_The Covenanting Struggle._
THE moment had come for the King and his advisers in England to
manifest their wisdom. Two lines of action were open to them, either
unconditionally to withdraw the Liturgy, or at once to overwhelm all
opposition. Charles was not inclined to adopt the first; and though
quite unprepared to enforce the second, yet he clung to it, and
only slowly and with difficulty became aware that his power was not
commensurate with his will. The prevailing condition of the national
mind was but imperfectly understood at headquarters in London; the King
himself had merely looked at a few unimportant circumstances on the
surface of society, and from these concluded that the Scots would offer
little opposition to the introduction of the Liturgy. In the _Large
Declaration_ the King stated the reasons which he had for believing
that his commands would be obeyed, and that the Liturgy would be
received. These in effect were, that the nobles, and his Scottish
subjects generally, who resorted to England, attended the churches in
that country without finding any fault or quarrelling with the service;
that the English Liturgy had been regularly read in the Chapel Royal
at Holyrood since the year 1617, and had been attended by all classes
without dislike; that it had been used by the bishops while conferring
orders, and for several years back it had been read in some of the
cathedral churches, and in the new College of St. Andrews; that for
years many families had used it in private, and that when he was in
Scotland, it had been read in all the churches which he attended.
That inasmuch as the Scottish Liturgy was in substance the same as the
English one, he never expected that a charge of popery or superstition
would be brought against a Liturgy which had been compiled by the
bishops and other divines, who, in Queen Mary’s reign, had preferred
banishment and death to submission to Rome, and which since had been
cherished by the English clergy, who had done much to oppose popery.¹
But expectations founded on these reasons ought not to have misled the
King and his counsellors. Apart from political adversaries, resistance
of another character might easily have been anticipated, from the
manner in which the Liturgy itself was introduced, and from the
nature of the book. It had been long known that the Presbyterians did
not recognise any ecclesiastical supremacy in the King, or even any
special right in the sovereign to interfere with religion, without the
concurrence of the Church, and therefore it should have been foreseen,
that they would certainly oppose the important alterations introduced
by the authority of the King. The tone of the King’s despatches
distinctly manifest his view of the matter, which in effect was
this――everyone in Scotland had done something wrong, or neglected
to do what they should have done; his Majesty alone, under God, was
thoroughly in the right, and therefore his will must be obeyed. But
this misguided King was rudely brought to feel that there were stronger
and more resolute minds and wills in Britain than his own.
¹ Pages 19‒21.
Meanwhile the agitation and excitement had greatly increased throughout
the kingdom. Differences had also arisen among the members of the Privy
Council; the bishops blamed the lords, and the lords blamed the bishops
for what had happened, instead of presenting a united front to the
opposition. While the Government were thus frittering away their
energies, petitions against the Liturgy began to be drawn up and
presented. The first one came from Fife, headed by Alexander Henderson,
which was followed by another from Glasgow. Henderson, minister of
Leuchars, in name of himself and his brethren, presented a petition
to the Privy Council on the 23rd of August, 1637. This document stated
that the moderator of their presbytery had ordered them to receive
two copies of the new Liturgy, and they had expressed their readiness
to receive one copy, that they might ascertain what it contained,
before they consented to use it. But this proposal was not accepted,
and therefore they entreated the Lords of the Council to suspend the
charge against them, for the following reasons:――1. Because the Liturgy
is neither warranted by the authority of the General Assembly nor by
any act of Parliament; 2. Because the liberties of the true Church,
and the form of religion and worship received at the Reformation, and
universally practised since, were warranted by the acts of the General
Assembly, and by several Acts of Parliament; 3. Because the Church
of Scotland was a free and independent Church, and her own ministers
were best able to discern what was in harmony with the Reformation,
and calculated to promote the good of the people; 4. Because it was
notorious that disputes, divisions, and trouble had arisen in the
Church about a few of the many ceremonies contained in this Liturgy,
which, when examined, had been found to depart far from the worship
of this Church, and in some most essential points to draw near to
the Church of Rome; 5. Because, since the Reformation, the people
have always been taught a different doctrine, and they would not
likely be willing to agree to such changes, even though their pastors
were willing to submit. The Lords of the Council then passed an act
declaring that there had been a misunderstanding touching the intention
of the former acts: as they had only meant that ministers should buy
copies of the Liturgy, and nothing more; but this was inconsistent with
the tenor of their former acts, and with the proclamation prefixed to
the Liturgy itself. At the same time the Council addressed a letter to
the King, informing him of the discontent and of the clamour against
the Liturgy in all parts of the country; and that they had agreed to
let the matter rest till further instructed by his Majesty, after he
should have summoned to his presence some of their own number.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 19,
449‒450; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 227‒229.
The King replied on the 10th of September. He declined to call any of
the councillors to London, but expressed his displeasure that they had
not caused the Liturgy to be read, and that they had been remiss in not
bringing those who raised the tumult in July to condign punishment. He
insisted that every bishop should cause the Liturgy to be read in his
own diocese.
By this time a large number of petitions against the Liturgy had been
circulated throughout the country; and on the 20th of September many
of them were presented to the Council. The movement was rapidly gaining
strength; as about twenty of the nobles, many of the gentry, and the
chief men of the towns had joined it. A great number of people had
assembled at Edinburgh, and the Earl of Sutherland presented a general
petition to the Council, in name of the nobility, the barons, the
ministers, and the burgesses. It urged that the introduction of the
Liturgy would disturb the peace of the kingdom, and earnestly requested
the Council to report to the King the real state of affairs, and
to endeavour to persuade him to desist from interfering with their
religion. The Council were sorely perplexed, hesitated, and wist not
what to do; at last, they declined answering the petitions till they
received instructions from the King. In a letter to the King, the
Council stated that more than sixty-eight petitions had been presented
against the Liturgy; they also requested the Duke of Lennox, who
was then leaving for London, to inform the King of the true state of
matters, and the difficulties which had unhappily arisen.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 21‒22, 33,
453; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 233‒235.
On the 9th of October, 1637, the King informed the Council that he
had postponed an answer to the petitions. About the middle of this
month a greater number of people than before met at Edinburgh to await
the King’s answer, and with the view of inducing the magistrates to
join them; while six fresh petitions from two hundred parishes were
presented. A favourable and wise answer from the King might still have
dissipated all alarm. On the 17th of the month, the reply was announced
in the form of three proclamations at the Cross of Edinburgh. The first
stated that nothing would be done that day touching Church affairs,
and the multitude of petitioners and strangers were commanded to leave
the capital within twenty-four hours; the second ordered the seat of
government and the courts of law to be removed to Linlithgow (a move
which had been tried before); and the third denounced a book, which had
been popular, viz., “A Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies
obtruded upon the Church of Scotland,” all copies of which were ordered
to be brought in to the Council, and publicly burned.¹
¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 32‒34; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume
II., page 236.
