the shield――namely, the rights of patrons and presentees.
It began and ended with these, declaring that the people had no
right to a voice at all in the choice of their spiritual and moral
instructors. Thus the Court of Session succeeded in dragging the
constitution and the principles of the Church of Scotland through the
dust. When this Court saw, as it could not but have seen, that it could
only deal with a mere fraction of the great questions and interests
involved in the struggle, it should have stood aloof, and allowed the
Government to interfere when it became necessary. During the three
centuries and a half of its career, the Court of Session has done many
curious and questionable things, but history cannot point to a series
of its proceedings more signally illegal and disastrous than those
which it enacted in connection with the Disruption of the Church.
For several years the whole country rang with the clamour and talk
of non-intrusion and spiritual independence. Pamphlets, speeches, and
ballads were circulated through the country in hundreds of thousands,
most of which were serious and earnest, but vehement and impassioned.
In short, the excitement and agitation, the controversy and discussion
of the engrossing subject, and the interests involved in it, occupied
the attention of every family and household, and many a family
became disunited in religious feeling. The popular party put forth
extraordinary efforts, and sounded the kingdom from end to end.
The non-intrusion party repeatedly approached the Government, and laid
the state of the Church before it. But seeing that the Court of Session,
in its wisdom and unmatched foresight, had assumed the function of
government in this conflict, the British ministry felt a strong desire
to let it run to the end of the course on which it had entered, for
neither the Whig nor the Conservative Governments were at all anxious
to try their hands on this difficult matter. The Whigs had little love
for Churches, and it was only for its patronage, and chiefly for the
politics of the moderate party, that the Conservative in general had
any respect for the Church of Scotland. Hence the Court of Session was
allowed to enjoy its glory to the end of the conflict.
When the General Assembly of 1842 met in May, the anarchy within the
Church was fearful. Under a warrant from the Court of Session, the
deposed ministers of Strathbogie had met and elected two of their
number, and an elder from Aberdeen, to represent them in the General
Assembly, with a commission, in the usual form, to take their place
amongst its members. On a division these commissions were rejected by
a majority of one hundred and thirty. But the Court of Session and the
deposed ministers went further; they interdicted and discharged the
members elected by the other party in the Presbytery of Strathbogie
from taking any part in the Assembly. The Assembly ignored this
interdict, and the members took their seats. This was a state of
matters which could not continue.
A motion for the abolition of patronage was proposed, and carried by a
majority of sixty-nine. The claim, declaration, and protest, or, more
shortly, the Claim of Rights, was moved and discussed at great length,
and finally adopted by a majority of one hundred and thirty-one. It is
a very able and well-known document, and was drawn up by Mr. Alexander
Dunlop, Advocate, an able, calm, wise, and resolute gentleman. Mr.
Dunlop gave much of his time and thought to the service of the Church,
for which he never accepted a single farthing. He was one of the ablest
and most honourable men who appeared in the Assemblies of the period.
The Claim of Rights is a memorable specimen of his spirit and powers.
But the claims and the attitude of the Church of Scotland were grossly
misrepresented in Parliament, especially in the House of Lords, and
by no one more so than the rambling and bombastic Lord Brougham. On
the 7th and 8th of March, 1843, a debate took place on the Church of
Scotland’s Claim of Rights in the House of Commons. The subject was
introduced by Mr. Fox Maule in a very clear and able speech. Sir James
Graham followed him, and in the course of his speech said:――“These
pretensions of the Church of Scotland (Claim of Rights), as they
now stand, of a co-ordinate jurisdiction, and the demand that the
Government should establish one law on the subject of parishes, and
should allow the judge, by the interpretation of the statute judging
of his own case, to set up another law co-equal with, and paramount to
the law of the realm, did appear to him an expectation so unjust and
unreasonable, the sooner the House extinguished it the better, because
he was satisfied that any such expectation never could be realised in
any country in which law, equity, or order, or common sense prevailed.”
Other members spoke in favour and against the claims of the Church,
but the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, was vehemently opposed to
her claims, though it is evident that he had not taken the trouble
to understand them. He declared that the Church, in its proceedings
against the Strathbogie ministers, had laid claim to greater powers
than ever were claimed, even before the Reformation by the Church of
Rome herself. Touching the question of the limits of the civil and
ecclesiastical power, it seemed to him that this should be determined
by the English law lords. When the division was taken, the motion
was rejected by a majority of one hundred and thirty-five, but out
of the thirty-seven Scotch members who were present at the division,
twenty-five voted in favour of the motion. Thus the Claim of Rights was
rejected in the British Parliament, but not by the representatives of
Scotland.
On the 5th of April, 1843, Lord Campbell, in the House of Lords,
introduced five resolutions, which were to this effect:――1. That the
House was desirous that the Church of Scotland should freely possess
and enjoy her rights, government, discipline, and privileges, according
to law, in all time coming. 2. That she is an excellent Church. 3. That,
with a view to heal the unhappy discussions now prevailing, “this House
is of opinion that the demands of the Church should be conceded by the
legislature, in so far as they can be safely conceded; and that when
any measure for correcting the alleged abuses of patronage shall be
constitutionally brought before this House, this House will favourably
entertain the same, and anxiously endeavour that the end of the said
measure may be attained.” 4. That, in the opinion of this House, the
demand that patronage be abolished, as a grievance, is unreasonable
and unfounded, and ought not to be conceded. 5. “The demand of the
Church that the law shall be framed so as to give the Church courts
absolute authority, in every case, to define the limits of their
own jurisdiction, without any power in any civil court in any way to
question or interfere with their proceedings or decrees, although they
may exceed their jurisdiction,” etc. That this claim of “exclusive
spiritual jurisdiction is unprecedented in any Christian Church since
the Reformation, is inconsistent with the permanent welfare of the
Church, and the existence of subordination and good government in the
country”. This is a misrepresentation.
In the debate which followed, the speakers maintained that even if
some redress were needed, none should be given until the Church should
obey the existing law. Lord Brougham said “he would not be a party
to the suicidal, to the self-destructive folly of giving men new laws
to break until they had consented to obey the old law”. Referring
to Lord Aberdeen, Brougham said “his noble friend, who seemed to
be a non-intrusionist――What! Would he have that principle not only
established in Scotland, but carried south of the Tweed? Would he have
it eat into our English system? Would ♦he seek, by means of it, to
destroy our Erastianism?” Such was the twaddle and rant which the House
of Lords thought proper to vent on this momentous subject. No thought
of what was due to the people of Scotland ever entered into their minds.
