Mitchell, since his attempt on the life of the Primate, had been living
in Edinburgh, where Sharp frequently saw him, and caused him to be
apprehended in February, 1674. When brought before the Privy Council,
he was promised a pardon if he would confess his guilt, whereupon he
admitted having been in the rising of 1666, and his attempt on the
life of the Primate; but affirmed that no one else was connected with
that deed. He was then remitted to the Court of Justiciary. When placed
in the dock he denied everything, and as there was no evidence, the
indictment was abandoned. He was returned to prison, and detained for
two years. In January, 1676, he was again taken before the Council, and
questioned whether he had been with the insurgents in 1666, and if he
would acknowledge his former confession. Mitchell declined to criminate
himself, and pled that when tried two years ago, the charge fell to
the ground, that it was unjust to detain him in prison and insist
that he should accuse himself. It was then agreed to torture him; and
his right leg was placed in the boot and frightfully mangled, still
he refused to acknowledge his confession, or to tell anything. After
undergoing extreme suffering he was removed to prison. The policy of
the government had created a host of enemies; and as the ruling party
knew that their power rested solely upon fear, the Council and the
bishops were loth to let any victim escape. Mitchell was again brought
before the court in January, 1678, upon an indictment charging him
with attempting to murder the Primate. He was defended by Lockhart,
one of the foremost advocates of the time, and Mr. John Ellis, who both
pleaded at great length on behalf of the panel. Ellis argued against
the relevancy of the libel on five formal points; and next pled ably
that a confession obtained in such circumstances could not be allowed
as evidence in a court of law. Lockhart then argued with force and
clearness, that as the confession was emitted upon the promise of the
Privy Council to save his life, it could not be used as evidence for
condemning him to death. But Rothes, Lauderdale, the Primate, and other
councillors, denied upon oath that such a promise was ever given to him:
Lockhart produced a copy of the act of Council in which it was recorded,
and craved that the register of the Council’s acts should be produced,
which the court refused; the act, however, was read, and Lockhart
earnestly insisted for liberty to speak on it; but the court would
not permit this. The jury found Mitchell guilty, and he was executed
at the Grassmarket of Edinburgh on the 18th of January, 1678. Perhaps
the lords had short memories, for the act containing the promise to
Mitchell still remains in the register of the proceedings of the Privy
Council.¹
¹ _State Trials_, Volume VI.; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II.,
pages 454‒473.
The government now determined to extinguish conventicles by treating
the west, the south-west, and other parts of the country, as if it
had been in a state of rebellion. Towards the end of January, 1678, an
army of ten thousand men was mustered at Stirling, of whom six thousand
were Highland clansmen. This force was spread over the regions where
the nonconformists, or the Whigs, as they were called in the speech of
the time, were most numerous, there to live at free quarters; while a
committee of the Privy Council accompanied the host, armed with special
information and ample powers for punishing notable offenders. They were
empowered to impose and exact such fines as they thought fit from all
who refused to take the bond; and they were instructed to prosecute
rigorously all who had been at field conventicles since the 1st of
January 1677; while all persons who had been accessory to the building
of meeting-houses, and also all landowners, and life-renters, who had
connived at the erection of such houses, since the 24th March, 1674,
were to be punished without mercy, and all the meeting-houses were to
be razed to the ground. They were to prosecute all who had withdrawn
from public worship in their own parishes, to disarm all persons, and
to search for and seize arms and ammunition. The bond, tendered and
backed by the presence of the army, was in the following terms:――“We
―――― faithfully bind and oblige us, that we, our wives, children, and
servants, respectively, shall not be present at any conventicles or
disorderly meetings in time coming, but shall live in obedience to the
law, under the penalties of the acts of parliament: also we bind and
oblige us, that all our tenants and cottars, their wives, children,
and servants, shall likewise abstain from these conventicles, and other
illegal meetings, and live in obedience to the law: and farther, that
we nor they shall reset, supply, or commune with forfeited persons,
intercommuned ministers, or vagrant preachers; but shall do our utmost
endeavour to apprehend their persons: and in case our tenants and
cottars shall contravene, we shall take and apprehend every person
guilty thereof, and present them to the judge ordinary, that they may
be punished therefore, according to the acts of parliament; otherwise
we shall remove them and their families off our ground; and if we fail
therein, we shall be liable to such penalties as the said delinquents
have incurred by law.” The resistance to this form of oppression was
almost universal; and even many of the landowners and small proprietors
refused to sign the bond; in Lanarkshire only twenty out of three
thousand householders subscribed the bond, and it was reported that
those who did sign it suffered as much as those who refused, as the
soldiers and Highlanders sent to execute the law spared no one, and
acted without distinction of persons. The Highlanders were sent home
in the end of February; and on the 24th of April the remainder of the
army was disbanded, save a garrison left in Ayr. “When this goodly
army returned homewards, you would have thought by their baggage that
they had been at the sack of a besieged city; and therefore, when they
passed Stirling Bridge, every man drew his sword, to show the world
that they had returned conquerors from the enemy’s land, but they
might as well have shown the pots, pans, girdles, and other household
furniture with which they were loaded; and among them all, none
purchased so well as the two Earls of Airly and Strathmore, chiefly
the last, who sent home the money, not in purses, but in bags and great
quantities. Yet under all this oppression the poor people bore all;
only in Kampsey there was one of the plunderers killed by a countryman,
who yet escaped punishment.”¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 378‒454. Kirkton’s
_History_, pages 390‒391. It has often been noticed that none
of the Whigs lost their life by the hands of this Highland
host, as it was called.
The government was disappointed that the Highland army had effected so
little; and therefore more force was to be employed. A Convention of
Estates was summoned to grant money, which met at Edinburgh in the end
of June, 1678. It passed an act authorising a sum of eighteen hundred
thousand pounds Scots to be raised by a tax spread over five years, to
enable the King to maintain more forces to uphold the orthodox clergy,
extinguish conventicles, and crush the people. This act was extremely
obnoxious to the presbyterians, but all were obliged to pay the tax
under severe penalties.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
213‒229; Kirkton’s _History_, pages 393‒396.
By the end of the year a considerable army was stationed, chiefly
in the western and southern counties. In the beginning of 1679,
detachments of troops were ordered to move up and down the country, to
harass all who did not conform to episcopacy, and to collect the tax,
which many of the people would not pay till they were compelled. The
soldiers were commanded to search out and to pursue all who attended
field meetings, to kill all who resisted them, to imprison and deliver
to the magistrates, or send to the Council, all whom they apprehended.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 492‒495; Volume III.,
pages 11‒17.
This year, in the end of February, the government added a number of
new commissioners to assist those appointed in August, 1677; their
special work being the suppression of all schism and opposition
to the Established Church, and all seditious meetings. Among other
instructions touching the execution of their task, and to interest
and encourage them in it, they were authorised “to apply the one-half
of the fines of all the landed men and women, and their children, who
lived within the bounds of their commission, to their own use, and such
as they should employ.” This was sure to make the commissioners earnest
in their work. The King also issued an order authorising the sheriffs
in the south and west of the kingdom to recognise, and act with,
a number of special sheriff-deputes nominated by the King himself,
expressly to try and judge persons accused of attending conventicles,
of withdrawing from the worship of the parish churches, or of irregular
baptisms and marriages.¹ That men thus invested with judicial powers
should sometimes act with an imperious hand was certain; and when
William Carmichael, an ex-bailie of Edinburgh, was raised by the King
to the dignity of a special sheriff in the county of Fife, of course he
exerted himself to the utmost to show that he was worthy of his post.
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 17‒21, 41.