The citizens of Edinburgh and the people then assembled there were
deeply offended, and directly resolved to disobey the proclamations,
and not to separate till they had established a rallying-point. The
next morning, while the Bishop of Galloway was on his way to the
Council-house, a mob attacked him and pursued him to the door; while
the crowd surrounded the Council-house, and loudly demanded that the
obnoxious lords should surrender. The Council dispatched a messenger
to the magistrates, asking their help, but he found that they were
in the same plight as the Council. A part of the mob had stationed
themselves around the town house, and some of them forced their way
into the lobbies, and threatened that unless the magistrates joined the
burgesses in opposing the Liturgy, they would burn the building. When
this became known to the Privy Council, the High Treasurer and the Earl
of Wigton forced their way through the multitude to the town-house.
After a brief consultation, it was agreed that the magistrates
should do all in their power to disperse the crowds; they accordingly
announced to the seething multitude that they had acceded to the
demands of the people, and were ready to join in their petitions
against the Liturgy. The Treasurer and his followers now thought that
they might venture to return to the Council-house; but as soon as they
appeared on the street, they were assailed with hootings and jeers. The
lords assured the excited people that they would urge their requests
upon the King, but this was received with scornful hissing. Then a
rush was made, and the Treasurer was thrown to the ground, and his hat,
cloak, and staff of office were torn from him, while he was in danger
of being trodden to death; but some of his companions got him to his
feet, and the pressure of the crowd half carried him and his friends to
the Council-house door, where they immediately disappeared. In a short
time the magistrates joined the Council, and then the authorities were
beset, many of them trembling for their lives. At last it was resolved
to send for the nobles who had already declared themselves against
the Liturgy, and by their exertions the crowd was dispersed, and the
councillors got in safety to their homes.¹
¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 34‒38; _Baillie’s Letters and
Journals_, Volume I., pages 37‒38.
Meantime, the nobles, the gentry, the ministers, and others opposed to
the Liturgy, had been engaged deliberating on the form of a complaint
against the bishops, which was to be presented to the Council. Two
forms were prepared, one by Henderson and Lord Balmerino, the other by
Dickson and Lord Loudon. The latter was adopted, and immediately signed
by about twenty-four earls and lords, by upwards of a hundred of the
gentry, and by many of the ministers. The subscribers of this document
stated, that by the tenor of the late proclamations they had been
forced to remonstrate against the archbishops and bishops of the
kingdom, who having been entrusted by the King with the government
of the Church, had framed and enjoined two books――the Canons and the
Liturgy; and that, in the Liturgy, not only were the seeds of divers
superstitions sown――idolatries, and false doctrines, but also the
English service-book was abused, especially in the communion, in a
manner quite contrary to the intentions of the blessed Reformers of
religion in England; while in the Book of Canons the observance of the
Liturgy was enforced under the penalty of excommunication, and many
regulations were enacted tending directly to foster superstition and
error. And therefore, from their duty to God, to their King, and to
their country, they craved that the matter should be tried, according
to the laws of the kingdom; and that meanwhile the bishops should not
be suffered to sit as judges. The Council promised to forward this
petition to the King.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 35‒37.
The opposition party before separating, resolved to meet again on the
15th of November. In the interval they were to exert themselves to
the utmost to ensure as large a meeting of the people as possible to
receive an answer to their former petitions.
On the appointed day many earnest men arrived in Edinburgh, the
influx of people being greater than ever, while the Earls of Rothes,
♦Cassillis, Eglinton, Home, and others, mingled with the crowd. The
Privy Council, fearing a repetition of the former tumults, held a
conference with some of the leaders of the petitioners at Linlithgow on
the 14th of November. The councillors complained that the multitude of
people congregated at Edinburgh threatened to break the peace of the
kingdom, and that these meetings were illegal. The nobles, on the side
of the petitioners, insisted on their right to meet and to present
their grievances; but to remove any cause of complaint, they suggested
that their party were ready to act by representatives, and thus render
crowded meetings unnecessary. The Council agreed to this proposal, and
perhaps unwittingly lent its aid to the embodiment of a power in the
nation which was quickly to supersede its own. The opposition party’s
scheme soon assumed a definite form. Four permanent committees were
appointed: the first comprising all the nobles who had joined the
movement; the second consisting of two representatives from each of
the counties; the third embracing one minister from each presbytery;
and the fourth including one or two deputies from each burgh. These
committees sat at different tables in the Parliament House――hence in
history they were called the “Tables;” and together they represented
the community. For business and effective action each of the committees
elected four representatives, and these united formed a select
deliberative body of sixteen members, appointed to sit constantly
in Edinburgh, with instructions to assemble the larger body of
representatives when any critical emergency appeared. At first they
merely took charge of the petitions, and urged them upon the attention
of the government;¹ but they soon began to feel themselves strong
enough to formulate proposals and plans for the party, and proceeded
to issue mandates which were more respected and better obeyed than the
proclamations of the King and his Council. They virtually assumed the
functions of rulers, and the real control of affairs soon fell into
their hands.
♦ “Casillis” replaced with “Cassillis”
¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., page 243; Baillie’s _Letters
and Journals_, Volume I., pages 40, 42.
Though the troubles which the King’s policy had raised in Scotland
were thus forced upon his attention, even yet he but dimly understood
the character of the movement. Accordingly he deemed it sufficient
to dispatch the Earl of Roxburgh to negotiate; and then issued a
proclamation intimating to his faithful subjects that he had delayed
answering their petitions owing to the tumultuous and violent acts
done in Edinburgh in contempt of his royal authority. He was graciously
pleased to protest that he abhorred all popery, and that he had no
intention of doing anything contrary to the laws of Scotland. This was
not likely to pacify a people almost ripe for rebellion; accordingly
the movement continued to develop and gather vigour.
On the 21st of December, 1637, the representatives of the Tables
appeared before the Privy Council, and demanded that their petitions
should be heard. Lord Loudon boldly restated their grievances touching
the Book of Canons, the Liturgy, the Court of High Commission, and
the bishops, who, it was asserted, were the authors of all these
innovations. As the bishops were the chief delinquents, and directly
interested parties, it was claimed that they should not be allowed to
sit as judges upon the matters in dispute between the government and
the petitioners. The Council’s hands being tied by orders from the
court, they remitted the whole matter for the determination of the King.
