THE HISTORY
OF
CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ Most of the abbreviations used to save space in printing have │
│ been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for easier reading. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has │
│ been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there │
│ is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image │
│ adequately. │
│ │
│ Index references have not been checked for accuracy. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript │
│ number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the │
│ text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
THE HISTORY OF CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND.
BY
JOHN MACKINTOSH, LL.D.
_Author of “The Story of Scotland,”
“The Revolution of 1688 and Viscount Dundee,”
“The Highland Land Question Historically Considered,”
“History of the Valley of the Dee,” Etc._
_A NEW EDITION._
PARTLY REWRITTEN, AND CAREFULLY REVISED THROUGHOUT.
Volume Third.
ALEXANDER GARDNER,
Publisher to her Majesty the Queen,
PAISLEY; AND 26 PATERNOSTER SQUARE, LONDON.
1895.
CONTENTS.
Illustration: (‡ decoration)
CHAPTER XXIV.
_Influence of the Union of the Crowns upon Scotland._
⭘ Attitude of James VI. to the Reformed Church of Scotland――The
Government of Scotland after the Union of the Crowns
⭘ Measures and Proceedings for securing Order upon the Borders
⭘ A Union of the two Kingdoms proposed――The King determined
to establish Episcopacy in Scotland, a Meeting of the Clergy
dissolved by the Government, ministers imprisoned, tried, and
banished from the kingdom――Parliament recognised the absolute
power of the King――Restoration of the Bishops
⭘ The King attempted to stifle the leaders of the Presbyterians,
Andrew Melville imprisoned, other ministers banished
⭘ Meeting of the Clergy and Nobles, permanent moderators of
Presbyteries and synods――Courts of High Commission established
――Acts of the General Assembly and Parliament――Episcopacy
restored――The King recommended more Ceremonies, proceedings of
the General Assembly――The King’s Five Articles
⭘ The King’s visit to Scotland, his proceedings, the Five
Articles adopted by the General Assembly and Parliament, and
the King commanded the Bishops to enforce their observance
――Death of the King
⭘ Policy of Charles I.――His Act of Revocation, feeling of the
nobles against it; a compromise affected, adjustment of the
Tithes
⭘ Charles’ visit to Scotland――The organisation of the Church, a
book of Canons and a new Liturgy to be introduced――The Canons
promulgated, their characteristics――The new Liturgy published,
and the people commanded to observe it
⭘ Rise of the national feeling――Position of the Bishops and the
Authorities――Preparations for introducing the new Liturgy,
great tumults in the Churches of Edinburgh――Excitement rapidly
spreading
CHAPTER XXV.
_The Covenanting Struggle._
⭘ Charles I. misunderstood the state of Scotland――The agitation
spreading; the Government powerless――Petitions against the
Liturgy; Meeting at Edinburgh; the King’s Answer to the
Petitions; tumultuous proceedings
⭘ A complaint against the Bishops――Energy of the Opposition
party; four Committees formed――Action of the King; Royal
proclamation――Demands of the Covenanters; the Government
perplexed; the King resolved to adhere to the Liturgy; Royal
proclamations; Protests by the Covenanters
⭘ The Crisis; the Covenant framed and adopted, and the
Covenanters assumed a new position――Signing of the Covenant;
copies of it circulated throughout the kingdom; great efforts
of the leading Covenanters
⭘ Embarrassment of the Government; the King informed of the
state of the nation――Repressive measures sanctioned; Marquis of
Hamilton’s mission to Scotland; Proceedings and demands of the
Covenanters; Hamilton’s instructions useless――Charles’ policy
⭘ Hamilton returned to Court; the King issued new instructions
――The Covenanters demanded a free General Assembly; the King’s
policy
⭘ Preparations for the General Assembly; trial of the Bishops;
Meeting of the Assembly at Glasgow; Proceedings of the Assembly
――Its Conclusion
⭘ Relation of the Covenanters with the disaffected party in
England――The Scots prepare for war; mustered an army; the
King at the head of his army advanced to meet them; a Treaty
concluded
⭘ Proceedings of the General Assembly――All the people commanded
to subscribe the Covenant――Causes of dissension continued
――Charles’ quarrel with the English Parliament――Proceedings
of the Scotch Parliament――General Assembly
⭘ The Covenanting army cross the Tweed and defeat the Royal
troops――The King’s difficulties――Negotiates with the Scots;
Charles’ visit to Scotland; he sanctioned the proceedings of
Parliament――The King’s difficulties with his English subjects
⭘ Aims of the Covenanters――Intimate relations of the Covenanters
and the English Parliamentary Party; a Solemn League and
Covenant concluded; Signing of the Covenant in England
――Theocratic ideas of the Covenanters
⭘ Westminster Assembly of Divines――Westminster Confession of
Faith adopted by the General Assembly
⭘ Government of Scotland――Royalist party in Scotland; Montrose
campaigns and victories; at last he was defeated
⭘ The King’s Cause falling in England; he fled to the Scottish
army; the English Parliament demanded his surrender but the
Scots declined――Episcopacy extinguished in England――Haggling
between the English and Scots about the pay of the Scottish
army; final settlement
⭘ The Long Parliament demanded possession of the King’s person;
the Scots were compelled to let him go――The Presbyterians
opposed to the Independents――The Scots treating with the
captive King――The engagement――The Royalists defeated at Preston
――Cromwell at Edinburgh――Execution of Charles I.――Import of the
Covenanting Struggle
CHAPTER XXVI.
_Charles II.――The Kingdom under Cromwell._
⭘ Charles II. proclaimed King; the Scots in favour of a limited
monarchy――The Estates enacted that the King should sign the
Covenants before admission to the exercise of his functions
――Patronage abolished――The Marquis of Huntly executed――Act
of Classes――Powers and functions of Magistrates――Election of
Ministers
⭘ Montrose’s last effort on behalf of the Royal cause; he was
defeated, captured, and executed
⭘ Treating with the King; he signed the Covenant and landed in
Scotland――The Scots opposed the Commonwealth, and Cromwell
invaded Scotland and defeated the Scots at Dunbar――Divisions
among the Scots――Charles II. crowned at Scone――The Royalists
defeated; the King escapes――Scotland subdued――The General
Assembly dispersed――Resolutioners and Protesters
⭘ Cromwell’s government of Scotland――Free Trade between England
and Scotland――State of the people――New religious sects in
Scotland――Death of Cromwell; struggle for power; departure of
the English army from Scotland――The King recalled
CHAPTER XXVII.
_The Conflict from the Restoration to the Revolution._
⭘ Aim of the Chapter――Sentiments associated with the Restoration
――Scotland suffered more from the Restoration than England
――Sharp’s Mission to England touching the Church of Scotland;
the King’s Letter
⭘ State of the Scottish nobles――The Committee of Estates resumed
the Government――Public meetings prohibited; Books ordered to
be burned――A number of ministers, the Marquis of Argyle and
others, imprisoned
⭘ Meeting of Parliament; its proceedings――The Rescissory Act;
all opposition stifled――Trial and execution of the Marquis of
Argyle and the Rev. James Guthrie; Reconstruction of the Privy
Council; Reconstitution of the Court of Session
⭘ Reintroduction of Episcopacy; the new Bishops; the people
commanded to obey them
⭘ Second Session of Parliament; the Bishops resumed their seats
――The preservation of the King’s person and authority――The
Covenants condemned――Patronage restored――The Universities
purged and religious meetings prohibited――An explicit
declaration against the Covenants to be tendered to any one
――The New Hierarchy――Act of Indemnity
⭘ Meeting of diocesan synods――Three hundred ministers ejected
from their churches――Proceedings of the Privy Council
⭘ Contest between the heads of the Government; fall of Middleton
――Parliament reassembled; mode of electing the Lords of the
Articles――Oppressive Acts; the people commanded to attend
the parish churches; the ejected ministers prohibited from
preaching; Origin of Conventicles――Oppressive Acts of the
Privy Council
⭘ Persecution; soldiers enforcing religious conformity;
fining the people and cruelly oppressing them――Court of High
Commission established――Severe persecution; the limit of
endurance passed
⭘ Rising of 1666; the Insurgents defeated; treatment of the
prisoners; torture; military execution
⭘ An indemnity offered――Attempt to assassinate Archbishop
Sharp; escape of the assassin; renewal of the persecution;
a temporising measure tried
⭘ Meeting of Parliament; statement of the King’s supremacy in all
cases; the Privy Council invested with full legislative power
――Protection of the Episcopal clergy
⭘ Conventicles increasing; severe Acts against them――An Act
commanding the observance of the Anniversary of the Restoration
――An indulgence offered to the ejected ministers――A petition
from the Ladies to the Council
⭘ Persecution continued; the Bond and other oppressive measures;
Garrisons placed in private mansions; Letters of intercommuning
――Meeting of Presbyterian ministers――Sir George Mackenzie on
Conventicles; Proclamation against them
⭘ Mitchell apprehended for attempting to shoot the Primate;
irregularly tried and executed
⭘ Highland army quartered upon the disaffected people; the Bond
tendered; the soldiers ordered to kill all who resisted――A
special Commission to suppress the opposition to the Church
――Murder of the Primate
⭘ A reward offered for the apprehension of the murderers――A
public testimony against the Government――A Conventicle at
Loudon Hill; A skirmish with the Royal troops; Spread of
the Insurrection; Battle of Bothwell Bridge; defeat of the
Insurgents; Treatment of the prisoners
⭘ Indemnity――The presbyterian parties――Persecution continued
――Manifesto against the King and Government――A party of the
Cameronians surprised and slain――Cargill and others seized and
executed
⭘ Duke of York in Scotland――Meeting of Parliament, Act of
Succession――New penalties to be inflicted upon the disaffected
――Test Act――Trial and escape of Argyle
⭘ Declaration of the Society people, a series of sanguinary acts
intended to crush them――Violence of the Army――Death of Charles
II.
⭘ Accession of the Duke of York――Ideas associated with the
English Crown――Persecution continued――Meeting of Parliament,
speeches of the Royal Commissioner and Lord Chancellor――Cruel
enactments――Failure of Argyle’s attempt against the Government,
his execution――The prisons full of Non-Conformists
⭘ The King’s project of re-introducing Roman Catholicism,
he assumed the power of suspending and repealing the laws
――Execution of Renwick
⭘ The Crisis; the Prince of Orange’s Declaration; Meeting of the
Scotch bishops――Tumults in Edinburgh; Attack on Roman Catholic
Chapel――Alarming rumours――The Curates in the Western counties
ejected
⭘ Meeting of Presbyterians; Address to the Prince of Orange
――Meeting of the Scotch nobles, the Prince assumed the
Government of Scotland――Preparations for the Meeting of the
Convention
⭘ Meeting of the Convention of Estates, election of a President
――Letters from the Prince of Orange and King James――Excitement
in Edinburgh――Flight of Dundee to the North; intense excitement
in the Convention; the Covenanters called out――The Throne
declared vacant, and the Crown offered to William and Mary――The
Claim of Right――Adjournment of the Convention
CHAPTER XXVIII.
