The Project Gutenberg eBook of The history of civilisation in Scotland, Vol 3 (of 4)
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The history of civilisation in Scotland, Vol 3 (of 4)
Author: John Mackintosh
Release date: June 24, 2026 [eBook #78940]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Alexander Gardner, 1892
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/78940
Credits: Richard Hulse and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND, VOL 3 (OF 4) ***
THE HISTORY
OF
CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ Most of the abbreviations used to save space in printing have │
│ been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for easier reading. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has │
│ been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there │
│ is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image │
│ adequately. │
│ │
│ Index references have not been checked for accuracy. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript │
│ number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the │
│ text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
THE HISTORY OF CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND.
BY
JOHN MACKINTOSH, LL.D.
_Author of “The Story of Scotland,”
“The Revolution of 1688 and Viscount Dundee,”
“The Highland Land Question Historically Considered,”
“History of the Valley of the Dee,” Etc._
_A NEW EDITION._
PARTLY REWRITTEN, AND CAREFULLY REVISED THROUGHOUT.
Volume Third.
ALEXANDER GARDNER,
Publisher to her Majesty the Queen,
PAISLEY; AND 26 PATERNOSTER SQUARE, LONDON.
1895.
CONTENTS.
Illustration: (‡ decoration)
CHAPTER XXIV.
_Influence of the Union of the Crowns upon Scotland._
⭘ Attitude of James VI. to the Reformed Church of Scotland――The
Government of Scotland after the Union of the Crowns
⭘ Measures and Proceedings for securing Order upon the Borders
⭘ A Union of the two Kingdoms proposed――The King determined
to establish Episcopacy in Scotland, a Meeting of the Clergy
dissolved by the Government, ministers imprisoned, tried, and
banished from the kingdom――Parliament recognised the absolute
power of the King――Restoration of the Bishops
⭘ The King attempted to stifle the leaders of the Presbyterians,
Andrew Melville imprisoned, other ministers banished
⭘ Meeting of the Clergy and Nobles, permanent moderators of
Presbyteries and synods――Courts of High Commission established
――Acts of the General Assembly and Parliament――Episcopacy
restored――The King recommended more Ceremonies, proceedings of
the General Assembly――The King’s Five Articles
⭘ The King’s visit to Scotland, his proceedings, the Five
Articles adopted by the General Assembly and Parliament, and
the King commanded the Bishops to enforce their observance
――Death of the King
⭘ Policy of Charles I.――His Act of Revocation, feeling of the
nobles against it; a compromise affected, adjustment of the
Tithes
⭘ Charles’ visit to Scotland――The organisation of the Church, a
book of Canons and a new Liturgy to be introduced――The Canons
promulgated, their characteristics――The new Liturgy published,
and the people commanded to observe it
⭘ Rise of the national feeling――Position of the Bishops and the
Authorities――Preparations for introducing the new Liturgy,
great tumults in the Churches of Edinburgh――Excitement rapidly
spreading
CHAPTER XXV.
_The Covenanting Struggle._
⭘ Charles I. misunderstood the state of Scotland――The agitation
spreading; the Government powerless――Petitions against the
Liturgy; Meeting at Edinburgh; the King’s Answer to the
Petitions; tumultuous proceedings
⭘ A complaint against the Bishops――Energy of the Opposition
party; four Committees formed――Action of the King; Royal
proclamation――Demands of the Covenanters; the Government
perplexed; the King resolved to adhere to the Liturgy; Royal
proclamations; Protests by the Covenanters
⭘ The Crisis; the Covenant framed and adopted, and the
Covenanters assumed a new position――Signing of the Covenant;
copies of it circulated throughout the kingdom; great efforts
of the leading Covenanters
⭘ Embarrassment of the Government; the King informed of the
state of the nation――Repressive measures sanctioned; Marquis of
Hamilton’s mission to Scotland; Proceedings and demands of the
Covenanters; Hamilton’s instructions useless――Charles’ policy
⭘ Hamilton returned to Court; the King issued new instructions
――The Covenanters demanded a free General Assembly; the King’s
policy
⭘ Preparations for the General Assembly; trial of the Bishops;
Meeting of the Assembly at Glasgow; Proceedings of the Assembly
――Its Conclusion
⭘ Relation of the Covenanters with the disaffected party in
England――The Scots prepare for war; mustered an army; the
King at the head of his army advanced to meet them; a Treaty
concluded
⭘ Proceedings of the General Assembly――All the people commanded
to subscribe the Covenant――Causes of dissension continued
――Charles’ quarrel with the English Parliament――Proceedings
of the Scotch Parliament――General Assembly
⭘ The Covenanting army cross the Tweed and defeat the Royal
troops――The King’s difficulties――Negotiates with the Scots;
Charles’ visit to Scotland; he sanctioned the proceedings of
Parliament――The King’s difficulties with his English subjects
⭘ Aims of the Covenanters――Intimate relations of the Covenanters
and the English Parliamentary Party; a Solemn League and
Covenant concluded; Signing of the Covenant in England
――Theocratic ideas of the Covenanters
⭘ Westminster Assembly of Divines――Westminster Confession of
Faith adopted by the General Assembly
⭘ Government of Scotland――Royalist party in Scotland; Montrose
campaigns and victories; at last he was defeated
⭘ The King’s Cause falling in England; he fled to the Scottish
army; the English Parliament demanded his surrender but the
Scots declined――Episcopacy extinguished in England――Haggling
between the English and Scots about the pay of the Scottish
army; final settlement
⭘ The Long Parliament demanded possession of the King’s person;
the Scots were compelled to let him go――The Presbyterians
opposed to the Independents――The Scots treating with the
captive King――The engagement――The Royalists defeated at Preston
――Cromwell at Edinburgh――Execution of Charles I.――Import of the
Covenanting Struggle
CHAPTER XXVI.
_Charles II.――The Kingdom under Cromwell._
⭘ Charles II. proclaimed King; the Scots in favour of a limited
monarchy――The Estates enacted that the King should sign the
Covenants before admission to the exercise of his functions
――Patronage abolished――The Marquis of Huntly executed――Act
of Classes――Powers and functions of Magistrates――Election of
Ministers
⭘ Montrose’s last effort on behalf of the Royal cause; he was
defeated, captured, and executed
⭘ Treating with the King; he signed the Covenant and landed in
Scotland――The Scots opposed the Commonwealth, and Cromwell
invaded Scotland and defeated the Scots at Dunbar――Divisions
among the Scots――Charles II. crowned at Scone――The Royalists
defeated; the King escapes――Scotland subdued――The General
Assembly dispersed――Resolutioners and Protesters
⭘ Cromwell’s government of Scotland――Free Trade between England
and Scotland――State of the people――New religious sects in
Scotland――Death of Cromwell; struggle for power; departure of
the English army from Scotland――The King recalled
CHAPTER XXVII.
_The Conflict from the Restoration to the Revolution._
⭘ Aim of the Chapter――Sentiments associated with the Restoration
――Scotland suffered more from the Restoration than England
――Sharp’s Mission to England touching the Church of Scotland;
the King’s Letter
⭘ State of the Scottish nobles――The Committee of Estates resumed
the Government――Public meetings prohibited; Books ordered to
be burned――A number of ministers, the Marquis of Argyle and
others, imprisoned
⭘ Meeting of Parliament; its proceedings――The Rescissory Act;
all opposition stifled――Trial and execution of the Marquis of
Argyle and the Rev. James Guthrie; Reconstruction of the Privy
Council; Reconstitution of the Court of Session
⭘ Reintroduction of Episcopacy; the new Bishops; the people
commanded to obey them
⭘ Second Session of Parliament; the Bishops resumed their seats
――The preservation of the King’s person and authority――The
Covenants condemned――Patronage restored――The Universities
purged and religious meetings prohibited――An explicit
declaration against the Covenants to be tendered to any one
――The New Hierarchy――Act of Indemnity
⭘ Meeting of diocesan synods――Three hundred ministers ejected
from their churches――Proceedings of the Privy Council
⭘ Contest between the heads of the Government; fall of Middleton
――Parliament reassembled; mode of electing the Lords of the
Articles――Oppressive Acts; the people commanded to attend
the parish churches; the ejected ministers prohibited from
preaching; Origin of Conventicles――Oppressive Acts of the
Privy Council
⭘ Persecution; soldiers enforcing religious conformity;
fining the people and cruelly oppressing them――Court of High
Commission established――Severe persecution; the limit of
endurance passed
⭘ Rising of 1666; the Insurgents defeated; treatment of the
prisoners; torture; military execution
⭘ An indemnity offered――Attempt to assassinate Archbishop
Sharp; escape of the assassin; renewal of the persecution;
a temporising measure tried
⭘ Meeting of Parliament; statement of the King’s supremacy in all
cases; the Privy Council invested with full legislative power
――Protection of the Episcopal clergy
⭘ Conventicles increasing; severe Acts against them――An Act
commanding the observance of the Anniversary of the Restoration
――An indulgence offered to the ejected ministers――A petition
from the Ladies to the Council
⭘ Persecution continued; the Bond and other oppressive measures;
Garrisons placed in private mansions; Letters of intercommuning
――Meeting of Presbyterian ministers――Sir George Mackenzie on
Conventicles; Proclamation against them
⭘ Mitchell apprehended for attempting to shoot the Primate;
irregularly tried and executed
⭘ Highland army quartered upon the disaffected people; the Bond
tendered; the soldiers ordered to kill all who resisted――A
special Commission to suppress the opposition to the Church
――Murder of the Primate
⭘ A reward offered for the apprehension of the murderers――A
public testimony against the Government――A Conventicle at
Loudon Hill; A skirmish with the Royal troops; Spread of
the Insurrection; Battle of Bothwell Bridge; defeat of the
Insurgents; Treatment of the prisoners
⭘ Indemnity――The presbyterian parties――Persecution continued
――Manifesto against the King and Government――A party of the
Cameronians surprised and slain――Cargill and others seized and
executed
⭘ Duke of York in Scotland――Meeting of Parliament, Act of
Succession――New penalties to be inflicted upon the disaffected
――Test Act――Trial and escape of Argyle
⭘ Declaration of the Society people, a series of sanguinary acts
intended to crush them――Violence of the Army――Death of Charles
II.
⭘ Accession of the Duke of York――Ideas associated with the
English Crown――Persecution continued――Meeting of Parliament,
speeches of the Royal Commissioner and Lord Chancellor――Cruel
enactments――Failure of Argyle’s attempt against the Government,
his execution――The prisons full of Non-Conformists
⭘ The King’s project of re-introducing Roman Catholicism,
he assumed the power of suspending and repealing the laws
――Execution of Renwick
⭘ The Crisis; the Prince of Orange’s Declaration; Meeting of the
Scotch bishops――Tumults in Edinburgh; Attack on Roman Catholic
Chapel――Alarming rumours――The Curates in the Western counties
ejected
⭘ Meeting of Presbyterians; Address to the Prince of Orange
――Meeting of the Scotch nobles, the Prince assumed the
Government of Scotland――Preparations for the Meeting of the
Convention
⭘ Meeting of the Convention of Estates, election of a President
――Letters from the Prince of Orange and King James――Excitement
in Edinburgh――Flight of Dundee to the North; intense excitement
in the Convention; the Covenanters called out――The Throne
declared vacant, and the Crown offered to William and Mary――The
Claim of Right――Adjournment of the Convention
CHAPTER XXVIII.
_The Revolution and the Union._
⭘ Difficulties of the new Government, opposite parties――William
Carstairs――The Duke of Hamilton; other members of the
Government; an opposition party
⭘ Convention re-assembled; the opposition harassed the Government
――Abolition of the Lords of the Articles demanded――War in
the Highlands; General Mackay and Viscount Dundee; Battle of
Killiecrankie; the royal army utterly defeated; consternation
of the Government
⭘ Difficulties of the King; his opinion of the Scottish
aristocracy――The Lords of the Articles abolished; Act of
Supremacy repealed――The ejected ministers restored, and the
Presbyterian polity re-established――Patronage abolished――A
Commission to visit the Universities and Schools――Parties
dissatisfied with the arrangements
⭘ Meeting of Presbyterians――General Assembly, the King’s letter
――Cameronian ministers――Acts of the Assembly
⭘ Proceedings of the Commission of Visitation; Interference of
the King――Meeting of the General Assembly; a proposal by the
King to admit Episcopal ministers
⭘ The Highlands; means used for the pacification of the Clans;
their submission to the Government――Massacre of Glencoe
⭘ Oath of Allegiance and Declaration of Assurance to be
subscribed――An Act permitting the Episcopal clergy to remain
in their churches under certain conditions; those who declined
were considered Jacobites
⭘ Rise of a commercial spirit; the Darien project sanctioned
by Parliament――Outline of the scheme; a company formed and
capital subscribed. In July, 1698, one thousand and two
hundred persons sailed from Leith to establish the new Colony;
their privations soon began, they were forced to abandon the
colony, though a second and a third expedition was despatched,
the enterprise ended in a complete failure, which caused great
indignation in Scotland
⭘ The King declined to receive an Address from the Darien
Company――Meeting of Parliament; stormy debates on the Darien
Colony――An Address sent to the King; the King’s letter
――Parliament overwhelmed with addresses and petitions
――Resolutions passed by Parliament touching the Darien Colony,
and embodied in an Address to the King
⭘ Attempt to form a union of the two Kingdoms――Death of the King
――Accession of Queen Anne――Another attempt to frame a union
――Elections for the new ♦Parliament; meeting of Parliament,
a series of alarming acts passed; the Act of Security twice
passed, and the nation prepared for battle
♦ “Partiament” replaced with “Parliament”
⭘ The English Parliament authorised a Treaty of Union to be
negotiated; this was placed before the Scottish parliament,
and after a vehement debate, an act was passed authorising the
appointment of Commissioners to treat with the English for a
Union. The number of Commissioners equal on both sides――Their
proceedings――A copy of the Treaty presented to the Queen
⭘ The Scotch Parliament re-assembled to consider the Treaty;
great opposition to the Union; efforts to arouse the national
feeling against it――The Articles of the Treaty were read and
debated in Parliament one by one――Efforts of the opposition;
a vehement debate on the first article of the Treaty――The
articles touching commerce satisfactory to the Scots――The
last effort of the Jacobites to defeat the Union――The Treaty
finally carried――Mode of electing the Representatives from
Scotland to the first Parliament of Great Britain
CHAPTER XXIX.
_Causes of Disaffection――Risings of 1715 and 1745._
⭘ Advantages of the Union; some of its disadvantages――Fiscal and
Excise arrangements――Malt Tax; determined opposition to it;
caused disturbance――Smuggling
⭘ The Jacobites――Toleration Act――Patronage restored――Death of
Queen Anne; Accession of George I.
⭘ The Earl of Mar and the Rising of 1715――Movements of the
insurgent army――Arrival of the Pretender――Collapse of the
Rising――Treatment of the prisoners; forfeitures――the Episcopal
clergy
⭘ Measures of the Government to secure order in the Highlands;
disarming acts; forts and military roads
⭘ Causes of the Rising of 1745; hereditary customs; jurisdiction
and power of the local chiefs and nobles――Prejudice against
the Union, and disaffection to England
⭘ Arrival of Prince Charles; a number of the Highland chiefs
joined him――Advance of his army southward; took Edinburgh
――Battle of Preston――His march into England; his retreat
――Battle of Culloden――Suffering inflicted on the people after
the battle――Service which the Celtic people have rendered to
the Empire
CHAPTER XXX.
_Social State of the People in the Seventeenth Century._
⭘ Circumstances unfavourable to social progress――Administration
of Justice――Lord Stair――The Question of Appeals――Sir John
Dalrymple――Corruption of the fountain of Justice――Some attempts
of reform――Lord Stair re-appointed President of the Court of
Session
⭘ State of crime――Feuds――Crimes of violence――The Earls of
Caithness and Orkney; their proceedings
⭘ Social state of the Highlanders; modes of treating them
――Efforts of the Government――“The Statutes of Icolmkill”――Old
feuds were difficult to extinguish――Contempt of the law was
often manifested throughout the Kingdom
⭘ Crime in the towns; assaults and breaches of the peace
――Offences against property
⭘ The poor and vagrant class numerous――The manner of treating the
poor and helpless――Acts of Parliament for suppressing vagrancy
and idle vagabonds; attempts to compel them to work――Proposal
to erect Correction-houses――Great privation among the lower
classes in the closing years of the century――Causes of the
enormous number of vagrant people in Scotland
⭘ Religious feeling; vivid sense of the supernatural――Severe laws
against Roman Catholics――Persecution of the Quakers
⭘ Witchcraft――Trials and executions of witches; curious notions
and incidents――The witch pricker――The belief in witchcraft
faded with the diffusion of education and civilisation
⭘ Social morality of the people; proceedings of the Church Courts
――The people not always submissive
⭘ Exertions to secure the observance of Sunday; efforts of the
local authorities and Church Courts
⭘ Religious exercises on week days――The national and local Fast
days
⭘ Drunkenness――Cursing and swearing; manner of punishing these
offences
⭘ Relation of the different sexes; irregular marriages; Acts of
Parliament and efforts of the Church to suppress them――Survival
of old customs associated with marriages and funerals
⭘ Sumptuary enactments; regulation of the dress of the different
ranks of society: a constant fashion of dress proposed――Dress
of the people
⭘ Defective sanitary condition of the towns; deficient supply
of pure water; efforts to remedy this――The arrangements for
cleansing the towns extremely defective
⭘ Trade in the burghs under restrictions; fixing the price of the
common necessaries of life――Price of boots and shoes――Disputes
arising from Corporation privileges
⭘ Wages――State of Agricultural labourers――Justices of Peace
empowered to fix the rate of wages――Compulsory labour;
semi-slavery of the workmen in collieries and salt-works
⭘ Mining operations comparatively limited
⭘ Means of Communication――Acts of Parliament touching repairing
of the Roads, Bridges, and Ferries――Condition of the Roads
⭘ Origin and progress of Postal communication in Scotland――Rates
charged for carrying letters and parcels――The Post Office at
the end of the century
⭘ Introduction of Coaches and Carriages
⭘ Shipping of the Kingdom
⭘ State of agriculture; system of farming; implements――State of
the tenants and labourers
⭘ Attempts to introduce improvements in tanning leather
⭘ Efforts to improve the manufacture of Cloth――Foreigners
employed――Home-made cloth――Acts of Parliament for encouraging
manufactories and companies――Foreign workmen encouraged
to settle in Scotland――The home-made goods protected by
prohibiting the importation of foreign goods――Woollen
manufactories in operation――Cloth for the dress of the army
⭘ Linen Manufacture――Commercial relations of England and Scotland
unsatisfactory; Leading aim of the Commercial Policy of the
Period――Ways of promoting the Linen Manufacture; A Company
formed for the Manufacture of Linen in Scotland
⭘ Introduction of the Manufacture of Soap――Act of Parliament
encouraging the erection of Soap Works
⭘ Introduction of Glass-making, Progress of Glass-making in the
Kingdom――A Proposal to erect a Work for making Earthenware
⭘ Introduction of Paper-making; Trade of Collecting Rags――A Paper
Work in Operation; A Joint-Stock Company established for making
Writing and Printing Paper
⭘ Introduction of Tobacco, and Tobacco Spinning――Price of Tobacco
Pipes fixed by Parliament
⭘ Coinage, the use of a Mill in Minting the Coins Introduced
――Complaints about the Scarcity of Money――System of Collecting
Bullion for the Mint――Toward the end of the reign of Charles
II. the Mint had fallen into a deplorable state; New Regulations
enacted by Parliament――At the Union it was settled that there
should be only one Standard of Money for the United Kingdom
⭘ Introduction of a Paper Currency, establishment of the Bank of
Scotland; The early operations of the Bank
⭘ A marked and rapidly spreading interest in Trading and
Commercial Enterprise, as shown by the many Commercial
Projects, Trade Adventures, and Notices of Inventions, which
were originated in the closing years of the Seventeenth Century
and the opening years of the Eighteenth――Conclusion of the
Chapter
CHAPTER XXXI.
_Ballad, and Jacobite Literature of Scotland._
⭘ Influence of Ballad Literature on the National Character
――Ballads relating to the Civil War
⭘ Satirical Rhymes and Lampoons referring to the Opposing Parties
in the Covenanting Struggle
⭘ Ballads relating to the Risings during the Period of the
Persecution
⭘ Satirical Rhymes, and Pasquils, referring to the Government
from the Restoration to the Revolution
⭘ Origin and Characteristics of the Jacobite Ballads――Rhymes
and Ballads relating to the Events flowing from the Revolution
――Rhymes touching the Union
⭘ Popular Jacobite Ballads and Songs, a higher strain attained
after the battle of Culloden
⭘ Characteristics of Lowland Scottish Ballad Literature
――Conclusion of the Chapter
CHAPTER XXXII.
_Literature of the Nation in the Seventeenth Century._
⭘ Religious and Theological Literature of the Century
――Calderwood, Character of his Writings; his History of the
Church of Scotland――Archbishop Spottiswood’s History of the
Church and State of Scotland――Baillie’s Writings
⭘ Boyd, his Sermon on Cromwell――Style of his Writings――Durham,
Dickson, Rutherford, Gillespie
⭘ Dr. Forbes; Bishop Forbes; Leighton; Burnet, his Historical
Works
⭘ Sir William Alexander; Drummond, Characteristics of his Poetry
⭘ Legal Literature――Sir Thomas Hope――Lord Stair――Sir George
Mackenzie
⭘ Medical Science, the Royal College of Physicians――Dr. Balfour
――Sir Robert Sibbald――Dr. Morison――Dr. Pitcairn
⭘ Progress of Science――Dr. James Gregory――David Gregory――John
Keill
CHAPTER XXXIII.
_Education and Art in the Seventeenth Century._
⭘ Growing Interest in Education――Efforts to establish Parish
Schools――Legislative enactments
⭘ Grammar Schools――English and Scotch Schools in Burghs――French
was taught from an early period
⭘ The Church Claimed a Right of Visiting and Examining all the
Schools, Form and Manner of these Visitations
⭘ Course of Instruction and Subjects taught in the Grammar
Schools of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen
⭘ Local Authorities often encouraged the Schoolmasters by Special
Marks of Respect――Music Schools
⭘ Universities, the Citizens of Glasgow and Aberdeen manifested
much interest in University Education――Each Dominant Party
in the Government sought to impose certain views upon the
Universities, and the Revolutions in the Government also
affected the Funds of the Universities; after the Revolution
they were purged――A proposal to introduce a uniform course of
Philosophy――Difference between the Regenting and Professional
Methods of Teaching
⭘ Art――George Jamesone, a Portrait-painter――It appears that he
executed much work; his merit――Thomas Murray――Sir William Bruce
CHAPTER XXXIV.
_Outline of European Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century,
and the early part of the Eighteenth._
⭘ Aim of the Chapter――Efforts of the human mind to attain
freedom, veneration for the opinions of antiquity: Power of
the Mind
⭘ Bruno a bold thinker; Reconstruction of the Universe, the unity
of being his fundamental principle――His system pantheistic
――Influence of his views on subsequent speculation
⭘ Influence of the Jesuits in France――Montaigne――Gassendi, the
reviver of Materialism: Atomism
⭘ Descartes, his achievements in Mathematics――Principles and
method of his Philosophy――His peculiar views touching the
organisation of man and the lower animals
⭘ His Meditations――a discussion of the fundamental principles of
Philosophy, the grounds on which we may doubt of all things:
The Mind itself more clearly known than any external object――An
idea of God in the Mind, the will the cause of error, all clear
and distinct conceptions are true, as God cannot be the cause of
error――All truth depends on the knowledge of God
⭘ His theory of the Universe, conception of God, and definition
of substance; Doctrine of continuous creation――Criterion of
Truth
⭘ His Psychology――Relation of the Mind to the objects of its
knowledge, theory of mediate perception――Innate Ideas――His
Ethical views――Influence of his Philosophy on subsequent
speculation
⭘ Spinoza――Chief characteristics of his Philosophy――His Ethics,
method of his system, definitions and axioms; conclusions
touching God and the Universe
⭘ The Human Mind and Body; three degrees of cognition――opinion,
reason, and intuition; reason considers things as necessary
under a form of Eternity: There is no Free-will
⭘ Affections and Emotions, Desire and Appetite――The Primary
Affections――Man unable to restrain his passions――There is no
final causes, as God exists of necessity, so does He act――Good
and Evil: The highest virtue, and the supreme good is to know
God――All that tends to the order and amity of society is good
⭘ Relation of Emotion and Reason――The Love of God ought chiefly
to fill the Mind――The Essence of the Mind Eternal――The
Knowledge of God and the Intellectual Love of God the highest
Virtue――The understanding an eternal mode of thought――Result
of his system, its defects――Its influence on subsequent
speculation
⭘ Leibnitz wrote on many Subjects――His Method of Philosophising
――Theory of Monads――Pre-established Harmony――Bayle
⭘ English Philosophy――Bacon’s Method, his Merit; Influence of his
Writings
⭘ Lord Herbert of Cherbury――His Speculations on Mental Philosophy
and Religion
⭘ Hobbes’ views influenced by the struggles of his time――His
conception of Philosophy, Reasoning, the use and value of words
⭘ His idea of motion, Psychology――origin of sensation, ideas
and thought, connection of ideas, trains of thought――The will,
emotions and passions
⭘ Hobbes’ political and ethical views――Original state of mankind;
Origin of Government――Powers of the Sovereign and the State
――The Civil Law the Standard of Right and Wrong
⭘ Milton’s Political Writings, defence of the Commonwealth――James
Harrington’s Writings
⭘ Bishop Cumberland’s Ethical Theory――Cudworth’s Intellectual
System of the Universe――More’s Moral Views
⭘ Locke――Fundamental principles of his Psychology――Refutation of
the doctrine of innate Ideas, no innate idea of God
⭘ Origin of ideas, simple and complex ideas, no clear idea of
substance――Relations, true and false ideas――Association of
ideas
⭘ Language as the medium of expressing thought――The degrees and
limits of human knowledge――Knowledge consists in the perception
of the agreement or disagreement of ideas――The existence of God
――The provinces of faith and reason――Locke’s main inconsistency
――Value of his Essay――Causes of the success of Locke’s views
⭘ English Deism――Toland, Collins, Tindal
⭘ Shaftesbury’s conception of God――Disinterested affection
――Influence of his views――His style
⭘ Dr. Clarke’s Moral Theory――Berkeley’s Idealism――His style
――Conclusion
THE
HISTORY OF CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND.
Illustration: (‡ decoration)
CHAPTER XXIV.
_Influence of the Union of the Crowns upon Scotland._
AT the opening of this period, it may be recalled that it was not the
head of the Government who reformed the Church in Scotland. The change
of religion was carried through in opposition to Queen Mary and the
representatives of her rights; while her son only accepted the reformed
doctrines. From his youth, indeed, he had manifested a strong aversion
to the polity of the Reformed Church of his kingdom. In past times the
Crown had always found support from its connection with the hierarchy;
and nothing was more natural than that James VI. should endeavour to
restore Episcopacy whenever he could command the power to do so. He was
inflexibly possessed with the idea that Episcopacy must be established
in Scotland; but the means which he employed to attain this end were
unwise and short-sighted. He was convinced that kingly government could
not exist side by side with a Presbyterian Church; and he had mused so
long on this view of the matter, that at last it assumed the place of
an idol in his mind. This unfortunately became the foremost tenet in
the political creed of the Stuarts, and eventually issued in the fall
of their dynasty.
The influence of the union of the Crowns was soon felt. In the hands
of a really wise ruler, this union might have been rendered highly
beneficial to both nations; but James had too much faith in his own
opinion and in his royal prerogatives; his adherence to these in face
of the adverse elements of thought and feeling among the people, led
on to a course of policy which tended to extinguish the freedom and the
rights of the nation.
After the union of the Crowns the government of Scotland was conducted
by the Privy Council. This body consisted of the chief official members,
including John Graham, third Earl of Montrose, who was Lord High
Chancellor and Chief or Prime Minister till March, 1605, and then Lord
High Commissioner. He was succeeded in the Chancellorship by Alexander
Seton, previously known as Lord Fyvie, and President of the Court of
Session; he was created Earl of Dunfermline on the 4th of March, 1605,
and then became chief minister or official head of the Privy Council.
Sir George Home of Spott, had been Lord High Treasurer of Scotland
since 1601, and having accompanied the King to England, he became a
special favourite, and in March, 1605, was created Earl of Dunbar.
Although he retained his Scottish office, he was the chief Scottish
minister at the English Court, and sent to Scotland as the King’s
envoy when any measure of special importance was to be carried into
effect; and although he only appeared occasionally at the meetings
of the Scottish Privy Council, yet his influence in the government
was frequently dominant. James Elphinstone, created Lord Balmerino on
the 25th April, 1604, was Secretary of State; and after March 1605,
he was also President of the Court of Session. He was a very active
member of the Council, and attended many of its meetings. David Murray,
created Lord Scone in 1604, held the office of Comptroller. Sir Richard
Cockburn of Clerkington, one of the Lords of the Court of Session,
filled the office of the Lord Privy Seal; while Sir John Skene of
Curriehill, also one of the Lords of Session, held the office of Clerk
Register. Sir John Cockburn of Ormiston, was Justice Clerk; and Sir
Thomas Hamilton of Monkland, was Lord Advocate. The preceding members
of the Council formed the official ministry. The total number of names
in the list of Privy Councillors was ninety-three, and consisted of
nobles, lawyers, lairds, and bishops. But only about one half of these
usually attended the meetings of the Council. After the chief officials
or ministry as indicated above, the members most regular in their
attendance at the meetings of the Council were the following:――John
Bothwell, Commendator of Holyroodhouse, one of the Lords of Session,
who was created Lord Holyroodhouse on the 20th of December, 1607;
Peter Rollock, an Extraordinary Lord of Session, and for several
years titular bishop of Dunkeld; Mark Ker, Lord Newbattle, and created
Earl of Lothian on the 10th day of July, 1606; Sir Archibald Douglas
of Whittinghame, one of the Lords of Session; Alexander Elphinstone,
Master of Elphinstone, son of Lord Elphinstone; Andrew Stewart,
fourth Lord of Ochiltree; David Lindsay, Bishop of Ross; Alexander
Hay of Fosterseat, one of the Lords of Session; Sir Robert Melvill
of Bruntisland, an Extraordinary Lord of Session; Sir Robert Melvill
of Murdocairny, an Extraordinary Lord of Session, and father of the
preceding; Walter Stewart, Commendator of Blantyre, and created Lord
Blantyre in 1606; William Douglas, Earl of Angus; Sir James Scrymgeour
of Dudhope, Constable of Dundee; John Spottiswood, Archbishop of
Glasgow; Alexander Elphinstone, fourth Lord Elphinstone; Sir William
Livingstone of Kilsyth, a Lord of Session; John Erskine, Earl of Mar;
John Kennedy, fifth Earl of Cassillis; Earl Marischal; Patrick Lyon,
Lord Glamis, and created Earl of Kinghorn in July 1606; Robert Ker,
Lord Roseburgh; Alexander Livingston, first Earl of Linlithgow; Robert
Ker, Master of Lothian, son of the Earl of Lothian; Francis Hay, ninth
Earl of Errol; Sir James Hay of Fingask; Kenneth MacKenzie of Kintail;
James Hamilton, Master of Paisley, and created Earl of Abercorn on the
10th of July 1606; and George Gledstanes, Archbishop of St. Andrews.
These men, it may be said, formed the body who were mainly responsible
for the policy of the government of Scotland. But it must be stated,
that they were merely the agents of this policy, which directly
emanated from the King himself, and the evidence that such was the case
is, in fact, very complete. Immediately after James VI. ascended the
throne of England, he became fully conscious of his enormous accession
of new power over the people of Scotland, and the effects of this upon
the Scottish nation were for a time almost incredible. James declared
that it was himself, and no one else, who sent from England the
messages by which Scotland was governed. In a speech which he delivered
to the English Parliament on the 31st of March, 1607, having embraced
the occasion to contrast the easy way in which he continued to rule
Scotland with the difficulties he had experienced in England, he
uttered the following words:――“This I must say for Scotland, and may
truly vaunt it: here I sit and govern it with my pen: I write, and it
is done; and by a Clerk of the Council I govern Scotland now, which
others could not do by the sword.” This was really the truth. For King
James in his communications with the Scottish Council always addressed
the members in the tone of an imperious and absolute master; and they
humbly yielded to the royal will, and became the mere tools of the King.
It is surprising to find in the records how submissively the Council
bowed before him. In short, James VI. assumed and exercised a despotic
control over the Privy Council and the proceedings of Parliament, as
will appear in the sequel.
In the beginning of the year 1610, the Privy Council was recast. The
Council as then remodelled, was in future to consist of thirty-five
persons and no more, each to be specially nominated by the King, and
of whom seven were to be a quorum. The Council was to hold two meetings
every week, one to deal with matters of State, and the other with
judicial business; and no one but the Councillors themselves and the
Clerk of Council were to be present at the meetings. Any Councillor
absent from four consecutive meetings without leave, or allowing
himself to remain at the horn for debt or any other cause unrelaxed for
forty days, or failed to give proof of sound churchmanship by receiving
the communion at least once a year, was to be deprived of his office.
The thirty-five men of the new Council had all been members of the
old one, excepting George Young, archdeacon of St. Andrews, who was a
new member. The Council continued, as before, to be the mere agent of
the King’s will. For James had succeeded in introducing a system of
monarchical absolutism. From the highest Councillors to the humblest of
the officials, they were all equally the puppets of their absent King,
executing his commands in everything to the utmost of their ability,
and trembling for fear of his mere rebuke. In May, 1608, the King it
appears was displeased at some recent evasiveness of the Council, and
had sent them one of his rebukes, and also proposed a remedy for the
future. He then commanded that the votes of the Council on any special
matter of his service, should no longer be given by an unrecorded
show of hands at the Council Board; but each Councillor’s vote, “Ay or
No,” on whatever motion might be before the Board, was to be carefully
recorded, and all such records were to be duly certified by the
Chancellor and the Secretary, and then despatched to his Majesty,
――“that so we may discern the goats from the sheep.”¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume VII., pages 15‒28,
_Introduction_, Volume VIII., pages 12‒14, _et seq._
Immediately after James VI. ascended the throne of England, he called
the Borders the “Middle Shires of Great Britain,” and ordained that
henceforth the elements of disorder which had so long prevailed in this
region, and the rude customs of the inhabitants, were to be extirpated.
The real effort to settle the Borders was begun in March, 1605. At
this time ten commissioners, five English and five Scottish, were
appointed to the full charge of the English counties of Northumberland,
Cumberland, Westmoreland, and part of Durham, and of the Scottish
counties of Berwick, Roxburgh, Dumfries, Selkirk, Peebles, and the
Stewartries of Kirkcudbright and Annandale. These were empowered to
meet as they thought fit, six to be a quorum, and to take the most
effective means for the prevention and punishment of murders, felonies,
riots, and all disorders within those territories. The English
commissioners were Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Sir Robert Dolabel, Sir William
Selby, Joseph Pennington, Esquire, and Edward Gray of Morpeth; the
Scottish commissioners were Sir William Seton, Sir William Horne,
Patrick Chirnside of East Nisbet, Robert Charters of Annisfield,
and Gideon Murray of Elibank. The conjoint commissioners elected Sir
Wilfrid Lawson, their President for three months. On the English side,
a company of horsemen was placed under the command of Sir Henry Leigh,
and on the Scottish side a company of twenty-five horsemen was under
the command of Sir William Cranstoun, and these mounted men were to
assist the Commissioners as police in bringing the guilty to justice.
The Commissioners agreed on regulations for their common procedure,
which were of the following import:――“It is agreed that concerning old
feuds between the two countries there should be a general assurance.
It is agreed that old feuds shall be put to agreement, or else the
offending parties to be confined――the Englishmen in Edinburgh, and the
Scotsmen in Newcastle, until they will agree, and meantime the parties
to be bound to keep the peace; and, for the new feuds, that justice
shall be executed upon the offenders according to the laws reciprocally.
“It is agreed that, if any Englishman strike a Scotsman, or a Scotsman
strike an Englishman, with a weapon, the party offending shall be
committed to the nearest prison, and there to remain for three days
without bail; and if the said parties shall strike with any weapon,
then to place them in prison for twenty days without bail; and if that
the party be hurt, then he shall not be delivered at the end of the
twenty days until he make such further satisfaction to the party hurt
as the Commissioners who committed him shall think fit; but, if the
hurt fall out to be a maiming, then that the party offending shall not
be delivered after the twenty days’ imprisonment until he perform the
order of two of his Majesty’s Commissioners for satisfaction of the
party maimed; and if death follow, then the offender to receive his
punishment according to his Majesty’s laws reciprocally.
“It is agreed that, if any Englishman steal in Scotland, or a Scotsman
steal in England, any goods amounting to the value of 12 pence, he
shall be punished by death, and that all accessories to such felonies,
viz., outputting and resetting, shall likewise suffer death for the
same.”
It was also agreed that proclamation should be made warning all the
inhabitants within the bounds of the Commissioners, “saving noblemen
and gentlemen unsuspected of felony and theft and not belonging to
broken clans, should put away all armour and weapons, both offensive
and defensive, such as jacks, spears, lances, swords, daggers,
stellcaps, hauberks, pistols, and such like, before the 20th of May
next, under the penalty of confiscation of the same and imprisonment
during his Majesty’s pleasure: and that no one of whatever calling
should wear or carry any arms, except in his Majesty’s service: and
that after the above date they should not keep any horse above the
value of fifty shillings sterling, or thirty pounds Scots under the
like penalty and imprisonment.”
As these Commissioners, “intended not only to punish and root out
all malefactors for the present, but also to continue a severe course
of justice by fit ministers for the perpetual preservation of these
districts in peace and justice; they therefore charge all persons
who have cause of complaint against any one for murder, burglaries,
felonies, or misdemeanours, or any who have compounded for such
offences for friendship, money, or any other consideration, to send in
information to the Commissioners, so that they may receive justice.”
The Commissioners proceeded vigorously with the work assigned to them.
They found great difficulties on many points, especially in the matter
of the old and new feuds which were so numerous. The Commissioners
frequently sought advice from the Scottish Privy Council in the form
of questions, as touching feuds:――Question: “The nature of old feuds
is of two sorts. And first, as to the one of that quality in which the
whole parties committers of blood and slaughter, hence from here are
departed this life, yet grudge remaining among the parties’ posterity
unreconciled. _In hoc genere quomodo procedendum?_ whether with the
band of keeping his Majesty’s common peace, or forcing them to subject
themselves to arbitrament for reconciliation? Answer: The Commissioners
to deal with this matter as they think most fit for the peace of the
country.
“Question: A second sort of feud is when some of either, or at least of
the one, party are yet alive who has been art, or part, or actual doers
in the old feud,――some possibly clad with remission and others without
it. In these old causes, first, _utrum par erit ratio utriusque necne?_
next, if with them we shall proceed likewise to enforce agreement,
or otherwise content ourselves with the band of his Majesty’s common
peace? Answer: The Lords think that in old feuds of this nature the
Commissioners should charge the parties with the band of the general
peace.
“Question: Is new feuds conceived always of that nature to be before
the devolution of both the Crowns in his Majesty’s royal person?
Because since then we understand no proceeding in deeds of blood but by
justice:――First, whether in those anterior to his Majesty’s reception
of both the Crowns we shall proceed with justice where there is no
remission, or, after the enforcing of both the parties to his Majesty’s
common peace, we shall proceed causing submission of arbitrament to
be made, though unsuited by any of the parties, or not? Next, when
slaughter and blood having been reciprocal in some degree all alike,
the one party being clad with remission by favour, and the other
wanting it, or the one committing the slaughter under colour of law,
and the other without the same, what shall we do therein? Last, where
the party offended being willing to receive satisfaction and craving
the same, if we may compel the party offender to offer and do reason?
Answer: Where no remission is produced, the Commissioners to do justice
according to their commission; where there is remission, they shall
take caution of the criminals to satisfy the party offended; and
where the party craves satisfaction the Commissioners shall cause the
offenders to find caution for satisfaction and see that all be bound to
keep the common peace.”
The preceding quotations will give some idea of the complexity and
difficulty of the task which the Commissioners had to execute. There
is ample evidence that the Commissioners conscientiously endeavoured
to do their work, and not infrequently showed a leaning to the side
of mercy, an instance or two of which may be presented. As indicated
in a preceding page, the Commissioners’ instructions regarding the
punishment of theft were very severe, still they reported some cases
for the opinion of the Scottish Privy Council. Thus “one called Thome
Armstrong, a proper young man, to whom neither new nor old thift have
been known heretofore, but very suspicious for not being settled to any
good calling,――charged for the art and part of the stelling of a horse,
and convicted by a jury for the same; and by chance upon the morning
after the conviction, the owner of the said horse coming to Peebles
said that although Thome Armstrong was universally presumed to have
been art and part in the stelling of his horse, that by his knowledge
he understood Armstrong had nothing to do with the case:――continued
upon presumption of his innocence.” Answer of the Privy Council――“The
Lords ordains the Commissioners to do justice upon this Thome
Armstrong,” that was to hang him. Again “one called Richie Elliot of
Heuchhouse, indicted only for stelling one sheep and convicted of the
same, without anything more, either new or old, layed to his charge:
――continued in respect of the meanness of the crime, ♦notwithstanding
our ordinances bears new thift to be punished to the death when passing
the value of twelvepence sterling.” Answer of the Privy Council――“The
Lords ordains the Commissioners to keep their own act in this matter,”
that was to hang the man.
♦ “nothwithstanding” replaced with “notwithstanding”
At the end of the first year, on the 17th day of May, 1606, the
Commissioners appeared personally before the Privy Council at Edinburgh
and reported their proceedings. It appeared that they had executed “by
water and gallows thirty-two persons;” and banished from the kingdom
fifteen persons; while one hundred and sixty were declared to be
fugitive outlaws, who should be pursued with hue and cry wherever
they have dispersed themselves. All persons who had resetted or in any
way assisted the outlawed fugitives, were to be subjected to severe
penalties. In the month of October, 1606, the Commissioners reported
that they had executed other fifteen persons in Dumfries, Annan, and
Jedburgh. At the end of this year, the number of fugitives from the
law, whose names were to be advertised on the market crosses of all the
towns and the doors of all the parish churches, then amounted to one
thousand and three hundred. There can be no doubt that there was much
rough and severe work. On the 15th of December, 1606, the King signed
an Act of Indemnity in favour of Sir William Cranstoun, who had command
of the mounted police, and which exonerated him for all the things
hitherto done by him in his office in the Marches, including his
summary execution of outlaws and prisoners without form of trial.
In this Act the King said:――“Our well-beloved Sir William Cranstoun,
Captain of the garrison appointed to attend our service of quieting
and bringing to obedience of those Middle Shires of this Island,
has in that his charge most dutifully done us very good service ...
since the necessity of the service in which he was employed, and many
sudden incidents that must needs often occur therein, might not always
permit those prolix forms used in the civil parts of the kingdom, but
often, for the advancement of the service, and that by the retaining
of the numbers of outlaws who would oftimes be at once apprehended, and
spending time in conveying them to prisons, in the mean season the good
occasion and opportunity of affecting better service should slip or be
omitted, and therewith the consideration of the unsecurity of himself
and his company to have the charge of too many prisoners desperate
of their life or pardon all at once, moved the said Sir William often
times summarily to make a quick despatch of a great many notable
and notorious thieves by putting them to instant death without any
preceding trial by jury, or any conviction or doom.... And he being
directed by us as surgeon to make incision and cut away the rotten and
cankered members and flesh in those parts of our kingdom, however the
cure perhaps has been to the other members some way grievous, yet his
intention in the doing of it was so dutifully grounded, and his work
therein having produced so much benefit to those parts, it carries no
reason at all in the after ages any of his evil willers should then
forge and pretend any matter of action, challenge, or accusation
against him for any point of service done by him during his employment.”
From this, it must be inferred that the actual havoc of human life
during the years 1605‒6 was much greater than appears in the existing
record.
On the 2nd of August, 1607, a new Commission of Justiciary over the
late Marches was given to the Earl of Dunbar and the Earl of Cumberland,
which empowered them to act as they thought fit for establishing and
preserving peace in the “Middle Shires of Great Britain.” Power was
also given to them to muster all the force in these bounds, and the
disposal of the men and horsemen placed under them by the King, for
preserving the peace and apprehending malefactors. Seeing that the
execution of the Commission would be very difficult and required great
care, Sir William Seton, Sir William Cranstoun, Sir Robert Charteris,
Sir Gideon Murray, and Sir William Selby, Sir ♦Wilfrid Lawson, Sir John
Fenwick, and Sir Christopher Pickering, were commanded to assist the
two chief Commissioners to the utmost of their power.
♦ “Wilfred” replaced with “Wilfrid”
But the main part of the work of reducing the unruly inhabitants of the
Borders was now nearly accomplished; and the vigorous and continuous
proceedings of the new Commissioners, with the Earl of Dunbar at their
head, and Sir William Cranstoun, captain of the garrison and mounted
men, soon completed it. The unruly families and men of the Borders were
hunted down, captured, and many of them slain at once, without question
or trial of any kind; others were imprisoned, tried, condemned, and
executed; some were banished; a very large number fled from their
former homes and haunts, and hid themselves in the hope of escaping
the doom which hung over them; and then their goods were seized and
their dwellings burned; while those who remained were disarmed and
deprived of their weapons, and all were bound under cautions and severe
penalties to keep the peace. Thus, the traditional habits and the
unruly spirit of the inhabitants of the Borders――the result of ages
of anarchy, generated by external conditions, were interrupted and
effectively shaken; and under new conditions and modified circumstances,
these people became orderly and peaceable subjects.
Other influences calculated to pacify the people were not neglected. At
the instance of the King, the Privy Council on the 28th of March 1609,
passed an act empowering John Spottiswood, archbishop of Glasgow, to
proceed to the Borders for the purpose of repairing the churches and
reorganising the means of religious instruction in that region. He was
to plant new ministers where it was necessary; to call the parishioners
of every parish before him, and their pastors, wherever they had
any; and with their consent to devise and resolve upon such measures
as seemed best and most expedient for the speedy repairing and
building of the churches, and making provision for the ministers:
and to do everything lawful which might advance the object in view.
The archbishop went over the region, carefully surveyed it, and
ecclesiastically rectified it. He captured some Roman Catholic
emissaries who had long evaded the authorities; and thus crushed
Scottish Roman Catholicism out of its haunts in Dumfriesshire.
But the traditional habits and the unruly spirit of the Borderers
could not be summarily extinguished by any measures short of utter
extermination. It required years to moderate, sober, and modify their
character. In the end of July 1609, the Earl of Dunbar proceeded to
Dumfries, where he held a Justiciary Court, and hanged a number of
Border thieves, apprehended previously by Sir William Cranstoun. On the
26th of November, 1607, the Privy Council passed an order for removing
a number of troublesome Border lairds to other parts of the country.
John Carmichael of Meadowflatt, to be confined in Dundee; and the
Master of Maxwell to be confined in Dunkeld or any parts of Fife and
Angus; Sir Alexander Jardine of Applegirth, and John Carruthers of
Holmends, to St. Andrews; Robert Elliot of Redheugh, and Walter Scott
of Goldielands, to Cupar in Fife; while others were to be confined
within the limits of specified places. In August of the following year
a considerable number of lairds, chiefly in Dumfriesshire and Galloway,
were ordered to be imprisoned beyond the Tay, and a number of others
within the bounds of Fife. It appears from the proceedings of the
Justiciary Courts, in 1611, that there was still much crime in these
quarters. At the court held at Jedburgh in July, ten persons were
convicted and executed, and two were acquitted; in a court held at the
same town in the month of October, eight persons were convicted and
executed, three reprieved, and thirteen acquitted, while fifty-eight
persons were fugitive from justice, and penalties were exacted from
their cautioners; while other fifty-two persons were allowed out on
giving caution for their appearance. At Dumfries, in October, twenty
persons were convicted and executed, thirty-eight acquitted, upwards of
one hundred and twenty fugitive from justice, leaving their cautioners
answerable; and forty let out under caution to appear when called.
Thus in the space of four months thirty-eight persons were executed
in Jedburgh and Dumfries, while one hundred and seventy-eight were
fugitive from justice: thus indicating what a very difficult task it
was to bring the inhabitants of the Borders under law and order. A
separate Commission for the administration of police in these districts
was continued for a number of years, and ultimately the influences of
order and progress prevailed.¹ The debatable lands were divided and
apportioned to each kingdom; and gradually those parts of the country
which had been so long the scene of strife and petty warfare became as
peaceful as other parts of the nation.
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume VII., pages 701‒729,
743‒745, 489, 504; Volume VIII., pages 78, 86, 97, 152, 265,
584; Volume IX., pages 705‒714; Volume X., pages 184, 198,
477, 847.
One of the King’s earliest projects was a proposal that the English and
the Scots should agree to an incorporating union of the two kingdoms;
but neither nation was as yet prepared for this consummation. There
were proceedings touching this matter both in England and in Scotland,
but all that resulted from them was the abolition of hostile laws;
while a proposition that all persons born in Scotland after the union
of the Crowns in 1603, should be entitled in England to all the rights
of Englishmen was rejected.
If the King was anxious to constitute a civil union of the two kingdoms,
he was still more bent on establishing conformity in Church government
throughout his dominions. While only King of Scotland, he had struggled
hard to introduce Episcopacy, and now, with the resources of England
at his command, he resolved to complete his long cherished scheme of
Church polity, always following the underhand mode of attaining his
end which was characteristic of his nature. The General Assembly had
been prorogued owing to the accession; and it was postponed in the
succeeding year, pending the adjustment of the proposed union. The
leading Presbyterian ministers had begun to dread that attempts would
be made to establish the hierarchy in Scotland and to assimilate their
polity to that of the Church of England; and the Presbytery of St.
Andrews met and took such steps as were deemed requisite to keep intact
the right of holding General Assemblies. They easily foresaw that their
Assemblies would soon cease to exist, if interrupted at the discretion
of the King; accordingly a number of the Presbyteries and Synods
resolved to hold a General Assembly at Aberdeen, on 2nd of July, 1605.
On the appointed day, nineteen ministers met at Aberdeen and proceeded
to form the Assembly; but the meeting was prohibited by the authority
of the Privy Council, and ordered to dissolve. Sir Alexander Stratton
of Lauriston, the King’s Commissioner for the Church, appeared amongst
them, and intimated his instructions to prevent their meeting, and
delivered to them the letter of the Privy Council commanding them to
disperse. The ministers, however, believing that they were within their
rights, elected Mr. John Forbes, minister of Alford as their Moderator,
and Mr. John Sharp, minister of Kilmany as their Clerk, and constituted
themselves an Assembly; but owing to the small number of members
present, and to show their respect for the King’s injunction, after
appointing the last Tuesday of the following September for the next
meeting of the Assembly, and drafting a reply to the Privy Council’s
letter, they obeyed and dissolved. On the 5th of July, other ten
ministers arrived in Aberdeen, who had intended to be present at the
Assembly, but had been delayed by bad weather; and among these were
John Welsh, minister of Ayr, Mr. James Greg, minister of ♦Loudon, and
Mr. Henderson, minister of Whithorn. When they found that the Assembly
had already dissolved, they formally affirmed their adherence to all
that their brethren had done in regard to the Assembly; and, thus
twenty-nine ministers had become directly associated with this famous
meeting.
♦ “Loudoun” replaced with “Loudon” for consistency
There was no special illegality in this meeting――it was quite within
the recognised rights of the Church. But the King had the power in his
hands, and he determined to crush all encroachments on his supreme and
divine claims. By his explicit command thirteen of the ministers were
imprisoned, and the Privy Council proceeded to prosecute them. When
cited before the Privy Council, they declined its jurisdiction on the
question in dispute. Out of fourteen who hesitated to disclaim the
lawfulness of the Assembly, Forbes, minister of Alford, Welsh, Dury,
and three others were selected for an exemplary punishment. They
were indicted before the Court of Justiciary on a charge of treason,
because they had declined the jurisdiction of the Privy Council. They
were tried at Linlithgow on the 10th of January, 1606. They were ably
defended, but the influence of the Crown prevailed, and they were
convicted of treason, for denying the jurisdiction of the civil court
in spiritual matters. They were then remitted to prison till the King
should notify his pleasure touching their punishment. At last, on the
23rd of October, 1606, the sentence of the six ministers convicted for
treason, was announced to be banishment from the King’s dominions for
life, and they retired to the Protestant Churches of France and Holland.
The other eight ministers, without any trial, were banished to the most
remote quarters of the kingdom――the Western Islands and the Highlands.¹
James was quite conscious that he had gained a great victory, and
his extreme vanity associated with an insatiable desire for absolute
supremacy over every one in the island, prompted him to command the
Council to put the other eight imprisoned ministers on their trial
for treason. For once the Council was forced to tell his Majesty that
it had been extremely difficult to obtain a conviction against the
six ministers in the late trial at Linlithgow, and that it was only
obtained after much straining of the law and underhand action; and,
therefore in the present state of the national feeling, the trial
of the other eight ministers which he so much desired, was utterly
impossible. The King then brought up his old grudge against Mr.
Robert Bruce, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, touching the Gowrie
Conspiracy, and at the instance of the King, the Council banished
Bruce to Inverness. At the same time Mr. Henry Blyth, minister of the
Canongate, was imprisoned for speaking in favour of the victims of the
Aberdeen Assembly. Thus seventeen ministers were lying in prison, and
one banished.
¹ Melville’s _Diary_, pages 570‒575; Forbes’ _Records_, pages
463, 496; Hailes’ _Memorials on the Affairs of Great Britain
in the reign of James VI._; _Register of the Privy Council_,
Volume VII.
The King summoned a Parliament to meet at Perth, in July, 1606, at
which the Earl of Montrose presided, while the Earl of Dunbar and
the Earl of Dunfermline managed it. The first act of this Parliament
exhibited an unusual spirit of servility in its remarkable
acknowledgement of the powers of the King; and it may be taken as an
authoritative statement of what James considered as his rights and
prerogatives. The following are the chief points of the act――“God has
indued His Majesty with so many extraordinary graces, and most rare
and excellent virtues, as it is not only known by daily and manifest
experience in matters of greatest difficulty and consequence, to the
unspeakable comfort of all his faithful subjects, to be capable of
the happy government of his kingdoms; but also by his most singular
judgment, foresight, and princely wisdom, worthy to possess, and
able to govern far greater kingdoms and numbers of people. And in
respect thereof, the Estates plainly perceiving that by His Majesty’s
exaltation, not only in pre-eminence and power, but also in all royal
qualities requisite for the happy discharge thereof, God has manifestly
expressed His heavenly will to be, that his Majesty’s imperial power,
which God has so graciously enlarged, should not by them, in any way,
be impaired, prejudiced, or diminished, but rather reverenced and
augmented so far as they possibly can. Wherefore the whole body of this
Parliament unanimously, humbly, and faithfully, with united heart and
mind――consent and truly acknowledge his Majesty’s sovereign authority,
princely power, royal prerogative, and privilege of his Crown, over all
ranks, persons, and causes whatever, within this kingdom.... Likewise
annuls, abrogates, retracts, rescinds, all things attempted, enacted,
done, or hereafter to be done or intended, to the violation, hurt,
derogation, impairing, or prejudice of his sovereign authority, royal
prerogative, and privilege of his Crown, or any point or part thereof,
in any time to come. And the whole Estates for themselves and their
successors faithfully promises perpetually to acknowledge, obey,
maintain, defend, and to advance the life, the honour, the safety, the
dignity, the authority, and the royal prerogative of his sacred Majesty,
his heirs and successors, and the privilege of his Highness’ Crown,
with their lives, their lands, and their goods, to the utmost of their
power, constantly and faithfully to withstand all persons and powers
who shall presume, press, or intend in any way to impugn the same,
directly or indirectly, in all time coming.” After the Estates had
passed this act, it was not likely that they would oppose the King’s
schemes till their own special interests were touched.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.
This Parliament also passed an act restoring the bishops to their
ancient honours, dignities, privileges, livings, lands, rents, thirds,
and estates, as these stood before the act of annexation in 1587.
Touching the honours and dignities there was little difficulty; but
the restoration of the revenues of the Sees was a much harder matter
to settle. The party of the clergy who were opposed to Episcopacy
endeavoured to defeat the measure, but their efforts were unavailing.
Although the bishops were legally restored, still the hierarchy was
incomplete; as they were not yet invested with spiritual supremacy in
the Church.
We have already seen that on the Reformation itself, and on the history
of Protestantism in Scotland, the disposal of the property of the old
Church had much influence in determining the results. The attempt which
followed upon this act, to restore what remained of the Church domains
to the several bishoprics, was almost a complete failure. The Estates
were ready to acknowledge the absolute power of the King in so many
words, but when it came to the practical issue of slackening their own
hold on the revenues of the old Church, they manifested a remarkable
pertinacity in maintaining the supremacy of themselves. The bishops
were continually bewailing their poverty, and the utter hopelessness of
maintaining their position upon the small funds which fell to their lot.