The following is a part of Loudon’s speech before the Council:――“A more
weighty and stately cause than this, for which we now appear before
your lordships, was never pleaded before any judge on earth: being for
the defence of the true religion and established laws, on which depends
the welfare both of Church and Commonwealth, our condition of life, of
liberty, and temporal estate in this transitory world, and our eternal
happiness in the world to come; our duty to God Almighty, the supreme
King of kings, and our allegiance and duty to our sovereign lord
and master the King.... And in respect that, by the whole strain of
our supplications and complaints, given in to your lordships, the
archbishops and bishops are our direct parties, as contrivers, devisers,
introducers, maintainers, and urgers of the Books ... and other
unlawful innovations and just grievances complained of by us, we crave
that the matter may be put to trial, and the bishops taken order with,
according to the laws of the realm, and not suffered to sit as judges,
until our cause be tried and decided according to justice; so these
prelates being the only parties, of whom we have at this time justly
complained, must be declined as our judges, seeing that they cannot be
both judge and party, according to the loveable laws of this kingdom.
And our declaration ought to be sustained as relevant against them,
notwithstanding that they have purposely absented themselves at this
time, because if the matter and action depending shall not be decided
at present, but shall happen, by answer or letter from his Majesty,
to be remitted back to the Council, the chancellor and bishops who
are councillors will be judges in the complaint given in against
themselves; and the chancellor, with six or seven of the bishops,
making up a quorum of the Council, may determine and dispose of our
cause and petitions, now depending, as well as they passed an act
of Council for approving the Liturgy before it was either printed or
seen.”¹
¹ _Large Declaration_, page 46. Baillie’s _Letters and
Journals_, Volume I., pages 455‒458.
The government and the King were now sadly perplexed; and about the
beginning of 1638, Traquair, the Lord Treasurer of Scotland, was
called to London. He found that the King was extremely ignorant of
the real state of affairs in Scotland. Those whom he trusted were
partly responsible for this; but the King himself was unwilling to
be informed as to difficulties which he had himself helped to create.
Some consultation was held concerning what was next to be done; but
the idea of yielding to the opinions and sentiments of the people was
never entertained by the King. In the end it was resolved to adhere
to the Liturgy and the Court of High Commission, and to condemn and
ignore all that had been objected against them, in order that the royal
prerogative might be maintained. Popular meetings and demonstrations
were to be prohibited and suppressed, while his Majesty took the
responsibility of the Liturgy upon himself. The Treasurer returned with
his instructions in the middle of February.¹
¹ Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, page 33, 1677;
Stafford’s _Letters_, Volume II.
The Privy Council and the Court of Session were then at Stirling,
and a proclamation in accord with the royal conclusions was issued on
the 19th of February. But the representatives of the Tables had been
informed of this, and Lindsay and Home were there before the Treasurer
himself. Accordingly, when the heralds had performed their part by
proclaiming his Majesty’s will, Lindsay and Home immediately took
instruments in the hands of a notary, and protested that they should
still have a right to petition the King; that they would not recognise
the bishops as judges in any court; that they should not incur any
loss for not observing such canons, rites, and proclamations as were
contrary to Acts of Parliament and to Acts of the General Assembly;
that if any disturbance should arise, it should not be imputed to them;
that their requests proceeded from conscience, with no object save the
preservation of the Reformed Religion, and the laws and liberties of
his Majesty’s ancient kingdom. This protest was in name of the nobles,
the barons, the ministers, and the burgesses, appointed to attend
the King’s answer to their humble petitions. Similar protests on the
part of the petitioners were entered at Linlithgow and Edinburgh, and
wherever the royal proclamation was issued.¹
¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 48‒52.
The crisis was at hand. The opposition party felt that they could not
recede, and therefore it was necessary for them to look to the future.
Their only hope of successfully resisting the King was to unite on some
common principle and end, easily understood, and capable of touching
the sympathies, emotions, and the religious feelings of the people,
and thus combine them together for action. At this stage an old custom
suggested itself to them, as appropriate to the circumstances and the
emergency. It was proposed, as in bye-gone days, that every adherent
of the cause should be bound as one man by a solemn covenant. This
kind of engagement, as we have seen, reached far back in the history
of Scotland, under the name of “bonds of manrent,” by which the
aristocracy leagued themselves together for mutual defence, or for
performing some exploit, as the defeat of an enemy, the imprisonment
or the murder of their King. On this occasion, the party opposed to
the King’s measures met at Edinburgh about the end of February, 1638,
and agreed to revive the Confession and Covenant of 1581, which at
that time was signed by James VI., his government and the people,
throughout the kingdom.¹ To prepare the minds of the people, several of
the ministers of Edinburgh preached in favour of renewing the Covenant.
The framing of the famous document itself was entrusted to Alexander
Henderson and Johnston of Warriston; and the Earls of Rothes, Loudon,
and Balmerino were selected to revise it. This national Covenant
consisted of three parts: the first was a copy of the Confession of
1581; the second contained a summary of the various Acts of Parliament
which condemned Roman Catholicism, and ratified the Reformed Church;
the third was the new Covenant or bond, by which the subscribers swore,
in the name of the “Lord their God,” that they would remain in the
profession of their religion; that they would defend it to the utmost
of their power from all errors and corruptions; that they would stand
by the King’s person in support of the true religion, the liberties,
and the laws of the kingdom; and that they would stand by each other
in defence of the same against all persons whatsoever. When the first
draft of the Covenant was submitted to the committees, there were
differences of opinion about it. Some thought that they could not
bind themselves together for mutual defence without incurring treason;
but after a long discussion, and some alterations having been made, a
general agreement was obtained.²
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
I., pages 372‒73; Volume II., pages 89, 177, 228.
² Peterkin’s _Records of the Church of Scotland_; Baillie’s
_Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 52‒54. At first
Baillie had scruples, and he caused some of the articles of
the Covenant to be modified, but after his concurrence in
the general agreement, he says:――“What will be next, the
Lord only knows, we are to humble ourselves in fasting and
prayer.” _Ibid._, page 54. This Confession and Covenant
is usually printed in the same volume with the Westminster
Confession.
The Covenanters had now assumed a new position in the kingdom. They had
cast aside the character of humble petitioners to the authorities, and
began openly to exercise the functions of government themselves. They
had become a compact and well organised body, ready to act upon the
people in the most effective manner, by appealing to their religious
convictions and feelings, to their national pride and passion, and to
their hopes and fears.