_The Revolution and the Union._
⭘ Difficulties of the new Government, opposite parties――William
Carstairs――The Duke of Hamilton; other members of the
Government; an opposition party
⭘ Convention re-assembled; the opposition harassed the Government
――Abolition of the Lords of the Articles demanded――War in
the Highlands; General Mackay and Viscount Dundee; Battle of
Killiecrankie; the royal army utterly defeated; consternation
of the Government
⭘ Difficulties of the King; his opinion of the Scottish
aristocracy――The Lords of the Articles abolished; Act of
Supremacy repealed――The ejected ministers restored, and the
Presbyterian polity re-established――Patronage abolished――A
Commission to visit the Universities and Schools――Parties
dissatisfied with the arrangements
⭘ Meeting of Presbyterians――General Assembly, the King’s letter
――Cameronian ministers――Acts of the Assembly
⭘ Proceedings of the Commission of Visitation; Interference of
the King――Meeting of the General Assembly; a proposal by the
King to admit Episcopal ministers
⭘ The Highlands; means used for the pacification of the Clans;
their submission to the Government――Massacre of Glencoe
⭘ Oath of Allegiance and Declaration of Assurance to be
subscribed――An Act permitting the Episcopal clergy to remain
in their churches under certain conditions; those who declined
were considered Jacobites
⭘ Rise of a commercial spirit; the Darien project sanctioned
by Parliament――Outline of the scheme; a company formed and
capital subscribed. In July, 1698, one thousand and two
hundred persons sailed from Leith to establish the new Colony;
their privations soon began, they were forced to abandon the
colony, though a second and a third expedition was despatched,
the enterprise ended in a complete failure, which caused great
indignation in Scotland
⭘ The King declined to receive an Address from the Darien
Company――Meeting of Parliament; stormy debates on the Darien
Colony――An Address sent to the King; the King’s letter
――Parliament overwhelmed with addresses and petitions
――Resolutions passed by Parliament touching the Darien Colony,
and embodied in an Address to the King
⭘ Attempt to form a union of the two Kingdoms――Death of the King
――Accession of Queen Anne――Another attempt to frame a union
――Elections for the new ♦Parliament; meeting of Parliament,
a series of alarming acts passed; the Act of Security twice
passed, and the nation prepared for battle
♦ “Partiament” replaced with “Parliament”
⭘ The English Parliament authorised a Treaty of Union to be
negotiated; this was placed before the Scottish parliament,
and after a vehement debate, an act was passed authorising the
appointment of Commissioners to treat with the English for a
Union. The number of Commissioners equal on both sides――Their
proceedings――A copy of the Treaty presented to the Queen
⭘ The Scotch Parliament re-assembled to consider the Treaty;
great opposition to the Union; efforts to arouse the national
feeling against it――The Articles of the Treaty were read and
debated in Parliament one by one――Efforts of the opposition;
a vehement debate on the first article of the Treaty――The
articles touching commerce satisfactory to the Scots――The
last effort of the Jacobites to defeat the Union――The Treaty
finally carried――Mode of electing the Representatives from
Scotland to the first Parliament of Great Britain
CHAPTER XXIX.
_Causes of Disaffection――Risings of 1715 and 1745._
⭘ Advantages of the Union; some of its disadvantages――Fiscal and
Excise arrangements――Malt Tax; determined opposition to it;
caused disturbance――Smuggling
⭘ The Jacobites――Toleration Act――Patronage restored――Death of
Queen Anne; Accession of George I.
⭘ The Earl of Mar and the Rising of 1715――Movements of the
insurgent army――Arrival of the Pretender――Collapse of the
Rising――Treatment of the prisoners; forfeitures――the Episcopal
clergy
⭘ Measures of the Government to secure order in the Highlands;
disarming acts; forts and military roads
⭘ Causes of the Rising of 1745; hereditary customs; jurisdiction
and power of the local chiefs and nobles――Prejudice against
the Union, and disaffection to England
⭘ Arrival of Prince Charles; a number of the Highland chiefs
joined him――Advance of his army southward; took Edinburgh
――Battle of Preston――His march into England; his retreat
――Battle of Culloden――Suffering inflicted on the people after
the battle――Service which the Celtic people have rendered to
the Empire
CHAPTER XXX.
_Social State of the People in the Seventeenth Century._
⭘ Circumstances unfavourable to social progress――Administration
of Justice――Lord Stair――The Question of Appeals――Sir John
Dalrymple――Corruption of the fountain of Justice――Some attempts
of reform――Lord Stair re-appointed President of the Court of
Session
⭘ State of crime――Feuds――Crimes of violence――The Earls of
Caithness and Orkney; their proceedings
⭘ Social state of the Highlanders; modes of treating them
――Efforts of the Government――“The Statutes of Icolmkill”――Old
feuds were difficult to extinguish――Contempt of the law was
often manifested throughout the Kingdom
⭘ Crime in the towns; assaults and breaches of the peace
――Offences against property
⭘ The poor and vagrant class numerous――The manner of treating the
poor and helpless――Acts of Parliament for suppressing vagrancy
and idle vagabonds; attempts to compel them to work――Proposal
to erect Correction-houses――Great privation among the lower
classes in the closing years of the century――Causes of the
enormous number of vagrant people in Scotland
⭘ Religious feeling; vivid sense of the supernatural――Severe laws
against Roman Catholics――Persecution of the Quakers
⭘ Witchcraft――Trials and executions of witches; curious notions
and incidents――The witch pricker――The belief in witchcraft
faded with the diffusion of education and civilisation
⭘ Social morality of the people; proceedings of the Church Courts
――The people not always submissive
⭘ Exertions to secure the observance of Sunday; efforts of the
local authorities and Church Courts
⭘ Religious exercises on week days――The national and local Fast
days
⭘ Drunkenness――Cursing and swearing; manner of punishing these
offences
⭘ Relation of the different sexes; irregular marriages; Acts of
Parliament and efforts of the Church to suppress them――Survival
of old customs associated with marriages and funerals
⭘ Sumptuary enactments; regulation of the dress of the different
ranks of society: a constant fashion of dress proposed――Dress
of the people
⭘ Defective sanitary condition of the towns; deficient supply
of pure water; efforts to remedy this――The arrangements for
cleansing the towns extremely defective
⭘ Trade in the burghs under restrictions; fixing the price of the
common necessaries of life――Price of boots and shoes――Disputes
arising from Corporation privileges
⭘ Wages――State of Agricultural labourers――Justices of Peace
empowered to fix the rate of wages――Compulsory labour;
semi-slavery of the workmen in collieries and salt-works
⭘ Mining operations comparatively limited
⭘ Means of Communication――Acts of Parliament touching repairing
of the Roads, Bridges, and Ferries――Condition of the Roads
⭘ Origin and progress of Postal communication in Scotland――Rates
charged for carrying letters and parcels――The Post Office at
the end of the century
⭘ Introduction of Coaches and Carriages
⭘ Shipping of the Kingdom
⭘ State of agriculture; system of farming; implements――State of
the tenants and labourers
⭘ Attempts to introduce improvements in tanning leather
⭘ Efforts to improve the manufacture of Cloth――Foreigners
employed――Home-made cloth――Acts of Parliament for encouraging
manufactories and companies――Foreign workmen encouraged
to settle in Scotland――The home-made goods protected by
prohibiting the importation of foreign goods――Woollen
manufactories in operation――Cloth for the dress of the army
⭘ Linen Manufacture――Commercial relations of England and Scotland
unsatisfactory; Leading aim of the Commercial Policy of the
Period――Ways of promoting the Linen Manufacture; A Company
formed for the Manufacture of Linen in Scotland
⭘ Introduction of the Manufacture of Soap――Act of Parliament
encouraging the erection of Soap Works
⭘ Introduction of Glass-making, Progress of Glass-making in the
Kingdom――A Proposal to erect a Work for making Earthenware
⭘ Introduction of Paper-making; Trade of Collecting Rags――A Paper
Work in Operation; A Joint-Stock Company established for making
Writing and Printing Paper
⭘ Introduction of Tobacco, and Tobacco Spinning――Price of Tobacco
Pipes fixed by Parliament
⭘ Coinage, the use of a Mill in Minting the Coins Introduced
――Complaints about the Scarcity of Money――System of Collecting
Bullion for the Mint――Toward the end of the reign of Charles
II. the Mint had fallen into a deplorable state; New Regulations
enacted by Parliament――At the Union it was settled that there
should be only one Standard of Money for the United Kingdom
⭘ Introduction of a Paper Currency, establishment of the Bank of
Scotland; The early operations of the Bank
⭘ A marked and rapidly spreading interest in Trading and
Commercial Enterprise, as shown by the many Commercial
Projects, Trade Adventures, and Notices of Inventions, which
were originated in the closing years of the Seventeenth Century
and the opening years of the Eighteenth――Conclusion of the
Chapter
CHAPTER XXXI.
_Ballad, and Jacobite Literature of Scotland._
⭘ Influence of Ballad Literature on the National Character
――Ballads relating to the Civil War
⭘ Satirical Rhymes and Lampoons referring to the Opposing Parties
in the Covenanting Struggle
⭘ Ballads relating to the Risings during the Period of the
Persecution
⭘ Satirical Rhymes, and Pasquils, referring to the Government
from the Restoration to the Revolution
⭘ Origin and Characteristics of the Jacobite Ballads――Rhymes
and Ballads relating to the Events flowing from the Revolution
――Rhymes touching the Union
⭘ Popular Jacobite Ballads and Songs, a higher strain attained
after the battle of Culloden
⭘ Characteristics of Lowland Scottish Ballad Literature
――Conclusion of the Chapter
CHAPTER XXXII.
_Literature of the Nation in the Seventeenth Century._
⭘ Religious and Theological Literature of the Century
――Calderwood, Character of his Writings; his History of the
Church of Scotland――Archbishop Spottiswood’s History of the
Church and State of Scotland――Baillie’s Writings
⭘ Boyd, his Sermon on Cromwell――Style of his Writings――Durham,
Dickson, Rutherford, Gillespie
⭘ Dr. Forbes; Bishop Forbes; Leighton; Burnet, his Historical
Works
⭘ Sir William Alexander; Drummond, Characteristics of his Poetry
⭘ Legal Literature――Sir Thomas Hope――Lord Stair――Sir George
Mackenzie
⭘ Medical Science, the Royal College of Physicians――Dr. Balfour
――Sir Robert Sibbald――Dr. Morison――Dr. Pitcairn
⭘ Progress of Science――Dr. James Gregory――David Gregory――John
Keill
CHAPTER XXXIII.
_Education and Art in the Seventeenth Century._
⭘ Growing Interest in Education――Efforts to establish Parish
Schools――Legislative enactments
⭘ Grammar Schools――English and Scotch Schools in Burghs――French
was taught from an early period
⭘ The Church Claimed a Right of Visiting and Examining all the
Schools, Form and Manner of these Visitations
⭘ Course of Instruction and Subjects taught in the Grammar
Schools of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen
⭘ Local Authorities often encouraged the Schoolmasters by Special
Marks of Respect――Music Schools
⭘ Universities, the Citizens of Glasgow and Aberdeen manifested
much interest in University Education――Each Dominant Party
in the Government sought to impose certain views upon the
Universities, and the Revolutions in the Government also
affected the Funds of the Universities; after the Revolution
they were purged――A proposal to introduce a uniform course of
Philosophy――Difference between the Regenting and Professional
Methods of Teaching
⭘ Art――George Jamesone, a Portrait-painter――It appears that he
executed much work; his merit――Thomas Murray――Sir William Bruce
CHAPTER XXXIV.
