BOOK XII.

A.D. 1678-1679.

Privy council forbids emigration—Mitchell’s trial and execution—Highland

host—Committee of the council arrive at Glasgow—Deputation from Ayr

sent to the Commissioner—Bond refused—Committee proceed to Ayr—Earl

of Cassilis—Law-burrows—Case of Lord Cochrane—Ravages of “the

Highland Host”—Their return home—Earl of Cassilis goes to court—Duke

of Hamilton follows—Complaints dismissed—State of the country—Murder

of Sharpe.

Capricious as cruel in their tyranny, the council would neither allow

the Presbyterians to live peaceably at home, nor permit them to seek

liberty abroad, especially if they were persons of rank, whom they

wished to make participators of their tyranny as they could not induce

them to be willing associates in their crimes. Having learned that

several noblemen and others of high station, disgusted with their

proceedings, were preparing to leave the country, they issued a

proclamation, January 3, forbidding any person, lord or commoner, to

remove forth thereof upon any pretext whatsoever, without a special

license from them, under the highest penalties; and to make assurance

doubly sure, they ordered the principal among them, whom they considered

as their political rivals, or who were more moderate in their

principles, to attend “a committee of the privy council,” appointed to

accompany the forces in the west country, to receive their orders and

obey their commands.[91]

Footnote 91:

Numbers of the persecuted in England had left that country for

America, and were founding the states of New England, New Jersey,

Massachusetts, &c., which formed asylums for their brethren during

these perilous times. Many of the Scots who to Holland, also sought

refuge in the New World. But it would appear the Scottish prelatists

being, as all turncoats are, more violent than the English

persecutors, wished to retain their more conscientious countrymen at

home, that they might have the pleasure of tormenting them, and

enjoying the yet higher gratification of revelling on their fines. The

prohibition in Scotland was intended, besides, to answer another

purpose, to prevent any of the nobility proceeding to court without

leave; for Lauderdale knew well the advantage of engrossing the royal

ear.

Before proceeding to detail the transactions of this savage horde and

their directors, I shall advert to a transaction still more disgraceful

to the council, as setting at defiance all moral decency, and bursting

asunder every tie that gives security to society, which can only exist

well where the obligations both of the rulers and the ruled are held

sacred. I mean the trial and execution of James Mitchell.

Cowards are proverbially cruel, and the renegade primate was not

remarkable for courage. He seems to have been constantly haunted with

the terrors of assassination. Fearing his own treacherous “law-skreened

murders” might provoke some other resolute arm to retaliate, he could

not be at rest while Mitchell lived, and appears to have imagined that

the destruction of that poor man was necessary to secure his own safety.

He therefore resolved, by making an example of him, to show that the

sacred person of a priest was not to be threatened with impunity.

Accordingly, Mitchell was brought from the Bass to Edinburgh in the end

of last year, and received an indictment to stand trial for his attempt.

On January 7, 1678, he was brought to the bar of the Justiciary, where

Primrose, justice-general, sat as one of his judges, and Sir George

Mackenzie acted as accuser, both of whom were perfectly acquainted with

the promise of pardon which had been made. Primrose had been summoned as

a witness, but was dispensed with; and, had he possessed the smallest

particle of common feeling, or of common honesty, he would never have

consented to sit as a judge—much less would Mackenzie, who had acted as

his advocate on the former trial, have now come forward as his

prosecutor; yet so it was. Primrose, however, transmitted privately to

Mitchell’s advocates, a copy of the act of council in which the

assurance was contained. Lauderdale had been previously warned of its

existence by Kincardine. The pleadings, before entering upon the

evidence, were long and ingenious. His advocates, Sir George Lockhart

and Mr John Ellis, contended that the libel was not relevant,—as a mere

attempt, when unsuccessful, could never constitute the crime of murder;

that by the laws of this kingdom, by the civil law, and the common

opinion of civilians, it was not a capital offence, except in cases of

parricide or treason; and, besides, the act charged was assassination or

murder committed for hire—a term and a crime unknown in Scottish law;

nor is it charged against the prisoner that he was hired by any person

to commit the deed. As to the confession, if such a thing existed, which

the panel refused to acknowledge, it was extrajudicial, not being made

in presence of the assize, who are judges of the whole proof, and

therefore could not be admitted, unless taken together with the promise

of pardon by which it was elicited. But they especially insisted upon

the promise of pardon, as rendering any charge founded upon such

confession totally irrevelant.

The Lord Advocate replied, that, by act 16, parl. James VI. _nudus

conatus_, attempting and invading, though nothing followed, is found

relevant to infer the pain of death; and by the common law, an attempt

is capital, where the panel has been guilty of the proximate act, and

done all that it was in his power to do:—adding, most unfairly and

untruly, that Mitchell belonged to a sect that hated and execrated the

hierarchy, who deemed it lawful to kill persons of a prelatical

character; and he could prove that Mr James himself held such opinions,

which he endeavoured to defend by wrested places of Scripture, and

acknowledged that the reason why he shot at the archbishop was, because

he thought him a persecutor of the nefarious and execrable rebels who

appeared on the Pentland Hills. As to assassination not being known in

Scots law, the term might not be there, but the nation would be worse

than the Tartars, if lying in wait with a design to kill clandestinely,

where a person, after mature deliberation, ripens his villany and

watches his opportunity, if this should not be held in greater

detestation, and punished more severely than ordinary murder. As to

being hired, if taking money constitute the criminality of

assassination, how much greater is it when committed to earn a higher

reward. He that takes money to kill, will stab only in the dark, and

where he may escape; but the sun, and the cross, and the confluence of

all the world, cannot secure against the stroke of the murderer who

expects heaven as his reward, and thinks that the deed deserves it.

Respecting the promise of pardon, the promise of life from a judge, who

has not the power to grant it, is of no avail unless the panel can prove

that he expressly pactioned that his confession should not operate

against him; and a confession emitted without any such regular bargain,

is of no avail, even though the judge should promise life; for this

would be to make a judge a king.[92] As to the confession being

extrajudicial, so far from this being the case, it was taken by the

authority of the privy council, the highest judicatory of the nation,

uniting in itself the powers both of the Court of Session and the Court

of Justiciary; and if confessions emitted before the lords of session

are a sole, final, and plenary probation before the Court of Justiciary,

it were absurd to suppose that a confession emitted before the Privy

Council should not be deemed valid.

Footnote 92:

The advocate, as a proof that civilians were on his side, quoted

Ægidius Bossius, who, Titulo de Examine Reorum 15 and 16, says—“Judex

qui induxit reum ad confitendum sub promissione veniæ non tenetur

servare promissum in foro contensioso.” The judge who induces a panel

to confess, by a promise of pardon, is not bound to keep his promise

in a contested trial, which seems, says Lord Fountainhall in his

notes, “to be ane disingenous opinion.”

The court decided that the crime, as libelled, was relevant, _i. e._

sufficient, to infer the pains of law; but, at the same time, found that

the defence if proven was relevant to secure the panel of his life and

limb. There were no witnesses to establish the fact; his confession was

the only evidence adduced; to substantiate which, Rothes was first

examined, who deponed that he saw the panel sign the confession. Being

asked, whether or not his lordship did offer to the panel, upon his

confession, to secure his life, in these words, upon his lordship’s

life, honour, and reputation? he swore that he did not at all give any

assurance to the panel for his life, and that the panel never sought any

such assurance from him, nor did he remember receiving any warrant from

the council for that purpose. Upon this, Mitchell entreated the

Chancellor to remember the honour of the family of Rothes, and mind that

he took him by the hand, and said—“Jacobe, man, confess; and, as I am

Chancellor of Scotland, ye shall be safe in liffe and limb;” to which

all the answer returned by the Chancellor was, “that he hoped his

reputation was not yet so low as that what the panel said, either there

or elsewhere, would be credited, since he had sworn.” The panel,

however, still averred the contrary.

Lord Hatton, Lauderdale, and Sharpe swore to the same effect. When

Sharpe had done, Nicol Somerville, agent, brother-in-law to the panel,

boldly contradicted him, and bid him remember certain times and

expressions. The archbishop, who did not much relish getting his memory

so refreshed, “fell in a mighty chaff and passion, exceedingly

unbecoming his station and the circumstances he was then stated in, and

fell a scolding before thousands of onlookers. Nicol yielded in nothing;

and after the bishop had sworne, he cryed out that upon his salvation

what he had affirmed was true.” “And the misfortune was, that few there

but they believed Nicol better than the archbishop.”[93] Sir John

Nisbet, who was Lord Advocate at the time, and one of the committee who

examined Mitchell, summoned as a witness for the crown—probably to

prevent him from being adduced for Mitchell—was not called, Sir George

Mackenzie, it is likely, being afraid to trust him.

Footnote 93:

Fountainhall’s notes.

After the public prosecutor had declared his proof closed, the panel’s

advocates produced the copy of the act of council, and craved that the

books of council, which were lying in the next room, might be produced,

or the clerks ordered to give extracts, which they had formerly refused.

At this Lauderdale, who had no right to speak, “stormed mightily,” and

told the court “the books of council contained the king’s secrets, and

he would not permit them to be examined; he came there to depone as a

witness, not to be staged for perjury”—an unguarded remark, which must

have been understood by the judges as a plain confession that he knew he

had sworn falsely; yet, with a mean servility, they would not assert

their own dignity, nor do justice to the panel. They refused to grant

warrant for producing the registers, because not applied for before,

which Fountainhall observes “choaked both criminal law and equity, for

it is never too late to urge any thing in favour of a panel until the

assize be closed.” Sir George Lockhart defended him with admirable

strength of reasoning; and the trial, which is characterized as the most

solemn which had taken place in Scotland for a hundred years, lasted

four days. The jury returned a verdict, finding him guilty upon his own

confession; but the promise of pardon they found not proven. He was

condemned to be hanged on Friday the 18th of January.

On leaving court, the four “noble” witnesses proceeded to the

Council-chamber and inspected the books, where they saw the indelible

record of their own guilt and infamy, which still remains, and, like

convicted rogues, began each to vindicate himself. After a vain attempt

to fix it upon the late Lord Advocate, Nisbet, had failed, Lauderdale,

who seems to have had some compunctious visitations, proposed to grant a

reprieve, and refer the matter to the king. But the primate insisted

that if favour were shown to this assassin, it would be exposing his

person to the next murderer who should attempt it. “Then,” said

Lauderdale, “let Mitchell glorify God in the Grassmarket.”[94] He was

accordingly executed, pursuant to his sentence. Sharpe, whose vanity and

ambition were unbounded, aping an equality with royalty, had obtained an

order from court, that Mitchell’s head should be affixed on some public

place of the city, as if his crime had been high treason! But it was

told him what was pronounced for doom could not be altered; so he missed

this gratification. Nor did the fate of Mitchell tend to avert his own.

Mitchell’s misguided act was forgotten in the deeper and more deliberate

revenge of the archbishop, and in the atrocious breach of public faith

by the council. His dying declaration, widely circulated through the

country, exhibited such a view of the treachery and almost unexampled

perjury of the first ministers in the church and in the state, as

excited universal horror and execration.[95]

Footnote 94:

The usual place of execution at that time.