When everything had been prepared for securing the adhesion of the
people, it was resolved to inaugurate the new scheme at Edinburgh, on
the 28th February, 1638. A multitude of the people had then congregated
in the Greyfriars’ Church and Churchyard; and there they were addressed
in glowing terms on the preservation of their religion, the true
Presbyterian polity, their duty to God and their country, till their
feelings and emotions were raised to such a high pitch of enthusiasm,
that they firmly believed their everlasting happiness depended on
maintaining the purity of the reformed faith. Such was the feeling
of the people, when, at two in the afternoon, the Earls of Rothes and
Loudon, Henderson and Dickson, ministers, and Johnston of Warriston,
appeared with the Covenant. Henderson having opened this part of the
proceedings with prayer, Loudon addressed the assemblage; and then
all were asked to come forward and sign the Covenant. The Earl of
Sutherland was the first to sign, being followed by Sir Andrew Murray;
thereafter crowds surrounded the table, and when those in the church
had signed the Covenant, it was taken out to the graveyard and placed
on a flat gravestone. There the enthusiasm reached its greatest height,
men and women being equally eager to subscribe their names. The brave
work went on for several hours, till every inch of the long roll of
parchment was covered. Night at last closed the scene. “It was a day
wherein the arm of the Lord was revealed――a day wherein the princes
of the people were assembled to swear fealty and allegiance to that
great King whose name is the Lord of Hosts.” Henderson described it
as――“The day of the Lord’s power, wherein they had seen His people
most willingly offer themselves in multitudes, like the dew of the
morning.”¹
¹ Wilson’s _Defence of the Reformation Principles of the Church
of Scotland_; Rothes’ _Relation_.
The following day copies of the Covenant were circulated in Edinburgh,
the citizens almost universally signing it, while other copies were
immediately sent throughout the kingdom. Efforts were made to arouse
the enthusiasm of the people, and many with uplifted hands subscribed
and swore to maintain the Covenant. Commissioners were sent to Glasgow
and to Aberdeen, the only places where serious opposition was expected.
The Professors of the University of Glasgow, and some of the ministers
who held the doctrine of non-resistance, were opposed to the Covenant,
and refused to subscribe. The doctors of the University of Aberdeen
also spoke and wrote boldly against the Covenant, and in spite of the
efforts of a deputation from the South, very few of the citizens of
Aberdeen could be induced to sign it; they asserted that it was an
unlawful combination against established authority. Pamphlets were
published on both sides of the question, and the controversy was hotly
maintained for a time. But this war of words was shortly hushed amid
the general unanimity of the other parts of the kingdom. Such was the
energy and tact of the leaders of the movement, that within two months
nearly all the inhabitants of Scotland had given in their adherence to
the Covenant, except those above mentioned, the courtiers, the bishops
and their fraction of adherents.¹
¹ _The Answers of some Brethren of the Ministry to the Replies
of the Ministers and Professors of Aberdeen_, 1638; Baillie’s
_Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 62‒64, 66, _et seq._
It may be noted that, immediately after the Covenant was
sworn at Edinburgh, the leaders of the party communicated
with their friends in London, and sent them copies of the
Covenant.
The Privy Council, already alarmed, were sitting at Stirling while
the Covenant was being carried about the streets of Edinburgh for
signatures, and great was their embarrassment at the determined
opposition of the Presbyterians. After four days’ deliberation they
agreed to send Sir John Hamilton, the Justice Clerk, to London, to
inform the King that the whole nation was in a state of excitement;
that the Book of Canons, the Liturgy, and the High Commission, and the
modes in which they had been introduced, were the causes of all the
turmoil; and that His Majesty should, “as an act of singular justice,”
inquire into these grievances of his subjects. The Earls of Traquair
and Roxburgh also wrote to the King, distinctly informing him that the
dread of religious innovation had raised a conflagration amongst all
classes of the people which was daily becoming more vehement, and that
no force in the kingdom could suppress it. As religion was the pretext,
they suggested that it would be well for the King to free his subjects
from their fears by withdrawing the Book of Canons and the Liturgy,
and then he would be in a better position to punish the insolence of
those who persisted in kicking against his authority. In the month
of April, several members of the Privy Council and nobles were called
to the Court, while some of the bishops were already there; the King,
therefore, had a good opportunity of knowing the real state of Scotland.
If anything more was needed to inform him, it was supplied in a paper
forwarded to the Scottish Lords at court, containing a clear statement
of the grievances of the Covenanters. This document expressly stated
that the recalling of the Book of Canons and the Liturgy would not
be sufficient to restore peace; it demanded that the High Commission
should be utterly abolished, and complained of the Perth Articles, of
the civil offices, and of the seats in parliament held by the bishops,
and the oaths exacted from ministers. The Covenanters requested that
a lawful and free General Assembly and a Parliament should be summoned
as in former times, to redress the grievances of the people, to settle
commotions, and to pacify the minds of the nation.
The Justice Clerk and other Scottish Councillors suggested soothing
remedies, and the position of matters was earnestly discussed. At last
the King called to his closet the Archbishops of Canterbury and St.
Andrews, the Bishops of Galloway, Brechin, and Ross, and the Marquis
of Hamilton, and measures of repression were resolved upon. At this
meeting the King announced his intention to send the Marquis of
Hamilton to Scotland as High Commissioner with power to settle the
troubles of the nation.¹
¹ Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 34‒43;
Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 252‒261. There is
evidence that Hamilton had a better grasp of the difficulties
than the King; yet even the Marquis had not a very complete
appreciation of the hardness of the task which he undertook
when he entered on the mission of defeating the aims of the
Covenanters.
A proclamation was prepared to be sent with Hamilton to Scotland. In it
the King promised not to press the Canons and the Liturgy, except in a
fair and legal way; that he would limit the High Commission, and that
he would overlook all that was past, if his subjects would renounce
and disclaim their factious bonds, and return to their loyal duty; but
those who declined to do this would be treated as rebels and traitors.
The King’s instructions to Hamilton were signed on the 16th of May,
1638, and were in accord with the contents of the proclamation just
indicated. They extended to twenty-eight articles, the last of which
was in these terms:――“If you cannot, by the means prescribed by us,
bring back the refractory and seditious to due obedience, we do not
only give you authority, but command all hostile acts whatsoever to be
used against them, they having deserved to be used in no other way by
us, but as a rebellious people; for the doing whereof we will not only
save you harmless, but account it as acceptable service done us.”
Meanwhile the Covenanters were proceeding with their work. They had
little confidence in the word of the King, as he had already shown
that his opinions and feelings were entirely against them. Several of
the presbyteries had relieved the constant moderators of their duties,
while some of the uncovenanted ministers were removed from their
churches. In some cases, the clergy who clung to Episcopacy and refused
to take the Covenant, were mobbed and maltreated, but the majority of
the Covenanters disapproved of such proceedings, though they were not
always able to prevent outrages.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 70‒71;
Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 43‒51.