_Outline of European Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century,
and the early part of the Eighteenth._
⭘ Aim of the Chapter――Efforts of the human mind to attain
freedom, veneration for the opinions of antiquity: Power of
the Mind
⭘ Bruno a bold thinker; Reconstruction of the Universe, the unity
of being his fundamental principle――His system pantheistic
――Influence of his views on subsequent speculation
⭘ Influence of the Jesuits in France――Montaigne――Gassendi, the
reviver of Materialism: Atomism
⭘ Descartes, his achievements in Mathematics――Principles and
method of his Philosophy――His peculiar views touching the
organisation of man and the lower animals
⭘ His Meditations――a discussion of the fundamental principles of
Philosophy, the grounds on which we may doubt of all things:
The Mind itself more clearly known than any external object――An
idea of God in the Mind, the will the cause of error, all clear
and distinct conceptions are true, as God cannot be the cause of
error――All truth depends on the knowledge of God
⭘ His theory of the Universe, conception of God, and definition
of substance; Doctrine of continuous creation――Criterion of
Truth
⭘ His Psychology――Relation of the Mind to the objects of its
knowledge, theory of mediate perception――Innate Ideas――His
Ethical views――Influence of his Philosophy on subsequent
speculation
⭘ Spinoza――Chief characteristics of his Philosophy――His Ethics,
method of his system, definitions and axioms; conclusions
touching God and the Universe
⭘ The Human Mind and Body; three degrees of cognition――opinion,
reason, and intuition; reason considers things as necessary
under a form of Eternity: There is no Free-will
⭘ Affections and Emotions, Desire and Appetite――The Primary
Affections――Man unable to restrain his passions――There is no
final causes, as God exists of necessity, so does He act――Good
and Evil: The highest virtue, and the supreme good is to know
God――All that tends to the order and amity of society is good
⭘ Relation of Emotion and Reason――The Love of God ought chiefly
to fill the Mind――The Essence of the Mind Eternal――The
Knowledge of God and the Intellectual Love of God the highest
Virtue――The understanding an eternal mode of thought――Result
of his system, its defects――Its influence on subsequent
speculation
⭘ Leibnitz wrote on many Subjects――His Method of Philosophising
――Theory of Monads――Pre-established Harmony――Bayle
⭘ English Philosophy――Bacon’s Method, his Merit; Influence of his
Writings
⭘ Lord Herbert of Cherbury――His Speculations on Mental Philosophy
and Religion
⭘ Hobbes’ views influenced by the struggles of his time――His
conception of Philosophy, Reasoning, the use and value of words
⭘ His idea of motion, Psychology――origin of sensation, ideas
and thought, connection of ideas, trains of thought――The will,
emotions and passions
⭘ Hobbes’ political and ethical views――Original state of mankind;
Origin of Government――Powers of the Sovereign and the State
――The Civil Law the Standard of Right and Wrong
⭘ Milton’s Political Writings, defence of the Commonwealth――James
Harrington’s Writings
⭘ Bishop Cumberland’s Ethical Theory――Cudworth’s Intellectual
System of the Universe――More’s Moral Views
⭘ Locke――Fundamental principles of his Psychology――Refutation of
the doctrine of innate Ideas, no innate idea of God
⭘ Origin of ideas, simple and complex ideas, no clear idea of
substance――Relations, true and false ideas――Association of
ideas
⭘ Language as the medium of expressing thought――The degrees and
limits of human knowledge――Knowledge consists in the perception
of the agreement or disagreement of ideas――The existence of God
――The provinces of faith and reason――Locke’s main inconsistency
――Value of his Essay――Causes of the success of Locke’s views
⭘ English Deism――Toland, Collins, Tindal
⭘ Shaftesbury’s conception of God――Disinterested affection
――Influence of his views――His style
⭘ Dr. Clarke’s Moral Theory――Berkeley’s Idealism――His style
――Conclusion
THE
HISTORY OF CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND.
Illustration: (‡ decoration)
CHAPTER XXIV.
_Influence of the Union of the Crowns upon Scotland._
AT the opening of this period, it may be recalled that it was not the
head of the Government who reformed the Church in Scotland. The change
of religion was carried through in opposition to Queen Mary and the
representatives of her rights; while her son only accepted the reformed
doctrines. From his youth, indeed, he had manifested a strong aversion
to the polity of the Reformed Church of his kingdom. In past times the
Crown had always found support from its connection with the hierarchy;
and nothing was more natural than that James VI. should endeavour to
restore Episcopacy whenever he could command the power to do so. He was
inflexibly possessed with the idea that Episcopacy must be established
in Scotland; but the means which he employed to attain this end were
unwise and short-sighted. He was convinced that kingly government could
not exist side by side with a Presbyterian Church; and he had mused so
long on this view of the matter, that at last it assumed the place of
an idol in his mind. This unfortunately became the foremost tenet in
the political creed of the Stuarts, and eventually issued in the fall
of their dynasty.
The influence of the union of the Crowns was soon felt. In the hands
of a really wise ruler, this union might have been rendered highly
beneficial to both nations; but James had too much faith in his own
opinion and in his royal prerogatives; his adherence to these in face
of the adverse elements of thought and feeling among the people, led
on to a course of policy which tended to extinguish the freedom and the
rights of the nation.
After the union of the Crowns the government of Scotland was conducted
by the Privy Council. This body consisted of the chief official members,
including John Graham, third Earl of Montrose, who was Lord High
Chancellor and Chief or Prime Minister till March, 1605, and then Lord
High Commissioner. He was succeeded in the Chancellorship by Alexander
Seton, previously known as Lord Fyvie, and President of the Court of
Session; he was created Earl of Dunfermline on the 4th of March, 1605,
and then became chief minister or official head of the Privy Council.
Sir George Home of Spott, had been Lord High Treasurer of Scotland
since 1601, and having accompanied the King to England, he became a
special favourite, and in March, 1605, was created Earl of Dunbar.
Although he retained his Scottish office, he was the chief Scottish
minister at the English Court, and sent to Scotland as the King’s
envoy when any measure of special importance was to be carried into
effect; and although he only appeared occasionally at the meetings
of the Scottish Privy Council, yet his influence in the government
was frequently dominant. James Elphinstone, created Lord Balmerino on
the 25th April, 1604, was Secretary of State; and after March 1605,
he was also President of the Court of Session. He was a very active
member of the Council, and attended many of its meetings. David Murray,
created Lord Scone in 1604, held the office of Comptroller. Sir Richard
Cockburn of Clerkington, one of the Lords of the Court of Session,
filled the office of the Lord Privy Seal; while Sir John Skene of
Curriehill, also one of the Lords of Session, held the office of Clerk
Register. Sir John Cockburn of Ormiston, was Justice Clerk; and Sir
Thomas Hamilton of Monkland, was Lord Advocate. The preceding members
of the Council formed the official ministry. The total number of names
in the list of Privy Councillors was ninety-three, and consisted of
nobles, lawyers, lairds, and bishops. But only about one half of these
usually attended the meetings of the Council. After the chief officials
or ministry as indicated above, the members most regular in their
attendance at the meetings of the Council were the following:――John
Bothwell, Commendator of Holyroodhouse, one of the Lords of Session,
who was created Lord Holyroodhouse on the 20th of December, 1607;
Peter Rollock, an Extraordinary Lord of Session, and for several
years titular bishop of Dunkeld; Mark Ker, Lord Newbattle, and created
Earl of Lothian on the 10th day of July, 1606; Sir Archibald Douglas
of Whittinghame, one of the Lords of Session; Alexander Elphinstone,
Master of Elphinstone, son of Lord Elphinstone; Andrew Stewart,
fourth Lord of Ochiltree; David Lindsay, Bishop of Ross; Alexander
Hay of Fosterseat, one of the Lords of Session; Sir Robert Melvill
of Bruntisland, an Extraordinary Lord of Session; Sir Robert Melvill
of Murdocairny, an Extraordinary Lord of Session, and father of the
preceding; Walter Stewart, Commendator of Blantyre, and created Lord
Blantyre in 1606; William Douglas, Earl of Angus; Sir James Scrymgeour
of Dudhope, Constable of Dundee; John Spottiswood, Archbishop of
Glasgow; Alexander Elphinstone, fourth Lord Elphinstone; Sir William
Livingstone of Kilsyth, a Lord of Session; John Erskine, Earl of Mar;
John Kennedy, fifth Earl of Cassillis; Earl Marischal; Patrick Lyon,
Lord Glamis, and created Earl of Kinghorn in July 1606; Robert Ker,
Lord Roseburgh; Alexander Livingston, first Earl of Linlithgow; Robert
Ker, Master of Lothian, son of the Earl of Lothian; Francis Hay, ninth
Earl of Errol; Sir James Hay of Fingask; Kenneth MacKenzie of Kintail;
James Hamilton, Master of Paisley, and created Earl of Abercorn on the
10th of July 1606; and George Gledstanes, Archbishop of St. Andrews.
These men, it may be said, formed the body who were mainly responsible
for the policy of the government of Scotland. But it must be stated,
that they were merely the agents of this policy, which directly
emanated from the King himself, and the evidence that such was the case
is, in fact, very complete. Immediately after James VI. ascended the
throne of England, he became fully conscious of his enormous accession
of new power over the people of Scotland, and the effects of this upon
the Scottish nation were for a time almost incredible. James declared
that it was himself, and no one else, who sent from England the
messages by which Scotland was governed. In a speech which he delivered
to the English Parliament on the 31st of March, 1607, having embraced
the occasion to contrast the easy way in which he continued to rule
Scotland with the difficulties he had experienced in England, he
uttered the following words:――“This I must say for Scotland, and may
truly vaunt it: here I sit and govern it with my pen: I write, and it
is done; and by a Clerk of the Council I govern Scotland now, which
others could not do by the sword.” This was really the truth. For King
James in his communications with the Scottish Council always addressed
the members in the tone of an imperious and absolute master; and they
humbly yielded to the royal will, and became the mere tools of the King.
It is surprising to find in the records how submissively the Council
bowed before him. In short, James VI. assumed and exercised a despotic
control over the Privy Council and the proceedings of Parliament, as
will appear in the sequel.
In the beginning of the year 1610, the Privy Council was recast. The
Council as then remodelled, was in future to consist of thirty-five
persons and no more, each to be specially nominated by the King, and
of whom seven were to be a quorum. The Council was to hold two meetings
every week, one to deal with matters of State, and the other with
judicial business; and no one but the Councillors themselves and the
Clerk of Council were to be present at the meetings. Any Councillor
absent from four consecutive meetings without leave, or allowing
himself to remain at the horn for debt or any other cause unrelaxed for
forty days, or failed to give proof of sound churchmanship by receiving
the communion at least once a year, was to be deprived of his office.
The thirty-five men of the new Council had all been members of the
old one, excepting George Young, archdeacon of St. Andrews, who was a
new member. The Council continued, as before, to be the mere agent of
the King’s will. For James had succeeded in introducing a system of
monarchical absolutism. From the highest Councillors to the humblest of
the officials, they were all equally the puppets of their absent King,
executing his commands in everything to the utmost of their ability,
and trembling for fear of his mere rebuke. In May, 1608, the King it
appears was displeased at some recent evasiveness of the Council, and
had sent them one of his rebukes, and also proposed a remedy for the
future. He then commanded that the votes of the Council on any special
matter of his service, should no longer be given by an unrecorded
show of hands at the Council Board; but each Councillor’s vote, “Ay or
No,” on whatever motion might be before the Board, was to be carefully
recorded, and all such records were to be duly certified by the
Chancellor and the Secretary, and then despatched to his Majesty,
――“that so we may discern the goats from the sheep.”¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume VII., pages 15‒28,
_Introduction_, Volume VIII., pages 12‒14, _et seq._
Immediately after James VI. ascended the throne of England, he called
the Borders the “Middle Shires of Great Britain,” and ordained that
henceforth the elements of disorder which had so long prevailed in this
region, and the rude customs of the inhabitants, were to be extirpated.
The real effort to settle the Borders was begun in March, 1605. At
this time ten commissioners, five English and five Scottish, were
appointed to the full charge of the English counties of Northumberland,
Cumberland, Westmoreland, and part of Durham, and of the Scottish
counties of Berwick, Roxburgh, Dumfries, Selkirk, Peebles, and the
Stewartries of Kirkcudbright and Annandale. These were empowered to
meet as they thought fit, six to be a quorum, and to take the most
effective means for the prevention and punishment of murders, felonies,
riots, and all disorders within those territories. The English
commissioners were Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Sir Robert Dolabel, Sir William
Selby, Joseph Pennington, Esquire, and Edward Gray of Morpeth; the
Scottish commissioners were Sir William Seton, Sir William Horne,
Patrick Chirnside of East Nisbet, Robert Charters of Annisfield,
and Gideon Murray of Elibank. The conjoint commissioners elected Sir
Wilfrid Lawson, their President for three months. On the English side,
a company of horsemen was placed under the command of Sir Henry Leigh,
and on the Scottish side a company of twenty-five horsemen was under
the command of Sir William Cranstoun, and these mounted men were to
assist the Commissioners as police in bringing the guilty to justice.
The Commissioners agreed on regulations for their common procedure,
which were of the following import:――“It is agreed that concerning old
feuds between the two countries there should be a general assurance.
