CHAPTER III.

CONDITION OF SCOTLAND DURING THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES.

Scarcely had James mounted the throne of England, when he began

seriously, and on a large scale, to attempt to subjugate the Scotch

Church, which, as he clearly saw, was the principal obstacle that stood

between him and despotic power. While he was merely King of Scotland, he

made several efforts, which were constantly baffled; but now that he

wielded the vast resources of England, the victory seemed easy.[274] As

early as 1584, he had gained a temporary triumph, by forcing many of the

clergy to recognize episcopacy.[275] But that institution was so

repugnant to their levelling and democratic principles, that nothing

could overcome their abhorrence of it;[276] and, completely overawing the

king, they compelled him to give way, and to retrace his steps. The

result was, that, in 1592, an Act of Parliament was passed, which

subverted the authority of the bishops, and established Presbyterianism;

a scheme based on the idea of equality, and, therefore, suited to the

wants of the Scotch Church.[277]

[274] Lord Dartmouth says (Note in _Burnet's History of his own Time_,

vol. i. p. 15): 'The Earl of Seafield told me that King James

frequently declared that he never looked upon himself to be more

than King of Scotland in name, till he came to be King of England;

but now, he said, one kingdom would help him to govern the other,

or he had studied kingcraft to very little purpose from his cradle

to that time.' Compare _Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of

Hamilton_, Oxford, 1852, p. 36. 'No sooner was he happily settled

on the throne of England, but he went more roundly to work.'

[275] Compare _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. vi. p. 430, with

_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 303, § 20;

also the Act (p. 293, § 4), likewise in 1584, limiting the power

of the General Assemblies. James, who flattered himself that he

had now settled everything, signalized his triumph by personally

abusing the clergy; 'calling them lownes, smaicks, seditious

knaves, and so furth.' See a letter, dated 2nd of January 1585-6,

in _Miscellany of the Wodrow Society_, p. 438, Edinburgh, 1844.

[276] 'Bishops were alwayes looked at with a frown.' _Kirkton's History

of the Church of Scotland_, p. 129.

[277] See this remarkable statute, in _Acts of the Parliaments of

Scotland_, vol. iii. pp. 541, 2. As some of the historians of the

Scotch Church have greatly misrepresented it, I will quote that

part which expressly repeals the Act of 1584, in favour of the

bishops. 'Item oure said souerane lord and estaittis of Parliament

foirsaid, abrogatis cass and anullis the xx act of the same

pliam[=e]t haldin at Edinburgh the said zeir 1584 zeiris granting

c[=o]missioun to bishoppis and vtheris iuges constitute in

ecclesiastical causs To ressaue his hienes presentatioun to

benefices, To gif collatioun thairvpoun and to put ordo^r in all

causs ecclesiasticall qlk his Maiestie and estaittis foirsaid

declairis to be expyrit in the self and to be null in tyme cuming

and of nane availl force nor effect.'

To this statute, James had assented with the greatest reluctance.[278]

Indeed, his feeling respecting it was so strong, that he determined, on

the first opportunity, to procure its repeal, even if he used force to

effect his purpose. The course he adopted, was characteristic both of the

man and of the age. In December 1596, one of those popular tumults arose

in Edinburgh, which are natural in barbarous times, and which, under

ordinary circumstances, would have been quelled, and nothing more thought

of it.[279] But James availed himself of this, to strike what he deemed a

decisive blow. His plan was nothing less than to turn into the capital of

his own monarchy, large bodies of armed and licensed banditti, who, by

threatening to plunder the city, should oblige the clergy and their

flocks to agree to whatever terms he chose to dictate. This magnanimous

scheme was well worthy of the mind of James, and it was strictly

executed. From the north, he summoned the Highland nobles, and from the

south, the border barons, who were to be accompanied by their fierce

retainers,--men who lived by pillage, and whose delight it was to imbrue

their hands in blood. At the express command of James, these ferocious

brigands, on the 1st of January 1597, appeared in the streets of

Edinburgh, gloating over the prospect before them, and ready, when their

sovereign gave the word, to sack the capital, and raze it to the

ground.[280] Resistance was hopeless. Whatever the king demanded, was

conceded; and James supposed that the time was now come, in which he

could firmly establish the authority of the bishops, and, by their aid,

control the clergy, and break their refractory spirit.[281]

[278] 'The King repented after that he had agreed unto it.' _Calderwood's

History of the Kirk_, vol. v. p. 162. But this gives a faint idea

of his real feelings. It is perhaps hardly necessary to adduce

evidence of the opinions entertained on this point, by a prince,

one of whose favourite sayings was, 'No Bishop, no King.' The

reader will, however, find, in the _Clarendon State Papers_ (vol.

ii. p. 260 Oxford, 1773, folio), a letter from Charles I., which

is worth looking at, because it frankly avows that James, in

loving episcopacy and hating presbyterianism, was actuated rather

by political motives than by religious ones. Charles writes: 'The

prudentiall part of any consideration will never be found opposit

to the conscientious, nay heere, they go hand in hand; for

(according to lawyers lodgique) show me any president where ever

Presbiteriall government and Regall was together, without

perpetuall rebellions. _Which was the cause that necessitated the

King, my Father, to change that governement in Scotland._' Compare

what is said by a Scotch Presbyterian of the seventeenth century,

in _Biographies edited for the Wodrow Society_ by the Rev. W. K.

Tweedie, Edinburgh, 1845, vol. i. p. 13. 'The reason why King

James was so violent for bishops was neither their divine

institution (which he denied they had), nor yet the profit the

Church should reap by them (for he knew well both the men and

their communications), but merely because he believed they were

useful instruments to turn a limited monarchy into absolute

dominion, and subjects into slaves, the design in the world he

minded most.'

[279] 'Had it not been laid hold of by designing politicians as a handle

for accomplishing their measures, it would not now have been known

that such an event had ever occurred.' _M'Crie's Life of

Melville_, vol. ii. p. 85. 'Harmless as this uproar was, it

afforded the court a pretext for carrying into execution its

designs against the liberties and government of the Church.'

p. 89.

[280] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. vii. pp. 342-345.

_Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. v. pp. 514, 515, 530,

531.

[281] 'Intimidated by these menaces, and distressed at the loss of the

courts of justice, they came to the resolution of making surrender

of their political and religious liberties to the king.' _M'Crie's

Life of Melville_, vol. ii. p. 92. This is said of the magistrates

of Edinburgh. Among other threats, one was, the 'razing and

ploughing of Edinburgh, and sowing it with salt.' _Wodrow's Life

of Bruce_, p. 48, prefixed to _Bruce's Sermons_, edited by the

Rev. William Cunningham, Edinburgh, 1843. On this occasion,

Elizabeth wrote a letter to James, which is printed in _Letters of

Queen Elizabeth and James VI._, 1849, 4to, pp. 120, 121.

In this undertaking, three years were consumed. To insure its success,

the king, supported by the nobles, relied, not only on force, but also on

an artifice, which now seems to have been employed for the first time.

This was, to pack the General Assemblies, by inundating them with

clergymen drawn from the north of Scotland, where, the old clannish and

aristocratic spirit being supreme, the democratic spirit, found in the

south, was unknown. Hitherto, these northern ministers had rarely

attended at the great meetings of the Church; but James, in 1597, sent

Sir Patrick Murray on a special mission to them, urging them to be

present, in order that they might vote on his side.[282] They, being a

very ignorant body, knowing little or nothing of the questions really at

issue, and being, moreover, accustomed to a state of society in which

men, notwithstanding their lawlessness, paid the most servile obedience

to their immediate superiors, were easily worked upon, and induced to do

what they were bid. By their help, the crown and the nobles so

strengthened their party in the General Assembly, as to obtain in many

instances a majority; and innovations were gradually introduced,

calculated to destroy the democratic character of the Scotch Church.[283]

[282] _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. ii. p. 100. Scot (_Apologetical

Narration of the State of the Kirk_, p. 88) says, 'Sir Patrick

Murray, the diligent apostle of the North, made their acquaintance

with the King.' Also, _The Autobiography and Diary of James

Melville_, p. 403.

[283] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. vii. pp. 350, 359. But by far

the best account of the influence of these northern clergy will be

found in _M'Crie's Life of Melville_ (vol. ii. pp. 100-105, 109,

131, 152), drawn, in several instances, from manuscript

authorities. Compare _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. v.

p. 625.

In 1597, the movement began. From then, until 1600, successive Assemblies

sanctioned different changes, all of which were marked by that

aristocratic tendency which seemed about to carry everything before it.

In 1600, the General Assembly met at Montrose; and government determined

on making a final effort to compel the Church to establish an episcopal

polity. Andrew Melville, by far the most influential man in the Church,

and the leader of the democratic party, had been elected, as usual, a

member of the Assembly; but the king, arbitrarily interposing, refused to

allow him to take his seat.[284] Still, neither by threats, nor by force,

nor by promises, could the court carry their point. All that they

obtained was, that certain ecclesiastics should be allowed to sit in

parliament; but it was ordered that such persons should every year lay

their commissions at the feet of the General Assembly, and render an

account of their conduct. The Assembly was to have the power of deposing

them; and, to keep them in greater subjection, they were forbidden to

call themselves bishops, but were to be content with the inferior title

of Commissioners of the Church.[285]

[284] This is related by his nephew, James Melville. 'Mr. Andro Melvill

come to the Assembly, by Commissoune of his Presbytrie, but wes

commandit to keip his ludgeing; quho, being callit to the King in

private, and demandit, Quhy he wes so trublesume as to come to the

Assembly being dischairgit? He answerit, He had a calling in the

Kirk of God, and of Jesus Chryst, the King of kings, quhilk he

behovit to dischairge at all occasiounes, being orderlie callit

thairto, as he wes at this tyme; and that for feir of a grytter

punischment then could any earthly King inflict.' _The

Autobiography and Diary of James Melvill_, p. 542.

