Covenanters, they found in the proclamation and other circumstances,
sufficient reason for distrust; and their past experience, both of the
King and his advisers, was sufficient to rouse their suspicions. Their
vigilance and preparations continued unrelaxed; and so formidable was
the tone of public feeling in Scotland, during the brief space which
elapsed betwixt the date of the treaty and the meeting of the Assembly,
that the King found it necessary to adopt a temporizing and most
insidious policy. Traquair, a man of talent and consummate address,
armed with the King’s secret instructions, came down to Scotland as
Commissioner, and the Assembly met on the 12th of August.
It will be seen, from the foregoing report, that the Commissioner,
although he hinted at some objections to Members of Assembly, stated
none when called on; and thus and otherwise, he fully recognised, in
the King’s name, the perfect lawfulness of the Assembly, and soon
pledged himself to sanction, for his Sovereign, the Acts which it
might pass, on all the vital points for which the Covenanters had so
strenuously struggled—assented to the abolition of Episcopacy and all
its obnoxious accompaniments in Scotland—and undertook to get these
Acts ratified in Parliament. The suspicions of the Assembly were lulled
by the speciousness of Traquair, (whom, however, we are not prepared to
condemn so vehemently as has sometimes been done both by his coadjutors
and antagonists;) and we have rarely perused the account of any scene,
whether of real life or of skilful romance, with keener feelings than
those excited by the detailed report of proceedings in the General
Assembly on 17th August 1639. When the seemingly gracious intentions
of the King were intimated by Traquair, there was a simultaneous burst
of gratitude and confidence, and, in the highest sense of the words,
of chivalrous loyalty. The stern men of the Covenant were melted into
tears of high-minded and generous gladness. The venerable Patriarchs of
the old Presbyterian Church, who had served at its unpolluted altars
for half a century, and who had mourned its degradation in silent
sorrow, or suffered captivity and oppressions from its temporary Lords,
poured out their hearts in thanksgivings to God and the King, for these
unlooked-for manifestations of royal grace and favour.
“Mr John Weymes, called on, could scarse get a word spocken for teares
trickling doune along his gray haires, like droppes of rain or dew
upon the toppe of the tender grasse; and yet withal, smyling for joy,
said—I doe remember when the Kirk of Scotland had a beautifull face.
I remember since there was a great power and life accompanying the
ordinances of God, and a wonderfull worke of operation upon the hearts
of people. This my eyes did see—a fearfull defection [followed] after,
procured by our sinnes; and no more did I wishe, before my eyes were
closed, but to have seene such a beautifull day, and that under the
conduct and favour of our Kings Majestie. Blessed for ever more be our
Lord and King, Jesus; and the blessing of God be upon his Majestie, and
the Lord make us thankfull!”[237]
Such were the pathetic and touching strains in which the worthies of
the olden Church received the announcement by Traquair, of the hollow
and hypocritical message of which he was the herald. We do but justice
to the memory of Traquair, when we give him credit for being moved
by such testimonies of affectionate loyalty, and convinced that the
system of dissimulation of which he was but the “echo,” was utterly
impolitic and impracticable; and he acted his part with a talent and
temper which we cannot but admire. He was indeed placed in “a false
position,” in which no man could have done at once what patriotism and
honour prompted, and yet obeyed the master whom he served, or gratified
the minions of his court. Had Charles but followed out the course which
the sagacity of Traquair, and the circumstances in which he was placed,
chalked out in the Assembly of 1639, we verily believe that the King
might long have reigned in the hearts of a loyal people, and Traquair
have been remembered as one of her patriots and best benefactors. But
the infatuation which overruled these arrangements, led to other and
very different consequences.
