his Memoirs of Hamilton, has already mentioned, though in an inaccurate
way, this extraordinary warrant, it is thought not improper to publish
it exactly from the original.”—Burnet’s statement thus referred to is
to the following effect (p. 148:)—“But, before they came to Berwick,
the King _ordered_ the Marquis, by a warrant in writing, yet extant
under His Majesties hand, _to try what way he could gain upon them,
and discover the bottom of their intentions, how the estate of Bishops
should be supplied in Parliament, and how far they intended to lessen
the King’s Authority._ The King also allowed him to use what means he
pleased, and speak to them what he thought fit; not onely authorizing,
but requiring him to it, and warranting him, if he were ever questioned
or accused for it by any. Bearing date at Berwick the 17th of July
1639.”
[225] Burnet, p. 149.
[226] Burnet, p. 154. “Penned” by Hamilton, and “interlined” by
Canterbury.—Burnet, p. 153.
[227] Burnet, p. 155.
[228] Burnet, p. 156.
[229] Privy Council Record.
[230] Burnet, p. 158.
[231] Folio MS., from f. 169 to f. 211.
[232] It may be proper to explain that Mr David _Dick_, whoso name
is so often introduced as taking a part in the proceedings of these
Assemblies, is the same person as Mr David _Dickson_, minister of
Irvine. This abbreviation of his name appears throughout all the MS.
reports we have seen, although, in the list of members, 1638, and other
documents, it is given at full length. This abbreviation, we presume,
has arisen from some colloquial and conventional usage at the time; but
it is right to note the circumstance, in order to prevent mistakes.
[233] The “Large Declaration,” in which Henderson was vilified and
depreciated.
[234] It is impossible to peruse this interesting debate without
remarking how assiduously the Commissioner, and those to whom he was
opposed in the argument, kept in the back ground the main objection
to the Assembly exercising judicial functions—namely, that it had no
legal power to do so. The Assembly 1638 had not obtained the civil
sanction to give any of its proceedings, or those emanating from its
instructions, any legal authority—and the declarations of the Assembly
1639, _confessedly_ by the Assembly itself, required the sanction of
Parliament ere the Presbyterian Constitution could be in full and
legitimate operation. It was, therefore, evidently premature and
unwarrantable, to assume, at the very moment that so much anxiety was
expressed for that sanction, that it already possessed that judicial
character which it could not possibly derive, as an Establishment, from
any other source than the supreme legislature of the country. It must
be remembered that, by law, Episcopacy was still the established form
of national religion; and nothing more preposterous can be conceived
than the project of punishing any man merely for adhering to it.
[235] _Improbation_—a form of process in the law of Scotland, under
which the testimony of a witness was challenged.
[236] Although these several Declarations are to be found in the Acts
(Records, pp. 207 and 208), yet, as the terms of them formed the
subject of future debates, we have inserted them here, as we find them
detailed in the report of proceedings in the Folio MS.
[237] Vide Report, p. 251.
[238] Amidst the multiplicity of documents, and of authorities to which
we are obliged to resort for them, we see, on looking into Rushworth,
that two have been omitted, which we take the earliest opportunity of
supplying. These are, a Note by Lord Lowdon, at a conference with the
King, on 11th June 1639, and his Majesty’s answer thereto, on the 13th.
These are important, as shewing the primary basis of the negociation.
They are in the following terms:—
“MEMORANDUM.—That our desires are only the enjoying of our Religion
and Liberties, according to the ecclesiastical and civil laws of his
Majestys Kingdom,
“To clear, by sufficient grounds, that the particulars are such,
we shall not insist to crave any point which is not so warranted.
And we humbly offer all civil and temporal obedience to your Majesty
which can be required or expected of Loyal Subjects.—(Signed)
LOWDON.”—(Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 941.)