[285] As, owing to the passions of the rival classes, every step of this

part of Scotch history is the subject of angry controversy, and as

even Mr. Tytler (_History of Scotland_, vol. vii. p. 360) asserts

that 'the final establishment of Episcopacy' took place at the

Assembly of Montrose, in 1600. I subjoin a few extracts from the

enactments of that Assembly, in order that the reader may judge

for himself, and may test the accuracy of what I have stated in

the text. 'Concerning the maner of choosing of him that sall have

vote in Parliament in name of the Kirk: It is condiscendit vpon,

that _he sall first be recommendit be the Kirk to his Majestie_;

and that the Kirk sall nominat sixe for every place that sall have

neid to be filled, of quhom his Majestie sall choose ane, of quhom

he best lykes; and his Majestie promises, obleises, and binds

himselfe to choose no vther but ane of that number: And in cace

his Majestie refuses the haill vpon ane just reason of ane

insufficiency, and of greater sufficiencie of vthers that are not

recommendit, the Kirk sall make ane new recommendatioun of men

according to the first number, of the quhilk, ane salbe chosin be

his Majestie without any farther refuisall or new nominatioun; and

he that salbe chosin be his Majestie, salbe admittit be the

Synods.' _Acts of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland_,

vol. iii. p. 954. 'As to the cautions to keip him, that sall have

vote in Parliament, from corruptiouns: They be these following:

1. _That he presume not, at any tyme, to propone at Parliament,

Counsell or Conventioun, in name of the Kirk, any thing without

expresse warrand and directioun from the Kirk_, and sick things as

he sall answer (for) to be for the weill of the Kirk, vnder the

paine of depositioun from his office.' ... 2. 'He sall be bound at

every Generall Assemblie, to give ane accompt anent the discharge

of his commissioun sen the Assemblie gangand befor; _and sall

submitt himselfe to thair censure, and stand at thair

determinatioun quhatsumever, without appellatioun; and sall seik

and obtain ratificatioun of his doings at the said Assemblie,

vnder the paine of infamie and excommunicatioun_.' ... 6. 'In the

administration of discipline, collatioun of benefices,

visitatioun, and all vther points of ecclesiasticall government,

he sall neither vsurpe nor acclaime to himselfe _any power or

jurisdictioun farther than any vther of the rest of his breither_,

unlesse he be imployit be his breither, vnder the paine of

deprivatioun.' p. 955. 'Anent his name that for the Kirk sall

(have) vote in Parliament: It is advyseit, be vniforme consent of

the haill brether, that he salbe callit Commissioner of such a

place.' p. 956. 'Therfor the Generall Assemblie having reasonit at

length the said questioun, tuiching the continuance of him that

sall have vote in Parliament, after votting of the same, finds and

decernes, that _he sall annuatim give count of his commission

obtainit from the Assemblie, and lay downe the samein at thair

feitt_, to be continuit or alterit therfra be his Maiestie and the

Assemblie, as the Assemblie, with consent of his Maiestie, sall

think most expedient for the weill of the Kirk.' p. 959.

After sustaining this repulse, James seems to have been disheartened; as

he made no further effort, though he still laboured underhand at the

restoration of episcopacy.[286] If he had persevered, it might have cost

him his crown. For, his resources were few; he was extremely poor;[287]

and recent events had shown that the clergy were stronger than he had

supposed. When he thought himself most sure of success, they had

subjected him to a mortifying defeat; and this was the more remarkable,

as it was entirely their own work; they being by this time so completely

separated from the nobles, that they could not rely upon even a single

member of that powerful body.

[286] 'While James remained in Scotland, the scheme of introducing

episcopacy, though never lost sight of, was cautiously

prosecuted.' _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. ii. p. 178.

[287] James, during the whole of his reign, was chiefly dependent on the

money which Elizabeth gave him, and which she dealt out rather

niggardly. Such were his necessities, that he was forced to pawn

his plate, and, even then, he was often unable to defray his

ordinary household expenses. See _Tytler's History of Scotland_,

vol. vi. pp. 265, 266, 272, vol. vii. pp. 158, 378-380.

_Miscellany of the Spalding Club_, vol. ii. pp. xlv. 114.

_Gregory's History of the Western Highlands_, pp. 241, 277. See

also a clamorous begging-letter from James to Elizabeth, written

in 1591, in _Letters of Queen Elizabeth and James VI._, 1849, 4to,

pp. 68, 69. In 1593, she apologizes for sending him only a small

sum: 'The small token you shall receave from me I desire yt may

serve to make you remember the tyme and my many weighty affaires,

wich makes it les than else I would, and I dowt nothing but when

you heare all, yow will beare with this.' p. 84. A letter from

James Hudson, written about the year 1591, states that 'both the

king's table and queen's had like to have been unserved by want;

and that the king had nothing he accounted certain to come into

his purse, but what he had from the Queen of England.' _Ridpath's

Border History_, p. 465, Berwick, 1848, 4to.

While affairs were in this state, and while the liberties of Scotland, of

which the Church was the guardian, were trembling in the balance,

Elizabeth died, and the King of Scotland became also King of England.

James at once determined to employ the resources of his new kingdom to

curb his old one. In 1604, that is, only the year after his accession to

the English throne, he aimed a deadly blow at the Scotch Church, by

attacking the independence of their Assemblies; and, by his own

authority, he prorogued the General Assembly of Aberdeen.[288] In 1605,

he again prorogued it; and, to make his intentions clear, he, this time,

refused to fix a day for its future meeting.[289] Hereupon, some of the

ministers, deputed by presbyteries, took upon themselves to convene it,

which they had an undoubted right to do, as the act of the king was

manifestly illegal. On the day appointed, they met in the session-house

of Aberdeen. They were ordered to disperse. Having, as they conceived, by

the mere fact of assembling, sufficiently asserted their privileges, they

obeyed. But James, now backed by the power of England, resolved that they

should feel the change of his position, and, therefore, of theirs. In

consequence of orders which he sent from London, fourteen of the clergy

were committed to prison.[290] Six of them, who denied the authority of

the privy-council, were indicted for high treason. They were at once put

upon their trial. They were convicted. And sentence of death was only

deferred, that the pleasure of the king might first be taken, as to

whether he would not be satisfied with some punishment that fell short of

sacrificing the lives of these unhappy men.[291]

[288] _Laing's History of Scotland_, edit. 1819, vol. iii. p. 28.

_Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. vi. pp. 264, 323.

_Bower's History of the University of Edinburgh_, vol. i. p. 175,

Edinburgh, 1817. _Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland_,

p. 88.

[289] 'Adde thereunto, that the letter of the commissioner and last

moderator, conteaned no certane tyme nor day whereto the said

Assemblie sould be prorogued; so that it imported a casting loose

and deserting, yea, and tyning of the possessioun of our

Assemblie; than the which what could be more dangerous to the

libertie and freedom of the Kirk of Jesus Christ, at suche a tyme,

namelie of the treatie of the Unioun, when all the estates of the

realme, and everie particular are zealous and carefull of their

rights and possessiouns?' _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_,

vol. vi. pp. 309, 310.

[290] See a list of them in _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. vi.

p. 347, where the fourteen names are preserved with pious care.

[291] _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in Scotland_, vol. ii. pp. 494-502.

_Forbes' Certaine Records touching the Estate of the Kirk_, edit.

Wodrow Society, Edinburgh, 1846, pp. 463-496. 'Delayed the giving

forth of the sentence of condemnation till the King's mind were

further knowne.' See also _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol.

vi. pp. 434, 449. When they were found guilty, 'the peiple said,

"Certainely this wes a worke of darknes, to mak Chrystis faithfull

Ministeres tratouris to the King! God grant he be niver in greater

dangeris nor off sic traitouris."' _Melvill's Autobiography and

Diary_, p. 626.

Their lives, indeed, were spared; but they were subjected to a close

imprisonment, and then condemned to perpetual exile.[292] In other parts

of the country, similar measures were adopted. Nearly all over Scotland,

numbers of the clergy were either imprisoned or forced to fly.[293]

Terror and proscription were universal. Such was the panic, that it was

generally believed that nothing could prevent the permanent establishment

of despotism, unless there were some immediate and providential

interference on behalf of the Church and the people.[294]

[292] _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. ii. pp. 207, 208. _Pitcairn's

Criminal Trials_, vol. ii. p. 504. In connexion with these

transactions, a letter is preserved in the Winwood Papers, which

is much too curious to be passed over in silence. It is addressed

by the Earl of Salisbury to Sir Charles Cornwallis, and is dated

12th September 1605. Salisbury, who was then at the head of

affairs, writes, 'True it is that his Majestie seeking to _adorne

that kingdome of Scotland with Prelates as they are in England_,

some of the Ministers have spurned against it; and althouge his

Majestie had ever warranted their calling of General Assemblies

upon no other condition, then that they should make him

acquainted, receive his warrant, and a commissioner for his

Majestie resident in their councells, yet have they (followed with

some poor plebecall numbers) presumed to hold their General

Assemblies in some parte of the Realme contrarie to his

commandement. Whereupon his Majestie hath shewed himself

displeased, and cyted divers of them before his councell,' &c.

_Memorials of Affairs of State, from the Papers of Sir Ralph

Winwood_, London, 1725, folio, vol. ii. p. 132. And yet the man

who could write such nonsense as this, and who could only see, in

the great democratic movement of the Scotch mind, a disinclination

to the _adornment_ of episcopacy, was deemed one of the most

eminent statesmen of his time, and his reputation has survived

him. If great statesmen discern so little of what is before them

and around them, we are tempted to inquire, how much confidence

ought to be placed in the opinions of those average statesmen by

whom countries are ruled. For my own part, I can only say, that I

have had occasion to read many thousand letters written by

diplomatists and politicians, and I have hardly ever found an

instance of one of them who understood the spirit and tendency of

the age in which he lived.

[293] 'Ministers in all parts of the country were thrown into prison, or

declared rebels, and forced to abscond.' _M'Crie's Life of

Melville_, vol. ii. p. 250. Liberty of speech was so completely

suppressed, that, in 1605, when the most zealous and intelligent

clergy were banished, 'a strait command' (was) 'gevin to

magistrats, and uther officiers of burrowis, that in cace any

preacher sould speik opinlie aganis that baneisment, or for

defence or mentenence of that assemblie, or pray publiklie for

ther saiftie, that they sould be noted and manifested to the

secret counsell, and corrected for their fault.' _The Historie of

King James the Sext_, p. 380.