♦ duplicate word “he” removed
The popular party of the clergy were now everywhere earnestly preparing
to leave the Establishment, as it was hopeless to prolong the contest.
The forethought, the systematic order, the discipline of the rank
and file, and the completeness of all their arrangements were truly
wonderful. In short, the final scene of leaving the Establishment
presented the characteristics of the closing act of a noble, a
memorable, and well-played drama.
On the two Sundays before the meeting of the Assembly many
congregations throughout the country had been moved to the core by
farewell sermons from ministers to whom they were deeply attached.
It was known that an extraordinary move was about to be made; but
the uncertainty as to its extent and form had produced an anxiety
and uneasiness of feeling unexampled in Scotland since the battle
of Culloden. How would the Royal Commissioner act? Would he dissolve
the Assembly, or would he recognise the minority as constituting the
Assembly?
The Assembly met on the 18th of May, 1843. Dr. Welsh of Edinburgh
opened the proceedings by delivering a sermon before the Royal
Commissioner in St. Giles’, in which he announced what was going to
happen. Dr. Welsh then proceeded to St. Andrew’s Church, where the
Assembly was to be held, and took his place in the Moderator’s chair;
and the Commissioner entered the church a few minutes after. The
church was crowded, and Dr. Welsh rose and engaged in prayer. After
the members had resumed their seats, he again rose, and announced
that, in consequence of certain proceedings affecting their rights and
privileges, which had been sanctioned by the Government of the country,
and more especially seeing that there had been an infringement on the
liberties of the constitution of the Church, so that they could not
constitute this court without violating the terms of the union between
Church and State in this nation, and, therefore, “I must protest
against our proceeding further.” Accordingly, amidst profound silence
and intense alarm on the moderate benches, he read the protest, which
fully explained the grounds of the step they were about to take.
When he had read the protest, he handed the document to the Clerk at
the table, bowed to the Commissioner, quitted the chair, lifted his
hat, and walked away. Instantly, Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Gordon, and what
appeared to be the whole of those in the left side of the church, rose
and followed him. About two hundred walked out; and they were joined
outside by three hundred clergymen and other adherents.
Dr. Welsh wore his Moderator’s dress; and as soon as he appeared on
the street, and the people saw that principle had risen above interest,
shouts of triumph rent the air, such as had not been heard in Edinburgh
since the days of the Covenant. They walked down Hanover Street to
Canonmills, where a large hall had been fitted up for the reception
of the disestablished Assembly. They elected Dr. Chalmers Moderator,
and formed themselves into the first General Assembly of the “Free
Church of Scotland.” Four hundred and seventy-four ministers left
the Establishment in 1843; they were also joined by about two hundred
probationers, nearly a hundred theological students of the University
of Edinburgh, three-fourths of those in Glasgow, and a majority of
those in Aberdeen.
The Free Church commenced to work with earnestness and vigour, and her
success and usefulness from the first has been remarkable. As this is
well known, I need not dwell on it; it is more in character with the
scope of this History to remark on the peaceable and orderly features
of the “Disruption:” I call it a revolution of a peculiar character,
because it was effected without violence or bloodshed. In rebutting the
charges brought against the Scotch Reformers of the sixteenth century
touching the excesses which occurred, and especially the destruction
of religious buildings, I then said:――“Each party has striven to lay
the blame upon the other, to exaggerate or extenuate these excesses,
according to their respective standpoints. But it should be remembered
that there never was a revolution without excesses, and the reason
of which is not difficult to find. The amount of outrage and the
destruction of property which a revolution may entail mainly depends
on the strength and completeness of the organised moral force in
the country at the time of its occurrence. If the moral sentiments
and ideas of the nation are but imperfectly formed, the guiding and
restraining feelings and influences only partly developed through the
social organisation, and the intelligence of the people is very limited
and dim, and, as it were, only awakening to a consciousness that they
have been long deluded, then, in such circumstances, a revolution
cannot be effected without anarchy and excess in various forms. The
same undeviating principle comes into play in this as in everything
else; when the moral organisation is sufficiently developed and ripe,
the desired and needful reform is gradually brought to pass by peaceful
means.”¹
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
II., pages 94‒5.
The creation of the Free Church, in the month of May, 1843, is the best
illustration of the principle stated above which has as yet occurred;
and it affords ample and striking evidence of the moral change of
the people of Scotland since the sixteenth century, and that the very
principles which were introduced at the Reformation have contributed
greatly to place the Scottish nation upon the moral elevation which
was so palpably and beautifully manifested in the peaceful and orderly
revolution which gave birth to the Free Church of Scotland. It was an
event charged with a moral power of vast import, and which could not
fail to produce beneficial results.
The Established Church for a time was greatly crippled, and her
pre-eminence has not been restored. But she has worked steadily and
well, and extended her lines on every side. The Roman Catholics have
increased more, comparatively, especially in recent years, than any
other denomination, in the present century. The Roman hierarchy has
recently been restored in Scotland. As observed in preceding chapters,
toleration and liberty of thought have made remarkable progress within
the last fifty years; no one need now be afraid to announce their
opinions, if they have anything to tell worthy of attention.
CHAPTER LIII.
_Summary of the Work――Conclusion._
I.――THE first volume opens with a few brief explanations of the
method and scope of the work, and touched on the primary causes of
civilisation, indicating that the human mind was the prime factor.
1. The geographical and physical aspects of the country were described.
The influence of climate, and other external agencies were considered;
and, also the general features of the country in relation to the
imagination and understanding.
2. The principle of historic interpretation in reference to the order
of development――touching thought and language, was treated; and the
importance of the discrimination of historical evidence was also
pointed out.
3. The interesting problem of the cradle of the human race was mooted;
and followed by the question of the cradle of the great Aryan race, of
which a concise statement was presented. The ethnology of Scotland was
next handled, and disentangled from a mass of legends and obscuring
accretions.
4. The prehistoric period, embracing the stone and iron ages, were
treated in detail. The stone weapons and implements were described,
and the processes of their manufacture indicated. The various modes
of disposing of the dead, interments in chambered cairns, cremation,
and other peculiarities, were described. The origin and use of the
earth-houses was discussed, and primitive boats noticed.
5. The introduction of the use of metals was narrated. Bronze weapons
and tools found in Scotland were described; and attention was directed
to the gold ornaments of the prehistoric period. Traces of the
dwellings and sites of the prehistoric people were treated, including
crannogs, and hill forts. The modes of interment which prevailed in the
bronze age were handled. An attempt was made to indicate the probable
duration of the prehistoric period in Scotland.
6. So far as available data admitted, an account of the religion,
social state, and culture of the prehistoric people was presented.