Early in June, 1638, three months after the first signing of the
Covenant, the Marquis of Hamilton arrived in Scotland. It was evident
from the King’s instructions to him, that there was no intention
of granting the demands of the Covenanters, and the Marquis soon
discovered that his instructions were entirely futile. All the southern
counties were under the control of the Covenanters. They had already
ordered supplies of arms, and threatened to seize the Castle of
Edinburgh. The Crown could place little reliance on the Privy Council,
as some of its members were associated with the discontented nobles.
Lord Lindsay told Hamilton that the people would never relinquish the
Covenant; that Episcopacy must be modified, if not abolished; and that
if a Parliament and General Assembly were not summoned by the King’s
authority, the Covenanters would take matters into their own hands.
So Hamilton did not venture to publish the royal proclamation, as he
had no means of enforcing it. He wrote to the King, stating that his
Majesty should be prepared either to concede all the demands of his
subjects, or to suppress the movement by force. Charles replied that
his preparations were progressing, that the Castles of Edinburgh and
Stirling should be secured, and meantime he instructed Hamilton to
flatter the Covenanters with any hopes he pleased, to gain time, until
he should be in a position to suppress them: for said Charles――“I will
rather die than yield to their impertinent and damnable demands; for
it is all one to yield to be no king in a very short time.” On the 20th
of June, the King informed Hamilton that his warlike preparations were
well advanced. Arms for 14, 000 foot, and 2000 horse, had been ordered,
and his ships were ready. Other communications passed between the King
and Hamilton, the result being thus stated by Charles himself:――“I will
only say, that so long as this Covenant is in force, whether it be with
or without explanations, I have no more power in Scotland than as a
Duke of Venice, which I will rather die than suffer; yet I command the
giving ear to their explanations or anything to win time. Lastly, my
resolution is to come myself in person, accompanied like myself, sea
forces, nor Ireland, shall not be forgotten.”¹
¹ Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 52‒61.
Hamilton saw that he could do nothing to restore the confidence of
the nation, and resolved to return to London for fresh instructions.
Before leaving, he issued, in an amended form, the King’s proclamation,
which had now assumed something of an apologetic strain in defence of
the King’s action. It was published at the Cross of Edinburgh, on the
4th of July, and when the royal herald concluded, the representatives
of the Covenanters immediately began to read their protest. The
proclamation had no effect in appeasing the Covenanters. Touching this
royal proclamation, Baillie says: “It was heard by a world of people
with great indignation: we all do marvel that ever the Commissioner
could think to give satisfaction to any living soul by such a
declaration, which yet he often professed with confidence of that paper
before it was heard; there must be some mystery here which is not yet
open. This declaration cannot be the one which his grace brought with
him, that was thought certainly to contain a command of surrendering
our Covenant; but of our Confession is no syllable; yet this has
apparently been drawn up here very lately by the bishops and statesmen
who are trusted, with the consent as it seems of the Commissioner, for
the date of it is but six or seven days, at Greenwich, before it was
proclaimed at Edinburgh.”¹
¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 95‒106. _Letters and Journals_,
Volume I., page 91.
Before the Marquis departed, the leaders of the Covenanters intimated
to him, that if he did not return by the 5th of August with a
favourable answer to their demands, they would consider themselves
entitled to take whatever steps they thought fit. He left on the 6th of
July, and did not return till the 8th of August. During his absence the
Covenanting party were actively engaged in strengthening and completing
their organisation; and excepting Aberdeen, they had almost the entire
nation on their side. In the Northern and Western districts some of the
ministers were unwilling to subscribe the Covenant, but the influence
of the local nobles tended to overcome their scruples.¹
¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., page 277; Rothes’ _Relation_.
When Hamilton arrived at Court, after some deliberation the King, with
the advice of Laud, issued new instructions to his commissioner. On his
return to Scotland, he was empowered under limits to summon a General
Assembly and a Parliament; he was to endeavour to arrange that the
bishops should have votes in the Assembly, and if possible that one of
them should be moderator of the Assembly; he was to protest against the
abolition of bishops, but might permit them to be tried if accused of
definite crimes. He was further to insist that no laymen should have
votes in electing the ministers from the presbyteries to the General
Assembly. With the aim of counteracting the effects of the Covenant,
it was proposed that the King should sign the Confession of 1560, and
publish it with a bond to be subscribed by all his subjects, by which
they were to swear to maintain the Confession, and to defend the King’s
person, and the laws and liberties of the kingdom. But this movement to
withdraw the people from the national Covenant completely failed.¹
¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 111, 113‒117; Burnet’s _Memoirs of
the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 65‒68.
On Hamilton’s return to Scotland, he found that the demands of the
Covenanters had rather increased, and that they could not agree to the
limits which his instructions required. If they were to have a General
Assembly, the scope of its proceedings must be left, they said, to
the judgment of its members; while they had resolved that both elders
and ministers should have votes in the election of the members of
the Assembly. Further they declared that they would not consent to
be fettered beforehand――their Assembly must be free; and hinted to
the Royal Commissioner that it might be called by themselves without
waiting for the King’s authority. The Marquis thus finding that no
concessions could be obtained from the Covenanters, again proposed
to visit the court and consult with the King; and having promised to
return an answer by the 20th of September, he left for London.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 99‒101;
_Large Declaration_, pages 117‒122.
The King and Hamilton met at Oatlands, and on the 9th of September,
new instructions for the Royal Commissioner were signed. The weakness
of the King’s policy, and the utter folly of many of his proposals
touching the difficulties in Scotland, had become painfully manifest.
But to crown his folly, he now consented to sign the negative
Confession of 1581, which formed the first part of the Covenant, as
if this royal act, after what had already happened, would raise the
confidence of the people in their King. The Privy Council were ordered
to sign it themselves, and to command all his Majesty’s subjects to
follow the example of their King and at once subscribe it; for if they
must have a Covenant, it was his pleasure that they should accept this
one alone.¹
¹ Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 72‒75;
_Large Declaration_, pages 134‒135.