Footnote 95:

The question then much agitated—“The extraordinary execution of

judgement by private men”—was supported by an apophthegm borrowed from

Tertullian—“Every man is a soldier enrolled to bear arms against all

traitors and public enemies;” and by the authority of Dr Ames, who, in

his treatise on Conscience, published 1674, says—“Sometimes it is

lawful to kill, no public precognition proceeding, when the cause

evidently requires it should be done, and public authority cannot be

got: For in that case a private man is publickly constitute the

minister of justice, as well by the permission of God as the consent

of all men.” Mitchell, when questioned by the Chancellor, thus

defended his attack upon Sharpe—and it is easy to conceive that such

reasoning would appear irrefragable to a mind excited as his was—“I

looked upon him to be the main instigator of all the oppression and

bloodshed thereupon, and the continual pursuing after my own; and, my

lord, it was creditably reported to us (the truth of which your

lordship knows better than we) that he kept up his majesty’s letter

inhibiting any more blood upon that account, until the last six were

executed; and I being a soldier, not having laid down my arms, but

being upon my own defence; and in prosecution of the ends of the same

covenant [which he also had sworn] which was the overthrow of prelates

and prelacy; and I being a declared enemy to him on that account, and

he to me in like manner: as he was always to take his advantage of me,

as it appeareth, so I of him, to take any opportunity offered.

Moreover, we being in no terms of capitulation, but on the contrary,

I, by his instigation being excluded from all grace and favour,

thought it my duty to pursue him at all events.”

Upon the 24th of January, the threatened army, better known by the name

of “the Highland Host,”[96] assembled at Stirling. The Earls were their

colonels, who received a handsome pay; but the active officers were a

set of thievish lairds; and their retainers, wild savages, unacquainted

with any other law than the will of their chiefs, whose mandates they

obeyed without inquiry upon every occasion—only in the division of the

spoil, they sometimes helped themselves without waiting the directions

of their superiors. They amounted in all, including about two thousand

regulars and two thousand militia, to about ten thousand men, with four

field-pieces, and with a great quantity of spades, shovels, and

mattocks, as if they were marching to besiege fortified cities; their

daggers were formed to fasten on the muzzles of the muskets, as a kind

of rude bayonets, to attack cavalry; yet were they accompanied with

other instruments that betokened any thing but going to meet a regular

force—iron shackles and thumb-screws!

Footnote 96:

Because Highlanders formed the majority; the regulars or king’s guards

were the worst; the militia, although not good, seem to have been the

best, if any could be called best among them, unless it were that in

the act of plundering, they were not quite so fierce as the others.

“The debauched clargie thought it no shame to call thes dragoons the

ruling elders of the church.” Wodrow, MS. Advocates’ Lib. xl. art. 47,

quoted by Dr M’Crie. Mem. of Geo. Brysson, p. 275.

The approach of such an array amazed the peaceable inhabitants of the

west, nor were the military gentlemen themselves less astonished when

they passed through a country represented as in a state of rebellion,

but where they saw every thing perfectly loyal and tranquil.

Nevertheless, the mountaineers in their march, and during the time they

remained in the west, gratified the expectations of their employers to

the full. Behaving with the unbridled insolence of victorious

mercenaries in a conquered country, they made free with whatever they

wanted without ceremony, seizing every serviceable horse for the

transport of their baggage, even those at the ploughs in the midst of

the tillage, extorting money and beating and wounding whoever resisted,

without distinction. Nor were the few heritors who took the bond

exempted. They found, when too late, that they had violated their

consciences, or at least their consistency, in vain; and some of them

afterwards deeply lamented their compliance, regretting that they had

not rather, like the majority of their neighbours, taken quietly the

spoiling of their goods.

Their head-quarters were first at Glasgow, but the tumultuous bands soon

spread through Clydesdale, Renfrew, Cunninghame, Kyle, and Carrick.

Previously to their arrival, the ministers had held a day of fasting,

humiliation, and prayer. This the prelates represented as preparatory to

a communion, after which there was to be a general insurrection. The

report was soon discovered to be false, but it had quickened the advance

of the host, and was either believed, or pretended to be believed, by

Lauderdale; for, when a deputation from the nobility and gentry of

Ayrshire came to Edinburgh to represent to the council the tranquillity

and unimpeachable loyalty of the whole district, he would not so much as

give them audience; and when some of them offered to engage for the

peace of the shire, the proposal was peremptorily refused, and they were

informed that no compromise could be entered into, nothing less would be

accepted than that the whole of them present should instantly put their

signatures to the bond, and pledge themselves for all the other heritors

doing the same. The deputation could not promise for others, and they

returned to witness the authorized enormous disorders they had employed

every legal method in their power to prevent.

On the 28th of the month, the committee of council, armed with

Justiciary power, met at Glasgow to consider their instructions and

proceed to action.[97] They were directed to order the sheriffs of the

different counties to convene all the heritors, and require them to

subscribe a bond, obliging themselves, wives, bairns, and servants, as

also their haill tenants, and cottars, with their wives, bairns, and

servants, to abstain from conventicles, and not to receive, assist, or

speak to any forfeited persons, intercommuned ministers, or vagrant

preachers, but to use their utmost endeavours to apprehend all such,

promising, if any of their families or dependents should contravene, to

present them to the judge-ordinary that they might be fined or

imprisoned for their delinquencies. All who took the bond were to

receive a protection that their lands would not be quartered upon. They

were also to cause the leaders of the horsemen of the militia troops to

deliver to them the haill militia arms, and to disarm heritors and all

other persons, except privy councillors and military men; but noblemen

and gentlemen of quality were to be allowed to wear their swords. The

arms were to be lodged in the Castle of Dumbarton.

Footnote 97:

The committee consisted of the Marquis of Atholl, the Earls of Marr,

Murray, Glencairn, Wigton, Strathmore, Linlithgow, Airly, Caithness,

Perth, and Lord Ross, all of whom were commanders in the army, except

Glencairn and Wigton.

Framed as this bond was, it required no ghost to tell that it would not

generally be taken; and its refusal was looked forward to by the

government with joyful anticipation, as what would justify their

pressing it with a rigour that would produce the grand, much longed-for

consummation—a desperate resistance. But this was for the present

postponed—the disarming of the people, although not complete, prevented

any immediate outbreaking, while the example of the Duke of Hamilton,

Lords Loudon, Cochrane, and especially the constancy of Lord Cassilis,

encouraged the great body of the gentry to continue steadfast in

opposition to a bond which the council had exceeded their powers in

enacting, and could not legally oblige the lieges to subscribe without

the authority of parliament. Besides its illegality, these patriots

considered it cruel and degrading—cruel, in forbidding them to give

relief to Christian ministers, and others in distress, even though their

own relatives, and to shut up their bowels of compassion from them,

merely on account of difference of opinion about church

government—degrading, in desiring them to act as beadles or common

messengers at arms, without their own consent.

From Glasgow the committee proceeded to Ayr; and among their first

proceedings, they ordered the Earl of Cassilis to demolish all the

meeting-houses in Carrick. The Earl represented the probability of

opposition, and having been disarmed, requested that a party of

soldiers, or at least some of the neighbouring gentlemen, might be

ordered to protect him; even this reasonable request could not be

granted; and while he hesitated, a friendly councillor hinted that there

was but an hair’s-breadth between him and imprisonment. Such, however,

was the esteem in which this young nobleman was held, that the people

themselves demolished the offensive places of worship, rather than that

he should be troubled about them.[98] But the council, not willing that

he should get so quietly rid of the job, ordered him to bring back the

doors and all the timber of these meeting-houses, and burn it on the

spot where they had stood. his lordship complied with this useless but

tyrannically-teasing order.

Footnote 98:

The meeting-houses were not in common very costly fabricks. Like the

temple at Jerusalem, no mason’s iron was heard in their building,

being generally framed of rough unhewn stones, covered with turf; and

the people were thankful when the government did not interfere with

their cheap church-extension scheme. Stately cathedrals they asked

not, they cheerfully left them to the Romanists and the renegade

prelatical conformists, their brethren. Consecrated walls were words

unknown in their vocabulary, all they asked was shelter from the

weather and very humble accomodation for their wearied limbs. Nor did

they always ask even these; for their ministers, following the example

of Him whose servants they professed to be, oftener had the mountain

for their pulpit and the heavens for their sounding-board, than the

crimson-covered desk with velvet cushion and gilded canopy; while they

themselves were satisfied, if they could hear the gospel faithfully

preached, although on the mountain side, or in “divot theikit beilds.”

Notwithstanding the stubborn opposition it met with, the council

appeared determined to urge the bond, and issued a fresh proclamation,

February 11, forbidding any person to be received as a tenant or servant

without a certificate from the landlord or master they last left, or

from the minister of the parish, that they had lived orderly and

attended the parish church, and had not heard any of the vagrant

preachers, who without license impiously assumed the holy orders of the

church. To this was annexed a new bond of similar import with the

former, and as an encouragement, all the members of council signed it,

and appointed the lords of session to do the same when they met. Every

inducement proved ineffectual; and the reports of the commissioners

appointed to see their orders carried into execution, were by no means

satisfactory to the council. The arms were only partially delivered up,

and the bond would not at all go down; and what was the most vexatious

part of the business, it was decidedly rejected by some eminent lawyers

in the capital, and several of the chief nobility in Fife,

Stirlingshire, and Teviotdale. The report from Lanark, too, was

provoking beyond measure; of two thousand nine hundred heritors, only

nineteen of the smallest complied.

Perceiving at length that the opposition was too extensive, and based

upon principles which could not be sneered at as fanatical, Lauderdale

is said at one of their meetings to have bared his arm in fury, and

sworn by Jehovah that he would force them to take the bond. But it was

to be tendered in another shape, under the guise of a legal

quibble—probably the new Lord Advocate might have had the merit of

suggesting it; for certainly the scheme was more like the device of a

pettifogging attorney than the counsel of a sound statesman. When a

deadly feud had arisen between two neighbours, as the ancient Scots were

an ardent irascible race, it generally terminated fatally, and not

infrequently involved the whole relations in a species of domestic

warfare, which lasted for generations till one party was worn out or

gave in. To prevent these consequences, it had been enacted in the reign

of James II. and confirmed in the 7th parliament of James VI., that an

individual who feared bodily harm from another, by an application upon

oath to a magistrate, might obtain a “writ of law-burrows” to oblige the

person of whose violence he was apprehensive, to give security that he

should keep the peace, nor “skaith or damage” the applicant. This legal

pledge, a wise and necessary precaution to insure personal safety in

turbulent times, such as the frequent minorities of the Jameses had

produced, the council contrived to convert into a more oppressive

obligation than even the bond itself. Assuming an absurd legal fiction,

that his majesty and his government were put in bodily fear by the

persons who refused to take the bond, they issued writs of law-burrows,

not only against individuals, but against a county.

By additional instructions, the committee were directed to pursue all

heritors who had not taken the bond for all conventicles kept on their

lands since the 24th of March 1674—the fine to be exacted for each

conventicle being fifty pounds. They were also to summon them and their

tenants, &c. to answer for building, or being present at the building,

of any preaching-house—the fine imposed to be arbitrary. No nobleman or

gentleman who refused the bond was to be allowed to wear his sword, and

whoever delayed beyond six days to appear at the council-bar, after they

were summoned, were to be amerced in two years’ valued rent, and were

likewise liable for the delinquencies of their tenants and servants.

Immediately after this, a number of gentlemen in Ayrshire were summoned

before the committee, upon a charge of law-burrows; but while they made

the strongest professions of loyalty, they steadily resisted putting

their hands to a deed which they deemed illegal, irreconcilable with

their profession as Presbyterians, and impracticable with respect to all

their retainers and dependents. One of them, unfortunately his name is

not preserved, who had indignantly refused, on being told by the

president that, if he continued obstinate, the Highlanders, who had been

quartered upon a neighbouring gentleman’s property till he had complied,

would be transferred to his till he became convinced of the propriety of

obedience, replied, “he had no answer to that argument; but before he

would comply with the law-burrows, he would rather go to prison.”