At the next Meeting in the King’s Camp, on the 13th, (where Henderson
and Johnston were present,) the following answer, by the King, to
Lowdon’s Memorandum, was produced:—
“That, whereas his Majesty, the 11th of June, received a short paper
of the general grounds and limits of their humble desires, his Majesty
is graceously pleased to make this answer. That, if their desires be
only the enjoying of their religion and liberties, according to the
ecclesiastical and civil laws of his Majestys Kingdom of Scotland, his
Majesty doth not only agree to the same, but shall always protect them
to the uttermost of his power; and if they shall not insist upon any
thing but that is so warranted, his Majesty will most willingly and
readily condescend thereunto, so that in the meantime they pay unto
him that civil and temporal obedience which can be justly required and
expected of Loial Subjects.—At his Majestys Camp, the 13th of June
1639.”—(Ibid., p. 942.)
We may also note that Rushworth gives all the dates more precisely than
we find elsewhere. The Earl of Dunfermline went to the King’s from the
Scotch Camp, on the 6th, with the petition from the Covenanters, (No.
49 of Documents, p. 225;) and Sir E. Verney returned with him, bearing
the King’s answer, (No. 50, p. 226;) the “Reasons and Grounds,” &c.,
were produced on the 13th. The Scots deputies returned on Saturday the
15th, and again on Monday the 17th; and the treaty was signed on the
18th. On the 22d, the King left the Camp for Berwick; and, on the 24th,
his army was dismissed and dissolved.—Rushworth, p. 943-946.
[239] Vide Report, p. 268.
[240] Vol. ii, p. 501.
[241] Rushworth, vol. iii, p. 955.
[242] Acts of Parliament, vol. iv., p. 285, 286. (Mr Thomson’s edition.)
[243] Rush vol. iii. p. 992, 1016, et sequen. Vide also Franklyn, p.
796, et sequen; Clarendon, and others.
[244] Vide Burnet’s Memoirs, p. 169, et sequen.
[245] Vide Documents.
[246] Minutes of Parliament, in Acts, vol. v., p. 256.
[247] Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 983.
[248] Burnet, p. 163.
[249] Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 984.
[250] Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1037.
[251] Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1210.
[252] Burnet, p. 170.
[253] Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1212.
[254] Ibid., 1213.
[255] Baillie’s Letters, vol. i., p. 195.—A great number of Baillie’s
Letters, relative to the troubles in Scotland, were addressed to Mr
Spang, a Scotch Presbyterian minister at Campvere in Holland; and from
these and other materials, that learned person afterwards compiled
a work in Latin for the information of foreigners which is thus
titled:—“Rerum nuper in Regno Scotiæ gestarum Historia, seu verius
Commentarius, causas, occasiones, progressus horum mottuum, breviter
et perspicue proponens, simul cum synopsi concordiæ, quantum hactenus
inita est.—Excerptus ex scriptis intriusque partis scitu dignissimis,
quorum primaria in Latinum sermonem nunc primum fideliter translata
inseruntur, &c.—PER IRINÆVM PHILALETHEN, Eleutherium.—Dantisci, Anno
Domini 1641.” There is a copy of this work in the Theological Library,
Edinburgh.
By an Act of Assembly 1641, the Scotch church at Campvere was
brought into connection with the Church of Scotland, and the Kirk
Session thereof authorized to send its minister and a ruling-elder
to the General Assembly. This connection continued long after, till
that branch of the Scottish Church was swept away in the French
revolutionary war, since which it has not been renewed, although that
church has been revived.
[256] It appears fitting to embody in this collection a brief statement
of the discrepancies betwixt the _English_ and the obnovious Scotch
Service Books, and to point out the resemblances which the latter had
to the Popish missals. For this exposition we are indebted to a kind
and learned friend, who is fully master of the subject.
[257] Rushworth says it was on Thursday the 20th—Balfour, Friday the
21st.
[258] Vide Documents.
[259] Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1221.
[260] Ibid, p. 1236.
[261] Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1238.
[262] Vide Documents, p. 299.
[263] Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1257.
[264] Ibid, p. 1276, 1277-1282.
[265] Vide Documents, p. 302.
[266] Rushworth, Baillie, _passim_.
[267] Vide Documents, p. 303.
[268] Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1221.
[269] Ibid, p. 1223.
[270] Burnet, p. 174.
[271] Burnet, p. 176.
[272] Burnet, p. 177.
[273] Burnet, p. 178.
[274] Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1295.
[275] Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1306.
[276] Burnet, p. 182.
[277] Baillie, p. 298.
[278] Vide Documents.