This man, who had been treating those who attended field meetings
in Fife with great severity, a few bold men resolved to frighten and
punish. On the 3rd of May, 1679, under Hackston of Rathillet and John
Balfour, they attempted to waylay him among the hills above Cupar,
where they expected him to be hunting. They searched for him from early
morning to past midday without success; but just when they were about
to disperse, they were told that the Primate was in the neighbourhood,
and would pass along the road in his carriage. They then bethought that
if the subordinate had escaped, Providence had placed their great enemy
within their grasp, and they determined to murder him. The Archbishop’s
coach was driving along Magus Moor, about two miles from his own city,
and the party instantly pursued it. Sharp cried to the coachman to
drive hard; the pursuers fired several shots, overtook the coach, cut
the traces, disarmed and dismounted his attendants, and commanded Sharp
to come forth, that they might not injure his daughter, who was with
him in the coach. As he refused to move, they fired into the coach;
but he still clung to his daughter, who was screaming with terror. Then
they dragged him out, and he fell on his knees, and in piteous tones
implored them to spare his life, promising them forgiveness――anything,
if they would only show mercy: but they reminded him that he had
imbrued his hands in the blood of many innocent people for a period
of eighteen years, and that now he must die. A volley of shot was
discharged at him, and his death was completed with their swords. The
assassins, after rifling the coach and the Bishop’s clothes, remounted
their horses and rode off, leaving the Primate’s daughter lamenting
over his mangled body on the moor.¹
¹ Kirkton’s _History_, pages 403‒421; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume III., pages 41‒51.
There were a few persons in Scotland who approved of this foul deed,
but the majority of the people regarded it as an atrocious murder.
There were not many, however, who greatly lamented the fate of Sharp,
and long afterwards some people thought that he deserved his cruel end.
Assassination and murder cannot be justified under any circumstances,
and must in all cases be emphatically condemned.
The murder of Sharp afforded the government a fresh excuse for greater
severities against the nonconformists and all who attended field
meetings. A reward was offered for the apprehension of the murderers,
but they had fled to the west, where they were joined by others, and
prepared to resist the authorities. The Privy Council immediately
emitted proclamations against armed conventicles; but the people of
the west were past the stage of being deterred by proclamation, as
they were ripe for insurrection. A few of the most determined agreed to
give what they called “a public testimony against the government,” and
arranged to meet on the 29th of May, the anniversary of the Restoration.
A party of eighty armed men marched into the burgh of Rutherglen,
extinguished the bonfires, blazing in honour of the day, burned
the Rescissory Act, and the acts establishing episcopacy, and then
read their declaration and affixed it upon the market cross. In this
manifesto they gave their testimony――“1. Against the Rescissory Act,
for overthrowing the whole Covenanted Reformation. 2. Against the
acts for erecting and establishing of abjured prelacy. 3. Against that
declaration imposed upon, and subscribed by, all persons in public
trust, wherein the Covenants are renounced and condemned. 4. Against
the Act and Declaration, published at Glasgow, for ejecting of the
faithful ministers who could not comply with prelacy, whereby three
hundred and upwards of them were illegally ejected. 5. Against that
presumptuous act for imposing an holy anniversary day, as they call
it, to be kept yearly on the 29th of May, as a day of rejoicing
and thanksgiving for the King’s birth and restoration, whereby the
appointers intruded upon the Lord’s prerogative, and the observers
have given the glory to the creature that is due to our Lord and
Redeemer, and rejoiced over the setting up of the usurping power,
to the destroying of the interest of Christ in the land. 6. Against
the Explicatory Act of 1669, and the sacrilegious supremacy enacted
and established thereby.”¹ It may be observed that there is truth and
force in this manifesto, especially as to the act of supremacy and the
anniversary of the Restoration.
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 52‒59, 66‒67.
A field meeting was to be held at Loudon Hill, in Clydesdale, on
Sunday the 7th of June, 1679. Captain Graham of Claverhouse was then
at Glasgow, and hearing of their design, he resolved to disperse the
meeting. The services of the day were begun, when the watch gave the
alarm that a body of troopers was approaching, and shortly Graham’s
dragoons appeared on the rising ground. At this meeting of the
Covenanters there were some men, such as Hackston, Balfour, and William
Cleland, who possessed marked fighting abilities; and the assemblage
determined on battle. After sending the women and children to the rear,
the fighting men advanced to a swampy piece of ground and took up their
position. A sharp but short skirmish ensued, Graham being completely
defeated, and upwards of twenty of his troopers slain. The event
is known in history as the battle of Drumclog. Encouraged by this
success, they marched the following day upon Glasgow, but were unable
to take it, and retired towards Hamilton, where they formed a camp.
The outbreak threatened to assume serious proportions, as many from
Ayrshire, Galloway, and other parts of the country joined them, and in
a few days four thousand men were assembled. They had been driven to
desperation. The extreme party of the government had at last produced
what they probably desired――a general insurrection, which gave them
an opportunity of insisting on the utmost extremity of persecution
against the presbyterians. The government quickly prepared to meet the
emergency. Intelligence of every movement of the rebels was promptly
sent to London; and it was deemed necessary to commission the Duke
of Monmouth, the King’s natural son, to command the royal army and
suppress the rebellion.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 68‒99.
The Duke arrived at Edinburgh on the 18th of June, 1679, and
immediately placed himself at the head of the army. He marched westward
on the 21st, and came within sight of the insurgents, lying on Hamilton
Moor. The insurgents, however, were divided among themselves. There
was bitter dissension concerning the indulgence; some proposing to hold
a fast day to mourn for their sins, but on this all could not agree;
while others were for recognising the King according to the Covenant,
and others insisted on renouncing him. There was little discipline
amongst them, and no united front was presented, when, on the 22nd of
June, the royal army appeared on the opposite side of the Clyde. After
much debate it was agreed to petition the Duke for terms of peace;
but they found that his instructions demanded their immediate and
unconditional surrender. These tidings increased the confusion amongst
them; Hamilton, who had assumed the command, was opposed to any
proposal of peace with an uncovenanted King; others were inclined to
yield; but they came to no final resolution, and returned no answer to
the Duke. The royal army, therefore, advanced to the attack, and the
presbyterians were utterly defeated. Many were slain in the flight, and
more than a thousand taken prisoners. The insurgent army being badly
led, suffered severely.¹
¹ Kirkton’s _History_, pages 461‒472; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume III., pages 99‒111.
The following day the prisoners, tied two and two were driven into
Edinburgh, and placed in the Greyfriars Churchyard, where they were
kept in the open air for several weeks. Two of the ministers were
hanged at the Grassmarket; and five of the other prisoners were
executed on Magus Moor, on the 18th of November, as an atonement for
the murder of the Primate. Those of the prisoners who acknowledged that
the rising was a rebellion, and signed a bond promising to keep the
peace and not rise again against the King’s authority, were liberated;
but upwards of two hundred, who refused to sign the bond, were crammed
into a ship and transported to Barbadoes, to be sold as slaves in the
plantations.¹
¹ _Proceedings of the Privy Council_; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume III., pages 123‒140.
Many others suffered severely for being at Bothwell Bridge, or
otherwise implicated in the rising. For about two months after this
event, the soldiers committed many outrages upon the people, and
sometimes upon innocent individuals and families.
In August an indemnity was offered to all who had been in the
rebellions of 1666 and 1679, upon condition of promising not to rise
again in arms against his Majesty’s authority, and of ceasing from
attending field meetings in the future. In July, an act was published
by the authority of the King, permitting the presbyterian ministers not
yet indulged to preach and administer the communion, if they refrained
from holding field meetings. This indulgence, however, was soon
withdrawn: and it appears that many failed to take advantage of it
from principle and conviction, and some from other reasons.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 111‒122, 140‒146,
147‒157.