[294] See an eloquent and touching passage, in _Calderwood's History of

the Kirk_, vol. vi. pp. 696, 697.

Nor can it be denied that there were plausible grounds for these

apprehensions. The people had no friends except among the clergy, and the

ablest of the clergy were either in prison or in exile.[295] To deprive

the Church entirely of her leaders, James, in 1606, summoned to London,

Melville and seven of his colleagues, under pretence of needing their

advice.[296] Having got possession of their persons, he detained them in

England.[297] They were forbidden to return to Scotland; and Melville,

who was most feared, was committed to custody. He was then imprisoned in

the Tower, where he remained four years, and from which he was only

liberated on condition of living abroad, and abandoning altogether his

native country.[298] The seven ministers who had accompanied him to

London were also imprisoned; but, being considered less dangerous than

their leader, they, after a time, were allowed to return home. The nephew

of Melville was, however, ordered not to travel more than two miles from

Newcastle; and his six companions were confined in different parts of

Scotland.[299]

[295] 'The godliest, wisest, learnedest, and most zealous men of the

ministrie in Scotland, were either banished, warded, or detained

in Ingland, of purpose that they might not be a lett to the grand

designe in hand.' _Row's History of the Kirk_, p. 238.

[296] _Scot's Apologetical Narration of the State of the Kirk_, pp. 164,

165. Compare _The Autobiography and Diary of James Melvill_,

pp. 642-645.

[297] 'Quhen we wer gone out of the Palice a lytle way towards

Kingstoune, Mr. Alexander Hay sendis back for us, and withall, in

the Uttir Court, reidis to us a chairge from the King not to

returne to Scotland, nor to com neire the King, Quein, nor Prince

their Courtis, without a speciall calling for and licence.'

_Melvill's Autobiography_, p. 661.

[298] _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. ii. pp. 246, 252, 260, 337-339,

403, 407-411, 414. This truly great and fearless man died in

exile, in 1622. p. 458.

[299] _Melvill's Autobiography and Diary_, p. 709. _Scot's Apologetical

Narration_, p. 194. _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. ii. pp. 252,

253, 267, 268.

Everything now seemed ripe for the destruction of those ideas of equality

of which, in Scotland, the Church was the sole representative. In 1610, a

General Assembly was held at Glasgow; and, as the members of it were

nominated by the crown,[300] whatever the government wished was conceded.

By their vote, episcopacy was established, and the authority of the

bishops over the ministers was fully recognized.[301] A little earlier,

but in the same year, two courts of High Commission were erected, one at

Saint Andrews, and one at Glasgow. To them, all ecclesiastical courts

were subordinate. They were armed with such immense power, that they

could cite any one they pleased before them, could examine him respecting

his religious opinions, could have him excommunicated, and could fine or

imprison him, just as they thought proper.[302] Finally, and to complete

the humiliation of Scotland, the establishment of episcopacy was not

considered complete, until an act was performed, which nothing but its

being very ignominious, could have saved from being ridiculed as an idle

and childish farce. The archbishop of Glasgow, the bishop of Brechin, and

the bishop of Galloway, had to travel all the way to London, in order

that they might be touched by some English bishops. Incredible as it may

appear, it was actually supposed that there was no power in Scotland

sufficiently spiritual to turn a Scotchman into a prelate. Therefore it

was, that the archbishop of Glasgow and his companions performed what was

then an arduous journey to a strange and distant capital, for the sake of

receiving some hidden virtue, which, on their return home, they might

communicate to their brethren. To the grief and astonishment of their

country, these unworthy priests, abandoning the traditions of their

native land, and forgetting the proud spirit which animated their

fathers, consented to abjure their own independence, to humble themselves

before the English Church, and to submit to mummeries, which, in their

hearts, they must have despised, but which were now inflicted upon them

by their ancient and inveterate foes.[303]

[300] 'Royal missives were sent to the presbyteries, nominating the

individuals whom they should chuse as their representatives to

it.' _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. ii. pp. 387, 388. On the

character of its members, compare _Wodrow's History of the

Sufferings of the Church of Scotland_, edit. Glasgow, 1838, vol.

i. p. 256. _Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland_, pp.

320, 321. _Crookshank's Church of Scotland_, Edinburgh, 1812, vol.

i. p. 28; and _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. vii.

pp. 97, 98.

[301] _Acts of the General Assemblies of the Kirk_, vol. iii. pp. 1096,

1097. The Assembly even forbad the democratic notion of equality

to be advocated. See p. 1101. 'Because it is vncivill that laws

and constitutiouns, either Civill or Ecclesiasticall, being anes

establischit and in force, by publick and opin consent, sould be

controllit and callit in questioun by any person: therfor, it is

statute by vniforme consent of this haill Assemblie, that none of

the Ministrie either in pulpitt in his preaching, or in the

publick exercise, speake and reason against the acts of this

present Assemblie, nor dissobey the same, vnder the paine of

deprivatioun, being tryit and convict thereof; and _speciallie,

that the questioun of equalitie and inequalitie in the Kirk, be

not treattit in pulpitt vnder the said paine_.'

[302] Mr. Russell (_History of the Church in Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 88),

misled, probably, by a passage in _Spottiswoode's History of the

Church_, vol. iii. p. 210, says, 'A Court of High Commission was

instituted.' But it is certain that there were two such courts;

one for the diocese of Saint Andrews, and one for that of Glasgow.

See the 'commissioun givin under the great seale to the two

archbishops,' dated 15th of February 1610, in _Calderwood's

History of the Kirk_, vol. vii. pp. 57-62. See also p. 210. They

were not united till December 1615. See _Scot's Apologetical

Narration of the State of the Kirk_, pp. 218, 239; and

_Crookshank's History of the Sufferings of the Church of

Scotland_, vol. i. p. 28. By the royal commission, these despotic

tribunals were authorized (_Calderwood_, vol. vii. p. 59) 'to call

before them at suche tymes and places as they salle thinke meete,

anie person or persons dwelling and remaining within their

provinces respective above writtin of St. Andrews or Glasgow, or

within anie dioceis of the same, being offenders ather in life or

religioun, whom they hold anie way to be scandalous, and that they

take tryell of the same; and if they find them guiltie and

impenitent, refusing to acknowledge their offence, they sall give

command to the preacher of that parish where they dwell, to

proceed with sentence of excommunication against them; which, if

it be protracted, and their command by that minister be not

presentlie obeyed, they sall conveene anie suche minister before

them, and proceed in censuring of him for his disobedience, ather

by suspensioun, deprivatioun, or wairding, according as in their

discretioun they sall hold his obstinacie and refuse of their

directioun to have deserved. And further, to fyne at their

discretiouns, imprisoun, or warde anie suche persoun, who being

convicted before them, they sall find upon tryell to have deserved

anie suche punishment.' Hereupon, Calderwood justly remarks, p.

62: 'This commissioun and executioun thereof, as it exalted the

aspyring bishops farre above any prelat that ever was in Scotland,

so it putt the king in possessioun of that which he had long tyme

hunted for; to witt, of the royall prerogative, and absolute power

to use the bodeis and goods of the subjects at pleasure, without

forme or processe of the commoun law, even then when the Lower

Hous in England was compleaning in their parliament upon the

injurie therof. So our bishops were fitt instruments to overthrow

the liberteis both of the Kirk and countrie.'

[303] See _Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland_, p. 93, and

_Kirkton's History_, p. 15. Kirkton indignantly says, that James

'perswaded a few unworthy men to perjure themselves, and after

their episcopall consecration by the English bishops in England,

to exercise that odious office in Scotland against their own oath

and the consciences of their brethren.' Compare the contemptuous

notice, in _Row's History of the Kirk_, p. 283, on the 'anoynting

of oyle and other ceremonies,' and on 'the foolish guyses in it.'

Indeed, on this subject, every Scotch writer who cared for the

liberty of his country, expressed himself either with contempt or

indignation.

We may easily imagine what would be the future conduct of men, who,

merely for their own aggrandizement, and to please their prince, could

thus renounce the cherished independence of the Scotch Church. They who

crouch to those who are above them always trample on those who are below

them. Directly they returned to Scotland, they communicated the

consecration they had received in England to their fellow-bishops,[304]

who were of the like mould to themselves, in so far as all of them aided

James in his attempt to subjugate the liberties of their native country.

Being now properly ordained, their spiritual life was complete; it

remained for them to secure the happiness of their temporal life. This

they did, by gradually monopolizing all authority, and treating with

unsparing severity those who opposed them. The fall triumph of the

bishops was reserved for the reign of Charles I., when a number of them

obtained seats in the privy-council, where they behaved with such

overbearing insolence, that even Clarendon, notwithstanding his

notorious partiality for their order, censures their conduct.[305] In the

time, however, of James I., they carried nearly everything before

them.[306] They deprived the towns of their privileges, and forced them

to receive magistrates of their own choosing.[307] They accumulated

wealth, and made an ostentatious display of it; which was the more

disgraceful, as the country was miserably poor, and their fellow-subjects

were starving around them.[308] The Lords of the Articles, without whose

sanction no measure could be presented to parliament, had been hitherto

elected by laymen; but the bishops now effected a change, by virtue of

which the right of nomination devolved on themselves.[309] Having thus

gained possession of the legislature, they obtained the enactment of

fresh penalties against their countrymen. Great numbers of the clergy

they suspended; others they deprived of their benefices; others they

imprisoned. The city of Edinburgh, being opposed to the rites and

ceremonies lately introduced, and being, like the rest of the country,

hostile to episcopacy, the bishops fell on it also, displaced several of

its magistrates, seized some of the principal citizens, and threatened to

deprive it of the courts of justice, and of the honour of being the seat

of government.[310]

[304] Calderwood, with ill-suppressed bitterness, says, 'efter the same

maner that they were consecrated themselfs, _als neere as they

could imitate_.' _History of the Kirk_, vol. vii. p. 152. Compare

_Wodrow's Collections_, vol. i. part i. p. 293. 'The Bishops

ordeaned in England keeped as near the manner taken with

themselves there as they could.'