In viewing these transactions, however, justice must be done to the
King as well as to the Covenanters; and there is no doubt that the
latter, in some particulars, deviated from the spirit and avowed
purposes of the treaty. That treaty was based on a spontaneous
declaration by the Covenanters, that they would yield “all civil and
temporal obedience” to the King, and that all they claimed was security
for their “religion and liberties, according to the ecclesiastical and
civil laws” of Scotland;[238] and the ambiguous terms of the treaty,
when finally completed, just left the vexed question as open as it was
before—What were the Ecclesiastical and what the Civil Laws of Scotland
at the time? Charles held that Episcopacy was the form of Church
Government settled both by the ecclesiastical and civil laws in force
at the time; while the Covenanters looked back to the constitutions
and enactments prior to the changes introduced by King James VI., and
understood that these were to be assumed as the securities which they
demanded; and hence, the treaty in fact amounted merely to a truce,
which was soon destined to be broken.
The course adopted in these circumstances by Traquair and the leaders
of the Covenant at the Assembly, had it been judiciously followed
out, might have obviated all difficulties—viz., that the Assembly
should, by a declaratory Act, indicate what the Church held to be its
genuine ecclesiastical constitutions, to be afterwards submitted to
and ratified by Parliament. And had nothing been done beyond their
declaration as to the causes of the recent troubles, matters might have
been satisfactorily adjusted. But this was not the case. Although it
was clearly agreed on, that no reference should be made to the Acts
of the Assembly 1638, and that nothing was to be founded on these,
the Covenanters broke through this arrangement in one most essential
particular—namely, with regard to the depositions and excommunications
of Ministers which had taken place under its authority. Notwithstanding
repeated warnings and remonstrances by Traquair, the Assembly entered
upon a review of all the proceedings of the Commissions that had acted
by authority of the preceding Assembly, which was virtually assuming
and sanctioning the Acts of 1638; although, as stated by themselves,
the King had declared he never would recognise or sanction the
proceedings of that Assembly. By taking cognizance of these cases of
deposition, &c., they in effect anticipated the decision of Parliament,
with respect to their findings as to the constitutions of the Church,
and thus inverted the proper order of procedure. They thus furnished,
not merely a plausible, but a valid ground for the King to object to
their whole proceedings; and although we acquit the single-hearted and
zealous Presbyterian Clergy who concurred in this anomalous course, we
cannot so readily forgive the Nobles and other laymen who were parties
to the negociations, and who have left on record their own statements,
that the Acts of the Assembly of 1638, were to be held as in a state of
abeyance in that of the following year.
In this particular, therefore, it appears the Covenanters were clearly
to blame, independently altogether of the unsound nature of the
proceedings of the Commissions, and the venial accusations against many
of the deposed Ministers, many of whom were constrained, by operating
on their fears and other grovelling feelings, to acquiesce in decisions
which they could not resist, and to profess submission, when in their
hearts and consciences they could not be supposed, honestly, to yield
it. It is impossible to read the details about some scores of these
poor men, without pain and reprobation; and the vindictive spirit in
which they were treated ought to be a warning, in all future times,
against a rash submission to high pretensions in popular ecclesiastical
courts. Many were deposed on very questionable grounds, and others were
left for the administration of what was called “mercy,” on condition of
renouncing all their previous convictions and professions, and their
sense of allegiance to the monarch and statute law of the land. That
some were unworthy may be admitted; but trial in their absence, upon
nice points of metaphysical theology, and by means of evidence of very
questionable credibility, is, to say the least of it, a characteristic
of the Assembly of 1639, which reflects but little credit on its
charity or its justice.
We must be permitted further to remark, that the soreness and ferocity
which were indicated by that Assembly in reference to the “Large
Declaration,” or Manifesto, afford but slender proofs of magnanimity
or conscious rectitude. That work was known to be the production of
Balcanquel; and, after a minute examination of it, an elaborate report
on its mis-statements was read, when the following colloquy took
place.[239]
“The Moderatour desired some of the brethren to give their judgment of
the said Booke.
“Mr Andro Cant said—It is [so] full of grosse absurdities, that I
thinke hanging of the author should prevent all other censures.