[279] Vide Balfour, vol. iii., pp. 4-9.
[280] Vide p. 235. Minutes of Parliament. Acts, vol. v., p. 360.
[281] Son of the Archbishop, and President of the Session.
[282] Baillie, vol. i., p. 324.
[283] Vol. iii., p. 40.
[284] Vide Acts, vol. v., p. 370, 371, &c.
[285] Balfour, vol. iii., p. 65.
[286] The following lists of officers of state, &c., (from Balfour’s
Annals, vol. iii., p. 148,) when compared with the rolls of the
Assemblies in 1638 and 1639 shew, that the former of these,
(and, indeed, the latter, too,) were quite as much political as
ecclesiastical conventions. The _lay leaders_ of the Tables, and in
the Assemblies, were just the identical persons who had mounted on the
ecclesiastical ladder to political power and place:—
“The 3 estaits of parl: hes delett out of the roll of counsellors giuen
in by hes Maiesty, thesse follouing—viz., George, Marques of Huntley;
Villiam, Earle of Airth and Menteth; Alexander, Earle of Linlithgow;
James, Earle of Home; Patrick, Earle of Tullibardyne; Alexander, Earle
of Galloway; Villiam, Earle of Dumfreis; Robert, Earle of Carnwathe.
And in ther places the 3 estaits did put in Johne, Earle of Sutherland;
Villiam, Earle of Louthean; Alex: Earle of Dalhousie; Johne, Lord
Zester; Johne, Lord St. Claire; Johne, Lord Balmerinache; Robert, Lord
Burlie.
“Acte anent the nominatione and electione of the counsellours votted
and past, according to this subsequent roll:—James, Duck of Lennox
and Richmond; James, Marq: of Hamilton; Archbald, Earle of Argyle;
Villiam, Earle of Marishall; Johne, Earle of Sutherland; Johne, Earle
of Mar; Alex: Earle of Eglintone; Johne, Earle of Cassiles; Villiam,
Earle of Glencairne; James, Earle of Murray; Johne, Earle of Perth;
Charles, Earle of Dumfermling; Johne, Earle of Vigtone; Johne, Earle
of Kingorne; George, Earle of Seaforte; Johne, Earle of Lauderdaill;
George, Earle of Kinnoule; Villiam, Earle of Louthean; Dauid, Earle
of Southescke; John, Earle of Wymees; Alex: Earle of Dalhousie;
James, Earle of Finlater; Alexander, Earle of Leuin; Archbald, Lo:
Angus; Johne, Lo: Lindesay; Johne, Lo: Zester; Johne, Lo: St. Claire;
Alex: Lo: Elphingstone; Johne, Lo: Balmerinoche; Robert, Lo: Burlie;
James, Lo: Amont; Alexandʳ, Lo: Balcarras; Sʳ Robert Gordon, Vice
Chamberlaine; Sʳ Patrick Hepburne of Vaughtone; Sʳ Villiam Douglas
of Cauers; Sʳ Ja: Dundas of the same; Thomas Myrtone of Camwo; Sʳ
Dauid Grhame of Fintrey; Sʳ John Erskyne of Dune; Sʳ Robert Grhame of
Morphie; Sʳ Robert Innes of the same; Prouest of Edinbrughe for the
tyme.
“Acte anent the nominatione and electione of thesse officers of estait
retained in ther places, votted and past accordinng to this ensewing
roll, they all beinng includit within the roll of counsellers also,
viz:—
“1. Jo: Lord London, Chancelour;
“2. Commissioners for the office of Thesaurer, 3 of them to be a coram,
votted, viz.:—Chancelour, Argyle, Glencairne, Lindesay, Thʳˢ depute.
“3. Earle of Roxbrughe, Lo: Priuey Seall;
“4. Earle Lanricke, Secretarey;
“5. Mr Alex: Gibsone of Durie, Clerke Register;
“6. Sʳ Tho: Hope of Craighall, Aduocat;
“7. Sʳ Jo: Hamilton of Orbeston, Justice Clerke;
“8. Sʳ Ja: Carmichell of the same, Thʳˢ depute;
“9. Sʳ Ja: Galloway, Master of Requysts.