[305] 'Some of them, by want of temper, or want of breeding, did not

behave themselves with that decency in their debates, towards the

greatest men of the kingdom, as in discretion they ought to have

done, and as the others reasonably expected from them.'

_Clarendon's History of the Rebellion_, edit. Oxford, 1843, p. 35.

In 1633, 'nine of them were privy councillors;' and 'their pride

was cried out upon as unsupportable.' _Burnet's Memoirs of the

Dukes of Hamilton_, p. 38. Sir John Scot imputes to them

'insolence, pride, and avarice.' _Scot's Staggering State of the

Scots Statesmen_, Edinburgh, 1754, p. 41. See also _Spalding's

History of the Troubles_, vol. i. pp. 46, 47, Edinburgh,

1828, 4to.

[306] So early as 1613, a letter from James Inglish (preserved in

_Wodrow's Collections_, vol. ii. part i. p. 110, Glasgow, 1845,

4to) complains that 'the libertys of the Lord's Kirk are greatly

abridged by the pride of Bishops, and their power daily increases

over her.' Civil rights were equally set at nought by the bishops;

and, among other enactments which they obtained, one was, 'that no

man should be permitted to practise or profess any physic, unless

he had first satisfied the bishop of the diocese touching his

religion.' _Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland_,

vol. iii. p. 236. This at once gave them the control of the whole

medical profession.

[307] 'Not satisfied with ruling the church-courts, they claimed an

extensive civil authority within their dioceses. The burghs were

deprived of their privileges, and forced to receive such

magistrates as their episcopal superiors, in concert with the

court, were pleased to nominate.' ... 'Archbishop Gladstanes, in a

letter to the King, June the 9th 1611, says: "It was your pleasure

and direction, that I sould be possessed with the like privileges

in the electione of the magistrats there (in St. Andrews), as my

lord of Glasgow is endued with in that his city. Sir, whereas they

are troublesome, I will be answerable to your Majesty and Counsell

for them, after that I be possessed of my right." Ms. in Bibl.

Jurid. Edin. M. 6, 9. n^o. 72.' _M'Crie's Life of Melville_,

vol. ii. p. 422.

[308] And their prodigality was equal to their rapacity. When Archbishop

Gladstanes died, in 1615, it was ascertained that,

'notwithstanding of the great rent of his bishoprick, he died in

the debt of twentie thowsand pounds.' _Calderwood's History of the

Kirk_, vol. vii. p. 197. See also p. 303. Also the case of the

Bishop of Galloway, who died in 1619, and of whom Calderwood says

(_History of the Kirk_, vol. vii. p. 350), 'It is thought, that if

just calculation were made of the commoditie extorted by him

through his diocie, by advice of his two covetous counsellours,

Andro Couper, his brother, and Johne Grilmour, wrytter in

Edinburgh, for his use and theirs, by racting of rents, getting of

grassoumes, setting of tacks, of teithes, and other like meanes,

wold surmount the soume of an hundreth thousand merks, or, in the

opinion of others, almost the double; so that manie within that

diocie, and the annexed prelacies, sall hardlie recover their

estates in their time.' Compare _Stevenson's History of the

Church_, pp. 212, 392.

[309] On this change, which was completed in 1621, see _Laing's History

of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 88; _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_,

vol. vii. p. 490; and _Baillie's Letters and Journals_, vol. i.

p. 486, edit. Laing, Edinburgh, 1841.

[310] _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. vii. pp. 472-474, 507,

509, 511, 517-520, 530-543, 549-553, 566, 567, 614, 621. _Laing's

History of Scotland_, vol. iii. pp. 90, 91. Laing, very unjustly,

accuses the bishops of being so merciful as to disapprove of some

of these transactions. But whoever has read much of the Scotch

literature of the seventeenth century, will cheerfully exonerate

the bishops from a charge, which they would themselves have

repelled, and to which they are nowise amenable.

In the midst of all this, and while things seemed to be at their worst, a

great reaction was preparing. And the explanation of the reaction is to

be found in that vast and pregnant principle, on which I have often

insisted, but which our common historians are unable to understand;

namely, that a bad government, bad laws, or laws badly administered, are,

indeed, extremely injurious at the time, but can produce no permanent

mischief; in other words, they may harm a country, but can never ruin it.

As long as the people are sound, there is life, and while there is life,

there will be reaction. In such case, tyranny provokes rebellion, and

despotism causes freedom. But if the people are unsound, all hope is

gone, and the nation perishes. In both instances, government is, in the

long run, inoperative, and is nowise responsible for the ultimate result.

The ruling classes have, for the moment, immense power, which they

invariably abuse, except when they are restrained, either by fear, or by

shame. The people may inspire them with fear; public opinion may inspire

them with shame. But whether or not that shall happen, depends on the

spirit of the people, and on the state of opinion. These two

circumstances are themselves governed by a long chain of antecedents,

stretching back to a period, always very distant, and sometimes so remote

as to baffle observation. When the evidence is sufficiently abundant,

those antecedents may be generalized; and their generalization conducts

us to certain large and powerful causes, on which the whole movement

depends. In short periods, the operation of these causes is

imperceptible, but in long periods, it is conspicuous and supreme; it

colours the national character; it controls the great sweep and average

of affairs. In Scotland, as I have already shown, general causes made the

people love their clergy, and made the clergy love liberty. As long as

these two facts coëxisted, the destiny of the nation was safe. It might

be injured, insulted, and trampled upon. It might be harmed in various

ways; but the greater the harm, the surer the remedy, because the higher

the spirit of the country would be roused. All that was needed was, a

little more time, and a little more provocation. We, who, standing at a

distance, can contemplate these matters from an elevation, and see how

events pressed on and thickened, cannot mistake the regularity of their

sequence. Notwithstanding the apparent confusion, all was orderly and

methodical. To us, the scheme is revealed. There is the fabric, and it is

of one hue, and one make. The pattern is plainly marked, and fortunately

it was worked into a texture, whose mighty web was not to be broken,

either by the arts, or the violence, of designing men.

It was, therefore, of no avail that tyranny did her utmost. It was of no

avail that the throne was occupied by a despotic and unscrupulous king,

who was succeeded by another, more despotic and more unscrupulous than

himself. It was of no avail that a handful of meddling and intrusive

bishops, deriving their consecration from London, and supported by the

authority of the English church, took counsel together, and conspired

against the liberties of their native land. They played the part of spies

and of traitors, but they played it in vain. Yet, everything that

government could give them, it gave. They had the law on their side, and

they had the right of administering the law. They were legislators,

councillors, and judges. They had wealth; they had high-sounding titles;

they had all the pomp and attributes for which they bartered their

independence, and with which they hoped to dazzle the eyes of the vulgar.

Still, they could not turn back the stream; they could not even stop it;

they could not prevent it from coming on, and swallowing them up in its

course. Before that generation passed away, these little men, big though

they were in their own conceit, succumbed, and fell. The hand of the age

was upon them, and they were unable to resist. They were struck down, and

humbled; they were stripped of their offices, their honours, and their

splendour: they lost all which minds like theirs hold most dear. Their

fate is an instructive lesson. It is a lesson, both to the rulers of

nations, and to those who write the history of nations. To rulers, in so

far as it is one of many proofs how little they can do, and how

insignificant is the part which they play in the great drama of the

world. To historians, the result should be especially instructive, as

convincing them that the events on which they concentrate their

attention, and which they believe to be of supreme importance, are in

reality of trifling value, and, so far from holding the first rank, ought

to be made subservient to those large and comprehensive studies, by whose

aid alone, we can ascertain the conditions which determine the tread and

destiny of nations.

The events that now happened in Scotland, may be quickly told. The

patience of the country was well-nigh exhausted, and the day of reckoning

was at hand.[311] In 1637, the people began to rise. In the summer of

that year, the first great riot broke out in Edinburgh.[312] The flame

quickly spread, and nothing could stop it. By October, the whole nation

was up, and an accusation was preferred against the bishops, which was

signed by nearly every corporation, and by men of all ranks.[313] In

November, the Scotch, in defiance of the Crown, organized a system of

representation of their own, in which every class had a share.[314] Early

in 1638, the National Covenant was framed; and the eagerness with which

it was sworn to, showed that the people were determined, at all hazards,

to vindicate their rights.[315] It was now evident that all was over.

During the summer of 1638, preparations were made, and, in the autumn,

the storm broke. In November, the first General Assembly seen in Scotland

for twenty years, met at Glasgow.[316] The Marquis of Hamilton, the

king's commissioner, ordered the members to separate.[317] They

refused.[318] Nor would they disband, until they had done the work

expected from them.[319] By their vote, the democratic institution of

presbyteries was restored to its old power; the forms of consecration

were done away with; the bishops were degraded from their functions, and

episcopacy was abolished.[320]

[311] In October 1637, Baillie, who was carefully watching the course of

affairs, writes, 'No man may speak any thing in publick for the

king's part, except he would have himself marked for a sacrifice

to be killed one day. I think our people possessed with a bloody

devill, farr above any thing that ever I could have imagined,

though the masse in Latine had been presented.' And, in a

postscript, dated 3rd October, he adds: 'My fears in my former

went no farther then to ane ecclesiastik separation, but now I am

more affrayit for a bloudie civill warr.' _Baillie's Letters and

Journals_, edit. Laing, Edinburgh, 1841, vol. i. pp. 23, 25.

[312] _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 131. _Chambers'

Annals_, vol. ii. pp. 101-104. _Spalding's History of the Troubles

in Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 47, 48.

[313] 'The accusation, among themselves a bond of union, and to their

enemies a signal of hostility, was subscribed by the nobility, the

gentry, the clergy, and afterwards by all ranks, and almost by

every corporation in the kingdom.' _Laing's History of Scotland_,

vol. iii. p. 137.