Lord Cochrane was next before them. He had been served with an

indictment, charging him with encouraging field and house conventicles,

and conversing with intercommuned ministers; in a word, he or his wife,

or some of his family or tenants, had rebelled against the king by

attending upon the preaching of the gospel, impiously proclaimed by men

who owned no bishop, and who wore no surplice; and was called to answer

to the charge within twenty-four hours. His lordship objected to the

shortness of the time allowed to answer, and contended that, as his

indictment contained a capital charge, it was necessary the “diet” or

meeting should be prolonged, that he might have time to consult with his

advocates; and, when called to answer upon oath, declined to do so, “no

man being bound by any law to give his oath, where the punishment may be

in any way—corporis afflictiva, quia nemo est dominus membrorum

suorum”—destructive to the body, because nobody is lord of his own body.

The committee told him their diets were peremptory, _i. e._ their

meetings were fixed for certain times, and therefore the accused were

bound to answer upon the instant; but, at the same time, passed an

interlocutor, restricting the libel to an arbitrary punishment, _i. e._

declaring that whatever his lordship might depone should never infer a

capital infliction.

His lordship next pleaded that, by an act of council so late as the 5th

of October last year, all libels against conventicles were restricted to

a month backwards, consequently he was free. He was asked if he had

brought an extract of the act? He replied he had not, but it was well

enough known, and referred to their lordships themselves and the public

prosecutor. They all declared they knew nothing about it. He then begged

that the clerk might be questioned; but they would not allow their clerk

to give evidence in that matter; and he was again called upon to swear,

otherwise he would be held as confessed. Seeing at last that nothing

else, no not even their own acts, would avail, he made oath “that he was

free of all conventicles, as were all his servants, to the best of his

knowledge.” Some new queries were now put to him by the Lord Advocate.

He refused to answer to any matters not alleged against him in his

indictment, and appealed to their lordships. They gave it in his favour!

finding “that he was not obliged to depone to any thing not contained in

his indictment;” and the court adjourned.

When they met in the afternoon of the same day—21st February 1678—Lord

Cathcart, Sir John Cochrane, with some others, among whom was the Laird

of Kilbirnie, refused the bond upon the same grounds—the act of council,

October the 5th. The lords again denied their knowledge of such an act;

but when Kilbirnie, prepared for this, offered to produce a copy, they

would not receive it, saying, if there was such an act it was superseded

by posterior acts. He then offered to protest against their proceeding

without allowing him to produce it. This the Earl of Caithness opposed,

by representing the danger he incurred in so doing; but when he

persisted, his lordship suddenly adjourned the sederunt, and thus

prevented him from getting it formally entered on the record.

While the committee were denying the provisions of their own acts which

had the least semblance of moderation, “the Highland Host” were ravaging

the devoted west without mercy.[99] Free quarters were every where

exacted by the militia and king’s forces, although they received regular

pay. But the Highlanders, not content with free quarters, would march in

large bands to gentlemens’ and heritors’ houses, as well as their

tenants, and take up their lodgings, and force the proprietors to

furnish them with whatever they chose to demand, or they would take

whatever struck their fancy; and, when some of their own officers

interposed, would present their daggers to their breasts, and dare them

to touch their plunder. They infested the high-roads in a most ferocious

manner, not only robbing the passengers of their money or baggage, but

even stripping them of their clothes, and sending them to travel naked

for miles ere they could reach home. From the country-folks’ and

cottars’ houses, they carried off pots, pans, wearing-apparel,

bedclothes, or whatever was portable; and, notwithstanding the

government had taken care to order provisions, both officers and men

carried off or wantonly killed the cattle, under pretence that they

wanted food, unless they were bribed by money; yet that did not always

avail, the plunderers often both pocketing the coin and driving the

cattle. In some places they proceeded the horrible length of scorching

the people before large fires, in order to extort a confession, if they

suspected they had any hidden valuables; and to these rapacious, needy

hordes, the lowest necessary utensils of civilized life were precious.

Footnote 99:

Garrisons were ordered to be “planted, 100 foot and 20 horse, in the

house of Blairquhan, Carrick; 50 foot and 10 horse in Barskimming, and

the same in Cessnock. The commissioners of the shire to provide 126

beds, 24 pots, as many pans, 240 spoons, 60 timber dishes, as many

timber cups, and 40 timber stoups; to be distribute to the said

garrisons conform to the number of men; also to provide coal and

candle for the garrisons respective.” Act of the committee of council,

Ayr, March 4th, 1678. By an act of the 9th, the commissioners were

ordered to furnish the garrisons with necessary provisions, such as

meat and drink, and to say at what prices they would agree to do so;

but having failed, the committee took the business into their own

hands, and ordered the prices to be as follow:—Hay, per stone, 2s.

Scots; straw, per threave, 4s.; oats, per boll, 50s. in Carrick—55s.

in Kyle; meal, per boll, 5 merks; malt, per boll, £5; cheese, per

stone, £1, 10s.; pork, per stone, £1, 16s.; French grey salt, per

peck, 10s.—Scots ditto, 5s.; butter, per stone, £2, 8s.; each dozen of

eggs, 1s. 4d.; milk, per pint, 1s.; each hen, 4s.; each mutton bulk,

£2. These prices, reduced to our currency, at 1s. Scots—1d. sterling;

£1 Scots—1s. 8d. sterling,—will show the scarcity of cash in these

days, and its relative value to the present prices.

In other villages, the meanest soldiers exacted sixpence sterling a-day,

and the guards a shilling or merk Scots; their captains and superior

officers, half-crowns and crowns at their discretion, or as they thought

the poor people could procure it, threatening to burn their houses about

their ears if they did not produce sufficient to answer their demands;

besides money, the industrious, sober, religious peasantry were

constrained to furnish brandy and tobacco; and, what was scarcely less

painful, were obliged to witness their filthy brutal excesses. Then,

again, some of the ruffians would levy contributions in order, as they

pretended, to secure the payers from plunder; yet, after they had

filched them of their money, at their departure rifled them of all they

could find the means of transporting. Their insolences to the females,

our historians have drawn a veil over, as too abominable to admit of

description.

An instance or two of their wanton waste are narrated, from which the

extent of the damage occasioned by their visitations, may, in some

measure, be guessed at, especially as the perpetrators were not the most

savage of the crew, but men from whom better things might have been

expected. The Angus-shire troop of gentlemen heritors, or yeomanry

cavalry, as they would now be called, commanded by the Laird of Dun, was

quartered upon the lands of Cunningham of Cunninghamhead, then a boy at

school, who, even by the strictest interpretation of the strictest acts

of this detestable period, could not be held liable to such an

infliction. Pretending that the country houses, upon which they were

billetted, were not sufficiently comfortable for persons of their

situation, these genteel troopers obliged the tenants to pay to each

five pounds sterling for “dry quarters;” but, after they had received

the money, they either remained themselves, or sent three or more

footmen of the wildest Highlanders to supply their place. A cornet in

this troop, Dunbar of Grange, nephew to the commander, perceiving that

the entrance to the old tower of Cunninghamhead was strongly secured by

an iron grating before a massy wainscoat door—most likely expecting to

find some treasure secreted within—called for the keys that he might

open and examine the interior. The keeper being absent, he was told that

there was nothing of any consequence in the place, for the second story

was used as a granary, and the rest of the building was unoccupied. At

this, in great wrath, after abusing the people, he set fire to the door,

and blew up the grating with gunpowder. Having forced his way in to the

foot of a staircase, after ascending, he found himself opposed by a

second stout door upon the girnel, also grated; but full of the hope of

plunder, he was not thus to be disappointed, and removed this

obstruction in the same summary manner. Sure of the prize, he rushed in

with his attendants, all equally eager with himself for a share of the

spoil, but they saw nothing except oatmeal, as they had been told,

which, in their rage at finding themselves “begunkit,” they either

“fyled” with their boots and shoes, all clay from the open field, or

scattered about and destroyed, under pretence of searching for arms. The

loss to the minor, as the greater part of the rents then were paid in

produce, has not been mentioned in money; but as the deed happened in

the month of February, the pecuniary value, although then high, might

not be equal to the detriment its destruction must have occasioned.

William Dickie, a merchant in Kilmarnock, had nine Highlanders quartered

upon him six weeks, during which he was obliged to furnish them with

meat and drink, and, not having sufficient accommodation for them in his

own house, was forced to pay for “dry quarters,” _i. e._ good beds, in

some other, as were numbers besides. When they went off, they carried

away with them several sacks full of household stuff, and goods, and a

hose full of silver money; and, before leaving, broke two of the honest

man’s ribs—stabbed his wife in the side, who was big with child at the

time, and otherwise so terrified her, that she died in consequence.

These were the apostles of Episcopacy! and their employers have even

found apologists in our own day; but if they who, by preaching, and

prayer, and suffering, attempted to diffuse the knowledge of the gospel

in their country, were or are called fanatics, by what epithet shall

honest indignation designate the miscreants who could endeavour by such

means to obtrude an illiterate, ignorant, dissolute, and shameless

priesthood, upon an unoffending, and comparatively uncorrupted, part of

the population? It is, however, pleasant to notice that, among the

Highland leaders, there were several exceptions. The Marquis of Atholl,

and the Earl of Perth, are particularly mentioned as having pled the

cause of justice and humanity at the council-board of the committee,

though, unhappily, their pleadings were overborne by numbers—and their

men comported themselves no better than their comrades.

The whole may be summed up in the words of a contemporary writer, an

eyewitness, quoted by Wodrow:—“It is evidently apparent that the

proceedings of these few months by-past, are a formed contrivance (if

God in mercy prevent not) to subvert all religion, and to ruine and

depopulate the country—they are open and evident oppression, public

violence, and robbery, and invasion of the person and goods of a free

and loyal people—a violation of the ancient rights and privileges of the

lieges—and a treacherous raising of hatred and discord ’twixt the king

and his subjects—and consequently, manifest treason against the

commonwealth and the king’s majesty. In a word, when considered in its

full extent, and in all its heinous circumstances, it is a complication

of the most atrocious crimes that almost ever could have been conceived

or perpetrated.” The losses sustained by the county of Ayr alone, were

estimated, in an account intended to be laid before the king if he would

have received it, at one hundred and thirty-seven thousand, four hundred

and ninety-nine pounds, six shillings, Scots—or eleven thousand, four

hundred and fifty pounds sterling; and this being only what could be

ascertained and proved, was not supposed to be one-half of the real

amount of damage inflicted.

While the Highlanders were plundering openly, the committee were equally

busy in their vocation—fining or imprisoning all who came before them,

whether upon charges of attending conventicles, or not signing the bond.

On the 22d February, the Earl of Cassilis appeared, and resolutely

refusing to subscribe what he considered as illegal in itself, and

impossible for him to perform, was ordered to answer next day to an

indictment accusing him of high crimes and misdemeanours, in frequenting

conventicles, or allowing them upon his grounds. His lordship did

accordingly appear, and denied upon oath, the truth of the averments in

the libel, only, if there had been any conventicles upon his ground, or

if his tenants had been at them, he knew nothing but by hearsay, he

himself having never seen any such meetings, nor any of his tenants

present at them. Immediately upon his refusal to subscribe, although he

had cleared himself by oath of all the crimes laid to his charge, the

lords appointed a messenger to charge him with letters of law-burrows,

to pledge himself in the books of the privy council, that his wife,

children, men, tenants, cottars, and servants, should not be present at

conventicles, or any other disorderly meetings, under a penalty of

double his valued yearly rent; and, in case of failure, he was to be

denounced a rebel within six days. Hereupon he wrote to their lordships

entreating a week’s delay, but they refused to grant him even this small

favour, on which he immediately repaired to Edinburgh to offer the

council every satisfaction that could be legally required. But upon his

coming thither, a proclamation was issued, commanding all noblemen,

heritors, and others of the west country, to depart from the capital,

and repair to their own houses within three days, before which time,

however, his lordship was actually denounced at the market-cross of Ayr,

and a caption issued for apprehending him. In these circumstances to

have remained in Scotland without some security, would have been the

height of folly, he therefore repaired to London, and having obtained

the interset of Monmouth, laid a statement of his case before the king.