The King wished to stifle the leaders of the Presbyterian party, that
he might more easily complete his scheme. Andrew Melville, his nephew
James Melville, and six others of the eminent ministers, were summoned
to the English court, in September 1606. The aim of the King was
twofold, first, to engage the Scotch Presbyterian ministers and the
English bishops in a conference concerning the superior merits of
Episcopacy, and to dazzle the fancy of the north countrymen with the
splendour of the English ritual; second, to entangle them by queries
touching the late Assembly at Aberdeen, and especially to keep them
out of Scotland, where their presence might endanger his own scheme. By
the command of the King, these ministers attended a course of sermons
preached by four English divines――on the bishops, the supremacy of the
Crown, and the absence of all authority in Scripture and in antiquity
for the office of lay elders. This performance was held in the King’s
chapel at Hampton Court. The King himself attended several conferences;
and at one of these, before a company of bishops and Scottish nobles,
he asked their opinion touching the lawfulness of the Aberdeen Assembly,
and the best way of obtaining a peaceful Assembly to restore order
in the Church. All the Scottish bishops condemned the Assembly as
turbulent and illegal; but Andrew Melville, after some questioning,
replied that the Assembly had authority from the Word of God, and from
the laws of the kingdom; and the other Presbyterian ministers concurred
in this opinion. When reference was made to other matters which had
arisen out of it, such as the trial of the six ministers for treason,
and other teasing questions were put as to whether they sympathised
with, or prayed for, their brethren who had been convicted of treason,
they at once protested against this treatment as illegal and unjust,
and asked to be allowed to return to Scotland; but this was not granted
to them.
It soon became manifest that the King and his bishops had entirely
failed to produce any change on the convictions of the Scottish
ministers. They heard the sermons of the English bishops with silent
contempt. The service was caricatured by Andrew Melville in a Latin
epigram, which was brought under the notice of the English Privy
Council, and on the 30th of November, 1606, he was summoned to answer
for it before that august tribunal. Melville in a moment of passion
lost all command of his temper, and when delivering a vehement
invective against the hierarchy, seized and shook the white sleeves
of Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, at the same time calling
them “Romish rags.” For this offence and a subsequent one of a similar
character, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London for five years; and
at the end of that period he obtained his liberty only on the condition
of living for the remainder of his life out of the King’s dominions.
Melville then retired to Sedan, and was engaged in teaching till his
death in 1620. In May, 1607, James Melville was confined first to
Newcastle, and afterwards to Berwick, but never permitted to return to
his own country; while four of the other six ministers were permitted
to return to their own parishes on their good behaviour, the other two
were not allowed to enter their parishes but banished to other places.¹
This treatment of some of the ablest men and ministers of the kingdom
formed a part of the means which the King condescended to use, in order
to subdue the opposition to his scheme of Church government in Scotland;
how far this was calculated to secure ultimate success, the sequel will
show.
¹ Melville’s _Diary_, pages 644‒646, 654, 681, 708, 709;
Calderwood, Volume VI., pages 586‒589, 591, 596‒600, _et
seq._; _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume VII.
James having thus disposed of the leading and most energetic opponents
of his scheme, summoned the clergy to meet at Linlithgow, on 10th
December, 1606, there to consult with a number of the nobles concerning
the order of the Church, and obedience to the royal authority. At
the instance of the King, a proposal was brought before the meeting
to appoint permanent moderators; and also that this office should be
always filled at the meetings of the Presbyteries and of the Synods, by
the bishops. Some of the clergy were surprised at the proposal, but the
royal influence prevailed, and the meeting adopted it. At the close of
the proceedings the ministers were admonished to beware of expressing
anything against his sacred Majesty. Several of the Synods and the
Presbyteries protested against the constant moderators, and refused to
accept them; but this opposition was soon broken, and the influence of
the Crown for a time silenced all refractory members.¹
¹ Calderwood, Volume VI., pages 604‒629.
The Government seemed ready to do anything in order to increase the
power of the bishops. A Parliament held in August, 1607, passed an
act authorising the Archbishop of St. Andrews to select the ministers
of seven parishes within his diocese, to act as the chapter of the
See, instead of the prior and the canons, whose dignities had become
secularised. Another Parliament which met at Edinburgh in June, 1609,
restored the consistorial courts to the bishops, with all the causes of
an ecclesiastical and quasi-civil description which formerly belonged
to them. In the winter of 1610, new tribunals were introduced by the
King, who in the exercise of his prerogative erected two courts of High
Commission, one at St. Andrews and the other at Glasgow. Each court
consisted of the archbishop with his suffragans and a few nobles. Five
years later the two courts were merged into one. One of the archbishops,
as head of the court, and four others were to form a quorum; and thus
the head of the court could at any time summon four of the members
devoted to his will. Their jurisdiction was comprehensive: they
could cite any one on the ground of immorality or erroneous doctrine,
and sentence them to be fined or imprisoned, and if necessary
excommunicated. The ministers, the schoolmasters, and the professors
in the Universities, who dared to speak against the established order
of the Church, or any of the recent conclusions concerning her, were to
be cited before the commission and punished. Any minister who failed to
obey the injunctions of the commission, could be censured, suspended,
or deposed, according to the opinion of the court. In reality, this
court had unlimited powers; it rested upon no law, it was merely
erected by a royal proclamation, and its sentence was final.¹ In
short, the court of High Commission could fine and imprison any one at
discretion. It has been stated by Dr. Burton that the Court of Session
could review the decisions of this court, which in theory may be true:
but when it is remembered what the Court of Session was then, and
for long after, it is easily seen that protection from oppression and
injustice was not likely to come very promptly from such a quarter.
Then the bishops themselves were lords of Parliament, some of them
members of the Privy Council, constant moderators of Presbyteries and
Synods, and patrons of benefices, backed at every turn by the royal
authority and prerogative of the King.
¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 57‒62, 204‒210; _History of
Scotland_, Volume VI., pages 242‒243.
Still the bishops felt that they lacked the confidence of the
nation, and they were anxious to obtain the sanction of the highest
ecclesiastical authority recognised by the people. So the King
summoned a General Assembly to meet at Glasgow, in June 1610, composed
of members favourable to the organisation of Episcopacy. The influence
of the Crown was openly and freely employed in directing the choice
of members. In this Assembly, as in all those of the period, there was
no fair and open discussion permitted, no disputed point was allowed
to be debated at a full sitting of the members, but was settled at a
private conference, and the result only presented to the Assembly to
be recorded. In this way a number of articles were smuggled in and
declared to be carried, which would not have passed if they had been
debated in a regular form before a General Assembly. The chief points
passed by this Assembly were, that the calling of General Assemblies
belonged exclusively to the King as a prerogative of his Crown, and
therefore the alleged Assembly held at Aberdeen in 1605 was unlawful
and null; that Synods should be held in every diocese twice in the year,
at which the bishops were to be moderators; that all presentations to
benefices should be directed to the bishop of the diocese who, with the
assistance of some of the ministers, should examine those presented,
and if they found them qualified, should ordain them; that in deposing
of ministers, the bishop should join with himself the ministry of the
bounds where the delinquent served, and after a fair trial should
pronounce sentence; that every minister at his admission should swear
obedience to the King and his ordinary; that a bishop or a minister
named by him should preside in all the meetings of the ministers;
and finally, that none of the ministers, either in their pulpits or
in any of their meetings, should speak or reason against the acts of
this Assembly, or disobey them, under the penalty of deposition; and
especially that the question of equality among the ministry should not
be treated in the pulpit, under the same penalty.
The acts of this Assembly were confirmed and amplified by an Act of
Parliament in 1612, which at the same time repealed the Act of 1592
which had sanctioned the Presbyterian polity. In the autumn of 1610,
three of the Scottish Bishops were consecrated in England, Spottiswood,
Bishop of Glasgow; Lamb, Bishop of Brechin; and Hamilton, Bishop of
Galloway; and when they returned home, they consecrated the rest of the
Scottish Bishops.¹ Thus the restoration of Episcopacy was completed.
¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 94‒103, 150, 152, 154,
165‒171; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.
Though the external form of Episcopacy was restored, yet in many of the
congregations the Presbyterian form of worship was retained. But the
King recommended more ceremonies to hasten on conformity to the Church
of England. In the spring of 1614, he issued a proclamation commanding
that all persons should partake of the communion on Easter Day; and
the following year a royal proclamation ordered the celebration of the
communion on Easter Day, in all time coming.¹
¹ _Acts of the Privy Council_, March 3rd, 1614; Calderwood,
Volume VII., pages 191, 196.
In August, 1616, a General Assembly met at Aberdeen, then and
afterwards the famed centre of the opposition to Presbyterianism in
Scotland. The King’s party had a majority in the Assembly, and many
proposals were made, among others, “that all the children in schools
shall have and learn by heart the catechism entitled, ‘God and the
King,’ which, by an act of Council, is already ordained to be read
and taught in all schools.” This Assembly authorised the preparation
of a Liturgy and a new Confession of Faith. The communion was to be
administered four times a year in towns, and twice in country parishes;
and one of these times to be always on Easter Day. The Presbyterian
historian passed the following remarks on the Assembly――“Although it
began with preaching and fasting, yet the Holy Ghost was enclosed in
a packet of letters sent from the court whereby they were directed.
The King ordained by his letter the Primate to rule the clergy, and
his commissioner, the Earl of Montrose, to order the laity.... So the
Primate stepped into the moderator’s place without election, against
the practice and acts of our Church, not as yet repealed by the
Assembly of Glasgow or any other.... The roll of the Presbyteries was
not called, nor commissions considered, whether free or limited. A
number of lords and barons decorated the Assembly with silks and satins,
but without lawful commission to vote. Bishops had no commissions
from Presbyteries as they ought to have had, according to the practice
of our Church. The moderators of Presbyteries came by the bishop’s
missives, and a forged clause of an act made at a pretended Assembly
held at Linlithgow in the year 1606.”¹
¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 222‒242; Volume VII., pages
222, 223.
But the resolutions of the Assembly did not satisfy the King, and he
transmitted to the bishops five articles of his own, which he ordered
them to adopt. These articles enjoined that the communion should
always be received in a kneeling posture; that in cases of sickness
the communion should be administered in private houses; that baptism
in like circumstances should be administered in the same way; that
holydays should be appointed for the commemoration of the birth,
passion, and resurrection of Christ, and of the descent of the Holy
Ghost; and that children should be brought to the bishop for a blessing.
There was much and determined opposition among the Scots to these
ceremonies, which in history are known as the “Five Articles of Perth.”
On the suggestion of Archbishop Spottiswood, the King was induced to
refrain from issuing them by his royal authority for another year, till
they received the assent of a General Assembly.¹
¹ Spottiswood’s _History of the Church of Scotland_, pages 528,
529. 1655.
James turned his visit to Scotland into an occasion for an exhibition
of his opinions and feelings on Church matters. He gave express
commands and directions for fitting up and decorating the Chapel of
Holyrood, for the celebration of worship in the English form. Organs
were sent to Edinburgh for this purpose, and the King himself was
accompanied by several English bishops and divines. When he arrived in
Scotland in May, and reached Edinburgh on the 16th of the month, 1617,
he issued peremptory orders that all the nobles, the privy councillors,
and the bishops then in Edinburgh should receive the communion on their
knees in the chapel on Whitsunday. The most of those who were summoned
at once complied; but those who absented themselves from the service,
and some of those who appeared and abstained from presenting themselves
at the table, were again summoned, and commanded to attend on the
following Sunday. At this time, the ministers of Edinburgh were silent,
and said nothing openly against this innovation.¹
¹ _Original Letters of the Reign of James VI._, Volume II.
The King attended a meeting of Parliament in June, 1617, and delivered
a speech, setting forth his own good intentions, and his desire to see
the Church settled, the nation in order, and necessary reforms passed,
all for the good of his people. But he submitted an act to the Lords
of the Articles, which was couched in these terms――“That whatever his
Majesty should determine concerning the external government of the
Church, with the advice of the archbishops, bishops, and a competent
number of the clergy, should have the force of law.” James’s idea was
that the bishops should rule the ministers, and that he himself should
rule them both. The Lords of the Articles agreed to the act, but a
party of the ministers warmly protested against it; and when it came
to be read in Parliament, the King ordered it to be passed aside,
though at the same time remarking that he could do as much by his own
prerogative, without asking the counsel of any one. He vented his anger
on the leaders of the protestors, two of whom were deprived of their
offices and imprisoned, while Calderwood, the historian, was banished
from the kingdom. This Parliament passed Acts relating to the election
of archbishops and bishops, and to the restoration of deans and members
of chapters of the Sees. An act for the plantation of churches was
passed, authorising a commission of thirty-two, eight from each of the
four Estates of the realm; and the special work assigned to them was,
out of the tithes which were then scattered among different hands, “in
every parish to give and assign at their discretion a perpetual local
stipend to the present and future ministers.” Thus, each minister’s
stipend was to be paid out of the tithes of the parish in which he
officiated, not out of a general fund as before. The lowest stipend was
fixed at five chalders of victual, and the highest at eight.¹
¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 249‒271; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.; _Connell on Tithes_,
Volume I., page 180.
James persisted in his intention of introducing his five articles
into the worship of the Church. On the 13th of July, he held a special
meeting at St. Andrews with the bishops and a select number of the
ministers. He told them that he wished to introduce a more decent
order into the Church; and if they had anything to say against his
five articles, he was ready to hear them. But he reminded them that
his demands were just, that he was not to be resisted with impunity,
and that it was the peculiar prerogative of Christian kings to regulate
the external polity of the Church. They might approve or disapprove
of his proceedings, but they must not imagine that anything they might
say would have the slightest effect upon him, unless they could support
their opinions by arguments which he found himself unable to answer.
Still, all that his Majesty obtained was the postponement of the
difficulty, and the expression of a wish that the articles should be
referred to a General Assembly.¹
¹ Spottiswood’s _History of the Church of Scotland_, pages 533,
534. The Rev. David Calderwood, for his free speaking in the
King’s presence at this meeting, was imprisoned, and then
banished from the kingdom.
These rites which the King so eagerly sought to impose, were
inconsistent with the historical standards of the Reformed Church of
Scotland. To two of the articles especially, kneeling at the communion,
and the observance of holidays, there was a deep feeling of opposition
in the national mind; and this, in connection with other unpopular
features of Episcopacy, was the reason why all the attempts of James
himself, of his son, and of his grandson, utterly failed to establish
it in Scotland. The Church of England was really reformed by the
authority of the Crown; but the Church of Scotland was reformed
at first in spite of the Crown and of the regular Government, and
throughout her history she had to maintain a struggle against the
claims of the royal prerogative. Thus it was that the Church of
Scotland rested more on popular sentiment and feeling, and conviction,
than the Church of England; and, hence also, it came to pass that all
the efforts of the Crown and of the Government to change the polity of
the Church of Scotland resulted in complete failure.
But the King was resolved to carry his point, and he informed those who
opposed him that they should know what it was to draw upon themselves
the anger of a king; at the same time he threatened all ministers
who refused to accept the articles with the loss of their stipends.
The primate and the bishops, prompted, threatened, and scolded by the
King, now used the King’s authority to subdue the reluctant ministers;
and in May, 1618, the bishops informed his Majesty that he might
summon a General Assembly,¹ as it was likely that the ministers would
now be more submissive. Attempts had been made by the bishops to
enforce kneeling at the communion, but with little success; while the
observance of the holydays had already been commanded by an act of the
Privy Council.
¹ Botfield’s _Original Letters_, Volume II., page 522;
Spottiswood’s _History of the Church of Scotland_, pages
535‒537.
Archbishop Spottiswood, in his sermon at the opening of the Perth
Assembly, adduced nothing in support of the articles, save that they
had originated with the King, and were entirely his Majesty’s own, who
demanded that they must be adopted; and, as the King knew better than
they did what was right, they were bound to obey him. In his sermon the
following passage occurs on the King and his articles:――“If it cannot
be shown that they are repugnant to the written Word, I see not with
what conscience we can refuse them, being urged as they are by our
sovereign lord and King; a King who is not a stranger to divinity, but
has such acquaintance with it, as Rome never found, in the confession
of all men, a more potent adversary; a King neither superstitious nor
inclined that way, but one that seeks to have God rightly and truly
worshipped by all his subjects. His person, were he not our King, gives
them sufficient authority, being recommended by him, for he knows the
nature of things and the consequences of them, what is fit for a Church
to have, and what not, better than we do all.” The King’s letter to the
Assembly was in his usual style. He said that they should not allow the
unruly and ignorant multitude to overawe the better and more judicious;
and they must remember that he could impose the articles at once by his
royal authority, and therefore it would do them no good to reject them;
indeed, it would have become the bishops and ministry better to have
begged him to establish these articles, than that he should need to
urge the practice of them upon the ministry.
Yet all the influence of the court and the exertions of the bishops
failed to prevent opposition in the Assembly. No open discussion of
the articles being permitted in the Assembly, they were referred to
a committee, which, after some debate, recommended their adoption.
Then the articles were again brought before the Assembly, but those
who opposed them were not allowed to discuss the question on its own
merits, but were sharply told that the only question before them was,
“Is the King to be obeyed or not?” In the face of this threatening of
the King’s anger, the opposition ministers insisted on giving their
reasons against the adoption of the articles. Before the roll was
called, the King’s letter was again read to the Assembly, and when at
last the vote was to be taken, Spottiswood emphatically reminded each
man of the issue involved in his decision. The articles were carried by
eighty-six votes to forty-five, a majority of forty-one. The majority
was obtained from the votes of the nobles and the bishops, the votes of
the ministers being nearly equal on each side.¹
¹ Lindsay’s _True Narratives of all the Passages at Perth_;
Botfield’s _Original Letters_, page 573; Calderwood, Volume
VII., pages 304‒332. In speaking of the articles of Perth,
Burnet remarked, “These things were first passed in General
Assemblies, which were composed of bishops and the deputes
chosen by the clergy, who sat all in one house.... Great
opposition was made to all these steps; and the whole force
of the Government was strained to carry elections to those
meetings, in which it was thought that no sort of practice
was omitted.”――_History of his own Time_, Volume I., page 17.
Although the Presbyterian ministers were outvoted at Perth, they had
on their side the strength which flows from moral principle and firm
conviction. They had also the support of many of the people, who
considered that the five articles had no better recommendation than
the injunctions of the King. The Presbyterian ministers warmly declared
that the meeting at Perth was not a lawful General Assembly; and
the King and his bishops discovered that they had still much hard
work before them. The observance of the holydays and kneeling at the
communion were extremely offensive to the majority of the people, and
caused great discontent. Kneeling was new to all, and many thought
that it was connected with the doctrine of transubstantiation; but the
bishops, urged on by the King and armed with the weapons of coercion,
haplessly drifted on towards destruction――suspending, imprisoning, and
banishing the ministers who declined to conform. Those who absented
themselves from the public worship on the holydays, or on Sunday, were
threatened and punished. The nonconforming ministers and many of their
adherents deemed the High Commission and its proceedings an usurpation;
and this sentiment was very strong in Edinburgh, in the southern
counties, and in Fife. The displeased people in Edinburgh began to hold
meetings, at which the suspended and deposed ministers preached and
officiated. The court and the bishops anxiously desired that Edinburgh
would conform, and various means were tried to secure this, but in
vain.¹
¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 348, 352‒364, 383, 388, _et
seq._; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 76, 79‒81.
In August 1621, Parliament met at Edinburgh, and ratified the five
articles of Perth by a small majority. In a house of one hundred and
twenty members, a majority of twenty-seven voted in favour of the
articles. The representatives of the burghs were on the side of the
opposition, the members of the counties were nearly equally divided,
and it was by the votes of the bishops and the higher nobles that the
act was passed. A number of the ministers sought to petition and to
protest against it, but were prevented by the authorities.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.;
Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 495‒504.
When the King heard the result of the Parliamentary vote, he hounded
on the bishops to greater severity. He said, “hereafter that rebellious
and disobedient crew must either obey, or resist both God, their
natural King, and the laws of their country.... The sword is now put
into your hands, go on therefore to use it, and let it rest no longer
till you have perfected the service entrusted to you. For otherwise
we must use it both against you and them.” During the remainder of
his reign, there was a constant effort to enforce the observance of
the articles. The King was always exhorting and threatening in vain;
nonconforming ministers were imprisoned and banished without effect.
Some of the conforming ministers of Edinburgh complained to the
Privy Council that there could be no peace among the people while the
deprived and suspended ministers resorted to the city, and held private
meetings. A proclamation was therefore issued prohibiting such meetings,
under the penalties of sedition and rebellion. Six of the citizens
of Edinburgh were cited before the Privy Council, and some of them
imprisoned. In spite of this, many of the churches of the conforming
ministers began to be deserted; so that they were left to declaim
against schism and rebellion to the paupers of the parish, or to empty
benches.¹
¹ _Melrose Papers_, Volume II., page 637; Spottiswood’s
_History of the Church of Scotland_, page 542; Calderwood,
Volume VII., pages 507‒509, 512, 514, 517‒520, 533‒546,
596‒615, 618‒631.
King James died on the 27th March, 1625, at the age of fifty-nine. His
reign in Scotland had been rather stormy; and after his accession to
the throne of England, it cannot be said that his policy was beneficial
to his native country. Though naturally timid, he was vindictive, and
at all times extremely conceited, a feature of his character which
was much fed and gratified by the indiscreet and excessive flattery
of the English bishops. In literature he was a pedant. Of his kingly
prerogative and powers he had the most extravagant and absurd ideas.
The bishops had always been submissive and yielding to his demands,
and to please him they had preached and enforced an order of ceremonies
which had offended and alienated many of the people; and now, with a
king on the throne who heeded not their warnings, they drifted closer
to the rocks on which they were ultimately wrecked.
Soon after the accession of Charles I., the Scotch ministers forwarded
to him a petition craving that they might be relieved from the
observance of the five articles of Perth; but they found that little
relief could be expected. In the summer of 1626, Charles did send
instructions to the archbishops, that the ministers who had been
admitted before the Perth Assembly, and had scruples about the articles,
might be exempted from observing them, if they did not openly argue
against them, or refuse the communion to any one who wished to partake
of it kneeling. The banished, imprisoned, and suspended ministers
were to be restored on similar conditions; but all those who had
been admitted after the Perth Assembly, were commanded to observe
the articles.¹ The King, however, was firmly resolved to pursue the
ecclesiastical policy of his father.
¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume VII., pages 142‒145.
In October, 1626, Charles issued an act of revocation of all grants
of land by the Crown, either before or after his father’s act of
annexation in 1587. This was intended for the benefit of the bishops
and the clergy, and to remedy some of the evils connected with tithes;
but from another standpoint, it may be regarded as the opening of one
side of that bitter contest of which Charles I. never saw the end. The
proposal of the Crown to retake all the Church lands which had passed
into the hands of the nobles since the Reformation, aroused violent
feelings amongst the class whose interests were invaded; but it soon
became manifest that the King had resolved to fight a hard battle, and
pursue his end with great firmness.
Charles subsequently found it necessary to limit the scope of his
contemplated revocation, and summonses of reduction were then raised
to reduce the grants upon legal grounds. Still this caused much alarm
among the nobility; and a deputation was sent to London to treat with
the King. After some discussion, a commission was appointed in January,
1627, to examine the whole subject. The commissioners continued their
investigation throughout the following summer, and prosecutions were
commenced against all who refused to accede to the proposals of the
Crown. After a long and tedious inquiry, a compromise was effected.
The Church lands, and the property in dispute were to remain in the
hands of those who held them, upon the payment of a certain proportion
in the form of rents to the Crown. The Crown also insisted on a right
of feudal superiority over all the property at issue, and from this,
additional dues would fall to the public revenue. The tithes were
disposed of in this way; the landowner got liberty to extinguish the
right of levying tithes on his property, by payment of a sum calculated
at nine years’ purchase; if he did not choose to exercise this option,
then the tithe in kind was to be commuted into a rent charge, and from
this was to be deducted the stipend payable to the ministers, and an
annuity reserved for the Crown.¹
¹ Connell on _Tithes_, Book III.; Forbes’s _Treatise on Church
Lands and Tithes_. “The tithes at this time were more rigidly
exacted by their lay owners than ever they had been during
the most corrupt times of the hierarchy; yet these persons
grudged the small portion which the law compelled them to
bestow on the Church.”――Dr. Grub’s _Ecclesiastical History of
Scotland_, Volume II., page 357.
This adjustment of the tithes, which was sanctioned by Parliament, in
1633, has proved a beneficial measure to Scotland. It extinguished a
teasing class of disputes between landowners and tithe owners, between
tenants of land and tithe owners, and between the ministers and their
flocks. Yet the arrangement, though beneficial to the nation, was not
received with universal satisfaction. Many of the nobles surrendered
their tithes and their full claims to the Church lands with a grudge
which embittered their minds, and predisposed them to join in the
struggle which subsequently ensued. They still dreaded that the King
might attempt further encroachments upon their landed rights.
Various circumstances had delayed the King’s visit to Scotland, but
in 1633, he crossed the border and entered Edinburgh in June. He
received a respectful reception, and was crowned on the 18th of
June, at Holyrood. Charles was anxious to complete the scheme of
religious polity which his father had begun; and proceeded to treat
all difficulties with an imperious hand. For a time, the opposition
was overborne by his presence and his power, though unconverted to his
opinions or policy. The Scots were well aware of the King’s quarrels
with his English subjects, and on every side the elements of a fierce
conflict were forming.
Charles was firmly convinced that it was necessary to introduce a
new liturgy to complete his scheme of government in Scotland, and he
seems to have thought that the time was come to execute his purpose.
A form of Episcopacy had existed in Scotland for about thirty years,
and some parts of the English ritual had been introduced; but the
ecclesiastical system still retained many traces of the organisation
of Presbyterianism. It was only a kind of mixed Episcopacy; it had the
external form of the hierarchy, archbishops and bishops as in ancient
times, but they were merely the chief ecclesiastical ministers of the
King, their master, and had little authority of their own. The titles
of dean and archdeacon had been restored, but such persons appeared in
the Church courts only as parish ministers; while there still existed
the Kirk Sessions, the Presbyteries, and the Synods, though their
organisation was maimed. The Book of Common Prayer, adopted at the
Reformation, was still in common use, though less esteemed among the
Presbyterians, who were becoming averse to set forms of prayer; while
the Episcopal party considered it defective. The five articles of
Perth were not universally observed. Though there might have been
slight differences of opinion touching some doctrines, the general
creed of the clergy and the people was in harmony with the Reformation
Confession of Faith. Thus matters stood when Charles and Laud began
their work.
Preparations were made for composing a book of canons and a liturgy
for Scotland. The book of canons as finally revised by Laud, and the
Bishops of London and Norwich, was ratified by the King in May, 1635,
and promulgated in 1636. It was prefaced by the sanction of the King,
and the announcement of his will concerning its observance, in the
following terms――“We do, not only by our royal prerogative and supreme
authority in causes ecclesiastical, ratify and confirm, by these our
letters patent, the said canons and constitutions, and everything
contained in them; but likewise we command, by our royal authority,
the same to be diligently observed and executed by all our loving
subjects of that kingdom, in all points ... according to this our
will and pleasure, hereby expressed and declared. We strictly charge
and command all archbishops, bishops, and all others who exercise
any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, within our realm, to see and procure
as much as they can, that all and each of these canons, orders, and
constitutions be in all points duly observed; not sparing to execute
the penalties, in them severally mentioned, upon any that shall
willingly and wilfully break or neglect to observe the same.”
This book is a very small volume, divided into nineteen chapters, with
the different paragraphs or headings of each chapter numbered.¹ In
arrangement and composition it is an admirable production of the class
to which it belongs.
¹ The first edition of the Canons, printed at Aberdeen in 1636,
is the one used and referred to in the text.
The first chapter contains a statement of the powers and prerogatives
of the King in religious matters. The doctrine of the royal supremacy
is laid down and enforced under the penalty of excommunication against
all who dared to resist it, upon the ground that it had been exercised
by the Jewish kings and by the early Christian emperors. To secure
reverence for this divine supremacy of the King, it was stated that
“none shall be permitted to teach in any college or school, either
as principal, regent, or fellow, except he first take the oath of
allegiance and supremacy. And having taken the charge upon them, they
shall acquaint their scholars, and train them up according to their
capacity, in the grounds contained in the book entitled _Deus et Rex_,
God and the King.”¹
¹ Page 28.
One of the canons was directed against the press. “In setting forth
books, satirical libels, and other pamphlets, repugnant to the truth,
or not agreeing with honesty and good manners, it is ordained that
nothing hereafter be printed except the same be seen, and allowed, by
the visitors appointed to that purpose.”
These canons placed the whole internal life of the Church in the hands
of the bishops. They alone were invested with the right of expounding
the Bible, all private meetings of ministers for this were to be
strictly prohibited; and no one was to be permitted to impugn the
opinion of another minister in the same or in the neighbouring church
without the permission of the bishop. The whole drift of the book of
canons is well expressed in its concluding sentences:――“In all this
book of Canons, wherever there is no penalty expressly set down, it
is to be understood that the punishment shall be arbitrary, as the
ordinary shall think fittest.”
The manner in which these canons were introduced certainly was unusual,
and it touched the national pride, as well as the religious sentiments
of the Scots. They also made direct reference to a Liturgy, which had
not yet been published. These canons had little resemblance to any
Scottish ecclesiastical rules or acts subsequent to the Reformation;
but such was the King’s blind confidence in the efficacy of the royal
supremacy, that he imagined he had only to command what he pleased,
and the people would obey him. Acting on this assumption, he signed a
warrant to the Privy Council, on the 18th of October, 1636, containing
his instructions concerning the introduction of the Liturgy. These
stated that the King had several times recommended to the Scotch
archbishops and bishops the introduction of a regular form of service
to be observed in the public worship; and as this had now been
definitely undertaken, he believed that all his Scottish subjects
would receive it with becoming reverence. “Yet thinking it necessary
to make known our pleasure concerning the authorising of the book, we
require you to command, by open proclamation, all our subjects, both
ecclesiastical and civil, to conform themselves to the practice thereof.
It being the only form which we, having taken the counsel of our
clergy, think fit to be used in God’s public worship there. Also, we
require you to enjoin all archbishops and bishops, and other presbyters
and churchmen, to take care that the same be duly obeyed, and the
contraveners to be condignly censured and punished. And to see that
every parish procure to themselves, within such a time as you shall
think fit to appoint, two copies at least of the Book of Common Prayer
for the use of the parish.” In compliance with his Majesty’s commands,
the Privy Council passed an act on the 20th of December, and issued a
proclamation ordering all the people to conform themselves to the new
liturgy.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 440‒441.
The nation was soon in a ferment. A suspicion arose among the people
that Roman Catholicism was to be reintroduced. They had already
yielded so far to the King, and restrained their feelings in deference
to the royal authority; but now the limit of their passive obedience
was passed. They declared that the King had no right to impose a
service-book upon them without the consent of Parliament and the
General Assembly; they asserted that it was popish, that it taught
popish doctrines, and that it was little better than a massbook. Some
attempted to defend it, but in vain.¹
¹ In a note to the first volume of Baillie’s _Letters and
Journals_, it is stated that the Liturgy itself was not
completed till May, 1637; but Dr. Grub says, “before
Easter, copies of the book were ready for distribution.”
_Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, Volume II., page 378.
The liturgy itself was framed upon the form of the English Book of
Common Prayer, with some slight differences, especially in the office
of the communion. After the proclamation commanding its use, and a
preface, it began with remarks on ceremonies; how the psalter was
appointed to be read; how the rest of the Scriptures was appointed
to be read; a table of proper psalms and lessons for Sunday and other
holydays; a table for the order of psalms at daily prayers; an almanac;
a table and calendar for the daily psalms and lessons; and a list of
holydays which were to be observed. The order for the administration
of the communion differed in some important points from the English
office. This form was elaborate, and out of many points minutely stated,
it may be mentioned that a commemoration of the faithful departed was
inserted at the end of the prayer for the Church militant. In the form
of marriage, it was enjoined that the newly married persons should
receive the communion on the day of their marriage.
The royal proclamation ordered the new Liturgy to be observed in all
the churches on Easter, 1637. The authorities, however, postponed it,
but this only heightened the feeling and excitement against it. The
bishops themselves were not unanimous regarding the expediency of
enforcing its observance; some of them indeed brought the subject
before their synods, but little progress was made. On the 13th of
June, the Privy Council passed an act which declared that some of
the ministers had perversely failed to obey the former proclamation:
“Therefore the Lords ordain letters to be directed, charging the whole
presbyteries and ministers within the kingdom, that they and every one
of them provide themselves, for the use of their parishes, with two
copies of the said Book of Common Prayers, within fifteen days after
this charge, under the penalty of rebellion, and being put to the
horn.”¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., page 4, _et
seq._; pages 442, 447.
At a meeting of the bishops it was agreed that the public reading
of the new liturgy should begin in Edinburgh, on Sunday, the 23rd of
July, 1637; and this was ordered to be intimated in all the churches
in the city on the previous Sunday. The congregations listened
to the intimation in silence; but in the following week speeches,
declarations, and pamphlets were launched on every hand against the
new liturgy; while no really vigorous efforts were made in favour of
its introduction.
On the appointed Sunday, preparations were made to celebrate the new
service with the utmost solemnity, and to ♦give the occasion of its
introduction in the capital an imposing character. In the historic
Church of St. Giles, the two archbishops, the Bishop of Edinburgh, and
several other bishops, the Lords of the Privy Council, the Judges of
the Court of Session, and the Magistrates of the city, all attired in
their official robes, attended in the forenoon to grace the proceedings.
The Bishop of Edinburgh was to preach, and the Dean to read the service.
A large congregation had assembled, but they looked restless and
wistful; and the dean had scarcely begun to read when confused cries
arose. As he proceeded, the clamour became louder, and the prayers
could not be heard. The people started to their feet and the church was
a scene of hideous uproar. The voices of the women were the loudest,
some cried “Woe, woe me,” and others shouted that “they were bringing
in popery”; and instantly stools were thrown at the Dean and the Bishop
of Edinburgh. The Archbishop of St. Andrews and the Lords of the Privy
Council then interposed, but in vain; the tumult continued till the
Magistrates came from their seats in the gallery, and with extreme
difficulty thrust out the unruly members. The Dean read the service,
and the Bishop preached with barred doors. But the crowd stood around
the church in a state of vehement excitement, rapping at the doors and
throwing stones at the windows, and shouting “popery, popery,” and
calling the bishops the most abusive names. When the bishops came out
of the church, the multitude attacked Bishop Lindsay on his way home,
and he narrowly escaped with his life. Similar disturbances occurred in
the other churches of the city, though less violent. In the Greyfriars
church, the Bishop of Argyle was obliged to stop reading the service.
Between the hours of worship, the Lords and the Magistrates met, and
made such arrangements that the evening service at St. Giles, and some
of the other churches, passed without interruption; though the Bishop
of Edinburgh was again attacked in company with the Earl of Roxburgh,
but the armed servants of the Earl enabled him to escape without
serious injury.¹
♦ “gave” replaced with “give”
¹ Rothes’ _Relation_. “So on Sunday morning when the bishop
and his dean, in the great church, and the Bishop of Argyle
in the Greyfriars, began to officiate, as they spoke,
immediately the serving maids began such a tumult as was
never heard of since the Reformation in our nation. However,
no wound given to any yet such was the contumelies in words,
in clamours, runnings and flinging of stones in the eyes of
the magistrates, and the chancellor himself, that a little
opposition would have infallibly moved that enraged people
to have rent sundry of the bishops in pieces. The day after,
I had occasion to be in town, I found the people nothing
settled; but, if that service had been presented to them
again, resolved to have done some mischief.” Baillie’s
_Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 18, 448.
The excitement was rapidly spreading and becoming more intense; and
it was manifest that the actors in the tumults in Edinburgh could not
be punished. Indeed, the Liturgy was almost universally spurned. In
the face of this heated feeling, the authorities were comparatively
powerless. On the 4th of August, the Privy Council received a letter
from the King, commanding them to search out and to punish the persons
concerned in the late disturbances, and to support the bishops and
the clergy in establishing the new liturgy. The Council resolved that
another attempt should be made to use the new service on Sunday, the
13th of August; but when this day came it was not tried in the churches
of Edinburgh, because among other reasons, readers could not be got
to officiate. At Glasgow there was strong opposition to the Liturgy,
and Baillie gives some particulars of the treatment which Mr. Annand,
the minister of Ayr, received, because he had ventured to defend the
Liturgy in his sermon before the Synod of Glasgow, in the end of August,
1637. According to Baillie’s opinion, he defended it as well as any
man in Britain could have done. But his sermon caused a great din among
the women in the town. “At the out-going of the church, about thirty
or forty of our honest women in one voice before the bishops and the
magistrates, did fall rayling, cursing, scolding with clamours on Mr.
William Annand. All the day, up and down the streets where he went, he
got threats in words and in looks; but, after supper, while needlessly
he will go to visit the bishop, he is no sooner on the street, at nine
o’clock, in a dark night, accompanied with three or four ministers,
than some hundreds of enraged women, of all ranks, are about him, with
fists, staves, and peats, but no stones. However, upon his cries, and
candles set out from many windows, he escaped all severe wounds; yet
he was in great danger, even of his life.”¹ Thus was the curtain drawn,
and the first scene of the long tragic drama enacted which convulsed
the kingdom.
¹ _Large Declaration. Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages
20‒21.
CHAPTER XXV.
_The Covenanting Struggle._
THE moment had come for the King and his advisers in England to
manifest their wisdom. Two lines of action were open to them, either
unconditionally to withdraw the Liturgy, or at once to overwhelm all
opposition. Charles was not inclined to adopt the first; and though
quite unprepared to enforce the second, yet he clung to it, and
only slowly and with difficulty became aware that his power was not
commensurate with his will. The prevailing condition of the national
mind was but imperfectly understood at headquarters in London; the King
himself had merely looked at a few unimportant circumstances on the
surface of society, and from these concluded that the Scots would offer
little opposition to the introduction of the Liturgy. In the _Large
Declaration_ the King stated the reasons which he had for believing
that his commands would be obeyed, and that the Liturgy would be
received. These in effect were, that the nobles, and his Scottish
subjects generally, who resorted to England, attended the churches in
that country without finding any fault or quarrelling with the service;
that the English Liturgy had been regularly read in the Chapel Royal
at Holyrood since the year 1617, and had been attended by all classes
without dislike; that it had been used by the bishops while conferring
orders, and for several years back it had been read in some of the
cathedral churches, and in the new College of St. Andrews; that for
years many families had used it in private, and that when he was in
Scotland, it had been read in all the churches which he attended.
That inasmuch as the Scottish Liturgy was in substance the same as the
English one, he never expected that a charge of popery or superstition
would be brought against a Liturgy which had been compiled by the
bishops and other divines, who, in Queen Mary’s reign, had preferred
banishment and death to submission to Rome, and which since had been
cherished by the English clergy, who had done much to oppose popery.¹
But expectations founded on these reasons ought not to have misled the
King and his counsellors. Apart from political adversaries, resistance
of another character might easily have been anticipated, from the
manner in which the Liturgy itself was introduced, and from the
nature of the book. It had been long known that the Presbyterians did
not recognise any ecclesiastical supremacy in the King, or even any
special right in the sovereign to interfere with religion, without the
concurrence of the Church, and therefore it should have been foreseen,
that they would certainly oppose the important alterations introduced
by the authority of the King. The tone of the King’s despatches
distinctly manifest his view of the matter, which in effect was
this――everyone in Scotland had done something wrong, or neglected
to do what they should have done; his Majesty alone, under God, was
thoroughly in the right, and therefore his will must be obeyed. But
this misguided King was rudely brought to feel that there were stronger
and more resolute minds and wills in Britain than his own.
¹ Pages 19‒21.
Meanwhile the agitation and excitement had greatly increased throughout
the kingdom. Differences had also arisen among the members of the Privy
Council; the bishops blamed the lords, and the lords blamed the bishops
for what had happened, instead of presenting a united front to the
opposition. While the Government were thus frittering away their
energies, petitions against the Liturgy began to be drawn up and
presented. The first one came from Fife, headed by Alexander Henderson,
which was followed by another from Glasgow. Henderson, minister of
Leuchars, in name of himself and his brethren, presented a petition
to the Privy Council on the 23rd of August, 1637. This document stated
that the moderator of their presbytery had ordered them to receive
two copies of the new Liturgy, and they had expressed their readiness
to receive one copy, that they might ascertain what it contained,
before they consented to use it. But this proposal was not accepted,
and therefore they entreated the Lords of the Council to suspend the
charge against them, for the following reasons:――1. Because the Liturgy
is neither warranted by the authority of the General Assembly nor by
any act of Parliament; 2. Because the liberties of the true Church,
and the form of religion and worship received at the Reformation, and
universally practised since, were warranted by the acts of the General
Assembly, and by several Acts of Parliament; 3. Because the Church
of Scotland was a free and independent Church, and her own ministers
were best able to discern what was in harmony with the Reformation,
and calculated to promote the good of the people; 4. Because it was
notorious that disputes, divisions, and trouble had arisen in the
Church about a few of the many ceremonies contained in this Liturgy,
which, when examined, had been found to depart far from the worship
of this Church, and in some most essential points to draw near to
the Church of Rome; 5. Because, since the Reformation, the people
have always been taught a different doctrine, and they would not
likely be willing to agree to such changes, even though their pastors
were willing to submit. The Lords of the Council then passed an act
declaring that there had been a misunderstanding touching the intention
of the former acts: as they had only meant that ministers should buy
copies of the Liturgy, and nothing more; but this was inconsistent with
the tenor of their former acts, and with the proclamation prefixed to
the Liturgy itself. At the same time the Council addressed a letter to
the King, informing him of the discontent and of the clamour against
the Liturgy in all parts of the country; and that they had agreed to
let the matter rest till further instructed by his Majesty, after he
should have summoned to his presence some of their own number.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 19,
449‒450; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 227‒229.
The King replied on the 10th of September. He declined to call any of
the councillors to London, but expressed his displeasure that they had
not caused the Liturgy to be read, and that they had been remiss in not
bringing those who raised the tumult in July to condign punishment. He
insisted that every bishop should cause the Liturgy to be read in his
own diocese.
By this time a large number of petitions against the Liturgy had been
circulated throughout the country; and on the 20th of September many
of them were presented to the Council. The movement was rapidly gaining
strength; as about twenty of the nobles, many of the gentry, and the
chief men of the towns had joined it. A great number of people had
assembled at Edinburgh, and the Earl of Sutherland presented a general
petition to the Council, in name of the nobility, the barons, the
ministers, and the burgesses. It urged that the introduction of the
Liturgy would disturb the peace of the kingdom, and earnestly requested
the Council to report to the King the real state of affairs, and
to endeavour to persuade him to desist from interfering with their
religion. The Council were sorely perplexed, hesitated, and wist not
what to do; at last, they declined answering the petitions till they
received instructions from the King. In a letter to the King, the
Council stated that more than sixty-eight petitions had been presented
against the Liturgy; they also requested the Duke of Lennox, who
was then leaving for London, to inform the King of the true state of
matters, and the difficulties which had unhappily arisen.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 21‒22, 33,
453; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 233‒235.
On the 9th of October, 1637, the King informed the Council that he
had postponed an answer to the petitions. About the middle of this
month a greater number of people than before met at Edinburgh to await
the King’s answer, and with the view of inducing the magistrates to
join them; while six fresh petitions from two hundred parishes were
presented. A favourable and wise answer from the King might still have
dissipated all alarm. On the 17th of the month, the reply was announced
in the form of three proclamations at the Cross of Edinburgh. The first
stated that nothing would be done that day touching Church affairs,
and the multitude of petitioners and strangers were commanded to leave
the capital within twenty-four hours; the second ordered the seat of
government and the courts of law to be removed to Linlithgow (a move
which had been tried before); and the third denounced a book, which had
been popular, viz., “A Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies
obtruded upon the Church of Scotland,” all copies of which were ordered
to be brought in to the Council, and publicly burned.¹
¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 32‒34; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume
II., page 236.
The citizens of Edinburgh and the people then assembled there were
deeply offended, and directly resolved to disobey the proclamations,
and not to separate till they had established a rallying-point. The
next morning, while the Bishop of Galloway was on his way to the
Council-house, a mob attacked him and pursued him to the door; while
the crowd surrounded the Council-house, and loudly demanded that the
obnoxious lords should surrender. The Council dispatched a messenger
to the magistrates, asking their help, but he found that they were
in the same plight as the Council. A part of the mob had stationed
themselves around the town house, and some of them forced their way
into the lobbies, and threatened that unless the magistrates joined the
burgesses in opposing the Liturgy, they would burn the building. When
this became known to the Privy Council, the High Treasurer and the Earl
of Wigton forced their way through the multitude to the town-house.
After a brief consultation, it was agreed that the magistrates
should do all in their power to disperse the crowds; they accordingly
announced to the seething multitude that they had acceded to the
demands of the people, and were ready to join in their petitions
against the Liturgy. The Treasurer and his followers now thought that
they might venture to return to the Council-house; but as soon as they
appeared on the street, they were assailed with hootings and jeers. The
lords assured the excited people that they would urge their requests
upon the King, but this was received with scornful hissing. Then a
rush was made, and the Treasurer was thrown to the ground, and his hat,
cloak, and staff of office were torn from him, while he was in danger
of being trodden to death; but some of his companions got him to his
feet, and the pressure of the crowd half carried him and his friends to
the Council-house door, where they immediately disappeared. In a short
time the magistrates joined the Council, and then the authorities were
beset, many of them trembling for their lives. At last it was resolved
to send for the nobles who had already declared themselves against
the Liturgy, and by their exertions the crowd was dispersed, and the
councillors got in safety to their homes.¹
¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 34‒38; _Baillie’s Letters and
Journals_, Volume I., pages 37‒38.
Meantime, the nobles, the gentry, the ministers, and others opposed to
the Liturgy, had been engaged deliberating on the form of a complaint
against the bishops, which was to be presented to the Council. Two
forms were prepared, one by Henderson and Lord Balmerino, the other by
Dickson and Lord Loudon. The latter was adopted, and immediately signed
by about twenty-four earls and lords, by upwards of a hundred of the
gentry, and by many of the ministers. The subscribers of this document
stated, that by the tenor of the late proclamations they had been
forced to remonstrate against the archbishops and bishops of the
kingdom, who having been entrusted by the King with the government
of the Church, had framed and enjoined two books――the Canons and the
Liturgy; and that, in the Liturgy, not only were the seeds of divers
superstitions sown――idolatries, and false doctrines, but also the
English service-book was abused, especially in the communion, in a
manner quite contrary to the intentions of the blessed Reformers of
religion in England; while in the Book of Canons the observance of the
Liturgy was enforced under the penalty of excommunication, and many
regulations were enacted tending directly to foster superstition and
error. And therefore, from their duty to God, to their King, and to
their country, they craved that the matter should be tried, according
to the laws of the kingdom; and that meanwhile the bishops should not
be suffered to sit as judges. The Council promised to forward this
petition to the King.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 35‒37.
The opposition party before separating, resolved to meet again on the
15th of November. In the interval they were to exert themselves to
the utmost to ensure as large a meeting of the people as possible to
receive an answer to their former petitions.
On the appointed day many earnest men arrived in Edinburgh, the
influx of people being greater than ever, while the Earls of Rothes,
♦Cassillis, Eglinton, Home, and others, mingled with the crowd. The
Privy Council, fearing a repetition of the former tumults, held a
conference with some of the leaders of the petitioners at Linlithgow on
the 14th of November. The councillors complained that the multitude of
people congregated at Edinburgh threatened to break the peace of the
kingdom, and that these meetings were illegal. The nobles, on the side
of the petitioners, insisted on their right to meet and to present
their grievances; but to remove any cause of complaint, they suggested
that their party were ready to act by representatives, and thus render
crowded meetings unnecessary. The Council agreed to this proposal, and
perhaps unwittingly lent its aid to the embodiment of a power in the
nation which was quickly to supersede its own. The opposition party’s
scheme soon assumed a definite form. Four permanent committees were
appointed: the first comprising all the nobles who had joined the
movement; the second consisting of two representatives from each of
the counties; the third embracing one minister from each presbytery;
and the fourth including one or two deputies from each burgh. These
committees sat at different tables in the Parliament House――hence in
history they were called the “Tables;” and together they represented
the community. For business and effective action each of the committees
elected four representatives, and these united formed a select
deliberative body of sixteen members, appointed to sit constantly
in Edinburgh, with instructions to assemble the larger body of
representatives when any critical emergency appeared. At first they
merely took charge of the petitions, and urged them upon the attention
of the government;¹ but they soon began to feel themselves strong
enough to formulate proposals and plans for the party, and proceeded
to issue mandates which were more respected and better obeyed than the
proclamations of the King and his Council. They virtually assumed the
functions of rulers, and the real control of affairs soon fell into
their hands.
♦ “Casillis” replaced with “Cassillis”
¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., page 243; Baillie’s _Letters
and Journals_, Volume I., pages 40, 42.
Though the troubles which the King’s policy had raised in Scotland
were thus forced upon his attention, even yet he but dimly understood
the character of the movement. Accordingly he deemed it sufficient
to dispatch the Earl of Roxburgh to negotiate; and then issued a
proclamation intimating to his faithful subjects that he had delayed
answering their petitions owing to the tumultuous and violent acts
done in Edinburgh in contempt of his royal authority. He was graciously
pleased to protest that he abhorred all popery, and that he had no
intention of doing anything contrary to the laws of Scotland. This was
not likely to pacify a people almost ripe for rebellion; accordingly
the movement continued to develop and gather vigour.
On the 21st of December, 1637, the representatives of the Tables
appeared before the Privy Council, and demanded that their petitions
should be heard. Lord Loudon boldly restated their grievances touching
the Book of Canons, the Liturgy, the Court of High Commission, and
the bishops, who, it was asserted, were the authors of all these
innovations. As the bishops were the chief delinquents, and directly
interested parties, it was claimed that they should not be allowed to
sit as judges upon the matters in dispute between the government and
the petitioners. The Council’s hands being tied by orders from the
court, they remitted the whole matter for the determination of the King.
The following is a part of Loudon’s speech before the Council:――“A more
weighty and stately cause than this, for which we now appear before
your lordships, was never pleaded before any judge on earth: being for
the defence of the true religion and established laws, on which depends
the welfare both of Church and Commonwealth, our condition of life, of
liberty, and temporal estate in this transitory world, and our eternal
happiness in the world to come; our duty to God Almighty, the supreme
King of kings, and our allegiance and duty to our sovereign lord
and master the King.... And in respect that, by the whole strain of
our supplications and complaints, given in to your lordships, the
archbishops and bishops are our direct parties, as contrivers, devisers,
introducers, maintainers, and urgers of the Books ... and other
unlawful innovations and just grievances complained of by us, we crave
that the matter may be put to trial, and the bishops taken order with,
according to the laws of the realm, and not suffered to sit as judges,
until our cause be tried and decided according to justice; so these
prelates being the only parties, of whom we have at this time justly
complained, must be declined as our judges, seeing that they cannot be
both judge and party, according to the loveable laws of this kingdom.
And our declaration ought to be sustained as relevant against them,
notwithstanding that they have purposely absented themselves at this
time, because if the matter and action depending shall not be decided
at present, but shall happen, by answer or letter from his Majesty,
to be remitted back to the Council, the chancellor and bishops who
are councillors will be judges in the complaint given in against
themselves; and the chancellor, with six or seven of the bishops,
making up a quorum of the Council, may determine and dispose of our
cause and petitions, now depending, as well as they passed an act
of Council for approving the Liturgy before it was either printed or
seen.”¹
¹ _Large Declaration_, page 46. Baillie’s _Letters and
Journals_, Volume I., pages 455‒458.
The government and the King were now sadly perplexed; and about the
beginning of 1638, Traquair, the Lord Treasurer of Scotland, was
called to London. He found that the King was extremely ignorant of
the real state of affairs in Scotland. Those whom he trusted were
partly responsible for this; but the King himself was unwilling to
be informed as to difficulties which he had himself helped to create.
Some consultation was held concerning what was next to be done; but
the idea of yielding to the opinions and sentiments of the people was
never entertained by the King. In the end it was resolved to adhere
to the Liturgy and the Court of High Commission, and to condemn and
ignore all that had been objected against them, in order that the royal
prerogative might be maintained. Popular meetings and demonstrations
were to be prohibited and suppressed, while his Majesty took the
responsibility of the Liturgy upon himself. The Treasurer returned with
his instructions in the middle of February.¹
¹ Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, page 33, 1677;
Stafford’s _Letters_, Volume II.
The Privy Council and the Court of Session were then at Stirling,
and a proclamation in accord with the royal conclusions was issued on
the 19th of February. But the representatives of the Tables had been
informed of this, and Lindsay and Home were there before the Treasurer
himself. Accordingly, when the heralds had performed their part by
proclaiming his Majesty’s will, Lindsay and Home immediately took
instruments in the hands of a notary, and protested that they should
still have a right to petition the King; that they would not recognise
the bishops as judges in any court; that they should not incur any
loss for not observing such canons, rites, and proclamations as were
contrary to Acts of Parliament and to Acts of the General Assembly;
that if any disturbance should arise, it should not be imputed to them;
that their requests proceeded from conscience, with no object save the
preservation of the Reformed Religion, and the laws and liberties of
his Majesty’s ancient kingdom. This protest was in name of the nobles,
the barons, the ministers, and the burgesses, appointed to attend
the King’s answer to their humble petitions. Similar protests on the
part of the petitioners were entered at Linlithgow and Edinburgh, and
wherever the royal proclamation was issued.¹
¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 48‒52.
The crisis was at hand. The opposition party felt that they could not
recede, and therefore it was necessary for them to look to the future.
Their only hope of successfully resisting the King was to unite on some
common principle and end, easily understood, and capable of touching
the sympathies, emotions, and the religious feelings of the people,
and thus combine them together for action. At this stage an old custom
suggested itself to them, as appropriate to the circumstances and the
emergency. It was proposed, as in bye-gone days, that every adherent
of the cause should be bound as one man by a solemn covenant. This
kind of engagement, as we have seen, reached far back in the history
of Scotland, under the name of “bonds of manrent,” by which the
aristocracy leagued themselves together for mutual defence, or for
performing some exploit, as the defeat of an enemy, the imprisonment
or the murder of their King. On this occasion, the party opposed to
the King’s measures met at Edinburgh about the end of February, 1638,
and agreed to revive the Confession and Covenant of 1581, which at
that time was signed by James VI., his government and the people,
throughout the kingdom.¹ To prepare the minds of the people, several of
the ministers of Edinburgh preached in favour of renewing the Covenant.
The framing of the famous document itself was entrusted to Alexander
Henderson and Johnston of Warriston; and the Earls of Rothes, Loudon,
and Balmerino were selected to revise it. This national Covenant
consisted of three parts: the first was a copy of the Confession of
1581; the second contained a summary of the various Acts of Parliament
which condemned Roman Catholicism, and ratified the Reformed Church;
the third was the new Covenant or bond, by which the subscribers swore,
in the name of the “Lord their God,” that they would remain in the
profession of their religion; that they would defend it to the utmost
of their power from all errors and corruptions; that they would stand
by the King’s person in support of the true religion, the liberties,
and the laws of the kingdom; and that they would stand by each other
in defence of the same against all persons whatsoever. When the first
draft of the Covenant was submitted to the committees, there were
differences of opinion about it. Some thought that they could not
bind themselves together for mutual defence without incurring treason;
but after a long discussion, and some alterations having been made, a
general agreement was obtained.²
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
I., pages 372‒73; Volume II., pages 89, 177, 228.
² Peterkin’s _Records of the Church of Scotland_; Baillie’s
_Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 52‒54. At first
Baillie had scruples, and he caused some of the articles of
the Covenant to be modified, but after his concurrence in
the general agreement, he says:――“What will be next, the
Lord only knows, we are to humble ourselves in fasting and
prayer.” _Ibid._, page 54. This Confession and Covenant
is usually printed in the same volume with the Westminster
Confession.
The Covenanters had now assumed a new position in the kingdom. They had
cast aside the character of humble petitioners to the authorities, and
began openly to exercise the functions of government themselves. They
had become a compact and well organised body, ready to act upon the
people in the most effective manner, by appealing to their religious
convictions and feelings, to their national pride and passion, and to
their hopes and fears.
When everything had been prepared for securing the adhesion of the
people, it was resolved to inaugurate the new scheme at Edinburgh, on
the 28th February, 1638. A multitude of the people had then congregated
in the Greyfriars’ Church and Churchyard; and there they were addressed
in glowing terms on the preservation of their religion, the true
Presbyterian polity, their duty to God and their country, till their
feelings and emotions were raised to such a high pitch of enthusiasm,
that they firmly believed their everlasting happiness depended on
maintaining the purity of the reformed faith. Such was the feeling
of the people, when, at two in the afternoon, the Earls of Rothes and
Loudon, Henderson and Dickson, ministers, and Johnston of Warriston,
appeared with the Covenant. Henderson having opened this part of the
proceedings with prayer, Loudon addressed the assemblage; and then
all were asked to come forward and sign the Covenant. The Earl of
Sutherland was the first to sign, being followed by Sir Andrew Murray;
thereafter crowds surrounded the table, and when those in the church
had signed the Covenant, it was taken out to the graveyard and placed
on a flat gravestone. There the enthusiasm reached its greatest height,
men and women being equally eager to subscribe their names. The brave
work went on for several hours, till every inch of the long roll of
parchment was covered. Night at last closed the scene. “It was a day
wherein the arm of the Lord was revealed――a day wherein the princes
of the people were assembled to swear fealty and allegiance to that
great King whose name is the Lord of Hosts.” Henderson described it
as――“The day of the Lord’s power, wherein they had seen His people
most willingly offer themselves in multitudes, like the dew of the
morning.”¹
¹ Wilson’s _Defence of the Reformation Principles of the Church
of Scotland_; Rothes’ _Relation_.