“Supernumerarey counsellours, so called in his Maiesties rolls, wotted
and approuen by the housse, wer:—Thomas Houard, Earle of Arundaill;
Philipe Herbert, Earle of Pembrock and Montgomerey; Villiam Cicill,
Earle of Sarisburrey; Henrey Riche, Earle of Holland; Lord Villoughbie;
Eduard, Lord Houard; Sʳ Henrey Vaine, Secretarey for England; Sʳ Johne
Cooke, knight.
“Acte ament the nominatione and electione of the ordinar and
extraordinar Lordes of the Session, conforme to this roll, votted and
approuen by the housse:—Sʳ George Erskyne of Innerteill; Sʳ Alex:
Gibsone of Durie, elder; Sʳ Androw Fletcher of Innerpepher; Sʳ James
Lermonth of Balcomey; Sʳ George Halibrunton of Fodrens; Sʳ James
Mackgill of Cranston-Ridell; Sʳ Johne Hope of Cragehall; Sʳ Johne
Hamilton of Orbestone; Sʳ John Scott of Scottstaruett; Sir James
Carmichell of the same; Sʳ Alex: Falconer of Halcartone. Thesse foure
follouing, by the estaits wer putt from ther places in Sessione, for
crymes lybelled aganist them:—Sʳ Rob: Spotswood, President; Sʳ Jo: Hay,
Clerke Register; Sʳ Vill: Elphingstone, Justice Generall; Sʳ Patrick
Nisbett of Eastbancke. And in the place of thir forsaid foure, the
estaitts put in John Lesley of Neutone; Sʳ Thomas Hope of Kers; Mr
Adam Hepburne of Humbie; Mr Archbald Ihonstone, Clerke of the Generall
Assembley.
Extraordinarey Lordes of the Sessione, wotted and approuen by
the housse this day, wer:—E. Argyle, L. Angus, L. Lindesay, L.
Balmerinoche.”
[287] Hume’s History, vol. vii., pp. 5-14.
[288] Oct. 22, 1641. Rush. vol. iv., p. 399.
[289] Acts, vol v., p. 519.
[290] 50 George III., c. 89, 15th June, 1810.
[291] Burnet, p. 188. Rushworth, vol. iv., pp. 498, 501.
[292] Rushworth, vol. iv., p. 501. Neal, vol ii., p. 519.
[293] Whitelocke’s Mem., p. 57; Baillie, vol. i., p. 337; Clarendon,
Guthrie, &c.
[294] Rushworth, vol. iv., pp. 373-5.
[295] Baillie, vol. 1, p. 337.
[296] The several proceedings which we have thus characterised freely
but honestly, are recorded in the Acts of the General Assembly 1642, to
which we have alluded.
[297] History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 245.
[298] Vide the Account of Westminster Assembly, in excerpts from
Baillie’s Letters among Documents.
[299] Vide p. 362.
[300] Vide Documents, p. 362.
[301] Acts of Parl., vol. vi., pp. 107-9.
[302] Acts of Parl., vol. vi., pp. 106-7.
[303] Baillie’s Letters, vol. i, p. 373.
[304] Baillie’s Letters, vol. i., p. 392.
[305] Vide Baillie’s Letters.
[306] Cheesly, afterwards Sir John Cheesly, was Mr Henderson’s servant.
[307] Burnet, p. 196.
[308] Ibid, p. 197.
[309] Burnet, p. 198.
[310] Burnet, p. 200.
[311] Burnet, p. 203.
[312] Lanerick.
[313] Burnet, p. 205.
[314] Burnet, p. 206.
[315] Burnet, p. 210.
[316] Burnet, p. 213.
[317] Burnet, p. 215.
[318] Burnet, p. 219.
[319] Burnet, p. 221.
[320] Burnet, p. 218.
[321] Burnet, p. 225.
[322] Burnet, p. 230, and Register of Secret Council.
[323] Ibid, p. 230.
[324] Ibid, p. 231.
[325] Burnet, p. 226.
[326] Burnet, p. 231.
[327] Vide Rushworth, vol. iv., part ii., p. 499; and Clarendon, vol.
ii., part i., p. 383.