It is agreed that old feuds shall be put to agreement, or else the
offending parties to be confined――the Englishmen in Edinburgh, and the
Scotsmen in Newcastle, until they will agree, and meantime the parties
to be bound to keep the peace; and, for the new feuds, that justice
shall be executed upon the offenders according to the laws reciprocally.
“It is agreed that, if any Englishman strike a Scotsman, or a Scotsman
strike an Englishman, with a weapon, the party offending shall be
committed to the nearest prison, and there to remain for three days
without bail; and if the said parties shall strike with any weapon,
then to place them in prison for twenty days without bail; and if that
the party be hurt, then he shall not be delivered at the end of the
twenty days until he make such further satisfaction to the party hurt
as the Commissioners who committed him shall think fit; but, if the
hurt fall out to be a maiming, then that the party offending shall not
be delivered after the twenty days’ imprisonment until he perform the
order of two of his Majesty’s Commissioners for satisfaction of the
party maimed; and if death follow, then the offender to receive his
punishment according to his Majesty’s laws reciprocally.
“It is agreed that, if any Englishman steal in Scotland, or a Scotsman
steal in England, any goods amounting to the value of 12 pence, he
shall be punished by death, and that all accessories to such felonies,
viz., outputting and resetting, shall likewise suffer death for the
same.”
It was also agreed that proclamation should be made warning all the
inhabitants within the bounds of the Commissioners, “saving noblemen
and gentlemen unsuspected of felony and theft and not belonging to
broken clans, should put away all armour and weapons, both offensive
and defensive, such as jacks, spears, lances, swords, daggers,
stellcaps, hauberks, pistols, and such like, before the 20th of May
next, under the penalty of confiscation of the same and imprisonment
during his Majesty’s pleasure: and that no one of whatever calling
should wear or carry any arms, except in his Majesty’s service: and
that after the above date they should not keep any horse above the
value of fifty shillings sterling, or thirty pounds Scots under the
like penalty and imprisonment.”
As these Commissioners, “intended not only to punish and root out
all malefactors for the present, but also to continue a severe course
of justice by fit ministers for the perpetual preservation of these
districts in peace and justice; they therefore charge all persons
who have cause of complaint against any one for murder, burglaries,
felonies, or misdemeanours, or any who have compounded for such
offences for friendship, money, or any other consideration, to send in
information to the Commissioners, so that they may receive justice.”
The Commissioners proceeded vigorously with the work assigned to them.
They found great difficulties on many points, especially in the matter
of the old and new feuds which were so numerous. The Commissioners
frequently sought advice from the Scottish Privy Council in the form
of questions, as touching feuds:――Question: “The nature of old feuds
is of two sorts. And first, as to the one of that quality in which the
whole parties committers of blood and slaughter, hence from here are
departed this life, yet grudge remaining among the parties’ posterity
unreconciled. _In hoc genere quomodo procedendum?_ whether with the
band of keeping his Majesty’s common peace, or forcing them to subject
themselves to arbitrament for reconciliation? Answer: The Commissioners
to deal with this matter as they think most fit for the peace of the
country.
“Question: A second sort of feud is when some of either, or at least of
the one, party are yet alive who has been art, or part, or actual doers
in the old feud,――some possibly clad with remission and others without
it. In these old causes, first, _utrum par erit ratio utriusque necne?_
next, if with them we shall proceed likewise to enforce agreement,
or otherwise content ourselves with the band of his Majesty’s common
peace? Answer: The Lords think that in old feuds of this nature the
Commissioners should charge the parties with the band of the general
peace.
“Question: Is new feuds conceived always of that nature to be before
the devolution of both the Crowns in his Majesty’s royal person?
Because since then we understand no proceeding in deeds of blood but by
justice:――First, whether in those anterior to his Majesty’s reception
of both the Crowns we shall proceed with justice where there is no
remission, or, after the enforcing of both the parties to his Majesty’s
common peace, we shall proceed causing submission of arbitrament to
be made, though unsuited by any of the parties, or not? Next, when
slaughter and blood having been reciprocal in some degree all alike,
the one party being clad with remission by favour, and the other
wanting it, or the one committing the slaughter under colour of law,
and the other without the same, what shall we do therein? Last, where
the party offended being willing to receive satisfaction and craving
the same, if we may compel the party offender to offer and do reason?
Answer: Where no remission is produced, the Commissioners to do justice
according to their commission; where there is remission, they shall
take caution of the criminals to satisfy the party offended; and
where the party craves satisfaction the Commissioners shall cause the
offenders to find caution for satisfaction and see that all be bound to
keep the common peace.”
The preceding quotations will give some idea of the complexity and
difficulty of the task which the Commissioners had to execute. There
is ample evidence that the Commissioners conscientiously endeavoured
to do their work, and not infrequently showed a leaning to the side
of mercy, an instance or two of which may be presented. As indicated
in a preceding page, the Commissioners’ instructions regarding the
punishment of theft were very severe, still they reported some cases
for the opinion of the Scottish Privy Council. Thus “one called Thome
Armstrong, a proper young man, to whom neither new nor old thift have
been known heretofore, but very suspicious for not being settled to any
good calling,――charged for the art and part of the stelling of a horse,
and convicted by a jury for the same; and by chance upon the morning
after the conviction, the owner of the said horse coming to Peebles
said that although Thome Armstrong was universally presumed to have
been art and part in the stelling of his horse, that by his knowledge
he understood Armstrong had nothing to do with the case:――continued
upon presumption of his innocence.” Answer of the Privy Council――“The
Lords ordains the Commissioners to do justice upon this Thome
Armstrong,” that was to hang him. Again “one called Richie Elliot of
Heuchhouse, indicted only for stelling one sheep and convicted of the
same, without anything more, either new or old, layed to his charge:
――continued in respect of the meanness of the crime, ♦notwithstanding
our ordinances bears new thift to be punished to the death when passing
the value of twelvepence sterling.” Answer of the Privy Council――“The
Lords ordains the Commissioners to keep their own act in this matter,”
that was to hang the man.
♦ “nothwithstanding” replaced with “notwithstanding”
At the end of the first year, on the 17th day of May, 1606, the
Commissioners appeared personally before the Privy Council at Edinburgh
and reported their proceedings. It appeared that they had executed “by
water and gallows thirty-two persons;” and banished from the kingdom
fifteen persons; while one hundred and sixty were declared to be
fugitive outlaws, who should be pursued with hue and cry wherever
they have dispersed themselves. All persons who had resetted or in any
way assisted the outlawed fugitives, were to be subjected to severe
penalties. In the month of October, 1606, the Commissioners reported
that they had executed other fifteen persons in Dumfries, Annan, and
Jedburgh. At the end of this year, the number of fugitives from the
law, whose names were to be advertised on the market crosses of all the
towns and the doors of all the parish churches, then amounted to one
thousand and three hundred. There can be no doubt that there was much
rough and severe work. On the 15th of December, 1606, the King signed
an Act of Indemnity in favour of Sir William Cranstoun, who had command
of the mounted police, and which exonerated him for all the things
hitherto done by him in his office in the Marches, including his
summary execution of outlaws and prisoners without form of trial.
In this Act the King said:――“Our well-beloved Sir William Cranstoun,
Captain of the garrison appointed to attend our service of quieting
and bringing to obedience of those Middle Shires of this Island,
has in that his charge most dutifully done us very good service ...
since the necessity of the service in which he was employed, and many
sudden incidents that must needs often occur therein, might not always
permit those prolix forms used in the civil parts of the kingdom, but
often, for the advancement of the service, and that by the retaining
of the numbers of outlaws who would oftimes be at once apprehended, and
spending time in conveying them to prisons, in the mean season the good
occasion and opportunity of affecting better service should slip or be
omitted, and therewith the consideration of the unsecurity of himself
and his company to have the charge of too many prisoners desperate
of their life or pardon all at once, moved the said Sir William often
times summarily to make a quick despatch of a great many notable
and notorious thieves by putting them to instant death without any
preceding trial by jury, or any conviction or doom.... And he being
directed by us as surgeon to make incision and cut away the rotten and
cankered members and flesh in those parts of our kingdom, however the
cure perhaps has been to the other members some way grievous, yet his
intention in the doing of it was so dutifully grounded, and his work
therein having produced so much benefit to those parts, it carries no
reason at all in the after ages any of his evil willers should then
forge and pretend any matter of action, challenge, or accusation
against him for any point of service done by him during his employment.”
From this, it must be inferred that the actual havoc of human life
during the years 1605‒6 was much greater than appears in the existing
record.
On the 2nd of August, 1607, a new Commission of Justiciary over the
late Marches was given to the Earl of Dunbar and the Earl of Cumberland,
which empowered them to act as they thought fit for establishing and
preserving peace in the “Middle Shires of Great Britain.” Power was
also given to them to muster all the force in these bounds, and the
disposal of the men and horsemen placed under them by the King, for
preserving the peace and apprehending malefactors. Seeing that the
execution of the Commission would be very difficult and required great
care, Sir William Seton, Sir William Cranstoun, Sir Robert Charteris,
Sir Gideon Murray, and Sir William Selby, Sir ♦Wilfrid Lawson, Sir John
Fenwick, and Sir Christopher Pickering, were commanded to assist the
two chief Commissioners to the utmost of their power.
♦ “Wilfred” replaced with “Wilfrid”
But the main part of the work of reducing the unruly inhabitants of the
Borders was now nearly accomplished; and the vigorous and continuous
proceedings of the new Commissioners, with the Earl of Dunbar at their
head, and Sir William Cranstoun, captain of the garrison and mounted
men, soon completed it. The unruly families and men of the Borders were
hunted down, captured, and many of them slain at once, without question
or trial of any kind; others were imprisoned, tried, condemned, and
executed; some were banished; a very large number fled from their
former homes and haunts, and hid themselves in the hope of escaping
the doom which hung over them; and then their goods were seized and
their dwellings burned; while those who remained were disarmed and
deprived of their weapons, and all were bound under cautions and severe
penalties to keep the peace. Thus, the traditional habits and the
unruly spirit of the inhabitants of the Borders――the result of ages
of anarchy, generated by external conditions, were interrupted and
effectively shaken; and under new conditions and modified circumstances,
these people became orderly and peaceable subjects.
Other influences calculated to pacify the people were not neglected. At
the instance of the King, the Privy Council on the 28th of March 1609,
passed an act empowering John Spottiswood, archbishop of Glasgow, to
proceed to the Borders for the purpose of repairing the churches and
reorganising the means of religious instruction in that region. He was
to plant new ministers where it was necessary; to call the parishioners
of every parish before him, and their pastors, wherever they had
any; and with their consent to devise and resolve upon such measures
as seemed best and most expedient for the speedy repairing and
building of the churches, and making provision for the ministers:
and to do everything lawful which might advance the object in view.
The archbishop went over the region, carefully surveyed it, and
ecclesiastically rectified it. He captured some Roman Catholic
emissaries who had long evaded the authorities; and thus crushed
Scottish Roman Catholicism out of its haunts in Dumfriesshire.
But the traditional habits and the unruly spirit of the Borderers
could not be summarily extinguished by any measures short of utter
extermination. It required years to moderate, sober, and modify their
character. In the end of July 1609, the Earl of Dunbar proceeded to
Dumfries, where he held a Justiciary Court, and hanged a number of
Border thieves, apprehended previously by Sir William Cranstoun. On the
26th of November, 1607, the Privy Council passed an order for removing
a number of troublesome Border lairds to other parts of the country.