The difference between the two parties of the presbyterians had become
more marked. Some of the extreme party had always protested against
the indulgence; and they now took up a position apart from those of
more moderate views, and unhesitatingly proclaimed and carried out
their own principles. Donald Cargill was their first leader, and after
him Richard Cameron and James Renwick may be mentioned as the heads
of the party. This body was variously designated in the records of
the time, as The Wild Whigs, The Wanderers, The Faithful Remnant,
Covenanters, The Hillmen, The Cameronians, Macmillanites, and in
later times Reformed Presbyterians, and other names. They were a bold,
uncompromising, and determined class of men, who clung consistently and
bravely to their creed and to their principles. They were not merely
content to resist some of the measures of the government, they adopted
a bolder line of action. They treated the offer of indulgence with
scorn; they refused to pay taxes; and at last they renounced their
allegiance to a King, who had utterly broken his Covenant engagements,
and, by his tyrannical government, had forfeited his right to the
throne; and therefore, they declared war against him and his government.
They declined to hold communion with the moderate presbyterians, and
formed themselves into a number of societies, and calling themselves
The Society People. They exhibited much capacity for business and
organisation; and they may be truly described as the party of honesty
and vigour in the nation, amid the wreck of character, of time-serving,
and of corruption, which then prevailed.
The government continued the persecution of those who attended field
meetings and absented themselves from the parish churches. On the 22nd
of June, 1680, about twenty of the Whigs, headed by Cameron and Cargill,
marched into the town of Sanquhar with drawn swords, halted at the
market cross, and read and then posted up a declaration, in which they
disowned Charles Stuart, because of his tyranny and his perjury――“For
which reasons, we declare, that several years since he should have been
denuded of being king, ruler, or magistrate, or of having any power to
act or to be obeyed as such. As also, we being under the standard of
our Lord Jesus Christ, Captain of Salvation, do declare a war with such
a tyrant and usurper, and all the men of his practices, as enemies to
our Lord Jesus Christ, and his cause and covenants, and against all
such as have strengthened him, sided with him, or any way acknowledged
him in his tyranny, civil or ecclesiastical――yea, against all such as
shall strengthen, side with, or any way acknowledge any other in the
like usurpation and tyranny, far more against such as would betray
or deliver our free reformed mother Church into bondage.... As also,
we disown, and by this resent the reception of the Duke of York, that
professed papist, as repugnant to our principles and vows to the most
high God, and as that which is the great, though not the only, just
reproach of our Church and nation. We also by this protest against his
succession to the throne; and in whatever has been done, or any one
essaying to do in this land, given to the Lord, in prejudice of our
work of reformation. And to conclude, we hope after this none will
blame us for, or be offended at, our rewarding those that are against
us, as they have done to us, as the Lord gives opportunity.”¹
¹ Given at Sanquhar, June 22nd, 1680.
This renunciation called forth a royal proclamation, offering large
rewards for the apprehension of Richard Cameron, his brother, Cargill,
and Thomas Douglas, dead or alive. The army harassed all nonconformists
throughout the country, and inflicted great suffering upon many besides
those who had joined the Society People. On the 20th of July, 1680,
a company of about sixty of the Society People, or Cameronians, was
surprised by an overwhelming number of the royal army at Ayrsmoss,
in the parish of Auchinleck. They fought bravely, but they were all
cut down, wounded, or taken on the spot; Richard Cameron himself,
his brother, and others were slain. But Hackston of Rathillet, who
had acted as the leader in the scuffle, was conveyed to Edinburgh a
prisoner, with the head of Richard Cameron carried in triumph before
him. Shortly afterwards Hackston and other prisoners were sentenced to
death; and the execution of Hackston, by the instructions of the Privy
Council, was carried out in a most shocking and cruel way.¹
¹ _Records of the Privy Council_, 1680; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume III., pages 215‒223. Hackston himself gives an account
of the affair at Ayrsmoss, which is printed in _Wodrow_,
Volume III., page 219.
The remnant of the Whigs, though savagely persecuted, still stood firm,
unshaken and untouched in their faith and in their principles. In
September, 1680, they held a great meeting with Cargill, their minister,
at the Torwood in Stirlingshire. He delivered one of his stirring
sermons to an eager assemblage of listeners; and then excommunicated
the King, the Duke of York, the Duke of Lauderdale, General Dalziel,
the Earl of Rothes, the Duke of Monmouth, and the Lord-Advocate, for
their breach of the Covenant and their persecution of God’s people.
It should be observed that the main body of the presbyterians had no
concern in these proceedings; as they disapproved of the extreme steps
taken by this party. The government exerted itself more than ever to
suppress field meetings, and to get hold of the daring preacher Cargill.
On the 5th of May, 1681, Cargill held a fast near Loudon Hill, and
escaped at that time. But in July he was taken and conveyed to Glasgow
by a party of soldiers; thence he was carried to Edinburgh. He was
then brought before the Council and interrogated at length. He denied
that the rising at Bothwell Bridge was a rebellion against the King;
as he deemed it right to rebel in cases of necessity; those who rose
at Bothwell were oppressed, and therefore rose in their own defence.
Interrogated touching the King, he said that he was not obliged to obey
his government, as it was then established by the act of supremacy;
when asked if he owned the excommunication of the King, he refused
to answer. He was tried before the Court of Justiciary on the 26th of
July, condemned, and sentenced to be executed the following day. He
was hanged along with other four Covenanters, all of whom left their
testimony behind them.¹
¹ _Records of the Privy Council_; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume
III., pages 278‒284; _The Cloud of Witnesses._
In the end of October, 1680, the Duke of York arrived in Scotland,
and was warmly welcomed by the orthodox clergy. During the few months
of his sojourn in Scotland before, the Privy Council were so much
impressed with his goodness, that they gave him an exceedingly high
character to his royal brother, on the occasion of his leaving for
England, of which the following is a specimen:――“The remembrance
of having been under the protection of your royal family above two
thousand years, of having been preserved, by their valour, from the
slavery to which others were so often reduced, and of having received
from their bounty the lands which we possess, has been very much
refreshed and renewed by having your royal brother among us, in whom
we have seen the moderation of spirit and equality of justice that is
remarkable in your sacred race, and has raised in us a just abhorrence
of those seditious persons and pernicious principles which would lead
us back to those dreadful confusions which grew up by degrees, from
tumultuary petitioners for reformation and parliaments, to a rebellion
that in the last age destroyed both, and which must do so still, since
all who think that subjects should direct their king, design nothing,
in effect, but to be kings themselves: the convictions of all which
did prevail so far with all degrees of persons, and with persons of all
persuasions here, that it has been observed our nobility and gentry of
both sexes attended their royal highnesses with much joy and assiduity,
expressed in all their confluences great respect and satisfaction, that
even the most malicious abstained from all manner of rebellious risings
and undutiful speeches: no breach of the peace, no libel, no pasquil,
having been ever discovered during his abode here; so that this too
short time has been the most peaceful and serene part of our life,
and the happiest days we ever saw, except your Majesty’s miraculous
restoration.”¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 23, 3‒234;
Fountainhall’s _Notes_, page 3.
All had not so high an opinion of the Duke as the members of the Privy
Council. He desired to strengthen his prospective claim and title to
the throne; and, as it was thought that the Estates would oblige him,
and do what they were ordered, a parliament was summoned, which met at
Edinburgh in the end of July, 1681, and when the Duke of York assumed
his place as royal Commissioner. After disposing of various preliminary
matters, on the 13th of August, an act touching the right of succession
to the imperial Crown of Scotland was passed. This act repeated the
assertion “that the kings of the realm derived their royal power from
God alone,” and succeeded to it by lineal descent, which could not
be altered without involving the nation in perjury and rebellion.