[314] _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 138.

[315] 'It was signed by a large majority of the people, in a paroxysm of

enthusiasm beyond all example in our history.' _Chambers' Annals_,

vol. ii. p. 105. Kirkton, who was a contemporary, says, 'And

though only eleven private men (and some of them very

inconsiderable) had the boldness first to begin this work, without

ever asking leave of king or council, yet was it very quickly

taken by all the people of Scotland, with hands lifted up in most

solemn manner.' _Kirkton's History of the Church of Scotland_, p.

33. Lord Somerville, taking a somewhat different view of affairs,

remarks, that 'the generalitie of the natione entered into a

hellish covenant, wherein they mutually obleidged themselves to

extirpate episcopacy, and to defend each other against all

persones whatsoever, noe not excepting the persone of his sacred

majestie; but upon conditiones of ther oune frameing.'

_Somerville's Memorie of the Somervilles_, vol. ii. p. 187.

[316] There had been no General Assembly since 1618. _Argyll's

Presbytery Examined_, p. 102; and the _Spottiswoode Miscellany_,

vol. i. p. 88. But 'the provincial synods, presbyteries, and

sessions still remained, and in these, good men mutually comforted

one another.' _Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland_,

p. 162.

[317] 'The assembly went on at such a rate, that the marquis judged it

no longer fit to bear with their courses.' _Burnet's Memoirs of

the Dukes of Hamilton_, p. 128. 'In end, seeing nothing said in

reason did prevail, he, in his majesty's name, dissolved the

assembly, and discharged their further proceeding under pain of

treason.' p. 135.

[318] _Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland_, p. 310.

[319] 'Notwithstanding the Proclamation, the Assembly presently

thereafter met, and sat daily for divers weeks, until they had

done their affairs, and were themselves pleas'd to dissolve.'

_Guthry's Memoirs_, p. 41, edit. London, 1702.

[320] _Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland_, from

1638 to 1842, Edinburgh, 1843, pp. 9-18. _Stevenson's History of

the Church of Scotland_, pp. 332, 338.

Thus, the bishops fell, even more rapidly than they had risen.[321] As,

however, their fall was merely a part of the democratic movement,

matters could not stop there.[322] Scarcely had the Scotch expelled their

bishops, when they made war upon their king. In 1639, they took up arms

against Charles. In 1640, they invaded England. In 1641, the king, with

the hope of appeasing them, visited Scotland, and agreed to most of their

demands. It was too late. The people were hot, and a cry for blood had

gone forth. War again broke out. The Scotch united with the English, and

Charles was every where defeated. As a last chance, he threw himself upon

the mercy of his northern subjects,[323] But his offences were of that

rank and luxuriant growth, that it was impossible to forgive them.

Indeed, the Scotch, instead of pardoning him, turned him to profit. He

had not only trampled on their liberties, he had also put them to an

enormous expense. For the injury, he could offer no adequate atonement;

but the expense they had incurred, might be defrayed. And as it is an old

and recognized maxim, that he who cannot pay with his purse, shall pay

with his body, the Scotch saw no reason why they should not derive some

advantage from the person of their sovereign, particularly as, hitherto,

he had caused them nothing but loss and annoyance. They, therefore, gave

him up to the English, and, in return, received a large sum of money,

which they claimed as arrears due to them for the cost of making war on

him.[324] By this arrangement, both of the contracting parties benefited.

The Scotch, being very poor, obtained what they most lacked. The

English, a wealthy people, had indeed to pay the money, but they were

recompensed by getting hold of their oppressor, against whom they

thirsted for revenge; and they took good care never to let him loose,

until they had exacted the last penalty of his great and manifold

crimes.[325]

[321] See, on their fall, some highly characteristic remarks in

_Baillie's Letters and Journals_, vol. i. p. 168. In 1639, Howell

writes from Edinburgh, 'The Bishops are all gone to wrack, and

they have had but a sorry funeral; the very name is grown so

contemptible, that a black dog, if he hath any white marks about

him, is called _Bishop_. Our Lord of Canterbury is grown here so

odious, that they call him commonly in the pulpit, the Priest of

Baal, and the Son of Belial.' _Howell's Letters_, edit. London,

1754, p. 276.

[322] 'That people, after they had once begun, pursued the business

vigorously, and with all imaginable contempt of the government.'

_Clarendon's History of the Rebellion_, p. 45. Now, for the first

time, the English government began to tremble. On 13th December

1639, Secretary Windebank writes, 'His Majesty near these six

weeks last past hath been in continual consultations with a select

Committee of some of his Council (of which I have had the honour

to be one), how to redress his affairs in Scotland, the fire

continuing there, and growing to that danger, that _it threatens

not only the Monarchical Government there, but even that of this

kingdom_.' _Clarendon State Papers_, vol. ii. p. 81, Oxford, 1773,

folio. This is the earliest intimation I have met with of Charles

and his advisers being aware of their real peril. But though the

king was capable of fear, he was incapable of compunction. There

is no evidence on record, to show that he even felt remorse for

having planned and executed those arbitrary and unprincipled

measures, by which he inflicted immense misery upon Scotland and

England, but more especially upon Scotland.

[323] 'The kinge was now so waik, haueing nether toune, fort, nor armie,

and Oxford being a waik and onfortified toune, from whence he

looked daylie to be taken perforce, he therefor resolues to cast

himself into the arms of the Scots; who, being his natine people,

and of late so ongratfullie dealt with by the Inglish, he hoped

their particular credit, and the credit of the wholl natione

depending thereupon, they would not baslie rander him to the

Inglish.' _Gordon's Britane's Distemper_, p. 193, published by the

Spalding Club, Aberdeen, 1844, 4to.

[324] That it may not be supposed, that, as an Englishman, I

misrepresent this transaction by looking at it from an English

point of view, I will merely quote what Scotch writers have said

respecting it. 'Giveing up the king to the will and pleasure of

the English parliament, that soe they might come by ther money.'

_Somerville's Memorie of the Somervilles_, vol. ii. p. 366. 'The

Scots sold their unfortunate king, who had fled to them for

protection, to the commissioners of the English Parliament, for

200,000_l._ sterling.' _Lyon's History of St. Andrews_, vol. ii.

p. 38. 'The incident itself was evidence of a bargain with a _quid

pro quo_.' _Burton's History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 493. 'The

sale of the king to the parliament.' _Napier's Life of Montrose_,

Edinburgh, 1840, p. 448. 'The king was delivered up, or rather

sold, to the parliament's commissioners.' _Brown's History of

Glasgow_, vol. i. p. 91. 'Their arrears were undoubtedly due; the

amount was ascertained before the dispute concerning the disposal

of his person, and the payment was undertaken by the English

parliament, five months previous to the delivery, or surrender of

the king. But the coincidence, however unavoidable, between that

event and the actual discharge and departure of their army, still

affords a presumptive proof of the disgraceful imputation of

having sold their king; "as the English, unless previously assured

of receiving his person, would never have relinquished a sum so

considerable as to weaken themselves, while it strengthened a

people with whom such a material question remained to be

discussed."' _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. pp. 369,

370.

[325] A letter from Sir Edw. Hyde to Lord Hatton, dated April 12, 1649

(in the _Clarendon State Papers_, vol. ii. p. 479, Oxf. 1773,

fol.), says of Charles II., that the Scotch 'sold his father to

those who murdered him.' But this is not true. Charles I., though

certainly bought by the English, was not murdered by them. He was

tried in the face of day; he was found guilty; he was executed.

And most assuredly never did a year pass, without men far less

criminal than he, suffering the same fate. Possibly, they are

right who deem all capital punishment needless. That, however, has

never been proved; and if this last and most terrible penalty is

ever to be exacted, I cannot tell where we should find a more

fitting subject to undergo it, than a despot who seeks to

subjugate the liberties of the people over whom he is called to

rule, inflicts cruel and illegal punishment on those who oppose

him, and, sooner than renounce his designs, engages in a civil

war, setting fathers against their children, disorganizing

society, and causing the land to run with blood. Such men are

outlaws; they are the enemies of the human race; who shall wonder

if they fall, or, having fallen, who shall pity them?

After the execution of Charles I., the Scotch recognized his son as his

successor. But before they would crown the new king, they subjected him

to a treatment which hereditary sovereigns are not much accustomed to

receive. They made him sign a public declaration, expressing his regret

for what had happened, and acknowledging that his father, moved by evil

counsels, had unjustly shed the blood of his subjects. He was also

obliged to declare, that by these things he felt humbled in spirit. He

had, moreover, to apologize for his own errors, which he ascribed partly

to his inexperience, and partly to the badness of his education.[326] To

evince the sincerity of this confession, and in order that the confession

might be generally known, he was commanded to keep a day of fasting and

humiliation, in which the whole nation would weep and pray for him, in

the hope that he might escape the consequences of the sins committed by

his family.[327]

[326] The declaration was signed by Charles on the 16th August 1650. An

abridgment of it is given in _Balfour's Annales of Scotland_, vol.

iv. pp. 92-94; but the entire document is preserved by Sir Edward

Walker. See _Journal of Affairs in Scotland_, in _Walker's

Historical Discourses_, London, folio, 1705, pp. 170-176. In it

Charles is made to state that, 'though his Majesty as a dutiful

son be obliged to honour the memory of his Royal Father, and have

in estimation the person of his Mother; yet doth he desire to be

deeply humbled and afflicted in spirit before God, because of his

Father's hearkening unto and following evil councils, and his

opposition to the work of reformation, and to the solemn league

and covenant by which so much of the blood of the Lord's people

hath been shed in these kingdoms.' He went on to say, that though

he might palliate his own misconduct by pleading 'his education

and age,' he thinks it better to 'ingeniously acknowledge all his

own sins and the sins of his father's house.' Burnet (_History of

his own Time_, vol. i. p. 97) says of this declaration: 'In it

there were many hard things. The king owned the sin of his father

in marrying into an idolatrous family: he acknowledged the

bloodshed in the late wars lay at his father's door: he expressed

a deep sense of his own ill education,' &c.