II.――The Roman invasion and occupation of a portion of the country was
narrated. This occupation tended to create new historical conditions in
the Island.
7. The relative position of the chief tribes in the country from the
fifth century to the foundation of the historic monarchy was given. The
natural circumstances which led to its foundation and its limits were
also indicated.
III.――Advent of a new factor of civilisation――The introduction of
Christianity and the missionary labours of the early saints were
narrated; and the impression which they left upon the people was noted.
8. The gradual extension of the kingdom was concisely narrated; and a
change of historical conditions indicated.
9. The social state of the people from the seventh century to the end
of the eleventh was presented in detail.
10. Early architecture, including the brochs, round towers, and
rude chapels, were historically treated. The sculptured stones were
described, and historically handled in relation to the life and habits
of the people. The art of these monuments was also briefly treated. The
distinctive characteristics of this art as exhibited on metal ornaments
were indicated.
The fragments of early literature and chronicles, and teaching in the
monasteries were noticed.
IV.――A critical estimate of the result of Norman feudalism on the
civilisation of Scotland was presented, in which interesting details
of the social state of the Normans themselves are given.
11. An account of the kingdom and the introduction of feudalism in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries was presented. The social state of the
people, trade, organisation, and civilisation, were treated in detail.
12. The difficulties arising from the disputed succession issued in the
War of Independence, of which a clear account was given. The results
of the battles of Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn ultimately led to the
acknowledgment of the independence of the nation.
13. A narrative of events from the death of Robert I. to 1424 was
presented.
14. The reign of James I. was exceedingly important. He was an able
ruler, and endeavoured to curb the lawless nobles. He tried to govern
the kingdom through parliament, and was the first King who attempted
to introduce the principle of representation in Scotland. A body of
laws was passed in parliament in his short reign, such as is not to
be found in any period of the same length before or since, and these
were recorded and proclaimed in the language of the people, and in many
other ways he struggled to redress the disorder and oppression which
had so long prevailed.
15. After the murder of James I., to the battle of Flodden, the
struggle between the Crown and the nobles often distracted the kingdom.
A narrative of the chief events and proceedings till 1513 was presented.
16. An exhaustive account of the social state of the nation in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was given: Embracing the origin
and peculiarities of the Scottish Parliament; the power of the nobles;
agriculture, and the state of the tenants and labourers, the Crown
lands, and relative subjects were detailed. The burghal communities
――their trade, and the characteristics of their daily life were handled
at length. The commerce and coinage of the kingdom, the defence of the
country――armour, weapons, and organisation of the army were treated.
Amusements and games, the dress of the different ranks, household goods
and ornaments, were noticed. The price of the staple necessaries of
life, and the wages of workmen were indicated. Crime and defects in the
administration of justice, and the forms of punishment, were treated
in detail. Architecture, the wealth of the Church and monasteries,
were noticed; and an account of the religious feeling of the people was
presented.
17. The literature of the period, education, music, and art were
treated.
V.――New historical conditions had arisen, and the second volume, which
deals with the sixteenth century, opened with a survey of the agencies
and causes which preceded the Reformation. The power, wealth, and
vast organisation of the Church in the Middle Ages was indicated; and
an outline of the popular belief presented. The Inquisition, morals
of the clergy, translations of the Bible, awakening of the moral and
religious consciousness were touched on; and the early stages of the
revolutionary movement explicated.
18. The history of the Reformation in Scotland till the overthrow of
the Roman Catholic Church, was given. The external circumstances and
influences which aided the Reformation in Scotland were examined; while
the inner and sustaining causes of the movement were shown to depend
upon the moral sentiments and convictions of the people.
19. An outline of the Confession, polity, and organisation of the
Reformed Church of Scotland was given; and other proceedings of the
Reformers noticed.
20. The reign of Queen Mary was treated at length. The trying
circumstances in which she was placed were pointed out. Her
difficulties with the Reformed preachers, marriage with Darnley, and
consequent proceedings, the character of her husband, who became a
mere tool in the hands of the nobles, were narrated. The difficulties
thickening around her, the tragic events, and the proceedings which
ended in her flight to England, were related.
21. The history of Protestantism and the conflict of the clergy with
the Crown was commenced and continued till the accession of James VI.
to the throne of England. The proceedings of the Reformed clergy in
the struggle with a party of the nobles and the King were concisely
narrated; and the attitude of the nobles and the policy of the King
were placed in a clear light.
22. At the close of the history of Protestantism a brief expository
statement was made, in which it was enunciated that the supreme
sustaining power of the Reformation throughout was the moral sentiments
and ideas, coupled with religious feelings and aspirations.
23. The social state of the people in the sixteenth century was next
treated. Commencing with a reference to the character of the Government,
I described the state of the inhabitants of the Borders and Highlands.
The prevalent classes of crime and forms of punishment, the defective
organisation, and habits of swearing, were handled. The defective
sanitary condition of the towns was noticed. The state of the tenants
and tillers of the land, and the poor, were noted. The religious
feelings of the people, as manifested in their daily life, was
illustrated, and indications of the approaching change were noticed.
24. After the Reformation sharp and severe measures were adopted for
the suppression of immorality and vice. The relation of the different
sexes, the observance of Sunday, the regulation of marriage, the
protection of the life of infants, and also the condition of the
poor, engaged the attention of the Reformed Church and the Government.
Trials and executions for witchcraft were noticed. The coinage, mining
operations, and the trade and commerce of the kingdom were noted.
Sumptuary enactments touching dress, eating, drinking, and popular
amusements were passed by the Government.
25. The literature of the nation in the first half of the century,
embracing the writings of Dunbar and Gavin Douglas, was reviewed and
characterised; and also the Complaint of Scotland, which was treated
in detail.
26. The literature more associated with the Reformation movement,
including the writings of Sir David Lyndsay, and also ballads and
rhymes were treated historically. An account of the writings of Knox,
and others, was given; and the historical and political writings of
Buchanan were characterised. The literature of the later part of the
century, poetical, religious, and scientific, was noticed.
27. In no branch of effort was the evidence of the change more
remarkable than in the interest shown in education. Although there were
grammar schools centuries before, yet it was not till the Reformation
that the supreme importance of education was recognised.
After the Reformation, many efforts were made to erect and organise
primary schools, and before the end of the century a considerable
number of these were established. The Reformed clergy took a warm
interest in the education of the people, and exerted themselves to the
utmost to promote it. Efforts were also made to reform and re-organise
the Universities, which were noticed.