Universal as the suffering was in the west, yet so impressed were the

people with a belief that the council wished some excuse for their

conduct, or some pretext for further severities, that, with a patience

unparalleled in history, they quietly endured their accumulated

grievances, without giving their oppressors the handle so eagerly

desired, and left them only the wretched plea of a rhetorical flourish,

by which they designated their quiet assemblies,[100] to palliate or

justify their atrocious aggressions on the constitution of the country,

and the common rights of mankind. Whether the privy council felt this,

or whether actuated by the dread of some more serious movement among the

nobility, as the Earl of Loudon, the Lords Montgomery, Cathcart, and

Bargeny, had also become refractory, it is unnecessary to inquire; but,

in the latter end of February, the Highland host were ordered home, and

the whole, except a few, returned to their native hills laden with the

spoils of their more excellent neighbours.

Footnote 100:

Calling them rendezvouses of rebellion, or seminaries of rebellion.

Their march is pictured as the route of successful ravagers returning

from the sack of some devoted city. They were loaded with spoil. A great

many horses which they had stolen, were burdened with the merchandize

swept from the dealers’ shops—webs of linen and woollen cloth;

silver-plate, bearing the names and arms of gentlemen; bundles of

bedclothes, carpets, men and womens’ wearing-apparel, pots, pans,

gridirons, and a great variety of promiscuous articles. Their wary

leaders had transmitted home large sums of money previously by safe

hands, but some of the retreating parties were not so fortunate with

their bulky packages; the river Clyde being swollen when they came to

Glasgow, the students at College, assisted by a number of other youths,

took possession of the bridge, and allowing only forty to pass at a

time, obliged the marauders to deliver up their plunder, and then

conveyed them out at the West Port, without suffering them to enter the

town. In this manner, about two thousand were eased of their burdens,

and the custom-house nearly filled with furniture and clothing, which

were restored to their proper owners, as far as could be effected.

Great was the chagrin of the regular clergy at the breaking up of the

Highland host. The gospel itself, they said, would depart from the

district along with it; for they themselves might leave their parishes

whenever they were removed, unless garrisons were settled among them.

Garrisons were accordingly appointed; one hundred and twenty foot and

forty horse in Blairquhan; fifty foot and ten horse in Barskimming; and

as many in Cessnock. But these were deemed insufficient by the

presbytery of Ayr, who, seemingly taking fresh alarm at the Earl of

Cassilis’ visit to the capital, wrote to the Archbishop of Glasgow,

February 28, transmitting to his Grace “their humble opinions of several

occurrences. 1st, The great and leading men of this country,” say they,

“are all gone into Edinburgh, and expect to be sheltered there;

therefore it is fit they be severely dealt with, sought after, and

forced to obedience, otherwise the commonalty, who absolutely depend

upon them, will never be brought to conformity. 2dly, The indulged

ministers must be stinted of their liberty, and some new tie laid upon

them, or they absolutely removed; for let people say what they will,

most of these disorders flow from them. 3dly, That the leading men of

this country now at Edinburgh be not protected by the council, but taken

and sent hither; for the committee think their credit highly concerned

in it, if after they have been at the pains of prosecuting them this

length the council do protect them, it will be a great discouragement to

them in their procedure for the future. 4thly, The garrisons appointed

here are but three, and too weakly manned, and they are too far from the

heart of the shire, and it will be fit two hundred men be left in

garrison at Ayr. This is the opinion of your Grace’s most humble and

obedient sons in the Lord.”

Roused by this appeal, the archbishop immediately set out to court,

carrying with him an address from his subalterns to the same

effect—breathing out the same spirit of intolerant and unfounded

accusation of the brethren; and, by a species of unblushing

falsification, reproaching as persecutors the very men they themselves

were persecuting. It is a perfect specimen of jesuitism:—“May it please

your most Sacred Majesty: The danger this church is exposed unto in the

present circumstances, which are such as threaten the dissolution

thereof, hath necessitated us in the discharge of our duty, to desire

the Lord Archbishop of Glasgow humbly to address your royal presence,

and to offer unto your princely consideration, how inconsistent the

violent and irregular courses of those who rent the church, (and

prosecute us for no other reason but that of our absolute and entire

dependence on your majesty’s authority,) are, with the rights and

interests of your majesty’s crown and government, as well as with the

safety of your people, and the reverence due to religion, for no other

end but that your majesty’s authority may be vindicated and rescued from

the persecution of the open disturbers of the church and their abettors,

who, for their own ends, endeavour to constrain the people, and to

debauch them equally from their loyalty as their religion.” The council

had the full countenance of the king; yet still they do not seem to have

felt entirely at ease. They therefore sent him a summary account of all

their proceedings, with a request that he would grant them his explicit

approbation, which they enforced, as they generally did their

applications for his support in their extravagant measures, by recalling

to his remembrance the steps which had led to the late execrable

rebellion, and working upon his fears by marking a resemblance between

the present and those unhappy times; hinting, in conclusion, their

suspicions that their political rivals were chiefly to be dreaded. “We

are fully convinced that the meaner sort would not dare to appear in

such open insolences, if they were not encouraged by persons of greater

eminency, and who, by how much they are the more considerable, are so

much the more to be jaloused: tumultuary rabbles being then only

dangerous when they get a head, and when delusions in opinion mix

themselves with faction and humorous opposition to authority.” His

majesty immediately thanked them very heartily for their careful

prosecution of what he had recommended, in calling in his forces and

accepting the offers of the Highland noblemen, and expressed himself

well pleased that the bond should be offered to all persons and

magistrates within the ancient kingdom without exception, approved of

the law-burrows and the settled garrisons, and declared that his

approbation should have the force of an absolute indemnity and letter of

thanks to all in any way concerned in the late expedition to the west,

in council, committee, or execution, having very good reason to consider

the same as special and necessary service.

Notwithstanding his knowledge of this ample approval given by the king

to his council, and fully aware of the dangerous ground upon which he

stood, the Earl of Cassilis, with a noble boldness, delivered in

writing, under his hand, a true state of his case, March 28, an attested

copy of which was sent down by express to the council. A few days after

its receipt, they dispatched a long reply, in which they denied the

facts, and endeavoured to confute the arguments of his lordship; but

craved from his majesty’s justice that the Earl, who had contemned his

royal proclamation, and charged his privy council with crimes of so high

a nature, might be sent down prisoner to be tried and judged according

to law.

Affairs in England at this time did not admit of such prompt measures.

The Scottish patriot had engaged some of the English in his cause, who

sympathized with his sufferings and those of his country, and the king

also, influenced by his favourite Monmouth, either felt or pretended to

feel some commiseration. Cassilis was not sent down. The council were

still further mortified by the defection of two of the leading nobles,

the Marquis of Atholl and the Earl of Perth, when they returned from the

west. They not only did not concur in the severe methods going forward,

but from what they had observed of the peaceable conduct of the

Presbyterians, and the information they had received from some of the

noblemen, they could not continue to lend their countenance to the

severities so unreasonably exercised against them; nor could they avoid

showing their displeasure at the violence of the prelates, so that they

were openly accused of favouring conventicles, which now began to

multiply in the north and among the Highlands of Perthshire, where they

had not formerly been wont to be heard of; and the Bishop of Galloway,

who had been sorely annoyed with them, in a visit he had lately paid to

that quarter, thus complained to the Lord Register:—“I am surprised to

hear of the great and insolent field-conventicles in Perthshire, it

being as much influenced by the Marquis of Atholl’s example, as directed

by his authority. There is, besides many others, a constant

field-conventicle now settled in the confines of some parishes, Methven,

Gask, Tippermuir, and another, where it is marvelled that many observe

several shoals of Highlanders in their trews, and many bare-legged,

flocking thither to propagate the mischief of ‘the good old cause.’ It

is to good men no small discouragement that a shire, under the influence

and conduct of the Marquis of Atholl and the Earl of Perth, who say they

are true sons of the church, should (being formerly orderly and obedient

to the laws) become so turbulent and schismatical, especially since the

Marquis is sheriff-principal, and one altogether devoted to his lordship

is sheriff-depute, of that shire, in whose hands is placed the power to

punish and suppress these disorders.”

So far had the expedient of letting loose a band of mountaineers upon

the west failed in answering the end proposed by the prelates, that the

devastations they had committed, had raised the indignation of many of

the nobility and country gentlemen, who were indifferent to religious

modes of worship, and averse to all disputes about them; but having

heard of the success of the Earl of Cassilis, determined, as they were

denied any redress in Scotland, to lay their grievances before the king

in person. Accordingly, about the end of March, the Duke of Hamilton,

accompanied by the Earls of Roxburgh, Haddington, Loudon, and others—in

all about sixteen lords, together with Lieutenant-General Drummond, and

upwards of forty of the principal proprietors, breaking through the

prohibition, repaired to London; and what was most distressing to the

prelates, the Marquis of Atholl and the Earl of Perth, who had been

members of the committee of the privy council in the west, likewise went

thither.[101]

Footnote 101:

When these two noblemen, with their servants and some gentlemen, were

upon their road in Annandale, they lost their way; and it being late,

the two noblemen were obliged to shelter in a cottage in that country.

The people having heard somewhat of their errand in going up, were

extremely kind to them, wishing them heartily success. When they could

not get their horses under lock and key, or perhaps to any house, the

noblemen appeared concerned for them, lest they should be stolen,

having heard Annandale spoken of for stealing of horses; but the

country people told them they were in no hazard, there was no thieving

among them since the field-preaching came into that country, and

talked of many other branches of reformation wrought among them by Mr

Welsh and other preachers. Wodrow, vol. i. p. 507.—Kirkton, from whom

Wodrow has borrowed this pleasant little anecdote, adds, “the poor

country people talked to the noblemen’s great admiration for the time,

but it brought forth but small fruit.” _Hist._ p. 239.

At first the king would only permit Atholl and Perth to approach his

person—the others he refused to see, because they had left Scotland in

contempt of a proclamation; but their representation of the mad projects

going forward there, made him conclude that certainly Lauderdale’s head

was turned; yet neither would he allow him to be blamed, or admit that

he had done any thing detrimental to his service. But as he professed

his intention of setting the Duke of Monmouth at the head of the

Scottish government, he allowed him to act as mediator upon this

occasion, and they were at last admitted into the royal presence; the

more readily perhaps, as their visit had begun to make a great noise and

awakened the jealousy of the English parliament now sitting;—who

imagined they saw, in the management of the sister kingdom, a specimen

of what they themselves might expect whenever circumtances would permit,

and anticipated their own subjection, should Charles establish a

despotism there, especially as the Duke of York, whose papistical

principles were now openly professed, strongly abetted the cause of the

Scottish Episcopal church—a church that gloried in being the daughter of

the church of Rome by true lineal descent in the uninterrupted

apostolical succession of her bishops,[102] and who equalled her in the

antichristian persecuting spirit of her priests.

Footnote 102:

This was always strenuously contended for by the old non-jurants, who

only lately died out here; but is apparently reviving in the

Puseyites.

Alarmed at the departure of so many influential personages for London,

and at receiving no reply to their former letter, the privy council

dispatched the Earl of Murray and Lord Collington to counteract the

efforts of their opponents, and carry another epistle to his majesty,

complaining of the conduct of those persons, “who, instead of concurring

with them, which as sheriffs, and enjoying other responsible offices,

they should have done, had, with much noise and observation, gone to

England without seeking their license; but they, with humble confidence,

expected that his majesty, by his princely care and prudence, would

discourage all such endeavours as tended to enervate his royal authority

and affront his privy council; and they referred his majesty to their

messengers, two of their own number, men of known integrity and ability,

who could give him an exact account of what had passed, and resolve such

doubts as might occur to the royal mind, which could not be settled so

well by letters, and confute such unworthy mis-reports as were raised by

others who have choosed a time when his majesty was likely to be engaged

in a foreign war, and had assembled his parliament of England.”