“The Moderatour answered—That punishment is not in the hands of Kirkmen.
“The Shireff of Teviotdaill [Douglas of Cavers], being asked his
judgment, said—Ye were offendit with a churchmans hard sentence
alreadie; but, truelie, I could execute that sentence with all my
heart, becaus it is more propper to me, and I am better acquainted with
hanging.
“My Lord Kirkcudbright said—It is a great pittie that many honest men
in Christendome, for writing little bookes called pamphlets, should
want eares; and false knaves, for writing such volumes, should brooke
heads.”
These “random ebullitions” require no commentary; but in such
manifestations of character we discover that spirit of fanatical
intolerance, which at no distant period, involved the two British
kingdoms in all the horrors of civil war—consigned their Sovereign to
the block—rent the Church of Scotland into two ferocious factions,
and finally subjected it to contumely and extinction at the hands of a
canting usurper.
There is another point in these proceedings which must ever excite
regret and reprehension—we mean that act by which they sought and
obtained the Commissioner’s sanction, and that of the Privy Council,
to a compulsory subscription to the Covenant. “This ordinance,” says
Dr Cook, in his History of the Church of Scotland,[240] “so popular
throughout the kingdom, was, in fact, an engine of severe persecution.
It required, by authority, from all ranks of men, and particularly
from those whose opinions were suspected, subscription to a number of
propositions, about which multitudes must have been totally ignorant,
and to maxims respecting ecclesiastical polity, which it is impossible
to suppose were not condemned by numbers, who, having for many years
lived in communion with an Episcopal Church, could not be persuaded
that such a Church was unlawful. So long as signing the Covenant was
a voluntary expression of attachment to a particular cause, much
might have been said in its justification. But now, when it was
required by an Act of Council and the Church, which it was dangerous
to disobey—now that it could be forced by the zealots of a sect upon
all whom they chose to harass—it must be abhorred as occasioning, to
the conscientious part of the community, much wretchedness, and as
calculated to diffuse that relaxation of principle which is the bitter
fruit of every deviation from the tolerant spirit of pure religion.”
Concurring as we do most cordially in these just and enlightened views,
we need only add, that no man will defend this blot in the escutcheon
of the Covenanters, who would not, if he had the power, imitate their
example.
Before finally taking leave of the Assembly of 1639, we cannot
overlook the fact, that, in all the proceedings, either in it or
in that of the preceding year, or in the voluminous details of
grievances of which they complained, we can find no trace whatever
of _lay patronage_ being regarded or even mentioned as one of the
number. It is equally remarkable, too, that both Henderson and Dickson
repeatedly state the doctrine of the lawfulness of civil interference
in matters ecclesiastical; and that the notions which, at a subsequent
period, sprung up and distracted and divided the Church, as to the
anti-scriptural nature of lay patronage, and about the independence
and inherent power of an _established_ Church, (established too on
certain precise and definite terms), do not appear at that time to have
been either agitated or even mooted. We merely note the circumstance
as an historical fact, without at all entering on a controversy in
the matter. But certainly the eager desire, manifested incessantly,
for a ratification of the ecclesiastical constitutions by the civil
authority, emphatically implied, that, without such sanction, these
applicants did not regard their own Acts as sufficient to clothe them
with complete authority.