28. The concluding chapter of this volume presents an attempt on
psychological and historical grounds to explicate the ultimate problem
of the Reformation. In a concise form it indicates several of the
great religious movements which have occurred in the world, in order
to illustrate in some measure the influence of Christianity as a factor
in civilisation, and in the progress of Scotland.
VI.――The third volume covers the period from 1603 to 1746, and opens
with a review of the influences of the Union of the Crowns upon
Scotland. The means adopted for the pacification of the Borders were
indicated in detail. The policy of James VI. and Charles I. was stated.
The Covenanting struggle was narrated, and the fall of the King noted.
The Covenanters executed their work heroically and effectively.
29. During the sequence of events the kingdom fell under the sway of
Cromwell. After resistance ceased, the country was well governed, and
peace and order reigned.
30. In the natural course of events Cromwell died, and the traditions
and glories associated with the throne and the monarchy were soon in
the ascendant. Charles II. was recalled, and entered London amid the
shouts of the populace.
VII.――The Restoration was a reactionary movement, which proved more
injurious to Scotland than to England.
31. The principles of the Government were exposed, and a clear
narrative of their proceedings and the suffering inflicted upon the
people was presented. The reign of Charles II. terminated in 1685 amid
a scene of persecution, oppression, and corruption unmatched in the
worst times of the nation’s history.
32. The Duke of York then mounted the throne, and a proclamation
was read at the Cross of Edinburgh, announcing that he was “the only
and undoubted king of the realm.” This man, who had succeeded to the
sceptre of three kingdoms, soon gave the culminating touch to the ideas
of the absolute power of the King, which had entailed so much suffering
and bloodshed. For a few years he played his game admirably. But he
became odious to the Scots, and lost the confidence of the English
nation; by his own rash and inconsiderate action at last he found
himself helpless and forlorn, and fled from the throne of his ancestors.
33. When the crisis of the Revolution was observed to be nigh, great
excitement arose in the South and West of Scotland, and tumults ensued
in Edinburgh. The Convention of Estates met at Edinburgh in March 1688.
Then the throne was declared vacant, the Crown was tendered to William
and Mary, and the “Claim of Right” presented. Thus the Revolution was
recognised in Scotland.
VIII.――The period from the Revolution to the Union was treated in
detail. Many important events and matters were touched on, such as the
rise of the commercial spirit, the Darien scheme and the proceedings
connected with it, the policy of England and the attitude assumed by
the Scots. The proceedings connected with the passing of the Treaty
Union were narrated, and the excitement in the kingdom noted.
34. The advantages and disadvantages of the Union were touched on, the
causes of disaffection in Scotland; and the Risings of 1715 and 1745
were concisely handled. The separate political history of Scotland then
terminated.
IX.――The social state of the people in the seventeenth century was
very fully treated. Embracing the administration of justice, crime
throughout the kingdom, the state of the poor, and the laws for
suppressing vagrancy, were handled. Supernatural ideas, persecution
of the Quakers, and witchcraft, were treated. State of morality,
observance of Sunday, drinking and swearing, irregular marriages,
survival of customs associated with marriages and funerals, were
noticed. Acts of Parliament regulating the dress of the different
ranks of society were noted. The defective sanitary condition of the
towns, lack of pure water, and cleansing appliances were indicated.
Restrictions on trade and fixing the price of articles and food
continued in the burghs. The wages of skilled workmen and farm
labourers were noticed. The state of coal miners, and mining operations
were noted. The condition of the roads, the introduction of postal
communication, shipping, and agriculture, were noticed.
The subjects of the improvement, and introduction of various
manufactures, such as tanning leather, woollen cloth, linen, soap works,
glass works, paper making, and tobacco spinning, which had engaged the
attention of Parliament and enterprising persons, were treated. After
indicating the progress of the coinage, the establishment of the Bank
of Scotland and a paper currency, I adduced more evidence that a spirit
of trade and commercial enterprise had arisen among the Scots in the
later part of the seventeenth century.
35. An account of the ballad and Jacobite literature of the period was
given. Other branches of literature, including the progress of science,
were also treated.
36. The progress of education, establishment of the parish schools,
music, and art, were related.
37. The last chapter of the volume gave an outline of European
philosophy in the seventeenth century and early part of the eighteenth,
in which the systems of Bruno, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Hobbes,
Locke, Shaftesbury, and other philosophers, were concisely explicated.
The aim of the outline was to show the historical relations of the
philosophy which subsequently arose in Scotland, to the systems of
thought which preceded it.
X.――Accordingly, the fourth volume commenced with the history of
Scottish philosophy, Carmichael and Hutcheson――the founders of the
school. Hutcheson’s ethics were explained, and the influence of
his teaching and writings indicated. Hume’s chief psychological and
philosophical works were explicated and characterised, and their
influence on subsequent systems of thought pointed out. Adam Smith’s
ethical theory was explained; and his famous work――_The Wealth of
Nations_ reviewed at length, and its influence noted.
38. The psychological works of Reid, Stewart, and Ferguson, were
examined and characterised. The writings of Gerard, Beattie, Campbell,
and Alison, were briefly noticed. Brown’s psychology was examined
in detail, and its influence noticed. The ethical views of Sir James
Mackintosh were indicated.
39. Sir William Hamilton’s philosophical views were treated at
length. His psychology was explicated; and also his philosophy of the
conditioned; and his views of logic. Ferrier’s Theory of Knowing and
Being was reviewed; and the History of Scottish Philosophy concluded
with a notice of the psychological writings of George Croom Robertson.
40. The literature of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was
treated under its various branches. Historical literature was concisely
reviewed. The change of historic conceptions, method, discrimination of
evidence, and greater freedom of criticism was noticed.
41. Poetry of the period was handled, and a considerable number of the
works of the poets were characterised. Fiction also was briefly noticed,
and a number of distinguished novelists mentioned.
42. Religious literature was treated; and it was remarked that
much greater freedom of thought and criticism now prevailed in this
department than heretofore.
43. Under the title of miscellaneous literature a number of important
works were noticed. An account of the rise and development of
newspapers, periodical literature, and works of reference was given.
44. The progress of mathematical, physical, and mechanical science
was narrated. The bearing of these sciences upon the industrial arts
and manufactures was indicated, and consequently their importance as
factors of civilisation.
45. The progress of medical science followed:――1. The phenomenon
presented to this science was indicated; 2. The state of medical
science in Europe at the beginning of the eighteenth century was
briefly explained; 3. The institution of the medical schools of
Scotland were successively handled. Notices also were given of the
teaching and works of the eminent medical men who contributed to found
and raise the reputation of these schools.
46. The advance of education, and changes in the primary, grammar
schools, and Universities were noticed.