After these deputies had reached London, and the various statements of

the different parties had been laid before the king, a message was

received by the council from him, announcing “that he had considered

some representations made by some of his subjects anent the late methods

with the west country, with the answers made thereunto and replies,

which so fortified the representations, that he resolved to hear and

consider things fully, and, in the meantime, commanded that the bond and

law-burrows be suspended till his further pleasure be sent, and that all

the forces, except his own guards, be immediately disbanded.” Astonished

at receiving such a command, when they expected to have got Cassilis

sent down prisoner as they had requested, they could not conceal their

disappointment and chagrin. In a reply which they transmitted by Sir

George Mackenzie, who was instantly sent off to aid in advocating their

cause, they say—“You know how much all were inclined to give the council

ready obedience till these noblemen interested themselves in the

phanatical quarrel; how ready all were to concur in assisting his

majesty both with their own tenants and militia; and, which is very

remarkable, how ready the gentry and heritors in every shire were to

rise, between sixty and sixteen, which, in shewing how all ways were

taken and owned for assisting the royal authority, did strike a just

terror in all those who were refractory; whereas now, the numbers and

humorousness of those who are gone up has done all they could to loose

all the foundations of authority here to such a height, as will soon

grow above correction, if it be not speedily, vigorously, and openly

adverted to by his majesty.”

Charles himself seems to have been not a little perplexed at the

unexpected step of the Scottish nobles. What had been done in Scotland

was unauthorized by any law, and unjustifiable upon any principle of

good government, but it was agreeable to the despotic propensities of

the heartless sovereign; and he was constantly wavering between the

harsh measures most congenial to his disposition, and the milder plans

he was occasionally obliged to adopt—sending orders one day to disband

the troops and dismantle the garrisons—the next, ordering new troops to

be raised and other garrisons to be planted, till Sir George Mackenzie

arrived. Shortly after his arrival, the king was prevailed upon to give

a hearing to the Duke of Hamilton and his friends, whose ranks were now

much thinned, both their patience and purses being nearly worn out by

their long detention. An account of the interview has been preserved,

written by one who was present, which, as it is the only authentic

document we have, and not being long, I the rather insert:—

“Upon the 25th of May, the king commanded the Duke of Hamilton, Lord

Cochrane, Sir John Cochrane, and Lieutenant-General Drummond, to attend

upon him at four of the clock, when they appeared. The king being

accompanied by the Duke of York, Duke of Monmouth, and the treasurer,

desired to know what they had to say—why they had come to him contrary

to his proclamation? The Duke of Hamilton spoke first and said, he

humbly begged to know the reason why he had got some marks of his

majesty’s displeasure, and that since he came here (to London) he had

not the common privilege of subjects, not being admitted to kiss his

majesty’s hand. The king replied, he would first know what were the

things they had to complain of? and he would take his own time to answer

his first request. The Duke said, the chief encouragement he had to come

and make known his oppression was that which his majesty said to him

when last here, which was, that when he was in any way wronged he should

come to himself and make it known; and that now he could not but come

since he and others were so much wronged.

“And then there was an account given of the whole affair of the bringing

down of the Highlanders, of quartering, plundering our lands, of having

a bond offered which was both illegal and impracticable, of being

charged with law-burrows, of being denounced thereupon, and of the

proclamation forbidding us to acquaint the king with our condition. All

these were particularly insisted upon at great length. To which the king

returned, that these were horrid things, and desired we might set them

down in paper. The treasurer said, that whatever was in these

free-quarterings and in the rest, they might have been prevented by

taking of the bond, which he conceived there was law for the imposing

of, and might be very well kept, for there were two alternatives in the

bond, viz. either to deliver them prisoners, or to put them from their

land. To which it was replied, there was no law obliging masters to

apprehend their tenants; and the furthest the act of parliament went

was, in the year 1670, to oblige masters for their families and

servants. 2dly, That masters could not be obliged to turn their tenants

out of their lands in regard that the punishment for going to a

conventicle was statute already to be a fine, much less in proportion

than the turning them out of their possessions; besides, most part of

the tenants have tacks by which, during their time, they had good right

to their possessions, and could not by their masters be turned out for a

crime that, by the law, was only finable, and had no such certification

as losing their possessions.

“The conference having been held two hours, there was a good deal said

to and fro, and the king fully and freely informed. The conclusion of

the debate was, the king told us he could not judge of what we had said,

unless we would give it under our hands, that he might consult

thereanent with his council, and know what they had to say for

themselves, and could advise him to. It was answered, that we came to

his majesty to give an information of what wrongs and oppressions were

done to the country, hoping his majesty would examine and redress them,

but not to give in any accusation against the council, which we knew, by

law, was very dangerous, unless his majesty would indemnify for it,

which the king refusing to do, they told him they could insist no

farther, but leave it to him to do as he thought fit. The king offered

to go out of the room, and the Duke of Hamilton kneeling, begged the

favour of his hand; but his majesty declined it, and said he would

consider upon and give an answer to what had been said, and went

away.[103]

Footnote 103:

When the Duke of Hamilton got into his presence, the king kept his

hands behind his back, lest perchance the Duke should snatch a kiss of

them! And when the Duke came to make his complaint upon the bad

government of Scotland, the king answered him with taunts, and bid him

help what was amiss when he were king of Scotland; and this was all.

_Kirkton_, p. 393.

“There were many particulars spoken to, wherewith the king seemed to be

moved, acknowledging there were overdoings and several things done upon

prejudice at particular persons; but still, when he came this length,

the Lord-Treasurer interrupted, and gave some other turn to matters,

otherwise ’tis thought there would a more favourable answer have been

given. The king signified that he was certainly informed that there was

a rebellion designed in Scotland, but he would take care the actors in

it should be the losers by it. He endeavoured much to assure us that,

albeit we had not come to London, there would not have been any caption

executed against us upon the law-burrows.”

Dismissed with flattering promises, the nobles were not deceived; and

although they brought away with them the “word of a prince,” they knew

its value too well to place much confidence in it. Nor did the conduct

of the king belie their forebodings. Three days after this conference,

he addressed to the managers in Scotland, a letter, the third of the

kind, containing his full approval of their proceedings; and “that the

rather, because, after trial taken by Us, we find that such as

complained refused to sign any complaint against these proceedings as

illegal,” and added, in order to prevent any future application, that he

was highly dissatisfied with such as had caused these clamours, and

“would on all occasions proceed according to our laws against such as

endeavour to lese our prerogative and oppose our laws and our privy

council.”

No sooner was there the least appearance of any relaxation in the

execution of the severe acts, than the ministers and people returned

with renewed alacrity to their meetings; and at this juncture, as there

was a very general impression that the men in power were sympathizing

with them, the consequence was, that conventicles again multiplied,

especially in Fife and East Lothian. At the same time, the regular

clergy were more upon the alert. The military, too, were always in

readiness, and sometimes skirmishes ensued, in which the soldiers

occasionally were beat off.

Early in May, a large conventicle having convened on the flat at

Whitekirk, opposite the Bass, the deputy-governor who had received

notice of it, came upon the meeting with about forty soldiers and some

twenty country people, whom they forced along with them. When they came

near, the people resolved to sit close and stay upon the place, and

offer no violence to the soldiers, unless they disturbed them; but in

that case they resolved to defend themselves. The soldiers came up and

commanded the people to dismiss in the king’s name. Some who were next

to them answered, they honoured the king, but were resolved to hear the

word of God when preached to them; at which one of the soldiers struck a

man that was nearest him, whereupon a strong countryman with a staff

knocked the soldier to the ground. When they were thus engaged, a kind

of general scuffle ensued. One of the soldiers was shot, and others

disarmed and dismissed unhurt, though they had seized and sent off to

Haddington two of the persons assembled at the conventicle. A few days

after, several other persons were apprehended for having been present,

from among whom five were selected to stand trial before the Justiciary

Court at Edinburgh for the murder. Of these, three were dismissed, but

two, James Learmont and Robert Temple, were brought to the bar; when it

was urged against the relevancy of the indictment, that “simple

presence” in a crowd, where upwards of a thousand persons were

assembled, could constitute no crime; and it was offered to be proved

that the prisoners came to the place unarmed, or did not use arms; and

not only this, but it was also offered to be proved that others who had

escaped, and were declared fugitives, were seen to strike the deceased

with swords and halberts. Yet the lords decided that presence at

unlawful meetings or field-conventicles with arms, at which slaughter

was committed, or giving counsel or command, were sufficient, and the

case was remitted to the jury to pronounce upon the proof. It was

distinctly sworn by two witnesses that they saw James Learmont at the

meeting unarmed, but heard him say—“Let no cowards be here to-day; but

let such as have arms go out to the foreside;” and, after having viewed

the advancing party, cry out—“They be but few, let there be no cowards.”

Another swore that he saw William Temple, with a sword under his arm,

but not drawn. The jury found the panels guilty as libelled; but the

lords of Justiciary not being quite clear about the business, requested

the opinion of the privy council, who, after considering the process,

deputed four of their number—Murray, Linlithgow, Ross, and Collington,

to express their satisfaction with the whole procedure, and recommended

that justice should be speedily executed upon the said panels. Such,

however, was the even-handed justice of these days, that a remission of

the punishment came to the one who had been proven to be at the

conventicle with a sword, while the unarmed hearer of the gospel was

sent to the gallows. But the good man died in great peace, declaring his

adherence to the truth as stated in the Confession of Faith, and to the

despised way of preaching the gospel and receiving the sacraments of

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper from lawfully ordained and called

ministers of the gospel, who were forced to the fields because of

persecution from those who were never friends to the church of

Christ—these lords prelates who lord it over the Lord’s inheritance. He

solemnly declared himself free of the blood of all men, especially the

blood of the man for which he was unjustly condemned, and looked forward

to that day wherein the righteous Judge will judge again, when he makes

inquisition for blood, and will call to account all the blood shed of

the saints that is dear in his sight; “before whom,” added he, “I am to

appear immediately, and hope to receive the sentence, well done faithful

servant, enter into your master’s joy, though not by my merit, but

through the merit and purchase of Christ.”

Learmont was a chapman, or pedlar, at that time a respectable employment

in Scotland, and appears, like many of his calling, to have been pretty

extensively known, which had provoked the peculiar enmity of Sharpe so

much, that, when the jury at first brought in a verdict of not guilty,

he was not satisfied, and the jury were sent back. A second time they

returned the same verdict, when he instigated the Lord Advocate to

threaten them with an assize of error, though Mackenzie seldom needed

any prompter on such occasions, which prevailed upon them at last to

bring in a verdict more agreeable to the blood-thirsty pair.[104]

Footnote 104:

Fountainhall’s Decis. vol. i. p. 13. Wodrow says, “some papers before

me say he was once assoilzied by the jury; but Bishop Sharpe being

peremptory he must die, moved the Advocate to threaten them with the

utmost severity; and at length they were prevailed with to bring him

in guilty.” Hist. vol. i. p. 521.—Learmont himself, in a large paper

left behind him, declares—“My blood lyeth at the Bishop of St Andrew’s

door, to stand against him; for since I received this sentence of

death, it hath been frequently brought to my ears, that he pressed the

king’s advocate to take my life.” “And now in my last words, after the

example of my Lord and master, I here most freely, before I go hence,

say, ‘Father, forgive them.’” Naphtali, p. 450.—Nine years after, a

person upon his deathbed owned to a minister who visited him, a few

hours before his death, that he was the person who killed the soldier,

which he did in self-defence, and to save the life a neighbour.