That no difference in religion, nor law, nor act of parliament, could
divert the right of succession of the Crown from the nearest heir;
and that all who contradicted or in any way opposed this, should
incur the penalties of high treason. Another act imposed new and more
severe penalties on all who attended conventicles. It authorised the
proprietors of land to turn any of their tenants or cottars out of
their holdings without warning, and at any time of the year, if they
were implicated in field conventicles. The landlords were also enjoined
to retain as much of the goods and stock of their tenants, cottars, or
servants, as would pay the fines and penalties incurred by them under
the acts of parliament. The Test Act, which was re-enacted and passed
on the last day of August, caused much stir. It provided that all
persons in public office, from the highest to the humblest, should
swear that they sincerely professed the true Protestant religion, as
contained in the Confession of Faith, recorded in the first parliament
of James VI., 1568; and that they believed the same to be founded on
the written word of God; and to swear that the King’s power was supreme
in all cases and over all persons, that they would maintain and defend
this to the utmost of their power; and solemnly swear that it was
unlawful on any pretence to enter into covenants, to hold meetings, or
to treat of and discuss government, without the King’s licence. A part
of the Test Act may be quoted:――“I further affirm and swear by this
my solemn oath, that I judge it unlawful for subjects, upon pretence
of reformation or any pretence whatever, to enter into covenants or
leagues, or to assemble in any meeting to treat, consult, or determine,
in any matter of State whatever, without his Majesty’s special command
or express licence; or to take up arms against the King or those
commissioned by him; and that I shall never so rise in arms, or enter
into such covenants or assemblies; and that there lies no obligation
on me from the National Covenant, or Solemn League and Covenant, or in
any other way whatever, to endeavour to change or alter the government,
either in Church or State, as it is now established by the laws of the
kingdom. And I promise and swear that I shall to the utmost of my power
defend, assist, and maintain his Majesty’s jurisdiction against all
deadly: and I shall never decline his Majesty’s power and jurisdiction,
as I shall answer to God. Finally, I affirm and swear, that this my
solemn oath is given in the plain genuine sense and meaning of the
words, without any equivocation, mental reservation, or any kind of
evasion whatever; and that I shall not accept or use dispensation from
any creature whatsoever. So help me God.”¹ The act was hurried through
parliament, and it contained such a jumble of inconsistencies that
some declined to sign it. Some of the clergy refused to take the test,
and left their parishes; and others only took it with limitations and
explanations. The Earl of Argyle took it in so far as it was consistent
with itself: and stated that he could not bind himself from doing
what he deemed requisite and consistent with the Protestant religion,
and the duty of a loyal subject. For this he was charged with high
treason, on the ground of giving the act a different meaning from what
parliament intended it to bear. Argyle was tried and convicted, but he
escaped from the Castle of Edinburgh on the 20th of December, 1681, and
fled to Holland. On the 23rd of December, 1682, sentence of death was
pronounced against him, and his coat of arms was defaced.²
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
231‒245.
² Fountainhall’s _Notes_, page 20; Burnet’s _History of His Own
Time_, Volume II., pages 309‒314. The Duke of York was blamed
for encouraging the proceedings against Argyle. “The Duke
seeing how great a man the Earl of Argyle was in Scotland,
concluded it was necessary for him either to be gained or
to ruin him. Argyle gave him all possible assurance that
he would adhere to his interest in everything except in
the matter of religion.... This was well enough taken in
show, but Argyle said he observed ever after such a visible
coldness and distrust that he saw what he might expect from
him.”――_Burnet_, page 295.
In the beginning of the year 1682, a party of the Society People
entered the town of Lanark, and published a declaration of their
principles, and then burned the Succession and Test Acts. They styled
themselves in this declaration, “the Presbyterians of the Church of
Scotland.” Two days after, the Privy Council ordered the Solemn League
and Covenant, and the declarations published at Rutherglen, Sanquhar,
and Lanark, to be burned by the common hangman at the Cross of
Edinburgh, and the magistrates in their robes attended to see this
executed. Thus the government and the Society men imitated each other
in their modes of manifesting their contempt.
Throughout the years of 1682 and 1683 the troops continued to harass
the people; and as they were invested with irresponsible powers, they
caused terror in many a quiet home. They pillaged farm-houses, exacted
free quarters, levied enormous fines, and seized the refractory as
prisoners. Amid these wretched scenes the worst passions of the human
breast were called into action, and fed and intensified; for the
soldiers wallowed in deeds of heartless cruelty and revenge; numbers
of the Society People were shot down without trial or process; and the
nation groaned under the yoke of dire oppression. But in spite of all
the suffering which the government inflicted on the Society men, they
still stood to their principles; and in October, 1684, they issued
a declaration directed especially against informers. In this they
affirmed their adherence to their former declarations, disowning
the authority of the King, and declaring war against him and all his
accomplices; but at the same time they stated――“that as we utterly
detest and abhor that hellish principle of killing all who differ
in judgment and in persuasion from us, so we look upon it as a duty
binding upon us to publish openly to the world, that forasmuch as we
are firmly and really resolved not to injure or offend any one, but
to pursue the ends of our covenants, in standing to our religious work
of reformation, and of our lives; yet we do hereby declare to all,
that whosoever stretches forth their hands against us, while we are
maintaining the cause and interest of Christ against the enemies,
in the defence of our covenanted Reformation, by shedding our blood
actually, either by authoritative commanding, such as councillors, and
especially the so-called Justiciary, generals of forces, adjutants,
captains, and all in civil and military power, who make it their work
to imbue their hands in our blood, or by obeying such commands――such as
bloody militiamen, malicious troopers, soldiers, and dragoons; likewise,
such gentlemen and commons who, through wickedness and ill-will, ride
and run with the foresaid persons, to lay search for us, or who deliver
any of us into their hands, to the spilling of our blood, enticing
morally, or stirring up enemies to the taking away of our lives, such
as purposely advise, counsel, and encourage them to proceed against us
to our utter extirpation, by informing against us wickedly, wittingly,
and willingly, such as malicious bishops and curates, and all sorts
of informers, who lay themselves out for the effusion of our blood,
together with all who in obedience to the commands of the enemies, at
the sight of us raise the hue and cry after us.... Finally.... Call to
your remembrance, that all that is in peril is not lost, and all that
is delayed is not forgiven. Therefore expect to be dealt with as ye
deal with us, so far as our power can reach.”¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 147‒149.
After what had been done in Scotland since the Reformation, after
what the people had suffered at the hands of their government, who can
affirm that the Society men were not in some degree excusable in taking
the course which they did? Whether was it best for the interest of
peace and civilisation that an absolute king should reign in undisputed
power over all in the Island, or that a measure of liberty and freedom
of opinion should be allowed to the people? This in one form or another
had become the problem which then filled all thoughtful minds in both
divisions of the Island, and was hastening on the crisis which drove
the ancient line of kings from the throne of their ancestors.
Though the policy of the government had really driven these bodies into
an attitude of defence, yet it seized upon their declaration as a good
pretext for crushing them as the enemies of order and peace. Immediate
steps were taken, and a series of acts were passed against the enemies
of the government, including the abjuration oath, an engine of the most
cruel persecution. All the men and women past the age of sixteen in the
southern and western counties were commanded to take this oath――“I ――――
do hereby abhor, renounce, and disown, in the presence of the Almighty
God, the pretended declaration of war, lately affixed at several parish
churches, in so far as it declares a war against his sacred Majesty,
and asserts that it is lawful to kill such as serve his Majesty,
in church, state, army, or country.” All who refused to take this
oath were to be put to death, whether in arms or not; and no one was
permitted to travel through the country without a certificate that
they had taken it in the presence of the commissioners authorised to
tender it. “And for further security and prevention of fraud, it is
hereby required that the users and havers of the foresaid certificate
shall be holden and obliged to swear that these are true and unforged
certificates, and that they are the persons mentioned and expressed
in them, if the same shall be required of them. Finally, for the
encouragement of such as shall discover any of the said traitors
and assassins, or any who have been accessory to this traitorous and
damnable paper, or to the publishing and spreading of the same, or to
have been a member of the said pretended societies and fellowships:
we hereby declare and insure them, and every one of them, who shall
discover any of these assassins and murderers, or pretended members,
a reward of the sum of five thousand merks Scots for each of them, who
shall be discovered, so as to be apprehended, and be found guilty.”