[327] In reference to this event the following entry occurs in Lamont's

Journal: '1650, Dec. 22.--The fast appointed by the commission of

the kirke to be keiped througe the kingdome before the

coronatione, was keiped att Largo the forsaide day by Mr. Ja.

Magill; his lecture, Reu. 3. from v. 14 to the end of the chapt.;

his text Reu. 2. 4, 5. Vpon the Thursday following, the 26 of this

instant, the fast was keiped in likemaner; his lecture 2. Chro. 29

to v. 12; his text 2. Chron. 12, 12. The causes of the first day

(not read) was, the great contempt of the gospell, holden forth in

its branches; of the second day (which were read), the sinns of

the king, and of his father's house, where sundry offences of K.

James the 6 were aknowledged, and of K. Charles the 1, and of K.

Ch. the 2, nowe king.' _The Diary of Mr. John Lamont of Newton_,

p. 25, Edinburgh, 1830, 4to. See also _Baillie's Letters and

Journals_, vol. iii. p. 107; _Nicoll's Diary_, Edinburgh, 4to,

1836, p. 38; _Row's Continuation of Blair's Autobiography_, edit.

Wodrow Society, p. 255; _Bower's History of the University of

Edinburgh_, vol. i. p. 253; _Presbytery Book of Strathbogie_,

edit. Spalding Club, p. 169; and, above all, the _Registers of the

Presbytery of Lanark_, published by the Abbotsford Club,

Edinburgh, 1839, 4to, pp. 88, 89.

The spirit, of which acts like these are but symptoms, continued to

animate the Scotch during the rest of the seventeenth century. And

fortunately for them it did so. For, the reigns of Charles II. and James

II. were but repetitions of the reigns of James I. and Charles I. From

1660 to 1688, Scotland was again subjected to a tyranny, so cruel, and

so exhausting, that it would have broken the energy of almost any other

nation.[328] The nobles, whose power had been slowly but constantly

declining,[329] were unable to resist the English, with whom, indeed,

they rather seemed willing to combine, in order that they might have a

share in plundering and oppressing their own country.[330] In this, the

most unhappy period through which Scotland had passed since the

fourteenth century, the government was extremely powerful; the upper

classes, crouching before it, thought only of securing their own safety;

the judges were so corrupt, that justice, instead of being badly

administered, was not administered at all;[331] and the parliament,

completely overawed, consented to what was termed the recissory act, by

which, at a single stroke, all laws were repealed which had been enacted

since 1633; it being considered that those twenty-eight years formed an

epoch of which the memory should, if possible, be effaced.[332]

[328] Wodrow, who had before him the records of the Privy Council,

besides other evidence now lost, says, that the period from 1660

to 1688 was 'a very horrid scene of oppression, hardships, and

cruelty, which, were it not incontestably true, and well vouched

and supported, could not be credited in after ages.' _Wodrow's

History of the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to the

Revolution_, vol. i. p. 57. And the Reverend Alexander Shields,

quaintly, but truly, observes, 'that the said Government was the

most untender, unpeaceable, tyrannical, arbitrary and wicked, that

ever was in Scotland in any age or period.' _Shields' Scots

Inquisition_, Edinburgh, 1745, p. 24.

[329] When James I. ascended the throne of England, 'the principal

native nobility' accompanied him; and 'the very peace which ensued

upon the union of the crowns, may be considered as the

commencement of an era in which many of our national strongholds

were either transformed into simple residences or utterly

deserted.' _Irving's History of Dumbartonshire_, 4to, 1860, pp.

137, 166. The nobles 'had no further occasion to make a figure in

war, their power in vassalage was of little use, and their

influence of course decayed. They knew little of the arts of

peace, and had no disposition to cultivate them.' _The Interest of

Scotland Considered_, Edinburgh, 1733, p. 85. Under Charles I.,

the movement continued; 'which fell out, partly through the

giddiness of the times, but more by the way his Majesty had taken

at the beginning of his reign; at which time he did recover from

divers of them their hereditary offices, and also pressed them to

quit their tithes (which formerly had kept the gentry in a

dependance upon them), whereby they were so weaken'd that now when

he stood most in need of them (except the chief of the clans) they

could command none but their vassals.' _Guthry's Memoirs_, edit.

1702, pp. 127, 128. Then came the civil wars, and the rule of

Cromwell, during which they suffered both in person and in

property. Compare _Chambers' Annals_, vol. ii. p. 225, with

_Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. pp. 515, 516. In 1654,

Baillie writes (_Letters and Journals_, vol. iii. p. 249): 'Our

nobilitie, weell near all, are wracked.' In 1656, 'Our nobles

lying up in prisons, and under forfaultries, or debts, private or

publict, are for the most part either broken or breaking.'

_Ibid._, p. 317. And, in 1658, the same observer writes (vol. iii.

p. 387): 'Our noble families are almost gone: Lennox hes little in

Scotland unsold; Hamilton's estate, except Arran and the Baronrie

of Hamilton, is sold; Argyle can pay little annuelrent for seven

or eight hundred thousand merks; and he is no more drowned in debt

than publict hatred, almost of all, both Scottish and English; the

Gordons are gone; the Douglasses little better; Eglintoun and

Glencairn on the brink of breaking; many of our chief families

estates are cracking; nor is there any appearance of any human

relief for the tyme.'

The result of all this is thus described by Wodrow, under the year

1661: 'Our nobility and gentry were remarkably changed to the

worst: it was but few of such, who had been active in the former

years, were now alive, and those few were marked out for ruin. A

young generation had sprung up under the English government,

educated under penury and oppression; their estates were under

burden, and many of them had little other prospect of mending

their fortunes, but by the king's favour, and so were ready to act

that part he was best pleased with.' _Wodrow's History of the

Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 89.

[330] 'At the Restoration, Charles II. regained full possession of the

royal prerogative in Scotland; and the nobles, whose estates were

wasted, or their spirit broken, by the calamities to which they

have been exposed, were less able and less willing than ever to

resist the power of the crown. During his reign, and that of James

VII., the dictates of the monarch were received in Scotland with

most abject submission. The poverty to which many of the nobles

were reduced, rendered them meaner slaves and more intolerable

tyrants than ever. The people, always neglected, were now odious,

and loaded with every injury, on account of their attachment to

religious and political principles, extremely repugnant to those

adopted by their princes.' _Robertson's History of Scotland_, book

viii. pp. 257, 258.

[331] A writer of great authority, speaking of the time of William III.,

says: 'It is scarcely possible to conceive how utterly polluted

the fountain of justice had become during the two preceding

reigns. The Scottish bench had been profligate and subservient to

the utmost conceivable extent of profligacy and subserviency.'

_Burton's History of Scotland_, from 1689 to 1748, London, 1853,

vol. i p. 72. See also vol. ii. p. 37; and _Brown's History of

Glasgow_, vol. i. p. 194, Glasgow, 1795.

[332] _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 10. _Baillie's Letters

and Journals_, vol. iii. p. 458. As few persons take the trouble

to read Scotch Acts of Parliament, I will extract from this one,

its most argumentative passage. 'And forasmuch as now it hath

pleased Almighty God, by the power of his oune right hand, so

miracoulously to restore the Kings Maiestie to the Government of

his Kingdomes, and to the exercise of his Royall power and

Soveranity over the same: The estates of Parlia^t doe conceave

themselffs obleidged in dischairge of ther duetie and conscience

to God and the Kings Maiestie, to imploy all their power and

interest for vindicateing his Maiesties Authority from all these

violent invasions that have been made upon it; And so far as is

possible to _remove out of the way every thing that may retaine

any remembrance of these things_ which have been so enjurious to

his Màtie and his Authority, so prejudiciall and dishonourable to

the kingdome, and distructive to all just and true interests

within the same.' ... 'Not to retaine any remembrance thairof, but

that the same shall be held in _everlasting oblivion_.' _Acts of

the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. vii. p. 87, edit. folio, 1820.

The date of this Act is 28th March 1661.

But, though the higher ranks ignominiously deserted their post, and

destroyed the laws which upheld the liberties of Scotland, the result

proved that the liberties themselves were indestructible. This was

because the spirit remained, by which the liberties had been won. The

nation was sound at the core; and while that was the case, legislators

could, indeed, abolish the external manifestations of freedom, but could

by no means touch the causes on which the freedom depended. Liberty was

prostrate, but yet it lived. And the time would surely come, when a

people, who loved it so dearly, would vindicate their rights. The time

would come, when, in the words of the great poet of English liberty, the

nation would rouse herself like a strong man after sleep, and, shaking

her invincible locks, would be as an eagle muing her mighty youth,

kindling her undazzled eyes at the midday beam, and purging and unscaling

her sight at the heavenly fountain; while the timorous birds of her evil

destiny, loving the twilight, should flutter about, amazed at what she

meant.