Learmont was in no ways concerned or present at it. Wodrow, vol. i. p.

523.

Increasing severities on the part of their rulers produced increasing

precautions on the part of the persecuted, who were firmly persuaded

that it was the will of God and their duty to hear his word and

endeavour to induce others to hear also—that no human power could

release them from the sacred obligations of their oath to God, ratified

by acts of the legislature, unanimously passed, and sworn to by king,

parliament, and people. They therefore, in obedience to these

obligations, and these acts, came now in greater numbers armed to their

meetings, to defend themselves and their preachers; and even those who

had at first opposed resistance to their oppressors began to relax.

Among a people trained to judge and reason for themselves, it was not

easy to settle the disputed questions, Who were the violators of the

law?—those who had overthrown and trampled under foot the constitution

of the country? or those who obeyed and were determinately upholding it?

Could the circumstance of minority or majority change the nature or

loosen the bonds of religious, moral, and legal obligation? Did these

depend upon numbers, riches, or power? Politicians may answer yes;

people may temporise where to resist would involve a community, or part

of a community, in an unequal or apparently hopeless contest—they may

pay for the support of an established hierarchy, which they do not

approve, because it may be dangerous to attack it—they may accept office

under a government, coupled with restrictions discordant to man’s

natural right to worship God according to conscience, because obedience

is gainful or expedient;—but these worthies judged differently, they

considered what they thought duty, national and personal, irrevocable

and imperative; and they left the consequences to the providence of God.

Mr Blackadder, invited again to Fife, lodged at Inchdarnie’s—then the

head-quarters of the higher ranks among the covenanters in that

district—together with his son Robert, Bailie Haddoway, and Mr,

afterwards Colonel, Cleland. On Sabbath morning he was escorted to

Divan, eight miles off. When he came, he observed a number of arms piled

in order on the ground, guns and fowling-pieces, about the number of

fifty, which, when he saw, he asked, “what meant all this preparation?

Trust rather in Jehovah, and the shield of omnipotence.” They told him

the reason, that Prelate Sharpe had ordered to draw a hundred and five

men out of the militia, to be a standing company, on purpose to search

for and apprehend ministers who should venture within his bounds. This

and the like violence was the thing that soon brought him to his end,

and constrained peaceable folk to come in arms, after long suffering and

provocation. About the middle of the communion, an alarm arose that the

militia were advancing their whole company. Burleigh stepped out

presently and drew up a party of the left horse, such as he could find,

and went forth to view the militia, who were within two miles of the

place. Suspecting that the meeting might be in a posture of defence,

they had halted on a brae-side until both sermons should be ended, that

they might make a prey of the people dismissing. When all the

congregation were removed, except the minister’s body-guard, a new alarm

came that the soldiers were at hand. Upon this Kinkel and Burleigh, with

a few horse, rode up the face of the hill, where the militia had

advanced with the hope of getting plunder, and making prisoners of the

hindermost. Also the foot, young men, who had their guns, and were on

their way homeward, did resolutely return and join the horse, which

altogether made a party between thirty and forty. The lads on foot were

drawn up beside the cavalry, such as they were. The military with their

officers were marching fast up, expecting their prey, but halted when

they perceived the party. Haddoway and Cleland rode down to have spoken

and asked their intentions; but ere they came near, the militia wheeled

about for marching off, if they might. The footmen came up sweating with

their muskets, and were drawn up on the flanks, making a tolerable

troop.

But the militia, terrified at all this apparatus, scarcely looking over

their shoulder, fled to Cupar in a dismal fear. The Presbyterian

horsemen would gladly have had orders to break after them, which if they

had done, it is said the prelatists had resolved to throw down their

arms and surrender at mercy. But the minister did calmly dissuade them

from it. “My friends, your part is to defend yourselves from hazard, and

not to pursue: your enemies have fled—let their flight sheath your

weapons and disarm your passions. I may add without offence, that men in

your case are more formidable to see at a distance than to engage hand

to hand. But since you are in a warlike and defensive posture, remain

so, at least till your brethren be all dismissed. Conduct them through

their enemies, and be their safeguard until they get beyond their reach;

but except in case of violence, offer injury to none.” When the militia

had entered Cupar, the party rode off quietly. About nine guarded Mr

Blackadder to his quarters, which was at an inn in the parish of

Portmoak. On Monday he returned with his friends to Edinburgh.

Next week, another remarkable communion was held at Irongray,

Dumfries-shire, when Mr Welsh presided at the earnest desire of his old

parishioners, who had resolved to make this public avowal of their

attachment to the cause of Christ, at the peril of all they held dear on

earth; thither also Mr Blackadder resorted. On Thursday, he took horse

from Edinburgh, accompanied by his wife and son Robert, who wished to

see their relations and join on the occasion, such a thing being so rare

to them. As they rode on their way by Leadhills towards Enterkin and

Nithsdale, they found the roads covered with people, some on horse,

others on foot. A company of eighty horse, whereof many were respectable

gentlemen from Clydesdale, and well appointed with regular officers, had

marched down Enterkin-path in good order a little before him. They were

all reasonably well accoutred. He entered into conversation with many

groups of people, and advised them all to behave with sobriety and

decorum. The party of Clydesdale horse, when they were down the brae of

Enterkin, which was a large mile, drew up and fell into rank at the foot

of the path, and marched in good order all along Nithsdale, till they

came to Cluden-water, which was much swollen by the rain. They rode

through directly to Irongray parish, where they took up their quarters,

and kept outwatches and sentinels all night. The men on foot came after,

and took up their lodgings where they could most conveniently, and as

near the horse as possible. They told that the Earl of Queensberry was

on his road to Edinburgh, and had met several companies of them.

Mr Blackadder and his company took the route to Caitloch, where he

stayed that night. Here their numbers were increased to a great

concourse. On Saturday morning, they marched from Caitloch to the cross

of Meiklewood, a high place in Nithsdale, about seven miles above

Dumfries. This he understood was to be the rendezvous of the

congregation. Here they had a commanding view of the whole country, and

could not be taken by surprise. On the one hand, the hills of Dalswinton

and all the higher ground of Kirkmahoe, lay within reach of the eye, as

far as the braes of Tinwald and Torthorwald. The range of the Galloway

hills lay on the west, all the passes of which could be distinctly seen.

No sudden change could surprise them from the south, as the flat holms

of the Nith were visible for many miles. When Mr Blackadder reached the

place, he found a large assembly had collected. He opened the service

from these words, 1 Cor. xi. 24. “Do this in remembrance of me.” His two

chief points were—That the ceremony was not left arbitrary to the

church, but was under a peremptory command from Christ himself. This

remembrance was to be renewed from time to time as seasons would permit;

and their divine Master’s command was still in force, though men had

inhibited and discharged them. Secondly, The end of the institution, why

it ought to be frequently celebrated or administered; and what was

especially to be commemorated.

Mr Welsh preached in the afternoon, and intimated the communion to take

place next day on a hill-side in Irongray, about four miles distant, as

it was judged convenient and more safe to shift their ground. He durst

not mention the name of the place particularly, lest enemies might get

notice and be before them; but none failed to discover it. Early on

Sabbath morning, the congregation sat down on the Whitehill in Irongray,

about three miles above Dumfries. The meeting was very numerous, greater

than at East Nisbet, being more gentlemen and strangers from far and

near. Mr Arnot, late minister of Tongland, lectured in the morning, and

Mr Welsh preached the action-sermon, which was his ordinary. The rest of

the ministers exhorted and took their turn at the table-service. The

whole was closed in the evening without disturbance. It was a cloudy and

gloomy day, the sky lowering and often threatening showers, but the

heavy clouds did not break, but retained their moisture, as it were to

accommodate the work; for ere the people got to their houses and

quarters, there fell a great rain which that night waxed the waters, and

most of them had to pass through both the Cairn and the Cluden.

The Earl of Nithsdale, a papist, and Sir Robert Dalzell of Glenae, a

great enemy to these meetings, had some of their ill-set domestics

there, who waited on and heard till the time of the afternoon sermon,

and then slipt away. At the time of dismissing there arose a cry and

alarm that the dragoons were approaching, whereupon the Clydesdale men

instantly took to horse and formed. The gentlemen of Galloway and

Nithsdale took no posture of defence at first, as they did not intend it

until they saw imminent hazard. But seeing the motions of the Clydesdale

men, they thought it necessary to do the like. Gordon, the Laird of

Earlstone, who had been a captain in the former wars, now drew up a

large troop of Galloway horse. Another gentleman of Nithsdale, who had

also been a captain of horse, mustered up a troop of cavalry from the

holms of Kirkmahoe and about the Nith. Four or five companies of foot,

with their officers, were ready equipped for action; and all this was

done in the twinkling of an eye, for the people were willing and

resolute. Videttes and single horsemen were despatched to various

quarters, to keep a good look out. The report brought in was, that they

had only heard a rumour of them being in the country, but could not

inform themselves if any were near at hand, or any stir in that

immediate neighbourhood. After remaining in that defensive posture for

three hours, the body of the people dispersed to their quarters, each

division accompanied with a guard of foot and horse. In houses, barns,

and empty places, most of them got accommodated in a sort of way, within

a mile or two’s distance. They had mostly provided themselves both for

board and lodging, and the ministers were hospitably received at the

houses.

The night was rainy, but watches were kept notwithstanding. As a point

of prudence, no intimation was given where the Monday’s meeting was to

be kept; this was not generally known, except to the ministers. The tent

was next day erected on another hill-side near the head of the parish,

three or four miles from the place of the Sabbath meeting. The people

seemed nothing diminished in numbers on account of the alarm, or the

unpropitious state of the weather. The horse and foot, as usual, drew

round about the congregation, the horse being outermost. Mr Blackadder

closed this day from Heb. xiii. 1. “Let brotherly love continue;” and,

notwithstanding the alarm, he continued three weeks preaching up and

down in that country.

About the end of harvest, the last and largest out-door communion that

ever had been in Scotland, was celebrated at Colmond, in Ayrshire. Many

came in their best furniture and posture of defence, expecting violence,

as the council had got notice of it—there was a great number of

ministers officiating—but all the people dismissed in peace. Other

conventicles did not escape so easily. One kept at the house of the

Williamwood, in the parish of Cathcart, Renfrewshire, where Mr John

Campbell and Mr Matthew Crawford had preached, was dispersed by a party

of dragoons, who took sixty men prisoners, and plundered a great number

of women of their plaids, bibles, and whatever else they had worth

carrying away.[105]

Footnote 105:

The minutes of privy council inform us how the booty so honourably

acquired on these occasions was disposed of. “The lords of his

majesty’s privy council ordain Captain Buckham” to advertise on

Sabbath next at the parish of Calder, “certain horses and plaids

_found_ by him and his party on dissipating the late conventicle; with

certification, if the persons to whom they doe belong will not owne

and come and receive them back againe that day eight days, they will

be disposed upon; and in case they be not owned, the saids lords

ordains the said Captain Buckham to sell and dispose thereupon at the

best availl for the use of the party.” Memoirs of Bryson, published by

Dr M’Crie, p. 282, note. The Doctor quaintly adds, “Few owners, it is

to be presumed, would make their appearance to claim these _lost_

goods.”