John Carmichael of Meadowflatt, to be confined in Dundee; and the
Master of Maxwell to be confined in Dunkeld or any parts of Fife and
Angus; Sir Alexander Jardine of Applegirth, and John Carruthers of
Holmends, to St. Andrews; Robert Elliot of Redheugh, and Walter Scott
of Goldielands, to Cupar in Fife; while others were to be confined
within the limits of specified places. In August of the following year
a considerable number of lairds, chiefly in Dumfriesshire and Galloway,
were ordered to be imprisoned beyond the Tay, and a number of others
within the bounds of Fife. It appears from the proceedings of the
Justiciary Courts, in 1611, that there was still much crime in these
quarters. At the court held at Jedburgh in July, ten persons were
convicted and executed, and two were acquitted; in a court held at the
same town in the month of October, eight persons were convicted and
executed, three reprieved, and thirteen acquitted, while fifty-eight
persons were fugitive from justice, and penalties were exacted from
their cautioners; while other fifty-two persons were allowed out on
giving caution for their appearance. At Dumfries, in October, twenty
persons were convicted and executed, thirty-eight acquitted, upwards of
one hundred and twenty fugitive from justice, leaving their cautioners
answerable; and forty let out under caution to appear when called.
Thus in the space of four months thirty-eight persons were executed
in Jedburgh and Dumfries, while one hundred and seventy-eight were
fugitive from justice: thus indicating what a very difficult task it
was to bring the inhabitants of the Borders under law and order. A
separate Commission for the administration of police in these districts
was continued for a number of years, and ultimately the influences of
order and progress prevailed.¹ The debatable lands were divided and
apportioned to each kingdom; and gradually those parts of the country
which had been so long the scene of strife and petty warfare became as
peaceful as other parts of the nation.
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume VII., pages 701‒729,
743‒745, 489, 504; Volume VIII., pages 78, 86, 97, 152, 265,
584; Volume IX., pages 705‒714; Volume X., pages 184, 198,
477, 847.
One of the King’s earliest projects was a proposal that the English and
the Scots should agree to an incorporating union of the two kingdoms;
but neither nation was as yet prepared for this consummation. There
were proceedings touching this matter both in England and in Scotland,
but all that resulted from them was the abolition of hostile laws;
while a proposition that all persons born in Scotland after the union
of the Crowns in 1603, should be entitled in England to all the rights
of Englishmen was rejected.
If the King was anxious to constitute a civil union of the two kingdoms,
he was still more bent on establishing conformity in Church government
throughout his dominions. While only King of Scotland, he had struggled
hard to introduce Episcopacy, and now, with the resources of England
at his command, he resolved to complete his long cherished scheme of
Church polity, always following the underhand mode of attaining his
end which was characteristic of his nature. The General Assembly had
been prorogued owing to the accession; and it was postponed in the
succeeding year, pending the adjustment of the proposed union. The
leading Presbyterian ministers had begun to dread that attempts would
be made to establish the hierarchy in Scotland and to assimilate their
polity to that of the Church of England; and the Presbytery of St.
Andrews met and took such steps as were deemed requisite to keep intact
the right of holding General Assemblies. They easily foresaw that their
Assemblies would soon cease to exist, if interrupted at the discretion
of the King; accordingly a number of the Presbyteries and Synods
resolved to hold a General Assembly at Aberdeen, on 2nd of July, 1605.
On the appointed day, nineteen ministers met at Aberdeen and proceeded
to form the Assembly; but the meeting was prohibited by the authority
of the Privy Council, and ordered to dissolve. Sir Alexander Stratton
of Lauriston, the King’s Commissioner for the Church, appeared amongst
them, and intimated his instructions to prevent their meeting, and
delivered to them the letter of the Privy Council commanding them to
disperse. The ministers, however, believing that they were within their
rights, elected Mr. John Forbes, minister of Alford as their Moderator,
and Mr. John Sharp, minister of Kilmany as their Clerk, and constituted
themselves an Assembly; but owing to the small number of members
present, and to show their respect for the King’s injunction, after
appointing the last Tuesday of the following September for the next
meeting of the Assembly, and drafting a reply to the Privy Council’s
letter, they obeyed and dissolved. On the 5th of July, other ten
ministers arrived in Aberdeen, who had intended to be present at the
Assembly, but had been delayed by bad weather; and among these were
John Welsh, minister of Ayr, Mr. James Greg, minister of ♦Loudon, and
Mr. Henderson, minister of Whithorn. When they found that the Assembly
had already dissolved, they formally affirmed their adherence to all
that their brethren had done in regard to the Assembly; and, thus
twenty-nine ministers had become directly associated with this famous
meeting.
♦ “Loudoun” replaced with “Loudon” for consistency
There was no special illegality in this meeting――it was quite within
the recognised rights of the Church. But the King had the power in his
hands, and he determined to crush all encroachments on his supreme and
divine claims. By his explicit command thirteen of the ministers were
imprisoned, and the Privy Council proceeded to prosecute them. When
cited before the Privy Council, they declined its jurisdiction on the
question in dispute. Out of fourteen who hesitated to disclaim the
lawfulness of the Assembly, Forbes, minister of Alford, Welsh, Dury,
and three others were selected for an exemplary punishment. They
were indicted before the Court of Justiciary on a charge of treason,
because they had declined the jurisdiction of the Privy Council. They
were tried at Linlithgow on the 10th of January, 1606. They were ably
defended, but the influence of the Crown prevailed, and they were
convicted of treason, for denying the jurisdiction of the civil court
in spiritual matters. They were then remitted to prison till the King
should notify his pleasure touching their punishment. At last, on the
23rd of October, 1606, the sentence of the six ministers convicted for
treason, was announced to be banishment from the King’s dominions for
life, and they retired to the Protestant Churches of France and Holland.
The other eight ministers, without any trial, were banished to the most
remote quarters of the kingdom――the Western Islands and the Highlands.¹
James was quite conscious that he had gained a great victory, and
his extreme vanity associated with an insatiable desire for absolute
supremacy over every one in the island, prompted him to command the
Council to put the other eight imprisoned ministers on their trial
for treason. For once the Council was forced to tell his Majesty that
it had been extremely difficult to obtain a conviction against the
six ministers in the late trial at Linlithgow, and that it was only
obtained after much straining of the law and underhand action; and,
therefore in the present state of the national feeling, the trial
of the other eight ministers which he so much desired, was utterly
impossible. The King then brought up his old grudge against Mr.
Robert Bruce, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, touching the Gowrie
Conspiracy, and at the instance of the King, the Council banished
Bruce to Inverness. At the same time Mr. Henry Blyth, minister of the
Canongate, was imprisoned for speaking in favour of the victims of the
Aberdeen Assembly. Thus seventeen ministers were lying in prison, and
one banished.
¹ Melville’s _Diary_, pages 570‒575; Forbes’ _Records_, pages
463, 496; Hailes’ _Memorials on the Affairs of Great Britain
in the reign of James VI._; _Register of the Privy Council_,
Volume VII.
The King summoned a Parliament to meet at Perth, in July, 1606, at
which the Earl of Montrose presided, while the Earl of Dunbar and
the Earl of Dunfermline managed it. The first act of this Parliament
exhibited an unusual spirit of servility in its remarkable
acknowledgement of the powers of the King; and it may be taken as an
authoritative statement of what James considered as his rights and
prerogatives. The following are the chief points of the act――“God has
indued His Majesty with so many extraordinary graces, and most rare
and excellent virtues, as it is not only known by daily and manifest
experience in matters of greatest difficulty and consequence, to the
unspeakable comfort of all his faithful subjects, to be capable of
the happy government of his kingdoms; but also by his most singular
judgment, foresight, and princely wisdom, worthy to possess, and
able to govern far greater kingdoms and numbers of people. And in
respect thereof, the Estates plainly perceiving that by His Majesty’s
exaltation, not only in pre-eminence and power, but also in all royal
qualities requisite for the happy discharge thereof, God has manifestly
expressed His heavenly will to be, that his Majesty’s imperial power,
which God has so graciously enlarged, should not by them, in any way,
be impaired, prejudiced, or diminished, but rather reverenced and
augmented so far as they possibly can. Wherefore the whole body of this
Parliament unanimously, humbly, and faithfully, with united heart and
mind――consent and truly acknowledge his Majesty’s sovereign authority,
princely power, royal prerogative, and privilege of his Crown, over all
ranks, persons, and causes whatever, within this kingdom.... Likewise
annuls, abrogates, retracts, rescinds, all things attempted, enacted,
done, or hereafter to be done or intended, to the violation, hurt,
derogation, impairing, or prejudice of his sovereign authority, royal
prerogative, and privilege of his Crown, or any point or part thereof,
in any time to come. And the whole Estates for themselves and their
successors faithfully promises perpetually to acknowledge, obey,
maintain, defend, and to advance the life, the honour, the safety, the
dignity, the authority, and the royal prerogative of his sacred Majesty,
his heirs and successors, and the privilege of his Highness’ Crown,
with their lives, their lands, and their goods, to the utmost of their
power, constantly and faithfully to withstand all persons and powers
who shall presume, press, or intend in any way to impugn the same,
directly or indirectly, in all time coming.” After the Estates had
passed this act, it was not likely that they would oppose the King’s
schemes till their own special interests were touched.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.
This Parliament also passed an act restoring the bishops to their
ancient honours, dignities, privileges, livings, lands, rents, thirds,
and estates, as these stood before the act of annexation in 1587.
Touching the honours and dignities there was little difficulty; but
the restoration of the revenues of the Sees was a much harder matter
to settle. The party of the clergy who were opposed to Episcopacy
endeavoured to defeat the measure, but their efforts were unavailing.
Although the bishops were legally restored, still the hierarchy was
incomplete; as they were not yet invested with spiritual supremacy in
the Church.
We have already seen that on the Reformation itself, and on the history
of Protestantism in Scotland, the disposal of the property of the old
Church had much influence in determining the results. The attempt which
followed upon this act, to restore what remained of the Church domains
to the several bishoprics, was almost a complete failure. The Estates
were ready to acknowledge the absolute power of the King in so many
words, but when it came to the practical issue of slackening their own
hold on the revenues of the old Church, they manifested a remarkable
pertinacity in maintaining the supremacy of themselves. The bishops
were continually bewailing their poverty, and the utter hopelessness of
maintaining their position upon the small funds which fell to their lot.
The King wished to stifle the leaders of the Presbyterian party, that
he might more easily complete his scheme. Andrew Melville, his nephew
James Melville, and six others of the eminent ministers, were summoned
to the English court, in September 1606. The aim of the King was
twofold, first, to engage the Scotch Presbyterian ministers and the
English bishops in a conference concerning the superior merits of
Episcopacy, and to dazzle the fancy of the north countrymen with the
splendour of the English ritual; second, to entangle them by queries
touching the late Assembly at Aberdeen, and especially to keep them
out of Scotland, where their presence might endanger his own scheme. By
the command of the King, these ministers attended a course of sermons
preached by four English divines――on the bishops, the supremacy of the
Crown, and the absence of all authority in Scripture and in antiquity
for the office of lay elders. This performance was held in the King’s
chapel at Hampton Court. The King himself attended several conferences;
and at one of these, before a company of bishops and Scottish nobles,
he asked their opinion touching the lawfulness of the Aberdeen Assembly,
and the best way of obtaining a peaceful Assembly to restore order
in the Church. All the Scottish bishops condemned the Assembly as
turbulent and illegal; but Andrew Melville, after some questioning,
replied that the Assembly had authority from the Word of God, and from
the laws of the kingdom; and the other Presbyterian ministers concurred
in this opinion. When reference was made to other matters which had
arisen out of it, such as the trial of the six ministers for treason,
and other teasing questions were put as to whether they sympathised
with, or prayed for, their brethren who had been convicted of treason,
they at once protested against this treatment as illegal and unjust,
and asked to be allowed to return to Scotland; but this was not granted
to them.
It soon became manifest that the King and his bishops had entirely
failed to produce any change on the convictions of the Scottish
ministers. They heard the sermons of the English bishops with silent
contempt. The service was caricatured by Andrew Melville in a Latin
epigram, which was brought under the notice of the English Privy
Council, and on the 30th of November, 1606, he was summoned to answer
for it before that august tribunal. Melville in a moment of passion
lost all command of his temper, and when delivering a vehement
invective against the hierarchy, seized and shook the white sleeves
of Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, at the same time calling
them “Romish rags.” For this offence and a subsequent one of a similar
character, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London for five years; and
at the end of that period he obtained his liberty only on the condition
of living for the remainder of his life out of the King’s dominions.