47. Agriculture, and the remarkable changes introduced in it during the
last hundred years were noticed.
XI.――The progress of the coal, iron, and lead mining industries were
detailed, and interesting particulars stated.
48. The erection of iron works and the introduction of iron
manufactures were narrated.
49. The remarkable improvement and revolution in the means of
communication were indicated.
50. The rapid increase of shipping was noticed. The progress of
shipbuilding, application of steam power to propel vessels, and the
introduction of steamboats and ships were noted. The change from wood
to iron shipbuilding, and subsequently the substitution of steel, and
the remarkable development of this branch of industry on the Clyde was
noticed.
51. The erection and progress of glass and earthenware manufactures
were noted.
52. The introduction and development of textile manufactures were
treated in detail:――1. The mechanical inventions connected with
the introduction of machinery and steam power in this department of
industry were noticed; 2. The development of woollen manufactures;
3. The development of linen manufactures; 4. The introduction and
development of cotton and jute manufactures; 5. Thread manufactures;
6. Silk and other manufactures.
53. The progress and development of paper manufactures and
paper-hangings were narrated.
54. The development of printing, the introduction of printing machines
and steam power in this department was noticed. The introduction of
machines in bookbinding was also noted.
55. Leather and boot and shoe manufactures, Gutta-percha and
India-rubber manufactures were noticed.
56. Sugar refining, brewing and distilling were treated.
57. A number of various manufactures were briefly noticed.
XII.――Architecture was partly treated in relation to the modern
reconstruction and recent sanitation of the chief cities.
58. Monumental art was treated with reference to stone monuments, and
the granite industry.
59. Fine art, embracing music, painting, and sculpture, was handled at
length.
XIII.――A concise account of political and social movements was
presented.
60. Ecclesiastical movements were treated. The historic grounds of the
Disruption were traced; and a brief narrative of the later stages of
the struggle was given.
In conclusion, the population, wealth, industries, and commerce of
Scotland have greatly increased during the last two centuries. There
have been intervals of fluctuation and depression, when numbers of
working people in the centres of population have been out of employment.
Yet I see no necessity for taking a gloomy view of the future. The
resources of the human mind are not exhausted. The incidental suffering
associated with the existing industrial system may be gradually
remedied, as the moral and intellectual state of the people becomes
more perfect. Let us all endeavour to eradicate injustice, and embrace
every opportunity of ameliorating the conditions of life and human
happiness.
INDEX.
Abercorn, i., 116;
castle of, 343, 390;
Earl of, iii., 19.
Abercromby, Dr. Patrick, iv., 143.
Aberdeen, i., 148, 151, 234, 238‒9, 264, 284, 288, 306, 325, 366,
370, 386‒7, 390;
ii., 116, 123, 192, 202, 212, 241, 247;
iii., 28, 90, 91, 219, 223, 228;
iv., 370, 375;
University of, i., 415, 467;
ii., 412, 413;
iii., 62, 392‒3;
iv., 60, 139, 317‒320.
Aberdeen, Earl of, iv., 482.
Aberdeenshire, i., 28, 49, 52, 68, 75, 90, 95, 140, 184, 271, 284,
287, 325;
ii., 154;
iii., 244;
iv., 370, 371.
Abernethy, i., 114, 165, 245.
Aboyne, i., 174;
Viscount of, iii., 93.
Ada, daughter of Earl David, i., 204, 256.
Adam,
Dr. Alexander, iv., 153;
William, Robert, James, 402.
Adamson, Archbishop of St. Andrews, ii., 182‒4, 189, 271, 380.
Aed, King, i., 136.
Agricola, General, i., 105, 109.
Agriculture, i., 100, 133, 150, 250‒254, 376‒381;
ii., 266, 289, 290;
iii., 303‒305;
iv., 332‒339.
Aidan, King of Dalriada, i., 117‒8.
Aikman, iv., ♦429.
♦ page number provided by transcriber
Airlie, Earl of, iii., 90;
castle of, 337.
Alan, Lord of Galloway, i., 211.
Albany,
Duke of, i., 319, 321‒2, 324‒6;
Murdoch, 326, 327, 328;
Alexander, 348‒351;
John, Regent, ii., 36‒37.
Ale, i., 251, 399, 400, 401, 402, 404;
ii., 291‒292;
iii., 217‒219;
iv., 395.
Alexander I., reign of, i., 200, 201.
Alexander II., reign of, i., 209‒212, 242.
Alexander, III.,
coronation of, i., 213;
reign of, 213‒217.
Alexander, William, iv., 209‒211.
Alison,
Rev. Archibald, iv., 86;
Sir Archibald, 155‒6;
Dr. William, 312.
Allan,
David, iv., 433;
Sir William, 443.
Alloa, iv., 433.
Alnwick castle, i., 143, 300.
Amberley, Viscount, ii., 43, 44.
Anderson,
Dr. Joseph, i., 52, 55, 57, 61, 65, 66, 168, 180;
William, ii., 68;
James, iv., 143, 144;
Robert, 173.
Angles, i., 113, 118, 119.
Angus,
Pictish King, i., 120;
Angus, Chief, 116, 202;
Angus Duff, 329;
Angus, Lord of the Isles, 218, 285, 292, 293;
Angus, Earl of, 342, 343, 350, 351;
ii., 36, 37, 38, 61, 63, 64, 65, 181, 195, 212.
Annandale, i., 26, 203, 223, 349.
Annandale, Earl of, iii., 179.
Anne, Queen, iii., 204, 205, 209, 211, 220, 222.
Anstruther, ii., 192.
Arbroath,
monastery of, i., 249, 296, 432, 433, 434;
town of, 238, 409;
iii., 93, 301;
iv., 375.
Arbuthnot,
Alexander, ii., 372, 373, 413;
Dr. John, iv., 228‒230.
Architecture, i., 157‒165, 247‒250, 428‒431;
ii., 396, 397;
iii., 396‒7;
iv., 401‒411.
Ardnamurchan, i., 24, 261, 356;
iii., 90.
Ardoch, i., 106.
Argyle,
Earl of, i., 356‒7, 364, 365;
ii., 63, 64, 89, 96, 97, 130, 134, 135, 145, 150, 181, 201,
202, 224, 226, 229;
iii., 90, 91, 92, 99, 104, 121, 123, 159, 167, 192;
Duke of, 206, 223, 241.
Argyleshire, i., 53, 116, ♦117, 121, 127, 210, 261, 369;
iii., 91; iv.
♦ “177” replaced with “117”
Arkinholm, battle of, i., 343.
Armada, ii., 191, 192.