Affairs were now drawing to a crisis. Outward troubles were

accumulating, while, unfortunately, the intestine divisions were also on

the increase. “Such,” reports one of the “outted” ministers themselves,

“as were in the fields found it difficult, amid the jarring tempest of

opinions, to give an advice. The majority were of opinion that the times

called more for meekness and patience, than any warlike enterprise; and

that it was better to continue under suffering until they had clearer

revelation than use carnal weapons of their own; for at this time there

were several sticklers in the west stirring up the people underhand,

amusing them with designs to rise in arms, though there was no such

joint resolution, for any thing I know, either among gentry or

ministers, nor the most pious, solid, and grave among the yeomen.”

Nevertheless, the country was generally ripening for some explosion; and

it says little for the gentlemen that they did not watch the movements

of the community, as they might have directed them into more peaceable

channels; but their posterity have reason to thank their coolness or

timidity, as any arrangement with the then government could only have

been based upon allowing a preponderance to the crown, which even a

revolution might not have been able to impair. Mr Robert Hamilton,

brother to Sir William Hamilton of Preston, esteemed a pious man and of

good intentions, but of narrow views and severe in his temper—obstinate

and opinionative withal—stepped forward while they stood back—held

meetings in the country, and also at Edinburgh, during this summer, for

establishing a general correspondence; but all this without acquainting

the ministers or gentlemen, who were in better capacity to manage the

business.[106]

Footnote 106:

Notices of James Ure, p. 452. Memoirs of Rev. John Blackadder, p. 224.

Wodrow, vol. i. p. 520, &c.

In the midst of these commotions, a convention was summoned, and

Lauderdale appointed to preside as Commissioner; for he did not choose

to face a parliament.[107] Exaggerated reports of the “armed

conventicles” had been carefully transmitted to the king; and his early

prejudices and fears, arising naturally enough from the fate of his

father, and his own papistical education, rendered him an easy tool in

the hands of the apostates and prostitutes by whom he was surrounded,

who, flattering his baser propensities and humouring his tyrannical

inclinations, held him in the veriest bondage, while he imagined himself

despotic and free! Lauderdale and his associates, the Scottish

prelatists, rendered this criminal carelessness of Charles subservient

to their own purposes. Their usual mode was to get letters drawn out in

his name by some of their accomplices at court, and presented to the

king for his signature, which being speciously written, they obtained in

common without difficulty. These they could produce as his own

authority, warranting the most outrageous of their own measures, and as

arguments for every fresh encroachment upon the constitutional freedom

of the people, which their suspicions supposed necessary to protect them

from the consequences of their crimes. They had long wished for a

standing army. Charles had seen its efficacy in France. The present was

reckoned a proper time for procuring this royal defence of order in

Scotland. His majesty therefore wrote to his right trusty and well

beloved councillors, informing them that, after the full and

satisfactory information he had received from the lords they had sent to

court, he “again” approved of their proceedings and care, and assured

them of his favour, assistance, and protection upon all occasions. “And

for the more effectual demonstration thereof,” the royal epistle went on

to say, “We find it necessary to signify to you, and by you to our

people, that we are firmly resolved to own and assert our authority, so

as it may equally encourage you and discourage all such as by seditious

practices endeavour to asperse you and lessen our authority and

prerogative. And finding by good information that the phanatics there

expecting encouragement from such as oppose you, and taking advantage of

the present juncture of affairs here,[108] have of late, with great

insolence, flocked together in open and field-conventicles, these

rendezvouses of rebellion, and have dared to oppose our forces. Though

we neither need nor do fear such insolent attempts, yet from a just care

of our authority and kindness to our subjects there, We have thought fit

to order some more forces to be levied; and for that effect we have

commanded the lords of our treasury for raising and maintaining these

troops at our charges.”

Footnote 107:

A convention differed from a parliament in this—it was summoned for

one specific purpose, and could not interfere with any thing else—in

general, only to grant money. Nor does it appear that although they

could authorize the levying a subsidy from the subject, that they had

any right to look after its management by the crown; the delegates to

a convention, also, were generally nominated by persons in power.

Footnote 108:

Referring to the popish plot which about this time agitated the

English nation and parliament.

Agreeably to this communication, a proclamation was issued, convoking a

convention, the bare-faced irony of which would be ludicrous, did not

its wickedness of purpose excite other and rather more unpleasant

sensations. In it he repeated his fulsome, because false, protestations

of the great kindness he bore to his ancient kingdom; “and considering

that all kings and states did carefully secure themselves and their

people by providing against all such foreign invasions and intestine

commotions as might make them a prey to their enemies; and that it was

not a fit time that Scotland alone should remain without defence,

especially when these execrable field-conventicles, so justly termed

rendezvouses of rebellion, did still grow in numbers and insolence,

against which all our present forces would not in reason be thought a

suitable security. Therefore he called a convention of the estates of

that kingdom, to meet at Edinburgh upon the 26th of June, to provide for

the safety of the kingdom, by enabling him to raise more forces.”

During the absence of almost all the nobles and influential men who had

gone with them to London, and from whom any formidable opposition could

have arisen, Lauderdale’s friends hurried on the elections, so that when

the convention met, he was possessed of an obedient and overwhelming

majority. Eager to evince their loyalty, the chosen band declaring

themselves the echoes of the public voice, “and considering the many

frequent and renewed professions to serve his majesty with their lives

and fortunes, in the maintenance of his honour and greatness; and that

now there was an opportunity offered to them, to make good their

professions of their zeal, duty, and affection;” “and to let the world

see the unanimous affection of his ancient kingdom for the maintenance

of his majesty’s royal greatness, authority, and government in church

and state, as established by the laws of the kingdom, they did humbly

beseech that his majesty would be graciously pleased to accept the

unanimous, ready, and cheerful offer, and humble tender, of a new supply

of eighteen hundred thousand pounds, Scots, to be raised and paid in

five years, according to the present valuations.”[109] The act was very

unpalatable to the country generally, as they viewed not only the army

as the ready instrument of tyranny, but as a reward to the servile party

who supported Lauderdale, and to the prelatists who alone would obtain

for their poor relations and friends commissions in the army, and share

among themselves the donations of the convention.

Footnote 109:

The monthly assessments of six thousand pounds introduced by Cromwell,

were retained, and are still observed as the rate at which the

land-tax is imposed. Laing, vol. iv. p. 93. The sum, therefore, here

voted, was in our money £30,000 per ann. for five years, and might be

in real about five times the nominal value. The number of militia to

be drawn at this time, was one-fourth part of the whole, 5000 foot and

500 horse—the pay, six shillings, Scots, ilk day for the foot;

eighteen shillings, Scots, for each horseman.

With the Presbyterians, its tendency was disastrous. Payment of cess

became a new and bitter source of contention among the already too much

divided sufferers. As the object for which the money was to be raised,

was expressly stated to be for the suppression of conventicles; or, as

the most strenuous opponents of the measure justly interpreted it, for

preventing the preaching of the gospel, they at once, and without

circumlocution, declared it unlawful to submit in any manner to the

exaction. The impositions of tyrants, enacted for promoting their wicked

designs against religion and liberty, said they, are iniquitous;

therefore it is improper to pay them, especially when these designs are

particularly specified and openly avouched in the acts which require

them. No act can be binding if imposed upon a people by persons calling

themselves their representatives, when they are not truly so, but placed

in their situations by those who have broken all their engagements,

betrayed their country, its religion, liberty, property, and all private

interests, have enslaved the nation, and, by means of these taxations,

will be enabled to perpetuate that slavery. Should it be replied, ‘that

Christ paid custom, lest he should offend, and taught us to render to

Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, and to God the things that are

God’s;’ it is sufficient to observe, that he never taught to give any

thing to Cesar in prejudice to that which is God’s; nor would it be much

less than blasphemy to say, that Christ would have paid, or permitted

his followers to pay, a tax professedly imposed for levying a war

against himself, banishing his gospel out of the land, and supporting

the scribes and pharisees and their underlings in their wicked attempts

against his disciples.

Others were of opinion that, as the money would be forcibly taken from

them, it was more adviseable to submit at once, rather than by

resistance to give their oppressors a legal pretence for not only

seizing to the amount of the tax, but perhaps double, in the name of

expenses; and as the deed was neither spontaneous, nor willingly

performed, the constrained action would come under the head of suffering

rather than of crime.

A third party chose a middle course, and paid it with a declaratory

explanation or protest. Among these was Quintin Dick, portioner in

Dalmellington, described by Wodrow as an eminent Christian, and prudent,

wise, and knowing, far above most of his education and station, who thus

expresses himself:—“In this hour of darkness, being much perplexed how

to carry without scandal and offence, I betook myself to God for

protection and direction, that I might be kept from any measure of

denying Christ or staving off my trouble upon any grounds but such as

might be clearly warranted by the word of God. After much liberty in

pouring out my heart to God, I was brought to weigh, that, as my paying

of it might be by some interpreted a scandal and a sinful acquiescence

in the magistrate’s sinful command; so, on the other hand, my refusing

to pay it would be the greater scandal, being found to clash against a

known command of God, of giving to all their due, tribute to whom

tribute is due; custom to whom custom is due; and knowing that Jesus

Christ for that very same end, to evite offence, did both pay tribute

himself and commanded his followers to do it, I could see no way to

refuse payment of that cess, unless I had clashed with that command of

paying tribute unto Cesar. So, to evite the scandal of compliance on the

one hand, and disobedience to the magistrate in matters of custom on the

other, I came to the determination to give in my cess to the collector

of the shire of Ayr where I lived, with a protestation against the

magistrate’s sinful qualification of his commands, and a full adherence

unto these meetings of God’s people, called conventicles, which in the

act he declared his design to bear down. I had no sooner done this, but

I was trysted with many sharp censures from many hands, among which this

was one, that my protestation was only to evite sufferings, and could be

of no weight, being ‘protestatio contraria facto.’ But being truly

persuaded that it is the magistrate’s right to impose and exact cess and

custom, I could have no clearness to state my sufferings in opposition

unto so express a command of God. And as to the magistrate’s sinful

qualification—having so openly declared and protested against it—I

conceive the censure of this to evite suffering is altogether

groundless; seeing the enemy has (subscribed with my hand before

witnesses) a resolute adherence to that which they say this tends to

overthrow; and if he mind to persecute upon the ground of owning

conventicles, he has a fair and full occasion against me under my hand.”

A few defended the refusal of payment upon the ground that the

convention having been a packed assemblage, consisting of persons

entirely under the influence of the crown—the chief and most powerful

Peers being necessarily absent, and the commissioners of the shires and

burghs returned through the sinful means of corruption and bribery, by

promises held out and favours bestowed, by the managers and persons in

power, for the purpose of compassing their own base ends—they could not

be considered as the real representatives of the people, nor legally

entitled to impose burdens upon the lieges; and therefore the people

were not righteously obligated to pay.

Combined with the disputes relative to paying cess, were revived with

redoubled vigour the discussions anent hearing the indulged; and “it was

truly grievous to us,” laments one who was himself a silent observer of

what passed, “to see a young generation, endued with great zeal towards

God and his interests, so far led aside in the improvement of it, as

very little to know, or seldom to be taught, meekness and patience under

affliction for Christ’s sake, or charity and mutual forbearance in love!

And to such a length did these heats come, that some did not stick to

term the famous Mr John Welsh, because he would not run so high upon

public, yea personal, acknowledgments of those steps of defection, an

Achan in the camp.”

Publications and preaching against each other succeeded, and the minds

of the wanderers began to be imbittered against the indulged, who they

thought were sitting at ease in Zion, while they were combating upon the

high places of the field. Another meeting of ministers was therefore

held at Glasgow in the end of harvest, when fresh efforts were made by

the aged veterans of the kirk to heal the wounds under which their

common mother lay bleeding; the more distressing as inflicted by some of

the most devoted of her sons. A new and practical cause of dissension

arose from the circumstances of the times and the situation in which the

preachers and people were placed, which struck at the root of Presbytery

itself, and that was the conduct of the younger brethren. As the duties

of presbyteries and synods had been interrupted, the most popular

preachers and their followers acted entirely upon their own

responsibility, invaded the parishes of the indulged, preached as they

listed, without being subject to any inspection or control, and had thus

widened the unhappy rent, and given great advantage to the common enemy.