Still, the crisis was sad and dangerous. The people, deserted by every

one except their clergy, were ruthlessly plundered, murdered, and hunted,

like wild-beasts, from place to place. From the tyranny of the bishops,

they had so recently smarted, that they abhorred episcopacy more than

ever; and yet that institution was not only forced upon them, but

government put at its head Sharp, a cruel and rapacious man, who, in

1661, was raised to the archbishopric of St. Andrews.[333] He set up a

court of ecclesiastical commission, which filled the prisons to

overflowing; and when they would hold no more, the victims were

transported to Barbadoes, and other unhealthy settlements.[334] The

people, being determined not to submit to the dictation of government

respecting their religious worship, met together in private houses; and,

when that was declared illegal, they fled from their houses to the

fields. But there, too, the bishops were upon them.[335] Lauderdale, who,

for many years, was at the head of affairs, was greatly influenced by the

new prelates, and aided them with the authority of the executive.[336]

Under their united auspices, a new contrivance was hit upon; and a body

of soldiers, commanded by Turner, a drunken and ferocious soldier, was

let loose upon the people.[337] The sufferers, galled to madness, rose

in arms. This was made the pretence, in 1667, for fresh military

executions, by which some of the fairest parts of western Scotland were

devastated, houses burned, men tortured, women ravished.[338] In 1670, an

act of parliament was passed, declaring that whoever preached in the

fields without permission should be put to death.[339] Some lawyers were

found bold enough to defend innocent men, when they were tried for their

lives; it was therefore determined to silence them also, and, in 1674, a

great part of the Faculty of Advocates was expelled from Edinburgh.[340]

In 1678, by the express command of government, the Highlanders were

brought down from their mountains, and, during three months, were

encouraged to slay, plunder, and burn at their pleasure, the inhabitants

of the most populous and industrious parts of Scotland. For centuries,

the bitterest animosity had existed between the Highlanders and

Lowlanders; and now these savage mountaineers were called from their

homes, that they might take full revenge. And well they glutted their

ire. During three months, they enjoyed every license. Eight thousand[341]

armed Highlanders, invited by the English government, and receiving

beforehand an indemnity for every excess,[342] were left to work their

will upon the towns and villages of Western Scotland. They spared neither

age nor sex. They deprived the people of their property; they even

stripped them of their clothes, and sent them out naked to die in the

fields. Upon many, they inflicted the most horrible tortures. Children,

torn from their mothers, were foully abused; while both mothers and

daughters were subjected to a fate, compared to which death would have

been a joyful alternative.[343]

[333] He was made 'primate' in 1661, but did not arrive in Scotland till

April 1662. _Wodrow's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i.

pp. 236, 247; and _Nicoll's Diary_, pp. 363, 364. 'That he was

decent, if not regular, in his deportment, endued with the most

industrious diligence, and not illiterate, was never disputed;

that he was vain, vindictive, perfidious, at once haughty and

servile, rapacious and cruel, his friends have never attempted to

disown.' _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 98, 99. The

formal establishment of episcopacy was in the autumn of 1661, as

we learn from an entry in Lamont's Diary. '1661. Sept. 5 being

Thursday, (the chancelour, Glencairne, and the E. of Rothes,

haueing come downe from court some dayes before,) the cownsell of

state satt att Edb., and the nixt day, being Fryday, they caused

emitte and be proclaimed ouer the Crosse, a proclamation in his

Maj. name, for establishing Episcopacie againe in the church of

Scotlande; which was done with great solemnitie, and was

afterwarde printed. _All persons, wither men or weomen, were

discharged to speake against that office, under the paine of

treason._' _The Diary of Mr. John Lamont_, p. 140. This, as we

learn from another contemporary, was on account of 'the Kinges

Majestie having stedfastlie resolvit to promove the estait, power,

and dignitie of Bischops, and to _remove all impedimentes contrary

thairto_.' _Nicoll's Diary_, 4to, p. 353; on 21st November 1661.

This curious diary, written by John Nicoll, and extending from

1650 to 1667, was printed at Edinburgh, in 1836, by the Bannatyne

Club, and is now not often met with.

[334] _Wodrow's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 383,

390-395. _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 38: 'A court

of ecclesiastical commission was procured by Sharp.' See also p.

41: 'Under the influence of Sharp and the prelates, which

Lauderdale's friends were unable to resist, the government seemed

to be actuated by a blind resentment against its own subjects.'

Compare _Burnet's History of his own Time_, vol. i. p. 365. 'The

truth is, the whole face of the government looked liker the

proceedings of an inquisition than of legal courts; and yet Sharp

was never satisfied.' Another contemporary, Kirkton, says of these

Commissioners: 'For ought I could hear, never one appeared before

them that escapt without punishment. Their custom was without

premonition or lybell, to ask a man a question, and judge him

presently, either upon his silence or his answer.' ... 'They many

times doubled the legal punishment; and not being satisfied with

the fyne appointed by law, they used to add religation to some

remote places, or deportation to Barbadoes, or selling into

slavery.' _Kirkton's History of the Church of Scotland_, p. 206.

See also _Naphtali, or the Wrestlings of the Church of Scotland_,

1667, pp. 126-130. But as particular cases bring such matters more

clearly before the mind, I will transcribe, from _Crookshank's

History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 154, the sentences

pronounced on a single occasion by this episcopal court. 'The

treatment of some of the parishioners of Ancrum is not to be

omitted. When their excellent minister, Mr. Livingstone, was taken

from them, one Mr. James Scot, who was under the sentence of

excommunication, was presented to that charge. On the day fixed

for his settlement, several people did meet together to oppose it;

and particularly a country woman, desiring to speak with him in

order to dissuade him from intruding himself upon a reclaiming

people, pulled him by the cloak, intreating him to hear her a

little; whereupon he turned and beat her with his staff. This

provoked two or three boys to throw a few stones, which neither

touched him nor any of his company. However, it was presently

looked upon as a treasonable tumult, and therefore the sheriff and

justices of the peace in that bounds fined and imprisoned some of

these people, which, one would think, might atone for a crime of

this nature. But the high-commission, not thinking that

sufficient, ordered those criminals to be brought before them.

Accordingly, the four boys and this woman, with two brothers of

hers of the name of Turnbull, were brought prisoners to Edinburgh.

The four boys confessed, that, upon Scot's beating the woman, they

had thrown each his stone. The commissioner told them that hanging

was too good for them. However, the sentence of this merciless

court only was, that they should be scourged through the city of

Edinburgh, burnt in the face with a hot iron, and then sold as

slaves to Barbadoes. The boys endured their punishment like men

and Christians, to the admiration of multitudes. The two brothers

were banished to Virginia; and the woman was ordered to be whipped

through the town of Jedburgh. Burnet, bishop of Glasgow, when

applied to that she might be spared lest she should be with child,

mildly answered, That he would make them claw the itch out of her

shoulders.'

[335] They were invested with such immense power, that 'the old set of

bishops made by the parliament, 1612, were but pigmies to the

present high and mighty lords.' _Wodrow's History of the Church of

Scotland_, vol. i. p. 262. See also, at p. 286, the remarks of

Douglas: 'It is no wonder then the complaint against their bishops

be, that their little finger is thicker than the loins of the

former.'

[336] In 1663, Middleton was dismissed; and was succeeded by Lauderdale,

who 'was dependent upon the prelates, and was compelled to yield

to their most furious demands.' _Laing's History of Scotland_,

vol. iv. p. 33. 'The influence, or rather the tyranny, which was

thus at the discretion of the prelates, was unlimited; and they

exercised it with an unsparing hand.' _Bower's History of the

University of Edinburgh_, vol. i. p. 284.

[337] 'Sir James Turner, that commanded them, was naturally fierce, but

was mad when he was drunk; and that was very often.' _Burnet's

History of his own Time_, vol. i. p. 364. Kirkton (_History of the

Church_, p. 221) says: 'Sir James Turner hade made ane expedition

to the west countrey _to subdue it to the bishops_, in the year

1664; another in the year 1665; and a third in the year 1666; and

this was the worst.' Full particulars will be found in _Wodrow's

History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 373-375, 411, vol.

ii. pp. 8, 17, vol. iii. pp. 264, 265. 'This method of dragooning

people to the church, as it is contrary to the spirit of

Christianity, so it was a stranger in Scotland, till Bishop Sharpe

and the prelates brought it in.' vol. i. p. 401.

Sir James Turner, whose Memoirs, written by himself, were not

published till thirty years ago, relates an anecdote of his own

drunkenness in a strain of maudlin piety well worthy of his

career. _Turner's Memoirs of his own Life_, Edinburgh, 1829, 4to,

pp. 42, 43. At p. 206, this impudent man writes: 'And yet I

confesse, my humour never was, nor is not yet, one of the calmest;

when it will be, God onlie knoues; yet by many sad passages of my

life, I know that _it hath beene good for me to be afflicted_.'

Perhaps, however, he may take the benefit of his assertion (p.

144), 'that I was so farre from exceeding or transgressing my

commission and instructions, that I never came the full length of

them.' Considering the cruelties he committed, what sort of

instructions could his superiors have given to him?

[338] 'Sir James Turner lately had forced Galloway to rise in arms, by

his cruelty the last and former years; but he was an easy master,

compared with General Dalziel, his ruffians, and Sir William

Bannatyne, this year.' _Wodrow's Church of Scotland_, vol. ii. p.

62. Dalziel 'cruelly tortured whom he would.' p. 63. One woman 'is

brought prisoner to Kilmarnock, where she was sentenced to be let

down to a deep pit, under the house of the dean, full of toads and

other vile creatures. Her shrieks thence were heard at a great

distance.' p. 64. Two countrymen were 'bound together with cords,

and hanged up by their thumbs to a tree, there to hang all night.'

_Ibid._ Sir William Bannatyne's soldiers seized a woman, 'and

bound her, and put lighted matches betwixt her fingers for several

hours; the torture and pain made her almost distracted; she lost

one of her hands, and in a few days she died.' _Ibid._

'Oppressions, murders, robberies, rapes.' p. 65. 'He made great

fires, and laid down men to roast before them, when they would

not, or could not, give him the money he required, or the

information he was seeking.' p. 104. See also _Crookshank's

History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 204-207. The

History is based upon Wodrow's great work, but contains many facts

with which Wodrow was unacquainted. See _Crookshank_, vol. i. p.

11. Respecting the outrages in 1667, there are some horrible

details in a book published in that very year, under the title of

_Naphtali, or the Wrestlings of the Church of Scotland_. See,

especially, the summary at p. 174: 'wounding, beating, stripping

and imprisoning mens persons, violent breaking of their houses

both by day and night, and beating and wounding of wives and

children, ravishing and deflowring of women, forcing wives and

other persons by fired matches and other tortures to discover

their husbands and nearest relations, although it be not within

the compass of their knowledge, and driving and spoiling all their

goods that can be carried away, without respect to guilt or

innocency.'

[339] 'That whosoever without licence or authoritie forsaid shall preach,

expound Scripture, or pray at any of these meetings in the ffeild,

or in any house wher ther be moe persons nor the house contains,

so as some of them be without doors (which is hereby declared to

be a feild conventicle), or who shall convocat any number of

people to these meetings, shall be punished with death and

confiscation of ther goods.' _Acts of the Parliaments of

Scotland_, vol. viii. p. 9, edit. 1820, folio. This was on the

13th August 1670.