Armstrong,
John, a marauder, ii., 224, 225;
Dr. John, iv., 169.
Arran, island of, i., 23, 95, 216, 286, 379, 380.
Arran,
Earl of, i., 346;
Regent, ii., 63, 65, 67, 70, 74, 78, 86, 87;
Stewart, Earl of Arran, 175, 177, 181, 184, 185, 187.
Arrowheads, i., 49, 50.
Art,
early, i., 52, 75‒79, 166‒174, 176‒180, 241‒243, 470, 471;
ii., 423‒425;
iii., 393‒396;
Progress of, in Scotland, iv., 428.
Aryan race, i., 38‒42;
language of, 43.
Arth, a friar, ii., 51‒53.
Asceticism, i., 131, 156, 157, 244;
ii., 43‒46, 261, 262.
Assembly, General,
ii., 115, 129, 149, 151, 160, 166, 167, 169, 188, 193, 211,
213;
iii., 28, 34, 36, 39, 69‒72, 77, 83, 84, 98, 104, 186;
iv., 465‒485.
Athole,
Earl of, i., 208, 209, 214, 217, 255, 263, 283, 285, 305, 306,
335, 337;
ii., 143, 148;
iii., 110;
Marquis of, 174;
Duke of, 207, 212.
Attwood, iv., 143, 144.
Auldearn, battle of, iii., 94.
Ayr,
Burgh of, i., 240, 356, 359, 386, 387;
ii., 69;
iii., 303;
iv., 369‒372;
Castle of, i., 215, 248, 274, 287.
Ayrshire, i., 29, 114, 286, 287, 379;
ii., 78;
iii., 134, 153;
iv., 341, 342.
Aytoun, William E., iv., 194.
Bacon, Lord, ii., 395;
iii., 434‒435.
Badenoch, i., 211, 276, 356;
iii., 181.
Badenoch, Lord of, i., 217, 256, 271, 274, 275, 277.
Baillie,
General, iii., 93, 94, 95;
Rev. Robert, 75, 76, 87, 88, 357, 358.
Bain, Dr. Alexander, ii., 420;
iv., 139, 140, 141, 155.
Balcanqhall, Walter, ii., 177, 184, 187, 206.
Balfour,
Sir James, ii., 75, 135, 144, 146;
John, of Burley, iii., 151, 153, 343;
Sir Andrew, 369.
Baliol, Bernard de, i., 203.
Baliol,
King John, i., 256, 258, 259, 260‒262, 263, 264, 366;
Edward, 304, 305, 306, 307.
Ballads,
early, i., 184‒5, 441‒450;
ii., 76, 77, 244, 245, 341‒345;
referring to the Civil War and persecution, iii., 237‒346;
Jacobite ballads, 346‒353.
Balmerino, Lord, iii., 18, 60.
Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, iii., 32.
Bane, Donald, King, i., 144.
Banff, i., 148, 248, 307, 385, 390, 391;
iii., 301;
iv., 373.
Bank of Scotland established, iii., 327‒329.
Bannatyne, George, ii., 371, 372.
Bannockburn, battle of, i., 291‒295.
Barbour, John, i., 451‒454.
Barclay,
Robert, iii., 258;
Dr., iv., 308.
Barlow, Bishop, ii., 54, 56.
Barmekyn hill, fort on, i., 90.
Barony, i., 223, 225.
Barton, Captain, i., 359, 363.
Beaton,
James, Archbishop, ii., 38, 58;
David, Cardinal, 58, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70‒72, 79.
Beaumont, Henry, i., 301, 305, 306.
Beck, Bishop of Durham, i., 266, 270.
Bede, i., 116, 122, 126.
Bellhaven, Lord, iii., 197, 211‒12.
Bell Rock, i., 23.
Bell,
Dr. John, iv., 306, 307;
Sir Charles, 307, 308.
Bellenden,
John, ii., 317, 318;
Sir John, 158;
Sir Lewis, 274.
Berkeley, Bishop, iii., 470, 471.
Berwick-North, i., 387, 389.
Berwick, i., 206, 233, 234, 236, 238, 239, 248, 259, 260, 263,
264, 268, 279, 285, 295, 305, 350, 382;
Treaty of, ii., 100, 272.
Bible, translations of, ii., 25‒27, 49, 170.
Bisset, Thomas, i., 271.
Black,
David, ii., 204‒206;
Dr. Joseph iv., 260‒263, 273, 276, 278.
Blackadder, John, iii., 139.
Blackie, John S., iv., 247‒249.
Blakey, Robert, iv., 160.
Blacklock, Dr. Thomas, iv., 171, 172.
Blair,
Robert, iv., 169, 170;
Dr. Hugh, 215.
Blair Athole, iii., 90.
Blair Castle, iii., 181.
Bœce, Hector, ii., 316.
Bondmen, i., 252, 380‒382.
Book of Common Order, ii., 113, 114;
Book of Discipline, the first, 105‒113;
the second, 171‒173.
Book of Canons, iii., 45, 46.
Boot and shoe manufactures, iv., 392, 393.
Borders,
state of, i., 309, 315‒318, 322, 324, 342;
ii., 223‒225;
order established on the Borders, iii., 20‒28.
Borthwick Castle, ii., 143.
Bothwell,
Earl of, i., 353, 426;
ii., 69, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138‒145;
Francis Stewart, Earl of, 198, 272, 273, 274‒276.
Bothwell Bridge, Battle of, iii., 153, 154.
Botriphnie, i., 378;
iv., 197.
Bower, Walter, i., 376, 463.
Boyd,
Robert, of Kilmarnock, i., 283;
Robert, Lord Boyd, 345, 346, 347;
Sir Thomas, created Earl of Arran, 146, 147.
Boyd, Zachary, iii., 358, 359.
Braemar, iii., 222.
Brahmanism, ii., 428, 429, 431, 433.
Braxfield, Lord, iv., 458.
Breadalbane, Earl of, iii., 190, 191.
Brechin, i., 138, 164, 183, 238, 249, 276, 409;
Castle of, 264, 276;
Battle of, 342.
Bridges, Early, i., 250.
Briggs, Henry, ii., 389, 390, 391.
Brigham, treaty of, i., 218.
Britons of Strathclyde, i., 113, 114, 117, 123‒125, 138.
Britons and Scots, early laws of, i., 151‒153.
Brochs, i., 157‒163.
Brodick Castle, i., 286.
Brodie,
Alexander, iii., 255;
William, iv., 454.
Bronze weapons and tools, i., 74‒79.
Brooches, i., 117‒119.