The following day copies of the Covenant were circulated in Edinburgh,
the citizens almost universally signing it, while other copies were
immediately sent throughout the kingdom. Efforts were made to arouse
the enthusiasm of the people, and many with uplifted hands subscribed
and swore to maintain the Covenant. Commissioners were sent to Glasgow
and to Aberdeen, the only places where serious opposition was expected.
The Professors of the University of Glasgow, and some of the ministers
who held the doctrine of non-resistance, were opposed to the Covenant,
and refused to subscribe. The doctors of the University of Aberdeen
also spoke and wrote boldly against the Covenant, and in spite of the
efforts of a deputation from the South, very few of the citizens of
Aberdeen could be induced to sign it; they asserted that it was an
unlawful combination against established authority. Pamphlets were
published on both sides of the question, and the controversy was hotly
maintained for a time. But this war of words was shortly hushed amid
the general unanimity of the other parts of the kingdom. Such was the
energy and tact of the leaders of the movement, that within two months
nearly all the inhabitants of Scotland had given in their adherence to
the Covenant, except those above mentioned, the courtiers, the bishops
and their fraction of adherents.¹
¹ _The Answers of some Brethren of the Ministry to the Replies
of the Ministers and Professors of Aberdeen_, 1638; Baillie’s
_Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 62‒64, 66, _et seq._
It may be noted that, immediately after the Covenant was
sworn at Edinburgh, the leaders of the party communicated
with their friends in London, and sent them copies of the
Covenant.
The Privy Council, already alarmed, were sitting at Stirling while
the Covenant was being carried about the streets of Edinburgh for
signatures, and great was their embarrassment at the determined
opposition of the Presbyterians. After four days’ deliberation they
agreed to send Sir John Hamilton, the Justice Clerk, to London, to
inform the King that the whole nation was in a state of excitement;
that the Book of Canons, the Liturgy, and the High Commission, and the
modes in which they had been introduced, were the causes of all the
turmoil; and that His Majesty should, “as an act of singular justice,”
inquire into these grievances of his subjects. The Earls of Traquair
and Roxburgh also wrote to the King, distinctly informing him that the
dread of religious innovation had raised a conflagration amongst all
classes of the people which was daily becoming more vehement, and that
no force in the kingdom could suppress it. As religion was the pretext,
they suggested that it would be well for the King to free his subjects
from their fears by withdrawing the Book of Canons and the Liturgy,
and then he would be in a better position to punish the insolence of
those who persisted in kicking against his authority. In the month
of April, several members of the Privy Council and nobles were called
to the Court, while some of the bishops were already there; the King,
therefore, had a good opportunity of knowing the real state of Scotland.
If anything more was needed to inform him, it was supplied in a paper
forwarded to the Scottish Lords at court, containing a clear statement
of the grievances of the Covenanters. This document expressly stated
that the recalling of the Book of Canons and the Liturgy would not
be sufficient to restore peace; it demanded that the High Commission
should be utterly abolished, and complained of the Perth Articles, of
the civil offices, and of the seats in parliament held by the bishops,
and the oaths exacted from ministers. The Covenanters requested that
a lawful and free General Assembly and a Parliament should be summoned
as in former times, to redress the grievances of the people, to settle
commotions, and to pacify the minds of the nation.
The Justice Clerk and other Scottish Councillors suggested soothing
remedies, and the position of matters was earnestly discussed. At last
the King called to his closet the Archbishops of Canterbury and St.
Andrews, the Bishops of Galloway, Brechin, and Ross, and the Marquis
of Hamilton, and measures of repression were resolved upon. At this
meeting the King announced his intention to send the Marquis of
Hamilton to Scotland as High Commissioner with power to settle the
troubles of the nation.¹
¹ Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 34‒43;
Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 252‒261. There is
evidence that Hamilton had a better grasp of the difficulties
than the King; yet even the Marquis had not a very complete
appreciation of the hardness of the task which he undertook
when he entered on the mission of defeating the aims of the
Covenanters.
A proclamation was prepared to be sent with Hamilton to Scotland. In it
the King promised not to press the Canons and the Liturgy, except in a
fair and legal way; that he would limit the High Commission, and that
he would overlook all that was past, if his subjects would renounce
and disclaim their factious bonds, and return to their loyal duty; but
those who declined to do this would be treated as rebels and traitors.
The King’s instructions to Hamilton were signed on the 16th of May,
1638, and were in accord with the contents of the proclamation just
indicated. They extended to twenty-eight articles, the last of which
was in these terms:――“If you cannot, by the means prescribed by us,
bring back the refractory and seditious to due obedience, we do not
only give you authority, but command all hostile acts whatsoever to be
used against them, they having deserved to be used in no other way by
us, but as a rebellious people; for the doing whereof we will not only
save you harmless, but account it as acceptable service done us.”
Meanwhile the Covenanters were proceeding with their work. They had
little confidence in the word of the King, as he had already shown
that his opinions and feelings were entirely against them. Several of
the presbyteries had relieved the constant moderators of their duties,
while some of the uncovenanted ministers were removed from their
churches. In some cases, the clergy who clung to Episcopacy and refused
to take the Covenant, were mobbed and maltreated, but the majority of
the Covenanters disapproved of such proceedings, though they were not
always able to prevent outrages.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 70‒71;
Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 43‒51.
Early in June, 1638, three months after the first signing of the
Covenant, the Marquis of Hamilton arrived in Scotland. It was evident
from the King’s instructions to him, that there was no intention
of granting the demands of the Covenanters, and the Marquis soon
discovered that his instructions were entirely futile. All the southern
counties were under the control of the Covenanters. They had already
ordered supplies of arms, and threatened to seize the Castle of
Edinburgh. The Crown could place little reliance on the Privy Council,
as some of its members were associated with the discontented nobles.
Lord Lindsay told Hamilton that the people would never relinquish the
Covenant; that Episcopacy must be modified, if not abolished; and that
if a Parliament and General Assembly were not summoned by the King’s
authority, the Covenanters would take matters into their own hands.
So Hamilton did not venture to publish the royal proclamation, as he
had no means of enforcing it. He wrote to the King, stating that his
Majesty should be prepared either to concede all the demands of his
subjects, or to suppress the movement by force. Charles replied that
his preparations were progressing, that the Castles of Edinburgh and
Stirling should be secured, and meantime he instructed Hamilton to
flatter the Covenanters with any hopes he pleased, to gain time, until
he should be in a position to suppress them: for said Charles――“I will
rather die than yield to their impertinent and damnable demands; for
it is all one to yield to be no king in a very short time.” On the 20th
of June, the King informed Hamilton that his warlike preparations were
well advanced. Arms for 14, 000 foot, and 2000 horse, had been ordered,
and his ships were ready. Other communications passed between the King
and Hamilton, the result being thus stated by Charles himself:――“I will
only say, that so long as this Covenant is in force, whether it be with
or without explanations, I have no more power in Scotland than as a
Duke of Venice, which I will rather die than suffer; yet I command the
giving ear to their explanations or anything to win time. Lastly, my
resolution is to come myself in person, accompanied like myself, sea
forces, nor Ireland, shall not be forgotten.”¹
¹ Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 52‒61.
Hamilton saw that he could do nothing to restore the confidence of
the nation, and resolved to return to London for fresh instructions.
Before leaving, he issued, in an amended form, the King’s proclamation,
which had now assumed something of an apologetic strain in defence of
the King’s action. It was published at the Cross of Edinburgh, on the
4th of July, and when the royal herald concluded, the representatives
of the Covenanters immediately began to read their protest. The
proclamation had no effect in appeasing the Covenanters. Touching this
royal proclamation, Baillie says: “It was heard by a world of people
with great indignation: we all do marvel that ever the Commissioner
could think to give satisfaction to any living soul by such a
declaration, which yet he often professed with confidence of that paper
before it was heard; there must be some mystery here which is not yet
open. This declaration cannot be the one which his grace brought with
him, that was thought certainly to contain a command of surrendering
our Covenant; but of our Confession is no syllable; yet this has
apparently been drawn up here very lately by the bishops and statesmen
who are trusted, with the consent as it seems of the Commissioner, for
the date of it is but six or seven days, at Greenwich, before it was
proclaimed at Edinburgh.”¹
¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 95‒106. _Letters and Journals_,
Volume I., page 91.
Before the Marquis departed, the leaders of the Covenanters intimated
to him, that if he did not return by the 5th of August with a
favourable answer to their demands, they would consider themselves
entitled to take whatever steps they thought fit. He left on the 6th of
July, and did not return till the 8th of August. During his absence the
Covenanting party were actively engaged in strengthening and completing
their organisation; and excepting Aberdeen, they had almost the entire
nation on their side. In the Northern and Western districts some of the
ministers were unwilling to subscribe the Covenant, but the influence
of the local nobles tended to overcome their scruples.¹
¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., page 277; Rothes’ _Relation_.
When Hamilton arrived at Court, after some deliberation the King, with
the advice of Laud, issued new instructions to his commissioner. On his
return to Scotland, he was empowered under limits to summon a General
Assembly and a Parliament; he was to endeavour to arrange that the
bishops should have votes in the Assembly, and if possible that one of
them should be moderator of the Assembly; he was to protest against the
abolition of bishops, but might permit them to be tried if accused of
definite crimes. He was further to insist that no laymen should have
votes in electing the ministers from the presbyteries to the General
Assembly. With the aim of counteracting the effects of the Covenant,
it was proposed that the King should sign the Confession of 1560, and
publish it with a bond to be subscribed by all his subjects, by which
they were to swear to maintain the Confession, and to defend the King’s
person, and the laws and liberties of the kingdom. But this movement to
withdraw the people from the national Covenant completely failed.¹
¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 111, 113‒117; Burnet’s _Memoirs of
the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 65‒68.
On Hamilton’s return to Scotland, he found that the demands of the
Covenanters had rather increased, and that they could not agree to the
limits which his instructions required. If they were to have a General
Assembly, the scope of its proceedings must be left, they said, to
the judgment of its members; while they had resolved that both elders
and ministers should have votes in the election of the members of
the Assembly. Further they declared that they would not consent to
be fettered beforehand――their Assembly must be free; and hinted to
the Royal Commissioner that it might be called by themselves without
waiting for the King’s authority. The Marquis thus finding that no
concessions could be obtained from the Covenanters, again proposed
to visit the court and consult with the King; and having promised to
return an answer by the 20th of September, he left for London.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 99‒101;
_Large Declaration_, pages 117‒122.
The King and Hamilton met at Oatlands, and on the 9th of September,
new instructions for the Royal Commissioner were signed. The weakness
of the King’s policy, and the utter folly of many of his proposals
touching the difficulties in Scotland, had become painfully manifest.
But to crown his folly, he now consented to sign the negative
Confession of 1581, which formed the first part of the Covenant, as
if this royal act, after what had already happened, would raise the
confidence of the people in their King. The Privy Council were ordered
to sign it themselves, and to command all his Majesty’s subjects to
follow the example of their King and at once subscribe it; for if they
must have a Covenant, it was his pleasure that they should accept this
one alone.¹
¹ Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 72‒75;
_Large Declaration_, pages 134‒135.
Hamilton arrived in Edinburgh on the 17th of September, and a meeting
of the Council was immediately held. The King’s proposals were placed
before the meeting, and the councillors agreed to subscribe the
negative Confession as required, and passed an act expressing their
satisfaction. They also resolved that the King’s concessions should
be proclaimed. Accordingly, it was announced at the Cross of Edinburgh
that a General Assembly was appointed to meet at Glasgow on the 21st
of November, 1638, and a Parliament at Edinburgh on the 15th of May,
the following year. All the people were commanded to follow the good
example of the King and his Council, by subscribing the negative
Confession and bond for the defence of religion and law. But this move
completely failed to entrap the Covenanters; and they protested as
usual against the proclamation. Thus, for a short time, there were
two Covenants in the field competing for popular support, the King’s
one and the Tables’ one; both were canvassed vigorously throughout
the kingdom, both sides reproaching each other with employing coercion
and discreditable means to procure signatures. While these covenanting
operations were proceeding, every town and every parish became
excessively excited, and people readily believed anything that seemed
to favour their own party. The King’s Covenant was signed by a majority
of the judges, by many in Angus, in Aberdeen, and by some in Glasgow.
It was reported that twenty-eight thousand in all had signed it,
of which twelve thousand were obtained through the influence of the
Marquis of Huntly; but it failed to secure anything approaching to the
amount of support accorded by the people to the National Covenant.¹
¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 137‒153, _et seq._; Baillie’s
_Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 103‒108; Burnet’s
_Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 79‒83.
The nation was now wistfully looking forward to the approaching General
Assembly, on which so great an issue depended. The leaders and the
committee of the Covenanters were actively and earnestly engaged in
preparing for the proper constitution of the Assembly. In the end of
August directions had been sent to the Presbyteries how to proceed;
and minute instructions were subsequently despatched to them touching
the mode of electing their representatives, along with a copy of the
Act of Assembly of 1597, concerning the number of members which each
Presbytery was entitled to send to the Assembly. They got a form
of commission, and in short, the committees of the Tables managed
the elections in such a way that the most ardent of the Presbyterian
ministers were returned as members, and the leading lay Covenanters
as ruling elders. Their organisation was so complete, and their energy
so effective, that the supporters of Episcopacy gave up the contest in
despair.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 469‒472;
_Large Declaration_.
But one serious difficulty yet remained, the trial of the bishops. As
the Covenanters had no legal power to cite the bishops to appear before
the Assembly, they requested Hamilton to grant a warrant for summoning
them, but he refused this on the ground that it was enough if he
refrained from placing any obstacle in the way of their being brought
to a fair trial. Indeed, the bishops’ declinature had already been
revised by the King, and was intended to be used, not merely as a
bar to their trial, but also as a pretext for dissolving the Assembly
itself. The Covenanters then asked the judges of the Court of Session
to grant a summons against the bishops, but they replied that such
causes were beyond their jurisdiction. The leaders of the Covenanters,
however, had determined not to be baffled for lack of legal forms
and precedents. A libel was framed and signed by a long list of
nobles, burgesses, and ministers, and brought before the Presbytery
of Edinburgh; and this body, after considering the matter, remitted it
to the coming Assembly.¹
¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 297‒300; Burnet’s
_Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, page 88; _Large
Declaration_, pages 209‒220.
This libel against the bishops consisted of two chief parts, the
one containing charges against them as a body, and the other special
charges against each of the bishops personally; the latter, however,
being only founded on common report, were never intended to be proved.
It is the first, or the historical part of the libel, which has any
real value, as the charges in it contained matters which could be
proved or disproved on historic grounds. Thus they were accused of
breaking the cautions agreed to in the General Assembly of 1600,
concerning ministers’ votes in Parliament and other points; of
violating several points of the Book of Discipline, and of the Book of
Fasting; of teaching doctrines contrary to the Reformation Confession
of Faith; of exacting unlawful oaths from entrants to the ministry;
of assuming the position of diocesan bishops, taking consecration
and claiming the power of ordination and jurisdiction in virtue of an
unwarrantable office; of introducing the Book of Canons, the Liturgy,
and the High Commission, and so causing great dissension between the
King and his subjects. This part of the indictment against the bishops
could easily be supported by a mass of unimpeachable evidence, but it
is needless to enter into its details. When the Covenanters made grave
charges against the personal character of the bishops, their action
cannot be so clearly justified.
The Covenanters had prepared for mustering in force, and as the day of
the meeting of the Assembly approached, men began to flock into Glasgow
from all quarters of the country. On the 16th of November, the western
nobles arrived with their vassals and friends; and the following day
the eastern nobles, gentry, and ministers entered the city. Hamilton,
as Royal Commissioner, accompanied by the Lords of the Privy Council,
arrived on the 17th; and the city of the west presented a scene of
unusual bustle. For the next three days, both parties were intently
engaged in strengthening themselves for the contest.¹
¹ Baillie says――“On Friday, the 16th of November, we in the
west, as we were desired, came into Glasgow.... We were
informed that the commissioner and his councillors were to
take up the town with a great number of their followers; so
that the nearest noblemen and gentlemen were desired to come
in that night well attended. The town did expect and provide
for huge multitudes of people, and put on their houses
and beds excessive prices.... On Saturday the most of the
Eastland noblemen, barons, and ministers came in. In the
afternoon, my Lord Commissioner, with most of the Council,
came in; my Lord Rothes, Montrose, and many of our folks
went to meet his grace: much good speech was among them;
we, protesting that we would crave nothing but what clear
scripture, reason, and law would evince; his grace answering,
nothing reasonable should be denied.”――_Letters and Journals_,
Volume I., page 121.
After much preliminary arrangement, the Assembly met on the 21st of
November, 1638, in the Cathedral Church. The members of the Assembly
consisted of one hundred and forty ministers, ninety-eight ruling
elders from presbyteries and burghs, and two professors not ministers.
Among the elders, there were seventeen nobles, nine knights,
twenty-five landed proprietors, and forty-seven burgesses, all men of
some local standing,――thus the total number of members was two hundred
and forty.¹ Burnet says――“There were about two hundred and sixty
commissioners; besides that, from every presbytery there were also
assessors, from some two, three, four, or more, who had no vote, but
only to give advice; so that in all they made a great number.”
¹ Peterkin’s _Records of the Church of Scotland_; _Memoirs of
the Dukes of Hamilton_, page 98.
The first day was occupied with religious services and matters of form.
The second day, the Covenanters insisted that the election of moderator
was the first thing to be done in order to constitute the Assembly, but
the Royal Commissioner and his party argued that a moderator should not
be chosen till the commissions of the members were examined, that it
might be known who were properly entitled to vote. When it appeared
that Hamilton would be defeated on this point, he proposed to read a
paper presented to him in the name of the bishops against the Assembly,
but the proposal was met with shouts of dissent. A stormy debate ensued,
followed by protests and counter-protests, which continued till every
one was wearied. After this, Henderson, minister of Leuchars, was
chosen moderator, and Johnston of Warriston appointed clerk. Johnston
was well versed in the law, a man of keen judgment, and an ardent
Covenanter. Several days were passed in examining the commissions of
the members, and other disputed points, while some sharp debating took
place, in which the Royal Commissioner had to encounter the leading
disputants of the Assembly.
On the 27th of November, the bishops’ declinature of the Assembly’s
authority was again urged by Hamilton, and this time it was read by the
Clerk of the Assembly, amidst jeers and laughter. Hamilton spoke and
argued on the weight and importance of the document, and some parts of
it were debated. The next day, the moderator put the question――Whether
the Assembly found itself a competent judge of the bishops? The Royal
Commissioner then rose and said: If the Assembly proceed to censure
the office of the bishops, he must immediately withdraw, as the King’s
sanction could not be given to this. He spoke earnestly touching
the admission of lay elders as members of the Assembly, to which he
strongly objected; referred to the irregular form in which the bishops
had been cited, and asserted that the Assembly had no right to act
as their judges. Speeches were delivered from the other side on the
freedom of the Assembly; to which the Commissioner replied, by arguing
that the election of the members had been controlled by the Tables,
that for months before the Assembly, the orders of the Committees of
the Tables had been obeyed by all; and, at last, in the King’s name
he declared the Assembly dissolved, and departed. But immediately a
protest was read that his absence should not prevent the Assembly from
proceeding with the work which it had undertaken. It was then put to
the vote, whether they should adhere to their protest, and continue
the Assembly, and it was agreed almost unanimously to continue it to
the end. The next important question was, whether the Assembly was
competent to judge the bishops, and this too was answered unanimously
in the affirmative, as also that it was proper to proceed with their
trial.
Thereafter the Assembly went on rapidly with its business. All the acts
of the Assemblies since 1605, including the five Articles of Perth,
were annulled. Acts were passed condemning the Book of Canons, the
Liturgy, the Book of Ordination, the High Commission, and Episcopacy.
The bishops themselves were tried and condemned, though none of them
were present in the Assembly. Probation of the libels against them was
referred to a committee; with the result that they were all deposed,
and eight of them excommunicated. The nation did not want bishops, and
that was deemed an all-sufficient reason for casting them out. They
had always allied themselves with the despotic tendencies and arbitrary
proceedings of the Crown; they were in reality the tools of the King:
they belonged to him, and not to the people; they were intended to be,
and had been, to the utmost of their power, the pliant ministers of the
royal will, not the servants of the nation, and hence the suddenness
and completeness of their fall.
As the Assembly had abolished Episcopacy, it naturally followed that
the Presbyterian polity should be restored, with its appropriate
organisation. Acts were passed concerning the visitation of colleges
and schools, and for planting schools in the country; acts forbidding
ministers to accept civil offices, for repressing popery and
superstition, and for the better observance of Sunday; acts for
dealing with those who spoke or wrote against the Covenant, prohibiting
the printing of books touching Church affairs without the warrant
of Archibald Johnston, Clerk to the Assembly and legal adviser of
the Church; and many other acts. Finally, on the 20th of December,
the Assembly agreed to address a letter to the King justifying their
proceedings and requesting his approval. The meeting then closed its
work by appointing the next General Assembly to meet at Edinburgh in
July 1639.¹
¹ Peterkin’s _Records of the Church of Scotland_; _Large
Declaration_, pages 234‒324; Baillie’s _Letters and
Journals_, Volume I., pages 123‒176; Balfour’s _Annals_,
Volume II., pages 301‒316.
Presbyterians have long looked back to the General Assembly of 1638,
as the date of their Second Reformation, though it cannot be compared
to the Revolution of 1560. Its proceedings were somewhat violent, like
all revolutionary movements which are the result of the preceding and
existing states of society――the outcome of its dominant thought and
sentiment and feeling. As explained in the second volume, the degree of
violence connected with a revolutionary change originated amongst the
people, depends upon the state of their civilisation at the time of its
occurrence.¹ In this instance, the amount of violence which ultimately
flowed from the hostile movement in Scotland against the King and his
government was not by any means entirely attributable to the Scots;
as England, Ireland, and even more distant lands participated in the
struggle.
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
II., pages 94‒95.
The firm establishment of Presbyterianism in Scotland was the end and
aim of the Covenanters, and the movement was watched with interest
by the adherents of a similar polity in England. Indeed, in the
circumstances of Europe at the time, the cause of the Scots appeared
to be the cause of Protestantism, which had so recently been everywhere
placed at a disadvantage by the defeat of Nordlingen. In 1637 the arms
of the Catholics had asserted their supremacy on the Rhine and in the
Netherlands; and the marked advance which Catholicism was once more
making roused the Protestant spirit to the utmost vigilance.
We are now arrived at the time when an intimacy sprang up and mutual
relations were formed between the Covenanters and a vigorous party
opposed to the policy of the King in England, both being prompted
by a common dislike to Episcopacy. The ruling motive in the policy
of Charles I., was to maintain and complete the Tudor principles
of government in Church and State in England, and to extend them
to Scotland. The Scots met him in an attitude of opposition as yet
unexampled in any other monarchy. He hoped, and had vainly tried, to
crush them by the strength of his influence in England. The results of
his action were that the movement spread to England itself.
The origin and cause of the Covenanting struggle having been indicated
at some length, it would be superfluous to burden this work with the
details of the civil war which ensued, save in so far as is requisite
for a proper understanding of the sequence of leading events.
After the conclusions of the Glasgow Assembly, civil war became
inevitable, and both parties actively prepared for it. The Covenanters
began to buy arms and to enlist men. At this time, fortunately for them,
the fury of the war on the Continent was abated; and many Scotchmen
who had been engaged in it, were returning home, where the signs of the
coming contest were already unmistakable. One of the most distinguished
of these military adventurers was General Alexander Leslie, who became
leader of the Covenanting armies. He was a man of comparatively humble
birth, but in the German wars he had attained to rank, and gained much
experience. He speedily organised a Scottish army, and equipped it
for the field. The Covenanters seized the Castles of Edinburgh and
Dumbarton, and other important posts, and made every preparation for
the approaching conflict.¹
¹ Spalding’s _Memorials of the Troubles_, Volume I., page 130;
Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 111,
195‒198.
The King had ordered his army to muster and meet him at York, in April,
1639; and though the English clergy naturally contributed largely to
the support of the army, still the war was unpopular. Charles proposed
to lead his army in person, and sent a fleet into the Firth of Forth,
under the command of the Marquis of Hamilton, to interrupt trade, to
threaten Leith, and to favour the rising in the north under the Marquis
of Huntly, who had received a royal commission of lieutenancy on the
16th of March.
Huntly mustered his followers, and on the 25th of March he was at
Inverurie with a force of five thousand men. When he received tidings
that the Covenanters were marching to the north under the command of
the Earl of Montrose, Huntly knew that without assistance from England,
he could not face the enemy. He called a council of war, and on its
advice, disbanded his troops, leaving Aberdeen open to the Covenanters.
A number of the leading citizens, accompanied by some of the Doctors,
fled from the city to offer their services to the King; while others
found refuge in houses in the vicinity of the town. Montrose marched
into Aberdeen on the 30th of March at the head of six thousand men; and
the Covenanters of the surrounding country joined him with other three
thousand men. Leaving a garrison in the city, he advanced on Inverurie,
where he quartered his troops on the opponents of the Covenant. Huntly,
seeing no hope of aid from the South, then sought an interview with
Montrose; and on the 5th of April a compromise was effected, by which
the Catholics, who were not to be pressed to sign the Covenant, agreed
to maintain the laws and liberties of Scotland. Huntly was permitted
to return to Strathbogie. A few days after, he was invited to Aberdeen,
under a safe conduct signed by Montrose and the other leaders, and
arrived there on the 12th of April. Montrose’s object was soon apparent.
He had entrapped Huntly, and made him a prisoner. The Marquis and his
eldest son, Lord Gordon, were immediately conveyed to Edinburgh. On
arriving at the capital, Huntly was pressed to take the Covenant, but
replied, “for my own part, I am in your power; and resolved not to
leave that foul title of traitor as an inheritance upon my posterity.
You may take my head from my shoulders, but not my heart from my
Sovereign.” Thus the King’s hope of a rising in his favour in the North
was blasted.
In fact, ere Charles arrived at York the whole of Scotland was in
the hands of the Covenanters. In the end of May, the Covenanting army
was encamped at Dunse Law, while Charles had advanced to Berwick, and
posted his force on the opposite side of the Tweed. The two armies thus
lay for some days watching each other, both seeming unwilling to strike.
The Covenanters knew their advantages, but if they could have induced
the King to grant their requests without battle, they would have been
glad. In the words of Baillie:――“We sought no crowns; we aimed not at
lands and honours; we desired but to keep our own in service of our
prince, as our ancestors had done; we loved no new masters. Had our
throne been vacant, and our votes sought for the filling of Fergus’s
chair, we would have died ere any other had sitten down on that fatal
marble but Charles alone.” He gives an interesting account of the
Scottish Covenanting army as it lay encamped. “It would have done
you good to have cast your eyes athort our brave and rich Hill, as I
oft did, with great pleasure and joy; for I was there among the rest,
being chosen preacher by the gentlemen of our shire, who came late
with my Lord Eglinton. I furnished to half-a-dozen good fellows muskets
and pikes, and to my boy a broadsword. I carried myself, according
to custom, a sword, and a couple of Dutch pistols at my saddle; but
I promise, for the offence of no man, except a robber by the way;
for it was our part to pray and preach for the encouragement of our
countrymen, which I did to the utmost of my power cheerfully. Our hill
was garnished on the top, towards the south and east, with our mounted
cannon, nearly to the number of forty, great and small. Our regiments
lay on the sides of the hill, almost round about: the place was not a
mile in circle, a pretty round rising in a declivity, without steepness,
to the height of a bowshot; and on the top somewhat plain; about a
quarter of a mile in length, and as much in breadth, and capable of
containing tents for forty thousand men.... Our captains, for the most
part, were barons or gentlemen of good note; our lieutenants almost
all soldiers who had served abroad in good charges; every company had,
flying at the captain’s tent-door, a brave new colour, stamped with the
Scottish arms, and this――‘For Christ’s Crown and Covenant,’ in golden
letters.... The councils of war were held daily, in the castle at the
foot of the hill; the ecclesiastical meetings in Rothes’ tent. The
general came nightly for the setting of the watch on their horses.
Our soldiers were lusty and full of courage; the most of them stout
young ploughmen; and a great cheerfulness in the face of all: the only
difficulty was to get money to pay them. None of our gentlemen were any
the worse of lying some weeks together in their cloak and boots on the
ground, or standing all night in arms in the greatest storm.
“Our soldiers grew in experience of arms, in courage, and in favour
daily; every one encouraged another; the sight of the nobles and their
beloved pastors daily raised their hearts; the good sermons and prayers,
morning and evening, under the roof of heaven, to which their drums
did call them for bells; the remonstrance very frequent of the goodness
of their cause, of their conduct hitherto, by a hand clearly divine;
and also Leslie, his skill and fortune, made them all as resolute for
battle as could be wished. We were afraid that emulation among the
nobles might have done harm, when they should be met in the fields; but
such was the wisdom and authority of that old, little, crooked soldier,
that all, with an incredible submission, from the beginning to the
end, gave over themselves to be guided by him, as if he had been Great
Solomon. Certainly the obedience of the nobles to that man’s orders was
as great as their forefathers’ wont to be to their king’s commands: yet
this was the man’s understanding of our Scots humours, that gave out,
not only to the nobles, but to the meanest gentleman, his directions
in a very homely and simple form, as if they had been but the advices
of their neighbour and companion; for, as he rightly observed, a
difference should be used in commanding soldiers of fortune and of
volunteers; and of the latter the greater part of our camp consisted.
“Had you lent your ear in the morning, or especially at even, and
heard in the tents the sound of some singing psalms, some praying, and
some reading scripture, you would have been refreshed. True, there was
swearing, and cursing, and brawling in some quarters, whereat we were
grieved; but we hoped, if our camp had been a little settled, to have
taken some way of dealing with these disorders.”¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., page 215.
_Letters_, Volume I., pages 211‒214, 245. Baillie himself
made his will before he joined the army.
Negotiations were shortly after opened, which led to the following
arrangement: the King published a declaration, stating that the
religious matters in dispute were to be referred to a General Assembly
to be held at Edinburgh on the 6th of August, 1639, and to a Parliament
to meet on the 20th of the same month. The King promised to recall
his fleet and disband his army; the Covenanters were to disband their
forces within forty-eight hours, to restore the castles to the Crown,
and to hold no public meetings except those authorised by the law. This
treaty was accompanied with explanations which afterwards caused much
dispute. Peace was proclaimed in the English and in the Scottish camps,
on the 18th of June; but mutual confidence between the King and the
Scots was not fully restored.¹
¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 324‒332; Baillie’s
_Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 218‒221; Rushworth,
III., 944.
The General Assembly met at Edinburgh, on the 12th of August, 1639,
and the Earl of Traquair attended as Royal Commissioner. The Assembly
again condemned Episcopacy in clear and emphatic terms, and the King’s
Commissioner concurred. The Covenanters now felt themselves strong, and
the proceedings of the committees appointed by the Glasgow Assembly,
touching the deposition of ministers, were approved, with a statement
that those deposed merely for signing the bishops’ declinature, or
receiving the Liturgy, might be restored on their repentance and
submission. The Assembly renewed the Covenant, and requested the
Commissioner and the Privy Council to pass an act commanding every one
in the nation to subscribe it. The Council agreed to this, and passed
the desired enactment. Thus the Covenant was becoming an instrument of
intolerance. On the 30th of August, the last day of the Assembly, the
members presented a petition to the Royal Commissioner against a book
entitled “Large Declaration Concerning the Late Tumults in Scotland,”
lately published in the King’s name. They requested the King to recall
this book, and to grant authority to summon and bring to Scotland all
Scotsmen, who were known or suspected to have been concerned in its
composition, especially Walter Balcanqual. The Commissioner promised
to place the petition before the King, and to report the result.¹ The
Assembly appointed its next meeting to be held at Aberdeen, in July
1640.
¹ Peterkin’s _Records_. The book which gave so much offence
to the Assembly is the one often referred to in the notes
of the preceding pages of this volume――_Large Declaration_:
it is well known to all students of Scottish history, and it
contains valuable historical papers and documents about the
troubles in Scotland; though, of course, it presented many
remarks and reflections which were extremely offensive to the
Covenanters.
Parliament met on the day after the Assembly rose, but it accomplished
very little. Bills concerning the abolition of Episcopacy passed the
Lords of the Articles, but they were not brought up for the sanction
of the House. Time passed, and messages went between the Royal
Commissioner and the King. Charles’s fatal policy of always insisting
on retaining something, which he imagined might be of use to him in the
future, led him to maintain the position, that he would not consent to
any act of Parliament rescinding the existing laws by which Episcopacy
had been established. This frustrated the object for which Parliament
had met. At length Parliament was prorogued to the 14th of November,
and then till the 2nd of June, 1640, nothing having been settled.
The Covenanters rightly thought that the King was trifling with the
important matters in dispute, and thus the causes of dissension were
continued and intensified.
Charles again resolved to chastise the rebellious Scots. He still
desired to act as a despotic King, and hoped to extinguish all
opposition in Scotland. He summoned his English Parliament, which met
in April, 1640. A majority of this Parliament refused to grant supplies
till they had obtained redress of their grievances; but rather than
submit, the King dissolved Parliament in anger, after a session of
three weeks. Charles now decided to raise money and an army by other
modes――such as benevolences, forced loans, commission of array, or in
any other way by which he could muster a force to fight against the
Scots. But difficulties were fast thickening around him, and when the
2nd of June came, he again sent a Commissioner to prorogue the Scottish
Parliament. In carrying this out, however, a formal mistake was made,
which the Estates instantly seized upon; and accordingly they proceeded
to business. They enacted that henceforward the nobles, the barons, and
the burgesses should be considered as constituting the three Estates of
the kingdom, and all former acts permitting churchmen to sit and vote
in Parliament were repealed. The Acts of the last General Assembly were
ratified; and it was commanded that all His Majesty’s subjects should
sign the Covenant. It was also enacted that a Parliament should meet
every three years; and before separating they appointed a permanent
committee of the Estates, to act when Parliament was not sitting.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., pages
288‒292, 299‒303. This parliament condemned the King’s _Large
Declaration_, “as full of untruths and lies, derogatory to
his Majesty’s honour and to his loyal subjects,” and they
ordered the authors of it to be punished, according to the
laws of the kingdom. Page 302.
The General Assembly met at Aberdeen in the end of July, 1640; but
no commissioner appeared to represent the King. The Aberdeen doctors
and several other northern ministers were tried before the Assembly,
and some of them deposed from the ministry. Acts were passed against
the revilers of the Covenant; against witches and charmers; and for
abolishing the monuments of idolatry. The Assembly had also under
consideration the practice of private meetings, but there was a
difference of opinion on this point among the members. Ultimately an
act was passed for the regulation of family worship, by which private
meetings, if held at improper hours, or composed of more than one
family, were forbidden.¹
¹ Peterkin’s _Records_; Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_,
Volume I., pages 248‒255.
But the Covenanters did not trust merely to the acts of the Assembly
and of Parliament to secure their rights and further their ends.
Throughout the spring and summer they had been actively engaged in
organising their army; and had even sought to strengthen themselves
by soliciting the assistance of France. In the north war was already
declared against all the enemies of the Covenant. The Scots sent two
manifestoes into the North of England, one a broadside for popular
distribution, and the other in the form of a small pamphlet, in
which they protested that the matter should be brought to an issue;
as they could not afford to continue in arms for an indefinite
period. Therefore, they were coming to England to ask redress of
their grievances from the King; although they could scarcely hope for
redress from him, but rather from a Parliament. Copies of the Scottish
manifesto were freely circulated in London on the 12th of August;
and Charles at a Council held on the 16th of August, announced his
intention to proceed in person to York, and to assume the command of
his disorganised army. On the 20th the King began his march from London
to York, which he reached on the 23rd. His army consisted of about
twenty-two thousand foot and three thousand cavalry, but they were
neither well disciplined nor well led. On the 21st of August a Scottish
army of twenty-five thousand men under the command of General Leslie,
advanced southward, and crossed the Tweed at Coldstream. As soon as
they entered English territory, a manifesto was issued explaining the
object of the expedition and justifying it. The Scots advanced and
forced the passage of the Tyne, defeating the royal troops; and on
the 30th they took Newcastle and occupied it. They next advanced on
Durham, and occupied the line of the Tees. On the 4th of September
the Scots petitioned the King to listen to their grievances, and with
the concurrence of the English Parliament to arrange a lasting peace.
Charles ordered Hamilton, the Secretary for Scotland, to intimate
to the Scots that the King had summoned the Peers to meet at York on
the 24th of September; and if they would then express their demands
more definitely, he would give them a fitting answer; and meantime he
desired them not to advance farther. In reply the Scots restated their
demands thus;――that his Majesty would be pleased to ratify the acts of
the last Parliament; that the Castle of Edinburgh, and other fortresses,
should be occupied only for the security and defence of the country;
that Scotsmen in England and Ireland should not be molested for having
signed the Covenant; that the incendiaries, who had caused the troubles,
should be brought to trial; that the expense incurred by the war,
should be refunded, with the advice and concurrence of the English
Parliament.
About this time, a number of the English nobles also petitioned
the King to summon a Parliament. His difficulties daily increasing
he offered to negotiate with the Scots, and summoned the English
Parliament to meet at Westminster, on the 3rd of November, 1640. This
assemblage was afterwards known as the Long Parliament. Within a few
weeks after it met, Stafford was impeached.
The Commissioners appointed by the King and by the Covenanters met at
Ripon on the 2nd of October, 1640, and agreed that the Scottish army
should remain inactive at Newcastle; for this they were to receive
eight hundred and fifty pounds a-day. Thus matters remained for some
time, till the place of negotiation was transferred to London. After
the 26th of October, the Scottish commissioners and the ministers who
accompanied them, took an active interest in the policy of the English
Parliamentary party. After long and very difficult treating, terms
of peace were agreed upon, and ratified on the 10th of August, 1641.
The main points of the agreement were that the acts of the Parliament
of 1640 should be ratified; that the Castle of Edinburgh and other
fortresses should be restored and used for the defence of the kingdom,
with the advice of Parliament; that the King should not appoint men to
office who had been declared disqualified by Parliament. “And whereas
unity in religion and uniformity in Church government has been desired
by the Scots, as a special means of preserving peace between the two
kingdoms, his Majesty, with the advice of both Houses of Parliament,
does approve of the affection of his subjects of Scotland, in their
desire of having conformity of Church government between the two
nations; and as the Parliament has already taken into consideration the
reformation of Church government, so they proceed therein in due time
as shall best conduce to the glory of God, the peace of the Church,
and the good of both kingdoms.”¹ The Scots desired the abolition of
Episcopacy in England, and their Commissioners argued for a union in
religion between the two Kingdoms. On the 17th of May 1641, this matter
was debated in the House of Commons, and a resolution in favour of
conformity in Church government was carried. Yet, the House of Commons,
though willing to overthrow Episcopacy, had no enthusiasm for Scottish
Presbyterianism. At this time, the King wished to please the Scots,
and make them contented, and thereby to separate their cause from that
of the English. To promote this end, he resolved to visit Scotland.
Accordingly he arrived in Edinburgh on the 14th of August, 1641.
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., page 263; _Acts
of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., page 341 _et
seq._, pages 371‒382.
The Estates had been sitting in Edinburgh since the middle of July;
and the King attended a meeting of the House on the 18th of August,
and delivered a speech. He spoke of the differences which had arisen
between him and his subjects, and of his anxiety to settle them; of
his love to his native country, which had caused him to face and to
overcome many difficulties in order to be there at that time. He
referred to the royal power which had descended to him through one
hundred and eight descents, and which they had so often professed to
maintain. In short, he said, “the end of my coming is to perfect all
that I have promised; and withal to quiet those distractions which
have, and may fall out amongst you; and this I am resolved fully and
cheerfully to do; for I can do nothing with more cheerfulness than to
give my people content and a general satisfaction.”¹
¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume III., pages 40‒41; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., page 362 _et seq._
Parliament sat long, and occupied itself with many things. It passed
three hundred and nine acts, which touched upon many points of a
personal and social character, as well as political and religious
matters. It enacted that no one should sit in Parliament till he gave
in his adherence to the Covenant. The acts of the Parliament of June
1640, were ratified, and received the royal assent; the prerogatives
of the Crown were diminished; and in several points, the constitution
of Parliament itself was changed. The King seems to have thought that
he would be able to manage the English, if he could only pacify the
Scots. He left Edinburgh for England on the 18th of November. But the
breach between him and his English subjects was daily widening. His
interference with the freedom of the members of Parliament aroused
intense excitement, and he found the city of London an unsafe place for
him. Accordingly he removed his court thence to York in the spring of
1642.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., pages
338‒660.
The Covenanters might now have been satisfied, as they had obtained
all that they demanded; but other views and aims had entered into
their minds, and they desired to give their principles a wider range of
application, therefore when the opportunity for this presented itself,
it was natural for them to embrace it. While England was entering on
the struggle of civil war――the Parliamentary party and the King’s party
each preparing for the contest――it was impossible for the Scots to
remain passive observers of the momentous conflict.¹
¹ Carlyle, in his _Letters and Speeches of Cromwell_, gives
a vivid sketch of the proceedings of the King at this time.
“January 10, 1642, the King and his court quit Whitehall, the
five members and parliament proposing to return to-morrow,
with the whole city in arms round them. He left Whitehall;
never saw it again till he came to lay down his head there.
“On the 9th of March, 1642, he is at York, where his Hull
Magazine, gathered for service against the Scots, is lying
near; where a great Earl of Newcastle and other northern
potentates will help him; where at least London and its
parliament, now grown so fierce, is far off.
“There we will leave him, attending Hull Magazine in vain;
exchanging messages with his parliament, messages, missives,
printed and written papers without limit. Law-pleadings of
both parties before the great tribunal of the English nation,
each party striving to prove itself right, and within the
verge of Law; preserved still in acres of typography, once
thrilling alive in every fibre of them; now a mere torpor,
readable by few creatures, not rememberable by any. It is
too clear his Majesty will have to get himself an army,
by commissions of array, by subscriptions of loyal plate,
pawning of crown jewels, or how he can. The parliament by
all methods is endeavouring to do the like. London subscribed
horses and plate, every kind of plate, even to women’s
thimbles, to an unheard of amount; and when it came to
actual enlisting, in London alone there were four thousand
enlisted in one day. The reader may meditate that one fact.
Royal messages, parliamentary messages, acres of typography
thrilling alive in every fibre of them――these go on slowly
abating, and military preparations go on steadily increasing
till the 23rd of October next. The King’s commissions of
array for Leicestershire came out on the 12th of June,
commissions for other counties followed at convenient
intervals; the parliament’s ordinance for the militia, rising
cautiously pulse after pulse towards clear emergence, had
attained completion the week before. The question puts itself
to every English soul, which of these will you obey?――and
in all questions of English ground, with swords getting
out of their scabbards, and yet the constable’s baton still
struggling to rule supreme, there is a most confused solution
of it going on.”――Volume I., pages 163‒164.
The General Assembly met at St. Andrews on the 27th of July, 1642, the
Earl of Dunfermline presenting himself as royal Commissioner. Another
power requested the friendship of the Assembly, the English Parliament
having addressed a message to it, touching their quarrel with the King.
Success had rapidly enlarged the scheme of the Scotch Presbyterians;
as flattering opportunities appeared to be opening before their view,
they began to assume an aggressive attitude, and to entertain hopes
of establishing their polity throughout England. A powerful party
in England was intently bent on overthrowing Episcopacy, and the
Parliamentary leaders easily secured the assistance of the Covenanters.
In the Assembly’s answer to the English Parliament, the question was
stated at length; by a union of the Churches of the two kingdoms, they
might hope for a time when war and heresy should cease in the Island,
and truth and peace reign supreme. The Assembly appointed a large
committee, including a number of the nobles and the most distinguished
ministers, with power to forward the work which the Church had
undertaken, to consult with the King, and with the Parliament, and if
necessary, to prepare a confession, a catechism, a directory, and a
form of polity. This commission was renewed in subsequent Assemblies.
At the same time, the Assembly despatched an address to the King,
professing their loyalty, but urging unity in religion, and uniformity
in Church government.¹
¹ Peterkin’s _Records_; _Baillie’s Letters and Journals_,
Volume II., pages 50‒55.
The letters of the Assembly were quickly answered, both by the King and
by the Parliamentary party. The latter announced the agreement of their
views with those of the Scots. They desired to see unity of religion
throughout his Majesty’s dominions; they stated that Episcopacy was
wrong in itself, and ought to be abolished; they intimated their
intention of calling an Assembly of learned divines to deliberate
on the subject, and invited some of the Scottish ministers to London
to assist at this Assembly on the 5th of November, 1642. This was
exceedingly satisfactory to the Covenanters. Shortly after, the English
Parliament passed an act abolishing Episcopacy; but, when Parliament
overthrew one form of Church polity, it did not establish another
in England¹――a result which the Covenanters failed to foresee. Their
sympathies went with the Puritans and the Parliamentary party; but,
knowing as they did the feeling of the King, they naturally distrusted
him. Thus they became closely associated with the leaders of the Long
Parliament. There was still, however, a small party in Scotland who
remained loyal to the King.
¹ Peterkin’s _Records_; Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_,
Volume II., page 55.
The swell of feeling among the Scots, joined with their deepest
religious sentiments and convictions, rose higher and higher; and it
was resolved to hold a convention of the Estates. The King at first
refused his consent; but the Estates met at Edinburgh on the 22nd of
June, 1643, and Charles then agreed to sanction it, if it would keep
within prescribed limits. The convention, however, declared itself free
to do anything which it thought fit. This meeting was attended by a
larger number of members than usually assembled in a Scotch Parliament;
and the people were prepared for it by a solemn fast. A remonstrance
was read from the Commission of the General Assembly, stating the
dangers to which religion and the kingdom were exposed, and urging that
the nation should put itself in a position of defence, and that they
should look upon the cause of their brethren in England as their own,
and assist the English Parliament. This proposal was well received;
but the King’s party attempted to advance his interest. There followed
a hot and long debate on the question, as to whether the Scots should
actively intermeddle in the affairs of England.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume II., pages 75‒80.
This minister says――“At the day, June 22nd, was a most
frequent meeting of Estates, never a parliament so great; all
the barons and burghs were for the Commonweal”――that is, for
assisting the English parliament. _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume VI., pages 3‒4, 6, 8, 9, 13‒15, 24, 36‒38,
_et seq._
The General Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 2nd of August, 1643, and
Sir Thomas Hope, the Lord-Advocate, appeared as the royal Commissioner.
On the opening day the members of the Assembly prepared themselves for
their task by fasting. On the 7th of August, four Commissioners from
the Long Parliament, one of whom was Sir Henry Vane, landed at Leith,
and a few days after they were introduced to the Assembly. They stated
in the Assembly that they warmly appreciated the energy of the Scottish
Church in extinguishing popery; that they were anxious to have this
reform completed among themselves; that they had already removed
the High Commission, expelled the bishops from the House of Lords,
abolished Episcopacy, and summoned an Assembly of divines, which had
now met at Westminster. They therefore earnestly entreated the Scots to
assist their brethren in England, then so hardly pressed by the King’s
forces, and exposed to the utmost peril. The proposals of the English
were much discussed in committee; but there were differences of opinion
in the Assembly. Some of the members thought that they should mediate
between the King and the parliament, without committing themselves;
but the opposite arguments of Johnston of Warriston and others at last
prevailed, and they agreed to cast in their lot with the leaders of
the Long Parliament. More debate took place concerning the tenor of
the agreement. The English commissioners proposed that a civil league
between the two nations should be formed, but the Scots would listen
to nothing save a religious covenant. The English then suggested that
toleration should be given to the Independents, as far as England
was concerned; but the Assembly would not agree to tolerate anything,
except presbyterianism in both kingdoms. After a long debate, the
document known as the “Solemn League and Covenant” was laid before
the Assembly, and unanimously accepted. The Estates also sanctioned
it in August, 1643. All the parties to this Covenant bound themselves
to preserve the reformed religion in Scotland, and to labour for the
reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and of Ireland, in
doctrine, in worship, in discipline, and in polity, according to the
word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches; to struggle
to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the closest
uniformity in religion, faith, polity, and form of worship; and without
respect of persons, to endeavour to extinguish popery, episcopacy,
heresy, schism, profaneness, and everything opposed to sound doctrine
and the power of godliness; and with equal constancy to endeavour to
preserve the rights and privileges of the parliaments and the liberties
of the kingdoms, and to preserve and defend the King’s person and
authority, that it may be manifest to the world that they had no
intention of diminishing his Majesty’s just power and greatness. With
the same faithfulness they promised to pursue and bring to condign
punishment all incendiaries and malignants who hindered the reformation
of religion, divided the King from his people, or one of the kingdoms
from the other, or formed factions among the people to defeat the ends
of this League and Covenant.¹
¹ Peterkin’s _Records_; Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_,
Volume II., pages 88‒90, 95; _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume VI., pages 41‒43.
The Solemn League and Covenant was carried to London, the 22nd
of September, 1643, being appointed for signing it. On that day
the members of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the
Westminster Assembly of divines signed the League and Covenant; and
it was afterwards subscribed by many in every county of England. “The
House of Commons and the Assembly of divines take the Covenant, the
old Scotch Covenant, slightly modified now into a Solemn League and
Covenant, in St. Margaret’s Church, Westminster. They lifted up their
hands _seriatim_, and then stept into the chancel to sign. Oliver
Cromwell signs, and next after him young Sir Henry Vane. There signed
in all about 220 honourable members that day. The whole parliamentary
party, down to the lowest constable or drummer in their pay, generally
signed. It was the condition of assistance from the Scots, who were
now calling out all fencible men from sixteen to sixty, for a third
expedition into England. A very solemn covenant, a vow of all the
people, of the awfulness of which we in these days of Custom-house
oaths, loose regardless talk, cannot form the smallest notion. Duke
Hamilton, seeing his painful Scotch diplomacy end all in this way,
flies to the King at Oxford,――is there put under arrest, sent to
Pendennis Castle near the Land’s End.” The immediate result of this
League was that a Scottish army of twenty thousand men crossed the
Tweed, to assist the Parliamentary army, and to seek conformity of
religion amid the scenes of civil war.¹
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume II., pages 99, 102;
Carlyle’s _Letters and Speeches of Cromwell_, Volume I., page
189.
The theocratic ideas which I noticed in the second volume, had now
attained their greatest influence; the government of Scotland had
become a sort of theocracy. The power of the King was gone; the power
of the Estates was partly in abeyance; the General Assembly being the
ruling body. The ministers and elders constantly asserted that they
derived their authority from Jesus, the King and the Head of His Church.
Every act assumed a religious character; the war was religious, which
was proved by the fact that in the Old Testament the wars of God’s
people were called the wars of the Lord; and the hand of the Lord of
Hosts was on the side of the Covenanters. These ideas were associated
with the old Jewish exclusiveness and intolerance; and the Covenanters
were apt to regard themselves as the chosen people, and their own
Church as the only true one: to be a good Christian, it was necessary
to be a Covenanter. Romanism and Episcopacy were equally hateful to
them; and being firm and settled in their own convictions and opinions,
they gave no countenance to toleration.¹
¹ Peterkin’s _Records_; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_,
Volume VI., pages 66‒68, 70, _et seq._
Seven Scotsmen attended the Assembly of divines at Westminster as
Commissioners from the Church of Scotland, viz.:――Henderson, Baillie,
Rutherford, and Gillespie, ministers; and Lord Maitland, Johnston
of Warriston, and Lord Cassillis. It has to be observed, that the
Assembly of divines, as constituted by the English Parliament, had
no authority in Scotland. The Scotch Commissioners declined to sit in
the Assembly as voting members; they preferred to take the position
of representatives of the Church of Scotland, and in London there was
a committee from the Scotch Estates to instruct and support them. As
representing Scotland, they might propose any point to the Assembly;
but their nation could not be compromised by the conclusions of the
Assembly. During their attendance at the Assembly, the Scots acted with
vigour and wisdom.
Baillie’s account of their introduction to the Assembly, and of their
proceedings in it, is interesting. “On Monday morning, the 20th of
December, 1643, we sent to both Houses of Parliament for a warrant
for our sitting in the Assembly. This was readily granted, and by Mr.
Henderson presented to the Prolocutor, who sent out three of their
ministers to convey us to the Assembly. Here no mortal man may enter
to see or hear, let be to sit, without a written order from both Houses
of Parliament. When we were brought in, Dr. Twisse made a long harangue
for our welcome, after so long and hazardous a voyage by sea and land
in so unseasonable a time of the year. When he ended, we sat down in
those places which we have since kept.... We sit commonly from nine in
the morning to one or two in the afternoon.... Ordinarily there were
present about three score of the divines. These are divided into three
committees; in one whereof every man is a member. No man is excluded
who pleases to come to any of the three. Every committee, as the
Parliament gives order in write to take any purpose into consideration,
takes a portion, and in the afternoon meeting prepares matters for the
Assembly, sets down their minds in distinct propositions, and backs
their propositions with texts of Scripture.... No man is called upon
to speak, but who stands up of his own accord, and speaks as long as
he pleases without interruption.... They follow the forms of their
Parliament.
“When our commissioners came up, they were desired to sit as members
of the Assembly; but they wisely declined to do so, since they came
up as Commissioners for our National Church to treat for uniformity,
they required to be dealt with in that capacity. They were willing as
private men to sit in the Assembly, and upon occasion to give their
advice on debated points; but, for the uniformity, they required that
a committee might be appointed from the Parliament and the Assembly
to treat with them on this subject. All this, after some sharp enough
debates, was granted.” In regard to the office of ruling elders――laymen,
“many a very brave dispute have we had upon them these ten days. I
marvel at the great learning, quickness, and eloquence, together with
the great courtesy and discretion in speaking, of these divines....
This is a point of high consequence, and upon no other we expect so
great difficulty, except alone on Independency; wherewith we purpose
not to meddle in haste till it please God to advance our army, which
we expect will much assist our arguments.
“It was my advice, which Mr. Henderson presently applauded and gave me
thanks for it――to eschew a public rupture with the Independents till
we were more able for them. As yet a presbytery to these people is
conceived to be a strange monster. It was for our good therefore, to
go on hand and hand so far as we did agree against the common enemy,
hoping that in our differences, when we behoved to come to them, God
would give us light. In the meantime we would essay to agree upon the
Directory of Worship, wherein we expected no small help from these men
to abolish the great idol of England――the Service book――and to erect
in all the parts of worship a full conformity to Scotland in all things
worthy to be spoken of.”¹
¹ _Letters and Journals_, Volume II., pages 107‒110, 111, 117.
The great difficulty was Church government. The Assembly of divines
proposed the presbyterian scheme; but the Long Parliament adopted
it only on the condition of its subordination to Parliament. The
Independents though few in number were powerful in Parliament; owing
to their strength of will, their intellect, and their energy of
character, they wielded much influence both in the army and in the
senate. The politicians of the Long Parliament, though they had
abolished Episcopacy, were unwilling to give independent power to
any form of Church organisation. The Scots Covenanters then began to
see that there was little hope of establishing their polity over the
British dominions. When the Westminster Assembly closed in 1648 its
great scheme of Church government practically ended with it.
This Assembly was constituted by an ordinance of the Long Parliament,
on the 12th of June, 1643; Parliament named the members, and when
difficulties and disputes arose, they were to be referred to Parliament.
The Assembly sat long, and executed much laborious work; the general
drift of which, when completed, was decidedly Calvinistic. They framed
“A Form of Church Government,” “A Directory for Public Worship,” “A
Confession of Faith,” and two Catechisms. The Directory was brought to
Scotland by Baillie and Gillespie, and the General Assembly, in 1645,
sanctioned it, enjoining it to be observed by all the ministers of the
kingdom. The Westminster Confession of Faith was adopted by the General
Assembly in 1647, and in the following year the Assembly sanctioned
the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. The Scotch Parliament ratified this
Confession and the acts of the General Assembly.¹
¹ _Abridgements of the Acts of the General Assembly_, 138,
345; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., page
364, in the year 1649. No mention is made in the Act of the
Assembly “of the old Confession of 1560. It may be supposed
that the Assembly held both their old Confession and their
new to be true, and therefore consistent with each other; but
this is not stated. Whether in any sense they held the old
Confession to be still binding is a more difficult matter.
As the new one is to be a Confession for the three kingdoms,
it may be argued that the old Scottish Confession might
still continue as a municipal or domestic authority; but
as the change is founded on the obligation to uniformity
in religion, the presumption seems rather in favour of the
exclusive authority of the new Creed.”――Innes’ _Law of Creeds
in Scotland_, page 63.
But it should be mentioned that this Confession and the Catechisms were
not sent into Scotland for observance by any command of the Assembly
of divines, or by any authority in England; the Church of Scotland
examined and approved them of her own accord. The body of doctrine
contained in this Confession, and abridged in the Longer and the
Shorter Catechisms, has long been the Creed of the Church of Scotland;
and has largely influenced the opinions and the character of the
people.
While the Covenanters’ army was in England assisting the English
Parliamentary party, the government of Scotland was managed by a
committee of the Estates and the commission of the General Assembly.
Some of the nobles and others formed a Royalist party. The Earl of
Montrose who had been for some years an ardent Covenanter, now turned
round to the King’s side; and was commissioned by his Majesty to raise
the royal standard in Perthshire, in August, 1644. He was soon at the
head of three thousand men, many of whom were Irish Roman Catholics.
His short career and exploits have often been detailed at length, and
can only be concisely handled here; besides, his temporary victories
over undisciplined bodies of men merely added to the suffering of the
war, and had little influence on the main stream of history.