The instructions to the commissioners to examine all the inhabitants
on oath concerning the declaration of the Society men, and the matters
touching their suppression, were very minute, and must have greatly
harassed the people.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 150‒160.
The following is part of the commissioners’ instructions:――“2. If any
person own the principles, or do not disown them, they must be judged
at least by three. And you must immediately give them a libel and the
names of the inquest and witnesses, and they being found guilty, are
to be hanged immediately in the place according to the law. But at this
time you are not to examine any women, but such as have been active in
the said courses in signal manner, and these are to be drowned. 3. You
are to proceed against the absent men, not by denouncing them rebels,
but by holding them as confessed, upon a pecuniary mulct; and they
being thereupon discerned, conform to the King’s letter, their moveable
goods are to be inventured and sequestrated. 5. You must likewise
proceed against proprietors guilty of church disorders since their
former fining. And if they have not been adequately fined, you may
proceed against them for the surplus.... 7. If you find probation
against proprietors not yet debited, you may take them before you, both
as to the late rebellion and late conspiracy. 8. You are likewise to
cause the whole packmen, cadgers, and drovers, within the bounds of
your shire, find caution not to carry letters or intelligence to the
rebels, or to sell to them or give them ammunition, or supply them in
any other manner.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 164‒165.
The year 1685 opened in Scotland amid gloom and persecution. No one
was safe from the violence of the army; many were shot on the highways,
in the fields and mountains, and at their own doors. The reign of
Charles II. closed on the 6th of February, amidst a scene of oppression,
suffering, and corruption, unmatched in the worst times of the nation’s
history.¹
¹ Fountainhall’s _Notes_, pages 19‒122; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume IV., pages 182‒199.
The Duke of York now ascended the throne, and on the 10th of February,
a royal proclamation was read at the Cross of Edinburgh, announcing his
accession to the Scots, as “the only, the undoubted, and lawful King of
the realm.” In this singular proclamation the supreme authority of the
King was fully acknowledged, and the Privy Council, and other barons
with uplifted hands swore, “Humbly to obey, dutifully and faithfully
to serve, maintain and defend him, with our lives and fortunes, against
all deadly, as our only righteous King and Sovereign, over all persons,
and in all cases, as holding his imperial Crown from God alone.” James
dispensed with the coronation oath, lest it should seem that he in any
way derived his right and power from the people, and the dominant party
humoured him in all points.¹
¹ _Records of the Privy Council._ Touching the proclamation
of the King, Fountainhall says:――“See it in print, entitled
a proclamation of the sovereign authority, and not a
proclamation of him, lest that should seem to import that
the people had any hand in giving him his power. The English
proclamation reserved power to him to consider the bygone
errors and misgovernments, that he might redress them. The
Castle shot many guns, Mr. John Robertson preached a sermon,
and the Privy Council called for the seals, and broke them.
The Council sent Lord Drumlanrig, the treasurer’s son, who
after proved a vile traitor, and the clergy Dr. Law, to
condole the King’s death, and congratulate the present King’s
accession to the Crown” (page 123).
One of the peculiarities of the English Crown after the Reformation was
its assumption of the powers of the papacy. Such was its position when
the Stuarts succeeded to the throne. The notions of their divine right,
royal prerogative, and supremacy was enlarged and confirmed; and they
claimed the sole right to command, the simple duty of every subject
being to obey their divinely-appointed and anointed head. These claims
of the Crown were at the root of the struggles from the accession of
James VI. to the period now under review. It was reserved for the man
who had just succeeded to the throne of three kingdoms to give the
culminating touch to the idea of the “divine right of Kings.” He was
suffered to play his tune for a few years, until he lost the confidence
of the English nation, and, finding the influences of the revolutionary
movement too strong for him, he was forced to flee for refuge to the
representative of that system against which the English and the Scots
were contending. Then he was made to feel that his ideas were not in
accordance with the national sentiment of the people, or with their
best and highest aspirations.
The persecution of the Society People and of the Presbyterians still
continued under the new reign. Parliament met at Edinburgh on the
23rd of April, 1685, and directly proceeded to legislate in accordance
with the views of the new King. The Duke of Queensberry was royal
commissioner, and opened the proceedings by reading the King’s letter,
which he supported by a speech of his own, making the following
reference to the nonconformists and the Society People――“My lords,
his Majesty certainly expects from the prudence and loyalty of this
parliament, that effectual means will be fallen upon for destroying
that desperate, fanatical, and irreclaimable party, who have brought
us to the brink of ruin and disgrace, and are no more rebels against
the King than enemies of mankind, wretches of such monstrous principles
and practices as past ages never heard, nor those to come will hardly
believe: what indemnities and acts of grace and clemency have they not
contemned? and all the use they made of them has still been to harden
and confirm them in their execrable ♦villainies; and how inconsiderable
soever they appear, assure yourselves they ought not absolutely to
be contemned, for if they had not support and correspondence not yet
discovered, it is not to be supposed that they could have so long
escaped the care and vigilance of the government: it therefore concerns
you both in honour and prudence, no longer to dally with them, but that
the utmost severities be most effectively applied, and always taken
to find out their favourers, and retired and secret haunts.” The Lord
Chancellor, the Earl of Rothes, also spoke and described the enemies of
the government in these words:――“We have a new sect sprung up amongst
us from the dunghill, the very dregs of the people, who filled by
pretended inspiration, and instead of the temple of the Lord, have
nothing in their mouths but the Word of God, wresting that blessed
conveyance of His holy will to us, to justify a practice suggested to
them by him who was a murderer from the beginning, who, having modelled
themselves into a commonwealth, whose idol is that accursed paper, the
Covenant, and whose only rule is to have none at all, have proceeded to
declare themselves no longer his Majesty’s subjects, to forfeit all of
us, who have the honour to serve him in any considerable station....
It is how to rid ourselves of these men, and of all who incline to
their principles, that we are to offer to his Majesty our advice, and
concurrence, and utmost assistance.” After more reproaches in a similar
strain, let us hear what he says about the character of the King, by
contrast to the description of the Covenanters. “To encourage us to do
all we can towards the service and the honour of our glorious monarch,
let us consider him in all his personal advantages. Whether in what
relates to war or peace, where has the world afforded such another? One
whose natural endowments have been improved by his great experience at
home and abroad, in armies and in courts, by the greatest trials of the
most differing kinds, those of prosperity and success, and of adversity
and opposition, of hazard and toil, and of authority and command. Did
ever man show so exact an honesty in the strictest adhering to his word,
such temperance and sobriety, so indefatigable a diligence in affairs,
so undaunted a courage upon all occasions, and so unwearied a clemency
towards the most obstinate and malicious offenders? Did ever hero
complete the character so fully, in overcoming bravely, and showing
gentleness to the vanquished? And I must say the triumphs of his
patience are not his obscurest glories, nor is the forgiving of
those whose virulent tongues would have tainted his fame, if their
malice could have reached it, what is least to be admired in him; what
reputation other princes have laboured for, at the vast expense of
blood and treasure, and putting of a constant restraint upon themselves,
sits so easily upon him, that what they would have he forces from the
consciences of his very enemies by his merit, and it costs him no more
than to be himself. But this theme is not for me; I do him wrong....
I am detracting from him here, by giving him too low a character. I
shall add that he gave to subjects the greatest example of loyalty
and obedience when he was one himself; and now he is an example to
all kings in his love, in his clemency, and in his care towards his
people. Let us give him the return of our love, our fidelity, and our
obedience.”¹
♦ “villanies” replaced with “villainies”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
451‒456; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 259‒263.
The Estates, in an act offering their duty and obedience to the King,
fully recognised his absolute power, and the antiquity of the nation.