Hamilton arrived in Edinburgh on the 17th of September, and a meeting
of the Council was immediately held. The King’s proposals were placed
before the meeting, and the councillors agreed to subscribe the
negative Confession as required, and passed an act expressing their
satisfaction. They also resolved that the King’s concessions should
be proclaimed. Accordingly, it was announced at the Cross of Edinburgh
that a General Assembly was appointed to meet at Glasgow on the 21st
of November, 1638, and a Parliament at Edinburgh on the 15th of May,
the following year. All the people were commanded to follow the good
example of the King and his Council, by subscribing the negative
Confession and bond for the defence of religion and law. But this move
completely failed to entrap the Covenanters; and they protested as
usual against the proclamation. Thus, for a short time, there were
two Covenants in the field competing for popular support, the King’s
one and the Tables’ one; both were canvassed vigorously throughout
the kingdom, both sides reproaching each other with employing coercion
and discreditable means to procure signatures. While these covenanting
operations were proceeding, every town and every parish became
excessively excited, and people readily believed anything that seemed
to favour their own party. The King’s Covenant was signed by a majority
of the judges, by many in Angus, in Aberdeen, and by some in Glasgow.
It was reported that twenty-eight thousand in all had signed it,
of which twelve thousand were obtained through the influence of the
Marquis of Huntly; but it failed to secure anything approaching to the
amount of support accorded by the people to the National Covenant.¹
¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 137‒153, _et seq._; Baillie’s
_Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 103‒108; Burnet’s
_Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 79‒83.
The nation was now wistfully looking forward to the approaching General
Assembly, on which so great an issue depended. The leaders and the
committee of the Covenanters were actively and earnestly engaged in
preparing for the proper constitution of the Assembly. In the end of
August directions had been sent to the Presbyteries how to proceed;
and minute instructions were subsequently despatched to them touching
the mode of electing their representatives, along with a copy of the
Act of Assembly of 1597, concerning the number of members which each
Presbytery was entitled to send to the Assembly. They got a form
of commission, and in short, the committees of the Tables managed
the elections in such a way that the most ardent of the Presbyterian
ministers were returned as members, and the leading lay Covenanters
as ruling elders. Their organisation was so complete, and their energy
so effective, that the supporters of Episcopacy gave up the contest in
despair.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 469‒472;
_Large Declaration_.
But one serious difficulty yet remained, the trial of the bishops. As
the Covenanters had no legal power to cite the bishops to appear before
the Assembly, they requested Hamilton to grant a warrant for summoning
them, but he refused this on the ground that it was enough if he
refrained from placing any obstacle in the way of their being brought
to a fair trial. Indeed, the bishops’ declinature had already been
revised by the King, and was intended to be used, not merely as a
bar to their trial, but also as a pretext for dissolving the Assembly
itself. The Covenanters then asked the judges of the Court of Session
to grant a summons against the bishops, but they replied that such
causes were beyond their jurisdiction. The leaders of the Covenanters,
however, had determined not to be baffled for lack of legal forms
and precedents. A libel was framed and signed by a long list of
nobles, burgesses, and ministers, and brought before the Presbytery
of Edinburgh; and this body, after considering the matter, remitted it
to the coming Assembly.¹
¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 297‒300; Burnet’s
_Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, page 88; _Large
Declaration_, pages 209‒220.
This libel against the bishops consisted of two chief parts, the
one containing charges against them as a body, and the other special
charges against each of the bishops personally; the latter, however,
being only founded on common report, were never intended to be proved.
It is the first, or the historical part of the libel, which has any
real value, as the charges in it contained matters which could be
proved or disproved on historic grounds. Thus they were accused of
breaking the cautions agreed to in the General Assembly of 1600,
concerning ministers’ votes in Parliament and other points; of
violating several points of the Book of Discipline, and of the Book of
Fasting; of teaching doctrines contrary to the Reformation Confession
of Faith; of exacting unlawful oaths from entrants to the ministry;
of assuming the position of diocesan bishops, taking consecration
and claiming the power of ordination and jurisdiction in virtue of an
unwarrantable office; of introducing the Book of Canons, the Liturgy,
and the High Commission, and so causing great dissension between the
King and his subjects. This part of the indictment against the bishops
could easily be supported by a mass of unimpeachable evidence, but it
is needless to enter into its details. When the Covenanters made grave
charges against the personal character of the bishops, their action
cannot be so clearly justified.
The Covenanters had prepared for mustering in force, and as the day of
the meeting of the Assembly approached, men began to flock into Glasgow
from all quarters of the country. On the 16th of November, the western
nobles arrived with their vassals and friends; and the following day
the eastern nobles, gentry, and ministers entered the city. Hamilton,
as Royal Commissioner, accompanied by the Lords of the Privy Council,
arrived on the 17th; and the city of the west presented a scene of
unusual bustle. For the next three days, both parties were intently
engaged in strengthening themselves for the contest.¹
¹ Baillie says――“On Friday, the 16th of November, we in the
west, as we were desired, came into Glasgow.... We were
informed that the commissioner and his councillors were to
take up the town with a great number of their followers; so
that the nearest noblemen and gentlemen were desired to come
in that night well attended. The town did expect and provide
for huge multitudes of people, and put on their houses
and beds excessive prices.... On Saturday the most of the
Eastland noblemen, barons, and ministers came in. In the
afternoon, my Lord Commissioner, with most of the Council,
came in; my Lord Rothes, Montrose, and many of our folks
went to meet his grace: much good speech was among them;
we, protesting that we would crave nothing but what clear
scripture, reason, and law would evince; his grace answering,
nothing reasonable should be denied.”――_Letters and Journals_,
Volume I., page 121.
After much preliminary arrangement, the Assembly met on the 21st of
November, 1638, in the Cathedral Church. The members of the Assembly
consisted of one hundred and forty ministers, ninety-eight ruling
elders from presbyteries and burghs, and two professors not ministers.
Among the elders, there were seventeen nobles, nine knights,
twenty-five landed proprietors, and forty-seven burgesses, all men of
some local standing,――thus the total number of members was two hundred
and forty.¹ Burnet says――“There were about two hundred and sixty
commissioners; besides that, from every presbytery there were also
assessors, from some two, three, four, or more, who had no vote, but
only to give advice; so that in all they made a great number.”
¹ Peterkin’s _Records of the Church of Scotland_; _Memoirs of
the Dukes of Hamilton_, page 98.
The first day was occupied with religious services and matters of form.
The second day, the Covenanters insisted that the election of moderator
was the first thing to be done in order to constitute the Assembly, but
the Royal Commissioner and his party argued that a moderator should not
be chosen till the commissions of the members were examined, that it
might be known who were properly entitled to vote. When it appeared
that Hamilton would be defeated on this point, he proposed to read a
paper presented to him in the name of the bishops against the Assembly,
but the proposal was met with shouts of dissent. A stormy debate ensued,
followed by protests and counter-protests, which continued till every
one was wearied. After this, Henderson, minister of Leuchars, was
chosen moderator, and Johnston of Warriston appointed clerk. Johnston
was well versed in the law, a man of keen judgment, and an ardent
Covenanter. Several days were passed in examining the commissions of
the members, and other disputed points, while some sharp debating took
place, in which the Royal Commissioner had to encounter the leading
disputants of the Assembly.