Montrose’s force consisted of one thousand five hundred men, Irish and
Scots, who sailed from Ireland under Alaster Macdonald, and landed in
Ardnamurchan early in July 1644, and a number of Highlanders who rose
at the call of Montrose to fight for the King. Montrose concentrated
his men at Blair Athole. There were three bodies of armed men in the
field against him. Argyle was advancing from the west, another army
was stationed at Aberdeen, and a third, under Lord Elcho, consisting
of the men of Fife and the lower parts of Perthshire, to keep him in
check if he attempted to advance along the valley of the Tay. Lord
Elcho had about six thousand men, including seven hundred horse and
some artillery, and they were drawn up in the valley three miles west
of Perth to oppose the advance of Montrose. They were accompanied by
Covenanting preachers, who endeavoured to stir up their enthusiasm.
Montrose had three thousand men, and he knew well how to use them to
the best advantage. He drew up his men three deep and extended his
line to the utmost, and presented a front as long as the enemy’s. On
the afternoon of September 1st, 1644, he attacked the Covenanters under
Lord Elcho, and the first onset of the Highlanders threw them into
confusion, and in an instant Elcho’s army was routed and flying in all
directions. Two thousand of the Covenanters were slain in the pursuit.
In the evening Montrose was master of Perth.
On the 4th, Montrose commenced his march for Aberdeen. In his progress
northward, the Earl of Airlie and some of the gentry of Angus joined
his standard, and added to his force a small party of horsemen. The
Marquis of Huntly could not make up his mind to follow Montrose, while
two of his sons, Lord Gordon, the eldest, and Lord Lewis, the youngest,
were in the Covenanting army through the influence of their mother’s
brother――Argyle. The Covenanting force of two thousand foot and five
hundred horse were posted on the side of a height in advance of the
city. On the morning of the 13th of September, Montrose reached the
vicinity of Aberdeen, on the west side of the town. He summoned the
magistrates to surrender the town, but they declined. He then prepared
for battle, and placed his horse on the wings of his line. Montrose
began the attack, and after a severe engagement, the Covenanters were
completely defeated and fled in confusion. Montrose’s army entered the
town, massacred the unarmed citizens on the streets, and sacked the
city. This proceeding greatly heightened the hatred of the Lowland
people against Montrose.
He appealed to the Gordons for assistance, but they refused to move,
and he was forced to betake himself to the hills as Argyle was in
pursuit of him. Montrose marched westward to Rothiemurchus, and there
buried the cannon which he had taken at Aberdeen, and thence he winded
his way back to Blair Athole. But Argyle was advancing behind him, so
Montrose moved eastward, and then turned westward, crossed the Dee and
Don, and took up a position at Fyvie Castle. Argyle thought that he
had at last an opportunity of crushing his enemy. The Castle was then
surrounded on the north, the west, and the south by bogs, through which
only a narrow strip of ground allowed approach to an enemy; so Argyle
made his attack on the eastern side, where there were no obstacles.
Montrose posted his men on a hilly ridge, and when Argyle’s men
advanced to the attack, they were warmly received, and after a severe
contest were driven back. This gave Montrose an opportunity of retiring,
Argyle following him to Blair Athole, and back again from west to east,
but he failed to overtake his foe. Argyle then returned to Edinburgh
and delivered up his commission to the Committee of Estates.
The Macdonalds and other clansmen advised Montrose to make a raid into
the territories of Argyle, and plunder his valleys round Inveraray. On
the 13th of December, 1644, Montrose entered the district of Argyle and
proceeded to waste it. Cattle and sheep were destroyed, and homesteads
burnt to the ground; no quarter was given, and every man of the name
of Campbell who fell into their hands was ruthlessly slain. Leaving a
desert behind him, he marched slowly through the valley of the great
lakes. When he reached Loch Ness he ascertained that his progress
was barred by the Earl of Seaforth, at the head of five thousand men,
mustered from the northern counties. Montrose had Seaforth’s army
before him, while Argyle had summoned two Lowland regiments to his
assistance, and with these and the remnant of his own clansmen who had
escaped, he took up his position with three thousand men at Inverlochy.
Thus it appeared that Montrose was at last caught in a trap――an army
in front of him and another in his rear. He had only about one thousand
five hundred men around him, yet he at once resolved to attack Argyle.
In order to prevent the Campbells from retreating, he turned to the
left, and advanced through the rugged pass of Corryarrick. On the night
of the 1st of February, 1645, by the bright light of the moon, Montrose
saw the Campbells in front of him, between the mountain and the shore.
On the morning of the 2nd February, Argyle had no alternative but
fight, as his enemy was too near for retreat. Argyle had dislocated his
shoulder by a fall from his horse, and he was easily persuaded to take
refuge in a vessel lying in the loch, while he gave the command of his
army to Sir Duncan Campbell of Auchinbreck, an experienced soldier.
Montrose had a small company of horsemen, and at the moment when he
began the attack, he ordered the trumpeter to sound the cavalry charge,
which carried dismay into the enemy’s ranks. He then led his whole
force against Argyle’s centre. For a short time the Campbells fought
bravely; but at last they wavered, broke, and fled in utter confusion.
To the Lowland men quarter was given, but to the Campbells no quarter,
and about one thousand five hundred of them were slain under the eyes
of Argyle. For some time the Campbells ceased to be a power in the
western Highlands. Montrose was greatly elated by the victory, and
imagined that he would soon subdue the whole kingdom.
Shortly after the battle, Montrose marched in pursuit of Seaforth, who
had blocked his way at the north-eastern end of the lakes, but Seaforth
fled. Montrose marched round, and when he reached Elgin Lord Gordon and
Lewis Gordon, Huntly’s sons, joined him, and their followers supplied
him with a small body of cavalry. Seaforth and Sir James Grant joined
Montrose at Elgin, and thus saved their estates from plunder: but the
lands and farmhouses of the Covenanters from Inverness to Kintore were
ruthlessly plundered and destroyed. On the 11th of February the Scotch
Parliament declared Montrose and his chief supporters to be guilty of
treason. He then marched southward, and when he reached Forfarshire,
he found his advance checked by Baillie and Hurry. Much time was spent
in manœuvring. At last Baillie marched away and entered Fife. Instead
of following him Montrose proceeded to Dunkeld, where his army rapidly
melted away, many of the Highlanders returning home. In a short time
he was left with only six hundred foot and two hundred horse. On the
3rd of April he commenced to march on Dundee, and on the 4th he forced
an entrance into the town, and the sack was immediately begun. In the
midst of the tumult, tidings came that Baillie and Hurry with their
whole force were rapidly advancing to the relief of the town. To fight
them was impossible; but Montrose drew off his men from the prey on
which they were intent, and marched out of the eastern gate as Baillie
was entering the western one. Forming his one hundred and fifty
horsemen as a rearguard, he placed two hundred of his best men in the
last ranks of the foot, to face about and support the horsemen in case
of an attack. Baillie followed close on Montrose, and before nightfall
he made a charge which was repelled, but he resolved to out-general his
enemy. While Montrose and his small party were running onward in the
dark towards Arbroath, Baillie was rapidly advancing to the left of
their line of march, with the intention of cutting them off from the
hills to the north-east, in order to hold them against the sea when
they reached Arbroath. After a short time, however, Montrose wheeled
to the right and slipped past Baillie. At last Baillie discovered his
enemy’s tactic, and started in pursuit on the right track. He came
in sight of the enemy separated about three miles from the shelter of
the hills. Montrose’s men were tired out and had fallen asleep on the
ground; but when Baillie’s cavalry approached, the officers managed to
rouse a sufficient number to present a front to the enemy, compelling
the hostile horsemen to withdraw and enabling his small party to escape
to the hills.
For some time Montrose wandered about Perthshire with very few
followers, and had again to begin the work of collecting a force. On
the 20th of April, 1645, Aboyne joined him at Balquhidder. Baillie was
watching the Highlands from Perth, and Hurry had gone north to muster
the adherents of the Covenant for an attack upon the Gordons. Montrose
moved northward and Macdonald rejoined him on the march, and in the
upper stretch of the valley of the Dee he met Lord Gordon at the head
of a company of horsemen. He was again between the two hostile armies,
and to save the lands of the Gordons from plunder, he resolved to
attack Hurry. Montrose advanced toward the upper region of the valley
of the Spey; but when Hurry ascertained that his enemy was descending
the valley of the Spey, he formed his plan. With the aim of drawing
Montrose into a hostile quarter, Hurry marched from Inverness to meet
him near Elgin, and upon his approach, retreated so skilfully that
Montrose was unable to injure him. On the night of the 8th of May,
Montrose had reached the village of Auldearn, intending to follow Hurry
the following morning; but ere dawn on the morning of the 9th, Hurry
had fronted round, and intended by a rapid march to surprise Montrose;
and, if an untoward incident had not occurred, it seems probable that
he would have effected his object; but the night was rainy and wetted
the powder in the muskets of Hurry’s soldiers, some of whom fired a
volley to clear the barrels. It so happened that Macdonald’s sentinels
heard the sound, and thus Montrose had time to post his army in battle
array, which he did admirably. The battle was severe, and was long and
fiercely contested; the greater part of Hurry’s infantry stood their
ground and were slain on the field.
Yet this battle was not decisive, for Montrose had soon to contend
against forces more numerous than his own. Baillie advanced from
Athole northward, crossed the Dee with two thousand men, and was joined
in Strathbogie by Hurry with a hundred horsemen, the remnant of the
army defeated at Auldearn. Montrose’s force was greatly diminished,
and being unable to fight, he advanced up the valley of the Spey for
safety. Baillie remained in the north to ravage Huntly’s lands. After a
time Montrose had again increased his force, and marching in search of
Baillie, he found him in a strong position at Keith. He did not venture
to attack him, but marched southward, crossed the Don, and halted at
Alford, Baillie following him. On the 2nd of July Montrose placed his
men in battle array on an elevated position. Baillie crossed the river
and prepared for battle. The engagement began and raged furiously with
no apparent success on either side; but at last Montrose was victorious
and no quarter was given to the vanquished Covenanters. For some
time after the battle Montrose made little progress with his scheme
of conquering the kingdom for Charles I., as he had only reached
Fordoun on his way southward in the middle of July. The Parliament
was transferred to Perth on the 24th of July to attend to the arrival
of the new levies of men for the army; and Montrose crossed the Tay
with the object of annoying them as much as possible. He manœuvred
round Perth for some time, and retired without effecting anything of
importance.
On the 24th of August the battle of Kilsyth was fought, in which
Montrose completely defeated the Covenanters under Baillie and the
nobles. Upwards of five thousand of the Covenanters were slain in the
battle and pursuit. This was Montrose’s last victory, and henceforth
his real difficulties and the utter futility of his career became
painfully apparent. His vision of a great army of the Lowland Scots,
weary of the tyranny of Parliament and the Church, rallying under
the standard of the King’s Lieutenant, vanished like a dream. He had
disappointed the expectations of his actual followers, and they mourned
and returned to their homes. All his fond hopes were soon to be blasted.
His weakness was that he utterly failed to understand the real problem
of his day, and the spirit and feeling of the great majority of his
countrymen.
David Leslie on the 6th of September crossed the Border, from England
to join issue with Montrose. He encountered the great hero of six
victories at Philiphaugh on the morning of the 13th of September 1645,
and completely routed him and his army. After his defeat Montrose
lingered about the Highlands; and in May 1646, Charles I. ordered him
to disband his followers, and go into France. On the 3rd of September
he escaped from Scotland and proceeded thither.
Since the battle of Marston Moor, on the 2nd of July, 1644, in which
the Covenanting army took an active part, under David Leslie, the
King’s cause had been falling lower and lower; and by the end of the
year 1645 he was hardly able to keep the field. At last, driven to
despair, he fled to the Scottish army at Newark, in May, 1646. To
conquer the King had been an extremely difficult task; but to make a
treaty with him afterwards proved to be an impossible operation. He
was received by the Scots with every mark of respect, but he soon found
that his kingly powers were gone. The English parliament demanded that
the Scots should surrender the King, but they declined to do this. They
were still eager to extend Presbyterianism to England, and directly
attempted to work upon the King. He was asked both by the Scots
and by the English Presbyterians to abolish Episcopacy, to ratify
the proceedings of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, to sign the
Covenant himself, to compel others to sign it, and to establish a
Church in harmony with its principles. Charles on his conscience
declined to do this, as he had a firm conviction of the divine right
of Episcopacy. The Episcopal party in England was crushed, and the
struggle for supremacy now lay between the Independents and the
Presbyterians. The latter party were anxious to come to terms with the
King; and if he had agreed to their conditions, he might still have had
a chance of saving his crown and life, and of reigning as the head of a
limited monarchy. Commissioners from the Long Parliament, and from the
Scotch Estates implored the King to yield, but in vain. Charles pleaded
that his conscience would not allow him; and it may be admitted that
this was a redeeming feature of the King’s character. This attitude of
the King proved favourable to the power of the Independents, as most of
them desired the complete overthrow of the monarchy, and were strongly
opposed to the establishment of Presbyterianism in England.¹
¹ Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Duke of Hamilton_, pages 274‒283;
Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume II., pages 400,
406‒417.
While this tedious treating was still proceeding, the Long Parliament
intimated that there was no longer any necessity for the Scotch army
in England; while the Scots announced that they were ready to retire
as soon as their arrears were paid. In the matter of pay, however,
there was a serious difficulty, since between the amount claimed by
the Scots, and the amount which the English admitted as due, there
was a difference of many hundred thousands of pounds. The difference
between the two accounts in a large degree related to provisions,
which the English charged in full, but the greater part of which the
Scots asserted never came to them, having been taken by the enemy at
sea, part of it lost, and part damaged. The English charged in full
a levy of twenty thousand pounds per month, which the Scots averred
never yielded half that sum; the English charged ammunition and arms
furnished, which the Scots contended should have been supplied at the
expense of the English, as they were used in their service, and so
on with other items in the accounts. The sum claimed by the Scots was
nearly two million pounds, of which they acknowledged the receipt of
seven hundred thousand, but which by the English mode of accounting,
as indicated above, was made out to be fourteen hundred thousand――thus
leaving seven hundred thousand of a difference between the sum claimed
by the Scots and the sum admitted as due by the Long Parliament.
Accordingly at this time the arrears due to the Scots, according
to their reckoning, amounted to more than a million. A long wrangle
between the parties ensued; and every item in the account was minutely
examined and hotly debated, till at last the Scots offered to accept a
gross sum of five hundred thousand pounds. On this there was a vehement
debate in the Long Parliament. Finally, the English agreed to pay a sum
of four hundred thousand pounds――one fourth of it before the Scots left
Newcastle, and the remainder by instalments. If this transaction had
been a collusive bargain for the purchase of the King, as Mr. Buckle
and other writers have asserted, there surely would not have been so
much minute examination of the accounts, so much debating in order to
reduce the Scotch side of the account: but seriously to say that the
Scots sold their King for this money is an absurdity only of those who
have never really investigated the matter.
The Long Parliament claimed a right to the possession of the King’s
person, and passed a resolution that it would dispose of him as it
thought fit. The Scots demurred to this, but the English determinedly
insisted that they must have the King. At last the Scotch Estates
agreed to let the King go to Holmby, in Northamptonshire, “there to
remain until he give satisfaction to both kingdoms in the propositions
of peace; but in the interim, that there be no harm, prejudice,
injury, nor violence done to his person.” On the 23rd of January, 1647,
the English Commissioners appointed to receive the King arrived at
Newcastle; and on the 30th of the month the Scotch army withdrew, and
proceeded to their own country.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages
239‒241.
The Presbyterians were bitterly opposed to the policy of the
Independents, who were waxing almost supreme in England. Towards the
end of the year 1647, the Scots sent commissioners to make a last
attempt to treat with the King, then a captive in the Isle of Wight.
He now promised to be the Covenanted King of a Presbyterian people,
and entered into a treaty with the Scots; but it came too late, and was
regarded as an act of treachery to the Long Parliament and the English
army, with whom he was at the time openly treating. This underhand
treaty with the Scots is known in history as “the Engagement.”
The Estates met at Edinburgh in March, 1648, agreed to the Engagement,
and commissioned an army to aid the King. But the commission of the
General Assembly was opposed to this, and proclaimed that the King’s
concessions were incomplete. They demanded that he should take the
Covenant himself, and at once establish Presbyterianism in England.
The time for half-measures was past, and they insisted that their whole
polity should be established throughout the three kingdoms. Parliament,
however, ordered the army to muster, and to fight for the King, while
the Duke of Hamilton was placed in command.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, pages 295‒318, _et
seq._; Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume III., pages
33‒40, 44‒50.
When the General Assembly met at Edinburgh in July, 1648, the members
manifested a spirit of opposition to the resolution of the Estates.
The committee on public affairs, consisting of the leading men of the
Assembly, took up the question of the Engagement, and approved of all
the proceedings of the commission concerning it. In reply to a letter
from the committee of the Estates, the clergy again declared that they
saw no possibility of securing religion so long as the Engagement was
maintained; since a union of the Malignants against the Independents
was an unlawful combination, for both were enemies to the cause of the
Covenant, and therefore all association with them should be avoided.
They reiterated the demand, that before the King was restored to the
exercise of his power, he should be bound by a solemn oath, under
his hand and seal, for settling religion according to the Covenant;
that there should be no engagement without a solemn oath; and that
the Church ought to have the same interest in it as she had in the
League and Covenant. They insisted that the control of public affairs
should be entrusted only to persons of unquestioned integrity. Finally,
on the day the Assembly rose, the 12th of August, they addressed a
supplication to the King, in which his Majesty was told that he had
already caused the blood of many thousands to be shed by his obstinacy,
and warned him no longer to set at nought the word of exhortation, or
to incur the wrath of the Lord of Hosts, who brings down the mighty
from their throne, and scatters the proud in the imagination of their
hearts.¹
¹ Peterkin’s _Records_; Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_,
Volume III., pages 52‒65.
While the nation was in this divided state, the army of the Engagers,
undisciplined and poorly equipped, entered England with the grand aim
of delivering the captive King from the power of sectaries. But the
Duke of Hamilton was not a military genius; and his army straggled
forward in several divisions, at too long distances from each other.
Cromwell attacked him at Preston, on the 17th of August, 1648, and
defeated the Scots in detail, finally scattering them. Hamilton himself
was taken prisoner, and shortly after he was tried and executed.¹
¹ Carlyle’s _Letters and Speeches of Cromwell_, Volume I.,
pages 330‒351.
When tidings of the defeat of the Engagers reached Scotland, Argyle,
Cassillis, and Eglinton assembled their adherents, and the clergy
joined them and called the people to arms. Some of the ministers, at
the head of their followers, marched towards Edinburgh, preaching and
praying by the way to excited crowds of Covenanters. The Committee
of Estates, who had supported the Engagement, after some attempts at
resistance, gave up the struggle; and Argyle with other nobles, assumed
the government. Cromwell had advanced to the vicinity of Berwick,
when Argyle and his party came to terms with him, and invited him to
Edinburgh. He arrived in the capital on the 4th of October, 1648, and
was received with much respect. His object was the suppression of all
those concerned in the Engagement, and in this the party at the head of
affairs in Scotland concurred with him; and then Cromwell renewed the
Covenant along with his new allies. The leader of the English army was
delighted with his reception; and in a letter to the House of Commons,
he says:――“I have received, and so have the officers with me, many
honours and civilities, from the city of Edinburgh, from the Committee
of Estates, and the ministers; with a noble entertainment,――which we
may not own as done to us, but as done to your servants.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume I., pages 379‒382.
The Estates met on the 4th of January, 1649. The members were mostly
those who had been opposed to the Engagement, and those who had since
renounced it, the Earl of Loudon being chosen president for the session.
They resolved to begin the session by publicly humbling themselves
before the Lord for their sins, and to renew the Solemn League and
Covenant, according to the order set down by the commission of the
General Assembly. All the Acts of Parliament sanctioning the late
Engagement were repealed, and some of the officers of state were
deprived of their posts. But their most sweeping statute was the “Act
of Classes,” for purging the judicatories and places of public trust,
which applied to all persons in any way concerned with “the late
unlawful Engagement,” and to other persons guilty of certain sins, or
who neglected family worship. Thus the parliament itself was purged, a
number of ministers deposed, and all officials suspected of malignancy,
turned out of their offices.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages 335,
341‒346, 352‒356.
The party at the head of affairs in Scotland, it seems pretty evident,
did not fully realise or foresee that a power was arising to crush both
them and their Church polity. At the moment when they were indulging
the hope that their triumph was at hand, the committee of the English
army was already taking steps to arraign the King.
The narrative of the trial of Charles I. belongs to English history,
and has often been admirably told. The Scotch Estates, through their
Commissioners at London, remonstrated against any injury to the King’s
person, and insisted that it was on this very condition that they had
consented to part with him; but his fate was decreed. On the 30th of
January, 1649, he was beheaded before his own palace of Whitehall.
It was Charles’s lot to be educated and trained in a one-sided and
pernicious political belief. He seems to have been almost incapable
of distinguishing between his moral and his political rights; and this
led his comparatively narrow mind to assume and to maintain that his
political position gave him an unquestionable right to dictate to his
people the form of their worship. Moreover, he was placed in trying
circumstances, and found himself face to face with great political and
religious problems, which he failed to appreciate and to surmount.
The following opinion of a foreign historian on the fate of the King
is worth quoting:――“It would have been easy for him to have saved
his life, had he conceded to the Scots the exclusive domination of
presbyterianism in England, or to the Independents the practical
freedom of the army as they themselves desired. That he did not do so
is his merit towards England. Had he given his word to dissolve the
episcopal government of the Church, and to alienate its property for
ever, it is impossible to see how it could ever have been restored.
Had he granted such a position to the army as was asked in the
four articles, the self-government of the corporation and of the
Commons, and the later parliamentary government itself, would have
become impossible. So far the resistance which he offered cannot be
estimated highly enough. The overthrow of the constitution, which
the Independents openly intended, made him fully conscious, perhaps
not of their ultimate intention――the establishment of a republic, but
certainly of his own position. So far there was certainly something of
a martyr in him, if the man can be so called who values life less than
the cause for which he is fighting, and in perishing himself saves it
for the future.”¹
¹ Ranke’s _History of England_, Volume II., page 553.
In the latter part of the third volume of Dr. Masson’s
elaborate and valuable work, _The Life of Milton_, there is
a full and complete account of the trial and the execution
of Charles the First.
Viewed from a political and moral standpoint, the Covenanting struggle
was a very important factor in Scottish civilisation. The sole aim of
James VI. in his constant efforts to establish Episcopacy in Scotland,
was to render religion completely subservient to the power of the State,
and to compel every one to recognise and yield an abject submission to
the absolute supremacy of the King in all things civil and religious.
In short, this was the view of James VI., Charles I., Charles II., and
James VII., they all claimed the power to impose on the people whatever
form of religion they thought fit. Although the contest thus forced
upon the Scottish people was at the outset ecclesiastical and religious,
and even in this relation its influence in moulding the character of
the Scots of the seventeenth century was very great; inasmuch that
in those days religion was a real power, and the Covenanters were
intensely earnest and firmly held their religious convictions; they
were prepared to make any sacrifice for the tenets of their faith.
Yet, as matters then stood, the religious problems could not be settled
without raising many other collateral questions, some of them even more
important than the original problem. Thus the controversy once raised
soon assumed a very wide range. It compelled the combatants on both
sides to have recourse to the original and natural rights of man, and
the principles of justice, as a solid foundation for their claims. For
this the Reformation and George Buchanan had prepared the way. By their
constant appeals to conscience and to private judgment, the Reformers
had taught men to reason and to think, instead of blindly and
submissively bowing their heads to the unlimited claims of authority.
The Scots learned and practised this lesson. In self-defence they took
their stand upon first principles, and based their claims upon the
inalienable rights of man. They boldly assailed and demolished the
claims to arbitrary and absolute power advanced by the kings of the
period. Thus it was that the ecclesiastical contest speedily developed
into a political conflict, in which arguments were of more importance
than arms, inasmuch as argument and conviction supplied the real
motive power. As we have seen, and will see further in the sequel, in
petitions and protestations, in speeches and sermons, and pamphlets,
the Covenanters urged their claims, and clearly vindicated their
proceedings at every stage of the conflict, not only by many texts of
Scripture, but also by appeals to principles which are now recognised
as political axioms. The people listened intently to all this, and read
and discussed amongst themselves the merits of the various points of
the controversy. Thus every intelligent man became a keen theologian
and a politician, ready to argue with all comers any point, either of
divinity or of public policy, or the limits of the power of kings. For
a century the people had been battling for their rights; while they
were also being well trained in political and moral principles. The
lesson was well taught and retained in the internal consciousness, for
the impression stamped upon the national mind during the Covenanting
struggle has continued as a political characteristic of Scotsmen to
the present day. This was the chief contribution of the seventeenth
century to the civilisation of Scotland. The historian, however, in
stating this, may not justify all the proceedings and actions of the
Covenanters, for it is clear that they often erred in the application
of their principles to practice; still they contributed much to the
political and moral progress of the people.
CHAPTER XXVI.
_Charles II. The Kingdom under Cromwell._
PARLIAMENT was sitting when the intelligence of the King’s execution
reached Scotland, and on the 5th of February, 1649, his eldest son
was proclaimed King of Scotland, under the title of Charles II. The
national sentiment of the Scots was decidedly in favour of monarchical
government; their Covenants recognised it, and they had no idea of
establishing a republic. They had no special objections to kingly
authority, when it was exercised according to what they conceived to be
the Word of God and the constitution of the Kingdom; while the English
Independents and sectaries directly discarded both king and monarchy,
which was only one among many points of difference between them and the
Covenanters.
Two days after the proclamation of Charles II., the Estates
emphatically expressed the sentiment and feeling of the nation, by
passing an Act, which declared that, before this young prince or any
of his successors should be admitted to the exercise of the kingly
power, he should sign and swear the National Covenant, and the Solemn
League and Covenant; that he should for himself and his successors,
consent to the acts of parliament enjoining these Covenants, and fully
establishing Presbyterianism, the Directory of Worship, the Confession
of Faith, and the Catechisms; that he should observe these in his
own family; and that he should never oppose or attempt to change
any of them. Further, before being admitted to the exercise of his
royal functions, he should dismiss and relinquish all counsel of those
opposed to religion and to the Covenants; and give satisfaction to the
Parliament of Scotland in whatever else should be found requisite for
settling a lasting peace, preserving the union between the kingdoms,
or for the good of the crown, and his own honour and happiness; and
consent that all civil matters should be settled by the parliament of
the kingdom, and ecclesiastical matters by the General Assembly. This
parliament, on the 9th of March, passed an act abolishing patronage, on
the ground that it was unwarranted in Scripture, and merely introduced
in times of ignorance and superstition; that it was an evil and a
bondage, under which the Lord’s people and ministers of Scotland had
long groaned. Of this act Balfour says:――“The parliament passed a
most strange act this month, abolishing the patronages of kirks, which
pertained to laymen ever since Christianity was planted in Scotland.
The Earl of Buccleuch and some others protested against this, as
altogether derogatory to the just rights of the nobility and gentry
of the kingdom of Scotland, and so departed out of the house. But it
was carried.... Johnston and the Kirk’s minions durst not do otherwise,
lest the leaders of the Church should desert them, and leave them to
stand on their own feet, which without the Church none of them could
well do.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages
363‒364, 411‒413. _Annals of Scotland_, Volume III., page
391.
On the 6th of March, 1649, the Estates commissioned the Earl of
Cassillis and others to proceed to the young king in Holland, and offer
him the Crown on the conditions indicated in the above paragraph. They
were admitted to an interview with the prince on the 27th of March,
and attempts were made to treat. They tried to persuade him to sign
the Covenants, insisting that this would gain for him the support of
the Scots and the whole Presbyterian party. Many papers passed between
the King and the Scotch commissioners, but Charles declined to commit
himself, and no definite conclusions were arrived at. The commissioners
returned to Scotland, and reported their proceedings to the Estates on
the 14th of June, which were all approved.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages 400,
451‒459; Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume III., pages
84‒90, 508‒521.
By the orders of the Committee of Estates the Marquis of Huntly
was captured in December, 1647, and imprisoned in Edinburgh. On the
16th of March, 1649, he was brought to trial for treason. Argyle his
brother-in-law, was the leading man in the Government at the time. Yet
Huntly was convicted, condemned, and on the 22nd of March, beheaded.
The General Assembly met at Edinburgh, on the 7th of July, ♦1646,
and passed some remarkable acts. It was enacted that all who had
been in any way concerned with the late Engagement, should be deemed
malignants, and must submit either to the discipline of the Church,
or to excommunication, and that the army and the parliament should
be thoroughly purged of such. For the instruction of the people the
Assembly issued this statement:――“1. That as magistrates and their
power are ordained of God, so are they, in the exercise thereof, not
to walk according to their own will, but according to the law of equity
and righteousness, as being the ministers of God, for the safety of
His people. Therefore, a boundless and unlimited power is not to be
acknowledged in any king or magistrate, neither is our king to be
admitted to the exercise of his authority, as long as he refuses to
walk in the administration of the same, according to this rule, and the
established laws of the kingdom. 2. That there is a mutual obligation
and stipulation between the king and his people, for the performance
of mutual and reciprocal duties. 3. That arbitrary government, and
unlimited power, are the fountains of all corruption in the Church
and in the State. 4. That it is no new thing for kingdoms to preserve
themselves from ruin by putting restraint upon the exercise of the
power and government of those who have refused to grant the things
that were necessary for the good of religion, and the safety of the
people.”¹ This Assembly passed an act on the election of ministers,
intended to carry out the act abolishing patronage. When a vacancy
occurred, the kirk-session of the parish were to elect a minister, and
if this person was accepted by the congregation, the presbytery were to
proceed and try his qualifications, and if he was found to be properly
qualified, then to admit him to his office. When a majority of the
congregation dissented from the choice of the session, then the matter
was to be brought before the presbytery, who were to judge of it; and
if they found reasonable ground of dissent, they were to appoint a new
election. If the dissent came from a mere minority of the congregation,
it was not to be sustained, except on sufficient reasons shown to the
presbytery. But, when the congregation were disaffected or malignant,
the presbytery was to appoint a minister for them. There was a long
debate on this act in the Assembly. Calderwood maintained that,
according to the Second Book of Discipline, the election should belong
to the presbytery, and that the people had only the right to dissent
for reasons to be judged by the presbytery.
♦ “1146” replaced with probably “1648”
¹ Peterkin’s _Records of the Church of Scotland_.
It appears that Montrose was urged by the young prince Charles II.,
to again strike a blow for the cause of royalty. By his efforts and
enthusiasm Montrose managed to assemble a band of Danes and Germans,
and Scottish exiles, and early in the spring of 1650 sailed from the
Elbe for the Orkneys. When he reached Orkney, it was reported that
his force numbered seven hundred men, and fifteen hundred stand of
arms. He remained for some time in the Orkneys, and endeavoured to
increase his army by forced levies; but there was no enthusiasm for
Charles II. amongst the Orcadians, and what Montrose gained in numbers,
added nothing to his strength, as men forced into service under such
circumstances, could not be relied upon. He landed in Caithness and
raised the King’s standard; but some of the inhabitants fled on his
approach, and none of them joined his ranks. He issued a proclamation
in his Majesty’s name, and promised pardon to all who had been deluded
by the ruling party in Scotland; still the people of the North declined
to rally round him. A strong army under Leslie was sent against him.
But only a small advance detachment under Colonel Strachan, came upon
Montrose. The encounter took place at Invercharron on the northern
skirt of Ross-shire. Montrose was defeated, and the greater part of his
men slain and taken prisoners, but he escaped himself. He wandered in
the country for several days, and suffered much from hunger and cold.
He was captured by Macleod of Assynt, and conveyed to Edinburgh. His
sentence had been before passed by Parliament, when he was condemned
for treason, and was simply brought up to receive it. He was executed
on 21st May, 1650, at Edinburgh. It is impossible not to feel for
the hard fate of Montrose, although he was a renegade; still he had
brilliant and admirable characteristics. He had striking abilities
and resource as a military leader, and his mastery of tactics when
the moment for action came, was supreme. But, as a politician or a
statesman he was a mere cipher. He had enthusiasm; yet the genuineness
of his moral convictions and his honour might be questioned. He showed
no real capacity to appreciate the thought, the feeling, and the
convictions of the great majority of his countrymen.
Early in the spring of 1650, treating with the King was resumed at
Breda. The conditions were the same as before; but it was thought that
circumstances were now more favourable, as all hope of assistance from
Ireland had been blasted by the victories of Cromwell; and the youthful
prince had begun to think of consenting to the proposals of the
Covenanters. After some treating the King agreed to the propositions of
the Scots, then embarked for the home of his ancestors, and arrived at
the mouth of the Spey on the 23rd of June. There he signed the Covenant,
and having landed next day, he proceeded southwards. The Scots had
now got a king, and as they had resolved that he should conform to
their principles and their modes of life, there were every morning
and evening lectures, from which the prince was never permitted to be
absent.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages
513‒514, 516, 535‒536; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume IV., pages
68, 73.
Burnet says:――“The King wrought himself into as grave a deportment
as he could: he heard many prayers and sermons, some of great length.
I remember on one fast day there were six sermons preached without
intermission. I was there myself, and not a little weary of so tedious
a service. The King was not allowed so much as a walk abroad on Sundays;
and if at any time there had been any gaiety at court, such as dancing
or playing cards, he was severely reproved. This was managed with so
much rigour and so little discretion, that it contributed not a little
to beget in him an aversion to all sort of strictness in religion.”¹
¹ _History of his Own Time_, Volume I., pages 91‒92.
Carlyle has some curious remarks on the Covenant. “The meaning of the
Scotch Covenant was, that God’s Divine Law of the Bible should be put
in practice in these nations; verily it, and not the four surplices at
Allhallowtide, or any formula of cloth or sheepskin here or elsewhere
which merely pretended to be it: but then the Covenant says expressly,
there is to be a Stuart King in the business: we cannot do without
our Stuart King. Given a Divine Law of the Bible on the one hand,
and a Stuart King, Charles First or Charles Second, on the other:
alas, did history ever present a more irreducible case of equations
in this world? I pity the poor Scotch pedant governors; still more the
poor Scotch people who had no other to follow. Nay, as for that, the
people did get through in the end, such was their indomitable pious
consistency, and other worth and fortune: and presbytery became a fact
among them, to the whole length possible for it, not without endless
results. But for the poor governors this irreducible case proved, as it
were, fatal. They have never since, if we look narrowly at it, governed
Scotland, or even well known that they were to attempt governing it.
Once they lay on Dunse Hill, each earl with his regiment of tenants
round him, for Christ’s Crown and Covenant; and never since had they
any whole national act which it was given them to do. Growing desperate
of Christ’s Crown and Covenant, they in the next generation, when our
Annus Mirabilis arrived, hurried up to court, looking out for their
crowns and covenants; deserted Scotland and her cause somewhat basely;
took to booing and booing for causes of their own, unhappy mortals;
――and Scotland, and all causes that were Scotland’s have had to go
very much without them ever since. Which is a very fatal issue indeed,
as I reckon;――and the time for the settlement of accounts about it,
which will not fail always, and seems now fast drawing nigh, looks very
ominous to me....
“But leaving all that, the poor Scotch governors, we remark, in that
old crisis of theirs, have come upon the desperate expedient of getting
Charles the Second to adopt the Covenant the best he can. Whereby
our parchment formula is indeed served; but the divine fact has gone
terribly to the wall. The Scotch governors think otherwise. By treaties
at Jersey, treaties at Breda, they and the hard law of want together
have constrained this poor young Stuart to their detested Covenant, as
the Frenchman said, they have compelled him to adopt it voluntarily.
A fearful crime, thinks Oliver, and think me. How dare you exact such
mummery under high heaven? exclaims he. You will prosecute malignants;
and with the aid of some poor varnish, transparent even to yourselves,
you adopt into your bosom the chief malignant. My soul come not into
your secret; mine honour be not united unto you.”¹
¹ _Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches_, Volume II., pages 4‒5.
Many declarations and papers passed between the English and the Scotch
governments at this time, and between Cromwell and the Covenanters.
This is from a letter of Cromwell’s to the commission of the Church of
Scotland, the 3rd of August, 1650:――“Your own guilt is too much for you
to bear: bring not, therefore, upon yourselves the blood of innocent
men――deceived with pretences of King and Covenant――from whose eyes you
hide a better knowledge. I am persuaded that divers of you, who lead
the people, have laboured to build yourselves in these things; wherein
you have censured others ‘upon the Word of God.’ Is it, therefore,
infallibly agreeable to the Word of God, all that you say? I beseech
you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
Precept may be upon precept, line upon line, and yet the Word of the
Lord may be to some a word of judgment: that they may fall backward
and be broken, and be snared and be taken.... There may be a Covenant
made with Death and Hell. I will not say yours was so. But judge if
such things have a politic aim: to avoid the overflowing scourge, or
to accomplish worldly interests? And if therein we have confederated
with wicked and cruel men, and have respect for them, or otherwise
have drawn them into association with us, whether this be a Covenant of
God, and spiritual. Bethink yourselves, we hope we do. I pray you read
the twenty-eighth of Isaiah, from the fifth to the fifteenth verse.
And do not scorn to know that it is the spirit that quickens and
gives life. The Lord give you and us understanding to do that which
is well-pleasing in His sight.”¹
¹ _Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches_, Volume, II., pages 20‒21.
The Scots were bitterly opposed to the party then at the head of the
Commonwealth in England, while that party could not afford to remain
passive observers of the movement in behalf of the young King in
Scotland. Accordingly, Cromwell and his army entered Scotland in July,
1650, and advanced to the vicinity of Edinburgh, but he was unable to
take it, as it was well covered by the Scottish army. He then retired
to Dunbar, where a battle was fought on the 3rd of September, in which
the Covenanters were completely defeated. Shortly after, Cromwell took
possession of Edinburgh, and, by the beginning of October, was master
of the south-eastern counties of the kingdom. Meantime the Scots had
become more and more divided among themselves, and there had sprung
up, in the heat of the conflict, several minute differences of opinion
and sentiment on the burning questions of the time, which each party
asserted and maintained with characteristic determination. There were
now three distinct parties in Scotland. First, the Government party
with the Marquis of Argyle at its head, consisting of the Committee
of Estates, and the Commission of the General Assembly so far as it
concurred with the government. The body of the clergy who supported
the government and the resolutions of parliament and the commission of
the Church, were called the Resolutioners. They supported the efforts
of the government to defend the kingdom and a Covenanted king by all
available means. Then secondly, there was the more strict and extreme
party, fully resolved for the Covenant, and firmly opposed to all
double-dealing in this solemn matter. They maintained that, though the
King had granted everything and signed the papers placed before him,
yet on his own part this was a mere sham, since he had shown no real
indications of any change. The adherents of this section were called
“Protesters.” The unhappy breach among the presbyterians subsequently
became very bitter and disastrous. Thirdly, apart from both the purely
presbyterian parties, there was the extreme and rather mixed royalist
party, which numbered in its ranks the Earls of Athole and Seaforth;
these were not all open enemies of the Covenant, nor real malignants.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages
544‒546, _et seq._; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume IV., pages
95‒111, 135‒160, 174, 178, _et seq._; _Records of the Church
of Scotland_.
In the midst of all this distraction, the King was crowned at Scone on
the 1st of January, 1651, when he again swore to maintain the National
Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant. Mr. Douglas, one of the
ministers of Edinburgh, delivered the coronation sermon, and reminded
the young prince of the iniquity of some of his royal ancestors,
warning him that if he followed their example, his house would soon
become desolate.¹
¹ _The Form and Order of the King’s Coronation_, printed at
Aberdeen, 1651.
As the Scots were unable to drive back the English army, they resolved
on a raid across the Border. Charles accompanied the Scottish army into
England, but Cromwell with a part of his force followed him. A battle
ensued at Worcester, on the 3rd of September, 1651, when the royalists
were defeated. The King escaped and fled to the continent.
After this, General Monk was entrusted with the task of the reduction
of Scotland, and he accomplished it more thoroughly than Edward I.
had done. On the 28th of August, 1651, the Committee of Estates were
surprised and captured at Alyth in Angus, along with five of the
members of the Commission of the General Assembly, who were all sent
prisoners to England. The people of the Lowlands then submitted to
the English army, but some resistance continued to be offered by the
royalists in the Highlands. They too, however, were shortly subdued,
and the country was reduced to order.
The General Assembly, which met at Edinburgh in July, 1653, was quietly
dispersed by a company of English soldiers, and the members commanded
not to meet again. Baillie tells this in his usual graphic style:
――“Colonel Cotteral beset the Church with some files of musketeers and
a troop of horse, and himself entered the Assembly house, and inquired
if we sat there by the authority of the parliament of the Commonwealth
of England, or of the Commander-in-chief of the English forces, or of
the English Judges in Scotland? The moderator replied that we were an
ecclesiastical synod, a spiritual court of Jesus Christ, which meddled
not with any civil affairs, that our authority was from God, and
established by the laws of the land yet standing unrepealed, that by
the Solemn League and Covenant, the most of the English army stood
obliged to defend our General Assembly. When some speeches of this kind
had passed, the colonel told us that his orders were to dissolve us;
whereupon he commanded all of us to follow him, else he would drag us
out of the room. When we had entered a protestation of this unheard
of and unexampled violence, we did rise and follow him; he led us all
through the streets a mile out of the town, encompassing us with foot
soldiers and horsemen, all the people gazing and mourning as at the
saddest spectacle they had ever seen. When he had led us a mile without
the town, he then declared what farther he had in commission, that we
should not dare to meet again above three in number, and that by eight
to-morrow evening, we should depart from the town, under the penalty
of being guilty of breaking the public peace, and the following day,
by sound of trumpet, we were commanded off the town under the pain of
immediate imprisonment. Thus our General Assembly, the glory and the
strength of our Church upon earth, is, by your soldiery, crushed and
trod under foot, without the least provocation from us, at this time,
either in word or deed.”¹ But the forms of presbyterianism were not
farther interfered with; and the synods, the presbyteries and the
sessions were permitted to hold their meetings, only there were no
General Assemblies.
¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume III., pages 225‒226.
The dissension between the Resolutioners and the Protesters continued
throughout the Commonwealth. An attempt was made in 1655 to form an
agreement between the two parties, but it failed. Subsequently both
parties represented their cause to Cromwell, but neither of them
gained any important advantage from this, and the disputes between them
became bitter. No religious persecution was permitted in Scotland in
Cromwell’s reign, the Church being deprived of its power of inflicting
civil penalties.
After the nation was subdued, the government of the Commonwealth was
disposed to treat Scotland justly, according to its own view of the
necessities of the case and the circumstances. The aim of Cromwell
and his associates, so far as can be seen, was to amalgamate the
two nations into one republic. The Protector made a bold attempt to
extinguish the feudal powers of the nobles throughout Scotland. He
placed twenty-eight fortresses in the kingdom, and kept an army varying
from about seven to nine thousand men in the country. The taxes imposed
to support this force pressed rather hard upon the Scots; but then
peace and security reigned, which was a boon not to be lightly esteemed.
The most successful part of the incorporating scheme was that
which established free trade between the two countries. As it was
enacted――“that all customs, excise, and other imposts for goods
transported from England to Scotland, and from Scotland to England,
by sea or by land, are and shall be so far taken off and discharged,
as that all goods for the future shall pass as free, and with like
privileges and with like charges and burdens, from England to Scotland,
and from Scotland to England, as goods passing from port to port, or
from place to place, in England; and that all goods shall and may pass
between Scotland and any other part of this Commonwealth or dominions
thereof with the like privileges, freedom, and charges as such goods do
and shall pass between England and the said parts and dominions.”¹ This
was a great advantage to the Scots.
¹ Bruce’s _Report on the Union_.
When the army had extinguished all resistance, Cromwell placed the
civil administration of Scotland in the hands of a council of eight
or nine men, most of whom were Englishmen,¹ sitting in Edinburgh. The
powers of this council embraced the revenue, the appointment of the
inferior judges and justices of the peace, and authorised the ministers
to draw their stipends, a kind of patronage which was extremely
offensive to many of the clergy. The police of the kingdom was
generally entrusted to the military authorities, and was efficiently
executed.
¹ In July, 1655, the Council consisted of eight members.
The Court of Session was superseded by a supreme commission of justice,
consisting of seven judges, four English and three Scotch. This court
had to deal with a great change in the laws already indicated, the
abolition of the feudal system; and the commutation and adjustment
of the many entangled interests and obligations thence arising. A
collection of their decisions is preserved, and they are marked by good
common-sense and much careful labour.¹ Baillie, under the year 1655,
says:――“The kingdom was suffering for want of justice, for we have no
baron courts; our sheriffs have little skill, for common being English
soldiers; our Lords of Session, a few Englishmen, unexperienced with
our law, and who, this twelvemonth, has done little or nothing; great
is our suffering through want of that court. After long neglect of us
as no nation, at last a Supreme Council of State, with power in all
things, is come down, of six or seven English soldiers and two of our
complying gentlemen, Colonel Lockhart and Colonel Swinton. We expect
little good from them; but if an heavy excise, as is said, be added
to our maintenance, and the paying of all the garrisons lie on us, our
condition will be insupportable; yet be what it will, it must be borne,
we have deserved it.”
¹ _The Decisions of the English Judges during the Usurpation._
Another body of seven men, half of them English, were constituted
trustees of forfeited and sequestrated estates, by an ordinance in
1654. Their duties were to look after the rents and the revenues of
the many Scottish nobles and lairds whose estates had been seized by
the government, for offences arising out of the conquest. They were
instructed to pay creditors, to give allowances to the wives, the
widows, and the children of the original owners of the estates.¹
Speaking of the state of Scotland in 1656, Baillie says:――“Our state
is in a very silent condition: strong garrisons over all the land, and
a great army, both of horse and foot, for which there is no service
at all. Our nobles lying in prisons, and under forfeitures or debts,
private or public, are for the most part either broken or breaking.”
¹ _Letters and Journals_, Volume III., pages 388‒389, 317.
But the Scots were not all satisfied with Cromwell’s rule, though
quietness and order were maintained in the kingdom by the strong arm.
In the beginning of the year 1658, the Protector expressed his own
opinion of the Scots thus:――“And hath Scotland been long settled? Have
not they a like sense of poverty? I speak plainly. In good earnest,
I do think the Scotch nation have been under as great a suffering,
in point of livelihood and subsistence outwardly, as any people I
have yet named to you. I do think truly they are a very ruined nation.
And yet in a way, I have spoken with some gentlemen come from thence,
hopeful enough; it hath pleased to give that plentiful encouragement
to the meaner sort in Scotland.... The meaner sort in Scotland live as
well, and are likely to come into as thriving a condition under your
government, as when they were under their own great Lords, who made
them work for their living no better than the peasants of France.
I am loth to speak anything which may reflect upon that nation; but
the middle sort of people do grow up there into such substance as
makes their lives comfortable, if not better than they were before.”¹
Referring to the year 1656, Baillie said:――“The truth is, money
was never so scarce here, and growing daily scarcer, and yet it is
thought this parliament in September, 1656, is summoned mainly for new
taxations. What England may bear, to whom the Protector remitted the
half of the monthly maintenance of one hundred and twenty thousand
pounds sterling, I know not; but Scotland, whose burden has been
tripled, besides the fines, forfeitures, debts, and other miseries,
seems unable to bear what lies on her already.” Of Glasgow at this time,
he says:――“Our people have much more trade in comparison than any other
town; their buildings increase strangely both for number and fairness:
it is more than doubled in our time.” Finally, in regard to the kingdom
in 1658:――“In our state all is exceedingly quiet. A great army, in a
multitude of garrisons, bides above our heads, and deep poverty keeps
all ranks exceedingly under; the taxes of all kinds are so great, the
trade so little, that it is a marvel if extreme scarcity of money end
not, ere long, in some mischief.”²
¹ Carlyle’s _Letters and Speeches of Cromwell_, Volume II.,
pages 638‒639.
² Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume III., pages 318,
319, 357.
Owing to the toleration of religious opinions under the Commonwealth,
various new sects appeared in Scotland, among whom the Quakers were
the most remarkable. In the year 1656, Baillie remarks that “This sect
of Quakers is likely to prove troublesome: they increase much among
the English both in England and in Ireland. They in a furious way cry
down both ministry and magistracy; some of them seem actually possessed
with a devil, their fury, their irrational passions, and their
bodily convulsions are so great. Lieutenant Osburne, one of our first
apostates to the English, is an open leader to them in the streets of
Edinburgh, without any punishment. Several in Clydesdale, of the most
zealous Remonstrant yeomen, have turned so; and their increase is
feared, which is the just recompense of admitting the beginnings of
errors.”¹ Two years later, he says, they were increasing and making
some trouble in several places in Scotland. Another contemporary
says:――“Some of them walked through the streets, all naked save their
shirts, crying――This is the way, walk ye in it!” Others cried out,
“That the day of salvation is at hand; draw near to the Lord, for the
sword of the Lord is drawn, and will not be put up till the enemies
of the Lord be destroyed.” In England, “there was immense difficulty
with this new sect, from the fact that they had not settled down into
mere local groups of individuals, asking toleration for themselves,
but were still in open war with all other sects, all forms of ministry,
and prosecuted the war everywhere by itinerant propagandism. George
Fox himself and the best of his followers seem by this time, indeed, to
have given up the method of actually interrupting the regular service
in the steeple-houses in order to preach Quakerism, but they were
constantly tending to the steeple-houses for the purpose of prophesying
there, as was the custom in country places, after the regular service
was over. Thus, as well as by their conflicts with parsons of every
sect wherever they met them, and their rebukings of iniquity on
highways and in market-places, not to speak of their obstinate refusals
to pay tithes in their own parishes, they were continually getting into
the hands of justices of the peace and the assize judges.”²
¹ _Ibid._, Volume III., page 323.
² Nicoll’s _Diary_; Dr. Masson’s _Life of John Milton: Narrated
in connection with the History of His Time_, Volume V., page
66.
Regarded from a religious standpoint, the Covenanting movement directly
tended to intensify the religious feeling and habits of the people. The
opinions and doctrines which were then formulated anew, took deep root
in the heart of the nation; the Shorter Catechism of the Westminster
divines became the text-book of the religious doctrines of the people,
and it has exercised a vast influence over their moral and mental
character. But during the period in question there was a lamentable
absence of the loving and tolerant spirit which should characterise the
Christian and moral life.
On the 3rd of September, 1658, Cromwell died. Although the supreme
power which he had won by his energy and wisdom passed on to his son
Richard, this man was unequal for the task imposed upon him, and in
a few months retired into private life. The government of the three
kingdoms fell into the hands of the leaders of the armies, and they
then began a scramble for the summit of power; but Oliver’s mantle
had not descended upon any of them. So the traditions and sentiments
associated with the glories of the throne and the monarchy, were soon
in the ascendant. General Monk was at the head of the army in Scotland,
and having collected his forces, he carefully prepared to march into
England. He called a meeting of the chief men among the Scots, and
advised them to preserve the internal peace of the kingdom; and they
aided him with a sum of money. In November, 1659, he began his march
southward, and entered England in the beginning of 1660. After various
moves, Monk declared in favour of a free parliament, which met in March,
and resolved to recall the King. And so Charles II. entered London on
the 29th of May, amid the shouts and applause of the people.
CHAPTER XXVII.
_The Conflict from the Restoration to the Revolution._
THIS chapter covers a period of twenty-eight years; but the exposition
of the movement and of the principles of the contending parties will
not be unnecessarily burdened with minute details.¹
¹ To narrate the events and explain the series of causes which
issued in the Revolution with the fulness which they well
deserve, is a task that any man might be proud to achieve;
and I may be permitted to express the hope that some historian
of the future, with the requisite qualifications, may be
induced by the interest of the period, by the ampleness of the
materials, and by the vast importance of the subject, to devote
the energies of his mind to produce a full history of the
three kingdoms during the seventeenth century. [Since the hope
expressed in the preceding sentence of the original edition was
written, I have much pleasure in stating that Dr. Gardiner has
produced an excellent History of the first half of this period.
The Restoration in both divisions of the Island was a reactionary
movement. This arose partly from the inherited sentiments of the
people; whilst amongst the nobility, the traditionary feelings and
ideas associated with the social organisation and constitution of the
monarchy, were interwoven with their personal interests and privileges
of wealth, rank, and power. Under the Commonwealth, the hereditary
nobles in England and in Scotland had suffered enormously. They had
been deprived of power and influence, harassed, imprisoned, banished,
and many of them ruined. With the hope of escaping from this state of
depression, the Lords and Commons of England, in the light of their
recent experience, and the knowledge of the claims of the head of
the royal family to absolute powers, again committed themselves
and the people of the Island entirely to the discretion of Charles
II. Intoxicated with a fit of loyal enthusiasm, the English forgot
the state of matters which had caused the late Rebellion, and thus
unwittingly supported the reintroduction of a kind of government
which had already produced much suffering in the land. But what had
happened could not be completely reversed, nor the recollection of
it extinguished, and at last, in 1688, it assumed the character of
a Revolution.
But Scotland suffered far more from the Restoration than England,
owing to various distinct causes. As already stated, the Reformation
in England and in Scotland was accomplished by different agencies: In
the former kingdom it was introduced and enforced by the King and his
government, the English people themselves not being consulted; while in
the latter it was embraced and sustained throughout by the people. Thus
from the beginning of the Reformation in the middle of the sixteenth
century, onwards, the contrast between the two nations was striking,
and though somewhat modified, this original difference still remained
at the Restoration. It was a comparatively easy matter to turn the
English Church into her original groove. But the task which the
government of Charles II. undertook in Scotland was more difficult; it
was an attempt to change the current of religious thought and sentiment
which had sprung from the Reformation of 1560. The attempt failed,
though it was made with deliberation and persistence, every effort
being made to crush the spirit of the people and to deprive them of
their liberty.
At this crisis of the nation’s history, a number of the leading
ministers met, among others, Mr. Robert Douglas and Mr. David Dickson,
and commissioned Mr. James Sharp, in the month of February, 1660,
to proceed to London and watch over the interests of the Church of
Scotland. He received definite instructions, and much confidence was
placed in his ability and honesty of purpose by the leaders of the
Resolutioners, who employed him. He was directed to use his efforts
so that the Church of Scotland should, without encroachment, enjoy her
freedom and privileges as established by the laws of the land; and by
all lawful means to represent the offensiveness of the lax toleration
then permitted, in order that it might be remedied. He was to endeavour
to secure the right application of the ministers’ stipends, and to
procure for those regularly admitted by the presbyteries the benefit
of the act abolishing patronage.
The correspondence between Sharp and his constituents began on
the 14th of February, the date of his first letter from London, Mr.
Douglas being the chief conductor of the correspondence from Edinburgh.
Sharp’s account of his own proceedings, and of the state of parties in
England touching religious matters, is minute and seemingly correct.
He soon began to impress upon the Scottish ministers in Edinburgh,
that Episcopacy would be re-established in England, and that it was
useless to think of a Covenanted uniformity between the two nations.
He repeatedly expressed the hope that the existing polity of the Church
of Scotland would not be changed, and in his letters to Mr. Douglas
he frequently made solemn averments of his devotion and attachment
to Presbyterianism. Sharp returned to Scotland in the end of August,
1660, and on the 3rd of September, a letter which he brought from the
King was communicated to the presbytery of Edinburgh. In it the King
declared:――“We do also resolve to protect and preserve the government
of the Church of Scotland, as it is settled by law, without violation;
and to countenance, in the due exercise of their functions, all such
ministers who shall behave themselves dutifully and peaceably as
becomes men of their calling.” This and other reassuring statements
in the letter were ordered to be intimated to all the presbyteries in
the kingdom, and the letter was considered satisfactory by the leading
ministers of the moderate party. A committee was appointed to prepare
an address expressing their humble thanks to his Majesty.¹ Thus it
appears that the intention of the court had been carefully concealed
from the Scottish clergy, and that Sharp, who was already virtually
Archbishop of St. Andrews and Primate of Scotland, had acted his part
with great craft and duplicity.
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 5‒54, 80‒81.
When the King returned, many of the Scotch nobles and gentry flocked
to London, all eager to present their claims for posts in the new
government of the kingdom. The civil war and the subsequent subjection
of the nation under Cromwell had rendered the Scotch nobles extremely
poor and demoralised. As they had never been scrupulous about the
means of attaining their ends, so they were now more than ever on the
alert for everything that seemed likely to enhance their importance,
or to advance their interest. This partly explains their subsequent
proceedings, and their readiness to support the measures of the King
and his advisers. In past struggles, many of them had joined with the
people against the Crown and the government, but recently that line of
action had been a losing and ruinous one, and there was no prospect of
any personal advantage to be gained by it; accordingly, they elected
to follow the King and the court in whatever might be proposed, as the
most direct and safe way of promoting their own interests. Sentiments
and principles were cast to the winds with scorn and contempt;
religious convictions, covenants, equity, and justice, might all go
to the wall, but Charles II. must be upheld in his rights and absolute
prerogatives.
The Earl of Rothes was appointed President of the Council; Glencairn,
Chancellor; Crawford, Treasurer; Sir Archibald Primrose, Clerk Register;
and Sir John Fletcher, Lord-Advocate. Meetings of all the Scotchmen
in London were held by the King’s authority, and they agreed that the
committee of the parliament held at Stirling in 1650, should manage
the affairs of Scotland till a new parliament should be assembled.