The nation, it was said, had continued for upwards of two thousand
years in an unaltered form of monarchical government, under an
uninterrupted line of one hundred and eleven kings, whose sacred
authority and power had been signally owned and assisted by Almighty
God; and the kingdom protected from conquest, the laws vigorously
executed, and the lives and the property of the subjects securely
preserved. “These great blessings we owe in the first place to divine
mercy, and in dependence upon that, to the sacred race of our glorious
kings, and to the absolute authority wherewith they were invested
by the first and fundamental law of our monarchy.” It was only when
a rebellious party invaded the absolute authority of the kings that
the peace and prosperity of the kingdom was disturbed. “Therefore the
Estates of parliament judge themselves obliged to declare, and they
do declare, to the world, that they abhor and detest the authors and
actors of all preceding rebellions against the sovereign, and also all
principles and positions which are contrary or derogatory to the King’s
sacred, supreme, absolute power, and authority, which none, whether
persons or collective bodies, can participate of, in any way, or upon
any pretext, but in dependence on him and by commission from him. As
their duty formerly did bind them to own and assert the just and legal
succession of the sacred line as unalterable by any human jurisdiction,
so now on this occasion, they for themselves and the whole nation
represented by them, in most humble and dutiful manner, do renew the
hearty and sincere offer of their lives and fortunes to assist, to
support, to defend, and to maintain King James VII., their present
glorious monarch, and his heirs and lawful successors in the possession
of their crowns, sovereignty, prerogatives, authority, dignity, rights,
and possessions, against all mortals; therewithal to assure all his
enemies, who shall adventure on the disloyalty of disobeying his laws,
or on the impiety of invading his rights, that these shall sooner weary
of their wickedness, than they of their duty, being firmly resolved to
give their entire obedience to his Majesty without reserve, against all
his enemies.” As tangible evidence of their desire to serve the King,
they annexed the inland excise to the Crown for ever; and then passed
a series of acts against the Covenanters and all the enemies of the
government.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
459‒460.
Two acts were passed to facilitate processes of treason, in one of
which it was stated that persons who refused to give evidence in cases
of treason, conventicles, and church irregularities, should be liable
to be punished as guilty of these crimes themselves. Another act
declared that the giving or taking of the National Covenant, or the
Solemn League and Covenant, defending or owning them as lawful, should
involve the penalties of treason. It was farther enacted, that all
who preached at conventicles and all who attended them, should be
punished by death and confiscation of their goods. Husbands were made
responsible for the attendance of their wives at church, and liable for
their fines; while the Test Act was renewed with some additions.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 460‒461, 471.
Before parliament rose, the Earl of Argyle had arrived in Scotland.
He had entered into the plans of the exiles in Holland, and in concert
with the Duke of Monmouth, concocted an invasion of Britain. But the
attempt utterly failed. Argyle himself was captured on the 18th of June,
and carried to Edinburgh; and the King and Council having determined to
put him to death, according to the terms of his former sentence, he was
beheaded on the 30th of June, 1685. The people expressed much sympathy
for him, while many looked upon his execution as a murder.¹
¹ Fountainhall’s _Notes_, pages 134, 137; Burnet’s _History of
His Own Time_, Volume III., pages 26‒29.
This unsuccessful attempt at rebellion only increased the number
of sufferers. The prisons were crowded with people incarcerated for
nonconformity and rebellion, and huddled together without distinction
of sex, in a most wretched condition. In September, 1685, about one
hundred of these prisoners were shipped for New Jersey. But on the
passage fever broke out and when, after four months’ sailing, they
reached the New World, only forty of them were alive. Fortunately the
magistrates of New Jersey declared that they were freemen; and so in
a foreign land, they enjoyed that liberty and peace which had been
ruthlessly denied to them at home.¹
¹ Fountainhall’s _Notes_, page 144; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume
IV., pages 331‒336.
The King had already not only shown that he was a firm Roman Catholic
himself, but also manifested an intention to favour all who professed
that creed, and to turn England and Scotland back to the principles of
Roman Catholicism. To appear consistent, he proposed that all should
have liberty of conscience, and then expatiated on the blessing which
would result from a universal toleration of religious opinions, hoping
thereby to secure a better chance of promoting the cause of Catholicism,
and of finally re-establishing it.
The Scottish parliament was opened at Edinburgh on the 29th day of
April, 1686, the Earl of Moray, a recent convert to Catholicism, acting
as royal commissioner. He placed the King’s letter before the Estates,
in which his Majesty stated what he desired them to pass into law.
After a brief reference to matters of trade and commerce, and to
acts of mercy to his enemies, the royal letter announced:――“We cannot
be unmindful of others of our innocent subjects, those of the Roman
Catholic religion, who have with the hazard of their lives and fortunes
always assisted the Crown in the worst rebellions and usurpations,
though they lay under discouragements hardly to be named: them we do
heartily recommend to your care, to the end that, as they have given
good experience of their true loyalty and peaceable behaviour, so by
your assistance they may have the protection of our laws, and that
security under our government which our other subjects have, not
suffering them to lie under obligations which their religion cannot
admit of.... So not only expecting your compliance with us, but that
by the manner of it, you will show the world your readiness to meet our
inclinations.” The Scotch parliament had indeed been servile for many
years, but it seemed hardly prepared for this demand; so in answering
the King’s letter it proceeded, touching that part “relating to your
subjects of the Roman Catholic religion, we shall in obedience to your
Majesty’s commands and with tenderness to their persons take the same
into our serious and dutiful consideration, and go as great lengths
therein as our consciences will allow, not doubting that your Majesty
will be careful to secure the Protestant religion established by
law.” A bill was prepared, and passed the Lords of the Articles, which
proposed that the Roman Catholics should have the protection of the
government and the laws, and be permitted to exercise their religion
without incurring any punishment. The bill was debated in parliament,
but it was not passed.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
576‒582; Fountainhall’s _Notes_, pages 171, 179.
When parliament had declined to do what the King desired, he thought
that in virtue of his royal prerogative, he could do it himself.
He accordingly commanded the Privy Council to authorise the Roman
Catholics to exercise their religion, and to protect the chaplains and
others whom he had placed in the chapel of Holyrood house. There was
some opposition to this in the Council; but it was resolved that the
King’s authority was sufficient to suspend the penal laws; they held
that he was accountable only to God, and therefore they must obey him.¹
¹ Fountainhall’s _Notes_, pages 192‒193.
By the beginning of 1687 the persecution of the presbyterians was
abated; though the laws for punishing the Society People were still
in force. On the 13th of February, a royal proclamation was emitted at
Edinburgh, in the following strain:――“We by our sovereign authority,
prerogative royal, and absolute power, which all our subjects are to
obey without reserve, do hereby give and grant our royal toleration
to the several professors of the Christian religion after-named, under
the conditions and limitations after-mentioned. In the first place, we
allow and tolerate the moderate presbyterians to meet in their private
houses, and there to hear all such ministers as either have or are
willing to accept our indulgence only, and none other, and that there
be not anything said or done contrary to the well and peace of our
reign, seditious or treasonable, under the highest penalties which
those crimes import; nor are they to build meeting-houses, but only
to exercise in their private houses. Meantime it is our royal pleasure
that field conventicles, and such as preach at them, or in any way
assist or attend at them, shall be prosecuted according to the utmost
severity of the laws against them, seeing, that from these rendezvouses
of rebellion so much disorder has proceeded, and so much disturbance
to the government.... In like manner, we do hereby tolerate Quakers
to meet and exercise their own form of religion in any place appointed
for them. And considering the severe and cruel laws made against Roman
Catholics, therein called Papists, in the minority of our grandfather
of glorious memory, without his consent and contrary to the duty of
good subjects, by his regents and other enemies to their lawful
sovereign, our royal great-grandmother, Queen Mary of blessed and pious
memory, wherein under the pretence of religion they clothed the worst
of treasons, factions, and usurpations, not against the enemies of God
but their own ... we therefore, with advice and consent of our Privy
Council, by our sovereign authority, royal prerogative, and absolute
power, suspend, stop, and disable, all laws and acts of parliament,
customs or constitutions, made against any of our Roman Catholic
subjects in past times, to all intents making void all prohibitions
therein mentioned or penalties therein ordered to be inflicted; so that
they shall in all things be as free as any of our Protestant subjects,
not only to exercise their religion, but also to enjoy all offices
and other posts which we shall think fit to bestow upon them.” The
proclamation went on to abolish the oaths of allegiance and the test;
and then announced “that it never was our principle, nor will we ever
suffer violence to be offered to any man’s conscience, nor will we use
force against any man on account of his religion, or the Protestant
religion.” James now proceeded rapidly with his work. On the 5th of
July, 1687, by his sovereign authority and absolute power, he suspended
all the penal laws against nonconformity. This afforded relief to the
presbyterians, many of whom were released from prison, and some of the
ministers who had been banished, shortly after returned to Scotland.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 417‒427.