[340] The immediate pretence being, to do away with appeals. See

_Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 72-74.

[341] 'Savage hosts of Highlanders were sent down to depopulate the

western shires, to the number of ten or eleven thousand, who acted

most outrageous barbarities, even almost to the laying some

counties desolate.' _A Cloud of Witnesses for the Royal

Prerogatives of Jesus Christ_, edit. Glasgow, 1779, p. 18. But

most authorities state the number to have been eight thousand. See

_Kirkton's History_, p. 386; _Arnot's History of Edinburgh_, p.

154; _Burnet's History of his own Time_, vol. ii. p. 134;

_Denholm's History of Glasgow_, p. 67; and _Life and Sufferings of

John Nisbet_, in _Select Biographies_, published by the Wodrow

Society, vol. ii. p. 381. Chalmers, however, in his _Caledonia_,

vol. iii. p. 592, says 10,000.

[342] 'They were indemnified against all pursuits, civil and criminal,

on account of killing, wounding, apprehending, or imprisoning,

such as should oppose them.' _Crookshank's History of the Church

of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 337, 338.

[343] Short and imperfect notices of this 'Highland Host,' as it was

called at the time, may be found in _Kirkton's History_, pp.

385-390, and in _Crookshank's History_, vol. i. pp. 354, 355. But

the fullest account of the enormities committed by these

barbarians, is in Wodrow's great work, collected from authentic

and official documents. See his _History of the Church of

Scotland_, vol. ii. pp. 375-413, 421-432, vol. iii. pp. 76, 79,

486. They were provided beforehand with implements of torture.

'They had good store of iron shackles, as if they were to lead

back vast numbers of slaves, and thumb-locks, as they call them'

(_i.e._ thumb-screws), 'to make their examinations and trials

with.' vol. ii. p. 389. 'In some places they tortured people, by

scorching their bodies at vast fires, and other wise,' vol. ii. p.

422. Compare _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 88.

'Neither age nor sex was exempt from outrage, and torture was

freely employed to extort a confession of hidden wealth.' And, at

p. 91, 'The Highlanders, after exacting free quarters, and wasting

the country for three months, were dismissed to their hills with

impunity and wealth.'

It was in this way, that the English government sought to break the

spirit, and to change the opinions, of the Scotch people. The nobles

looked on in silence, and, so far from resisting, had not even the

courage to remonstrate. The parliament was equally servile, and

sanctioned whatever the government demanded. Still, the people were firm.

Their clergy, drawn from the middle classes, clung to them; they clung to

their clergy, and both were unchanged. The bishops were hated as allies

of the government, and were with reason regarded as public enemies. They

were known to have favoured, and often to have suggested, the atrocities

which had been committed;[344] and they were so pleased with the

punishment inflicted upon their opponents, that no one was surprised,

when, a few years later, they, in an address to James II., the most cruel

of all the Stuarts, declared that he was the darling of heaven, and hoped

that God might give him the hearts of his subjects, and the necks of his

enemies.[345]

[344] 'Indeed, the whole of the severity, hardships, and bloodshed from

this year' (1661), 'until the revolution, was either actually

brought on by the bishops, procured by them, or done for their

support.' _Wodrow's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p.

223. 'It was our prelates who pushed the council to most of their

severities.' p. 247. 'The bishops, indeed, violently pushed

prosecutions.' _Crookshank's History of the Church_, vol. i.

p. 298. In 1666, 'As to the prelates, they resolved to use all

severities, and to take all imaginable cruel and rigorous ways and

courses, first against the rest of the prisoners, and then against

the whole west of Scotland.' _Row's Continuation of Blair's

Autobiography_, pp. 505, 506, edit. Edinburgh, 1848. This

interesting work is edited by Dr. M'Crie, and published by the

Wodrow Society.

[345] In 1688, 'the bishops concurred in a pious and convivial address to

James, as the darling of heaven, that God might give him the

hearts of his subjects and the necks of his enemies.' _Laing's

History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 193.

The character of the prince, whom the bishops thus delighted to honour,

is now well understood. Horrible as were the crimes which had been

perpetrated, they were surpassed by what occurred, when he, in 1680,

assumed the direction of affairs.[346] He had worked himself to that

pitch of iniquity, as to derive actual enjoyment from witnessing the

agonies of his fellow-creatures. This is an abyss of wickedness, into

which even the most corrupt natures rarely fall. There have been, and

always will be, many men who care nothing for human suffering, and who

will inflict any amount of pain, in order to gain certain ends. But to

take delight in the spectacle, is a peculiar and hideous abomination.

James, however, was so dead to shame, that he did not care even to

conceal his horrible tastes. Whenever torture was inflicted, he was sure

to be present, feasting his eyes, and revelling with a fiendish joy.[347]

It makes our flesh creep to think that such a man should have been the

ruler of millions. But what shall we say to the Scotch bishops, who

applauded him, of whose conduct they were daily witnesses? Where can we

find language strong enough to stigmatize those recreant priests, who,

having passed years in attempting to subjugate the liberties of their

country, did, towards the close of their career, and just before their

final fall, band together, and employ their united authority, as

ministers of a holy and peaceful religion, to stamp with public approval,

a prince, whose malignant cruelty made him loathed by his contemporaries,

and whose revolting predilections, unless we ascribe them to a diseased

brain, are not only a slur upon the age which tolerated them, but a

disgrace to the higher instincts of our common nature?

[346] 'After the Duke of York came down in October'(1680), 'the

persecution turned yet more severe.' _Wodrow's History of the

Church of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 225. 'Persecution and tyranny,

mainly promoted by the Duke of York's instigation.' _Shields' Hind

let loose_, p. 147. 'Immediately upon his mounting the throne, the

executions and acts prosecuting the persecution of the poor

wanderers, were more cruel than ever.' p. 200.

[347] This was well known in Scotland; and is evidently alluded to by a

writer of that time, the Rev. Alexander Shields, who calls James,

not a man, but a monster. See _Shields' Hind let loose_, 1687, p.

365. 'This man, or monster rather, that is now mounted the

throne.' And a monster surely he was. Compare _Crookshank's

History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 66, where it is

mentioned that, when Spreul was tortured, 'the Duke of York was

pleased to gratify his eyes with this delightful scene.' Also,

_Wodrow's History_, vol. iii. p. 253, and _Laing's History of

Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 116. According to Burnet, 'the duke's

pleasure at witnessing human agony was a cold, and, as it were, a

speculative pleasure, as if he were present for the purpose of

contemplating some curious experiment. But James was so excitable

a man, that this is hardly likely. At all events, the remarks of

Burnet have a painful interest for those who study these dark,

and, as we may rejoice to think, these very rare, forms of human

malignity.' 'When any are to be struck in the boots, it is done in

the presence of the council; and upon that occasion, almost all

offer to run away. The sight is so dreadful, that without an order

restraining such a number to stay, the board would be forsaken.

But the duke, while he had been in Scotland, was so far from

withdrawing, that he looked on all the while with an unmoved

indifference, and _with an attention, as if he had been to look on

some curious experiment_. This gave a terrible idea of him to all

that observed it, as of a man that had no bowels nor humanity in

him.' _Burnet's History of his own Time_, vol. ii. pp. 416, 417.

So utterly corrupt, however, were the ruling classes in Scotland, that

such crimes seem hardly to have excited indignation. The sufferers were

refractory subjects, and against them every thing was lawful. The usual

torture, which was called the torture of the boots, was to place the leg

in a frame, into which wedges were driven, until the bones were

broken.[348] But when James visited Scotland, an opinion began to grow

up, that this was too lenient, and that other means must be devised. The

spirit which he communicated to his subordinates, animated his immediate

successors, and, in 1684, during his absence, a new instrument was

introduced, termed the thumbikins. This was composed of small steel

screws, arranged with such diabolical art, that not only the thumb, but

also the whole hand, could be compressed by them, producing pain more

exquisite than any hitherto known, and having, moreover, the advantage of

not endangering life; so that the torture could be frequently repeated on

the same person.[349]

[348] Shields (_A Hind let loose_, p. 186) describes the boots, as 'a

cruel engine of iron, whereby, with wedges, the leg is tortured,

until the marrow come out of the bone.' Compare _Naphtali, or the

Wrestlings of the Church of Scotland_, 1667, p. 268: 'the

extraordinary compression both of flesh, sinews, and bones, by the

force of timber wedges and hammer.'

[349] In 1684, Carstairs was subjected to this torture. See his own

account, in a letter printed in _Wodrow's History of the Church of

Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 96-100. He writes (p. 99): 'After this

communing, the king's smith was called in, to bring in a new

instrument to torture by the thumbkins, that had never been used

before. For whereas the former was only to screw on two pieces of

iron above and below with finger and thumb, these were made to

turn about the screw with the whole hand. And under this torture,

I continued near an hour and a half.' See also the case of Spence,

in the same year, in _Burnet's History of his own Time_, vol. ii.

p. 418. 'Little screws of steel were made use of, that screwed the

thumbs with so exquisite a torment, that he sunk under this; for

Lord Perth told him, they would screw every joint of his whole

body, one after another, till he took the oath.' Laing (_History

of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 143) says, 'the thumbikins; small screws

of steel that compressed the thumb and the whole hand with an

exquisite torture;' an invention brought by Drummond and Dalziel

from Russia. For other notices, see _Fountainhall's Notes of

Scottish Affairs_ from 1680 till 1701, Edinburgh, 4to, 1822, pp.

41, 97, 101; _Bower's History of the University of Edinburgh_,

vol. ii. p. 30; _Crookshank's History of the Church of Scotland_,

vol. ii. p. 192; _A Cloud of Witnesses for the Royal Prerogatives

of Jesus Christ_, edit. Glasgow, 1779, p. 371; and _Life of Walter

Smith_, p. 85, in the second volume of _Walker's Biographia

Presbyteriana_, Edinburgh, 1827.