The resumption of office by the Committee of Estates was signalised
at Edinburgh by a royal proclamation, on the 23rd of August, 1660.
The same day they manifested their authority by dispersing a meeting
of the protesting ministers. This section of the Presbyterians was
in great danger, as their brethren, the Resolutioners, had placed too
much confidence in Sharp and the King’s letter, had become cold and
unyielding towards the Protestors, and even proceeded to depose some
of them. The Protestors justly suspected that some design was hatching
against Presbyterianism, and wished to join with the Resolutioners
in an effort to frustrate it; but at the time the latter were so
far deceived that they rejected this proposal, and only discovered
their mistake when it was beyond remedy. Thus it was, when the
real intentions of the government became known in Scotland, the
Presbyterians were not in a position to offer effective opposition to
the new scheme. The Committee of Estates immediately passed an act for
the apprehension of Mr. James Guthrie, one of the venerable leaders
of the Protestors, and other ministers of this party, and they were
imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle. The committee waxed bold, and on the
24th of August issued a proclamation prohibiting all public meetings
unless authorised by the King, and suppressing all seditious petitions.
Another proclamation on the 19th of September condemned two books, one
entitled _Lex Rex_, and the other _The Causes of God’s Wrath_. As these
books were full of rebellious principles, calculated to turn the hearts
of the people against “the King’s Majesty’s person, his royal authority
and the peace of this kingdom,” therefore they ought not to be read nor
kept by any of his Majesty’s subjects, and must be delivered up to one
of his Majesty’s solicitors before the 16th of October. Accordingly
on the 17th of the month, these books were burned by the hands of the
common hangman at the cross of Edinburgh. Yet another proclamation was
issued, forbidding the circulation of lies and slanders against his
Majesty, or making speeches, uttering in sermons, in declarations, or
by letters, libels, rhymes, and other writings, implying reproach of
his Majesty’s person or his government, under severe penalties. The
ministers were specially warned to be careful of their language in
their sermons, in their prayers, and in their private discourses.¹ The
new government was aware of the power of the human voice, and at the
outset endeavoured to stifle it.
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 65‒77.
On the 8th of July, 1660, the Marquis of Argyle was seized in London
and lodged in the Tower; while orders were sent from the court to
Scotland to arrest Johnston of Warriston and several other gentlemen.
In autumn a number of the ministers were brought before the Committee
of Estates, and some of them imprisoned. Already it was felt that a
great change was impending.
The Earl of Middleton, as Royal Commissioner, arrived in Scotland
the last day of December, and on the 1st of January, 1661, the new
parliament met. The house immediately proceeded to business, and passed
many acts for settling the affairs of the nation according to the new
plot. The first act was a parliamentary oath of allegiance, to be taken
by all the members of the house. By it they testified their faithful
obedience to “Charles, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland,
defender of the faith, and do affirm, testify, and declare, by this
my solemn oath, that I acknowledge my said sovereign, only supreme
governor of this kingdom, over all persons and in all causes ... and
shall at my utmost power defend, assist, and maintain his Majesty’s
jurisdiction, against all deadly, and never decline his Majesty’s
jurisdiction, as I shall answer to God.” In other acts of this
parliament it was stated to be his Majesty’s prerogative by divine
right to choose all Officers of State, Councillors, and Lords of
Sessions, as also the calling, proroguing, and dissolving of all
parliaments; and that all meetings without his special authority were
null; while in the preamble to one of the acts it was declared that
“the happiness of the people depended upon the maintenance of the
King’s prerogative.” Leagues and bonds without the King’s sanction were
denounced and prohibited; and it was asserted that the King had the
sole right of making peace and war. The swearing or renewing the League
and Covenant, or any covenant or oath, was prohibited, without the
King’s warrant. An act was passed in very strong terms “for taking the
oath of allegiance, and asserting the royal prerogative.”¹ This act was
afterwards used for annoying and punishing people; it became a test of
loyalty, and when any suspected person was brought before the Council
or any of the courts, it was tendered to him; if he signed it he was
usually dismissed, but if he refused, the refusal was immediately
turned into a libel against him and no mercy was shown.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages 3,
7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 44‒45.
But the greatest achievement of the session was the Rescissory
Act, which rescinded all the Acts of Parliament since 1633 to
the Restoration. After some debate it was passed, and so the
entire legislation of the Covenanting period was swept away, and
Presbyterianism ceased to be the form of government in the Established
Church of Scotland, while the old laws in favour of Episcopacy were
again brought into force. This act was directly followed by “an act
concerning religion and Church government,” in which the King thanked
God for preserving him through so many troubles and perils, and
miraculously restoring him to his just rights and to the government
of his kingdoms; and he was therefore desirous to do something for
the glory and the honour of God. So he declared it to be “his firm
resolution to maintain the true Reformed Protestant religion, in its
purity of doctrine and worship, as it was established within this
kingdom, during the reigns of his royal father and grandfather of
blessed memory.... As to the government of the Church, his Majesty
will make it his care to settle and secure it in such a frame as shall
be most agreeable to the word of God, most suitable to monarchical
government, and most conducive to the public peace of the kingdom.”
Meanwhile he allowed the existing administrations by sessions,
presbyteries, and synods.¹ Thus parliament left the definite settlement
of the question of Church government in the hands of the King himself.
¹ _Ibid._, Volume VII., pages 86‒88.
When it became known that parliament was passing acts for subverting
the established form of Church government, the ministers of Edinburgh
and others exerted themselves to prevent it. Some of the presbyteries
and synods openly declared against the reintroduction of Episcopacy,
but their efforts were unavailing. In some instances the synods were
dissolved, in others the party on the side of the government ordered
the meeting to be purged of rebels――of the opposition ministers――and
by such means the opposition was completely stifled.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 109‒130.
The new government deemed it necessary to sacrifice a few victims as a
warning to others. On the 13th of February, 1661, the Marquis of Argyle
was brought to the bar of parliament, and accused of high treason.
After a long and tedious trial, he was found guilty, condemned, and
executed at Edinburgh on the 27th of May. Mr. James Guthrie, minister
of Stirling, was summoned before parliament on the 20th of February,
and charged with high treason. The chief points of his indictment were
that he contrived, consented to, and presented to the Committee of
Estates, the document called “The Western Remonstrance”; and that
he composed and published the pamphlet called “The Causes of God’s
Wrath”; and that he framed and subscribed the paper called “The Humble
Petition,” of the 23rd of August, 1660, when he was apprehended; that
he had convened meetings without the King’s authority; that he had
uttered treasonable expressions in a meeting in 1650; and that he had
declined his Majesty’s jurisdiction. But at this time such charges,
with a little variation, might easily have been brought against many
persons. Guthrie was, however, condemned, and executed at Edinburgh
on the 1st of June, 1661. Several other ministers were accused before
parliament, and sentenced to undergo various punishments. Johnston
of Warriston was another of the selected victims. He had been a very
active man throughout the Covenanting period, and he had also been
employed by Cromwell, which in the estimation of the government was
a great crime. At this time he escaped to the Continent, but was
condemned in his absence. He was afterwards taken in France, and sent
to Edinburgh for execution. It has been reported that he received the
sentence to be hanged with courage, and passed his last moments like a
Christian man.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages 26,
29; Appendix, pages 13, 34‒59, 64‒70, 71, 73‒75; Wodrow’s
_History_, Volume I., pages 131‒217.
This session of parliament closed on the 12th of July, 1661; and the
following day the new Privy Council met. It was reconstructed and
invested with greater powers than the old Privy Council, as it was
to continue the functions of the Estates in the intervals between the
sessions, and thus to exercise judicial, legislative, and political
power. Throughout the following period of persecution it wielded its
authority in a high-handed manner. The greater part of the higher
nobles were in the new Privy Council, and the chief officers of State
were also members; while the courts of session and justiciary were
reconstituted, in place of the courts which Cromwell had introduced.
Thus the new government, being fully constituted, proceeded with
business.
On the last day of August, 1661, the Earls of Glencairn, Rothes, and
Sharp, the future Primate, returned from London with a letter from
the King, which was brought before the Privy Council on the 5th of
September. In this paper, the King referred to his letter of the
preceding year to the presbytery of Edinburgh, in which he had stated
his intention to maintain the government of the Church of Scotland as
settled by law; but the acts of the last parliament had rescinded all
the legislation of the kingdom since 1633, as it was not in accordance
with the monarchy and the “divine rights” of his Majesty. The King’s
inference was therefore plain, the Church was now exactly in the
same relation to the State as she had been in 1633; and by his royal
authority he resolved to restore the “Church to its government by
bishops, as it was by law before the late troubles, during the reigns
of our father and grandfather of blessed memory, and as it now stands
settled by law.” The Privy Council directly passed an act in harmony
with the royal letter, and proclaimed it at the Cross of Edinburgh.¹
Thus Episcopacy was again established in Scotland.
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 230‒231.
The scramble for the bishoprics immediately began. The men whom the
court selected for this dignity, with one or two exceptions, were
characters of meagre ability, poorly qualified for commanding the
respect or the reverence of the people. Sharp had secured for himself
the primacy, but many evil wishes followed him, and it is very doubtful
if the post answered his expectations. The new bishops had again to
receive consecration from England. The King and his Scotch government
did all that they could to enhance the importance of the bishops, and
to secure for them the respect of the people. He instructed the Privy
Council to “take special care that all due deference and respect be
given by all our subjects to the archbishops and bishops of that Church;
and that they have all countenance, assistance, and encouragement, from
the nobility, the gentry, and the burghs, in the discharge of their
office and services to us in the Church; and that severe and exemplary
notice be taken of all and every one who shall presume to reflect, or
express any disrespect to their persons, or the authority with which
they are entrusted.” The Council carried out these commands to the
utmost of their power.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 235‒236, 248‒253; Dr. Grub’s _Ecclesiastical
History of Scotland_, Volume III., pages 191‒198, 215, 242.
On the 8th of May 1662, the second session of parliament was opened by
a sermon from the Bishop of Dunkeld; and Middleton again took his seat
on the throne as royal Commissioner. The third statute passed was, “An
act for the restitution and re-establishment of the ancient government
of the Church by archbishops and bishops.” This act repealed all the
laws in favour of the presbyterian polity, especially the act of 1592.
While bishops were restored to all the rights and privileges which
they enjoyed in 1637, and they were empowered to take upon themselves
the whole government of the Church, with the assistance of any of the
clergy who might be suitable for their purpose, untrammeled by any
court, and responsible for their proceedings to the King alone. “And
further, it is hereby declared that whatever shall be determined by his
Majesty, with advice of the archbishops and bishops, and such of the
clergy as shall be nominated by his Majesty, in the external government
and policy of the Church, shall be valid and effectual.” It also
reinstated the bishops in all the claims, rights, patronages, rents,
possessions, and lands which were possessed by their predecessors
in the year 1637, notwithstanding any gifts or alienations of these
possessions since that date. When this act was passed, the bishops
immediately resumed their seats in parliament.¹ Thus, as the servants
of the Crown, the bishops were entrusted with ample powers.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
368, 372‒374.
The business of parliament was rapidly pushed on, and many acts were
passed to secure the new order and the ends of the government. A
statute was framed and passed for the preservation of his Majesty’s
person, authority, and government. In this act it was asserted that
the people were under great obligation to show all possible care for
the preservation of the King’s person, as “in his honour and happiness
consists the good and welfare of his people.” The evils of rebellion
were expounded, and the National Covenant and the Solemn League
and Covenant were declared unlawful, and henceforth null and void.
Hereafter, if any person plotted the death of the King, or intended any
harm to his person tending to death, or put any restraint upon him, or
deposed or suspended him from the style and the honour of the kingly
and imperial Crown of the kingdom, or by writing, printing, preaching,
or maliciously speaking――expressed their treasonable intentions, all
those found guilty of such crimes incurred the penalties of treason,
and forfeited their lives, lands, and goods. Further, all who by
writing, printing, praying, preaching, remonstrating, or speaking, may
express “any words or sentences to stir up the people to the hatred or
dislike of his Majesty’s royal prerogative and supremacy in all causes
ecclesiastical, or of the government of the Church by archbishops
and bishops, as it is now settled by law ... and being legally
convicted thereof, are hereby declared incapable of holding any place
or employment, civil, ecclesiastical, or military, within this Church
and Kingdom, and shall be liable to such further penalties as the law
demands.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
376‒377, 379.
To render the new order more complete, patronage was restored. All
the ministers who had entered on their charges since 1649 were
deprived of the right to their livings, unless each of them received
a presentation from his patron and institution from his bishop; and
patrons were requested to give presentations to the incumbents who
applied within a limited time. Another act was passed touching the
professors and masters of the universities, ministers, private meetings,
and conventicles. This act affirmed that it was necessary for the
advancement of religion and learning, the good of the Church and the
peace of the kingdom, that all the principals, professors, regents, and
masters of the colleges, should be loyal to the King, and well-affected
to the established government in Church and State; and it was therefore
enacted that none of these should be permitted to remain in their
offices, except they submitted to and owned the government of the
Church by archbishops and bishops, after having given satisfaction
on all points to the bishops, and in their presence taken the oath
of allegiance. In the same act the ministers were enjoined to be
careful in attending the bishops’ visitations, the diocesan synods,
and assisting in all the acts of discipline which the bishops required;
and if they refused to comply in these particulars, they were to be
deprived of their benefices. Another clause of the act prohibited
meetings or conventicles for religious exercises, because they were
“the nurseries of sedition,” even though held in private families;
and therefore all private meetings under the pretence of religious
exercises, which tended to damage the public worship in the churches,
to alienate the people from their lawful pastors, and their obedience
to the Church and to the State, were henceforth forbidden. In future
no one should be permitted to preach in public or in private anywhere,
or to teach in any public school, or among the children of the nobles,
without a licence from the ordinary of the diocese.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., page 379.
Another act touching the declaration to be signed by all persons in
public employment was passed. As this declaration was made the ground
of much of the oppression which ensued, it may be quoted here:――“I,
―――― do sincerely affirm and declare, that I judge it unlawful to
subjects upon any pretext of reformation, or other pretext whatever,
to enter into leagues and covenants, or to take up arms against the
King, or those commissioned by him; and that all those gatherings,
convocations, petitions, protestations, and erecting or keeping of
council tables that was used in the beginning, and for carrying on of
the late troubles, were unlawful and seditious; and particularly, that
these oaths, the one called the National Covenant, as it was sworn and
explained in the year 1638, and thereafter, and the other, entitled a
Solemn League and Covenant, were and are in themselves unlawful oaths,
and were taken by, and imposed upon the subjects of this kingdom,
against the fundamental laws and liberties of the same; and that
there lies no obligation upon me or any of the subjects, from the said
oaths or either of them, to endeavour any change or alteration of the
government, either in Church or State, as it is now established by
the laws of the kingdom.”¹ Besides this declaration, which might be
tendered to anyone, there were the oath of allegiance, and the act
declaratory of the royal prerogative and supremacy. And, as it was easy
to entangle the people with legal documents of this description, these
acts and oaths became the instruments of oppression and persecution.
¹ _Ibid._, pages 405‒406.
The new hierarchy thus thrust upon the nation was a curious
establishment. It had no liturgy; the whole discipline of the Church
was placed in the hands of the bishops; and the bishops themselves were
entirely dependent upon the King, who was made pope and despot by the
parliament of Scotland.
Towards the end of the session, parliament entered on the consideration
of the long-delayed indemnity. A list of names was framed, containing
of upwards of eight hundred persons, who were commanded to pay fines
before they receive such protection as the law then afforded. Middleton,
the royal Commissioner, also obtained the King’s warrant for excluding
from offices of public trust any twelve persons whom parliament might
name by ballot; but this balloting act, though carried by Middleton,
was shortly afterwards annulled, and the royal Commissioner himself
stripped of his position and power.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
415‒416, 420‒429; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages
270‒279.
Parliament was adjourned on the 9th of September, 1662. The next day
the Privy Council met, and ordered the diocesan synods to be held in
October. These synods accordingly met as commanded. In the north they
were pretty well attended, but in the south and in the west many of
the ministers absented themselves. In the diocese of Glasgow alone,
out of two hundred and forty ministers, only thirty-two were present at
the synod;¹ while in the diocese of Galloway and Argyle none attended,
except the newly appointed deans.
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 280‒281; Dr. Grub’s
_Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, Volume III., page 201.
About the end of September, the royal commissioner and other members
of the Privy Council went on a tour to the west, with the object of
enforcing obedience to the bishops and to the new laws. At Glasgow,
the archbishop complained to them that though the time appointed by the
law was past, very few of the ministers of his diocese had presented
themselves for institution; and it was reported that he urged them to
enforce the provisions of the act. On the 1st of October, 1662, the
Privy Council met in Glasgow, and passed an act announcing that all
the ministers who had not complied with the law should forfeit their
livings; also interdicting them from preaching, and ordering them to
remove from their manses and parishes before the 1st of November, and
not to reside within the bounds of their respective presbyteries. The
Council had imagined that only a few of the ministers would refuse to
comply; but when the date came, about three hundred of the ministers
left their manses and their parishes, rather than subject themselves to
episcopacy and to political bondage. In the northern and eastern parts
of the kingdom many of the ministers submitted to the bishops, but in
the west and in the south only one here and there. This was a serious
blow to the new polity, and the Privy Council became alarmed at the
result of its own proceedings. Sharp, the primate, disclaimed all
responsibility in connection with the Glasgow act; and Middleton,
incapable of understanding the sentiments of the refractory ministers,
raged at the obstinacy of the men who persisted in ruining themselves
for the sake of presbyterianism. Many of the people encouraged their
ministers to resist the bishops, and rejoiced to see them manifest
their honesty and constancy. The Council saw their mistake, and passed
another act on the 23rd of December, allowing the ministers ejected
under the Glasgow act liberty to apply for presentation and collation
before the 1st of February, 1663. This however, induced only a few to
resume their functions; and when the 1st of February came, many of the
ministers relinquished their livings and left their parishes.¹
¹ _Kirkton_, pages 148‒154, 1817; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume
I., pages 281‒286.
Meanwhile a number of ministers were under legal process on various
grounds; the presbyterian ministers and all who openly adhered to them
were severely treated. In September, 1662, the Privy Council announced
that many persons disaffected to the King had resorted to Edinburgh;
and, therefore, commanded the magistrates to furnish reports of the
numbers of such persons in the city every evening. The ministers of the
capital, who refused to conform to the new order of the Church, were
commanded to depart from the city, while several were banished out of
the King’s dominions, not to return under the penalty of death, and
others under lesser penalties.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 297‒318.
In the winter of 1663, a contest arose between Middleton and the Earl
of Lauderdale (the latter then secretary), for the chief place in
the management of the government of Scotland. In spite of all that
Middleton had done for the King in the Scotch parliament, Lauderdale
prevailed on the King to dismiss him; and in March his commission was
recalled, and shortly after he was deprived of all his other offices.
The Earl of Rothes was appointed royal commissioner; but Lauderdale
obtained, and long held the ascendancy in the government of Scotland,
mainly by his pandering to the King.¹
¹ Sir George Mackenzie’s _Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland_,
pages 78‒114, 1821.
Rothes and Lauderdale arrived in Edinburgh in June, 1663; and
Parliament reassembled on the 18th of the month. The lords of the
articles were changed, and re-elected in the following mode:――The
bishops elected eight of the nobles, the nobles then elected eight of
the bishops; and these together elected eight from the county members,
and eight from the burgh members. Thus the committee of the articles
was certain to be on the side of the court. The acts of the two last
sessions of parliament were explicit on the powers of the King, and
on the functions of the bishops of the Church; but to suppress and
subdue the opposition to the new clergy which had been manifesting
itself, another oppressive act was passed, and its aim was to prevent
separation from the established worship, and disobedience to the
episcopal authorities. It again asserted that the King had determined
to maintain the government of the Church by archbishops and bishops,
“and not to endure nor give in to any variation therein in the least.”
The ejected ministers were prohibited from preaching or assuming any
of their functions, under the penalty of sedition. All persons were
commanded to attend the ordinary meetings of public worship in their
own parish churches on Sunday; and if they absented themselves, they
incurred the following fines:――each noble, gentleman, or proprietor of
land, the sum of one-fourth of his yearly rental――each tenant, a fourth
part of his moveable goods,――each burgess, a fourth of his moveable
goods, with the forfeiture of his freedom of trading and all privileges
within the burgh. The Privy Council were ordered to enforce this act
vigorously, and having called all persons before them, whom the curates
and two witnesses had reported, to inflict on the offenders the above
penalties, and any corporal punishment which they thought fit.¹ This
act was excessively oppressive, and the people called it in derision
“the bishops’ dragnet.”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
446‒449, 455‒456.
This parliament generously offered the King a force of twenty thousand
foot and two thousand horsemen, who might serve him in any part of
Scotland, England, or Ireland. The Estates adjourned on the 9th of
October, and no more parliaments were assembled in Scotland for six
years.¹
¹ _Ibid._, page 480; Mackenzie’s _Memoirs of the Affairs of
Scotland_, pages 132‒133.
Some of the ejected ministers still resided in their parishes, and
naturally continued to preach. The people in many places flocked to
hear them; while the new incumbents often found their churches deserted,
which was extremely displeasing to the government. Thus the religious
meetings arose which the authorities called “conventicles,” and which
parliament had already attempted to extinguish by compelling the people
to attend the parish churches. In June, 1663, the archbishops of St.
Andrews and of Glasgow were appointed Privy Councillors. On the 13th of
August, the council passed an act, by which all the ministers appointed
before 1649, who had not received presentation and collation, were
commanded to remove from their parishes, with their families, within
three weeks, and not to reside within twenty miles of their former
parishes, or within six miles of Edinburgh, or any cathedral church,
or three miles of any royal burgh, under the penalty of sedition. All
landholders and householders in the kingdom were strictly forbidden
to give any countenance to these ministers. On the 17th of September,
the Privy Council issued a proclamation against persons who presumed
to withdraw from the ordinary meetings of public worship, in parishes
where curates were already planted; and not only commanded all the
nobles, the sheriffs, the magistrates, and justices of peace, but
also all the officers in the standing army, to assist the curates in
compelling the people to attend their parish churches. The officers of
the army were empowered to exact fines from all who absented themselves
from the churches on Sunday; thus the course of persecution was begun
and vigorously continued.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 340‒346.
In October, 1663, different detachments of troops were sent to the
south, to the west, and to the south-west, but the greatest suffering
was inflicted in the south-west, and to this region Sir James Turner
was despatched. He had served in foreign wars, and was a fit instrument
for the work assigned to him. He was ordered to put the law into
execution against all who withdrew from hearing the curates; and to
impose a fine of twenty shillings Scots for every time that a person
was absent. The process of fining was very summary: the curate accused
whom he pleased to any one of the officers of the army, who acted
as judge; no witnesses were required; the soldiers also executed the
sentence; while very often the fine extorted far exceeded what the law
allowed, and frequently went into the officers’ own pockets.¹ These
proceedings were extremely galling to the people of the west, who
were firmly attached to presbyterian principles. But some of the new
curates adopted the device of calling a roll of the parishioners at the
close of the service, and then handed the list of the absentees to the
officer commanding in the district. If a tenant or the head of a family
was unwilling or unable to pay the fines, the soldiers were sent to
quarter upon him; and in this way many poor families were ruined, as
their goods were distrained and sold. In executing these proceedings,
the soldiers were often insolent, rude, and cruel; they mocked at
family worship, and disturbed and annoyed the people when engaged in it;
many of them were cruelly beaten, and driven to church and to prison
with equal violence. Thus all the humble ranks of the people were
treated; but the names of defaulting landed proprietors were directly
forwarded to the Privy Council, and it speedily disposed of their cases.
The military executed another form of oppression at the churches of the
old presbyterian ministers, some of whom had remained in their parishes
and had large congregations, which seems to have greatly offended the
bishops. The soldiers were ordered to go to these churches and inspect
the congregations. The mode of proceeding in such instances was this:
――A party of soldiers came to the church door and guarded it, then
ordered the people to pass out one by one, and interrogated them upon
oath, if they belonged to the parish; and if they could not answer that
they were parishioners, the soldiers immediately fined them, and any
money which they had on their person, was taken from them; but if they
had no money, or not so much as was required, then their bibles, the
men’s coats, and the women’s plaids, were taken from them. Instances
have been recorded where companies of soldiers entered the presbyterian
churches and interrupted the worship; while some were placed at each
door, others drove the people out, and forced them to swear whether
they belonged to this church or not, and according to the answers
received, they were allowed to go or were conveyed to prison. There
were yet other modes of compelling the people to attend the new curates,
for some of the bishops even employed spies, who went to conventicles
in disguise, and then informed upon those who were present.²
¹ Kirkton’s _History_, page 99; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I.,
pages 373‒374.
² Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., page 375; Kirkton’s _History_,
pages 200‒201.
The government still deemed the means of coercion insufficient; and the
King on the 16th January, 1664, authorised the erection of a Court of
High Commission, to attend especially to ecclesiastical matters. This
court was solely constituted by the royal prerogative. Its members
consisted of the two archbishops, seven other bishops, and thirty-five
laymen, including the chief officers of State; and any five of them,
one being a bishop, were to form a quorum. The court was invested
with plenary powers, and no one was exempted from its jurisdiction;
the least suspicion that a person was disaffected to the established
episcopacy might be construed into a crime; and it could cite ministers,
censure, fine, depose, imprison, or banish, all who refused to submit
to episcopacy. All the officers of the army, the sheriffs, the bailies
of regalities, justices of peace, and the magistrates, were ordered to
apprehend all such offenders and place them in the hands of the court;
and the governors of the King’s castles, and the keepers of prisons
were commanded to receive and to detain in close custody all such
persons as the commissioners of the court committed to them. Then the
fines imposed by this court were enforced by letters of horning; in
short, it was calculated to be an effective engine of oppression and
persecution. The record of its proceedings is lost, but contemporary
accounts describe it in terms of unmitigated condemnation. Before the
end of two years its powers were withdrawn, probably because the Privy
Council thought that it encroached upon its own authority.¹
¹ Kirkton’s _History_, pages 201‒203, 205‒207; Wodrow’s
_History_, Volume I., pages 384‒395.
The persecution was continued and increased in severity. On the
7th of December, 1665, the Privy Council passed an act against the
nonconforming ministers, and ordered that the former acts should be
rigorously enforced. At the same time the Council issued a proclamation
against conventicles, and again commanded all those in authority and
office to execute the law against every one attending these meetings.
The soldiers in Galloway and in the west oppressed the inhabitants by
quartering upon them; and they were authorised by the government to
collect the fines from those excluded from the King’s indemnity, as
well as the fines for nonconformity; and many acts of gross injustice
and cruelty were perpetrated. The people manifested a determination to
meet occasionally to hear their favourite preachers, in spite of all
the efforts of the government to prevent them. At last, driven past
the limits of human endurance and goaded to desperation, they turned
upon their oppressors. Their first act of open resistance occurred in
the vicinity of the small village of Dalry in Galloway, in November
1666, when four countrymen rescued an old man whom the soldiers were
maltreating to extort his church fines. They were soon joined by others,
and disarmed the small detachment of soldiers quartered in the district.
Having committed themselves, they resolved to surprise Sir James Turner,
and marched on Dumfries, where he had his head-quarters. They entered
the town on the morning of the 15th of November, and took Sir James a
prisoner, and disarmed his men. They then proceeded to the market cross
and publicly drank the King’s health, and prosperity to his government.
The rising was ill-concerted, however, and the insurgents hardly knew
what next to attempt.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 428‒430; Volume II.,
pages 8‒13; Kirkton’s _History_, pages 229‒232.
They proceeded to Ayrshire, where they expected many persons would join
them. But some of the leading men of the county were already in prison,
so that few joined their standard, and the enterprise seemed hopeless.
The insurgents then marched into Lanark, and in that county their
numbers reached about two thousand; but they had no organisation or
discipline. There they renewed the covenant, and issued a manifesto.
Meanwhile the Privy Council had ordered Dalziel to march against the
insurgents, who had advanced to the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, but
were unable to take it, and retired southwards to the Pentland Hills.
On the 28th of November, Dalziel with the royal army came upon the
insurgents; and after a slight encounter, completely defeated them.
About fifty of the insurgents were killed, and one hundred taken
prisoners.¹
¹ Learmont’s _Chronicle_; Blackadder’s _Memoirs_.
The prisoners were brought to Edinburgh to be tried. Much care had
been taken to magnify the rising as the result of some great conspiracy
against the government; and the authorities resolved to try if torture
would elicit a confession. Hugh McKail, a preacher, and John Neilson of
Corsack, were both tortured, their legs being encased in that fearful
instrument, the boot, and crushed unmercifully to extort a confession,
but they had nothing to confess. Yet it never seems to have occurred
to the authorities that their own oppressive treatment of these poor
people was an all-sufficient explanation of the rising. McKail was
executed, and the dismal work proceeded; nineteen were hanged in
Edinburgh, and about the same number in Glasgow, Ayr, Irvine, and
Dumfries; altogether forty persons were executed.¹
¹ Kirkton’s _History_, pages 247‒255; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume II., pages 39‒55.
Military execution directly followed, Dalziel and Drummond were
despatched westward to crush out the spirit of rebellion, and compel
the people to embrace episcopacy. The army acted with more rapacity
than if they had been in an enemy’s country. Wherever they went
they took free quarters. On the roads and in the fields robbery and
murder were frequently committed with impunity; while complaints
only occasioned more suffering. Suspicion was accepted as evidence of
guilt, no proof of innocence was allowed, or mitigating circumstance
considered. Many acts of extreme cruelty and outrage have been recorded,
but I refrain from detailing these sickening scenes.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 62‒80.
Much of the odium of this persecution was attributed to Archbishop
Sharp. Whether rightly or wrongly, it was certainly believed that he
had insisted on strong measures of repression. Some men of influence
began to think that there had been enough of violence, and a rather
milder mode of administration was attempted, though no change was made
in the principles of the government itself. In August, 1667, the army
was ordered to be disbanded; and in October, an indemnity was offered
to all who had been engaged in the late rising, excepting a few who
were especially obnoxious, on the condition that they appeared before
the authorities and signed the bond of peace. This was to the effect
that the persons who signed it, promised to keep the public peace and
not rebel against the King’s authority. Thereupon the people enjoyed a
short breathing time, and began to hope that they might again be placed
under the protection of the common law of the kingdom.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume II., pages 80‒100.
In 1668 the government seemed to show some leniency to the
presbyterians, but, on the 11th of July, an extremely untoward event
happened in Edinburgh. James Mitchell, a young man who had been
concerned in the recent rising, and one of those specially excluded
from the indemnity, attempted to assassinate Archbishop Sharp. The
primate was coming from his lodging, and had just stepped into his
coach with the Bishop of Orkney, when a pistol shot was discharged
at him, which missed him, but shattered the Bishop of Orkney’s
arm. Mitchell crossed the street and instantly disappeared amid
the confusion; and he was not taken till six years afterwards. The
government naturally raised a great clamour about this dastardly
attempt, and offered a reward of two thousand merks to any person who
should discover the assassin, and three thousand to any one who should
apprehend him. It was reported that Sharp was much touched by the
attack on his life, and retained in his mind a vivid impression of the
figure of the assassin.¹ The King in his letters to the Privy Council
for some time after the attempt on Sharp’s life, warmly recommended the
bishops and the loyal clergy to the care of the Council. He enjoined
the Council to inquire minutely into all affronts and assaults upon
them. In the south and in the west, the bishops and the curates
required all the protection which the government could afford them;
for they were odious and hateful to the majority of the people in
these regions. The outcry was now renewed against the presbyterians
and their conventicles, and the Privy Council took steps to enforce
the acts against the nonconforming ministers and those who attended
conventicles, or had their children baptised by persons unauthorised by
the Established Church. Although many of the churches were vacant, the
bishops complained bitterly of the conduct of the ejected ministers who
officiated in their own houses and at conventicles. In consequence of
these complaints many of them were brought before the Council.²
¹ Kirkton’s _History_, 277‒279. Kirkton calls Mitchell “a weak
scholar, who had been in arms with the Whigs;” Wodrow says
“he was a preacher of the gospel, and a youth of much zeal
and piety” (Volume II., page 115). Sir James Turner called
him “a preacher, but not an actual minister” (_Account of the
Pentland Insurrection_). There is no evidence that he was a
licensed minister.
² Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 120‒129.
In the month of June, 1669, by authority of the King, a temporising
measure on a small scale was tried. The Privy Council was authorised
to appoint as many of the ejected ministers as they thought fit to the
vacant churches. Those who consented to take collation from the bishops
were to receive their stipends; and those who did not were only to have
the use of the manse and the glebe, with permission to exercise their
functions, and to receive annually such a sum of money as the Council
thought fit. All the ministers who accepted this offer bound themselves
to attend the meetings of the presbyteries and the synods, and not to
administer the communion to any one save their own parishioners, or
baptise children, or marry parties from neighbouring parishes, without
the permission of the minister of the parish to which they belonged;
they were besides to discourage the people of other parishes from
attending their preaching. As the government thought that these orders
had removed all pretence for holding conventicles, the Privy Council
was commanded to proceed with the utmost severity against all who
preached without authority and those who listened to them. Upwards of
forty ministers were re-admitted to parishes under the above conditions.
But it soon became manifest that this compromise was unsatisfactory to
all concerned. The true blue presbyterians asserted that it was merely
an attempt to blind them; and those not included in the indulgence
railed against the ministers who had accepted it. The episcopal party
were equally displeased with it; and in a short time the Council
refused to grant any more indulgences to the ejected ministers.¹
¹ Sir George Mackenzie’s _Memoirs_, pages 261‒262; Wodrow’s
_History_, Volume II., pages 129‒136.
The second parliament of this reign was opened at Edinburgh on the 19th
of October, 1669, with the Earl of Lauderdale officiating as a royal
commissioner. The King in his letter to the Estates proposed a union
of the two kingdoms, but the proposal came to no practical result. The
Archbishop of St. Andrews preached a sermon before parliament, in which
he stated that there were three pretenders to supremacy――the Pope, the
King, and the General Assembly of the presbyterians, all whose claims
he maintained were untenable. The Lords of the Council were inclined
to resent this, and an act was introduced and passed in parliament
containing a full and definite statement of the King’s supremacy.
This act is not long, and as it presents an indication of the principle
on which the government of the Church of Scotland was then founded, it
may be quoted. “The Estates of parliament having seriously considered
how necessary it is, for the good and peace of the Church and the State,
that his Majesty’s power and authority in relation to matters and
persons ecclesiastical be more clearly asserted by an act of parliament;
having therefore thought fit it be enacted, asserted and declared;
so his Majesty, with advice and consent of his Estates of parliament,
does hereby enact, assert and declare, that his Majesty has the
supreme authority and supremacy over all persons and in all causes
ecclesiastical within this kingdom: and that by virtue thereof, the
ordering and disposal of the external government and polity of the
Church does properly belong to his Majesty and to his successors, as
an inherent right of the Crown: and that his Majesty and his successors
may settle, enact, and emit such constitutions, acts, and orders,
concerning the administration of the external government of the
Church, and the persons employed in the same; and concerning all
ecclesiastical meetings and matters to be proposed and determined
therein, as they in their royal wisdom shall think fit: which acts,
orders, and constitutions, being recorded in the books of Council
and duly published, are to be obeyed by all his Majesty’s subjects,
notwithstanding any law, act, or custom to the contrary: likewise his
Majesty with advice and consent aforesaid, does rescind and annul all
laws, acts, and clauses thereof, and all customs and constitutions,
civil and ecclesiastical, which are contrary to, or inconsistent with
his Majesty’s supremacy, as it is hereby asserted, and declares the
same void and null in all time coming.”¹ This act invested the Privy
Council with full legislative power, and reasserted the position of
Charles as King and Pope.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
551, 554; Sir George Mackenzie’s _Memoirs_, pages 159‒160.
The Estates passed an act for the protection of the episcopal clergy
from the violence of disaffected and disloyal persons, and ratified all
the former acts and proclamations of the Privy Council on this point,
and all previous acts of parliament. Land-owners, life-renters, and
others were commanded to protect, to defend, and to secure the persons,
families, and goods of their ministers; guarding them not merely in the
exercise of their functions, but in their houses and elsewhere, from
all injuries and affronts at the hands of disaffected persons;¹ while
an act was passed for facilitating the payment of disputed parts of the
bishops’ and curates’ stipends and rents.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., page 556.
The presbyterians had frequently met in private houses, but now they
began to assemble in the fields; the men sometimes attending the
conventicles armed, in case of being surprised by the soldiers who were
always scouring the country. On the 13th of January, 1670, additional
orders were given to the troops; and on the 3rd of February, a
proclamation concerning conventicles was issued, by which the soldiers
were commanded to seize the persons of landlords, ejected ministers,
tenants, and others, who attended the conventicles, to compel them to
find bail, and if they refused it, then to send them to the Council,
with a list of the witnesses against them. This year many field
meetings were held, three of them attracting particular notice owing
to the crowds assembled. One met at Beithhill, in the parish of
Dunfermline, in the middle of June; another at Livingseat, in the
parish of Carnwath, about the same date; and the third at the Torwood,
in Stirlingshire, in the beginning of July. One of the ministers
who preached at the first of these meetings, has himself given an
interesting account of it. The people began to gather on Saturday
afternoon, and many lay all night upon the hill-side. The ministers who
officiated were Mr. John Dickson and Mr. John Blackadder, the latter
having come from Edinburgh on Saturday night. It was resolved to hold
the meeting on the summit of the hill, for greater security; and a
fitting spot having been chosen, they pitched their tent. Mr. Dickson
conducted the service in the forenoon; and while this was going on, Mr.
Blackadder placed himself at the outskirts of the crowd, with the men
appointed to watch. During the time of the service some ill-affected
people were observed to come in among them, and amongst others the two
sons of the curate, with fourteen strong fellows at their back. Mr.
Blackadder permitted them to come and hear, but not to depart, lest
they should give the alarm, and the watch kept their eyes on them. The
morning preaching, which began at eight, was peaceably concluded about
eleven.
Mr. Blackadder preached in the afternoon; but before going to the tent,
when revolving his sermon in his mind, he heard a noise, and found
that it proceeded from a party bringing back the curate’s two sons,
with some violence, for which he rebuked them, and ordered the men to
let the youths come back without hurting them. After he had begun his
sermon, the lieutenant of the militia stationed in the district, with
a few others, arrived; he gave his horse to a man to hold, and passed
in among the people and listened to the preaching for a time. He then
returned to his horse and prepared to remount, when some of the guard
interfered and requested him to stay, lest his abrupt departure should
offend and disturb the meeting; but he refused to remain, and began
to threaten by drawing his staff. The guards then seized him as he
was putting his foot in the stirrup, and presented pistols at him.
The minister fearing that they might kill him, stopped his sermon,
and persuaded the people to allow the lieutenant to depart, and thus
to manifest their peaceable intentions. After settling this stir,
which lasted about half-an-hour, the minister returned to his tent
and resumed his sermon, and brought the meeting to a close. But this
interference with the King’s servant was afterwards made the occasion
of several severe prosecutions, so intent and determined was the
government on extinguishing conventicles.¹
¹ Blackadder’s _Memoirs_, pages 144‒148; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume II., pages 154‒159.
These meetings greatly irritated the government, and it was resolved to
adopt more severe measures of repression. Parliament met at Edinburgh
on the 28th of July, 1670, and passed a number of acts against all who
disagreed with the Established Church. One act concerning the giving
of evidence, commanded that every person in the kingdom when asked,
should declare upon oath whatever they knew about conventicles and
the individuals present at them. This oath to reveal what they knew
might be administered by anyone authorised by the King; and refusal
to take it was followed by fines, imprisonment, or banishment to the
plantations in the Indies, “or elsewhere, as his Majesty’s Council
shall think fit.” Another act touching field conventicles was still
more severe. After stating the fines and punishments imposed for
attending religious meetings in private houses, it was enunciated,
“that field meetings are the rendezvous of rebellion, and tend in a
high degree to the disturbance of the public peace; therefore it is
statuted and declared, that whosoever, without licence or authority,
shall preach, expound scripture, or pray, at any of these meetings in
the fields, or in any house where there are more persons than the house
contains, so that some of them be standing without doors, which is
hereby declared to be a field conventicle, shall be punished by death
and confiscation of goods. And it is hereby offered and assured, that
if any of his Majesty’s subjects shall seize and secure the persons of
any who shall either preach or pray at these field meetings, or convene
any persons thereto, they shall for each person so secured have five
hundred merks paid to them for reward, out of his Majesty’s treasury,
by the commissioners, who are hereby authorised to pay the same; and
the said seizers and their assistants are hereby indemnified from any
slaughter that may be committed in the apprehending and securing of
such persons.” A more mischievous act it would be difficult to conceive;
and that its operation would drive a portion of the people into
rebellion might have been expected. The act enforcing attendance at
public worship in the parish churches was re-enacted under a different
title; while another act was passed to punish those who offered their
children to be baptised by any other minister than their own parish
one, “or else by such as are authorised by the present established
government of the Church, or licensed by his Majesty’s Council.” The
aim of this was to prevent the ejected ministers from baptising; but
one act of exclusive legislation usually demands another of a similar
character. So parliament, in 1672, passed an act against those who
were unwilling to have their children baptised in an orderly form; and
enacting that these persons who failed to have their children baptised
by their parish ministers, within thirty days after birth, rendered
themselves liable to heavy fines. Thus, “every proprietor of land and
life-renter shall be fined a fourth part of his valued yearly rent;
every person above the rank of a tenant, having a personal but no
real estate, in a fine of one hundred pounds Scots; every considerable
merchant a fine of one hundred pounds Scots; every inferior merchant or
considerable tradesman, and every tenant labouring land, fifty pounds;
every meaner burgess, inhabitant of a burgh, and every cottar, twenty
pounds; and every servant half a year’s fee.”¹ This act has the merit
of definiteness and minuteness; but the enormous fines meant ruin to
the offending parties.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII. pages 7,
8‒10, 11, 72‒73.
In spite of this severity, the people in some districts continued to
meet in the fields; and every fresh attempt to enforce uniformity only
drove them into stronger dissent. Efforts of a more peaceful character
were tried by Bishop Leighton to win over the ejected ministers and
the nonconforming people of the west; but he met with little success.
He selected six persons, among whom were Bishop Burnet and Lawrence
Charteris, to preach to the people in the vacant churches throughout
the western counties. Their sermons were attended by numbers of the
people, but few of them were convinced or moved to change their views
by the arguments of the episcopal preachers. Burnet himself says, “The
people of the country came generally to hear us, though not in great
crowds. We were indeed amazed to see a poor commonalty so capable of
arguing upon points of government, and on the bounds to be set to the
power of princes in matters of religion. Upon all these topics they
had texts of scripture at hand; and were ready with their answers to
anything that was said to them. This measure of knowledge was spread
even among the meanest of them, their cottagers and their servants.
They were, indeed, vain of their knowledge, much conceited of
themselves, and were full of a most entangling scrupulosity; so that
they found or made difficulties in everything that could be laid before
them. We stayed about three months in the country, and in that time
there was a stand in the frequency of conventicles, but as soon as we
were gone, a set of these hot preachers went round all the places in
which we had been, to defeat all the good we could hope to do. They
told them the devil was never so formidable as when he was transformed
into an angel of light.”¹
¹ _History of His Own Time._ “The harvest they reapt was scorn
and contempt; a congregation they could never gather; they
never pretended to have made a proselyte.”――Kirkton’s
_History_, page 294.
Parliament met at Edinburgh in June, 1672, Lauderdale being again
royal commissioner; and excepting a short session in the following
year, there were no more meetings of parliament for nine years. An
act was passed renewing the former acts against conventicles; and
the act specially commanding the observance of the 29th of May, in
commemoration of his Majesty’s restoration to the kingdoms of his
ancestors: this act was repeatedly passed, and all the people commanded
to celebrate the event on the appointed day, by the ringing of bells,
bonfires at night, and other manifestations of joy; while all the
ministers were ordered to preach on this day, “that they, with the
whole people, may give thanks to God Almighty for His so signal
goodness to these kingdoms.” Those who failed to obey were to be
severely punished. Along with other acts this one afforded ground for
oppression.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
73, 89.
In September, 1672, the Privy Council granted another indulgence to the
ejected ministers. They were enjoined to repair to certain parishes,
which were named, in the dioceses of Galloway, Glasgow, Edinburgh and
Argyle, and two and sometimes three ministers were appointed for each
parish. They were permitted to preach and exercise their functions
within the limits assigned to them, a portion of the stipend being
allowed for their support. But this indulgence was disliked by many of
the presbyterian ministers; and those who accepted it were hampered by
many difficulties, while it gave little satisfaction to any.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 201‒211.
On the 7th of March, 1673, the Privy Council ordered all the ejected
ministers in Edinburgh to remove from it to a distance of five miles,
unless they bound themselves to hold no conventicles. In April, the
Council issued a proclamation announcing more severe penalties against
conventicles; and some of the indulged ministers were punished for not
confining themselves to the limits prescribed to them.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, pages 211‒233.
But the conventicles became more and more common, and in March
the government proclaimed an indemnity and pardon for past fines
and offences incurred through the contravention of the penal acts,
excepting the penalties already imposed, and all sentences of
banishment and imprisonment. This indemnity extended to the penalties
against conventicles, irregular baptisms, and marriages, up to the
date of its publication. But the people looked upon it rather as an
encouragement for the future than as a remission for past offences;
and from this time conventicles of all kinds increased still faster, in
houses, in churches, and in the fields. In the south, in the west, and
in Fife, the people fixed upon positions in fields, on moors, and on
the hills, where multitudes assembled every Sunday, till the defeat at
Bothwell Bridge. “Then the conversation up and down Scotland was the
quality and success of the last Sunday’s conventicle, who the preachers
were, what the number of the people was, what doctrine the minister
preached, what change was among the people; how sometimes the soldiers
assaulted them, and sometimes killed some of them; sometimes the
soldiers were beaten, and some of them killed. And this was the
exercise of the people of Scotland for a period of six years.” In the
summer of 1674, it was recorded that――“Because men durst not, the women
of Edinburgh would needs appear in a petition to the Council, wherein
they desired that a gospel ministry might be provided for the starving
congregations of Scotland. Fifteen of them, mostly ministers’ widows,
engaged to present so many copies to the principal Lords of Council,
and upon the 4th of June filled the whole Parliament Close. When the
Chancellor came up, Sharp kept close to his back, fearing, it may be,
bodily harm, which he then escaped. Only some of them reproached him,
calling him Judas and traitor, and one of them laid her hand upon his
neck, and told him that neck must pay for it ere all was done, and in
that guessed right; but this was all he suffered at that time. Mr. John
Livingston’s widow undertook to present her copy to the Chancellor,
which she did. He received it, and civilly pulled off his hat. When
she began to speak, and took hold of his sleeve, he bowed his head and
listened to her, even till he came to the Council chamber door. She who
presented her copy to Stair found no such kind reception, for he threw
it upon the ground, which made one tell him he did not so with the
remonstrance which he helped to write. But when the Council met, the
petition was turned into a seditious libel by the vote of the Court.
The provost and guard were sent for, but none of these were very cruel;
only they threatened, and the women dissolved. Thereafter, for an
example, some of them were cited, and some denounced rebels. Three
women they imprisoned also for a time――James Clelland’s wife, Miss
Campbell, and a daughter of Johnston of Warriston――and this was the
end of that brush.”――Sir George Mackenzie gives this account of the
affair;――“And petitions for able ministers were given in to the Council,
by many hundreds of women, who filled the Parliament Close, threatened
the Archbishop of St. Andrews, who passed along with the Chancellor,
for whose coming he had waited in his own chamber; and some of them
had conspired to set upon him, when a woman, who I shun to name, should
raise her hand on high as a signal: to prevent which, the Chancellor,
by entertaining the woman with insinuating speeches all the time as he
passed to the Council, did divert that bloody design.”¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 266‒267; Kirkton’s
_History_, pages 342‒346; _Memoirs_, page 273.
The government taxed its ingenuity to the utmost in devising means
to prohibit conventicles, and to crush the spirit of the people. In
June, 1674, the heads of families were made liable for their wives and
children, and their servants; and the proprietors of land for their
tenants and servants. They were obliged to subscribe a bond that they
would obey this, under severe penalties. The bond is in these terms:
“I――bind and oblige me, that I, my wife, or any of my children in
family with me, my cottars, or servants, shall not keep or be present
at conventicles, either in houses or in the fields, as the same is
defined by the 5th Act of the second session of his Majesty’s second
parliament, under the fines therein contained.... And for the more
security, I am content, and consent that these presents be inserted
in the books of the Privy Council, books of Council and Session, or
any other competent judges’ books, that letters and execution may pass
thereupon.... God save the King.” Proclamations and orders were issued
for apprehending the ministers who preached at conventicles, and the
people who attended them, while the promise of rewards to persons who
seized them was renewed. Indeed, every one in the kingdom was in some
way obliged or encouraged to inform upon another, and every man to ruin
his neighbour. On the 16th of July, 1674, thirty-nine of the ejected
ministers, having been shortly before summoned to appear before the
Council, and having failed to comply, were proclaimed rebels, and put
to the horn; amongst the list of ministers thus denounced some were
dead, and others had been indulged, but all were indiscriminately
proscribed. Donald Cargill, the noted field preacher, and James Kirkton,
the author of a history of the Church of Scotland, and other notable
Covenanters, were included in this sentence. These ministers, along
with others before denounced, then formed themselves into a body
completely separated from the bishops and the curates; and a number
of gentlemen and many of the people joined them. Having been outlawed,
they were forced to betake themselves to hiding-places, to the fields,
and to the hills. Being exposed to the attacks of the soldiers at their
meetings, these parties usually carried arms.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 234‒248; Kirkton’s
_History_, pages 348‒352.
Nevertheless the rigorous laws of the government failed to prevent
preaching in private houses and in the fields. In 1675, garrisons were
placed in private mansions, where the nonconformists were most numerous;
while letters of intercommuning were issued against upwards of a
hundred persons, of whom eighteen were ministers. Thus the dissenters
were not only outlawed but also deprived of all intercourse with their
fellow men; all who held any intercourse with them became implicated
in their crimes, and rendered themselves liable to the same punishment.
In the terms of the law then proclaimed――“We command and charge all
our subjects, that they, nor none of them, presume to reset, supply,
or intercommune with any of the aforesaid persons or rebels, for the
causes foresaid, nor furnish them with meat, drink, house, harbour,
victuals, or any other thing useful or comfortable to them, nor have
any intelligence with them by word, writing, message, or any other way,
under the penalty of being reputed and esteemed art and part with them
in their crimes, and pursued therefore with all rigour to the terror of
others.”¹ These modes of persecution forced many to leave their homes,
and wander from place to place in want and weariness, shunned, spurned,
and hunted by the authorities, sustained by nothing but by the glow and
strength of their faith.
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 286‒288.
In March, 1676, the government issued a fresh proclamation against
conventicles, commanding the authorities, under severe penalties, to
seize all intercommunicated persons, and to put the penal laws in force
against all offenders and rebels. The Council granted commissions to
form and appoint committees, to put the laws against conventicles and
dissenters into execution; one was ordered to sit in Edinburgh, one in
Glasgow, one for Stirling and Fife, and one for Aberdeenshire, Moray,
and Ross.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 318‒323.
A large meeting of the presbyterian ministers was held in Edinburgh
in the beginning of the year 1677. A considerable section of the
people had now openly disowned and separated from the episcopal clergy
and Church; and indeed the presbyterians were too numerous for the
effective operation of the penal laws against them; but the government
still attempted to put down conventicles. Sir George Mackenzie was
appointed Lord-Advocate in August, 1677, and ever after he was an open
enemy to the presbyterians, or “the fanatics,” as he called them. He
expressed his views thus:――“These fanatics finding all their hopes
disappointed, resolved to try by force what they could not obtain from
favour; and knowing that they might expect the connivance, at least, of
the party in opposition to Lauderdale, and that party having blown up
their expectations, by assuring them that the Parliament of England was,
by many late elections, become more fanatical, they hounded out all
their ministers to keep field conventicles in such numbers and so well
armed, and to threaten so all the orthodox clergy, and to usurp their
pulpits, that the Council was much troubled at the clouds which they
saw so fast gathering; and Lauderdale was the more envenomed, that all
these disorders were charged upon the late offers made by him of an
indemnity and indulgence, and the news that was industriously spread,
both in London and Edinburgh, of great sums of money promised to his
duchess by the fanatics. Notwithstanding of all which, Sir George
Mackenzie being lately admitted to be his Majesty’s Advocate, did
prevail with the Council to prevent, by the ensuing articles, all
the fanatics’ just exceptions against the forms formerly used against
them. 1. That his Majesty’s Advocate be special as to time and place in
libelling against conventicles and others pursued; but as he may libel
any day within four weeks, or any place within such a parish, or near
to the said parish, for else conventicles may be held upon the confines
of parishes, merely to disappoint his way of libelling. 2. When any
person is convened upon a libel, that in that case, he be only examined
upon his own guilt and accession; seeing nothing can be referred to a
defender’s oath but what concerns himself during the dependence of a
process. 3. That if any person who is cited be ready to depone, or pay
his fines, he be not troubled with taking bonds, or other engagements;
seeing that the constant punishment of such as do transgress will
supply the necessity of the bonds, and the law itself is the strongest
bond that can be exacted of any man.”¹ Those who were cited never
appeared, as they knew that imprisonment in the Bass awaited them,
where at this time all were sent who could be seized.
¹ _Memoirs_, pages 322‒323; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II.,
pages 346‒347.
In August, the government emitted a proclamation against those who
withdrew from public worship, and attended conventicles――“which we have
so often declared to be the nurseries of schism, and the rendezvous of
rebellion; tending to detach our subjects from that reverence due to
religion, and that obedience they owe to our authority.” To this was
annexed a bond for compelling the people to attend their own parish
churches, under the penalties of the former acts.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 364‒366.
Mitchell, since his attempt on the life of the Primate, had been living
in Edinburgh, where Sharp frequently saw him, and caused him to be
apprehended in February, 1674. When brought before the Privy Council,
he was promised a pardon if he would confess his guilt, whereupon he
admitted having been in the rising of 1666, and his attempt on the
life of the Primate; but affirmed that no one else was connected with
that deed. He was then remitted to the Court of Justiciary. When placed
in the dock he denied everything, and as there was no evidence, the
indictment was abandoned. He was returned to prison, and detained for
two years. In January, 1676, he was again taken before the Council, and
questioned whether he had been with the insurgents in 1666, and if he
would acknowledge his former confession. Mitchell declined to criminate
himself, and pled that when tried two years ago, the charge fell to
the ground, that it was unjust to detain him in prison and insist
that he should accuse himself. It was then agreed to torture him; and
his right leg was placed in the boot and frightfully mangled, still
he refused to acknowledge his confession, or to tell anything. After
undergoing extreme suffering he was removed to prison. The policy of
the government had created a host of enemies; and as the ruling party
knew that their power rested solely upon fear, the Council and the
bishops were loth to let any victim escape. Mitchell was again brought
before the court in January, 1678, upon an indictment charging him
with attempting to murder the Primate. He was defended by Lockhart,
one of the foremost advocates of the time, and Mr. John Ellis, who both
pleaded at great length on behalf of the panel. Ellis argued against
the relevancy of the libel on five formal points; and next pled ably
that a confession obtained in such circumstances could not be allowed
as evidence in a court of law. Lockhart then argued with force and
clearness, that as the confession was emitted upon the promise of the
Privy Council to save his life, it could not be used as evidence for
condemning him to death. But Rothes, Lauderdale, the Primate, and other
councillors, denied upon oath that such a promise was ever given to him:
Lockhart produced a copy of the act of Council in which it was recorded,
and craved that the register of the Council’s acts should be produced,
which the court refused; the act, however, was read, and Lockhart
earnestly insisted for liberty to speak on it; but the court would
not permit this. The jury found Mitchell guilty, and he was executed
at the Grassmarket of Edinburgh on the 18th of January, 1678. Perhaps
the lords had short memories, for the act containing the promise to
Mitchell still remains in the register of the proceedings of the Privy
Council.¹
¹ _State Trials_, Volume VI.; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II.,
pages 454‒473.