Brown,
Janet, ii., 231;
Dr. Thomas, iv., 87‒97;
John, 216;
Dr. John, 217;
Dr. William L., 218, 219.
Bruce,
Robert, of Annandale, i., 203, 218, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259,
260;
Robert, Earl of Carrick, 266, 267, 271, 276, 278, 281‒283.
Bruce,
Nigel, Thomas, Alexander, i., 285;
Edward, 287, 290, 291, 292;
Robert, ii., 201, 208, 216, 381, 382;
Michael, iv., 177.
Brude, King of the Picts, i., 127.
Bruno, Giordano, writings of, iii., 399‒401.
Brunston, Laird of, ii., 69.
Buchan, Earl of, i., 208, 209, 211, 213, 217, 262, 287, 288, 319,
325, 352, 353, 373.
Buchan, Peter, i., 446.
Buchanan,
George, ii., 58, 145;
writings of, 364‒369, 409;
Thomas, 260;
Dr. Robert, iv., 224.
Buddha, his life and work, ii., 429‒432.
Buddhism, ii., 233, 432.
Burghs,
the origin and organisation of, i., 33, 82, 83, 152, 232‒237;
Custom and trade of, 382‒391;
Social life and characteristics of the burghal communities,
397‒408, 414, 438, 439;
ii., 230‒243, 291‒294;
iii., 245‒248, 274‒278, 283‒289.
Burghs of regality, barony, and church, i., 226, 237, 238, 408,
409.
Burial dues exacted by the Church, ii., 39, 40.
Burnet,
Bishop, his works, iii., 364‒366;
John, iv., 441.
Burns, Robert, iv., 179‒182.
Burntisland, iii., 301.
Burton, Dr. John H., iv., 160.
Caerlaverock Castle, i., 247, 272.
Cairns, burial, chambered, i., 53‒64, 91, 92.
Caithness,
prehistoric structures in, i., 53‒58;
Norseman inroads, 136, 138, 139.
Caithness, Earls of, i., 207, 208;
ii., 227;
iii., 237, 238, 239.
Calderwood, David, iii., 38, 356, 357.
Caledonians, i., 105‒109, 110, 111, 114.
Caledonian Canal, iv., 354.
Calvin, ii., 119, 357‒360.
Cambuskenneth, i., 249, 367.
Cameron of Lochiel, i., 356;
iii., 181.
Cameron, Richard, iii., 155, 156.
Cameronians, iii., 155, 174, 185, 186, 187.
Campbell of Glenlyon, iii., 192.
Campbell,
Sir Colin, iii., 395;
Dr. John, iv., 144;
Dr. George, 85, 86;
Thomas, his writings, 185‒187;
Colin, architect, 402;
Thomas, sculptor, 454.
Candlish, Dr. R. T., iv., 221, 222.
Canterbury, Archbishop of, i., 200, 201, 272.
Cantyre, i., 21, 215, 261, 285, 348.
Canute, i., 139, 192.
Carberry Hill, ii., 144.
Cardross, i., 302, 303.
Cargill, Donald, iii., 155, 156, 157.
Carham, battle of, i., 138.
Carlisle, i., 210, 318;
iii., 227.
Carlyle,
Thomas, iv., 156‒159;
Dr. Alexander, 19, 43, 44.
Carmichael, Lord, iii., 186, 187.
Carmichael,
John, of ♦Meadowflat, iii., 27;
William, 151;
Gershom, iv., 18.
♦ “Meadowflatt” replaced with “Meadowflat”
♦Carmon, Colonel, iii., 183.
♦ Printed out of alphabetic order.
Carrick, Earl of, i., 217, 266, 271, 278, 281, 302, 305, 314,
316.
Carswell, John, ii., 108.
Carstairs, William, iii., 178, 179.
Carved woodwork, i., 430;
ii., 423.
Casket Letters, ii., 141, 142;
iv., 145.
Cassillis, Earl of, i., 365;
ii., 69, 150;
iii., 19, 56, 87, 99, 104.
Castellio, Sebastia, ii., 359.
Castles, i., 247, 248, 428, 430;
ii., 422, 423.
Catechisms, ii., 77, 78, 85, 109, 110;
iii., 89.
Caterthun, hill fort, i., 89, 90.
Cathen, the King’s adviser, i., 125.
Caves, i., 43, 83, 163.
Celestius, ii., 356.
Celibacy, i., 131, 156, 244, 245;
ii., 21, 22, 41‒43, 45, 46, 261, 262.
Celtic tribes, i., 44, 45, 90, 100, 101, 105, 110, 113‒116, 119.
Censorship of the press, ii., 277, 278.
Chalmer, James, ii., 90.
Chalmers,
George, iv., 153;
Dr. Thomas, 219‒221.
Chambered Cairns, i., 53‒65.
Chambers,
Thomas, i., 336, 337;
David, ii., 138;
Dr. Robert, iv., 163.
Charles I.,
reign of, iii., 42‒100;
policy of, 43‒50, 51‒54, 57, 58, 59, 63‒65, 66‒68, 71, 73‒75,
76, 77, 78‒82, 90, 95, 96, 97.
Charles II., reign of, iii., 103, 107, 110, 119‒163.
Charles Stewart, prince, iii., 226‒229.
Charters, i., 148, 201, 223‒225, 227, 232‒234, 373, 387, 422.
Chartularies, i., 247.
Chatelherault, Duke of, ii., 86, 130.
Chemical Science, iv., 260‒266, 273, 286, 296‒298, 397.
Chepman, Walter, ii., 300‒302.
Christian I., King of Denmark, i., 346.
Christianity,
introduced, i., 121‒129;
early form of, 130‒134;
influence of, 134, 135, 168, 181, 186, 232, 245, 248‒250, 288,
289, 466, 467;
ii., 437‒439, 443.
Church,
early, i., 130‒134, 155‒157, 200, 201;
re-organisation of, 212, 213, 243‒245;
property of, 227, 252‒254, 380, 431‒433;
state of, 332, 333, 431, 432;
ii., 40‒43, 51, 76‒78, 79, 102.
Church, the Reformed,
organisation of, ii., 104‒115;
conflict with the Government, 165‒173, 177‒189, 192‒194,
197‒220;
iii., 20‒42, 46‒82, 83‒87, 95‒101, 110, 120‒163, 164‒169;
internal struggles of, iv., 467, _et seq._
Circuit Courts, i., 222, 355, 356, 424;
Lords of Council, Judicial Committee, i., 370, 371;
Court of Session, ii., 216, 223;
iii., 112, 113, 124, 232‒235; iv.;
Church Courts, i., 227, 230, 371.