Melville then retired to Sedan, and was engaged in teaching till his
death in 1620. In May, 1607, James Melville was confined first to
Newcastle, and afterwards to Berwick, but never permitted to return to
his own country; while four of the other six ministers were permitted
to return to their own parishes on their good behaviour, the other two
were not allowed to enter their parishes but banished to other places.¹
This treatment of some of the ablest men and ministers of the kingdom
formed a part of the means which the King condescended to use, in order
to subdue the opposition to his scheme of Church government in Scotland;
how far this was calculated to secure ultimate success, the sequel will
show.
¹ Melville’s _Diary_, pages 644‒646, 654, 681, 708, 709;
Calderwood, Volume VI., pages 586‒589, 591, 596‒600, _et
seq._; _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume VII.
James having thus disposed of the leading and most energetic opponents
of his scheme, summoned the clergy to meet at Linlithgow, on 10th
December, 1606, there to consult with a number of the nobles concerning
the order of the Church, and obedience to the royal authority. At
the instance of the King, a proposal was brought before the meeting
to appoint permanent moderators; and also that this office should be
always filled at the meetings of the Presbyteries and of the Synods, by
the bishops. Some of the clergy were surprised at the proposal, but the
royal influence prevailed, and the meeting adopted it. At the close of
the proceedings the ministers were admonished to beware of expressing
anything against his sacred Majesty. Several of the Synods and the
Presbyteries protested against the constant moderators, and refused to
accept them; but this opposition was soon broken, and the influence of
the Crown for a time silenced all refractory members.¹
¹ Calderwood, Volume VI., pages 604‒629.
The Government seemed ready to do anything in order to increase the
power of the bishops. A Parliament held in August, 1607, passed an
act authorising the Archbishop of St. Andrews to select the ministers
of seven parishes within his diocese, to act as the chapter of the
See, instead of the prior and the canons, whose dignities had become
secularised. Another Parliament which met at Edinburgh in June, 1609,
restored the consistorial courts to the bishops, with all the causes of
an ecclesiastical and quasi-civil description which formerly belonged
to them. In the winter of 1610, new tribunals were introduced by the
King, who in the exercise of his prerogative erected two courts of High
Commission, one at St. Andrews and the other at Glasgow. Each court
consisted of the archbishop with his suffragans and a few nobles. Five
years later the two courts were merged into one. One of the archbishops,
as head of the court, and four others were to form a quorum; and thus
the head of the court could at any time summon four of the members
devoted to his will. Their jurisdiction was comprehensive: they
could cite any one on the ground of immorality or erroneous doctrine,
and sentence them to be fined or imprisoned, and if necessary
excommunicated. The ministers, the schoolmasters, and the professors
in the Universities, who dared to speak against the established order
of the Church, or any of the recent conclusions concerning her, were to
be cited before the commission and punished. Any minister who failed to
obey the injunctions of the commission, could be censured, suspended,
or deposed, according to the opinion of the court. In reality, this
court had unlimited powers; it rested upon no law, it was merely
erected by a royal proclamation, and its sentence was final.¹ In
short, the court of High Commission could fine and imprison any one at
discretion. It has been stated by Dr. Burton that the Court of Session
could review the decisions of this court, which in theory may be true:
but when it is remembered what the Court of Session was then, and
for long after, it is easily seen that protection from oppression and
injustice was not likely to come very promptly from such a quarter.
Then the bishops themselves were lords of Parliament, some of them
members of the Privy Council, constant moderators of Presbyteries and
Synods, and patrons of benefices, backed at every turn by the royal
authority and prerogative of the King.
¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 57‒62, 204‒210; _History of
Scotland_, Volume VI., pages 242‒243.
Still the bishops felt that they lacked the confidence of the
nation, and they were anxious to obtain the sanction of the highest
ecclesiastical authority recognised by the people. So the King
summoned a General Assembly to meet at Glasgow, in June 1610, composed
of members favourable to the organisation of Episcopacy. The influence
of the Crown was openly and freely employed in directing the choice
of members. In this Assembly, as in all those of the period, there was
no fair and open discussion permitted, no disputed point was allowed
to be debated at a full sitting of the members, but was settled at a
private conference, and the result only presented to the Assembly to
be recorded. In this way a number of articles were smuggled in and
declared to be carried, which would not have passed if they had been
debated in a regular form before a General Assembly. The chief points
passed by this Assembly were, that the calling of General Assemblies
belonged exclusively to the King as a prerogative of his Crown, and
therefore the alleged Assembly held at Aberdeen in 1605 was unlawful
and null; that Synods should be held in every diocese twice in the year,
at which the bishops were to be moderators; that all presentations to
benefices should be directed to the bishop of the diocese who, with the
assistance of some of the ministers, should examine those presented,
and if they found them qualified, should ordain them; that in deposing
of ministers, the bishop should join with himself the ministry of the
bounds where the delinquent served, and after a fair trial should
pronounce sentence; that every minister at his admission should swear
obedience to the King and his ordinary; that a bishop or a minister
named by him should preside in all the meetings of the ministers;
and finally, that none of the ministers, either in their pulpits or
in any of their meetings, should speak or reason against the acts of
this Assembly, or disobey them, under the penalty of deposition; and
especially that the question of equality among the ministry should not
be treated in the pulpit, under the same penalty.
The acts of this Assembly were confirmed and amplified by an Act of
Parliament in 1612, which at the same time repealed the Act of 1592
which had sanctioned the Presbyterian polity. In the autumn of 1610,
three of the Scottish Bishops were consecrated in England, Spottiswood,
Bishop of Glasgow; Lamb, Bishop of Brechin; and Hamilton, Bishop of
Galloway; and when they returned home, they consecrated the rest of the
Scottish Bishops.¹ Thus the restoration of Episcopacy was completed.
¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 94‒103, 150, 152, 154,
165‒171; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.
Though the external form of Episcopacy was restored, yet in many of the
congregations the Presbyterian form of worship was retained. But the
King recommended more ceremonies to hasten on conformity to the Church
of England. In the spring of 1614, he issued a proclamation commanding
that all persons should partake of the communion on Easter Day; and
the following year a royal proclamation ordered the celebration of the
communion on Easter Day, in all time coming.¹
¹ _Acts of the Privy Council_, March 3rd, 1614; Calderwood,
Volume VII., pages 191, 196.
In August, 1616, a General Assembly met at Aberdeen, then and
afterwards the famed centre of the opposition to Presbyterianism in
Scotland. The King’s party had a majority in the Assembly, and many
proposals were made, among others, “that all the children in schools
shall have and learn by heart the catechism entitled, ‘God and the
King,’ which, by an act of Council, is already ordained to be read
and taught in all schools.” This Assembly authorised the preparation
of a Liturgy and a new Confession of Faith. The communion was to be
administered four times a year in towns, and twice in country parishes;
and one of these times to be always on Easter Day. The Presbyterian
historian passed the following remarks on the Assembly――“Although it
began with preaching and fasting, yet the Holy Ghost was enclosed in
a packet of letters sent from the court whereby they were directed.
The King ordained by his letter the Primate to rule the clergy, and
his commissioner, the Earl of Montrose, to order the laity.... So the
Primate stepped into the moderator’s place without election, against
the practice and acts of our Church, not as yet repealed by the
Assembly of Glasgow or any other.... The roll of the Presbyteries was
not called, nor commissions considered, whether free or limited. A
number of lords and barons decorated the Assembly with silks and satins,
but without lawful commission to vote. Bishops had no commissions
from Presbyteries as they ought to have had, according to the practice
of our Church. The moderators of Presbyteries came by the bishop’s
missives, and a forged clause of an act made at a pretended Assembly
held at Linlithgow in the year 1606.”¹
¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 222‒242; Volume VII., pages
222, 223.
But the resolutions of the Assembly did not satisfy the King, and he
transmitted to the bishops five articles of his own, which he ordered
them to adopt. These articles enjoined that the communion should
always be received in a kneeling posture; that in cases of sickness
the communion should be administered in private houses; that baptism
in like circumstances should be administered in the same way; that
holydays should be appointed for the commemoration of the birth,
passion, and resurrection of Christ, and of the descent of the Holy
Ghost; and that children should be brought to the bishop for a blessing.
There was much and determined opposition among the Scots to these
ceremonies, which in history are known as the “Five Articles of Perth.”
On the suggestion of Archbishop Spottiswood, the King was induced to
refrain from issuing them by his royal authority for another year, till
they received the assent of a General Assembly.¹
¹ Spottiswood’s _History of the Church of Scotland_, pages 528,
529. 1655.
James turned his visit to Scotland into an occasion for an exhibition
of his opinions and feelings on Church matters. He gave express
commands and directions for fitting up and decorating the Chapel of
Holyrood, for the celebration of worship in the English form. Organs
were sent to Edinburgh for this purpose, and the King himself was
accompanied by several English bishops and divines. When he arrived in
Scotland in May, and reached Edinburgh on the 16th of the month, 1617,
he issued peremptory orders that all the nobles, the privy councillors,
and the bishops then in Edinburgh should receive the communion on their
knees in the chapel on Whitsunday. The most of those who were summoned
at once complied; but those who absented themselves from the service,
and some of those who appeared and abstained from presenting themselves
at the table, were again summoned, and commanded to attend on the
following Sunday. At this time, the ministers of Edinburgh were silent,
and said nothing openly against this innovation.¹
¹ _Original Letters of the Reign of James VI._, Volume II.
The King attended a meeting of Parliament in June, 1617, and delivered
a speech, setting forth his own good intentions, and his desire to see
the Church settled, the nation in order, and necessary reforms passed,
all for the good of his people. But he submitted an act to the Lords
of the Articles, which was couched in these terms――“That whatever his
Majesty should determine concerning the external government of the
Church, with the advice of the archbishops, bishops, and a competent
number of the clergy, should have the force of law.” James’s idea was
that the bishops should rule the ministers, and that he himself should
rule them both. The Lords of the Articles agreed to the act, but a
party of the ministers warmly protested against it; and when it came
to be read in Parliament, the King ordered it to be passed aside,
though at the same time remarking that he could do as much by his own
prerogative, without asking the counsel of any one. He vented his anger
on the leaders of the protestors, two of whom were deprived of their
offices and imprisoned, while Calderwood, the historian, was banished
from the kingdom. This Parliament passed Acts relating to the election
of archbishops and bishops, and to the restoration of deans and members
of chapters of the Sees. An act for the plantation of churches was
passed, authorising a commission of thirty-two, eight from each of the
four Estates of the realm; and the special work assigned to them was,
out of the tithes which were then scattered among different hands, “in
every parish to give and assign at their discretion a perpetual local
stipend to the present and future ministers.” Thus, each minister’s
stipend was to be paid out of the tithes of the parish in which he
officiated, not out of a general fund as before. The lowest stipend was
fixed at five chalders of victual, and the highest at eight.¹
¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 249‒271; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.; _Connell on Tithes_,
Volume I., page 180.
James persisted in his intention of introducing his five articles
into the worship of the Church. On the 13th of July, he held a special
meeting at St. Andrews with the bishops and a select number of the
ministers. He told them that he wished to introduce a more decent
order into the Church; and if they had anything to say against his
five articles, he was ready to hear them. But he reminded them that
his demands were just, that he was not to be resisted with impunity,
and that it was the peculiar prerogative of Christian kings to regulate
the external polity of the Church. They might approve or disapprove
of his proceedings, but they must not imagine that anything they might
say would have the slightest effect upon him, unless they could support
their opinions by arguments which he found himself unable to answer.
Still, all that his Majesty obtained was the postponement of the
difficulty, and the expression of a wish that the articles should be
referred to a General Assembly.¹
¹ Spottiswood’s _History of the Church of Scotland_, pages 533,
534. The Rev. David Calderwood, for his free speaking in the
King’s presence at this meeting, was imprisoned, and then
banished from the kingdom.