The government now determined to extinguish conventicles by treating
the west, the south-west, and other parts of the country, as if it
had been in a state of rebellion. Towards the end of January, 1678, an
army of ten thousand men was mustered at Stirling, of whom six thousand
were Highland clansmen. This force was spread over the regions where
the nonconformists, or the Whigs, as they were called in the speech of
the time, were most numerous, there to live at free quarters; while a
committee of the Privy Council accompanied the host, armed with special
information and ample powers for punishing notable offenders. They were
empowered to impose and exact such fines as they thought fit from all
who refused to take the bond; and they were instructed to prosecute
rigorously all who had been at field conventicles since the 1st of
January 1677; while all persons who had been accessory to the building
of meeting-houses, and also all landowners, and life-renters, who had
connived at the erection of such houses, since the 24th March, 1674,
were to be punished without mercy, and all the meeting-houses were to
be razed to the ground. They were to prosecute all who had withdrawn
from public worship in their own parishes, to disarm all persons, and
to search for and seize arms and ammunition. The bond, tendered and
backed by the presence of the army, was in the following terms:――“We
―――― faithfully bind and oblige us, that we, our wives, children, and
servants, respectively, shall not be present at any conventicles or
disorderly meetings in time coming, but shall live in obedience to the
law, under the penalties of the acts of parliament: also we bind and
oblige us, that all our tenants and cottars, their wives, children,
and servants, shall likewise abstain from these conventicles, and other
illegal meetings, and live in obedience to the law: and farther, that
we nor they shall reset, supply, or commune with forfeited persons,
intercommuned ministers, or vagrant preachers; but shall do our utmost
endeavour to apprehend their persons: and in case our tenants and
cottars shall contravene, we shall take and apprehend every person
guilty thereof, and present them to the judge ordinary, that they may
be punished therefore, according to the acts of parliament; otherwise
we shall remove them and their families off our ground; and if we fail
therein, we shall be liable to such penalties as the said delinquents
have incurred by law.” The resistance to this form of oppression was
almost universal; and even many of the landowners and small proprietors
refused to sign the bond; in Lanarkshire only twenty out of three
thousand householders subscribed the bond, and it was reported that
those who did sign it suffered as much as those who refused, as the
soldiers and Highlanders sent to execute the law spared no one, and
acted without distinction of persons. The Highlanders were sent home
in the end of February; and on the 24th of April the remainder of the
army was disbanded, save a garrison left in Ayr. “When this goodly
army returned homewards, you would have thought by their baggage that
they had been at the sack of a besieged city; and therefore, when they
passed Stirling Bridge, every man drew his sword, to show the world
that they had returned conquerors from the enemy’s land, but they
might as well have shown the pots, pans, girdles, and other household
furniture with which they were loaded; and among them all, none
purchased so well as the two Earls of Airly and Strathmore, chiefly
the last, who sent home the money, not in purses, but in bags and great
quantities. Yet under all this oppression the poor people bore all;
only in Kampsey there was one of the plunderers killed by a countryman,
who yet escaped punishment.”¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 378‒454. Kirkton’s
_History_, pages 390‒391. It has often been noticed that none
of the Whigs lost their life by the hands of this Highland
host, as it was called.
The government was disappointed that the Highland army had effected so
little; and therefore more force was to be employed. A Convention of
Estates was summoned to grant money, which met at Edinburgh in the end
of June, 1678. It passed an act authorising a sum of eighteen hundred
thousand pounds Scots to be raised by a tax spread over five years, to
enable the King to maintain more forces to uphold the orthodox clergy,
extinguish conventicles, and crush the people. This act was extremely
obnoxious to the presbyterians, but all were obliged to pay the tax
under severe penalties.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
213‒229; Kirkton’s _History_, pages 393‒396.
By the end of the year a considerable army was stationed, chiefly
in the western and southern counties. In the beginning of 1679,
detachments of troops were ordered to move up and down the country, to
harass all who did not conform to episcopacy, and to collect the tax,
which many of the people would not pay till they were compelled. The
soldiers were commanded to search out and to pursue all who attended
field meetings, to kill all who resisted them, to imprison and deliver
to the magistrates, or send to the Council, all whom they apprehended.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 492‒495; Volume III.,
pages 11‒17.
This year, in the end of February, the government added a number of
new commissioners to assist those appointed in August, 1677; their
special work being the suppression of all schism and opposition
to the Established Church, and all seditious meetings. Among other
instructions touching the execution of their task, and to interest
and encourage them in it, they were authorised “to apply the one-half
of the fines of all the landed men and women, and their children, who
lived within the bounds of their commission, to their own use, and such
as they should employ.” This was sure to make the commissioners earnest
in their work. The King also issued an order authorising the sheriffs
in the south and west of the kingdom to recognise, and act with,
a number of special sheriff-deputes nominated by the King himself,
expressly to try and judge persons accused of attending conventicles,
of withdrawing from the worship of the parish churches, or of irregular
baptisms and marriages.¹ That men thus invested with judicial powers
should sometimes act with an imperious hand was certain; and when
William Carmichael, an ex-bailie of Edinburgh, was raised by the King
to the dignity of a special sheriff in the county of Fife, of course he
exerted himself to the utmost to show that he was worthy of his post.
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 17‒21, 41.
This man, who had been treating those who attended field meetings
in Fife with great severity, a few bold men resolved to frighten and
punish. On the 3rd of May, 1679, under Hackston of Rathillet and John
Balfour, they attempted to waylay him among the hills above Cupar,
where they expected him to be hunting. They searched for him from early
morning to past midday without success; but just when they were about
to disperse, they were told that the Primate was in the neighbourhood,
and would pass along the road in his carriage. They then bethought that
if the subordinate had escaped, Providence had placed their great enemy
within their grasp, and they determined to murder him. The Archbishop’s
coach was driving along Magus Moor, about two miles from his own city,
and the party instantly pursued it. Sharp cried to the coachman to
drive hard; the pursuers fired several shots, overtook the coach, cut
the traces, disarmed and dismounted his attendants, and commanded Sharp
to come forth, that they might not injure his daughter, who was with
him in the coach. As he refused to move, they fired into the coach;
but he still clung to his daughter, who was screaming with terror. Then
they dragged him out, and he fell on his knees, and in piteous tones
implored them to spare his life, promising them forgiveness――anything,
if they would only show mercy: but they reminded him that he had
imbrued his hands in the blood of many innocent people for a period
of eighteen years, and that now he must die. A volley of shot was
discharged at him, and his death was completed with their swords. The
assassins, after rifling the coach and the Bishop’s clothes, remounted
their horses and rode off, leaving the Primate’s daughter lamenting
over his mangled body on the moor.¹
¹ Kirkton’s _History_, pages 403‒421; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume III., pages 41‒51.
There were a few persons in Scotland who approved of this foul deed,
but the majority of the people regarded it as an atrocious murder.
There were not many, however, who greatly lamented the fate of Sharp,
and long afterwards some people thought that he deserved his cruel end.
Assassination and murder cannot be justified under any circumstances,
and must in all cases be emphatically condemned.
The murder of Sharp afforded the government a fresh excuse for greater
severities against the nonconformists and all who attended field
meetings. A reward was offered for the apprehension of the murderers,
but they had fled to the west, where they were joined by others, and
prepared to resist the authorities. The Privy Council immediately
emitted proclamations against armed conventicles; but the people of
the west were past the stage of being deterred by proclamation, as
they were ripe for insurrection. A few of the most determined agreed to
give what they called “a public testimony against the government,” and
arranged to meet on the 29th of May, the anniversary of the Restoration.
A party of eighty armed men marched into the burgh of Rutherglen,
extinguished the bonfires, blazing in honour of the day, burned
the Rescissory Act, and the acts establishing episcopacy, and then
read their declaration and affixed it upon the market cross. In this
manifesto they gave their testimony――“1. Against the Rescissory Act,
for overthrowing the whole Covenanted Reformation. 2. Against the
acts for erecting and establishing of abjured prelacy. 3. Against that
declaration imposed upon, and subscribed by, all persons in public
trust, wherein the Covenants are renounced and condemned. 4. Against
the Act and Declaration, published at Glasgow, for ejecting of the
faithful ministers who could not comply with prelacy, whereby three
hundred and upwards of them were illegally ejected. 5. Against that
presumptuous act for imposing an holy anniversary day, as they call
it, to be kept yearly on the 29th of May, as a day of rejoicing
and thanksgiving for the King’s birth and restoration, whereby the
appointers intruded upon the Lord’s prerogative, and the observers
have given the glory to the creature that is due to our Lord and
Redeemer, and rejoiced over the setting up of the usurping power,
to the destroying of the interest of Christ in the land. 6. Against
the Explicatory Act of 1669, and the sacrilegious supremacy enacted
and established thereby.”¹ It may be observed that there is truth and
force in this manifesto, especially as to the act of supremacy and the
anniversary of the Restoration.
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 52‒59, 66‒67.
A field meeting was to be held at Loudon Hill, in Clydesdale, on
Sunday the 7th of June, 1679. Captain Graham of Claverhouse was then
at Glasgow, and hearing of their design, he resolved to disperse the
meeting. The services of the day were begun, when the watch gave the
alarm that a body of troopers was approaching, and shortly Graham’s
dragoons appeared on the rising ground. At this meeting of the
Covenanters there were some men, such as Hackston, Balfour, and William
Cleland, who possessed marked fighting abilities; and the assemblage
determined on battle. After sending the women and children to the rear,
the fighting men advanced to a swampy piece of ground and took up their
position. A sharp but short skirmish ensued, Graham being completely
defeated, and upwards of twenty of his troopers slain. The event
is known in history as the battle of Drumclog. Encouraged by this
success, they marched the following day upon Glasgow, but were unable
to take it, and retired towards Hamilton, where they formed a camp.
The outbreak threatened to assume serious proportions, as many from
Ayrshire, Galloway, and other parts of the country joined them, and in
a few days four thousand men were assembled. They had been driven to
desperation. The extreme party of the government had at last produced
what they probably desired――a general insurrection, which gave them
an opportunity of insisting on the utmost extremity of persecution
against the presbyterians. The government quickly prepared to meet the
emergency. Intelligence of every movement of the rebels was promptly
sent to London; and it was deemed necessary to commission the Duke
of Monmouth, the King’s natural son, to command the royal army and
suppress the rebellion.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 68‒99.
The Duke arrived at Edinburgh on the 18th of June, 1679, and
immediately placed himself at the head of the army. He marched westward
on the 21st, and came within sight of the insurgents, lying on Hamilton
Moor. The insurgents, however, were divided among themselves. There
was bitter dissension concerning the indulgence; some proposing to hold
a fast day to mourn for their sins, but on this all could not agree;
while others were for recognising the King according to the Covenant,
and others insisted on renouncing him. There was little discipline
amongst them, and no united front was presented, when, on the 22nd of
June, the royal army appeared on the opposite side of the Clyde. After
much debate it was agreed to petition the Duke for terms of peace;
but they found that his instructions demanded their immediate and
unconditional surrender. These tidings increased the confusion amongst
them; Hamilton, who had assumed the command, was opposed to any
proposal of peace with an uncovenanted King; others were inclined to
yield; but they came to no final resolution, and returned no answer to
the Duke. The royal army, therefore, advanced to the attack, and the
presbyterians were utterly defeated. Many were slain in the flight, and
more than a thousand taken prisoners. The insurgent army being badly
led, suffered severely.¹
¹ Kirkton’s _History_, pages 461‒472; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume III., pages 99‒111.
The following day the prisoners, tied two and two were driven into
Edinburgh, and placed in the Greyfriars Churchyard, where they were
kept in the open air for several weeks. Two of the ministers were
hanged at the Grassmarket; and five of the other prisoners were
executed on Magus Moor, on the 18th of November, as an atonement for
the murder of the Primate. Those of the prisoners who acknowledged that
the rising was a rebellion, and signed a bond promising to keep the
peace and not rise again against the King’s authority, were liberated;
but upwards of two hundred, who refused to sign the bond, were crammed
into a ship and transported to Barbadoes, to be sold as slaves in the
plantations.¹
¹ _Proceedings of the Privy Council_; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume III., pages 123‒140.
Many others suffered severely for being at Bothwell Bridge, or
otherwise implicated in the rising. For about two months after this
event, the soldiers committed many outrages upon the people, and
sometimes upon innocent individuals and families.
In August an indemnity was offered to all who had been in the
rebellions of 1666 and 1679, upon condition of promising not to rise
again in arms against his Majesty’s authority, and of ceasing from
attending field meetings in the future. In July, an act was published
by the authority of the King, permitting the presbyterian ministers not
yet indulged to preach and administer the communion, if they refrained
from holding field meetings. This indulgence, however, was soon
withdrawn: and it appears that many failed to take advantage of it
from principle and conviction, and some from other reasons.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 111‒122, 140‒146,
147‒157.
The difference between the two parties of the presbyterians had become
more marked. Some of the extreme party had always protested against
the indulgence; and they now took up a position apart from those of
more moderate views, and unhesitatingly proclaimed and carried out
their own principles. Donald Cargill was their first leader, and after
him Richard Cameron and James Renwick may be mentioned as the heads
of the party. This body was variously designated in the records of
the time, as The Wild Whigs, The Wanderers, The Faithful Remnant,
Covenanters, The Hillmen, The Cameronians, Macmillanites, and in
later times Reformed Presbyterians, and other names. They were a bold,
uncompromising, and determined class of men, who clung consistently and
bravely to their creed and to their principles. They were not merely
content to resist some of the measures of the government, they adopted
a bolder line of action. They treated the offer of indulgence with
scorn; they refused to pay taxes; and at last they renounced their
allegiance to a King, who had utterly broken his Covenant engagements,
and, by his tyrannical government, had forfeited his right to the
throne; and therefore, they declared war against him and his government.
They declined to hold communion with the moderate presbyterians, and
formed themselves into a number of societies, and calling themselves
The Society People. They exhibited much capacity for business and
organisation; and they may be truly described as the party of honesty
and vigour in the nation, amid the wreck of character, of time-serving,
and of corruption, which then prevailed.
The government continued the persecution of those who attended field
meetings and absented themselves from the parish churches. On the 22nd
of June, 1680, about twenty of the Whigs, headed by Cameron and Cargill,
marched into the town of Sanquhar with drawn swords, halted at the
market cross, and read and then posted up a declaration, in which they
disowned Charles Stuart, because of his tyranny and his perjury――“For
which reasons, we declare, that several years since he should have been
denuded of being king, ruler, or magistrate, or of having any power to
act or to be obeyed as such. As also, we being under the standard of
our Lord Jesus Christ, Captain of Salvation, do declare a war with such
a tyrant and usurper, and all the men of his practices, as enemies to
our Lord Jesus Christ, and his cause and covenants, and against all
such as have strengthened him, sided with him, or any way acknowledged
him in his tyranny, civil or ecclesiastical――yea, against all such as
shall strengthen, side with, or any way acknowledge any other in the
like usurpation and tyranny, far more against such as would betray
or deliver our free reformed mother Church into bondage.... As also,
we disown, and by this resent the reception of the Duke of York, that
professed papist, as repugnant to our principles and vows to the most
high God, and as that which is the great, though not the only, just
reproach of our Church and nation. We also by this protest against his
succession to the throne; and in whatever has been done, or any one
essaying to do in this land, given to the Lord, in prejudice of our
work of reformation. And to conclude, we hope after this none will
blame us for, or be offended at, our rewarding those that are against
us, as they have done to us, as the Lord gives opportunity.”¹
¹ Given at Sanquhar, June 22nd, 1680.
This renunciation called forth a royal proclamation, offering large
rewards for the apprehension of Richard Cameron, his brother, Cargill,
and Thomas Douglas, dead or alive. The army harassed all nonconformists
throughout the country, and inflicted great suffering upon many besides
those who had joined the Society People. On the 20th of July, 1680,
a company of about sixty of the Society People, or Cameronians, was
surprised by an overwhelming number of the royal army at Ayrsmoss,
in the parish of Auchinleck. They fought bravely, but they were all
cut down, wounded, or taken on the spot; Richard Cameron himself,
his brother, and others were slain. But Hackston of Rathillet, who
had acted as the leader in the scuffle, was conveyed to Edinburgh a
prisoner, with the head of Richard Cameron carried in triumph before
him. Shortly afterwards Hackston and other prisoners were sentenced to
death; and the execution of Hackston, by the instructions of the Privy
Council, was carried out in a most shocking and cruel way.¹
¹ _Records of the Privy Council_, 1680; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume III., pages 215‒223. Hackston himself gives an account
of the affair at Ayrsmoss, which is printed in _Wodrow_,
Volume III., page 219.
The remnant of the Whigs, though savagely persecuted, still stood firm,
unshaken and untouched in their faith and in their principles. In
September, 1680, they held a great meeting with Cargill, their minister,
at the Torwood in Stirlingshire. He delivered one of his stirring
sermons to an eager assemblage of listeners; and then excommunicated
the King, the Duke of York, the Duke of Lauderdale, General Dalziel,
the Earl of Rothes, the Duke of Monmouth, and the Lord-Advocate, for
their breach of the Covenant and their persecution of God’s people.
It should be observed that the main body of the presbyterians had no
concern in these proceedings; as they disapproved of the extreme steps
taken by this party. The government exerted itself more than ever to
suppress field meetings, and to get hold of the daring preacher Cargill.
On the 5th of May, 1681, Cargill held a fast near Loudon Hill, and
escaped at that time. But in July he was taken and conveyed to Glasgow
by a party of soldiers; thence he was carried to Edinburgh. He was
then brought before the Council and interrogated at length. He denied
that the rising at Bothwell Bridge was a rebellion against the King;
as he deemed it right to rebel in cases of necessity; those who rose
at Bothwell were oppressed, and therefore rose in their own defence.
Interrogated touching the King, he said that he was not obliged to obey
his government, as it was then established by the act of supremacy;
when asked if he owned the excommunication of the King, he refused
to answer. He was tried before the Court of Justiciary on the 26th of
July, condemned, and sentenced to be executed the following day. He
was hanged along with other four Covenanters, all of whom left their
testimony behind them.¹
¹ _Records of the Privy Council_; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume
III., pages 278‒284; _The Cloud of Witnesses._
In the end of October, 1680, the Duke of York arrived in Scotland,
and was warmly welcomed by the orthodox clergy. During the few months
of his sojourn in Scotland before, the Privy Council were so much
impressed with his goodness, that they gave him an exceedingly high
character to his royal brother, on the occasion of his leaving for
England, of which the following is a specimen:――“The remembrance
of having been under the protection of your royal family above two
thousand years, of having been preserved, by their valour, from the
slavery to which others were so often reduced, and of having received
from their bounty the lands which we possess, has been very much
refreshed and renewed by having your royal brother among us, in whom
we have seen the moderation of spirit and equality of justice that is
remarkable in your sacred race, and has raised in us a just abhorrence
of those seditious persons and pernicious principles which would lead
us back to those dreadful confusions which grew up by degrees, from
tumultuary petitioners for reformation and parliaments, to a rebellion
that in the last age destroyed both, and which must do so still, since
all who think that subjects should direct their king, design nothing,
in effect, but to be kings themselves: the convictions of all which
did prevail so far with all degrees of persons, and with persons of all
persuasions here, that it has been observed our nobility and gentry of
both sexes attended their royal highnesses with much joy and assiduity,
expressed in all their confluences great respect and satisfaction, that
even the most malicious abstained from all manner of rebellious risings
and undutiful speeches: no breach of the peace, no libel, no pasquil,
having been ever discovered during his abode here; so that this too
short time has been the most peaceful and serene part of our life,
and the happiest days we ever saw, except your Majesty’s miraculous
restoration.”¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 23, 3‒234;
Fountainhall’s _Notes_, page 3.
All had not so high an opinion of the Duke as the members of the Privy
Council. He desired to strengthen his prospective claim and title to
the throne; and, as it was thought that the Estates would oblige him,
and do what they were ordered, a parliament was summoned, which met at
Edinburgh in the end of July, 1681, and when the Duke of York assumed
his place as royal Commissioner. After disposing of various preliminary
matters, on the 13th of August, an act touching the right of succession
to the imperial Crown of Scotland was passed. This act repeated the
assertion “that the kings of the realm derived their royal power from
God alone,” and succeeded to it by lineal descent, which could not
be altered without involving the nation in perjury and rebellion.
That no difference in religion, nor law, nor act of parliament, could
divert the right of succession of the Crown from the nearest heir;
and that all who contradicted or in any way opposed this, should
incur the penalties of high treason. Another act imposed new and more
severe penalties on all who attended conventicles. It authorised the
proprietors of land to turn any of their tenants or cottars out of
their holdings without warning, and at any time of the year, if they
were implicated in field conventicles. The landlords were also enjoined
to retain as much of the goods and stock of their tenants, cottars, or
servants, as would pay the fines and penalties incurred by them under
the acts of parliament. The Test Act, which was re-enacted and passed
on the last day of August, caused much stir. It provided that all
persons in public office, from the highest to the humblest, should
swear that they sincerely professed the true Protestant religion, as
contained in the Confession of Faith, recorded in the first parliament
of James VI., 1568; and that they believed the same to be founded on
the written word of God; and to swear that the King’s power was supreme
in all cases and over all persons, that they would maintain and defend
this to the utmost of their power; and solemnly swear that it was
unlawful on any pretence to enter into covenants, to hold meetings, or
to treat of and discuss government, without the King’s licence. A part
of the Test Act may be quoted:――“I further affirm and swear by this
my solemn oath, that I judge it unlawful for subjects, upon pretence
of reformation or any pretence whatever, to enter into covenants or
leagues, or to assemble in any meeting to treat, consult, or determine,
in any matter of State whatever, without his Majesty’s special command
or express licence; or to take up arms against the King or those
commissioned by him; and that I shall never so rise in arms, or enter
into such covenants or assemblies; and that there lies no obligation
on me from the National Covenant, or Solemn League and Covenant, or in
any other way whatever, to endeavour to change or alter the government,
either in Church or State, as it is now established by the laws of the
kingdom. And I promise and swear that I shall to the utmost of my power
defend, assist, and maintain his Majesty’s jurisdiction against all
deadly: and I shall never decline his Majesty’s power and jurisdiction,
as I shall answer to God. Finally, I affirm and swear, that this my
solemn oath is given in the plain genuine sense and meaning of the
words, without any equivocation, mental reservation, or any kind of
evasion whatever; and that I shall not accept or use dispensation from
any creature whatsoever. So help me God.”¹ The act was hurried through
parliament, and it contained such a jumble of inconsistencies that
some declined to sign it. Some of the clergy refused to take the test,
and left their parishes; and others only took it with limitations and
explanations. The Earl of Argyle took it in so far as it was consistent
with itself: and stated that he could not bind himself from doing
what he deemed requisite and consistent with the Protestant religion,
and the duty of a loyal subject. For this he was charged with high
treason, on the ground of giving the act a different meaning from what
parliament intended it to bear. Argyle was tried and convicted, but he
escaped from the Castle of Edinburgh on the 20th of December, 1681, and
fled to Holland. On the 23rd of December, 1682, sentence of death was
pronounced against him, and his coat of arms was defaced.²
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
231‒245.
² Fountainhall’s _Notes_, page 20; Burnet’s _History of His Own
Time_, Volume II., pages 309‒314. The Duke of York was blamed
for encouraging the proceedings against Argyle. “The Duke
seeing how great a man the Earl of Argyle was in Scotland,
concluded it was necessary for him either to be gained or
to ruin him. Argyle gave him all possible assurance that
he would adhere to his interest in everything except in
the matter of religion.... This was well enough taken in
show, but Argyle said he observed ever after such a visible
coldness and distrust that he saw what he might expect from
him.”――_Burnet_, page 295.
In the beginning of the year 1682, a party of the Society People
entered the town of Lanark, and published a declaration of their
principles, and then burned the Succession and Test Acts. They styled
themselves in this declaration, “the Presbyterians of the Church of
Scotland.” Two days after, the Privy Council ordered the Solemn League
and Covenant, and the declarations published at Rutherglen, Sanquhar,
and Lanark, to be burned by the common hangman at the Cross of
Edinburgh, and the magistrates in their robes attended to see this
executed. Thus the government and the Society men imitated each other
in their modes of manifesting their contempt.
Throughout the years of 1682 and 1683 the troops continued to harass
the people; and as they were invested with irresponsible powers, they
caused terror in many a quiet home. They pillaged farm-houses, exacted
free quarters, levied enormous fines, and seized the refractory as
prisoners. Amid these wretched scenes the worst passions of the human
breast were called into action, and fed and intensified; for the
soldiers wallowed in deeds of heartless cruelty and revenge; numbers
of the Society People were shot down without trial or process; and the
nation groaned under the yoke of dire oppression. But in spite of all
the suffering which the government inflicted on the Society men, they
still stood to their principles; and in October, 1684, they issued
a declaration directed especially against informers. In this they
affirmed their adherence to their former declarations, disowning
the authority of the King, and declaring war against him and all his
accomplices; but at the same time they stated――“that as we utterly
detest and abhor that hellish principle of killing all who differ
in judgment and in persuasion from us, so we look upon it as a duty
binding upon us to publish openly to the world, that forasmuch as we
are firmly and really resolved not to injure or offend any one, but
to pursue the ends of our covenants, in standing to our religious work
of reformation, and of our lives; yet we do hereby declare to all,
that whosoever stretches forth their hands against us, while we are
maintaining the cause and interest of Christ against the enemies,
in the defence of our covenanted Reformation, by shedding our blood
actually, either by authoritative commanding, such as councillors, and
especially the so-called Justiciary, generals of forces, adjutants,
captains, and all in civil and military power, who make it their work
to imbue their hands in our blood, or by obeying such commands――such as
bloody militiamen, malicious troopers, soldiers, and dragoons; likewise,
such gentlemen and commons who, through wickedness and ill-will, ride
and run with the foresaid persons, to lay search for us, or who deliver
any of us into their hands, to the spilling of our blood, enticing
morally, or stirring up enemies to the taking away of our lives, such
as purposely advise, counsel, and encourage them to proceed against us
to our utter extirpation, by informing against us wickedly, wittingly,
and willingly, such as malicious bishops and curates, and all sorts
of informers, who lay themselves out for the effusion of our blood,
together with all who in obedience to the commands of the enemies, at
the sight of us raise the hue and cry after us.... Finally.... Call to
your remembrance, that all that is in peril is not lost, and all that
is delayed is not forgiven. Therefore expect to be dealt with as ye
deal with us, so far as our power can reach.”¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 147‒149.
After what had been done in Scotland since the Reformation, after
what the people had suffered at the hands of their government, who can
affirm that the Society men were not in some degree excusable in taking
the course which they did? Whether was it best for the interest of
peace and civilisation that an absolute king should reign in undisputed
power over all in the Island, or that a measure of liberty and freedom
of opinion should be allowed to the people? This in one form or another
had become the problem which then filled all thoughtful minds in both
divisions of the Island, and was hastening on the crisis which drove
the ancient line of kings from the throne of their ancestors.
Though the policy of the government had really driven these bodies into
an attitude of defence, yet it seized upon their declaration as a good
pretext for crushing them as the enemies of order and peace. Immediate
steps were taken, and a series of acts were passed against the enemies
of the government, including the abjuration oath, an engine of the most
cruel persecution. All the men and women past the age of sixteen in the
southern and western counties were commanded to take this oath――“I ――――
do hereby abhor, renounce, and disown, in the presence of the Almighty
God, the pretended declaration of war, lately affixed at several parish
churches, in so far as it declares a war against his sacred Majesty,
and asserts that it is lawful to kill such as serve his Majesty,
in church, state, army, or country.” All who refused to take this
oath were to be put to death, whether in arms or not; and no one was
permitted to travel through the country without a certificate that
they had taken it in the presence of the commissioners authorised to
tender it. “And for further security and prevention of fraud, it is
hereby required that the users and havers of the foresaid certificate
shall be holden and obliged to swear that these are true and unforged
certificates, and that they are the persons mentioned and expressed
in them, if the same shall be required of them. Finally, for the
encouragement of such as shall discover any of the said traitors
and assassins, or any who have been accessory to this traitorous and
damnable paper, or to the publishing and spreading of the same, or to
have been a member of the said pretended societies and fellowships:
we hereby declare and insure them, and every one of them, who shall
discover any of these assassins and murderers, or pretended members,
a reward of the sum of five thousand merks Scots for each of them, who
shall be discovered, so as to be apprehended, and be found guilty.”
The instructions to the commissioners to examine all the inhabitants
on oath concerning the declaration of the Society men, and the matters
touching their suppression, were very minute, and must have greatly
harassed the people.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 150‒160.
The following is part of the commissioners’ instructions:――“2. If any
person own the principles, or do not disown them, they must be judged
at least by three. And you must immediately give them a libel and the
names of the inquest and witnesses, and they being found guilty, are
to be hanged immediately in the place according to the law. But at this
time you are not to examine any women, but such as have been active in
the said courses in signal manner, and these are to be drowned. 3. You
are to proceed against the absent men, not by denouncing them rebels,
but by holding them as confessed, upon a pecuniary mulct; and they
being thereupon discerned, conform to the King’s letter, their moveable
goods are to be inventured and sequestrated. 5. You must likewise
proceed against proprietors guilty of church disorders since their
former fining. And if they have not been adequately fined, you may
proceed against them for the surplus.... 7. If you find probation
against proprietors not yet debited, you may take them before you, both
as to the late rebellion and late conspiracy. 8. You are likewise to
cause the whole packmen, cadgers, and drovers, within the bounds of
your shire, find caution not to carry letters or intelligence to the
rebels, or to sell to them or give them ammunition, or supply them in
any other manner.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 164‒165.
The year 1685 opened in Scotland amid gloom and persecution. No one
was safe from the violence of the army; many were shot on the highways,
in the fields and mountains, and at their own doors. The reign of
Charles II. closed on the 6th of February, amidst a scene of oppression,
suffering, and corruption, unmatched in the worst times of the nation’s
history.¹
¹ Fountainhall’s _Notes_, pages 19‒122; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume IV., pages 182‒199.
The Duke of York now ascended the throne, and on the 10th of February,
a royal proclamation was read at the Cross of Edinburgh, announcing his
accession to the Scots, as “the only, the undoubted, and lawful King of
the realm.” In this singular proclamation the supreme authority of the
King was fully acknowledged, and the Privy Council, and other barons
with uplifted hands swore, “Humbly to obey, dutifully and faithfully
to serve, maintain and defend him, with our lives and fortunes, against
all deadly, as our only righteous King and Sovereign, over all persons,
and in all cases, as holding his imperial Crown from God alone.” James
dispensed with the coronation oath, lest it should seem that he in any
way derived his right and power from the people, and the dominant party
humoured him in all points.¹
¹ _Records of the Privy Council._ Touching the proclamation
of the King, Fountainhall says:――“See it in print, entitled
a proclamation of the sovereign authority, and not a
proclamation of him, lest that should seem to import that
the people had any hand in giving him his power. The English
proclamation reserved power to him to consider the bygone
errors and misgovernments, that he might redress them. The
Castle shot many guns, Mr. John Robertson preached a sermon,
and the Privy Council called for the seals, and broke them.
The Council sent Lord Drumlanrig, the treasurer’s son, who
after proved a vile traitor, and the clergy Dr. Law, to
condole the King’s death, and congratulate the present King’s
accession to the Crown” (page 123).
One of the peculiarities of the English Crown after the Reformation was
its assumption of the powers of the papacy. Such was its position when
the Stuarts succeeded to the throne. The notions of their divine right,
royal prerogative, and supremacy was enlarged and confirmed; and they
claimed the sole right to command, the simple duty of every subject
being to obey their divinely-appointed and anointed head. These claims
of the Crown were at the root of the struggles from the accession of
James VI. to the period now under review. It was reserved for the man
who had just succeeded to the throne of three kingdoms to give the
culminating touch to the idea of the “divine right of Kings.” He was
suffered to play his tune for a few years, until he lost the confidence
of the English nation, and, finding the influences of the revolutionary
movement too strong for him, he was forced to flee for refuge to the
representative of that system against which the English and the Scots
were contending. Then he was made to feel that his ideas were not in
accordance with the national sentiment of the people, or with their
best and highest aspirations.
The persecution of the Society People and of the Presbyterians still
continued under the new reign. Parliament met at Edinburgh on the
23rd of April, 1685, and directly proceeded to legislate in accordance
with the views of the new King. The Duke of Queensberry was royal
commissioner, and opened the proceedings by reading the King’s letter,
which he supported by a speech of his own, making the following
reference to the nonconformists and the Society People――“My lords,
his Majesty certainly expects from the prudence and loyalty of this
parliament, that effectual means will be fallen upon for destroying
that desperate, fanatical, and irreclaimable party, who have brought
us to the brink of ruin and disgrace, and are no more rebels against
the King than enemies of mankind, wretches of such monstrous principles
and practices as past ages never heard, nor those to come will hardly
believe: what indemnities and acts of grace and clemency have they not
contemned? and all the use they made of them has still been to harden
and confirm them in their execrable ♦villainies; and how inconsiderable
soever they appear, assure yourselves they ought not absolutely to
be contemned, for if they had not support and correspondence not yet
discovered, it is not to be supposed that they could have so long
escaped the care and vigilance of the government: it therefore concerns
you both in honour and prudence, no longer to dally with them, but that
the utmost severities be most effectively applied, and always taken
to find out their favourers, and retired and secret haunts.” The Lord
Chancellor, the Earl of Rothes, also spoke and described the enemies of
the government in these words:――“We have a new sect sprung up amongst
us from the dunghill, the very dregs of the people, who filled by
pretended inspiration, and instead of the temple of the Lord, have
nothing in their mouths but the Word of God, wresting that blessed
conveyance of His holy will to us, to justify a practice suggested to
them by him who was a murderer from the beginning, who, having modelled
themselves into a commonwealth, whose idol is that accursed paper, the
Covenant, and whose only rule is to have none at all, have proceeded to
declare themselves no longer his Majesty’s subjects, to forfeit all of
us, who have the honour to serve him in any considerable station....
It is how to rid ourselves of these men, and of all who incline to
their principles, that we are to offer to his Majesty our advice, and
concurrence, and utmost assistance.” After more reproaches in a similar
strain, let us hear what he says about the character of the King, by
contrast to the description of the Covenanters. “To encourage us to do
all we can towards the service and the honour of our glorious monarch,
let us consider him in all his personal advantages. Whether in what
relates to war or peace, where has the world afforded such another? One
whose natural endowments have been improved by his great experience at
home and abroad, in armies and in courts, by the greatest trials of the
most differing kinds, those of prosperity and success, and of adversity
and opposition, of hazard and toil, and of authority and command. Did
ever man show so exact an honesty in the strictest adhering to his word,
such temperance and sobriety, so indefatigable a diligence in affairs,
so undaunted a courage upon all occasions, and so unwearied a clemency
towards the most obstinate and malicious offenders? Did ever hero
complete the character so fully, in overcoming bravely, and showing
gentleness to the vanquished? And I must say the triumphs of his
patience are not his obscurest glories, nor is the forgiving of
those whose virulent tongues would have tainted his fame, if their
malice could have reached it, what is least to be admired in him; what
reputation other princes have laboured for, at the vast expense of
blood and treasure, and putting of a constant restraint upon themselves,
sits so easily upon him, that what they would have he forces from the
consciences of his very enemies by his merit, and it costs him no more
than to be himself. But this theme is not for me; I do him wrong....
I am detracting from him here, by giving him too low a character. I
shall add that he gave to subjects the greatest example of loyalty
and obedience when he was one himself; and now he is an example to
all kings in his love, in his clemency, and in his care towards his
people. Let us give him the return of our love, our fidelity, and our
obedience.”¹
♦ “villanies” replaced with “villainies”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
451‒456; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 259‒263.
The Estates, in an act offering their duty and obedience to the King,
fully recognised his absolute power, and the antiquity of the nation.
The nation, it was said, had continued for upwards of two thousand
years in an unaltered form of monarchical government, under an
uninterrupted line of one hundred and eleven kings, whose sacred
authority and power had been signally owned and assisted by Almighty
God; and the kingdom protected from conquest, the laws vigorously
executed, and the lives and the property of the subjects securely
preserved. “These great blessings we owe in the first place to divine
mercy, and in dependence upon that, to the sacred race of our glorious
kings, and to the absolute authority wherewith they were invested
by the first and fundamental law of our monarchy.” It was only when
a rebellious party invaded the absolute authority of the kings that
the peace and prosperity of the kingdom was disturbed. “Therefore the
Estates of parliament judge themselves obliged to declare, and they
do declare, to the world, that they abhor and detest the authors and
actors of all preceding rebellions against the sovereign, and also all
principles and positions which are contrary or derogatory to the King’s
sacred, supreme, absolute power, and authority, which none, whether
persons or collective bodies, can participate of, in any way, or upon
any pretext, but in dependence on him and by commission from him. As
their duty formerly did bind them to own and assert the just and legal
succession of the sacred line as unalterable by any human jurisdiction,
so now on this occasion, they for themselves and the whole nation
represented by them, in most humble and dutiful manner, do renew the
hearty and sincere offer of their lives and fortunes to assist, to
support, to defend, and to maintain King James VII., their present
glorious monarch, and his heirs and lawful successors in the possession
of their crowns, sovereignty, prerogatives, authority, dignity, rights,
and possessions, against all mortals; therewithal to assure all his
enemies, who shall adventure on the disloyalty of disobeying his laws,
or on the impiety of invading his rights, that these shall sooner weary
of their wickedness, than they of their duty, being firmly resolved to
give their entire obedience to his Majesty without reserve, against all
his enemies.” As tangible evidence of their desire to serve the King,
they annexed the inland excise to the Crown for ever; and then passed
a series of acts against the Covenanters and all the enemies of the
government.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
459‒460.
Two acts were passed to facilitate processes of treason, in one of
which it was stated that persons who refused to give evidence in cases
of treason, conventicles, and church irregularities, should be liable
to be punished as guilty of these crimes themselves. Another act
declared that the giving or taking of the National Covenant, or the
Solemn League and Covenant, defending or owning them as lawful, should
involve the penalties of treason. It was farther enacted, that all
who preached at conventicles and all who attended them, should be
punished by death and confiscation of their goods. Husbands were made
responsible for the attendance of their wives at church, and liable for
their fines; while the Test Act was renewed with some additions.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 460‒461, 471.
Before parliament rose, the Earl of Argyle had arrived in Scotland.
He had entered into the plans of the exiles in Holland, and in concert
with the Duke of Monmouth, concocted an invasion of Britain. But the
attempt utterly failed. Argyle himself was captured on the 18th of June,
and carried to Edinburgh; and the King and Council having determined to
put him to death, according to the terms of his former sentence, he was
beheaded on the 30th of June, 1685. The people expressed much sympathy
for him, while many looked upon his execution as a murder.¹
¹ Fountainhall’s _Notes_, pages 134, 137; Burnet’s _History of
His Own Time_, Volume III., pages 26‒29.
This unsuccessful attempt at rebellion only increased the number
of sufferers. The prisons were crowded with people incarcerated for
nonconformity and rebellion, and huddled together without distinction
of sex, in a most wretched condition. In September, 1685, about one
hundred of these prisoners were shipped for New Jersey. But on the
passage fever broke out and when, after four months’ sailing, they
reached the New World, only forty of them were alive. Fortunately the
magistrates of New Jersey declared that they were freemen; and so in
a foreign land, they enjoyed that liberty and peace which had been
ruthlessly denied to them at home.¹
¹ Fountainhall’s _Notes_, page 144; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume
IV., pages 331‒336.
The King had already not only shown that he was a firm Roman Catholic
himself, but also manifested an intention to favour all who professed
that creed, and to turn England and Scotland back to the principles of
Roman Catholicism. To appear consistent, he proposed that all should
have liberty of conscience, and then expatiated on the blessing which
would result from a universal toleration of religious opinions, hoping
thereby to secure a better chance of promoting the cause of Catholicism,
and of finally re-establishing it.
The Scottish parliament was opened at Edinburgh on the 29th day of
April, 1686, the Earl of Moray, a recent convert to Catholicism, acting
as royal commissioner. He placed the King’s letter before the Estates,
in which his Majesty stated what he desired them to pass into law.
After a brief reference to matters of trade and commerce, and to
acts of mercy to his enemies, the royal letter announced:――“We cannot
be unmindful of others of our innocent subjects, those of the Roman
Catholic religion, who have with the hazard of their lives and fortunes
always assisted the Crown in the worst rebellions and usurpations,
though they lay under discouragements hardly to be named: them we do
heartily recommend to your care, to the end that, as they have given
good experience of their true loyalty and peaceable behaviour, so by
your assistance they may have the protection of our laws, and that
security under our government which our other subjects have, not
suffering them to lie under obligations which their religion cannot
admit of.... So not only expecting your compliance with us, but that
by the manner of it, you will show the world your readiness to meet our
inclinations.” The Scotch parliament had indeed been servile for many
years, but it seemed hardly prepared for this demand; so in answering
the King’s letter it proceeded, touching that part “relating to your
subjects of the Roman Catholic religion, we shall in obedience to your
Majesty’s commands and with tenderness to their persons take the same
into our serious and dutiful consideration, and go as great lengths
therein as our consciences will allow, not doubting that your Majesty
will be careful to secure the Protestant religion established by
law.” A bill was prepared, and passed the Lords of the Articles, which
proposed that the Roman Catholics should have the protection of the
government and the laws, and be permitted to exercise their religion
without incurring any punishment. The bill was debated in parliament,
but it was not passed.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
576‒582; Fountainhall’s _Notes_, pages 171, 179.
When parliament had declined to do what the King desired, he thought
that in virtue of his royal prerogative, he could do it himself.
He accordingly commanded the Privy Council to authorise the Roman
Catholics to exercise their religion, and to protect the chaplains and
others whom he had placed in the chapel of Holyrood house. There was
some opposition to this in the Council; but it was resolved that the
King’s authority was sufficient to suspend the penal laws; they held
that he was accountable only to God, and therefore they must obey him.¹
¹ Fountainhall’s _Notes_, pages 192‒193.
By the beginning of 1687 the persecution of the presbyterians was
abated; though the laws for punishing the Society People were still
in force. On the 13th of February, a royal proclamation was emitted at
Edinburgh, in the following strain:――“We by our sovereign authority,
prerogative royal, and absolute power, which all our subjects are to
obey without reserve, do hereby give and grant our royal toleration
to the several professors of the Christian religion after-named, under
the conditions and limitations after-mentioned. In the first place, we
allow and tolerate the moderate presbyterians to meet in their private
houses, and there to hear all such ministers as either have or are
willing to accept our indulgence only, and none other, and that there
be not anything said or done contrary to the well and peace of our
reign, seditious or treasonable, under the highest penalties which
those crimes import; nor are they to build meeting-houses, but only
to exercise in their private houses. Meantime it is our royal pleasure
that field conventicles, and such as preach at them, or in any way
assist or attend at them, shall be prosecuted according to the utmost
severity of the laws against them, seeing, that from these rendezvouses
of rebellion so much disorder has proceeded, and so much disturbance
to the government.... In like manner, we do hereby tolerate Quakers
to meet and exercise their own form of religion in any place appointed
for them. And considering the severe and cruel laws made against Roman
Catholics, therein called Papists, in the minority of our grandfather
of glorious memory, without his consent and contrary to the duty of
good subjects, by his regents and other enemies to their lawful
sovereign, our royal great-grandmother, Queen Mary of blessed and pious
memory, wherein under the pretence of religion they clothed the worst
of treasons, factions, and usurpations, not against the enemies of God
but their own ... we therefore, with advice and consent of our Privy
Council, by our sovereign authority, royal prerogative, and absolute
power, suspend, stop, and disable, all laws and acts of parliament,
customs or constitutions, made against any of our Roman Catholic
subjects in past times, to all intents making void all prohibitions
therein mentioned or penalties therein ordered to be inflicted; so that
they shall in all things be as free as any of our Protestant subjects,
not only to exercise their religion, but also to enjoy all offices
and other posts which we shall think fit to bestow upon them.” The
proclamation went on to abolish the oaths of allegiance and the test;
and then announced “that it never was our principle, nor will we ever
suffer violence to be offered to any man’s conscience, nor will we use
force against any man on account of his religion, or the Protestant
religion.” James now proceeded rapidly with his work. On the 5th of
July, 1687, by his sovereign authority and absolute power, he suspended
all the penal laws against nonconformity. This afforded relief to the
presbyterians, many of whom were released from prison, and some of the
ministers who had been banished, shortly after returned to Scotland.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 417‒427.
The King had played his game so far with such success, that a party
of the presbyterian ministers and some of the citizens of Edinburgh
forwarded an address thanking him for putting an end to their long
sufferings for nonconformity. But the main body of the presbyterians
easily saw through the motive and design of the King’s policy of
toleration; as his scheme of reconverting the people of Great Britain
to Roman Catholicism was too palpable, and withal rather crude,
to deceive many of them. James claimed and assumed the power, not
merely of suspending laws, but also of repealing them; he was always
proclaiming that by his absolute power he had suspended this law and
that, and commanded something else to be put in their place. Being
conceited and self-willed, he fancied himself to be above the laws
and constitution of the kingdom; and when any refused to embrace his
unlawful projects, he became indignant and threatening.
The Society People soon recognised the real meaning of the King’s
toleration. What right had he to forbid or to allow them to preach the
gospel? They had a warrant from a higher Master, and therefore they
continued their field meetings, scorning alike the King’s claim of
absolute power and his denunciations against them. But Renwick, their
leader and preacher, was seized in the beginning of February, 1688, and
executed at Edinburgh on the 17th of that month; his death being the
last execution for religion in Scotland.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, pages 427‒429; Burnet’s _History of His
Own Time_, Volume III., pages 171‒178.
The great crisis had been long preparing, and when it was seen to
be nigh, great was the excitement in Scotland. As the convictions
and sentiments of the people had been long repressed, the rebound
threatened to be violent. The King had set up the Roman Catholic
worship in the chapel of Holyrood, and schools were also opened there
under the direction of Catholic priests. Although attempts were made
to suppress the Prince of Orange’s declaration, which was issued in
the middle of October, 1688, its import soon became known in Scotland.
All the forces in the kingdom had been summoned by the King to operate
against the Dutch invaders, who had landed in England in the beginning
of November. The Scottish bishops saw the dark clouds gathering; they
met at Edinburgh on the 3rd of November, and in an humble letter to
his sacred Majesty, prayed “that God in his mercy, who has so often
preserved and delivered your Majesty, will still preserve and deliver
you, by giving you the hearts of your subjects, and the necks of your
enemies.”¹
¹ Burnet’s _History of His Own Time_, Volume III., pages
309‒312; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 469‒470. The
Prince of Orange’s Declaration to the people of Scotland is
printed in Wodrow’s _History_. The chief points adduced in
it as reasons for William’s interference were――that where
the laws, the liberties, and the customs established by
the lawful authority were openly transgressed and annulled,
and especially when this was done with the aim of altering
religion, the peace and the happiness of the kingdom could
not be preserved; that the effects of arbitrary power and
evil counsel were manifest in the wretched condition of the
people of Scotland; that the fountain of justice had been
excessively corrupted, and the poor people mercilessly
punished.
Before the issue of the military operations in England was decided,
disturbances arose in Edinburgh. The Roman Catholics were insulted
on the streets; and placards were posted up threatening the ministers
of the Crown. The Earl of Perth, the chancellor and head of the Privy
Council, and an apostate, had been a servile tool to the King, and
therefore an object of hatred; but now his courage failed him, and
he fled to his own country residence. When at last it became clear
that the King’s cause was falling, crowds gathered on the streets
of Edinburgh, loud shouts were raised for a free parliament, and
the tumult increased; a few troops attempted to quell it, but were
overpowered. On Sunday the 9th of December, 1688, a great number
of students, apprentices, and others, appeared on the streets; and
the provost having refused to deliver the keys of the ports, they
threatened to burn his house. They then proceeded to the Market Cross,
and proclaimed a reward of four hundred pounds sterling to any one who
should seize the Earl of Perth and bring him there dead or alive.
The following day the Town Council issued a proclamation prohibiting
tumults on the streets, which was torn to tatters as soon as it was
read, and the officers and drummer prevented from going through the
town. The mob then prepared to attack the chapel in the palace of
Holyrood for the purpose of destroying the images. The attack was begun
in the evening, and after some bloodshed, the soldiers who guarded
the Abbey were overcome. The chapel was rifled, and the woodwork, the
images, the library, and everything in the interior which could be
readily removed, were taken out and burned. The next day the mob went
through all the houses of the Catholics in the city, demanding their
images, crosses, and books, and burned them on the streets. The Privy
Council, too, had changed their attitude, even before the final flight
of the King. On the 24th of December, they emitted a proclamation
calling upon all the Protestants in the kingdom to put themselves in
a position of defence, for securing their religion, their lives, their
liberties, and their property: thus the Council easily came round to
the popular side; while the body of the nation was already arrayed on
the side of the Prince of Orange.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 472‒476.
All kinds of alarming rumours were rife. It was reported that an army
of Irish Catholics was on the eve of landing on the coasts of Galloway,
and some said it was landed. The people dreaded a massacre; for the
Council had dissolved, the army had been marched into England, and
there was an utter collapse of authority. The people of the western
counties assembled in crowds, and proceeded to take the law into their
own hands. They had naturally determined to purge the Church, and the
unhappy curates became their victims. They began their work on the
25th of December, 1688; but some of the episcopal clergy had saved
themselves by flight, in other instances they were seized by bands
of men and exhibited in mock processions, their gowns torn over their
heads, and their prayer-books burned before their eyes; and finally,
they were ordered to be gone and never to return to the parish. The
rioters entered many of the manses, and having thrown the furniture out
at the window, and turned the inmates out at the door, took possession
of the keys. This work went on for several months, till almost every
parish in the west and in the south of the kingdom was relieved of its
episcopal incumbent. More than two hundred were thus removed from their
parishes and livings. The curates were subjected by the mob to some
rough usage, and though no life was taken, they were rendered homeless
with their wives and families, and many of them reduced to beggary.
But the violence of the Revolution, considering its antecedents, was
not great; and the only surprise is, that after twenty-eight years
of persecution and severe oppression, the people did not rise more
violently against their enemies. Indeed, the more moderate Covenanters
disapproved of these proceedings, and a general meeting of ministers
and elders was called for the purpose of preventing such excesses.
They agreed on a form of notice which in future was to be sent to every
curate, ordering him to quit his parish peaceably, else he would be
turned out by force.¹
¹ Burnet’s _History of His Own Time_, Volume III., page 344;
_An Account of the Present Persecution of the Church of
Scotland, in several Letters_, 1690; _The Case of the Present
Afflicted Clergy of Scotland Truly Represented_, 1690.
The presbyterian ministers held a general meeting at Edinburgh in
January, 1689, and agreed on a well-considered address to the Prince
of Orange. They thanked him for his exertions on behalf of the reformed
religion, referred to the innumerable evils and suffering which the
establishment of episcopacy had brought upon them and the nation, and
humbly beseeched him to adopt measures to free them from the yoke of
prelacy, and to restore the presbyterian polity as the most effectual
remedy against slavery and the distractions of the nation.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 481‒482.
Some of the Scotch nobles were in London when the Prince of Orange
reached it, and many others hastened there to offer him their service.
On the 7th of January, 1689, he requested them to meet him the next
day at Whitehall. The meeting was led by the Duke of Hamilton, and
consisted of about thirty lords and eighty gentlemen of note. The
Prince desired them to deliberate, and to inform him in what way he
could promote the peace and interest of their country, and then left
them to form their own conclusion unrestrained by his presence. They
debated three days. In the end they agreed to resolutions embodied in
an address to the Prince, requesting him to call a Convention of the
Estates at Edinburgh on the 14th of March, and meantime to take upon
himself the administration of the kingdom. To these requests he at once
acceded.¹
¹ _Sixth Collection of State Papers_, 1689; Sir J. Mackintosh’s
_History of the Revolution in England in 1688_, pages 574‒576.
Preparations for the Convention were immediately commenced, all parties
being anxious to return members to decide the future position of the
nation. The Roman Catholics were excluded from voting in the election
of members. King William assumed the power to summon to the Convention
several of the nobles, who had been deprived of their honours by
sentences which public feeling condemned as unjust, dispensed with
a number of other restrictions, and ordered that the members for the
burghs should be elected by a poll of all the adult inhabitants. The
Whigs secured a majority favourable to the Prince of Orange, though all
the bishops, and some of the nobles, clung to the cause of the fugitive
King. The latter party calculated on the support of the Duke of Gordon,
who commanded the Castle of Edinburgh, and on Viscount Dundee, whose
energy was well known and greatly feared, as they might attempt to
intimidate, or to disperse the Convention. The other party mainly
relied on the aid of the Cameronians from the west, if the necessity
for real action arose.¹
¹ Balcarres’ _Memoirs_.
The Convention assembled at the appointed time. Nine of the bishops
appeared as the representatives of the spiritual estate, forty-two
peers, forty-nine members for the counties, and fifty for the burghs.
The Bishop of Edinburgh opened the proceedings, and prayed that God
would assist them and restore King James. The election of a president
was next essayed. The supporters of James proposed the Marquis of
Athole; the Whigs proposed the Duke of Hamilton, who was elected by a
majority of forty. This indicated the drift of the Convention. About
twenty of the minority then deserted the cause of James, and joined
the majority. On the 16th, a letter from the Prince of Orange was read,
in which he expressed his desire that they would settle the religion
and liberties of the nation upon just grounds, in harmony with the
inclination of the people and of the public good. The Estates returned
a thankful reply. The same day, after some debate, a letter from King
James was read; but there was nothing in it to raise the hopes of
his adherents. He offered a pardon to those who returned to their
allegiance before the end of the month; while to others no mercy could
be shown. His adherents in the Convention were mortified, while his
enemies were vehement, and the sitting closed in great excitement.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 3‒5,
6; Balcarres’ _Memoirs_.
The citizens of Edinburgh were intensely agitated as well as the
members of the Convention. The Whigs had summoned the Duke of Gordon
to surrender the Castle, but he refused. He might at any moment open
a ♦cannonade on the Parliament House or the citizens, as it was known
that the Jacobites would not yield without a severe struggle, and
might attempt some desperate move. Viscount Dundee and Sir George
Mackenzie complained that their lives were in danger, alleging that
the Cameronians had resolved to slay them, and they applied to the
Duke of Hamilton for protection. When the Convention met on the 18th of
March, tidings were brought into the House that Viscount Dundee was on
the Stirling road with a troop of dragoons, and that he had been seen
conferring with the Duke of Gordon at the Castle gate. This news threw
the members into a state of violent alarm, and Hamilton, the president,
started to his feet and cried:――“It is high time that we should look
to ourselves. The enemies of our religion, and of our civil freedom,
are mustering all around us; and we may well suspect that they have
accomplices even here. Lock the doors. Lay the keys on the table. Let
no one go out but those lords and gentlemen, whom we shall appoint
to call the citizens to arms. There are some good men from the west
in Edinburgh, men for whom I can answer.” The majority of the members
shouted assent, and what he proposed was immediately done. Leven went
out and ordered the drums to be beat. The Covenanters promptly answered
to the call, and mustered in such numbers as overawed all the Jacobites
in Edinburgh. They protected the arrival of the Scotch regiments under
the command of General Mackay.¹
♦ “canonade” replaced with “cannonade”
¹ Balcarres’ _Memoirs_; _History of the late Revolution in
Scotland_, 1690.
The members of the Convention now prepared to settle the prime point
of the conflict. As usual, a committee was appointed to draft the acts;
and the special task of framing a plan for settling the government was
entrusted to eight peers, eight representatives of counties, and eight
representatives of the burghs, the majority being Whigs. They proceeded
to debate and frame the decisive resolution, which required some time
for deliberate consideration. The resolution of the Convention finally
assumed the following form:――“That James VII. was a professed papist,
that he had assumed the royal power and acted as king without ever
taking the oath required by law; and by the advice of evil and wicked
councillors he had invaded the fundamental constitution of the kingdom,
and altered it from a limited monarchy to an arbitrary and despotic
power, and did exercise the same to the subversion of the Protestant
religion, and the violation of the laws and the liberties of the
kingdom, whereby he forfeited his right to the crown, and his throne
has become vacant.” This resolution was accompanied by another, which
tendered the crown of Scotland to William and Mary. When the two
resolutions were put to the vote, nine voted against them, namely,
seven bishops, and other two members. Immediately after the vote
of the Convention, the new sovereigns were proclaimed at the Cross
of Edinburgh.¹ At the same time the Estates issued an order to the
parish ministers to intimate from their pulpits the contents of the
proclamation, and to pray for King William and Queen Mary, under the
penalty of deprivation.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 33,
38‒39.
The Scotch Convention, like the English parliament, embodied a Claim of
Right, to be presented along with the resolutions tendering the Crown
to the new sovereigns. It was meant to be declaratory of the law as it
then stood, and also, to state clearly what institutions and liberties
the late kings had infringed. The chief points of this important
document were these:――“That according to the laws of the kingdom no
papist could ascend the throne. That all proclamations assuming an
absolute power to suspend the laws were illegal. That the measures
employed to establish popery, the imposing of bonds and oaths, and the
exacting of money without the authority of parliament, Convention till
the were contrary to law. That it was illegal to invest the officers
of the army with judicial powers, to inflict death without trial,
jury, or record; to exact exorbitant fines or bail; to imprison without
expressing the reason, or to delay the trial; to prosecute and procure
the forfeiture of persons by the straining of old and obsolete statutes;
to nominate the magistrates and the common council of the burghs;
to dictate the proceedings of courts of justice; to employ torture
without evidence or in ordinary crimes; to garrison private houses, or
to introduce an hostile army into the country to live at free quarters
in a time of peace. That it was illegal to treat persons as guilty
of treason for refusing to state their private sentiments touching
the treasonable doctrines or actions of others. That prelacy and
the superiority of any office in the Church above presbyters is,
and has been, a great and insufferable grievance and trouble to this
nation, and contrary to the inclination of the majority of the people,
ever since the Reformation, when they were reformed from popery
to presbytery; and therefore prelacy ought to be abolished. The
rights of appeal to parliament, and of petition to the throne, were
asserted; frequent meetings of parliament were demanded; and all the
preceding points were declared to be undoubted rights against which
no declaration or precedent ought to operate to the injury of the
people.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
39‒40.
The convention empowered Hamilton to take any steps that might
be necessary for preserving the public peace till the end of the
interregnum; and the Estates then adjourned for five weeks. Thus the
Revolution was formally recognised in Scotland.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
_The Revolution and the Union._
ALTHOUGH at the centre of authority, the Revolution, had been
accomplished, the principles and the difficulties which had caused
it, were not solved. The opposite interests and influences, and the
diverse sentiments and convictions in politics and religion, which
had characterised parties in Scotland since the Reformation, were not
harmonised. On some political ideas and points keener feelings than
ever had been generated and aroused. The deposed dynasty had still
many adherents in Scotland, so that the new government found itself
face to face with embarrassment and a complicated series of obstacles.