[328] Vide Letter among Acts.
[329] As copies of Mr Thomson’s edition of the Acts are deposited in
the office of every Sheriff-Clerk, and are accessible to all who think
fit to consult them, it is not thought necessary to give more than the
title and page in which several Acts, referring to the Church, may be
found.
[330] Acts of Parliament, vol. v., p. 61.
[331] Ibid., p. 66, and Act of Ratification, ibid., p. 129.
[332] Vide Acts, vol. v., p. 190.
[333] Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, vol. ii., p. 170. Clarendon
State Papers, vol. ii., p. 189. Spalding, vol. ii., pp. 273; 26, 27,
28; 83, 85.
[334] Vide Neal’s Hist. of Puritans, vol. iii., p. 131. Baillie, vol.
ii., p. 85
[335] Rushworth, vol. i., p. 268, 271.
[336] In order to save the necessity of frequent references to the
authorities on which this brief historical sketch is given, it may
be deemed sufficient to state that the facts are given chiefly from
Rushworth, (Part iv., vol. i.,) in which all the documents relative
to the period are to be found in the most authentic form. Whitelock’s
Memorials, Baillie’s Letters, Guthrie’s Memoirs, Crawford’s Lives,
and Clarendon, may also be consulted by those who desire to obtain
minute and exact information with respect to the transactions of those
times. We think it right to state, that throughout we have taken the
documentary evidence afforded by Rushworth as our safest guide, both as
to the chronology and the character of events. The works of Mr Hume and
Mr Laing, in relation to those times, may be regarded rather as able
historical disquisitions than histories; for the almost entire want of
dates renders their narratives extremely perplexed and unsatisfactory.
[337] Vide Acts, p. 450.
[338] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 305.
[339] Ibid., p. 306.
[340] Ibid., p. 309, _et seq_.
[341] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i. 319, 320.
[342] Vide Documents.
[343] Vide Documents.
[344] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 329.
[345] Ibid.
[346] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 373.
[347] Acts of Estates, vol. vi., p. 239.
[348] Vide Documents.
[349] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 392.
[350] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 393.
[351] Acts of Estates, vol. vi., p. 240; and Rushworth, part iv., pp.
395-6.
[352] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 398.
[353] Laing, vol. i., p. 345, on the authority of Burnet.
[354] A high controversy has recently been carried on by Mr Lister,
(author of a Life of Lord Clarendon,) and certain writers in the
_Edinburgh_ and _Quarterly Reviews_, relative to the circumstances
which preceded the surrender of King Charles I., by the Scottish
Commissioners, into the hands of his Parliamentary antagonists. We
have no intention of entering on the minutiæ of this discussion,
which relates mainly to Clarendon’s historical character, and to
the communications that took place through the instrumentality of
Montrevil, and the documents therewith connected. There is only one
point to which we shall advert, as bearing on the statements we have
given in the text, namely, as regards the footing upon which the King
went to the Scottish camp. Referring to the last article inculpating
the King in this matter, (_Edinburgh Review_, No. cxxxix., p. 104,) we
find a document, said to be Montrevil’s, quoted p. 109, dated in April,
1646, stating the conditions that had been agreed to by the Scots
Commissioners, on which they were to receive him; and, among other
things, it appears, “with regard to the Presbyterian government, they
_desire_ his Majesty to agree with them—_as soon as he can_.” On this,
a comment is made, by which this expression is converted into one of
quite a different meaning—viz., that the Commissioners “told him [the
King] plainly (as appears by this letter) through Montrevil, that, if
he came to their army, _he must be prepared to give his assent to their
Presbyterian Government_ [in England] _as speedily as he could_.” It
is quite obvious, from a single glance, that the terms of the document
and this interpretation of it, are very different. In the former, it
is only a _desire_ that he should agree to their proposals “_as soon
as he can_,” i. e., when, and if he could, make up his mind to do so;
but, in the comment, this is converted into a peremptory and pointed
requisition that he should do so, absolutely and _speedily_. This is
scarcely a fair construction. Take the reviewer’s further statement,
(p. 111,) “It is plain from this correspondence, that the Scots made
no promises to the King which they did not fulfil. They engaged to
assist him in his escape from Oxford—to _protect his person, which