On the 27th of November, the bishops’ declinature of the Assembly’s
authority was again urged by Hamilton, and this time it was read by the
Clerk of the Assembly, amidst jeers and laughter. Hamilton spoke and
argued on the weight and importance of the document, and some parts of
it were debated. The next day, the moderator put the question――Whether
the Assembly found itself a competent judge of the bishops? The Royal
Commissioner then rose and said: If the Assembly proceed to censure
the office of the bishops, he must immediately withdraw, as the King’s
sanction could not be given to this. He spoke earnestly touching
the admission of lay elders as members of the Assembly, to which he
strongly objected; referred to the irregular form in which the bishops
had been cited, and asserted that the Assembly had no right to act
as their judges. Speeches were delivered from the other side on the
freedom of the Assembly; to which the Commissioner replied, by arguing
that the election of the members had been controlled by the Tables,
that for months before the Assembly, the orders of the Committees of
the Tables had been obeyed by all; and, at last, in the King’s name
he declared the Assembly dissolved, and departed. But immediately a
protest was read that his absence should not prevent the Assembly from
proceeding with the work which it had undertaken. It was then put to
the vote, whether they should adhere to their protest, and continue
the Assembly, and it was agreed almost unanimously to continue it to
the end. The next important question was, whether the Assembly was
competent to judge the bishops, and this too was answered unanimously
in the affirmative, as also that it was proper to proceed with their
trial.
Thereafter the Assembly went on rapidly with its business. All the acts
of the Assemblies since 1605, including the five Articles of Perth,
were annulled. Acts were passed condemning the Book of Canons, the
Liturgy, the Book of Ordination, the High Commission, and Episcopacy.
The bishops themselves were tried and condemned, though none of them
were present in the Assembly. Probation of the libels against them was
referred to a committee; with the result that they were all deposed,
and eight of them excommunicated. The nation did not want bishops, and
that was deemed an all-sufficient reason for casting them out. They
had always allied themselves with the despotic tendencies and arbitrary
proceedings of the Crown; they were in reality the tools of the King:
they belonged to him, and not to the people; they were intended to be,
and had been, to the utmost of their power, the pliant ministers of the
royal will, not the servants of the nation, and hence the suddenness
and completeness of their fall.
As the Assembly had abolished Episcopacy, it naturally followed that
the Presbyterian polity should be restored, with its appropriate
organisation. Acts were passed concerning the visitation of colleges
and schools, and for planting schools in the country; acts forbidding
ministers to accept civil offices, for repressing popery and
superstition, and for the better observance of Sunday; acts for
dealing with those who spoke or wrote against the Covenant, prohibiting
the printing of books touching Church affairs without the warrant
of Archibald Johnston, Clerk to the Assembly and legal adviser of
the Church; and many other acts. Finally, on the 20th of December,
the Assembly agreed to address a letter to the King justifying their
proceedings and requesting his approval. The meeting then closed its
work by appointing the next General Assembly to meet at Edinburgh in
July 1639.¹
¹ Peterkin’s _Records of the Church of Scotland_; _Large
Declaration_, pages 234‒324; Baillie’s _Letters and
Journals_, Volume I., pages 123‒176; Balfour’s _Annals_,
Volume II., pages 301‒316.
Presbyterians have long looked back to the General Assembly of 1638,
as the date of their Second Reformation, though it cannot be compared
to the Revolution of 1560. Its proceedings were somewhat violent, like
all revolutionary movements which are the result of the preceding and
existing states of society――the outcome of its dominant thought and
sentiment and feeling. As explained in the second volume, the degree of
violence connected with a revolutionary change originated amongst the
people, depends upon the state of their civilisation at the time of its
occurrence.¹ In this instance, the amount of violence which ultimately
flowed from the hostile movement in Scotland against the King and his
government was not by any means entirely attributable to the Scots;
as England, Ireland, and even more distant lands participated in the
struggle.
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
II., pages 94‒95.
The firm establishment of Presbyterianism in Scotland was the end and
aim of the Covenanters, and the movement was watched with interest
by the adherents of a similar polity in England. Indeed, in the
circumstances of Europe at the time, the cause of the Scots appeared
to be the cause of Protestantism, which had so recently been everywhere
placed at a disadvantage by the defeat of Nordlingen. In 1637 the arms
of the Catholics had asserted their supremacy on the Rhine and in the
Netherlands; and the marked advance which Catholicism was once more
making roused the Protestant spirit to the utmost vigilance.
We are now arrived at the time when an intimacy sprang up and mutual
relations were formed between the Covenanters and a vigorous party
opposed to the policy of the King in England, both being prompted
by a common dislike to Episcopacy. The ruling motive in the policy
of Charles I., was to maintain and complete the Tudor principles
of government in Church and State in England, and to extend them
to Scotland. The Scots met him in an attitude of opposition as yet
unexampled in any other monarchy. He hoped, and had vainly tried, to
crush them by the strength of his influence in England. The results of
his action were that the movement spread to England itself.
The origin and cause of the Covenanting struggle having been indicated
at some length, it would be superfluous to burden this work with the
details of the civil war which ensued, save in so far as is requisite
for a proper understanding of the sequence of leading events.
After the conclusions of the Glasgow Assembly, civil war became
inevitable, and both parties actively prepared for it. The Covenanters
began to buy arms and to enlist men. At this time, fortunately for them,
the fury of the war on the Continent was abated; and many Scotchmen
who had been engaged in it, were returning home, where the signs of the
coming contest were already unmistakable. One of the most distinguished
of these military adventurers was General Alexander Leslie, who became
leader of the Covenanting armies. He was a man of comparatively humble
birth, but in the German wars he had attained to rank, and gained much
experience. He speedily organised a Scottish army, and equipped it
for the field. The Covenanters seized the Castles of Edinburgh and
Dumbarton, and other important posts, and made every preparation for
the approaching conflict.¹
¹ Spalding’s _Memorials of the Troubles_, Volume I., page 130;
Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 111,
195‒198.
The King had ordered his army to muster and meet him at York, in April,
1639; and though the English clergy naturally contributed largely to
the support of the army, still the war was unpopular. Charles proposed
to lead his army in person, and sent a fleet into the Firth of Forth,
under the command of the Marquis of Hamilton, to interrupt trade, to
threaten Leith, and to favour the rising in the north under the Marquis
of Huntly, who had received a royal commission of lieutenancy on the
16th of March.