The Covenanters, or the extreme party of the presbyterians, were
dissatisfied with the way in which the Convention had treated the
question of Church government, as they disapproved of all compromises,
while the bishops and the episcopal party were bitterly offended and
disappointed. The leading Jacobites were preparing to assail the new
government by force of arms.
King William had a difficult task in nominating ministers for the
government of Scotland. The leader of a revolutionary movement, and
each subordinate actor in it imagines that he is well entitled to a
place in the new arrangement of affairs, or to some important post in
the administration; hence, whomsoever the King might appoint, he would
offend those who found their own claims ignored. A numerous class of
Scotsmen were eager to proffer their advice and their service to King
William, recommending him not to govern the kingdom by a faction, or to
be led by those who had their own personal interest in view, but to be
guided solely by considerations for the public good. The position of
the King in Scotland was complicated and perplexing, inasmuch as both
the Church and the parliament demanded reform of a radical character.
But King William had at least one ♦Scotsman whom he could trust,
William Carstairs, a presbyterian minister, and afterwards Principal
of the University of Edinburgh. He had suffered persecution under the
preceding reigns, and his hand still bore the marks of the thumbscrew.
He had been long deep in the secrets and schemes of the Prince of
Orange, and no man of that period was more worthy of confidence;
William knew him well, and implicitly trusted him. He was appointed
chaplain to their Majesties for Scotland; but he continued to be much
with the King, and from the first advised him to adopt a moderate
policy in Scotland. Carstairs’ own sentiments were liberal, and
the severe persecution which he had undergone, had not in the least
hardened his nature or clouded the judgment of his remarkable mind. The
Duke of Hamilton was appointed royal commissioner when the Convention
was turned into a parliament, yet it was reported that he did not
consider himself sufficiently rewarded for his services. The Earl of
Crawford was nominated a Privy Councillor, and President of Parliament;
he was a presbyterian, and warmly supported that party. Lord Melville
was appointed Secretary of State, and he also belonged to the
presbyterians, and commanded their respect and confidence. Sir James
Montgomery had thought himself entitled to the secretaryship, and
though he was offered the office of Lord Justice Clerk, he deemed it
below his merits, and therefore returned from London to Edinburgh a
disappointed man, with feelings of aversion to the King and government,
and determined on concerting plans of opposition. Lord Stair was
made President of the Court of Session; and his son, John Dalrymple,
was appointed Lord Advocate. Both of these had been concerned in
the proceedings of the former reigns, so that many who considered
themselves free from this blemish were greatly displeased and chagrined
at their re-elevation.¹
♦ “Scotsmen” replaced with “Scotsman”
¹ M‘Cormick’s _Life of Carstairs_; Burnet’s _History of His Own
Time_, Volume IV., pages 42, 43.
A number of the Scotch Whigs, disappointed by the new arrangements,
assembled in Edinburgh, and brooded over plans of opposition to the
government. Among these angry politicians, the highest in rank were
the Earl of Annandale and Lord Ross, who found a leader and a kindred
spirit in Montgomery. Under this bold man, they formed themselves into
a society called “The Club,” appointed a clerk, and met daily in a
public-house to concert modes of opposition. With them Sir Patrick
Hume, (who had returned from exile), and Fletcher of Saltoun, became
associated, while many others joined them, and appeared on the side
of the opposition. In conjunction with these men, Montgomery exerted
himself to the utmost to form a party, which might be strong enough to
control the proceedings of the Convention.¹
¹ _Leven and Melville Papers._
The Convention reassembled on the 5th of June, 1689, and passed an act
which converted it into a parliament. Hamilton, the royal commissioner,
was instructed to give the King’s assent to acts for reforming
the constitution of the committee of the Lords of the Articles,
establishing the presbyterian polity, and ♦remedying other grievances.
But the members of the Club were intently bent on a teasing opposition
to the government. They had determined, if possible, to ruin the
Dalrymples, and reiterated that both the father and son had served
under the late reigns, and oppressed the people. A form of conflict of
a novel character was thus begun in the Scotch parliament. The chief
contention was for a free debating parliament, such as England enjoyed,
and thus it became necessary to abolish the committee called the Lords
of the Articles. This was a very old institution of elective origin,¹
but it had been from time to time modified and transformed to suit the
ends of the Crown. Nearly all parliamentary business and action had
become concentrated in this committee; it had always been an aim of the
recent kings to reduce a session to as few normal sittings as possible,
and thus prevent discussions of their measures before the house. A
majority of the members clamoured loudly for parliamentary reform, and
a long and vehement debate ensued on the abolition of the Committee
of the Articles. The King’s proposal to modify the constitution of the
Lords of the Articles and still retain them, was repeatedly rejected,
and total abolition demanded; but this was not then obtained. In the
debate touching the nomination of the judges of the Court of Session,
the members of the Club maintained that parliament should have a veto
on their appointment.
♦ “remeding” replaced with “remedying”
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
I., pages 369‒370. In the century under review the mode of
forming it was stated at page 130.
Much of the time of the session was spent in fruitless efforts. But on
the 22nd of July, an act abolishing episcopacy was passed, which stated
that the King, with the consent of parliament, would settle in Scotland
the form of Church government most agreeable to the inclinations of
the people. The royal commissioner adjourned the session on the 2nd of
August.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 98,
104; Appendix, Minutes of Estates.
Thus, when the Estates adjourned, no form of Church polity was legally
established; but the Privy Council was empowered to allow the ministers
to continue their meetings of kirk-sessions, presbyteries, and synods,
till the government of the Church should be further established by an
Act of Parliament, and by the authority of the General Assembly.
Meanwhile Viscount Dundee and the Jacobites in the north were
struggling to the utmost against the government. Since Dundee left
Edinburgh, he had concerted a rising in the Highlands. General Mackay,
with the royal army, was making desperate but unavailing efforts to
crush the rising. His first campaign in the Highlands was an utter
failure. Dundee resolved to muster the chiefs and clansmen in Lochaber,
and a force of about two thousand assembled, consisting mainly of the
Macdonalds, the Camerons, and Macleans. He marched through Badenoch
to Athole, and arrived at Blair Castle on the morning of the 27th of
July, 1689, where he received tidings that the royal army under General
Mackay had entered the Pass of Killiecrankie. Dundee allowed Mackay to
advance through the Pass, and gave him battle on the open ground. He
immediately marched from the Castle of Blair along the Water of Tilt,
and turned round the Hill of Lude, and took up his position on the brow
of the hill which overlooked Mackay’s army. When Mackay perceived the
approach of Dundee’s followers, he at once prepared for action. His
army consisted of three thousand five hundred men, and two troops of
cavalry. After examining the ground, he formed his men into one line
three deep. Near the centre of his line was a piece of marshy ground,
and behind it he placed his cavalry, which might be ready to attack the
enemy in flank, after the fire of the infantry was spent. His line of
battle was longer than Dundee’s, hence, when the latter was advancing
to the attack, some companies of the clansmen were exposed to a raking
flank fire. The two armies had faced each other for several hours, and
the Highlanders were becoming impatient. At three quarters of an hour
before sunset, they were ordered to prepare for action, and Dundee
placed himself at the head of his company of cavalry, and resolved to
charge in person. The signal to charge was given, and the Highlanders
raised a shout which re-echoed afar from the surrounding hills. They
advanced down the hill firing their guns, but the royal line returned
the fire briskly, and thinned their ranks. As they came close upon the
hostile line, they threw down their guns, drew their broadswords, and,
with yells which rent the air, rushed on the royalists before they had
time to fix their bayonets. The onset was fierce and irresistible, and
at once broke the ranks of the enemy, who had no effective means of
defence against the strokes of the broadswords, and the royal troops
fled down the valley in utter confusion. In a few minutes the Battle
of Killiecrankie was fought and won. Dundee fell mortally wounded by
a shot, expiring in the moment of victory; about six hundred of his
followers were slain.
In spite of the disaster, the General never lost his coolness and
courage. As soon as he saw Dundee’s mode of attack, he ordered his
cavalry to charge the Highlanders in flank, and in person he led a
troop to charge their right flank, and spurred through the thickest
of the enemy, but only one single horseman followed their General.
When he turned round to observe the state of matters, his army was
out of sight; “in the twinkling of an eye,” he said, “our men were out
of sight, having gone down pell mell to the river, where the baggage
stood.” After some time, he found that only about four hundred of
his army remained; some of his men had fled, and two thousand of them
slain or taken prisoners. Having collected the remnants of his army, he
placed himself at its head, and retired from the scene of the battle.
His officers recommended a retreat through the Pass of Killiecrankie,
but he wisely rejected their advice, and proceeded across the hills
toward Strath Tay, and thence to Stirling, which he reached on the 29th
of July.
News of the defeat of the royal army reached Edinburgh on the 28th
of July, the day after the battle, and caused intense consternation.
It was reported that Mackay was killed and his army destroyed; that
Dundee was already master of the country beyond the Forth, and rapidly
advancing to take possession of the capital. A meeting of the Privy
Council was immediately held, and orders issued to muster all the
fencible men in the west, and to concentrate all the troops at Stirling
to defend the passage of the Forth. Some of the members of the Council
proposed to transfer the seat of Government to Glasgow, others were
for retiring into England. This ferment of excitement continued for
two days, but on the third intelligence was received of Dundee’s
death――an event which was regarded both in Edinburgh and London as a
full compensation for the defeat and destruction of the royal army. The
fall of Dundee was a fatal blow to the cause of King James in Scotland.
Cannon, who succeeded him in command, mismanaged everything; the war
against the Government languished, and soon ceased.
The King found it an extremely difficult task to rule Scotland. He
could hardly find any Scottish politicians in whom he had confidence.
The Duke of Hamilton had not given satisfaction as royal commissioner;
and when Parliament re-assembled at Edinburgh on the 15th of April,
1690, Lord Melville appeared as the King’s representative. On the first
vote being taken, the Government obtained a small majority which soon
increased, and the power of the opposition Club was completely broken.
The King had formed a rather low opinion of the morality and the honour
of the Scottish aristocracy. His commissioner was instructed to treat
with the leading men inclined to opposition, to promise them posts or
money, and thus ward off troublesome opposition; and indeed, to use
direct bribery, if necessary, for the ends of the Government.――“Thus
you are allowed to deal with the leading men in Parliament, that they
may concur for redressing of the grievances, without reflecting upon
some votes of Parliament much insisted on last session, which, upon
weighty considerations, we thought not fit to pass into laws; and what
employment or other gratification you may think fit to promise them
in our name, we shall fulfil the same. You are to deal with all other
persons as you shall have occasion, whom you judge most capable to be
serviceable to us, that they may be employed as instruments of taking
these leading men, or for getting intelligence, or for influencing
shires, or royal boroughs, that they may instruct their commissioners
cordially to comply with our instructions for redressing of the
grievances; and what money or other gratification you may promise
them shall be made good.”¹ William promised encouragement to the
Presbyterians, and advised them to proceed with discretion and
moderation; but he was unwilling to abolish patronage. Further, he
directed that the acts passed in the last session favourable to them
should be ratified, and suggested that a bill for the final settlement
of the Church should be passed. He wisely abandoned the chief points
of difference touching the forms of parliamentary procedure; and it was
settled that henceforth there were to be no standing committees like
the Lords of the Articles; the Estates were merely to appoint their
committees from time to time, to digest measures submitted to them.
The officers of State, however, were still permitted to attend these
committees, with a right of moving and debating, but not of voting.²
¹ _Leven and Melville Papers_, page 417.
² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., Appendix.
On the 15th of April, the statute of 1669, which so emphatically
asserted the King’s supremacy in all cases and over all persons, was
repealed. All the Presbyterian ministers ejected since the beginning of
the year 1661 were restored, but only about sixty of them were alive;
while the Episcopal incumbents in the restored ministers’ parishes
were ordered to leave their manses within a few weeks. Parliament
approved of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and re-established
the Presbyterian polity; while the government and re-organisation of
the Church were entrusted to the sixty restored ministers, and to such
other ministers and elders as they should think fit to associate with
themselves in the work. A General Assembly was authorised to meet at
Edinburgh in October, and empowered to appoint visitors to eject all
ministers who were inefficient, scandalous in morals, or erroneous in
doctrine. All the churches which had been deserted by their ministers,
or from which the ministers had been removed before the 13th of April,
1689, or whose ministers had been deprived, since that date, for not
praying for the King and the Queen, were declared vacant. There was
some opposition to these arrangements in parliament, but they were
finally carried by a large majority.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume IX., pages 111, 132‒134.
The King wished to retain patronage, but the opposition against it was
too strong, and it was abolished in this way. When a vacancy occurred,
the heritors and elders had to nominate a minister for the approval of
the congregation; and if the congregation disapproved of the nominee,
they were to produce their reasons before the presbytery, by whom the
matter was to be finally settled. In royal burghs it was specially
provided that the calling of ministers should be vested in the
magistrates, town council, and kirk-session.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 196,
197. The act allowed compensation to those who lost their
rights of patronage.
It was enacted that all the office-bearers in the universities and
schools should sign the Confession of Faith, submit to the Presbyterian
form of polity, and take the oath of allegiance to the King and
the Queen. A commission was named and authorised to visit all these
institutions, and to eject all unsound and scandalous persons, and all
who refused to submit to the established government. In a short time
all the universities were visited, and purged of obnoxious professors.¹
¹ _Ibid._; _Fasti Aberdonenses_, pages 361, ♦368, 379, 380.
♦ “168” replaced with “368”
This parliament passed an act which deprived the Church of the power of
enforcing censures by the infliction of civil penalties. A draft of the
Toleration Act was introduced by a private member, but it was coldly
received and allowed to drop. But the King had wisely resolved not to
permit the dominant party to indulge in persecuting any of those who
differed from themselves.
There were, however, two parties almost equally dissatisfied with the
new ecclesiastical arrangements――the genuine Episcopalians, and the
extreme Presbyterians, or Cameronians. The Cameronians rejected the new
settlement on principle, as it ignored the Covenants. But they were not
a dangerous party to the new government, for reasons which were then
and now pretty obvious. The party who firmly held Episcopal views, on
the other hand, were not very numerous, but when they became identified
with the Jacobites, the two united politically formed a strong party
against the government. The Jacobites were not all Episcopal, but
common interests and the same political object induced them to unite
with the Episcopalians as one party.
Soon after the parliamentary sanction of Presbyterianism, a preliminary
meeting of ministers and elders was held at Edinburgh, to prepare for
the ensuing General Assembly. The meeting was rather stormy at the
beginning, some opposition to the governing body of sixty being offered,
and a protest entered; but peaceful counsels prevailed, and the
proceedings went on smoothly. A number of young and active preachers
were added to the governing body, and arrangements were made for the
coming Assembly. Presbyteries were erected in various districts, and
empowered to try and to eject all scandalous and negligent ministers,
according to the Act of Parliament. Nearly half of the parish churches
were already vacant, and the presbyteries proceeded with remarkable
energy to purge the Church and to turn out more of the incumbents.¹
¹ _Historical Relation of the Late General Assembly at
Edinburgh in the year 1690_, pages 4‒14.
Thirty-seven years had passed since the last General Assembly was
dissolved by Cromwell’s officers, and the prospect of reassembling
a body that had sometimes shaken the throne, caused grave thought
and much anxiety to the King and his advisers. The Government strove
earnestly to secure a peaceful Assembly. Lord Melville wrote to the
leading ministers beseeching them to follow moderate measures, to act
discreetly and proceed quietly, as the only way to insure the success
of their polity. The Earl of Crawford also exerted himself to the
utmost amongst his friends, and impressed upon them that much depended
on their own tact and conduct. Lord Carmichael was appointed royal
commissioner to the Assembly; he was a Presbyterian, and a man of good
common sense and mild temper.¹
¹ _Leven and Melville Papers._
The Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 16th of October, 1690. About one
hundred and eighty ministers and elders attended; but the greater part
of the kingdom beyond the Tay was unrepresented. Carmichael presented
the King’s letter, which briefly stated:――“We expect that your
management shall be such as we shall have no reason to repent of what
we have done. A calm and peaceable procedure will be no less pleasing
to us than it becometh you. We never could be of the mind that violence
was suited to the advancing of true religion, nor do we intend that
our authority shall ever be made a tool to the irregular passions of
any party. Moderation is what religion enjoins, neighbouring churches
expect from you, and we recommend to you.” The Assembly agreed to
return an address to the King, and stated:――“If after the violence for
conscience’ sake that we have suffered and so much detested, and those
grievous abuses of authority in the late reigns, whereby through some
men’s irregular passions we have smarted, we ourselves should lapse
into the same errors, we should certainly prove the most unjust towards
God, foolish towards ourselves, and ungrateful towards your Majesty, of
all men on earth.”¹
¹ _Acts of the General Assembly._
An interesting matter came before the Assembly in the form of an
offer of submission from three of the Cameronian ministers, who had
exonerated their consciences by exhibiting their testimony against
the corruptions of the Church. The Assembly agreed to receive them
into communion, and the moderator exhorted them to walk orderly and to
oppose all divisions in the Church. An act was passed which required
all ministers and elders to sign the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Another act enjoined the presbyteries to observe all the ministers
in their bounds who neglected the fasts appointed by the Church, or
administered the sacrament in private, or celebrated clandestine
marriages; while private baptism was expressly prohibited. Regulations
were adopted touching the union of presbyteries where the number of
ministers was incomplete, reclaiming Roman Catholics, and procuring a
supply of Bibles and Catechisms for the Highland parishes. The Assembly
then annulled all the denunciations proclaimed nearly forty years
before by the Protestors and the Resolutioners against each other.
Two commissions of visitation were appointed, one for the presbyteries
south of the Tay, and the other for those to the north of it; and
they were instructed to eject inefficient and erroneous ministers,
and to see that those retained in the Church and admitted to share in
her government, signed the Confession and submitted to her discipline.
The extreme Covenanting party, who had suffered so much in the two
preceding reigns without yielding an inch, and still maintained
a consistent view, though a narrow one, were greatly displeased
with the form of the settlement of the Church. As indicated, three
ministers deserted them, and were received by the Assembly; their names
were William Boyd, Alexander Shields, and Thomas Lining. Though the
Cameronian ministers had joined the Church and allowed the paper which
enumerated the backslidings of the nation to be suppressed, their
flocks were not prepared to follow them or to homologate what they
considered a wicked compliance. As soon as they knew what had occurred,
they framed a paper expressing their ideas, and immediately sent it
to Edinburgh, where, however, it was stopped in its progress by the
committee of overtures. The Cameronians were naturally angry at this
treatment. They assailed their ministers for having betrayed them,
while they accused themselves for having recognised the Prince of
Orange, for having been induced to assist in protecting the Convention
of Estates, and for having owned the Assembly. Meanwhile they were at
a loss what to do, as they had no ministers; in a short time, however,
this want was supplied, and they became the first body of Scotch
dissenters from the Presbyterian Church.
After sitting about a month the Assembly adjourned, and the royal
commissioner gave the King a favourable report of its proceedings. The
extreme views of the covenanting age were allowed to slumber in silence,
no attempt being made to renew the Covenants.¹
¹ _Acts of the General Assembly_; _Faithful Contendings
Displayed_.
The commissioners appointed by the General Assembly entered with
energy on their work. In the current Jacobite writings it was
reported that the most frivolous pretexts were deemed sufficient
to condemn an obnoxious curate. But the commissioners had often to
encounter opposition, especially in the north, where their acts of
deposition were resisted by the congregations, and the newly-appointed
Presbyterian ministers rejected. When they arrived at Aberdeen,
in March, 1691, they were assailed by a mob, and forced to return
southwards without accomplishing anything. The greater part of the
clergy ejected by the commissioners were Jacobites, who persisted in
praying for King James. But a number of them who considered themselves
unjustly treated by the commissioners, despatched a deputation to
present their grievances to the King, and they managed to enlist his
sympathy in their cause. Royal letters were sent to the Privy Council
and to the commission, in which the King intimated that severity should
cease, and that all the Episcopal ministers who were qualified for the
ministry, and willingly submitted to the government in Church and State,
should be permitted to remain in their parishes. But the Presbyterians
deemed these letters an encroachment upon their rights, and paid no
attention to them. The commission proceeded boldly with its work of
purifying the Church; while a second letter from the King had no more
effect than the first.¹
¹ Carstairs’ _State Papers_, page 146; Cunningham’s _Church
History of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 295‒297; Dr. Grub’s
_Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, Volume III., pages
327‒328.
Indeed, the old conflict between the Church and the Crown was
threatening to revive. The Assembly had been adjourned to the 1st of
November, 1691, but before that date, it was adjourned by the King
to the 15th of January, 1692. When this day came, the Assembly met
at Edinburgh; the southern Presbyterians were fairly represented, but
only five commissioners from the presbyteries north of Dundee appeared.
The entire Assembly consisted of one hundred and eleven ministers, and
fifty-four ruling elders.¹
¹ _Register of the Proceedings of the Assembly._
The Earl of Lothian acted as royal commissioner, and presented a letter
from the King. William referred to the letters which he had sent to
the commission, and complained that the indications he had received of
their readiness to admit their Episcopal brethren into communion with
them had not been realised; and said he had been informed that they
were not a full General Assembly, as a majority of the ministers of
the Church were not allowed to be represented; that he had instructed
those ministers who wished to conform to apply to them for admission,
according to a form and declaration which he had sent with his
commissioner, and he thought it right that the commissioners for
arranging these matters should be composed of an equal number of
Episcopal and Presbyterian members. The commissioner produced the
form proposed by the King for the conforming Episcopal ministers. It
required the subscriber to declare and promise to submit to and concur
with the Presbyterian government of the Church, and sign the Confession
of Faith and the Catechism. The Assembly referred the matter to a
committee. Meanwhile many of the Episcopal clergy sent in addresses
to the Assembly requesting to be admitted into the Church on the
conditions proposed, and these were also remitted to a committee. The
Presbyterians were not prepared for a union of this character; as they
were suspicious of the King’s proposals. After sitting four weeks, the
royal commissioner addressed the Assembly in a reproachful style for
not having shown any disposition to promote unity with their brethren,
and in the King’s name dissolved the Assembly. When he sat down
the moderator rose, and asked if the Assembly was dissolved without
appointing a day for its next meeting. The commissioner said that his
Majesty would appoint another Assembly in due time, and give notice
of it. The moderator then asked liberty to speak, but he was told that
he could only be heard as a private person, not as representing the
Assembly. Yet he delivered his opinion on the point, and stated that
though they were under many obligations to the King, and always ready
to obey his lawful commands, still in the name of his brethren, he
begged to declare “that the office-bearers in the house of God have
a spiritual intrinsic power from Jesus Christ, the only Head of the
Church, to meet in assemblies concerning the affairs thereof, the
necessity of the same being first represented to the magistrate; and
farther, I humbly crave that the dissolution of this Assembly, without
inducting a new one to a certain day, may not be to the prejudice
of our yearly General Assemblies, granted to us by the laws of the
kingdom.” Touching the state of parties at this time, Burnet says: “The
Episcopal party carried it very high; they gave it out that the King
was now theirs; and that they were willing to come to a concurrence
with Presbytery, on design to bring all about to Episcopacy in a little
time. The Presbyterians, who at all times were stiff and peevish, were
more than ordinary so at this time: they were jealous of the King;
their friends were disgraced, and their bitterest enemies were coming
into power: so they were surly, and would not abate one point of their
government: and upon that the Assembly was dissolved.”¹
¹ _Register of the Proceedings of the Assembly._ _History of
his Own Time_, Volume IV., page 151. Dr. Grub says: “There
is some reason to doubt whether the Episcopal clergy were
sincere in their profession of a wish for union on the terms
proposed; in any event, it was hardly to be expected that the
Presbyterians would voluntarily consent to a plan which if
carried out would have given their opponents a majority in
the General Assembly.”――_Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae_, Volume
III., page 330.
This was represented to the King as an insolent invasion of the rights
of the Crown, and much angry feeling was evoked on both sides. William
had pretty high ideas of his kingly powers, and was jealous of all the
prerogatives which he thought belonged to the Crown.
Though open war against the government had ceased, still the exiled
King had many adherents in Scotland, especially in the north and among
the Highland chiefs. As past and subsequent events had proved, the
Celtic portion of the inhabitants could make themselves extremely
troublesome to any government. An attempt was therefore made to
purchase the friendship of the Highland clans. The King and his
government had avowedly adopted a system of bribery and corruption. It
should be stated that at this period dishonesty, treachery, and cruelty
were not specially limited to the Highlanders of Scotland; and if truth
and morality be the standard of estimation, neither the King nor his
government had much claim to be regarded as examples of high morality.
The Government engaged the Earl of Breadalbane to corrupt the Highland
chiefs――in other words, to purchase their submission, and if possible
to secure their allegiance to King William; for this purpose a sum
of money, reported to be twenty thousand pounds, was placed at the
Earl’s disposal. It was in the month of April, 1690, that the Earl was
authorised to execute this business; and the King in his instructions
to him directed particular attention to Sir Donald McDonald, Maclean,
Clanranald, Glengarry, Lochiel, and the Mackenzies. The King named a
sum not exceeding two thousand pounds to be offered, or a dignity under
an earldom, to any chief whose allegiance it might be necessary to buy
at so high a price;¹ and to give these money operations more effect,
a proclamation was emitted in August, 1691, commanding all the chiefs
to take the oath of allegiance in the presence of a civil magistrate
before the 1st of January, 1692, under the penalties of treason and
military execution. The chiefs at first refused to rely on the promises
of Breadalbane, and continued for months suspicious, but at length the
most of them complied with the terms of the proclamation, and took the
oath of allegiance.
¹ _Leven and Melville Papers._
But there were some persons, and one man high in office in particular,
who was greatly disappointed that the body of the Highland chiefs were
yielding to the demands of the government. The individual specially
offended at their submission was Sir John Dalrymple of Stair, who
had been Lord-Advocate, and was then Secretary of State for Scotland.
He was exceedingly anxious that a number of the clans should stand
out, and thus afford an excuse for their complete slaughter; indeed,
there is ample evidence that he was wildly angry, as his hope of
exterminating the Celtic people became day by day less probable. In the
end of October, 1691, he wrote: “It must be a strange inadventure if
the Highlanders be not convinced of the King’s extraordinary goodness
to them, when he is content to be at a charge to accommodate them, and
give them the plain prospect of future peace, security, and advantage,
when he can gratify many by destroying them with as little charge.
And certainly, if there do remain any obstinacy, these advices will
be taken. The King, by the offer of mercy, has sufficiently shown his
good intentions, and by their ruin he will rid himself of a suspicious
crew.” In November, 1691, he intimated to Breadalbane, “I wrote to you
formerly, that if the rest were willing to concur, as the crows do, to
pull down Glengarry’s nest this winter, so as the King be not hindered
to draw four regiments from Scotland,――in that case destroying him
and his clan, and garrisoning his house as a middle for communication
between Inverlochy and Inverness, will be fully as acceptable as if he
had come in. This answers all ends, and satisfies those who complain
of the King’s too great gentleness.”¹ On the eve of the massacre, the
Secretary wrote――“Just now, my lord, Argyle tells me that Glencoe has
not taken the oaths, at which I rejoice; it’s a great work of charity
to be exact in rooting out that damnable sept, the worst in all the
Highlands.”²
¹ Sir John Dalrymple’s _Memoirs_, Volume II., page 265;
Burton’s _History of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 525‒528,
1853.
² Graham’s _Annals and Correspondence of the Viscount, and the
First and Second Earl of Stair_, Volume I., page 159, 1875.
Macdonald of Glencoe, owing to several untoward circumstances, was a
few days behind the prescribed time for taking the oath of allegiance;
but he did take it before the Sheriff of Argyle at Inveraray; and the
sheriff forwarded it to the Privy Council in Edinburgh, but the clerks
refused to take it. The upshot was that the massacre of the Chief of
Glencoe, and all his retainers, was ordered by the King, and despatches
sent to the commander of the forces in that quarter to execute it.
The King’s instructions were issued on the 11th and 16th of January,
1692. The instructions of the later date touching Glencoe, were as
follows:――“If Macdonald of Glencoe and that tribe can be well separated
from the rest, it will be a proper vindication of public justice to
extirpate that sept of thieves.――W. Rex.” On the same day Secretary
Stair wrote to Livingstone, the Commander of the Forces: “I send
you the King’s instructions, super and subscribed by himself. I am
confident you will see there are full powers given you in very plain
terms, and yet the method is left very much to your own discretion.”
The result of these instructions was, that on the 1st of February,
Campbell of Glenlyon, with a company of one hundred and twenty soldiers,
entered Glencoe, and were hospitably treated in the homes of Macdonald
and his clan for twelve days; but, on the cold stormy night of the
13th of February, 1692, the chief and forty of his clan were ruthlessly
murdered by the King’s troops under Glenlyon. A number of the intended
victims escaped, owing to the darkness of the night and the severity
of the snowstorm, and fled almost naked to the rocks and mountains.
The deserted houses of the doomed clan were burned down. The soldiers
collected the property of their victims, which consisted of nine
hundred cattle, and two hundred ponies, and a number of sheep and goats,
and drove the whole to Fort William, where they were divided among the
officers of the garrison.
Although the massacre was deliberately planned and treacherously
executed, it was not nearly so complete as intended, for the storm
prevented four hundred of the troops from reaching the scene till after
the appointed hour. Considered politically, it was a hideous blunder,
as it tended to render the clansmen more suspicious, and roused in
their hearts a bitter hatred of the Government. Indeed the Government
was much surprised at the sentiments of the people touching the
massacre. Secretary Stair was greatly astonished when he heard the
expressions in which he was characterised, and that his services to
the King were bitterly assailed; but he openly declared that his only
regret was, that every soul of the clan was not slain on that stormy
morning. Several attempts have been made to free King William of the
responsibility of the massacre, although he not only authorised it, but
also by his subsequent action fully condoned it. The deed has left a
stain on his character which time can never obliterate.¹
¹ The substance of the original information about the massacre
is contained in the report of the commissioners who were
appointed to investigate the matter on the 29th of April,
1695.
Parliament met at Edinburgh in April, 1693, with the Duke of Hamilton
as royal commissioner. There was a feeling of uneasiness throughout
the nation. A Jacobite rising was dreaded, as the massacre of Glencoe
had raised the hopes of the Jacobites: it was accordingly enacted that
the oath of allegiance should be taken, and a declaration of assurance
subscribed, by which William and Mary were acknowledged as King
and Queen, as well by right as in fact. All persons in office were
commanded to take the oath of allegiance, and to sign the assurance;
and in the latter a promise was made to maintain their Majesties’ title
and government against the late King James and his adherents, and all
other enemies.
Another act enjoined that no one should be admitted or continued
as a minister in the Established Church, unless he had first taken
and subscribed the oath of allegiance and the assurance, signed the
Confession, and owned the established Presbyterian polity of the Church
as the only true one, declaring that he would submit to it, and never
attempt directly or indirectly to subvert it. The Estates requested the
King to call a General Assembly for settling the affairs of the Church,
and especially for admitting all the Episcopal ministers holding
benefices to a share in her government who should qualify themselves
as stated above; at the same time intimating that all who failed to
qualify might be deposed, while all who complied would be protected in
their livings.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
262‒264, 303.
It might have been expected that the Episcopal clergy would object
to the oath of allegiance and assurance, but Parliament seems to
have thought that the Presbyterian ministers would have no scruple
in taking the oath of assurance――though when it came to be applied,
they were found to be opposed to it on various grounds. They canvassed
it sharply, and distinctly asked, “Where is there a point that has
been more earnestly and obstinately disputed than the doctrine of
deposing kings and magistrates? Are there not arguments brought from
the Holy Scripture, from the nature of magistracy, from the peace of
society, from the dreadful consequences, the vast deluge of blood,
the lamentable dissolution of kingdoms, which have followed such
undertakings? whereby many learned and pious men have endeavoured,
at all times, to overthrow that king-dethroning power, which never can
be practised without greater effusion of blood and violation of all
rights than the greatest of tyrants have ever occasioned. And why, then,
should Parliament at this time of day impose a yoke upon the Church,
which neither we nor our fathers were made sensible of before? Amidst
all the past struggles about controverted titles to the Crown, the
Church was never bound by oath to either of the contending parties,
and why should a party oath be imposed now?”¹
¹ M‘Cormick’s _Life of Carstairs_, pages 52‒56.
The Presbyterian ministers applied to the Privy Council to be relieved
from taking the oath of assurance. But it was reported that the Council
advised the King to insist that every minister should subscribe the
oath before taking his seat in the ensuing General Assembly. The King
seems to have been inclined to follow this course, but at last, on
the advice of his chaplain, Carstairs, yielded the point; and when
the Assembly met on the 29th of March, 1694, no attempt was made to
force the oath of assurance on the members. The Assembly appointed
a commission to receive into communion the Episcopal ministers who
qualified themselves in terms of the recent Act of Parliament; but few
of them sought admission into the Church on the prescribed conditions.
Many of them, however, still remained in the parish churches; as yet,
in the northern quarter of the kingdom, they were hardly touched. In
the summer of 1694, the commission of the Assembly visited Aberdeen and
Inverness, and attempted to displace the old clergy, but it was found
to be impossible to proceed with the intended deprivations; in Aberdeen,
and some country parishes, the people were attached to the Episcopal
ministers, and would not allow them to be ejected. To meet this,
Parliament in 1695 passed several acts. It was provided that a portion
of the stipend of each of the vacant churches north of the Forth should
be applied to pay temporary missionaries, appointed by the presbyteries
to officiate in these churches. It was enacted that any one intruding
themselves into a church, manse, or benefice, without a regular call
and legal admission by the presbytery of the bounds, should be declared
incapable of enjoying any church in the kingdom for a period of seven
years after their removal from the church into which they had intruded.
The Privy Council was ordered to remove those who had intruded into
vacant churches since the establishment of the Presbyterian polity,
without a regular call and legal admission. The deprived ministers were
prohibited from celebrating marriages and baptisms under the penalty of
imprisonment.¹
¹ M‘Cormick’s _Life of Carstairs_, pages 57‒64; _Acts of the
General Assembly_; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_,
Volume IX., pages 387, 415, 420.
But on the other hand, this session of Parliament passed some Acts more
favourable to the Episcopal clergy. They were allowed a longer period
for taking the oaths of allegiance and assurance. It was also enacted
that all who qualified themselves within the appointed time should
be permitted to continue in their manses and churches, and to perform
their functions in these parishes, without taking part in ordination
or Church government, unless duly assumed by a competent Church court.
It was provided that all the Episcopal ministers thus qualified, should
be free to apply or not to the Church court for admission to a share in
her government, and that these courts should also be free to admit or
not admit them, if they did apply. Under this act many of the Episcopal
clergy continued in possession of their churches. Within three months,
more than a hundred of them took advantage of its provisions, which
were not fettered as former acts had been with any promise of
conformity to Presbyterianism.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
491‒450; Burnet’s _History of His Own Time_, Volume IV., page
275.
There still remained a compact body of the Episcopal clergy who refused
to make any move towards the King’s government or Presbyterianism,
and these were naturally regarded as open enemies to the Revolution
settlement, and usually classed amongst the Jacobites. Their religion
was closely associated with their politics, and they became the active
champions of the Jacobite party and the exiled King. The national
records down to the Union are full of complaints against them. Even
when the Jacobite incumbent had died, in some places it was found
to be impossible, till after the lapse of several years, to plant a
Presbyterian successor in his church. At the time of the Union there
were one hundred and sixty-five Episcopal ministers within the pale of
the Established Church, living in the manses, preaching in the pulpits,
and enjoying the stipends, but gradually these died out, and then
Presbyterian ministers took their places.¹
¹ _Acts of the General Assembly_; Skinner’s _An Ecclesiastical
History Of Scotland_.
Since the Reformation the national mind had been pre-occupied with
religious struggles, which were mixed up with politics; but its
attention now became directed to different enterprises. Directly after
the Revolution, the spirit of the nation began to incline more toward
industry, to the erection of manufactories, to trade, and to commerce.
Dreams of commercial greatness and vast wealth rose before the national
imagination and captivated it; and one person appeared with dazzling
schemes to satisfy the people and the cravings of the time. William
Paterson had a mind overflowing with grand commercial projects, and
it was reported that he had given hints which led to the establishment
of several banking companies; but his enemies maliciously said that
he had acquired his knowledge of foreign countries in his buccaneering
adventures. As a part of the Isthmus of Darien was unoccupied by
the Spaniards, Paterson formed the idea of founding on it a central
emporium for the merchandise of the world. He thought that a link could
be formed there to connect the trade of Europe and Asia, so that the
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans might be ploughed with ships from every
quarter of the globe, directing their prows to that narrow neck of land,
and thus enriching the Scots, who, by occupying the Isthmus, would hold
the keys of the commercial world in their hands. The scheme assumed a
definite form in an act of the Scotch parliament passed in June, 1695,
which authorised the establishment of a trading company to America,
Africa, and the Indies.
This act presented an outline of the scheme, and the powers and
privileges of the company, and it was carefully drawn in all its
details. In virtue of a former act passed in 1683, for encouraging
foreign trade, and granting power to merchants to form companies for
carrying on foreign trade, the new act sketched out the constitution
of a joint-stock company very minutely, under the name of the Company
of Scotland, trading to Africa and the Indies. The act empowered the
company to equip, freight, and navigate their own or hired ships, in
any manner which they thought fit, and to trade from any of the ports
of Scotland, or the ports of other countries not at war with Britain;
and to plant colonies, to build forts and towns, in any part of Asia,
Africa, or America, in uninhabited places, or in other regions with
the consent of the inhabitants, if such countries were not possessed
by any European power: and with liberty to employ all lawful means for
their own defence and protection, and the advancement of their special
objects; and to make and conclude treaties of peace and commerce
with kings, princes, or proprietors of lands or countries, in the
above quarters of the globe. They were authorised if attacked to make
reprisals. The company was to have the free right of their own property
of all kinds, in whatever part of the world they might acquire, possess,
and establish it; and simply acknowledging their allegiance to the King
of Britain by the annual payments of a hogshead of tobacco, in name
of blench duty, and that only if demanded. All other Scotsmen were
prohibited from trading within the company’s privileges without their
license, and they were empowered to seize on all intruders, “by force
of arms, at our own hands,” for a period of twenty-one years. The ships,
goods, and merchandise of the company were to be free from taxes and
dues imposed by the parliament, for twenty-one years. It was arranged
that only the half of the subscribed capital of the company could
be held by persons non-resident in Scotland. The following are the
names of some of the partners of the company recorded in the Act
of Parliament:――Lord Belhaven, Adam Cockburn of Ormiston, the Lord
Justice-Clerk, Sir John Maxwell of Pollok; George Clark, late bailie
of Edinburgh; John Cross, merchant in Glasgow; William Paterson,
Esquire, James ♦Foulis, David Nairn, Esquire, Thomas Deans, Esquire,
and Walter Stuart, merchants in London; and all others joining with
them within one year after the 1st of August, 1695. And these having
assembled, were then to be regarded as an incorporate body, “and a free
incorporation, with perpetual succession, by the name of the Company
of Scotland, trading to Africa and the Indies.”¹
♦ “Fowlis” replaced with “Foulis”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
377‒381.
Even though this company completely failed in its objects, its
origin and formation are interesting and important events in the
commercial history and civilisation of the nation: and therefore
the following part of the original Act may be quoted:――“And farther,
it is enacted that the company, by commission under their seal, may
make and constitute all and each of their directors, governors, and
commanders-in-chief, and other officers, civil or military, by land
or by sea; as also that the company may enlist, enrol, hire, and
retain all such persons, subjects of this kingdom, or others who
shall be willing to enter into their service or pay, providing always
that they uplift or levy none in this kingdom to be soldiers, without
warrant from his Majesty or of his Privy Council, over which governors,
commanders-in-chief, or other officers, and all in their service
and pay, the company shall have the power, command, and disposition,
both by sea and by land.... And lastly, all persons concerned in this
company are hereby declared to be free denizens of this kingdom; and
that they, with all that shall settle, or inhabit, or be born in any of
the foresaid plantations, colonies, towns, factories, and other places,
that shall be purchased and possessed by the company, shall be reputed
as natives of this kingdom, and have the privileges thereof.”
The stock or subscribed capital of the company was to be £600,000.
When the books were opened in London, in October, 1695, the £300,000
offered to the English merchants was quickly subscribed. But the
enterprise soon aroused the jealousy of the privileged English
companies. The English Parliament presented an address to the King
against it, and the books and documents of the company were seized by
the orders of the House of Commons. At last, they concluded that the
directors of the company were guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour,
for attempting such a thing, and that Lord Belhaven and the other
Scotch nobles, whose names appeared as directors should be impeached.
These hostile proceedings alarmed the London subscribers, and they
slipped out of the company by failing to pay the instalments of their
shares, and thus forfeited their stock. But this action of the English
rather irritated than discouraged the promoters of the concern in
Scotland; it seemed to have touched the national pride of the Scots,
and they pushed on their enterprise. One month after the denunciations
of the English Parliament, the books were opened in Edinburgh; and
on the first day, the 26th of February, 1696, more than £50,000 was
subscribed; and within five months £400,000 was subscribed. It seemed
as if nearly all the realised capital of the nation had rushed into the
project.
The company proceeded with remarkable energy. A house for conducting
their business was erected in Edinburgh; and schemes of trading with
Greenland, Archangel, and the Gold Coast, were considered; the possible
improvements of machinery, the qualities of goods, and the exportable
produce of the country were all under inquiry. Certainly the main
points of the scheme presented a grasp of principles, a distinctness
of conception, and a liberality of mind, which cast the mass of
speculative trading adventures into the shade. The enterprise, as
designed by Paterson, was to be conducted on free trade principles.
He called on his countrymen to discard the narrow policy of British
commerce; he contemplated a system for the good of mankind, and told
his countrymen not to try to enrich themselves by making other nations
poor, but to embrace such liberal policy as would be beneficial to all.
His conduct throughout was that of a man of exceptional grasp of mind,
and elevated above sordid considerations.
All the opposition of the English trading companies did not prevent the
Scots from proceeding with their undertaking. The company purchased six
vessels from the Dutch, and equipped them. On the 26th of July, 1698,
three of their ships, with one thousand and two hundred men on board,
sailed from Leith, amidst the tears and prayers of a vast concourse
of people, all deeply interested in the success of the enterprise. On
the 4th of November they landed at a point on the Gulf of Darien. They
built a fort to command the Gulf, and marked two sites for towns, which
they proposed to call New Edinburgh and New St. Andrews. They purchased
the land which they occupied from the natives, and sent friendly
messages to all the Spanish governors within their reach. Their first
public act was a declaration of freedom of trade and religion to all
nations.
But their privations soon began; and the causes of the failure of the
undertaking are easily discovered. There was a lack of trading skill
and experience among the emigrants; they had not a definite political
organisation for the preservation of order, the prime requisite of all
probable success. Further, there was no adequate provision made for
sending instructions and receiving assistance from home, which was
a lamentable want of foresight. From their arrival till June of the
following year, they received no communication from Scotland. It was
too sanguinely believed that the colony had departed to a country
abounding in the good things of life, and it was assumed that they
could at least obtain food by the sale of their merchandise; but much
of their stuff was damaged, and for the rest there was no market. By
and by they began to feel the sad pressure of want, while the unhealthy
influences of the climate told severely upon them, and the combined
effects of insufficient food and pestilence rapidly reduced their
numbers. The disheartening and trying task of burying their dead
shortly arrested their energy; and when spring came, nothing but
certain death awaited them if they remained. They, therefore, resolved
to leave the settlement, and within eight months from the time they
landed, they evacuated it. They placed themselves in their ships,
which from the number of the sick and the enfeebled state of all, were
only imperfectly manned. They sailed in June, 1699, two of their ships
reaching New York in August; but two hundred of the men died on the
passage, and those alive were almost exhausted, and few survived. The
third ship landed in Jamaica.
At the very time when the baffled colonists were preparing to flee from
pestilence, and leaving the settlement, the company at home was fitting
out another expedition. Two ships sailed in May, 1699, and other four
in the month of August, carrying the provisions and stores which should
have been despatched sooner. In September, the same year, a third
expedition was sent out, consisting of one thousand and three hundred
men, with stores of merchandise and provisions. So little anticipation
had the directors of the company of the sad tidings then coming to
Scotland, that they commissioned a ship to seek out a new site for a
second colony on the western coast of Africa. When the unwelcome rumour
first reached the country, the news was received with incredulity
and treated with scorn, as a weak invention of the enemy; but the
disagreeable truth of the failure of the enterprise soon forced itself
upon the nation. Then a storm of wrath arose among all classes of the
people. The conduct of the English colonial governments, and the long
silence of the King himself, who had been repeatedly addressed on the
subject, but never had been moved to promise anything, was denounced.
Still the company determined to persist in their undertaking, and the
third expedition was instructed to join the second, which had sailed in
ignorance of the fate of the first, and to retake the colony by force.
But the arrival of the second expedition at its destination quickly
dispelled all the dreams which had been formed. They found the fort
destroyed and the huts burned down, while the chief indication of their
countrymen was their numerous graves. In the winter, their friends
who had left Scotland in September joined them, but they were all in
a desponding state of mind. Meanwhile the Spaniards were preparing
to overthrow the settlement. After one successful military effort, in
which a small body of the Colonists attacked and defeated a portion of
the Spanish army, they were besieged both by sea and land. In March,
1700, they capitulated to the Spaniards, and left the colony; but only
a few of them ever returned to their native country.
The failure of this settlement was the death-blow of the American and
African Company of Scotland, and although they continued their trading
on a limited scale for some time, almost the whole of their capital was
absorbed and lost. This great loss to a poor country added much to the
troubles at home, and was widely and severely felt.¹
¹ _Darien Papers_, printed for Bannatyne Club; _A Collection
of State Tracts published in the Reign of King William_; _A
Defence of the Scots Settlement at Darien_, 1699; _Memoirs of
Darien_, 1714.
When the definite tidings of the final evacuation of the Darien
settlement arrived in Scotland, the nation rose to a height of frenzy
rarely manifested. The Jacobites were extremely wroth, and exerted
themselves to the utmost to fan the national indignation as a weapon
of opposition to the King and the Government. The national pride of
the Scots was deeply wounded. They were strongly disposed to attribute
the failure of the colony to the jealousy and the action of the English
and the King, and they had some grounds for this. The Scots could not
see that the causes of the failure of their trading company and its
colony were mainly within itself, and were to be found in the natural
result of a lack of foresight, of defective organisation, and their own
mismanagement; but any thoughts of this were drowned amid the torrents
of indignation which spread to every home in the kingdom. “When the
news of the total abandoning of Darien was brought over, it cannot be
well expressed into how bad a temper this cast the body of the people;
they had now lost almost two hundred thousand pounds sterling upon
this project, besides the imagined treasure that they had promised
themselves from it; so that the nation was raised into a sort of fury
upon it, and in the first heat of that, a remonstrance was sent about
the kingdom for names, representing to the King the necessity of a
present sitting of Parliament, which was drawn in so high a strain,
as if they had resolved to pursue the effects of it by armed force. It
was signed by a great majority of the Members of Parliament; and the
ferment in men’s spirits was raised so high, that few thought it could
have been long curbed, without breaking forth into great extremities.”¹
¹ Burnet’s _History of His Own Time_, Volume IV., page 421.
Early in the year 1700 the directors of the company and the
representatives of the shareholders resolved to address the King. They
selected Lord Hamilton to present their appeal to his Majesty, but
he was refused an audience, and reprimanded for his conduct. It was
then proposed to present a national address to the King, requesting
him to assemble Parliament, and to submit the affairs of the company
to it; but this was met by a proclamation against addresses, which
still farther roused the spirit of discontent and opposition to
the Government. When the Parliament met on the 21st of May, 1700,
the Duke of Queensberry, the royal commissioner, and the Earl of
Marchmont, delivered speeches, and enlarged upon the good work which
the Revolution settlement had accomplished, the gratitude due to
the King for this, and his other manifold services to the Protestant
religion and to Europe, and the imprudence of insisting on anything
that would be likely to weaken his Majesty’s influence and power. This
was followed by an address from the directors of the trading company
and their Darien settlement, and also by petitions and addresses from
many of the counties and the towns, all complaining bitterly about
the Darien colony and the great loss which the nation had suffered.
It was moved that Parliament should resolve to maintain the new colony
as a legal and rightful settlement, but the royal commissioner cut the
discussion short by adjourning the Parliament till he should receive
new instructions from the King.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume X., pages 183,
195, and Appendix, pages 33‒42.
After this the opposition held a great meeting, and despatched an
address to the King. The General Assemblies which met in 1700, and
in 1701, proclaimed a national fast, with special reference to the
calamity which the failure of the project had brought upon the nation.
Another national address to the King was largely signed, but ere it
reached him he emitted a proclamation of a vague description, and
merely expressed his sympathy for the misfortunes of the Scots.¹
¹ _Carstairs’ Papers_, pages 514‒523, 525‒531, 533, 538,
543‒547, 551‒580, 582, _et seq._
Parliament reassembled in the end of October, 1700, but the members
were not satisfied with the King’s letter. It expressed sympathy and
regret for the loss sustained by the African Company, and even offered
aid, and promised to support any new projects calculated to promote the
national prosperity. But the King stated distinctly that he could not
agree to the assertion of the right of the company’s colony in Darien,
though very willing to assist them in other ways.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume X., pages 196,
201.
Parliament was soon overwhelmed with addresses and petitions from all
ranks and every quarter of the kingdom. The majority of the house
supported the petitions, and moved and adopted resolutions condemning
the interference of the English Parliament, and the proclamations
issued against the interest of the Darien settlement by the governors
of the English colonies. Several pamphlets which appeared touching and
reflecting on the Darien settlement, were denounced in Parliament as
scandalous and caluminous libels, and they were ordered to be burned
by the hand of the common hangman at the Market Cross of Edinburgh. The
indignation in Parliament and outside continued, and after much debate
the address to the King concerning the Darien settlement was carried by
one hundred and one votes to sixty-one, on the 17th of January, 1701.
It is a well-drawn and able paper, and presented a complete vindication
of the company, and of the legality and lawfulness of their Darien
settlement, a true and fatal impeachment of the proceedings of the King
and his English Parliament in the matter. It gave a concise _résumé_
of the whole concern.¹ Besides other points, the address contained four
resolutions:――1. The votes and proceedings of the English Parliament
touching the company, which were condemned as an undue interference
in the affairs of Scotland, “and an invasion upon the sovereignty
and independence of our King and parliament.” 2. Declaring that the
action of the English Envoy at Luxemburg, which was injurious to the
interest of the company, “contrary to the law of nations and an open
encroachment upon the sovereignty and independence of this Crown and
Kingdom.” 3. Condemning the proceedings and the proclamations emitted
by the governors of the English plantations against the Darien Colony.
4. Declaring that though the settlement in Darien was formed in exact
conformity with the company’s Act of Parliament, the Spaniards had
treated the colonists as enemies and pirates; “that our Indian and
African Company’s Colony of Caledonia in Darien, in the Continent of
America, was, and is legal and rightful.”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume X., page 208,
241, 242, 244‒246, 248‒251, and Appendix, pages 73‒92.
The attitude of Scotland was becoming threatening and extremely
troublesome to the English government. The plan of a complete union
was again attempted, but the difficulties on both sides were great
and constantly deepening. The relations between the two kingdoms were
strained and pressing, and a bill for appointing commissioners to
treat concerning a union was passed in the House of Lords on the 25th
of February, 1700, and sent to the House of Commons. But at the second
reading in the Lower House it was thrown out. The King saw clearly that
the only way of maintaining peace in Scotland was by a union of the two
nations; and on the 28th of February, 1701, he reminded the House of
Commons of his proposal regarding the union. But the King died on the
8th of March, 1702.
The accession of Queen Anne was hailed with applause both in England
and in Scotland. The Revolution Parliament, which had lasted throughout
the reign of William, reassembled at Edinburgh on the 19th of June,
1702, passed resolutions touching the Darien concern, and appointed
commissioners to treat with England on the proposal of a union between
the two kingdoms. The English Parliament passed a bill authorising
the appointment of commissioners to treat of the union, and the
commissioners of both nations opened their proceedings on the 10th of
November, 1702. It soon became manifest that the admission of the Scots
to equal trading rights was the chief difficulty on the south side
of the Tweed. The first point concerning the succession to the throne
was shortly agreed to; and the second, stipulating that there should
be only one legislature for the United Kingdom. But when the Scotch
commissioners insisted on equal trading advantages the old difficulty
reappeared, the Scots insisting on free trade between the two kingdoms,
and that this should be considered without reference to existing
companies. They held many meetings, but could not agree on the trading
privileges; and on the 3rd of February, 1703, they were adjourned by
the Queen, and met no more.
In the spring of 1703, Scotland was greatly agitated by the elections
for the new Parliament summoned by the Queen. The Jacobites exerted
themselves to the utmost, and succeeded in returning a considerable
number of their party. The new house met on the 16th of May. The
Duke of Queensberry presented himself as royal commissioner, and the
business of this memorable parliament began in earnest. All the laws in
favour of presbyterianism were ratified, and it was declared to be high
treason to speak against the Claim of Right. The Earl of Strathmore
proposed a bill for the toleration of all Protestants, but it was
rejected.
Parliament then proceeded to deal with the secular affairs which had
filled the national mind for several years, and a series of rather
alarming acts were passed. One act announced that the sovereign had
no right to make war on the part of Scotland without the consent of
the Scotch Parliament; and another――at which the Jacobites rejoiced
――removed the restrictions upon the importation of French wines,
thus opening up a trade with the enemy of England. Some proposals
of a republican character were mooted, Fletcher proposing to take
the patronage of offices from the Crown and place it in the hands of
Parliament.
On the act for the security of the kingdom there was a long and
vehement debate, from the 28th of May to the 16th of September, but
at last it was carried by a majority. Its main points enacted that on
the demise of the Queen without issue, the Estates were to appoint a
successor from the Protestant descendants of the royal line of Scotland;
but the recognised successor to the throne of England was directly
excluded from their choice, unless such conditions of government was
settled as would secure the honour and sovereignty of this kingdom,
and free religion and the trade of the nation from English or any
other foreign influence. The coronation oath was not to be administered
without instructions from Parliament, under the penalty of high
treason. Another clause of the act commanded that the nation should
be immediately placed in a state of defence, and all the able-bodied
men mustered under their usual leaders. The royal assent was refused
to this act, which raised another storm of denunciation against the
English. Some of the members talked of rather dying like freemen than
living as slaves; and when attempts were made to stem their passions,
they said, if denied the freedom of expressing their opinions and
wishes in Parliament, they would proclaim them with their swords.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI.
This fierce antagonism between the two kingdoms could not endure, and
in the face of all obstacles the Union was approaching. Parliament
reassembled on the 6th of July, 1704. The Marquis of Tweeddale was
royal commissioner; and the Queen’s letter expressed the gravity of
the situation. She appealed to Parliament to settle the succession, but
they directly passed a resolution not to name a successor to the Crown
till a satisfactory treaty with England for the regulation of trade was
concluded, and meanwhile adopted measures to secure the independence
of the kingdom. The Act of Security was again passed, and now received
the royal assent. Under this act the Scots began to arm, and once more
prepared in earnest to give battle to their enemy, if he should finally
refuse to accede to reasonable demands.¹
¹ _Ibid._
The English Parliament in 1705 passed an act authorising a treaty of
Union to be negotiated between England and Scotland. The Crown was
empowered to appoint commissioners to meet and treat with any body of
commissioners authorised by the Scotch Parliament, and to place the
result of their proceedings before the Queen and the parliaments of
both kingdoms. The last clause of the bill restricted the commissioners
from making “any alteration of the liturgy, ceremonies, discipline, or
government of the Church, as by law established.”
The Scotch Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 28th of June, 1705, and
the proposal of the English Parliament for a Union was to be the great
business before it. There was a change in the ministry, and the Duke
of Argyle appeared as the royal commissioner. He was deemed the most
likely man to promote the important measure which had become necessary
for the security, happiness, and civilisation of the people. The task,
however, was still surrounded with many difficulties. The Jacobites
were a strong and compact party, determined to oppose the Union at
every step; and if possible to defeat all attempts to settle the Crown
on the Revolution principles. But a majority of the Parliament resolved
to hold to the demands for free trade and colonial rights: these were
the views of the National party led by Fletcher, and yet some of the
chief men of this party were strongly opposed to the incorporating
provisions of the Treaty. In the early part of the session various
acts were introduced and discussed, touching the currency, the herring
fishing, prohibiting the importation of goods, and other matters
connected with trade; but the subsequent and more important resolutions
regarding the Union rendered these of less importance.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., pages 205,
213‒219, _et seq._; Hume’s _Diary_, pages 62‒70.