was placed in danger by the votes of the two Houses_, in case he was
forced within their quarters—to treat him _with honour and respect,
and not impose force on his conscience_—to admit into their camp three
of his servants, &c. All this they performed, and more they refused
to promise, _unless_ the King gave his consent to the establishment
of the Presbyterian Church in England.” The concluding assertion
assuredly is not borne out by the document founded on; and, taking the
reviewer’s own statement in these particulars, it humbly appears to us
to be inconsistent with itself, and with the propositions that they
fulfilled the compact, and that none of the actors of that period were
responsible for the events which followed, (p. 125.) If they were bound
to protect his person from danger, which they knew to be impending,
as here assumed—if they were to treat him with honour and respect,
and not to impose force on his conscience, surely it was a breach of
such pledges, when they afterwards, not only insisted absolutely on
his violating his conscientious, his inflexible, and oft-repeated
declaration of aversion to Presbytery as the establishment in England,
but delivered him over personally to his implacable enemies, without
the slightest security either for his safety or his honour. Even on the
reviewer’s own shewing, they violated their pledges; and, independently
of the taint which the whole proceedings of the Scottish Commissioners
received from the pecuniary part of the transaction, the reviewer
only aggravates the turpitude of the whole affair by admitting that,
in their negotiations with the King, as to this matter, they acted
clandestinely and in bad faith towards the English Parliament. This new
champion of the Scottish Commissioners, like all his predecessors in
the same track, has signally failed in his attempts to vindicate them
from the imputations of double dealing, dissimulation, bad faith, and
sordid treachery, which has been but too conclusively laid to their
charge.
[355] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 448. Thurloe, vol. i., p. 89,
92. Salmanet, p. 253-4.
[356]
The fire in the cavern of Etna concealed,
Still mantles unseen in its secret recess,
At length in a volume terrific revealed,
No torrent can quench it, no bounds can repress.
BYRON.
[357] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 485.
[358] Not that they are to be heer Printed, but because they being to
bee Printed severally, this act is to be prefixed to them.
[359] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 320.
[360] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 327.
[361] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 328.
[362] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 390.
[363] Vide p. 468.
[364] Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 871 and 880.
[365] Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 768 to 771. Acts of Estates.
[366] Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 810.
[367] Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 818.
[368] Ibid. p. 842.
[369] Ibid. p. 843.
[370] Ibid. p. 859.
[371] Ibid. p. 864.
[372] Ibid. p. 869.
[373] Burnet, p. 323-334. Vide also Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p.
946-950 _et passim_.
[374] Acts of Parliament, vol. vi., p. 290.
[375] Acts of Parliament, vol. vi., p. 292.
[376] Ibid. p. 305.
[377] Acts of Parliament, vol. vi., p. 319-322.
[378] Hist. of Church, vol. iii., p. 153.
[379] Baillie’s Letters, vol. ii., p. 286. See Documents.
[380] Acts of Parliament, vol. vi., p. 331.
[381] Acts of Parliament, vol. vi., p. 332.
[382] Burnet, p. 341, _et seq._
[383] Turner’s Memoirs, p. 53.
[384] Turner’s Memoirs, p. 56.
[385] Burnet, p. 355.
[386] Burnet, p. 348, _et seq._ Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p.
1193-1242. Turner, p.63.
[387] The party appellation of “Whigamores,” or, briefly, “Whigs,” had
its origin at this period; and the insurrection referred to was called
the “Whigamores’ _Raid_” or incursion, that term being the common one
for the predatory expeditions of the Borderers. This nickname being
still preserved in the vocabulary of party, although there is truly
none now existing that can be in any degree assimilated to the original
sect, it seems proper to explain how the distinction originated. Mr
Laing, in his history, (vol. i., p. 381, 2d ed. 1804,) informs us
that “the expedition was termed the _Whigamores_’ inroad, from a word
employed by these western peasants in driving horses; and the name
transferred, in the succeeding reign, to the opponents of the court, in
still preserved and cherished by the Whigs as the genuine descendants
of the covenanting Scots.” And, in a foot-note, he adds—“According to
others, from _whig_ or _whey_, the customary food of those peasants.”