The King had played his game so far with such success, that a party
of the presbyterian ministers and some of the citizens of Edinburgh
forwarded an address thanking him for putting an end to their long
sufferings for nonconformity. But the main body of the presbyterians
easily saw through the motive and design of the King’s policy of
toleration; as his scheme of reconverting the people of Great Britain
to Roman Catholicism was too palpable, and withal rather crude,
to deceive many of them. James claimed and assumed the power, not
merely of suspending laws, but also of repealing them; he was always
proclaiming that by his absolute power he had suspended this law and
that, and commanded something else to be put in their place. Being
conceited and self-willed, he fancied himself to be above the laws
and constitution of the kingdom; and when any refused to embrace his
unlawful projects, he became indignant and threatening.
The Society People soon recognised the real meaning of the King’s
toleration. What right had he to forbid or to allow them to preach the
gospel? They had a warrant from a higher Master, and therefore they
continued their field meetings, scorning alike the King’s claim of
absolute power and his denunciations against them. But Renwick, their
leader and preacher, was seized in the beginning of February, 1688, and
executed at Edinburgh on the 17th of that month; his death being the
last execution for religion in Scotland.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, pages 427‒429; Burnet’s _History of His
Own Time_, Volume III., pages 171‒178.
The great crisis had been long preparing, and when it was seen to
be nigh, great was the excitement in Scotland. As the convictions
and sentiments of the people had been long repressed, the rebound
threatened to be violent. The King had set up the Roman Catholic
worship in the chapel of Holyrood, and schools were also opened there
under the direction of Catholic priests. Although attempts were made
to suppress the Prince of Orange’s declaration, which was issued in
the middle of October, 1688, its import soon became known in Scotland.
All the forces in the kingdom had been summoned by the King to operate
against the Dutch invaders, who had landed in England in the beginning
of November. The Scottish bishops saw the dark clouds gathering; they
met at Edinburgh on the 3rd of November, and in an humble letter to
his sacred Majesty, prayed “that God in his mercy, who has so often
preserved and delivered your Majesty, will still preserve and deliver
you, by giving you the hearts of your subjects, and the necks of your
enemies.”¹
¹ Burnet’s _History of His Own Time_, Volume III., pages
309‒312; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 469‒470. The
Prince of Orange’s Declaration to the people of Scotland is
printed in Wodrow’s _History_. The chief points adduced in
it as reasons for William’s interference were――that where
the laws, the liberties, and the customs established by
the lawful authority were openly transgressed and annulled,
and especially when this was done with the aim of altering
religion, the peace and the happiness of the kingdom could
not be preserved; that the effects of arbitrary power and
evil counsel were manifest in the wretched condition of the
people of Scotland; that the fountain of justice had been
excessively corrupted, and the poor people mercilessly
punished.
Before the issue of the military operations in England was decided,
disturbances arose in Edinburgh. The Roman Catholics were insulted
on the streets; and placards were posted up threatening the ministers
of the Crown. The Earl of Perth, the chancellor and head of the Privy
Council, and an apostate, had been a servile tool to the King, and
therefore an object of hatred; but now his courage failed him, and
he fled to his own country residence. When at last it became clear
that the King’s cause was falling, crowds gathered on the streets
of Edinburgh, loud shouts were raised for a free parliament, and
the tumult increased; a few troops attempted to quell it, but were
overpowered. On Sunday the 9th of December, 1688, a great number
of students, apprentices, and others, appeared on the streets; and
the provost having refused to deliver the keys of the ports, they
threatened to burn his house. They then proceeded to the Market Cross,
and proclaimed a reward of four hundred pounds sterling to any one who
should seize the Earl of Perth and bring him there dead or alive.
The following day the Town Council issued a proclamation prohibiting
tumults on the streets, which was torn to tatters as soon as it was
read, and the officers and drummer prevented from going through the
town. The mob then prepared to attack the chapel in the palace of
Holyrood for the purpose of destroying the images. The attack was begun
in the evening, and after some bloodshed, the soldiers who guarded
the Abbey were overcome. The chapel was rifled, and the woodwork, the
images, the library, and everything in the interior which could be
readily removed, were taken out and burned. The next day the mob went
through all the houses of the Catholics in the city, demanding their
images, crosses, and books, and burned them on the streets. The Privy
Council, too, had changed their attitude, even before the final flight
of the King. On the 24th of December, they emitted a proclamation
calling upon all the Protestants in the kingdom to put themselves in
a position of defence, for securing their religion, their lives, their
liberties, and their property: thus the Council easily came round to
the popular side; while the body of the nation was already arrayed on
the side of the Prince of Orange.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 472‒476.
All kinds of alarming rumours were rife. It was reported that an army
of Irish Catholics was on the eve of landing on the coasts of Galloway,
and some said it was landed. The people dreaded a massacre; for the
Council had dissolved, the army had been marched into England, and
there was an utter collapse of authority. The people of the western
counties assembled in crowds, and proceeded to take the law into their
own hands. They had naturally determined to purge the Church, and the
unhappy curates became their victims. They began their work on the
25th of December, 1688; but some of the episcopal clergy had saved
themselves by flight, in other instances they were seized by bands
of men and exhibited in mock processions, their gowns torn over their
heads, and their prayer-books burned before their eyes; and finally,
they were ordered to be gone and never to return to the parish. The
rioters entered many of the manses, and having thrown the furniture out
at the window, and turned the inmates out at the door, took possession
of the keys. This work went on for several months, till almost every
parish in the west and in the south of the kingdom was relieved of its
episcopal incumbent. More than two hundred were thus removed from their
parishes and livings. The curates were subjected by the mob to some
rough usage, and though no life was taken, they were rendered homeless
with their wives and families, and many of them reduced to beggary.
But the violence of the Revolution, considering its antecedents, was
not great; and the only surprise is, that after twenty-eight years
of persecution and severe oppression, the people did not rise more
violently against their enemies. Indeed, the more moderate Covenanters
disapproved of these proceedings, and a general meeting of ministers
and elders was called for the purpose of preventing such excesses.
They agreed on a form of notice which in future was to be sent to every
curate, ordering him to quit his parish peaceably, else he would be
turned out by force.¹
¹ Burnet’s _History of His Own Time_, Volume III., page 344;
_An Account of the Present Persecution of the Church of
Scotland, in several Letters_, 1690; _The Case of the Present
Afflicted Clergy of Scotland Truly Represented_, 1690.
The presbyterian ministers held a general meeting at Edinburgh in
January, 1689, and agreed on a well-considered address to the Prince
of Orange. They thanked him for his exertions on behalf of the reformed
religion, referred to the innumerable evils and suffering which the
establishment of episcopacy had brought upon them and the nation, and
humbly beseeched him to adopt measures to free them from the yoke of
prelacy, and to restore the presbyterian polity as the most effectual
remedy against slavery and the distractions of the nation.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 481‒482.