These rites which the King so eagerly sought to impose, were
inconsistent with the historical standards of the Reformed Church of
Scotland. To two of the articles especially, kneeling at the communion,
and the observance of holidays, there was a deep feeling of opposition
in the national mind; and this, in connection with other unpopular
features of Episcopacy, was the reason why all the attempts of James
himself, of his son, and of his grandson, utterly failed to establish
it in Scotland. The Church of England was really reformed by the
authority of the Crown; but the Church of Scotland was reformed
at first in spite of the Crown and of the regular Government, and
throughout her history she had to maintain a struggle against the
claims of the royal prerogative. Thus it was that the Church of
Scotland rested more on popular sentiment and feeling, and conviction,
than the Church of England; and, hence also, it came to pass that all
the efforts of the Crown and of the Government to change the polity of
the Church of Scotland resulted in complete failure.
But the King was resolved to carry his point, and he informed those who
opposed him that they should know what it was to draw upon themselves
the anger of a king; at the same time he threatened all ministers
who refused to accept the articles with the loss of their stipends.
The primate and the bishops, prompted, threatened, and scolded by the
King, now used the King’s authority to subdue the reluctant ministers;
and in May, 1618, the bishops informed his Majesty that he might
summon a General Assembly,¹ as it was likely that the ministers would
now be more submissive. Attempts had been made by the bishops to
enforce kneeling at the communion, but with little success; while the
observance of the holydays had already been commanded by an act of the
Privy Council.
¹ Botfield’s _Original Letters_, Volume II., page 522;
Spottiswood’s _History of the Church of Scotland_, pages
535‒537.
Archbishop Spottiswood, in his sermon at the opening of the Perth
Assembly, adduced nothing in support of the articles, save that they
had originated with the King, and were entirely his Majesty’s own, who
demanded that they must be adopted; and, as the King knew better than
they did what was right, they were bound to obey him. In his sermon the
following passage occurs on the King and his articles:――“If it cannot
be shown that they are repugnant to the written Word, I see not with
what conscience we can refuse them, being urged as they are by our
sovereign lord and King; a King who is not a stranger to divinity, but
has such acquaintance with it, as Rome never found, in the confession
of all men, a more potent adversary; a King neither superstitious nor
inclined that way, but one that seeks to have God rightly and truly
worshipped by all his subjects. His person, were he not our King, gives
them sufficient authority, being recommended by him, for he knows the
nature of things and the consequences of them, what is fit for a Church
to have, and what not, better than we do all.” The King’s letter to the
Assembly was in his usual style. He said that they should not allow the
unruly and ignorant multitude to overawe the better and more judicious;
and they must remember that he could impose the articles at once by his
royal authority, and therefore it would do them no good to reject them;
indeed, it would have become the bishops and ministry better to have
begged him to establish these articles, than that he should need to
urge the practice of them upon the ministry.
Yet all the influence of the court and the exertions of the bishops
failed to prevent opposition in the Assembly. No open discussion of
the articles being permitted in the Assembly, they were referred to
a committee, which, after some debate, recommended their adoption.
Then the articles were again brought before the Assembly, but those
who opposed them were not allowed to discuss the question on its own
merits, but were sharply told that the only question before them was,
“Is the King to be obeyed or not?” In the face of this threatening of
the King’s anger, the opposition ministers insisted on giving their
reasons against the adoption of the articles. Before the roll was
called, the King’s letter was again read to the Assembly, and when at
last the vote was to be taken, Spottiswood emphatically reminded each
man of the issue involved in his decision. The articles were carried by
eighty-six votes to forty-five, a majority of forty-one. The majority
was obtained from the votes of the nobles and the bishops, the votes of
the ministers being nearly equal on each side.¹
¹ Lindsay’s _True Narratives of all the Passages at Perth_;
Botfield’s _Original Letters_, page 573; Calderwood, Volume
VII., pages 304‒332. In speaking of the articles of Perth,
Burnet remarked, “These things were first passed in General
Assemblies, which were composed of bishops and the deputes
chosen by the clergy, who sat all in one house.... Great
opposition was made to all these steps; and the whole force
of the Government was strained to carry elections to those
meetings, in which it was thought that no sort of practice
was omitted.”――_History of his own Time_, Volume I., page 17.
Although the Presbyterian ministers were outvoted at Perth, they had
on their side the strength which flows from moral principle and firm
conviction. They had also the support of many of the people, who
considered that the five articles had no better recommendation than
the injunctions of the King. The Presbyterian ministers warmly declared
that the meeting at Perth was not a lawful General Assembly; and
the King and his bishops discovered that they had still much hard
work before them. The observance of the holydays and kneeling at the
communion were extremely offensive to the majority of the people, and
caused great discontent. Kneeling was new to all, and many thought
that it was connected with the doctrine of transubstantiation; but the
bishops, urged on by the King and armed with the weapons of coercion,
haplessly drifted on towards destruction――suspending, imprisoning, and
banishing the ministers who declined to conform. Those who absented
themselves from the public worship on the holydays, or on Sunday, were
threatened and punished. The nonconforming ministers and many of their
adherents deemed the High Commission and its proceedings an usurpation;
and this sentiment was very strong in Edinburgh, in the southern
counties, and in Fife. The displeased people in Edinburgh began to hold
meetings, at which the suspended and deposed ministers preached and
officiated. The court and the bishops anxiously desired that Edinburgh
would conform, and various means were tried to secure this, but in
vain.¹
¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 348, 352‒364, 383, 388, _et
seq._; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 76, 79‒81.
In August 1621, Parliament met at Edinburgh, and ratified the five
articles of Perth by a small majority. In a house of one hundred and
twenty members, a majority of twenty-seven voted in favour of the
articles. The representatives of the burghs were on the side of the
opposition, the members of the counties were nearly equally divided,
and it was by the votes of the bishops and the higher nobles that the
act was passed. A number of the ministers sought to petition and to
protest against it, but were prevented by the authorities.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.;
Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 495‒504.
When the King heard the result of the Parliamentary vote, he hounded
on the bishops to greater severity. He said, “hereafter that rebellious
and disobedient crew must either obey, or resist both God, their
natural King, and the laws of their country.... The sword is now put
into your hands, go on therefore to use it, and let it rest no longer
till you have perfected the service entrusted to you. For otherwise
we must use it both against you and them.” During the remainder of
his reign, there was a constant effort to enforce the observance of
the articles. The King was always exhorting and threatening in vain;
nonconforming ministers were imprisoned and banished without effect.
Some of the conforming ministers of Edinburgh complained to the
Privy Council that there could be no peace among the people while the
deprived and suspended ministers resorted to the city, and held private
meetings. A proclamation was therefore issued prohibiting such meetings,
under the penalties of sedition and rebellion. Six of the citizens
of Edinburgh were cited before the Privy Council, and some of them
imprisoned. In spite of this, many of the churches of the conforming
ministers began to be deserted; so that they were left to declaim
against schism and rebellion to the paupers of the parish, or to empty
benches.¹
¹ _Melrose Papers_, Volume II., page 637; Spottiswood’s
_History of the Church of Scotland_, page 542; Calderwood,
Volume VII., pages 507‒509, 512, 514, 517‒520, 533‒546,
596‒615, 618‒631.
King James died on the 27th March, 1625, at the age of fifty-nine. His
reign in Scotland had been rather stormy; and after his accession to
the throne of England, it cannot be said that his policy was beneficial
to his native country. Though naturally timid, he was vindictive, and
at all times extremely conceited, a feature of his character which
was much fed and gratified by the indiscreet and excessive flattery
of the English bishops. In literature he was a pedant. Of his kingly
prerogative and powers he had the most extravagant and absurd ideas.
The bishops had always been submissive and yielding to his demands,
and to please him they had preached and enforced an order of ceremonies
which had offended and alienated many of the people; and now, with a
king on the throne who heeded not their warnings, they drifted closer
to the rocks on which they were ultimately wrecked.
Soon after the accession of Charles I., the Scotch ministers forwarded
to him a petition craving that they might be relieved from the
observance of the five articles of Perth; but they found that little
relief could be expected. In the summer of 1626, Charles did send
instructions to the archbishops, that the ministers who had been
admitted before the Perth Assembly, and had scruples about the articles,
might be exempted from observing them, if they did not openly argue
against them, or refuse the communion to any one who wished to partake
of it kneeling. The banished, imprisoned, and suspended ministers
were to be restored on similar conditions; but all those who had
been admitted after the Perth Assembly, were commanded to observe
the articles.¹ The King, however, was firmly resolved to pursue the
ecclesiastical policy of his father.
¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume VII., pages 142‒145.
In October, 1626, Charles issued an act of revocation of all grants
of land by the Crown, either before or after his father’s act of
annexation in 1587. This was intended for the benefit of the bishops
and the clergy, and to remedy some of the evils connected with tithes;
but from another standpoint, it may be regarded as the opening of one
side of that bitter contest of which Charles I. never saw the end. The
proposal of the Crown to retake all the Church lands which had passed
into the hands of the nobles since the Reformation, aroused violent
feelings amongst the class whose interests were invaded; but it soon
became manifest that the King had resolved to fight a hard battle, and
pursue his end with great firmness.
Charles subsequently found it necessary to limit the scope of his
contemplated revocation, and summonses of reduction were then raised
to reduce the grants upon legal grounds. Still this caused much alarm
among the nobility; and a deputation was sent to London to treat with
the King. After some discussion, a commission was appointed in January,
1627, to examine the whole subject. The commissioners continued their
investigation throughout the following summer, and prosecutions were
commenced against all who refused to accede to the proposals of the
Crown. After a long and tedious inquiry, a compromise was effected.
The Church lands, and the property in dispute were to remain in the
hands of those who held them, upon the payment of a certain proportion
in the form of rents to the Crown. The Crown also insisted on a right
of feudal superiority over all the property at issue, and from this,
additional dues would fall to the public revenue. The tithes were
disposed of in this way; the landowner got liberty to extinguish the
right of levying tithes on his property, by payment of a sum calculated
at nine years’ purchase; if he did not choose to exercise this option,
then the tithe in kind was to be commuted into a rent charge, and from
this was to be deducted the stipend payable to the ministers, and an
annuity reserved for the Crown.¹
¹ Connell on _Tithes_, Book III.; Forbes’s _Treatise on Church
Lands and Tithes_. “The tithes at this time were more rigidly
exacted by their lay owners than ever they had been during
the most corrupt times of the hierarchy; yet these persons
grudged the small portion which the law compelled them to
bestow on the Church.”――Dr. Grub’s _Ecclesiastical History of
Scotland_, Volume II., page 357.
This adjustment of the tithes, which was sanctioned by Parliament, in
1633, has proved a beneficial measure to Scotland. It extinguished a
teasing class of disputes between landowners and tithe owners, between
tenants of land and tithe owners, and between the ministers and their
flocks. Yet the arrangement, though beneficial to the nation, was not
received with universal satisfaction. Many of the nobles surrendered
their tithes and their full claims to the Church lands with a grudge
which embittered their minds, and predisposed them to join in the
struggle which subsequently ensued. They still dreaded that the King
might attempt further encroachments upon their landed rights.
Various circumstances had delayed the King’s visit to Scotland, but
in 1633, he crossed the border and entered Edinburgh in June. He
received a respectful reception, and was crowned on the 18th of
June, at Holyrood. Charles was anxious to complete the scheme of
religious polity which his father had begun; and proceeded to treat
all difficulties with an imperious hand. For a time, the opposition
was overborne by his presence and his power, though unconverted to his
opinions or policy. The Scots were well aware of the King’s quarrels
with his English subjects, and on every side the elements of a fierce
conflict were forming.
Charles was firmly convinced that it was necessary to introduce a
new liturgy to complete his scheme of government in Scotland, and he
seems to have thought that the time was come to execute his purpose.