The meeting disapproved of the practice of promiscuous preaching, any

where or every where, as opportunities presented, because, when they

intruded on the parishes of the indulged, they destroyed both the

usefulness of their brethren, whose charges they disturbed, and their

own, by depriving both of the restricted liberty they enjoyed, and which

it was their duty to improve.

Instead, they recommended that the whole of the “outted” ministers, and

those who had been regularly licensed by them, should associate

themselves together in classes, and that every fixed preacher should

belong to some class to which he should be subject and responsible; and

those who were unsettled, and so could not ordinarily attend their own

class or pseudo-presbytery, should attend such other as providence did

direct. They at the same time disapproved of the last meeting at

Edinburgh, being considered as an authoritative meeting, and pronounced

it to have been only “a committee for consideration, and to report

overtures to the general meeting of correspondents, who they were to

call upon occasion.” Nevertheless, they were still of opinion, that the

first foundation of unity must be order, and that there is no other way

of producing a humble contrite temper, warming the already too much

estranged affections, and preventing the like or worse for the future,

than that the brethren who were moderate and like-minded, and who, they

blessed God, were yet the very far greater and better number, should

meet together and consult upon fit means for so desirable an end. The

west country ministers mentioned, likewise, that they were in

consultation with their brethren in the east, who had been treating with

them, and who were also breathing after unity and peace.

What broke up these friendly communings, does not distinctly appear; but

a very untoward circumstance took place in the parish of Monkland, near

Glasgow, which certainly did not tend to promote their object. On

Sabbath, September 1st, the Rev. Mr Selkirk, afterwards minister of the

gospel at Crichton, had been requested by the ministers of Glasgow to

supply that parish, then vacant; but when he attempted it, he was

violently opposed and kept out of the church by force, merely because he

was favourable to the indulged, on purpose that one of the young

preachers under the patronage of Mr Robert Hamilton, might have access

to the pulpit to inveigh against them.

Were it not upon record, and recorded too by authority of the oppressors

themselves, it would hardly be credited that many of the best and most

inoffensive men in the country were banished and sold as slaves to the

plantations, for no crime but simply because they would not regularly

attend their parish churches to hear men preach, whom they believed

incapable of instructing them in those duties which they saw themselves

daily outraging; and choosing rather to assemble in the fields to wait

upon the ministry of others whom they preferred, by whose discourses

they were enlightened and edified, taught to live soberly, righteously,

and godly in this present world, and directed in those paths which lead

to glory and immortality in the next. Yet nearly one hundred persons,

upon such accusations, writers! farmers, merchants, men and women, were

delivered over, in the month of June this year, to Edward Johnstoun,

master of the Saint Michael of Scarborough, now lying at Leith, for

behoof of Ralph Williamson of London, who had given security to the

council to transport them to the Indies, where they were to continue in

servitude for life, and there to dispose of them to the best advantage.

Among these was the noted Alexander Peden, who had laboured with great

success in the north of Ireland. Having lain a long time in Edinburgh

jail, he petitioned the council to be permitted to return to his old

station, especially as he had been served with no indictment, nor was he

charged with holding either house or field-conventicles in Scotland for

twelve years. The council evinced their character by their tender

mercies. They answered his petition by banishing him to the plantations

for life, and ordained him “to lie in prison till he be transported.” He

was said to have been an instrument of much good to his

fellow-passengers, and cheered their spirits with the hopes of

deliverance when they reached London.[110]

Footnote 110:

“Mr Peden was a man of prayer, of natural sagacity, of spiritual

discernment, and a great observer of the ways of Providence. He could

foresee what would be the result of certain measures, and what

calamities foolish and wicked men would bring upon themselves and

others; and when such things came to pass as he had foretold, his too

credulous friends ascribed it to the gift of prophecy. At the same

time, I am not so wedded to my opinion on this subject, as not to

admit that men who lived in such intimate daily communion with God as

Mr Peden did, may have had presentiments of things with regard to

themselves and the church, of which Christians of a lesser growth can

form no conception.”—M’Gavin’s note to the Scots Worthies, p. 516.

They were detained at sea five days longer than had been calculated

upon; and when they arrived, Mr Williamson who should have received them

was absent. Johnstoun, who had the charge of their maintenance when

there, not knowing how he was to be reimbursed, and not being able to

find any body to take them off his hands, nor seeing any prospect of the

agent, set them ashore, and left them to shift for themselves. The

English, who sympathized much with them when they learned the cause of

their sufferings, afforded them every assistance; and the greater part

of them returned safely home after an absence of nine months—several of

them to suffer new hardships from their relentless persecutors.

Neither rank nor age were any protection against the cruelty of these

men, who, careless about the mischief they inflicted, imposed upon the

young oaths which they could not be supposed to understand, and ordered

them to subscribe bonds they could never fulfil. The son of Lord Semple,

at this time a student in Glasgow College, had a young man for his

private tutor, of uncommon abilities and excellent character, to whom he

was much attached. Him the council summoned to appear before them; but

he, aware of the consequences, did not comply, and his pupil withdrew

with him. They were both served with a charge of law-burrows. The young

lord’s mother, however, who was a papist, interfered on his behalf, and

represented that her son, through the neglect of those to whom he was

recommended, or the corruption of the place, had been seduced and

poisoned with bad principles; she therefore craved that they would

recommend such persons as would watch over his loyalty and estate during

his minority, and they appointed the Bishop of Argyle to provide a

governor to that lord. Mr Wylie went abroad and remained at some of the

foreign universities with several other pupils.

Alexander Anderson, a youth not sixteen years of age, was treated more

harshly, because he would make no compliances. He was sent to the

plantations. Yet he left a testimony behind him, which deserves to be

remembered, dated Canongate tolbooth, December 10th, this year. In it he

remarked—“That he is the youngest prisoner in Scotland; and that the

Lord had opened his eyes and revealed his Son in his heart since he came

under the cross; that though he had much difficulty to part with his

friends and relatives, yet he had now found, that fellowship with Christ

did much more than balance the want of the company of dearest relations;

that though he was so very young as that he could not be admitted a

witness among men, yet he hopes Christ hath taken him to be a witness to

his cause. He adheres to the work of reformation from popery and prelacy

to the National and Solemn League and Covenants; and witnesses against

the pulling down of the government of Christ’s house, and setting up

lordly prelacy, and joining with them; and adduces a good many places of

Scripture which he conceives strike against this practice. He makes an

apology that he who is but a child should leave any thing of this nature

behind him; but says he was constrained to it, to testify that God

perfects strength out of the mouth of babes. He regrets the indulgence

as what upon both sides had been matter of stumbling and offence among

good people; and declares his fears that a black, dreadful day is coming

upon Scotland: that it is good to seek the Lord and draw near to him. He

leaves his commendation to the cross of Christ, and blesses the Lord for

carrying him through temptations, and enabling him, one of the lambs of

his flock, to stand before great men and judges; and closes with good

wishes to all the friends of Christ.”

The Justiciary Court was this year engaged in equally cruel, though,

could we divest them of their horrors, we should say more ludicrous

transactions. “Eight or ten witches,” Lord Fountainhall tells us, “were

panelled, all of them, except one or two, poor miserable-like women.

Some of them were brought out of Sir Robert Hepburn of Keith’s lands;

others out of Ormiston, Crichton, and Pencaitland parishes. The first of

them were delated by those two who were burnt in Salt-Preston in May

1678, and they divulged and named the rest, as also put forth seven in

the Lonehead of Leswade; and, if they had been permitted, were ready to

fyle by their delation sundry gentlewomen and others of fashion; but the

justices discharged them, thinking it either the product of malice or

melancholy, or the devil’s deception, in representing such persons as

present at their field-meetings who were not there. Yet this was cried

out on as a prelimiting them from discovering those enemies of mankind.

However, they were permitted to name Mr Gideon Penman, who had been

minister at Crichton, but deprived for sundry acts of immoralitie. Two

or three of the witches constantly affirmed that he was present at their

meetings with the devil; and that when the devil called for him, he

asked, where is Mr Gideon, my chaplain? and that, ordinarily, Mr Gideon

was in the rear of all their dances, and beat up those that were slow.

He denied all, and was liberate upon caution”—certainly the only way of

disposing of this case in consistency with common sense.

Yet were these poor unfortunates allowed to proceed with their

confessions, which were regularly registered against them. “They

declared the first thing the devil caused them do, was to renounce their

baptism; and by laying their hand on the top of their head, and the

other on the sole of their foot, to renounce all betwixt the two to his

service. But one being with child at the time, in her resignation,

excepted the child, at which the devil was very angry. That he

frequently kissed them, but his body was cold, and his breath was like a

damp air. That he cruelly beat them when they had done the evil he had

enjoined them—for he was a most wicked and barbarous master. That

sometimes he adventured to give them the communion, or holy sacrament;

the bread like wafers—the drink, sometimes blood, and at other times

black moss-water; and preached most blasphemously. That sometimes he

transformed them into bees, ravens, and crows; and they flew to such and

such remote places. Their confessions,” his lordship gravely adds, “made

many intelligent, sober persons stumble much, what faith was to be

adhibite to them.” How any intelligent person could hesitate a moment

upon the subject, is strange; and it is humiliating and lamentable to

add, that by grave, intelligent judges “nine of these women, upon their

own confession (and so seemed very rational and penitent) were sentenced

to be strangled and then burnt,” instead of being sent to some safe

place of confinement to be dealt gently with; and five of them were

accordingly immolated between Leith and Edinburgh, and other four burnt

at Painston-moor, within their own parish where they had lived.

A case came before the privy council, not long after, which it is

difficult to reconcile with the above, the proceedings were so

diametrically opposite. Cathrine Liddel brought a complaint against

Rutherford, baron-bailie, to Morrison of Prestongrange and David Cowan

in Tranent, for having seized her, an innocent woman, defamed her as a

witch, and detained her under restraint as a prisoner, also that Cowan

had pricked her with long pins, in sundry places of her body, and bled

and tortured her most cruelly. The bailie pled that she had been

denounced by other witches, laboured under a mala fama, and therefore

had been apprehended; and that she and her son-in-law had consented to

her being “searched” for the vindication of her innocency. With regard

to the pricker, he had learned his trade from Kincaid, a famed pricker;

he never exercised his calling without the authority of a magistrate;

his trade was not condemned by any law, and all divines and lawyers, who

have written on witchcraft, acknowledge that there are such marks, and

therefore there may be an art for discerning them. But the Chancellor

remembered that he had formerly imprisoned the famous Kincaid in

Kinross, as a notorious cheat. The lords of the privy council therefore

first declared the woman innocent, and restored her to her good name and

fame, and ordered it to be publicly intimated the next Sunday in her

parish church; then reproved Rutherford for his rashness, and forbade

him in future to proceed in such a manner, declaring that the use of

torture by pricking or otherwise was illegal; and, as a mark of their

displeasure, ordered the pricker to prison.

Considerable changes had taken place among the higher authorities in

Scotland this year. Since the appointment of Sir George Mackenzie of

Rosehaugh to be king’s advocate, Sir George Mackenzie of Tarbet was

appointed justice-general; Sir Thomas Wallace of Craigie, lord

justice-clerk; the Bishop of Galloway was added to the committee for

public affairs; Richard Maitland of Gogar, Sir George Gordon of Haddo,

and Drummond of Lundin, admitted councillors; and the Marquis of

Montrose made captain of the horse guards.

------------------------------------------------------------------------