Some of the Scotch nobles were in London when the Prince of Orange
reached it, and many others hastened there to offer him their service.
On the 7th of January, 1689, he requested them to meet him the next
day at Whitehall. The meeting was led by the Duke of Hamilton, and
consisted of about thirty lords and eighty gentlemen of note. The
Prince desired them to deliberate, and to inform him in what way he
could promote the peace and interest of their country, and then left
them to form their own conclusion unrestrained by his presence. They
debated three days. In the end they agreed to resolutions embodied in
an address to the Prince, requesting him to call a Convention of the
Estates at Edinburgh on the 14th of March, and meantime to take upon
himself the administration of the kingdom. To these requests he at once
acceded.¹
¹ _Sixth Collection of State Papers_, 1689; Sir J. Mackintosh’s
_History of the Revolution in England in 1688_, pages 574‒576.
Preparations for the Convention were immediately commenced, all parties
being anxious to return members to decide the future position of the
nation. The Roman Catholics were excluded from voting in the election
of members. King William assumed the power to summon to the Convention
several of the nobles, who had been deprived of their honours by
sentences which public feeling condemned as unjust, dispensed with
a number of other restrictions, and ordered that the members for the
burghs should be elected by a poll of all the adult inhabitants. The
Whigs secured a majority favourable to the Prince of Orange, though all
the bishops, and some of the nobles, clung to the cause of the fugitive
King. The latter party calculated on the support of the Duke of Gordon,
who commanded the Castle of Edinburgh, and on Viscount Dundee, whose
energy was well known and greatly feared, as they might attempt to
intimidate, or to disperse the Convention. The other party mainly
relied on the aid of the Cameronians from the west, if the necessity
for real action arose.¹
¹ Balcarres’ _Memoirs_.
The Convention assembled at the appointed time. Nine of the bishops
appeared as the representatives of the spiritual estate, forty-two
peers, forty-nine members for the counties, and fifty for the burghs.
The Bishop of Edinburgh opened the proceedings, and prayed that God
would assist them and restore King James. The election of a president
was next essayed. The supporters of James proposed the Marquis of
Athole; the Whigs proposed the Duke of Hamilton, who was elected by a
majority of forty. This indicated the drift of the Convention. About
twenty of the minority then deserted the cause of James, and joined
the majority. On the 16th, a letter from the Prince of Orange was read,
in which he expressed his desire that they would settle the religion
and liberties of the nation upon just grounds, in harmony with the
inclination of the people and of the public good. The Estates returned
a thankful reply. The same day, after some debate, a letter from King
James was read; but there was nothing in it to raise the hopes of
his adherents. He offered a pardon to those who returned to their
allegiance before the end of the month; while to others no mercy could
be shown. His adherents in the Convention were mortified, while his
enemies were vehement, and the sitting closed in great excitement.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 3‒5,
6; Balcarres’ _Memoirs_.
The citizens of Edinburgh were intensely agitated as well as the
members of the Convention. The Whigs had summoned the Duke of Gordon
to surrender the Castle, but he refused. He might at any moment open
a ♦cannonade on the Parliament House or the citizens, as it was known
that the Jacobites would not yield without a severe struggle, and
might attempt some desperate move. Viscount Dundee and Sir George
Mackenzie complained that their lives were in danger, alleging that
the Cameronians had resolved to slay them, and they applied to the
Duke of Hamilton for protection. When the Convention met on the 18th of
March, tidings were brought into the House that Viscount Dundee was on
the Stirling road with a troop of dragoons, and that he had been seen
conferring with the Duke of Gordon at the Castle gate. This news threw
the members into a state of violent alarm, and Hamilton, the president,
started to his feet and cried:――“It is high time that we should look
to ourselves. The enemies of our religion, and of our civil freedom,
are mustering all around us; and we may well suspect that they have
accomplices even here. Lock the doors. Lay the keys on the table. Let
no one go out but those lords and gentlemen, whom we shall appoint
to call the citizens to arms. There are some good men from the west
in Edinburgh, men for whom I can answer.” The majority of the members
shouted assent, and what he proposed was immediately done. Leven went
out and ordered the drums to be beat. The Covenanters promptly answered
to the call, and mustered in such numbers as overawed all the Jacobites
in Edinburgh. They protected the arrival of the Scotch regiments under
the command of General Mackay.¹
♦ “canonade” replaced with “cannonade”
¹ Balcarres’ _Memoirs_; _History of the late Revolution in
Scotland_, 1690.
The members of the Convention now prepared to settle the prime point
of the conflict. As usual, a committee was appointed to draft the acts;
and the special task of framing a plan for settling the government was
entrusted to eight peers, eight representatives of counties, and eight
representatives of the burghs, the majority being Whigs. They proceeded
to debate and frame the decisive resolution, which required some time
for deliberate consideration. The resolution of the Convention finally
assumed the following form:――“That James VII. was a professed papist,
that he had assumed the royal power and acted as king without ever
taking the oath required by law; and by the advice of evil and wicked
councillors he had invaded the fundamental constitution of the kingdom,
and altered it from a limited monarchy to an arbitrary and despotic
power, and did exercise the same to the subversion of the Protestant
religion, and the violation of the laws and the liberties of the
kingdom, whereby he forfeited his right to the crown, and his throne
has become vacant.” This resolution was accompanied by another, which
tendered the crown of Scotland to William and Mary. When the two
resolutions were put to the vote, nine voted against them, namely,
seven bishops, and other two members. Immediately after the vote
of the Convention, the new sovereigns were proclaimed at the Cross
of Edinburgh.¹ At the same time the Estates issued an order to the
parish ministers to intimate from their pulpits the contents of the
proclamation, and to pray for King William and Queen Mary, under the
penalty of deprivation.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 33,
38‒39.
The Scotch Convention, like the English parliament, embodied a Claim of
Right, to be presented along with the resolutions tendering the Crown
to the new sovereigns. It was meant to be declaratory of the law as it
then stood, and also, to state clearly what institutions and liberties
the late kings had infringed. The chief points of this important
document were these:――“That according to the laws of the kingdom no
papist could ascend the throne. That all proclamations assuming an
absolute power to suspend the laws were illegal. That the measures
employed to establish popery, the imposing of bonds and oaths, and the
exacting of money without the authority of parliament, Convention till
the were contrary to law. That it was illegal to invest the officers
of the army with judicial powers, to inflict death without trial,
jury, or record; to exact exorbitant fines or bail; to imprison without
expressing the reason, or to delay the trial; to prosecute and procure
the forfeiture of persons by the straining of old and obsolete statutes;
to nominate the magistrates and the common council of the burghs;
to dictate the proceedings of courts of justice; to employ torture
without evidence or in ordinary crimes; to garrison private houses, or
to introduce an hostile army into the country to live at free quarters
in a time of peace. That it was illegal to treat persons as guilty
of treason for refusing to state their private sentiments touching
the treasonable doctrines or actions of others. That prelacy and
the superiority of any office in the Church above presbyters is,
and has been, a great and insufferable grievance and trouble to this
nation, and contrary to the inclination of the majority of the people,
ever since the Reformation, when they were reformed from popery
to presbytery; and therefore prelacy ought to be abolished. The
rights of appeal to parliament, and of petition to the throne, were
asserted; frequent meetings of parliament were demanded; and all the
preceding points were declared to be undoubted rights against which
no declaration or precedent ought to operate to the injury of the
people.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
39‒40.
The convention empowered Hamilton to take any steps that might
be necessary for preserving the public peace till the end of the
interregnum; and the Estates then adjourned for five weeks. Thus the
Revolution was formally recognised in Scotland.