Cists, i., 55, 93, 95.
Civilisation,
primary causes of, i., 19‒20, 31‒33, 34, 35;
ii., 426, 427;
gradual progress of, i., 53, 70, 71, 98‒102, 119‒121, 135,
149‒151, 161, 164, 169, 170, 181‒188, 232‒241, 245‒55,
330‒332, 366‒371, 382‒397, 408, 418‒422, 465‒472;
ii., 109, 278‒291, 398, 419;
iii., 101, 102, 294‒335;
rapid development of, iii., 215;
iv., 142‒145, 165, 284, 324‒332; _et seq._, 341‒400.
Clackmannan, iv., 343.
Claim of Right,
of the Scotch Parliament, iii., 176, 177;
Claim of Right, of General Assembly of the Church, iv., 480,
_et seq._
Clan, i., 146;
iii., 225.
Clan Canan, i., 150.
Clan Morgan, i., 150.
Clanranald, chief of, i., 356;
ii., 226;
iii., 242, 243.
Cleland, William, iii., 153.
Clunymore, i., 378.
Coal,
early notice of, i., 238, 409;
mining, ii., 286;
iii., 292‒293;
iv., 341‒343.
Cochrane, Robert, i., 348‒350.
Cockburne, of Henderland, ii., 224.
Cockburn, Sir Richard, Sir John, iii., 18.
Coinage, i., 238, 394‒397;
ii., 279‒282;
iii., 320‒327;
paper currency, 327‒329.
Coldingham, i., 209, 246.
Colin, King, i., 137.
Colliers, iii., 291‒292;
iv., 342‒344.
Colville, John, i., 448.
Commerce, i., 239‒240, 391‒394;
ii., 286‒290;
iii., 112, 300‒303, 311;
iv., 352‒357, 359‒363, _et seq._
Compurgators, i., 228‒229.
Comyn, Clan, i., 213‒214.
Comyn,
John, i., 217, 256, 271, 275, 277;
slaughter of, 281.
Confessions of Faith, ii., 34‒35, 102, 204‒205;
iii., 89.
Constantine, Roman general, i., 112.
Constantine I., son of Kenneth M‘Alpin, i., 136.
Constantine II., 136‒137.
Constantine III., 138.
Conventicles, acts against, iii., 130, 131, 133, 138, 140, 146,
148, 149.
Convention of Royal Burgh, i., 234, 235.
Convention of Estates, iii., 173‒177.
Cope, Sir John, iii., 226, 227.
Corrichie, battle of, ii., 123, 124.
Cotterel, Colonel, iii., 110, 111.
Covenant,
National, iii., 59‒62;
Solemn League and Covenant, 83‒86.
Covenanters, iii., 68‒73, 74‒77, 78‒82, 86, 89‒102, 103‒105, 107.
♦Craftsmen, i., 335, 336, 404‒408;
ii., 240, 241, 242, 293, 294;
iii., 287‒289.
♦ “Craftesmen” replaced with “Craftsmen”
Craig,
John, ii., 110, 158, 167, 185;
Sir Thomas, 384;
Andrew, iii., 245.
Craigellachie, iv., 354.
Craigmiller Castle, i., 349.
Craigphadrig, vitrified fort, i., 91.
Crannogs, i., 42, 84‒87.
Cranstoun, Sir William, iii., 21, 24, 25, 27.
Crawar, Paul, i., 332.
Crawford, Earl of, i., 321, 340, 341, 342, 343, 364;
iii., 120, 179, 186.
Crawford, Sir William, i., 388, 389.
Crawford Moor, ii., 282;
iii., 293.
Crichton, Sir William, i., 338, 339, 340.
Crinan, Abbot of Dunkeld, i., 139, 140.
Cromwell, iii., 99, 108, 100, 110, 111, 112‒115.
Culblean, battle of, i., 306.
Cullen, burgh of, i., 385, 386.
Culloden, battle of, iii., 229, 230, 351, 352;
iv., 172, 173.
Cumberland, i., 105, 125, 142.
Cumberland, Duke of, iii., 228, 229.
Cummene, i., 181.
Cunningham, Allan, iv., 192, 193.
Cupar, i., 465;
iii., 157.
Curates, under Charles II., iii., 130, 132, 173.
Dacre, Lord, ii., 62.
Dalkeith, iii., 227;
castle of, i., 316, 342;
ii., 423.
Dalriada, i., 116, 117, 127.
Dalry, iii., 133.
Dalrymple, Sir John, iii., 191‒193, 233, 234.
Dalziel, General, iii., 134, 135, 342.
Dancing, i., 457, 468;
ii., 124, 125, 415;
iv., 416.
Darien Colony, iii., 196‒204.
Darnaway Castle, i., 360;
ii., 124.
Darnley, ii., 128, 129, 130‒136, 137, 138.
Dauney, William, iv., 416.
David I., reign of, i., 201‒204, 221, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228,
230, 232, 234, 235, 243, 244.
David II., reign of, i., 304, 306, 307‒313, 429.
David, Earl of Huntingdon, i., 204, 256.
Davidson,
John, ii., 198, 214, 373, 374;
Thomas, 302, 303;
John, Principal of the University of Glasgow, 352, 408;
Dr. Patrick, iv., 164.
Dean of Lismore’s Book, i., 442, 443.
Defence of the Country, armour, weapons, organisation of the
army, i., 409‒413.
Denmark, marriage treaty, i., 346.
Descartes, method and principles of his system, iii., 403‒418.
Dickson, David, iii., 61, 359.
Dingwall, i., 385, 386.
Divorce, ii., 265, 266.
Donald I., i., 136.
Donald II., i., 136.
Donald Bane, i., 144.
Donald Balloch, i., 329, 330.
Donald, Lord of the Isles, i., 324‒326.
Douglas,
Sir William, i., 266, 267;
Sir James, 283, 286, 287, 290, 292, 300, 303;
Sir Archibald, 305, 306;
Sir William, 307;
Sir John of Dalkeith, 342;
Sir James, 435;
Sir William of Drumlanrig, 389;
Sir James, ii., 225;
George of Parkhead, 284, 285;
Sir Archibald, iii., 18.
Douglas, Earl of, i., 316, 317, 318, 321, 323, 326, 338, 339,
340, 341, 342, 343, 349, 388, 389, 390.
Douglas,
Gavin, ii., 36, 310‒315;
Dr. James, iv., 320.
Drumclog, battle of, iii., 153.
Drummond,
Lord, i., 360;
ii., 228;
Earl of Perth, iii., 171, 172;
Lady Margaret, i., 360.