The day after the Assembly dissolved, being the 30th of August 1639,
the Parliament—which had been prorogued, from time to time, to the
31st of that month—convened, and was opened with all the state of the
ancient “Ryding of Parliament.” A preliminary difficulty, however,
occurred to its constitution, in consequence of the absence of the
Prelates, who, by the subsisting laws and usages of Parliament,
formed a component part of it. Prelacy had been abolished by an Act
of Assembly, but that was not yet ratified by Parliament; and, in
order to supply the place of the Bishops as one of the Estates, it was
agreed that, for the present, the Commissioner should, in their stead,
select eight of the Nobles to be among the Lords of the Articles;
being a committee to digest all business for the consideration, and
adoption, or rejection of the whole house. The Earl of Argyle entered
a protestation that the present mode of choosing the Lords of the
Articles should be no precedent for the future; and intimated in it an
innovation on the future constitution of Parliament, by introducing a
different mode of naming the Lords of the Articles from that which had
heretofore obtained—namely, by excluding the nomination of the Crown
or its Commissioner, and giving to the Lords, Barons, and Burgesses
the nomination from their several bodies. This initial difficulty
being overcome, the Commissioner, on the 6th of September, signed
the Covenant—not as Commissioner, but as Treasurer; and on the same
day a Bill for the ratification of the Act of Assembly 17th August,
anent the bygone evils of the Church, and the Supplication against Dr
Balcanquel, were passed in the Articles; while a Petition, presented by
the Commissioner, in favour of the ousted Ministers, was refused; and a
Bill for rescinding the Acts in favour of Episcopacy was handed to the
Lord Advocate, to be revised: and all this passed amidst a profusion of
protestations, which it is unnecessary to notice.
On the 11th of September, there was a warm debate on the proposal to
bring down the vengeance of Parliament on Balcanquel and his “Large
Declaration,” in which Traquair resisted it as offensive to the King,
while Argyle and Rothes supported the vindictive Petition from the
Assembly; but the Acts as to the constitution of Parliament, &c., made
some advance; and Baillie, in a letter dated October 12, gives a very
striking picture of the condition to which the contending parties had
reduced themselves. “The affairs of our Parliament,” (says he, vol. i,
p. 188,) “goes but this and that way, if we look to men; our estate is
but yet wavering up and down in the scales of a very dubious event. Our
main Acts are but scarce past the Articles. The Commissioner either
threatens to rise, or to protest in the day of the riding, or to make
declarations equivalent to protestations, or to deny the sceptre to
our most substantial desires. To preveen this, we have been content
to sit still, half-idle, thrice so long time as ever any Parliament
in our land did continue, waiting till posts upon posts, running up
and down, for carrying to us the Kings pleasure. It seems our enemies
credit is not yet extinguished at Court. The Castle of Edinburgh is
daily made stronger. From London, the other week, arrived at Dumbarton
a great ship, with cannon and other munition, with an English captain,
and divers English soldiers. Division is much laboured for in all
our estate. They speak of too great prevailing with our Nobles. Hume
evidently fallen off; Montrose not unlike to be ensnared with the fair
promises of advancement; Marischal, Sutherland, and others, somewhat
doubted; Sheriff of Teviotdale, and some of the Barons, inclining the
Court-way. Divisions betwixt the merchants and Crafts of Edinburgh; and
so, by consequence, of all the Burghs in Scotland, carefully fostered
by our Commissioner; our prime Clergy like to fall foul upon the
question of our new private meetings.”
In this state of distraction and doubt, matters continued—the views
and sentiments of the King having been sufficiently indicated in
his letters to Traquair, whose policy was, of course, guided by his
Master’s orders. On the 24th of September, an Act for rescinding
all the Acts in favour of Episcopacy was voted and passed in the
Articles, under a protestation by the Commissioner against that or
any others prejudicial to his Majesty’s authority; and the Act as to
the constitution of the Parliament was also passed. While matters
were thus agitated and protracted; the Parliament was continued on
the 24th October till the 14th of November, when the Lord Advocate
presented a royal warrant for proroguing it till the 2d of June 1640,
the Covenanters entering their protestation.[241] Thus the King baffled
all the hopes of the Covenanting party, of obtaining a ratification
of their favourite ecclesiastical degrees—a result attributable, no
doubt, in a great measure, to the extreme violence of some of their
propositions, of which the King availed himself by stating, as the
ground of adjournment, that various things had been propounded which
trenched on his civil authority and government.[242]
This step could not fail to startle and exasperate the Covenanters,
more especially as their deputies, (the Earl of Dunfermline and Lord
Loudon,) who had been sent off to Court after the prorogation on
14th November, had been dismissed contemptuously, without ever being
admitted to an audience of the King. When the King sent orders for the
prorogation, which took place of that date, he also ordered Traquair up
to London, to give an account personally of all the recent proceedings
in Scotland. He was coldly received, in consequence of the concessions
he had made, and his signing the Covenant. He was accused by the
Covenanters of inciting the King to a new war, and is alleged to have
made his peace by doing so; but, although this is stated by Burnet and
others, we have never seen any evidence to substantiate the charge; and
it is more probable that his best (as in truth it was his only) apology
for the part he had acted, was, that he had no alternative but to yield
to the dominant party, both in the Assembly and Scottish Parliament, or
at once commit the King in open hostility with his northern subjects.