Huntly mustered his followers, and on the 25th of March he was at
Inverurie with a force of five thousand men. When he received tidings
that the Covenanters were marching to the north under the command of
the Earl of Montrose, Huntly knew that without assistance from England,
he could not face the enemy. He called a council of war, and on its
advice, disbanded his troops, leaving Aberdeen open to the Covenanters.
A number of the leading citizens, accompanied by some of the Doctors,
fled from the city to offer their services to the King; while others
found refuge in houses in the vicinity of the town. Montrose marched
into Aberdeen on the 30th of March at the head of six thousand men; and
the Covenanters of the surrounding country joined him with other three
thousand men. Leaving a garrison in the city, he advanced on Inverurie,
where he quartered his troops on the opponents of the Covenant. Huntly,
seeing no hope of aid from the South, then sought an interview with
Montrose; and on the 5th of April a compromise was effected, by which
the Catholics, who were not to be pressed to sign the Covenant, agreed
to maintain the laws and liberties of Scotland. Huntly was permitted
to return to Strathbogie. A few days after, he was invited to Aberdeen,
under a safe conduct signed by Montrose and the other leaders, and
arrived there on the 12th of April. Montrose’s object was soon apparent.
He had entrapped Huntly, and made him a prisoner. The Marquis and his
eldest son, Lord Gordon, were immediately conveyed to Edinburgh. On
arriving at the capital, Huntly was pressed to take the Covenant, but
replied, “for my own part, I am in your power; and resolved not to
leave that foul title of traitor as an inheritance upon my posterity.
You may take my head from my shoulders, but not my heart from my
Sovereign.” Thus the King’s hope of a rising in his favour in the North
was blasted.
In fact, ere Charles arrived at York the whole of Scotland was in
the hands of the Covenanters. In the end of May, the Covenanting army
was encamped at Dunse Law, while Charles had advanced to Berwick, and
posted his force on the opposite side of the Tweed. The two armies thus
lay for some days watching each other, both seeming unwilling to strike.
The Covenanters knew their advantages, but if they could have induced
the King to grant their requests without battle, they would have been
glad. In the words of Baillie:――“We sought no crowns; we aimed not at
lands and honours; we desired but to keep our own in service of our
prince, as our ancestors had done; we loved no new masters. Had our
throne been vacant, and our votes sought for the filling of Fergus’s
chair, we would have died ere any other had sitten down on that fatal
marble but Charles alone.” He gives an interesting account of the
Scottish Covenanting army as it lay encamped. “It would have done
you good to have cast your eyes athort our brave and rich Hill, as I
oft did, with great pleasure and joy; for I was there among the rest,
being chosen preacher by the gentlemen of our shire, who came late
with my Lord Eglinton. I furnished to half-a-dozen good fellows muskets
and pikes, and to my boy a broadsword. I carried myself, according
to custom, a sword, and a couple of Dutch pistols at my saddle; but
I promise, for the offence of no man, except a robber by the way;
for it was our part to pray and preach for the encouragement of our
countrymen, which I did to the utmost of my power cheerfully. Our hill
was garnished on the top, towards the south and east, with our mounted
cannon, nearly to the number of forty, great and small. Our regiments
lay on the sides of the hill, almost round about: the place was not a
mile in circle, a pretty round rising in a declivity, without steepness,
to the height of a bowshot; and on the top somewhat plain; about a
quarter of a mile in length, and as much in breadth, and capable of
containing tents for forty thousand men.... Our captains, for the most
part, were barons or gentlemen of good note; our lieutenants almost
all soldiers who had served abroad in good charges; every company had,
flying at the captain’s tent-door, a brave new colour, stamped with the
Scottish arms, and this――‘For Christ’s Crown and Covenant,’ in golden
letters.... The councils of war were held daily, in the castle at the
foot of the hill; the ecclesiastical meetings in Rothes’ tent. The
general came nightly for the setting of the watch on their horses.
Our soldiers were lusty and full of courage; the most of them stout
young ploughmen; and a great cheerfulness in the face of all: the only
difficulty was to get money to pay them. None of our gentlemen were any
the worse of lying some weeks together in their cloak and boots on the
ground, or standing all night in arms in the greatest storm.
“Our soldiers grew in experience of arms, in courage, and in favour
daily; every one encouraged another; the sight of the nobles and their
beloved pastors daily raised their hearts; the good sermons and prayers,
morning and evening, under the roof of heaven, to which their drums
did call them for bells; the remonstrance very frequent of the goodness
of their cause, of their conduct hitherto, by a hand clearly divine;
and also Leslie, his skill and fortune, made them all as resolute for
battle as could be wished. We were afraid that emulation among the
nobles might have done harm, when they should be met in the fields; but
such was the wisdom and authority of that old, little, crooked soldier,
that all, with an incredible submission, from the beginning to the
end, gave over themselves to be guided by him, as if he had been Great
Solomon. Certainly the obedience of the nobles to that man’s orders was
as great as their forefathers’ wont to be to their king’s commands: yet
this was the man’s understanding of our Scots humours, that gave out,
not only to the nobles, but to the meanest gentleman, his directions
in a very homely and simple form, as if they had been but the advices
of their neighbour and companion; for, as he rightly observed, a
difference should be used in commanding soldiers of fortune and of
volunteers; and of the latter the greater part of our camp consisted.
“Had you lent your ear in the morning, or especially at even, and
heard in the tents the sound of some singing psalms, some praying, and
some reading scripture, you would have been refreshed. True, there was
swearing, and cursing, and brawling in some quarters, whereat we were
grieved; but we hoped, if our camp had been a little settled, to have
taken some way of dealing with these disorders.”¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., page 215.
_Letters_, Volume I., pages 211‒214, 245. Baillie himself
made his will before he joined the army.
Negotiations were shortly after opened, which led to the following
arrangement: the King published a declaration, stating that the
religious matters in dispute were to be referred to a General Assembly
to be held at Edinburgh on the 6th of August, 1639, and to a Parliament
to meet on the 20th of the same month. The King promised to recall
his fleet and disband his army; the Covenanters were to disband their
forces within forty-eight hours, to restore the castles to the Crown,
and to hold no public meetings except those authorised by the law. This
treaty was accompanied with explanations which afterwards caused much
dispute. Peace was proclaimed in the English and in the Scottish camps,
on the 18th of June; but mutual confidence between the King and the
Scots was not fully restored.¹