A form of Episcopacy had existed in Scotland for about thirty years,
and some parts of the English ritual had been introduced; but the
ecclesiastical system still retained many traces of the organisation
of Presbyterianism. It was only a kind of mixed Episcopacy; it had the
external form of the hierarchy, archbishops and bishops as in ancient
times, but they were merely the chief ecclesiastical ministers of the
King, their master, and had little authority of their own. The titles
of dean and archdeacon had been restored, but such persons appeared in
the Church courts only as parish ministers; while there still existed
the Kirk Sessions, the Presbyteries, and the Synods, though their
organisation was maimed. The Book of Common Prayer, adopted at the
Reformation, was still in common use, though less esteemed among the
Presbyterians, who were becoming averse to set forms of prayer; while
the Episcopal party considered it defective. The five articles of
Perth were not universally observed. Though there might have been
slight differences of opinion touching some doctrines, the general
creed of the clergy and the people was in harmony with the Reformation
Confession of Faith. Thus matters stood when Charles and Laud began
their work.
Preparations were made for composing a book of canons and a liturgy
for Scotland. The book of canons as finally revised by Laud, and the
Bishops of London and Norwich, was ratified by the King in May, 1635,
and promulgated in 1636. It was prefaced by the sanction of the King,
and the announcement of his will concerning its observance, in the
following terms――“We do, not only by our royal prerogative and supreme
authority in causes ecclesiastical, ratify and confirm, by these our
letters patent, the said canons and constitutions, and everything
contained in them; but likewise we command, by our royal authority,
the same to be diligently observed and executed by all our loving
subjects of that kingdom, in all points ... according to this our
will and pleasure, hereby expressed and declared. We strictly charge
and command all archbishops, bishops, and all others who exercise
any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, within our realm, to see and procure
as much as they can, that all and each of these canons, orders, and
constitutions be in all points duly observed; not sparing to execute
the penalties, in them severally mentioned, upon any that shall
willingly and wilfully break or neglect to observe the same.”
This book is a very small volume, divided into nineteen chapters, with
the different paragraphs or headings of each chapter numbered.¹ In
arrangement and composition it is an admirable production of the class
to which it belongs.
¹ The first edition of the Canons, printed at Aberdeen in 1636,
is the one used and referred to in the text.
The first chapter contains a statement of the powers and prerogatives
of the King in religious matters. The doctrine of the royal supremacy
is laid down and enforced under the penalty of excommunication against
all who dared to resist it, upon the ground that it had been exercised
by the Jewish kings and by the early Christian emperors. To secure
reverence for this divine supremacy of the King, it was stated that
“none shall be permitted to teach in any college or school, either
as principal, regent, or fellow, except he first take the oath of
allegiance and supremacy. And having taken the charge upon them, they
shall acquaint their scholars, and train them up according to their
capacity, in the grounds contained in the book entitled _Deus et Rex_,
God and the King.”¹
¹ Page 28.
One of the canons was directed against the press. “In setting forth
books, satirical libels, and other pamphlets, repugnant to the truth,
or not agreeing with honesty and good manners, it is ordained that
nothing hereafter be printed except the same be seen, and allowed, by
the visitors appointed to that purpose.”
These canons placed the whole internal life of the Church in the hands
of the bishops. They alone were invested with the right of expounding
the Bible, all private meetings of ministers for this were to be
strictly prohibited; and no one was to be permitted to impugn the
opinion of another minister in the same or in the neighbouring church
without the permission of the bishop. The whole drift of the book of
canons is well expressed in its concluding sentences:――“In all this
book of Canons, wherever there is no penalty expressly set down, it
is to be understood that the punishment shall be arbitrary, as the
ordinary shall think fittest.”
The manner in which these canons were introduced certainly was unusual,
and it touched the national pride, as well as the religious sentiments
of the Scots. They also made direct reference to a Liturgy, which had
not yet been published. These canons had little resemblance to any
Scottish ecclesiastical rules or acts subsequent to the Reformation;
but such was the King’s blind confidence in the efficacy of the royal
supremacy, that he imagined he had only to command what he pleased,
and the people would obey him. Acting on this assumption, he signed a
warrant to the Privy Council, on the 18th of October, 1636, containing
his instructions concerning the introduction of the Liturgy. These
stated that the King had several times recommended to the Scotch
archbishops and bishops the introduction of a regular form of service
to be observed in the public worship; and as this had now been
definitely undertaken, he believed that all his Scottish subjects
would receive it with becoming reverence. “Yet thinking it necessary
to make known our pleasure concerning the authorising of the book, we
require you to command, by open proclamation, all our subjects, both
ecclesiastical and civil, to conform themselves to the practice thereof.
It being the only form which we, having taken the counsel of our
clergy, think fit to be used in God’s public worship there. Also, we
require you to enjoin all archbishops and bishops, and other presbyters
and churchmen, to take care that the same be duly obeyed, and the
contraveners to be condignly censured and punished. And to see that
every parish procure to themselves, within such a time as you shall
think fit to appoint, two copies at least of the Book of Common Prayer
for the use of the parish.” In compliance with his Majesty’s commands,
the Privy Council passed an act on the 20th of December, and issued a
proclamation ordering all the people to conform themselves to the new
liturgy.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 440‒441.
The nation was soon in a ferment. A suspicion arose among the people
that Roman Catholicism was to be reintroduced. They had already
yielded so far to the King, and restrained their feelings in deference
to the royal authority; but now the limit of their passive obedience
was passed. They declared that the King had no right to impose a
service-book upon them without the consent of Parliament and the
General Assembly; they asserted that it was popish, that it taught
popish doctrines, and that it was little better than a massbook. Some
attempted to defend it, but in vain.¹
¹ In a note to the first volume of Baillie’s _Letters and
Journals_, it is stated that the Liturgy itself was not
completed till May, 1637; but Dr. Grub says, “before
Easter, copies of the book were ready for distribution.”
_Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, Volume II., page 378.
The liturgy itself was framed upon the form of the English Book of
Common Prayer, with some slight differences, especially in the office
of the communion. After the proclamation commanding its use, and a
preface, it began with remarks on ceremonies; how the psalter was
appointed to be read; how the rest of the Scriptures was appointed
to be read; a table of proper psalms and lessons for Sunday and other
holydays; a table for the order of psalms at daily prayers; an almanac;
a table and calendar for the daily psalms and lessons; and a list of
holydays which were to be observed. The order for the administration
of the communion differed in some important points from the English
office. This form was elaborate, and out of many points minutely stated,
it may be mentioned that a commemoration of the faithful departed was
inserted at the end of the prayer for the Church militant. In the form
of marriage, it was enjoined that the newly married persons should
receive the communion on the day of their marriage.
The royal proclamation ordered the new Liturgy to be observed in all
the churches on Easter, 1637. The authorities, however, postponed it,
but this only heightened the feeling and excitement against it. The
bishops themselves were not unanimous regarding the expediency of
enforcing its observance; some of them indeed brought the subject
before their synods, but little progress was made. On the 13th of
June, the Privy Council passed an act which declared that some of
the ministers had perversely failed to obey the former proclamation:
“Therefore the Lords ordain letters to be directed, charging the whole
presbyteries and ministers within the kingdom, that they and every one
of them provide themselves, for the use of their parishes, with two
copies of the said Book of Common Prayers, within fifteen days after
this charge, under the penalty of rebellion, and being put to the
horn.”¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., page 4, _et
seq._; pages 442, 447.
At a meeting of the bishops it was agreed that the public reading
of the new liturgy should begin in Edinburgh, on Sunday, the 23rd of
July, 1637; and this was ordered to be intimated in all the churches
in the city on the previous Sunday. The congregations listened
to the intimation in silence; but in the following week speeches,
declarations, and pamphlets were launched on every hand against the
new liturgy; while no really vigorous efforts were made in favour of
its introduction.
On the appointed Sunday, preparations were made to celebrate the new
service with the utmost solemnity, and to ♦give the occasion of its
introduction in the capital an imposing character. In the historic
Church of St. Giles, the two archbishops, the Bishop of Edinburgh, and
several other bishops, the Lords of the Privy Council, the Judges of
the Court of Session, and the Magistrates of the city, all attired in
their official robes, attended in the forenoon to grace the proceedings.
The Bishop of Edinburgh was to preach, and the Dean to read the service.
A large congregation had assembled, but they looked restless and
wistful; and the dean had scarcely begun to read when confused cries
arose. As he proceeded, the clamour became louder, and the prayers
could not be heard. The people started to their feet and the church was
a scene of hideous uproar. The voices of the women were the loudest,
some cried “Woe, woe me,” and others shouted that “they were bringing
in popery”; and instantly stools were thrown at the Dean and the Bishop
of Edinburgh. The Archbishop of St. Andrews and the Lords of the Privy
Council then interposed, but in vain; the tumult continued till the
Magistrates came from their seats in the gallery, and with extreme
difficulty thrust out the unruly members. The Dean read the service,
and the Bishop preached with barred doors. But the crowd stood around
the church in a state of vehement excitement, rapping at the doors and
throwing stones at the windows, and shouting “popery, popery,” and
calling the bishops the most abusive names. When the bishops came out
of the church, the multitude attacked Bishop Lindsay on his way home,
and he narrowly escaped with his life. Similar disturbances occurred in
the other churches of the city, though less violent. In the Greyfriars
church, the Bishop of Argyle was obliged to stop reading the service.
Between the hours of worship, the Lords and the Magistrates met, and
made such arrangements that the evening service at St. Giles, and some
of the other churches, passed without interruption; though the Bishop
of Edinburgh was again attacked in company with the Earl of Roxburgh,
but the armed servants of the Earl enabled him to escape without
serious injury.¹
♦ “gave” replaced with “give”
¹ Rothes’ _Relation_. “So on Sunday morning when the bishop
and his dean, in the great church, and the Bishop of Argyle
in the Greyfriars, began to officiate, as they spoke,
immediately the serving maids began such a tumult as was
never heard of since the Reformation in our nation. However,
no wound given to any yet such was the contumelies in words,
in clamours, runnings and flinging of stones in the eyes of
the magistrates, and the chancellor himself, that a little
opposition would have infallibly moved that enraged people
to have rent sundry of the bishops in pieces. The day after,
I had occasion to be in town, I found the people nothing
settled; but, if that service had been presented to them
again, resolved to have done some mischief.” Baillie’s
_Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 18, 448.
The excitement was rapidly spreading and becoming more intense; and
it was manifest that the actors in the tumults in Edinburgh could not
be punished. Indeed, the Liturgy was almost universally spurned. In
the face of this heated feeling, the authorities were comparatively
powerless. On the 4th of August, the Privy Council received a letter
from the King, commanding them to search out and to punish the persons
concerned in the late disturbances, and to support the bishops and
the clergy in establishing the new liturgy. The Council resolved that
another attempt should be made to use the new service on Sunday, the
13th of August; but when this day came it was not tried in the churches
of Edinburgh, because among other reasons, readers could not be got
to officiate. At Glasgow there was strong opposition to the Liturgy,
and Baillie gives some particulars of the treatment which Mr. Annand,
the minister of Ayr, received, because he had ventured to defend the
Liturgy in his sermon before the Synod of Glasgow, in the end of August,
1637. According to Baillie’s opinion, he defended it as well as any
man in Britain could have done. But his sermon caused a great din among
the women in the town. “At the out-going of the church, about thirty
or forty of our honest women in one voice before the bishops and the
magistrates, did fall rayling, cursing, scolding with clamours on Mr.
William Annand. All the day, up and down the streets where he went, he
got threats in words and in looks; but, after supper, while needlessly
he will go to visit the bishop, he is no sooner on the street, at nine
o’clock, in a dark night, accompanied with three or four ministers,
than some hundreds of enraged women, of all ranks, are about him, with
fists, staves, and peats, but no stones. However, upon his cries, and
candles set out from many windows, he escaped all severe wounds; yet
he was in great danger, even of his life.”¹ Thus was the curtain drawn,
and the first scene of the long tragic drama enacted which convulsed
the kingdom.
¹ _Large Declaration. Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages
20‒21.