Indeed, it seems utterly impossible that he, or any man, could have
obeyed his instructions without at the same time outraging the whole
policy and passions of the Covenanters, and precipitating another open
revolt, before the King could have made any preparations to encounter
its force. He had, however, obtained possession of a letter from the
leaders of the Covenant, addressed to the King of France, soliciting
protection and assistance—a document which, it appeared afterwards, had
never been sent or perfected; and this document, as in duty bound, he
produced to his Sovereign, as a proof of the treasonable purposes of
the Covenanters. It is quite possible that, with such apparently good
evidence in his possession, he might have represented to the King that
nothing but force would curb the ambitious views of the Covenanting
Nobles and Barons; but, in so doing, had it even been so, we cannot
discover any rational ground for the inveterate hostility subsequently
shewn to Traquair and Hamilton as _incendiaries_; for, whether the
letter was or was not sent, it evinced the treasonable purpose which
was cherished, of soliciting the assistance of a foreign potentate, for
the accomplishment of their purposes; and both Traquair and Hamilton
were bound, as loyal subjects, to make the fact known to the King, and
to give him such advice as their opportunities of observation enabled
them to afford.
Be this as it may, however, the Covenanters transmitted another
petition to the King, by a person named Cuningham, requesting
permission to send some of their number to Court to vindicate their
proceedings. This the King granted, and Loudon and Dunfermline were
again dispatched, on the 31st of January, for this purpose. On the
2d of March, (1640,) these Deputies got notice that the King would
receive them next day in the Council Chamber; and, on that occasion,
Loudon made an elaborate exposition of all the Scottish grievances,
which, with the King’s counter Declaration, are too long for insertion
in this work; but the curious reader will find them both embodied in
Rushworth’s Collections.[243] Several other audiences were given, at
the last of which (18th March) the King and Council declared that the
Deputies had no sufficient authority to demand a ratification of the
Acts of the preceding Assembly. On the 11th of April a warrant was
given to Adams, one of the Sheriffs of London, to take Loudon into
custody; and he was subsequently committed to the Tower, on a charge
of high treason, for his participation in the letter above alluded to;
and he was not liberated thence till the 27th of June following, upon
certain conditions which were not very creditable to either of the
parties.[244]
Of this transaction, there can, we think, be but one opinion among all
honourable men. Whatever might be Loudon’s demerits as regarded the
letter to the King of France, he went to England under the guarantee
of a Royal protection; and he was not amenable to any tribunal in
England, as a Scottish subject, for an imputed offence committed in
Scotland. He pleaded this, and the acts of pacification and indemnity
which had followed. It appeared, too, that the act of treason had
never been consummated by transmission of the letter; and he offered
himself for trial in Scotland. The King was saved the infamy of
carrying his original purpose into execution by a trial in England,
in consequence of the interposition of Hamilton, who represented the
serious consequences which would ensue. But we must now turn to the
movements in Scotland subsequently to the prorogation of its Parliament
in November preceding.