On the 13th of July, a draft of the act and commission for the treaty
with England was read in Parliament; and on the 25th of August, it was
again brought before the house. A long and hot debate ensued on it,
and several amendments were proposed. But on 1st of September the act
was carried, authorising the appointment of commissioners; the Duke
of Athole, with a considerable number of followers protesting. The
same day the question of who should nominate the commissioners was
brought up. Were they to be appointed by Parliament, or referred to the
discretion of the Queen? The Duke of Hamilton moved that the nomination
of the commissioners should be left to the Queen. Fletcher of Saltoun
bitterly opposed this, and the Jacobites joined him with all their
might; the point was warmly debated, but in vain. Hamilton’s motion
was carried by a majority of forty. The Duke of Athole again protested,
and the Jacobites adhered to him.¹ The Jacobites were extremely enraged
at this vote, as they considered it the key of the position; and one
of their leaders who recorded his protest along with Athole, expressed
his judgment of the matter in these words:――“From this day we may date
the commencement of Scotland’s ruin; and any person that will be at the
pains to reflect upon the management of this affair must be the more
enraged when he sees how easily it might have been, and yet was not,
prevented: for if the first restricting clause (which was lost by the
unaccountable neglect of some members) had been carried, we should
not have had one word more of the Treaty; or had the nomination been
left to the Parliament, those of the commissioners that represented
the barons would have been so well chosen that they might easily
have obstructed the Treaty from being brought to such a conclusion as
afterwards happened.”²
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., pages 218,
224, 235‒237; also Appendix, pages 83, 86‒87; Hume’s _Diary_,
pages 70‒71.
² Lockhart’s _Memoirs_, Volume I., pages 133‒134.
The scope of the act indicated the general object of the Treaty. But
it contained one special condition, “that the commissioners shall not
treat of or concerning any alteration of the worship, discipline, and
government of the Church of this kingdom, as now by law established.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., page 295.
The number of the Union Commissioners was thirty-one on each side.
On the Scotch side the Queen or her advisers had exercised a marked
discretion in naming the list of Commissioners. A well-considered
effort was certainly made to represent all the different parties of
the nation; even the Jacobites were represented by one of their ablest
men, Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath. This Jacobite leader gives a
list of the names of all the Commissioners on both sides, and adds
the following remarks on them:――“All these were of the Court or Whig
interest, except Mr. Lockhart in the Scots, and the Archbishop of
York in the English commission. This last, as was reported, was named
merely out of respect to the dignity of the office he bore, but would
not be present so much as once at the Treaty; the other because being
my Lord Warton’s nephew, they expected to carry him off. And as he
was surprised at his being named, so he had no inclination for the
employment, and was at first resolved not to have accepted it; but
his friends and those of his party believed he might be serviceable
by giving an account how matters were carried on, and prevailed with
him to alter his resolution.... And having communicated to them his
difficulties, he desired their advice and direction how he should
behave, and particularly whether or not he should protest and enter his
dissent against those measures, being resolved to receive instructions
from them as a warrant for his procedure, and to justify his conduct;
to whom they all unanimously returned this answer, that if he should
protest, he could not well continue longer to meet with the other
commissioners; and if he entered his dissent, it would render him
odious to them, so as he would be utterly incapable to learn anything
that might be useful afterwards in opposing their designs; whereas
if he sat quiet, concealed his opinions as much as possible, they
expecting to persuade him to leave his old friends and party, would not
be so shy, and he might make discoveries of their designs, and thereby
do a singular service to his country. Therefore they agreed in advising
him neither to protest nor dissent, nor do anything that might discover
his opinions and design, but to sit silent, making his remarks of
everything that passed, and to remain with them as long as he possibly
could; and then at last, before signing of the result of the Treaty, to
find some excuse or other of absenting himself.”¹
¹ Lockhart’s _Memoirs_, Volume I., pages 141‒3.
The difficulties of the task before the Commissioners were enormous.
Almost every kind of conflicting interest which absorbs the human
mind, the opposition springing out of national pride and vanity, a
mass of traditional and inherited prejudice, and adverse sentiments
and feelings――the growth of ages――all had to be set aside and overcome.
Thus it was, that when the Union was concluded, the diverse elements,
adverse to its spirit, were so great in Scotland, that a generation
or two passed away, ere the blessings and advantages of it to the
people of this kingdom began to be fully appreciated and recognised.
Indeed the Jacobite party believed and proclaimed that Scotland was
utterly ruined by the Union; while many others, not influenced by party
feelings, were strongly disposed to take the most gloomy view of what
proved to be one of the most beneficial events in the history of the
country.
The Commissioners met at Whitehall on the 16th of April, 1706. There
had before been many attempts to form a union of the two kingdoms, but
this time the Commissioners on both sides really wished to accomplish
it; and they were fully impressed with the vast importance of the
matter, and prepared to make every reasonable concession for the mutual
advantage of both nations. Their proceedings from beginning to end bore
the impress of sincerity and earnestness. They proceeded systematically,
and approaching the subject before them step by step, acted with great
tact and judgment. Their whole proceedings form an admirable specimen
of methodical negotiation, and the arduous undertaking was completed on
the 23rd of July. Before putting the Treaty into the form of articles,
they had to discuss and to deliberate on many subjects and complicated
points: such as the relative taxation, the customs, the excise, and
the revenue of both kingdoms, the coinage, weights and measures; the
number of the Scotch representatives in the united Parliament in both
the Upper and in the Lower Houses; and many other difficult questions
touching political relations and organisation. According to the terms
of the commission, a copy of the Treaty was presented to the Queen, and
her Majesty made the following speech:――“My Lords, I give you thanks
for the great pains you have taken in this Treaty, and am very well
pleased to find that your endeavours and applications have brought
it to so good a conclusion. The particulars of it seem so reasonable,
that I hope they will meet with approbation in the Parliaments of both
kingdoms. I wish, therefore, that my servants of Scotland may lose no
time in going down to propose it to my subjects of that kingdom; and
I shall always look upon it as a particular happiness, if this Union,
which will be so great a security and advantage to both kingdoms, can
be accomplished in my reign.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., Appendix,
pages 161‒191.
It was agreed to take the first legislative sanction of the Treaty in
Scotland, with the aim of soothing the opposition which it was sure to
encounter. The Scottish Parliament was therefore assembled at Edinburgh
on the 3rd of October, 1706, to hold its fourth and last session. The
Earl of Queensberry was appointed Royal Commissioner, and the Earl
of Mar, Secretary of State; the latter was well informed about the
designs of the Jacobite party. According to Lockhart, “Mar gained the
favour of all the Tories, and was by many of them esteemed an honest
man, and well inclined to the royal family. Certain it is, he vowed
and protested so much many a time; but no sooner was the Marquis of
Tweeddale and his party dispossessed, than he returned as the dog
to his vomit, and promoted all the Court of England’s measures with
the greatest zeal imaginable.... His great talent lay in the cunning
management of his designs and projects, in which it was hard to find
him out.”¹ A great and sustained effort was made in many parts of the
kingdom to arouse popular feeling and passion against the Union, and
some strange combinations were attempted; some of the Cameronians were
ready to assume a form of opposition which exactly suited the Jacobites,
though when they came to act side by side with their old enemies, they
began to see their folly.
¹ Lockhart’s _Memoirs_.
A large number of pamphlets and papers were published against the
Union, and circulated throughout the country, which appealed to every
prejudice and feeling that was likely to rouse the passions and wrath
of the populace. The religious sentiments and convictions of the
people were industriously stirred. Those who were proud of the deeds of
their ancestors and of national glory, were emphatically told that the
ancient renown and independence of the kingdom was to be extinguished
for ever. Many past generations of Scotsmen had fought and struggled
for their rights, their liberties, and their freedom, endured hardship,
persecution and every form of privation; but now the degenerate sons
of such a brave and noble race were about to barter away their glorious
inheritance. What a disgrace, to be stigmatised by all succeeding ages
to the end of time!
Though the outside pressure against the Union was strong and bitter,
the government was well prepared to meet it. Many addresses and
petitions were presented to Parliament against the Union, but of
course there were petitions in favour of it, and the Church threw
her influence on the side of the government; still it seemed that the
volume of popular feeling was with the opposition, and Parliament began
its arduous work amid threatening circumstances.
In the Queen’s speech to the Estates the following sentence occurs:
――“The Union has been long desired by both nations, and we shall
esteem it as the greatest glory of our reign to have it now perfected,
being fully persuaded that it must prove the greatest happiness of our
people.” At the first sitting, the Treaty was read and ordered to be
printed, and copies delivered to the Members of Parliament, while the
minutes of the Union Commissioners were ordered to be printed. On the
12th of October, the articles of the Treaty were read one by one, and
then discussed at the different sittings from the 12th to the 30th
of the month, making suggestions as they proceeded, but taking no
divisions. A mob had threatened and insulted several of the members
on the streets of the capital on the 23rd of October, and a party of
the foot-guards had to be called out to quell the disturbance, and to
protect Parliament, but no lives were lost.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
300‒311.
The first real effort of the opposition was made on the 4th of November,
when it was moved that a vote should be taken on the first article of
the Treaty of Union, upon the understanding “that if the other articles
of the Union be not adjusted by the Parliament, then the agreeing
to the first one shall be of no effect,” and that immediately after
settling the first article, Parliament proceed to an act for securing
the doctrine and the government of the Established Church. A long
debate ensued. The Duke of Hamilton delivered an animated speech on
Scottish nationality; Seton of Pitmedden spoke in favour of the Union
in a calm and well-reasoned speech; but the great speech of the night
was Lord Belhaven’s. It was a long torrent of denunciatory rhetoric
against the Union, delivered with passionate vehemence. It seems to
have produced little impression on the members; but it was intended
more for the outside public than for them, and was widely circulated
amongst the people. A sentence or two may be quoted:――“I see the
English constitution remaining firm; the same Houses of Parliament; the
same taxes, customs, and excise; the same trading companies, laws, and
judicatures; whilst ours are either subjected to new regulations, or
are annihilated for ever. And for what? that we may be admitted to the
honour of paying their old arrears, and presenting a few witnesses to
attest the new debts, which they may be pleased to contract. Good God!
is this an entire surrender? My heart bursts with indignation and grief,
at the triumph which the English will obtain to-day, over a fierce
and warlike nation that has struggled to maintain its independence so
long!” An amendment was proposed, declaring that the nation was averse
to an incorporating union; that if it was accepted by Parliament in
its present form, instead of bringing peace it would cause dismal
distractions among the Scots themselves, and fatal breaches and
confusion between the two nations; and therefore it was proposed
to retain the sovereignty and independence of the monarchy, the
fundamental constitution of the government as established by the Claim
of Right and the laws of this kingdom. After this amendment was debated,
the motion put to the house was, “Approve of the first article of
the Union――yes or no.” Before the vote was taken, the Duke of Athole
protested for himself and his adherents, that an incorporating union as
proposed in this Treaty “is contrary to the honour, the interest, the
fundamental laws, and the constitution of this kingdom; the birthright
of the peers, the rights and privileges of the barons and the burghs,
and the property and the liberty of the subjects.” The motion for
approving the article was then put and carried by a majority of
thirty-three; and throughout the subsequent proceedings on the Union,
the government retained about this majority, in spite of all the
efforts of the Jacobites.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., pages
312‒315.
From this date till near the end of December, at almost every sitting
addresses were presented and read against the Union. On the 30th
November, a printed paper was laid before parliament, entitled, “An
Account of the Burning of the Articles of the Union at Dumfries.
Bearing the declaration read and affixed on the Market Cross thereof by
the crowd assembled on that occasion. And it being moved, that inquiry
should be made as to who had been the printer and the ingiver of this
scurrilous paper, and that it be burned by the hands of the hangman,
it was left to the committee to call for the magistrates of Edinburgh,
and to make inquiry and trial touching the ingiver of this paper;” and
“Ordains also, that this scurrilous print be burned at the Market Cross
of Edinburgh, on Monday next, between eleven and twelve in the forenoon.
And the magistrates of Edinburgh appointed to see the orders punctually
executed.”¹ But the Treaty was pressed forward, and on the last day
of November they had reached the eighth article, and remitted it with
some of the preceding ones to a committee. Amendments and additions
were made to some of the articles, and a clause was inserted in the
Treaty definitely stating that the Presbyterian Church should continue
unalterable in her worship, doctrine, and government, “to the people of
this land in all succeeding generations.”²
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., page 344.
² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., pages
316‒344, 413.
The parts of the Treaty relating to trade and commerce were generally
satisfactory to the Scots, and were adopted with slight modifications.
The nineteenth article of the Union sanctioned the retention of
the judicial organisation of Scotland. The weakest point of the
Treaty was the twentieth article, which affirmed “that all heritable
offices, superiorities, heritable jurisdictions, offices for life, and
jurisdictions for life, be reserved to the owners thereof, as rights
of property, in the same manner as they are now enjoyed by the laws of
Scotland, notwithstanding of this Treaty.” Probably the Scotch nobles
would not have submitted to the curtailment of these rights which
had descended to them from remote ages, for they were very proud, and
placed a high value on their privileges.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., pages
345‒385. A good illustration of the peculiar pride of the
Scotch nobles may be seen in the records of parliament.
At the opening of almost every session a number of them
protested regarding the precedence of their names on the
rolls of parliament.
The Jacobites resolved to make their last grand effort to defeat the
Union on the twenty-second article, which apportioned the share of
representation from Scotland in the Imperial Parliament. This article
was read on the 7th of January, 1707, and the debate continued through
four sittings. It was vehemently discussed point by point, and six
protests were entered against the first paragraph, which were followed
by more menacing counter-protests as each clause of the article
was carried. The fierce and noisy proceedings of the Jacobites were
unavailing, as the article was finally carried on the 10th of January.
The same day an address from the citizens of Perth against the Union
was presented and read in the House.¹ The remaining articles of the
Union were passed on the 14th of January; and on the 16th an act was
passed approving and ratifying the Treaty of Union by a majority of
forty-one.²
¹ _Ibid._, Volume XI., pages 386‒387; Lockhart’s _Memoirs_,
Volume I., pages 206‒220. It is now curious and amusing
to read the sentiments of the Jacobites on the Union which
was to bring certain ruin upon the nation. “It is not to
be expressed what a rage all those that had been upon the
concert, nay, I may say, the whole nation, were in, to see
the Duke of Hamilton thus three times, one after another,
break the designs and measures that were laid down for
opposing the designed slavery of the nation.... The courtiers
were resolved not to swallow a cow and stick at the tail; and
as they had begun, carried on, and finished their projects,
contrary to all the ties of justice and honour, and the
welfare of the country, so they continued the same well-pathed
road, and commenced the Union with as great an invasion upon
the rights of the subject, by depriving them of the powers of
naming their own representatives, as ever was done to a free
people.”――_Ibid._, pages 214‒221.
² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI., pages
399‒406.
The twenty-second article of the Union limited the representation of
Scotland to forty-five members in the House of Commons of the United
Kingdom, and to sixteen peers in the House of Lords. Parliament next
proceeded to frame regulations for returning their representatives to
the British Parliament, should the Union be carried in England. After
some debate, it was agreed that the representative Peers from Scotland
in the United Parliament should be chosen by election, in the form
still followed. At every general election, when the new Parliament is
returned, the body of the Scottish Peerage meet at Holyrood, and elect
sixteen of their own number to represent them in the House of Lords.
The forty-five Scotch members to be sent to the House of Commons were
divided between the counties and the burghs thus――fifteen were given to
the burghs and thirty to the counties; Edinburgh got one representative
to itself, and the other burghs were classed into fourteen groups.
The body of electors in Scotland after the Union was not numerous;
but the election of the representatives from Scotland to the first
United Parliament was not left with them. By an act of the Estates, the
members of the Union Parliament themselves elected the representatives
to the first Imperial Parliament, in the same way as committees were
usually chosen. Some other matters were arranged; and on the 25th
of March, the Royal Commissioner having addressed a few words to the
members, parliament was adjourned and met no more.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 415‒421, 491, 431, 485, 491.
On the 28th of January, 1707, the Queen intimated to the English
Parliament that the Union had been ratified in Scotland, and she
directed it to be put before the House. The Treaty passed through both
Houses without encountering much opposition, and on the 6th of March
it received the royal assent, and henceforth became a part of the
Constitution of the United Kingdom.
Viewing the Union as a mean to an end, and excepting the Battle of
Bannockburn, and the Reformation, there is scarcely an event in the
history of Scotland, which has had more effect on the welfare of
the people than it. From an industrial and commercial standpoint, it
exceeded in importance any other event in the preceding history of
the nation. In short, the Union rendered the future development of
civilisation in Scotland more easy, more rapid, and more complete, as
it immensely widened the field of trading and commercial enterprise to
the Scots, and directly tended to afford greater security to them at
home and abroad. The Scots had always a fund of energy and power of
endurance, but external obstacles and surrounding circumstances had
long retarded their progress; hence when the nation was placed under
more favourable external conditions by the Union, and the people once
fairly began to embrace these advantages, they advanced in wealth and
in civilisation with remarkable speed.
CHAPTER XXIX.
_Causes of Disaffection: Risings of 1715 and 1745._
NO reasonable historian of the present age would maintain that
the Union was not a wise and beneficial measure; yet such were the
circumstances of the Scots, that nearly half a century passed ere they
were able to take the full advantage of it. So vast a change could
not be effected without rousing passions and bitter feelings in the
hearts of many, which nothing but time could efface. To give a brief
exposition of the causes of this will be the aim of the present chapter.
It was the earnest desire of the Scots to obtain equal commercial
rights which made the Union possible and endurable. Prior to the Union
the Scots were permitted to trade only where the English Government
thought fit; while after it there was no limitation――their ships might
trade with the remotest quarters of the world. Another very important
arrangement was the coinage. In 1708 the Scottish coins were finally
called in, and preparations were made for a coinage exactly on the
method of the English mint. Thus one of the good results of the Union
was soon obtained; as the convenience and advantage of only one coinage
and standard of money for the Island is obvious.
Although the Scots relinquished their separate legislative power, they
gained a position and share in the government of a larger nation, and
in the honour and glory of the British Empire. As they retained their
own laws and legal organisations, and their religious and educational
institutions, the great change implied in the Union embraced many
elements of moral advantage. Scottish nationality and patriotism
have continued essentially unimpaired, but much of its prejudice and
narrowness, which the strife of preceding ages had generated, has been
slowly thrown off. It is always true that a people’s own country and
affairs are of prime importance to them; yet a people which limited
all their faculties and energies to the internal affairs of their own
country, would be emphatically characterised as a narrow-minded and
unsympathetic community. If all our political institutions and social
organisations were expressly framed and exclusively directed to this
one end, it would manifest a weak and contemptible ideal of humanity.
From these and many other considerations, it appears that the Union
afforded inestimable moral benefits.
The Union conferred many advantages, but it also entailed disadvantages,
in political and legislative relations. It might be assumed that the
united deliberation and counsel of the British Parliament would be more
competent to frame wise and useful legislative measures than a Scottish
Parliament. This would depend on the accuracy of the information
which the British Parliament possessed concerning the opinions and
convictions of the Scottish people and of their institutions, as, from
a lack of this, it has occasionally inflicted pain and injustice on
the people. An instructive instance occurred after the rising of 1715,
touching the disposal of the forfeited estates. Parliament placed the
control of the matter in the hands of a Commission, which proceeded to
sell the estates. A number of creditors, however, who had claims on the
estates applied to the Court of Session, and sequestration was granted.
The Commissioners entirely failed to understand this proceeding, and
complained to the Government that they were prevented from discharging
their duty by a body calling itself the Court of Session; and therefore
they asked the Government to increase their powers. The British
Parliament passed an act which ignored the jurisdiction of the Court of
Session, in direct violation of the stipulations of the Union, and in
spite of the protest of the Scotch judges.
In finance and fiscal arrangements the British Parliament has not
generally treated Scotland worse than England. Although, for a
generation or two after the Union much irritation was caused by
changes and rearrangements in this branch of government, of which a few
examples may be narrated. Ale was a staple necessary in the domestic
economy and trade of the nation. At the time of the Union there was no
malt tax in Scotland, but there was a duty on liquor. In 1713 a malt
tax of 6 pence per bushel was imposed upon Scotland, though the Scotch
members in both Houses of Parliament determinedly opposed it. At this
date there were upwards of five thousand maltsters in Scotland; and
in June the tax was ordered to be enforced. “But such was the general
and determined resolution of the inhabitants not to submit, that the
officers of excise for several years were everywhere refused access to
survey and charge the duty; and that when charged it was never paid,
nor could it be recovered by proceedings at law, as the justices of
peace in all the counties refused to act. The consequence was that,
during the twelve years after the 24th of June 1713, while the tax
continued at 6 pence per bushel, the duty actually levied amounted to
a mere trifle, and fell considerably short of the necessary expense
attending this branch of the revenue.”
In 1724, the Government wished to raise £20,000 by a tax on Scotch
ale. Parliament passed an Act proposing to levy 6 pence per barrel
on ale instead of the malt tax, and to exclude the Scots from the
bounty on exported grain, which was to be continued in England. The
nation vehemently resented the proposal, and protested against it. The
Jacobites used every means to fan the wrath of the people against the
Government, and there were signs of an outburst of violence. It was
relinquished, and a malt tax of 3 pence per bushel imposed. As £20,000
had to be drawn from the Scots, it was enacted that, if the tax of 3
pence failed to produce the amount, it must be made up by a surcharge
on maltsters.
The Act came into operation in June, 1725, and the citizens of Glasgow
manifested a sullen attitude when the excisemen were preparing to
enforce it. The following day they appeared in crowds on the streets;
and the magistrates having failed to disperse them, a party of soldiers
were called into the city. Shouts were raised against Campbell of
Shawfield, their member of parliament, who was suspected of having
assisted the Government. They said, as he had already betrayed them,
now he was to enslave them beneath a military yoke, and slay them if
they resisted. At night they attacked his house and laid it in ruins.
Next morning the mob appeared and jeered at the soldiers on guard; and
their Commander ordered them to turn out and form square, and, without
the authority of the Provost, commanded them to fire on the crowd.
Eight of the citizens were killed and many wounded. The crisis was
reached. The people ran to an old armoury, and having armed themselves,
at once presented so threatening a front that it was feared all the
soldiers would be massacred, but the officer marched them to Dumbarton.
A regiment of infantry, seven troops of dragoons, and a company of
Highlanders, from General Wade’s force, were sent into Glasgow, and
quietness was restored. Criminal proceedings were instituted, and the
magistrates of Glasgow were seized and imprisoned in Edinburgh. The
charges against them were abandoned; but a few of the rioters were
punished. The captain in command of the party who fired upon the crowd,
was tried and condemned, but received a royal pardon. The citizens of
Glasgow were deeply offended; while the Jacobites were jubilant.
In Edinburgh the opposition to the malt tax assumed a determined form.
All the brewers resolved to cease brewing. The Lord Advocate lodged a
complaint against them in the Court of Session, and the Court ordered
them to proceed with their work as usual. They refused, and some of
them were imprisoned; but at last they yielded. These proceedings were
only the first of a series of excise difficulties which continued for
more than a hundred years. In some parts in the north and west the
practice of smuggling whisky was quite common till well into the first
quarter of the present century. The smuggling brew houses were often
beside a fresh spring or stream of water, in out of the way glens and
hill sides, where no one could find them without searching carefully;
but in general they were small and rudely constructed. The whisky
smuggler usually stored his malt in a square pit on a hill among long
heather and at some distance from his brewing house.
From the date of the malt tax riots, till about the end of the
eighteenth century, smuggling in various kinds of goods was rather
common in Scotland, although the burgesses of the trading burghs
generally protested against it. “In place of pursuing fair trade, they
universally, with the exception of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and a few other
places, took to smuggling; their small stock they invested in goods
that bore high duties, and under the favour of running these secretly
on our wide and ill-guarded coasts, they flattered themselves that
they should soon grow rich, profiting at least off the high duty, which
by running they were to save.... The smuggler was the favourite. His
prohibited high duty goods were run ashore by the boats on whatever
part of the coast he came near; when ashore, they were guarded by the
countrymen from the custom-house officers; if seized, they were rescued,
and if any seizure was retained and tried, the juries seldom failed to
find for the defendant.”¹
¹ Lockhart’s _Papers_, Volume II., pages 162‒168: _Some
Considerations on the Present State of Scotland_; Clelland’s
_Annals of Glasgow_.
The chief aim of the Jacobite party was to encourage the discontent
of the people, and to frustrate the policy of the Whig government.
In Scotland they were still a strong party, numbering among their
adherents some of the nobles and many of the gentry, and the body
of the episcopal clergy, who in the northern parts of the country
commanded considerable influence. Their plots and schemes to restore
the exiled house of Stuart were incessant; while other occasions
of irritating the Scots naturally arose in connection with the new
revenue system. The English introduced their own modes of collecting
duties and customs, and what was far more offensive, the taxes were
greatly increased. The Jacobites loudly proclaimed that what they had
predicted――the ruin of the nation――was coming to pass.
Shortly after the Union some disputes arose between the Established
Church and the episcopal clergy, which strengthened the Jacobite party.
In 1710, the Whig government fell, and was succeeded by the Tories, and
this change had some influence upon the affairs of the nation. Reports
had been spread that Englishmen living in Scotland could not have the
English service read to them, or their children baptised, without going
to a presbyterian minister and signing the Confession of Faith. In 1712,
the Imperial Parliament passed an act of toleration for the episcopal
denomination in Scotland, in the exercise of their worship; and also
repealed an act of the Scotch parliament against irregular marriages
and baptisms. The act was carried in both Houses of Parliament by a
large majority. But one clause of it required that the episcopal and
presbyterian clergy both, should take the oath of adjuration, and pray
for the Queen by name. By another clause of the act, the authority of
the Established Church was limited to her own members, the power of
summoning dissenters before her courts under penalties was taken from
her.
The Government directly passed another bill which restored the right of
patronage. This point, as we have seen, had been repeatedly considered
by the Church since the Reformation; and from the date of the act of
Queen Anne’s government to a recent period, patronage has been a source
of the bitterest disputes and divisions in the Church of Scotland.
It was introduced and passed by the influence of the Jacobite party,
and it succeeded admirably in augmenting the disturbing elements
in Scotland. Burnet expressly states that clauses were put into
the toleration act with the intention of provoking the Scotch
presbyterians. “One clause put into it occasioned great complaints;
the magistrates, who by the laws were obliged to execute the sentences
of the judicatories of their Church, were by this act required to
execute none of them. It was reasonable to require them to execute no
sentences that might be passed on any for doing what was tolerated by
this act, but the carrying this to a general clause took away the civil
sanction, which in most places is looked on as the chief, if not the
only strength of Church power. Those who were to be thus tolerated were
required, by a day limited in the act, to take the oath of adjuration;
it was well known that few, if any of them, would take that oath; so,
to cover them from it, a clause was put in this act requiring all the
presbyterian ministers to take it, since it seemed reasonable that
those of the legal establishment should be required to take that which
was now to be imposed on those who were only to be tolerated. It was
well understood that there were words in the oath of adjuration to
which the presbyterians excepted.” Regarding the patronage act, he
says: “By these steps the presbyterians were alarmed, when they saw the
success of every motion that was made on design to weaken and undermine
their establishment.”¹
¹ _Parliamentary History of England_, Volume VI., pages
1126‒1129; Lockhart’s _Memoirs_, Volume I., pages 378‒387;
_History of His Own Time_, Volume VI., page 98.
As many of the patrons were Episcopalians, it was feared that they
might use their right of presentation to advance the interest of
their own party; and the vaunting tone of the Jacobites gave colour to
this suspicion. The most obnoxious part of the Toleration Act was the
adjuration oath, imposed upon all the ministers; and those who took it
abjured the Pretender, but promised to support the succession to the
Crown as settled by specified acts of the English Parliament. According
to these acts, the occupant of the throne must belong to the communion
of the Church of England; and this was an obstacle to the presbyterians,
because if they took it, they implicitly sanctioned a form of church
polity which they repudiated. As the law required that the oath should
be taken, many of the ministers were greatly annoyed. At last it was
concluded to give an explanation of the sense in which they understood
it, and then take it under protest; but a number of them declined to
take it under any conditions, and in the end the government ceased to
enforce it. A few years later, the oath was altered and a new form
adopted, containing a plain declaration of allegiance to the Hanover
settlement, and a renunciation of the title of the banished dynasty,
thus freeing it from the objectionable features of the former oath.¹
¹ _Acts of the General Assembly._
In the latter years of Queen Anne’s reign, the Jacobites had been
gaining ground in Scotland, but they had very little hold upon England;
hence they made the northern part of the United Kingdom the field of
their subsequent attempts to restore the exiled family. The Queen died
on the 1st of August, 1714; thereupon the Elector of Hanover ascended
the throne, under the title of George I. The accession of the new
king was received with general satisfaction among the Presbyterians of
Scotland, and he endeavoured to deserve their support. When the General
Assembly met in May, 1715, he thanked them for the expression of their
loyalty, and explicitly stated that he would maintain the Church of
Scotland in all her rights and privileges.¹
¹ _Ibid._
Though the Jacobites were not prepared for active operations themselves,
they had hopes of external aid. The Earl of Mar, as we have seen,
was on the Whig side at the Union proceedings, but he was a shifty
politician, and was Secretary of State for Scotland in the Tory
Government of Bolingbroke. While in this office, he was entrusted with
the distribution of sums of money among the Highland clans, voted by
the government, for keeping them quiet; this gave him some influence
over the chiefs, and partly explains their readiness to enter into his
scheme of restoring the Pretender. If Mar himself had obtained full
recognition from George I., and a post in his government, which he
anxiously desired, he would not have headed a rising of the Jacobites;
but on finding himself neglected, he then determined to be revenged.
Mar left the Court of George I. in the beginning of August 1715, landed
in Fifeshire, and proceeded to Braemar, whence he issued invitations
to the chiefs to join him in a hunting party in his forest of Mar. He
reached Invercauld Castle on the 22nd of August; and on the 26th he
met his followers and friends in Braemar. He was joined by the Marquis
of Huntly, the Marquis of Tullibardine, and the Earls of Seaforth,
Southesk, Nithsdale, Stormont, Earl Marischal, and other nobles, and a
number of the Highland chiefs. As the rising spread some of the nobles
in the North of England joined it, Mar himself assuming the chief
command.
Mar unfurled the standard of revolt on the 6th of September, at
Castletown of Braemar, and marched by Dunkeld. He entered Perth on the
28th with an army of five thousand men, which was soon increased. In
November there were fourteen thousand men in arms for the Stuart cause.
But Mar had little military skill, and remained too long inactive in
Perth. The body of the insurgents who were operating in England under
the command of Forster, encountered the royal troops at Preston, on
the 12th of November, and were completely defeated, and many of the
Scots and their leaders were taken prisoners. The following day, the
insurgents under Mar, and the royal army under the Duke of Argyle,
fought the battle of Sheriffmuir near Dunblane, which was indecisive;
as the loss was nearly equal on each side, both claimed the victory.
The result, however, was that Mar drew back his army to Perth, where
his force soon melted away to a few thousands. James VIII., the
Pretender, landed at Peterhead on the 22nd of December, and was
proclaimed King at Aberdeen, Montrose, Dundee, and other places. He
suffered from attacks of ague in his progress southward, and reached
Perth on the 6th of January, 1716. His presence inspired no new hope;
as this representative of the Stuart line had not the mien of a man
likely to lead an army to victory and glory. Preparations were made,
however, for his coronation at the historic burgh of Scone, on the
23rd of January; but when that day came, the royal army under Argyle
had begun their march on Perth, and James was thinking seriously of
flight.¹
¹ _Historical Memoirs of the House and Clan of Mackintosh_, by
Alexander Mackintosh Shaw, pages 413‒414; _Mar Papers_.
The hapless prince and his army commenced their retreat on the 30th
of January, 1716, and marched by Dundee to Montrose, where on the 4th
of February, James and the Earl of Mar went aboard a French vessel,
and sailed for France. The insurgent army was rapidly diminishing as
it proceeded northward, and on reaching Aberdeen, it was disbanded
on the 7th of February. Thus ended a project begun without requisite
preparation, conducted without energy or skill, and leading to nothing
but suffering and ruin to a portion of the people.
Lenient counsel towards the insurgents prevailed in Scotland, and few
of them were judicially punished. But the English took the punishment
of the prisoners and those implicated in the rising into their own
hands. A large number of all ranks of men were executed, while hundreds
were sent to the plantations to drag out a wretched life in slavery.
Several of the higher prisoners escaped from prison, and fled for
their lives, amongst whom were Forster, Lord Nithsdale, and Mackintosh
of Borlum. The estates of upwards of forty families in Scotland were
forfeited, and justice and revenge were at last appeased.¹
¹ _Culloden Papers_, Number 69; _Lancaster Memorials_; _A
Faithful Register of the Late Rebellion_; Rae’s _History of
the Rebellion_; _Historical Memoirs of the House and Clan of
Mackintosh_, by Alexander Mackintosh Shaw, page 433, 1880.
Naturally, the episcopal clergy in Scotland had always leaned to the
side of the exiled house, and when the temporary restoration came, they
could not resist the temptation, and openly sided with the Pretender,
and prayed for his success. The government therefore proceeded to
prosecute them; and those who occupied chapels were summoned in groups
before the magistrates, and tried under the Toleration Act: their
chapels were shut, and some of them imprisoned, until they complied
with the provisions of the act. Any of the old episcopal ministers who
still occupied parish churches, were summoned before their presbyteries,
and, if found guilty were deposed. In the diocese of Aberdeen alone,
upwards of thirty of these ministers were deprived. Indeed, they were
prosecuted with great and unnecessary severity.¹
¹ Dr. Grub’s _Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, Volume III.,
pages 373‒377.
But the Jacobites were not daunted by the failure of the rising. On
the contrary, they continued to plot and scheme for the restoration
of those whom they regarded as the right and lawful line of kings.
Although after the accession of George I., the Jacobites had little
voice in the British Parliament, yet beyond the walls of St. Stephens
they commanded a local influence in several quarters of the country.
Soon after the suppression of the insurrection, the government adopted
measures to secure the peace of the Island. An act was passed for
disarming the Highlanders, embracing the counties to the north of
the Forth, and the Highland districts of the West. But the act did
not attain its object; as it merely imposed penalties, rising to
transportation, against those found guilty of appearing in arms;
and as no means were provided for enforcing disarmament, the act was
inoperative. In 1725, another disarming act was passed, which ordered
each clan to be summoned to appear at a fixed place and deliver up
their arms. The execution of the act was entrusted to General Wade, who
imagined that he had performed the task effectively; and informed the
King that the Highlander had now become a simple peasant with his staff
in his hand. He also stated that if the system of roads and fortresses
proposed by him were made, any future rising of the Highlanders would
be impossible; but subsequent events proved that the General’s sanguine
anticipations were false.¹
¹ Burt’s _Letters_; _Miscellany of the Spalding Club_, Volume
III.
He erected two forts, one at Inverness, and the other at the western
end of loch Ness, called Fort-Augustus; while among the remote glens
square towers were built, in which small garrisons were placed. But
the great work of General Wade was the system of military roads which
he made in the Highlands; ten years being occupied in constructing
these. The main line of the system proceeded from Perth north-westward
by Dunkeld and Blair-Athol, thence through Drumnouchter and other
mountainous moorlands, onward to Inverness; while a subsidiary road
started from Stirling through Crieff, thence through Glen Almond, past
Loch Tay, and joined the main road at Dalnacardoch. Another great road
passed from shore to shore, through the valleys in which the Caledonian
Canal was afterwards formed, and connected Inverness with Fort-Augustus
and Fort-William. A branch road connected Fort-Augustus with the main
Highland road. Afterwards the system was extended, by branches passing
by Loch Lomond and Callander to the main Highland road; and other
branches were made in the district to the north-west of Inverness, and
the chain of lakes between the east and west coasts. These roads were
constructed ‘for military purposes’.
The clan form of polity, with some of the feudal elements superposed
upon it, was continued in the Highlands till after the rising of 1745;
but it has to be remembered that the Lowland nobles also formally
retained their hereditary jurisdiction over their vassals up to the
same date. A lord of regality in any quarter of Scotland possessed a
despotic power. The regality was a little kingdom in itself, within
the larger one which the King was supposed to rule; and it is mainly
in these hereditary customs and habits, in some parts of the Lowlands
as in the Highlands, that the causes of the rising of 1745 should be
sought. In the seventeenth century and the early part of the eighteenth,
the Scots were extremely poor, and it was only after the abolition of
hereditary jurisdictions, and other feudal usages of a lawless age,
that the people had a fair chance of obtaining wealth from their
industry. While these local powers, spread throughout the country,
could disturb the peace of the kingdom, and render the executive
authority of the government uncertain and fluctuating, the progress of
industry, the accumulation of wealth, and the advance of civilisation,
were very slow; but in a comparatively short time the Union enabled the
Scots to surmount the greater part of these obstacles.
Yet these great changes could not be effected in a day or a year. Hence
among the social causes of the rising may be enumerated the prejudices
still existing against the Union; the poverty of the nobles and the
people; the power of the Highland chiefs and of the nobles over many of
the people; and a general disaffection towards England――the residue of
a mass of animosities and antipathies――the natural growth of centuries
of war and strife between the two nations. A kind of half-romantic and
indescribable leaning towards the ancient line of kings undoubtedly
existed, and still exists in the nation. There were other special
causes, but those mentioned were the chief, which made rebellion
possible; while, on the other side, the unprepared condition and
culpable neglect of government, allowed the Prince and his followers
for a time to appear in a career of success.
When Prince Charles landed in the western islands in the middle of
July, 1745, his prospects of success were indeed dreary, as it was
some time before he could find a single man to give him the least hope
that a rising was possible. The Highland chiefs whom he first met and
consulted all spoke against the enterprise. But the young Prince was
naturally full of hope and faith in his destiny, and determined to
recover the throne of his ancestors. After repeated efforts he induced
a number of the chiefs to promise him support, and Lochiel, the chief
of the Camerons, the Macdonalds of Boisdale, Glengarry, Keppoch, and
many others joined him. On the 19th of August he unfurled his standard
in Glenfinnan, with upwards of a thousand men around him. Next morning
they commenced their march, and were soon joined by other chiefs and
their followers. As the only regular army in the kingdom, under General
Cope, was moved from Edinburgh to Inverness, Prince Charles resolved
to advance on the capital. He entered Perth on the 4th of September,
and there his army was largely reinforced. Parties were sent into the
neighbouring counties of Forfar and Fife to proclaim the Pretender,
levy money, and enlist men. At Perth Lord George Murray joined the
Prince, and was appointed a lieutenant-general of the army. On the
11th Charles recommenced his march southward, crossed the Forth, and
continuing his advance, on the 17th he took possession of Edinburgh,
and proclaimed King James.
By this time Cope had returned from Inverness, and was landing his
troops at Dunbar. But the insurgents anticipated his action and
advanced to meet him. The Highland army, numbering about two thousand
men, marched from Edinburgh; and on the 21st of September attacked the
royal army at Preston, completely defeated it, and Cope fled in haste
to Berwick. Many prisoners and much booty fell into the hands of the
victors. Charles with his army re-entered Edinburgh in triumph; and he
assumed all the functions of sovereignty. He held his Court at Holyrood
Palace and acted as King of Scotland. His Council consisted of Lord
George Murray, lieutenant-general; James Drummond (called Duke of
Perth), lieutenant-general; Sullivan, quartermaster-general; Mungo
Murray, secretary; Lord Pitsligo; Lord Elcho; and all the Highland
chiefs. But Charles’s difficulties were only beginning. He had failed
to take the Castle of Edinburgh, and comparatively few of the Lowland
people supported his cause.
Full of confidence in his destiny, Charles assembled his troops at
Dalkeith on 2nd of November, and, with an army of about six thousand
men, commenced to march on London. They entered England on the 8th,
and took possession of Carlisle on the 15th, and levied a large
contribution from the citizens. Leaving a garrison in the castle, they
resumed the march on the 22nd, but few recruits joined the Prince in
his progress southwards. They reached Manchester on the 27th, where
about two hundred recruits joined his standard. Thence the army pushed
forward to Derby, within one hundred and twenty miles of London; but
at this point, the leaders of the army received intelligence which
convinced them of the hopelessness of attempting to continue the march
on London, as there was no indication of a great movement on Charles’s
side in England. The position of the insurgents was extremely critical;
as there were three armies in the field against them, two between
them and Scotland, and one posted for the defence of London. Immediate
retreat seemed to be their only chance of saving themselves from
destruction. But Prince Charles was exceedingly unwilling to turn back,
and bitterly protested against such a proposal; he had great confidence
in the divine right and the justice of his cause, and persisted in
advancing to the culmination of his destiny. The retreat was ordered,
however, and on 6th of December the army turned towards Scotland,――Lord
George Murray undertaking the charge of the rear. The rank and file
of the army rent the air with cries of indignation; they could have
endured to be defeated by superior numbers, but to retreat without
striking a blow, was an insufferable disgrace.¹
¹ Lockhart’s _Papers_, Volume II., page 468; _et seq._; Homes’
_History of the Rebellion of 1745_, Chapter VII., 1802.
When the insurgents returned to Scotland, they found that Edinburgh was
in the possession of the government, and defended by a strong force,
and that in other parts of the country bodies of troops were organised
and prepared to act against them. But they retreated successfully,
passing through Dumfries, and entered Glasgow on the 24th of December,
wearied and tattered with their long march. They exacted a large
contribution of clothing and shoes from the city, and, after staying
a week, proceeded to Stirling. On the 17th of January, 1746, they
attacked and defeated a royal force commanded by General Hawley, at
Falkirk. The Duke of Cumberland was commissioned to extinguish the
rising; the work was congenial to him, and he executed it thoroughly.
He arrived at Edinburgh in the end of January, with an army of ten
thousand men, and a train of artillery, and proceeded northward.
While Charles’s army was attempting to reduce Stirling, they received
tidings of Cumberland’s advance. The insurgents then commenced
a retreat, and reached Crieff on the 2nd of February. There they
separated into two divisions――one, under the Prince himself, moved
by Blair-Athol, and the other, under Lord George Murray, proceeded
by Montrose and Aberdeen. It was arranged that they should meet at
Inverness. Cumberland proceeded to Aberdeen, and rested his army till
the spring. On the 8th of April, he began his march northwards along
the coast, in connection with a victualling fleet which sailed parallel
with his army; and on the 14th he reached Nairn.
By this time Prince Charles’ army was suffering severely from constant
exposure and want of food. The men were much exhausted, and at the
utmost did not number more than five thousand, and one hundred and
fifty horse. They formed on a moor beyond the enclosures of Culloden
House; but the most experienced chiefs earnestly entreated Charles to
avoid a battle or remove to a better position, yet he was deaf to all
reason and insisted on an immediate action.
The Duke continued his march, and came in sight of the insurgents.
On the 16th of April, 1746, he began the battle by a cannonade which
committed much havoc in the insurgents’ ranks. The Highlanders became
impatient and advanced to the attack; and after an heroic charge and
a severe but brief combat, the clansmen were defeated by the weight
of superior numbers, and many of them were mercilessly massacred in
the pursuit. The victors then began an indiscriminate slaughter of
all those supposed to be disaffected to the Government, or in any way
connected with the rising. The Duke of Cumberland and General Hawley
have entailed on themselves eternal infamy by the extreme cruelties
which they inflicted upon the defenceless and innocent inhabitants of
the Highlands.
There was great rejoicing in London over the victory at Culloden; but
many people who were not Jacobites, were much shocked by the details of
the cruelties and sufferings inflicted on the Celtic population. After
the battle the feeling of the Highlanders was expressed in ballads such
as these:――
“Fair lady, mourn the memory
O’ all our Scottish fame;
Fair lady, mourn the memory
Ev’n of the Scottish name;
How proud were we of our young prince,
And of his native sway;
But all our hopes are past and gone,
Upon Culloden day.
There was no lack of bravery there,
No spare of blood or breath,
For, one to two, our foes we dar’d,
For freedom or for death.
“The bitterness of death is past,
Of terror and dismay;
The die was risked, and foully cast,
Upon Culloden day.
* * * * *
What is there now in thee, Scotland,
To us can pleasure give?
What is there now in thee, Scotland,
For which we ought to live?
Since we have stood, and stood in vain,
For all that we hold dear;
Still have we left a sacrifice,
To offer on our bier.
But there is naught for us or ours,
In which to hope or trust,
But hide us in our father’s graves,
Amid our father’s dust.”¹
¹ Mackay’s _Jacobite Songs_, pages 209‒211. This song is
translated from the Gaelic one, entitled “Culloden Day,” and
sung to a tune of the same name.
A few lines of another ballad may be quoted:――
“Ochon! ochon! the fatal day,
The day of dark despair.
* * * * *
The flower o’ a’ the Highland clans――
Their like we’ll never see――
Lay strecket in their bloody plaids,
Cauld on Culloden lee.”
This was the last of the risings of the Celts against the Government.
Henceforth they had to seek other fields for the exercise of their
energy and powers. A considerable number of the Highlanders found
an honourable career in the British army, in which they have never
disgraced their standard in the hour of danger. They have contributed
much to the power and glory of the United Kingdom; for upwards of
a hundred years the Highland regiments have been characterised by
obedience and fidelity to their commanders, loyalty to the throne, and
faithful service to the Empire. Let us simply mention their service on
the battlefields of the Vimiera, Corunna, Badajos, Salamanca, Vittoria,
Toulouse, and Waterloo; their memorable action and heroic endurance
under the scorching sun on the blinding sands of Africa; their services
in the East and West, at Alma, Balaklava, Sebastopol, and Lucknow. For
courage and bravery in the hour of peril and battle they have never
been surpassed.
The subsequent social changes in the Highlands will be treated in the
next volume; but it may be observed that, despite the injustice, the
oppression and suffering inflicted upon the Celtic people during a
period of six centuries, they have shown a readiness to appreciate the
benefits and blessings of civilisation. They have contributed important
elements to art and literature. In every quarter of the world they have
distinguished themselves in the fields of enterprise and industry.
Politically, it was best that the Island should be under one supreme
Government; as this enhanced the strength, the confidence, and the
security of the people. After many ages of internal war, this blessing
of political union and peace was at last obtained. Thus a position and
a career was opened to the people of the United Kingdom, such as few
nations have ever enjoyed. It is much to be desired that the people of
Ireland would recognise the great utility of the Imperial Parliament
of Britain. If I might venture a word for the whole Celtic inhabitants
of Britain and Ireland, I would earnestly urge the necessity of
recognising the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament; for on this the
welfare and progress of the people ♦depends. When the Irish have become
as reconciled to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament as the Welsh
and the Scots have long been, we may look forward with reasonable hope
to a time of greater prosperity, of happiness and higher civilisation
for the Irish people. Let us all endeavour in a spirit of honesty and
justice to contribute to this result.
♦ “dedepends” replaced with “depends”
CHAPTER XXX.
SOCIAL STATE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.
AFTER the accession of the King of Scotland to the throne of England,
it might have been reasonably thought that the administration of
justice would have been improved; but such anticipations were not
realised, except on the Borders, where in a short time there was a
marked improvement. The King unfortunately employed his increased power
to enforce unpopular ceremonies and forms of polity upon the people,
and thus retarded their social progress. Moreover, in the reign of
Charles I., civil war arose with its inseparable confusion; and from
the Restoration to the Revolution, the corruption of the Government was
notorious. Some improvement was effected before the Union, but ample
room for administrative reform still remained.
From the outbreak of the Civil War the administration of justice was
mainly in the hands of the Covenanting party, till the kingdom was
subjected by Cromwell. The Protector’s mode of ruling Scotland, and his
efforts to administer justice, have already been described.¹ For nearly
two years after the death of Cromwell, the higher courts of justice in
Scotland were in a state of confusion and abeyance.
¹ See under, page 112, _et seq._
After the Restoration the old forms were revived; the Court of
Session was restored, and Lord Stair appointed one of the judges and
vice-president of the Session. In 1671 he was installed president
of the Court of Session. Stair was a man of great abilities; but he
yielded in some degree to the influences of the times, and for ten
years gave a general support to the government of Charles II. It was
reported that in his judicial career he perverted justice; but there
is no reliable evidence of this, and it has never been shown that he
was guilty of malversation. According to the anomalous rules prevailing
in Scotland, a judge of the Supreme Court was permitted to act as
a member of parliament, and in the session of 1681 Stair sat as the
representative of Wigton; while he was on the Committee of Articles,
and also a member of the Privy Council. He came into collision with
the Duke of York and his supporters in the debates on the terms of
the oath, which was proposed to be imposed upon all persons in office.
Stair declined to sign the oath, and shortly after he was divested
of his functions. Then the Government commenced an inquisitorial
investigation with the aim of punishing the ex-president of the Session.
In his own words, “I was cited before the criminal judges, before
the Council, and before the Parliament; and hundreds of examinations
and re-examinations were taken against me, even of my most intimate
servants, and my sister-in-law, not in the regular way of probation,
but by way of inquisition, to found a process upon any special matter,
which was never done, because nothing was found against me.” He retired
to Holland in October, 1682, and did not return to Scotland till the
Revolution.¹
¹ Sir George Mackenzie’s _Memoirs_; Graham’s _Annals of the
Viscount, and First and Second Earls of Stair_, Volume I.,
pages 17, 50; see also Sheriff Mackay’s _Memoir of Lord
Stair_, pages 133‒138, 141‒150, 178‒186; 1873. During the
ten years following his appointment to the presidentship,
he composed the first draft of the Institutions of the Law
of Scotland. This great work, upon which Stair’s fame as
a lawyer mainly rests, was originally intended for his
own particular use――“that he might be the more clear and
determined in his judgments in the matter of justice.” In
the dedication of the first edition of 1681 to the King,
he says that “his modesty did not permit him to publish
it previously, lest it should be judicially cited where he
sat.”
Burnet says: “Dalrymple was president of the Session, a man
of great temper, and of very mild deportment, but a false and
cunning man, and a great perverter of justice: in which he
had a particular dexterity of giving some plausible colours
to the greatest injustice.”――_History of His Own Time_,
Volume II., page 45.
In 1674, the question whether there should be appeals to parliament
from the decisions of the Court of Session, or not, was disputed. The
Government insisted that no appeals to parliament should be allowed;
the Scotch bar was divided in opinion on the point, but Lockhart and
Cunningham, and about fifty members of the faculty, maintained that
there was a right of appeal to parliament. As the Government held
a different view, they were suspended from the exercise of their
profession, and banished from Edinburgh. The dispute was prolonged
for two years, and ended in a kind of compromise.
Lord Stair’s son, Sir John Dalrymple, afterwards first Earl of Stair,
was a man of great talents, but impulsive and unscrupulous. About
the end of the reign of Charles II., he fell into disfavour with the
Government, and was for a time imprisoned. But after the accession
of the Duke of York, Dalrymple left Edinburgh for London in December,
1686; and in February, 1687, he returned Lord Advocate.¹ He succeeded
Sir George Mackenzie in this office, who it seems had been shocked at
the King’s dispensing prerogative, but Dalrymple was not hampered by
scruples of conscience, and at once complied with the King’s projects.
¹ “February 14th, 1687. Sir John Dalrymple, now King’s advocate,
arrives; lately twice in prison as a malefactor, and in very
bad circumstances with the Government, he comes down from
London to Edinburgh. His coach broke with him at Tranent. He
has got a precept from the King for £1200 sterling, whereof
£500 was his fine which Queensberry and Claverhouse exacted
from him three years ago; the other £700 for his charges in
this last journey to and from London, and for loss of his
employment during that time. He has brought with him an ample
and comprehensive remission of all crimes to his father,
Lord Stair, particularly for their reset and converse with
traitors, and to his little son, who accidentally shot his
brother.”――Fountainhall’s _Historical Notices_.
It has been freely admitted that the fountain of justice was utterly
polluted during the reigns of Charles II. and James VII. “The Scottish
bench had been profligate and subservient to the utmost conceivable
extent of profligacy and subservency.” Besides the oppression of
the people, which the courts too often sanctioned, even men in high
political posts employed their functions to plunder their political
opponents, with as little scruple as the victors on a battle-field.
A statesman, who had a personal case before the court, sometimes took
his seat on the bench, where he had an _ex officio_ right to be, and
looking with a significant glance, defied the lawyers, on their peril,
to give a decision adverse to him. Some of the remedies attempted by
Parliament reveal the abuses which prevailed. These were framed to
prevent judges from going out of their course to benefit themselves
or their friends: one rule, for example, enjoined that when the court
came to a judgment, it should be written out in their presence, and
immediately signed, because it seems no officer of the law, however
high, could be entrusted to state the decision honestly. In 1693,
it was enacted that criminal trials should be held with open doors
in presence of the panel or accused, the jury, and all others. The
Revolution Parliament claimed the right of choosing the new bench of
judges, and passed an act on the point, but it did not receive the
royal assent. Parliament then “shut the Signet,” until steps were taken
for filling up the bench.¹
¹ Dr. Burton’s _History of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 72‒74,
1853; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX.,
pages 104, 282‒283, 305; Appendix, pages 135‒136.
But King William re-opened the Signet and appointed a new bench of
judges in November, 1689, on the strength of his royal prerogative. The
commission named the fifteen lords of Session, and the list commenced
with Lord Stair, who was re-appointed president of the Court. Three of
the new judges had been on the bench before, and the Court immediately
met and went through the legal forms of admitting the new judges. The
president told them, “that, although he was restored by way of justice
according to the King’s declaration, yet he was willing to submit
himself to the lords, and if they were not satisfied that he should
resume that heavy charge, he would not in so disquiet a time, and in
such a charge, subject himself to so much trouble and toil;” and he
then retired to another room. Whereupon their Lordships unanimously
concurred in the King’s nomination of Sir James Dalrymple of Stair
to be president, as a man most worthy to discharge that trust.¹ The
fifteen judges being duly installed, justice was restored to its
customary channel; and this constitution of the supreme court continued
with little variation, till the beginning of the present century.
¹ “This rule of submitting the election of the president to
the other judges, the real appointment being with the Crown,
could not well have had any other result in the present
instance, considering that the whole bench of judges was
assorted and the nominations advised by Stair himself. As
to this, Forbes of Culloden, father of the president Duncan
Forbes, remarks: But one thing at that time became apparent,
that however my Lord Stair might profess, he desired petty
men to sit with him upon the bench; he shunned any who he
thought would debate with him, and took in, so far as he
could, none but such as he knew would comply with him.”
_Culloden Papers_, page 326; Graham’s _Annals of Viscount
Stair, and the First and Second Earls of Stair_, Volume I.,
page 89.
There was still much crime in the nation; murder and manslaughter were
common, and, as already stated, feuds among the nobles and the Highland
chiefs were endless. Captain James Stewart, a member of the Ochiltree
family, was slain by Sir James Douglas of Parkhead in 1595. At that
period a noble was not usually punished as a malefactor; his crime
was either expiated by a fine or by the interposition of the King
reconciling the friends of the injured party to the offender and his
friends. Thus the feud between the Ochiltree Stewarts and Sir James
Douglas and his friends was continued. From time to time they had come
under heavy securities to keep the peace towards each other; and so
Lord Ochiltree and Sir James Douglas, now Lord Torthorwald, became
bound for a sum of £5,000 each to keep the peace, and brothers and
nephews of Stewart for smaller sums――an arrangement that was renewed
on the 30th of May, 1608, to endure for a year. All seemed quiet
in Edinburgh, but on the morning of 14th July, Lord Torthorwald was
walking unattended in the High Street, when William Stewart, the nephew
of the man who was slain twelve years before, approached and instantly
stabbed him in the back, and he immediately expired. The murderer
escaped, and no more was heard of him. The same day, the Privy Council
held two meetings to consider what should be done. They ordered that
the Earl of Morton, James, Commendator of Melrose, Sir George and Sir
James Douglas, uncles of Lord Torthorwald, William Douglas, Archibald
Douglas, and Sir James Douglas of Muirston, all friends of the murdered
man, should be confined to their lodgings; and Lord Ochiltree, whom the
Douglases might be eager to attack, was also commanded to remain within
doors. This deed recalls a series of murders, which stretched back
to the slaughter of Stewart in 1595, and to Stewart’s persecution of
the Earl of Morton to the scaffold in 1581; also, this William Stewart
was the son of the Sir William Stewart who was slain by the Earl of
Bothwell in 1588.¹
¹ Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume III.; _Register of the
Privy Council_, Volume VIII., pages 101, 144, 158, 185, 215,
239, 246, 251, 344, 348, 646, 667, _et seq._; Volume IX.,
pages 5, 10, _et seq._; Volume X., pages 1, 45.
In the early part of the seventeenth century, the records of the
Privy Council are full of cases of assaults, committed by men of rank
and by others, upon persons whom they hated. It would be tedious to
enumerate even those which occurred in a single year. There were Acts
of Parliament forbidding men to carry arms, but in almost every case
we find the parties implicated in these acts of violence, described as
wearing steel bonnets, gauntlets, plate sleeves, and with swords and
pistols.
Gavin Thomson, a burgess of Peebles, was greatly hated by Charles
Pringle, another burgess. One day in September, 1608, as Gavin was
walking in the High Street, Pringle, with nine others, all armed,
attacked and wounded him on the left hand, then thrust him into a house
and locked him up, intending to have him slain there; but the minister
of the burgh, assisted by other peaceable persons, came and rescued him.
For months after this Pringle and his associates lay in wait several
times to kill him, and prevented him from going to church or market,
or attending to his farm. On the 2nd of December, while he was walking
in the street, they again attacked him with weapons, wounded, and
threatened to slay him outright, had not timeous relief been at hand.
The assailants had wounded several persons of rank in the scuffle, and
the Privy Council denounced them as rebels.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Peebles_; _Register of the Privy Council_,
Volume VIII., pages 208, 682.
A strife broke out between the Earl of Caithness on the one side,
and Sir Robert Gordon of Kinmoninie and Donald Mackay, on the other.
This affair is highly illustrative of a condition of society which was
gradually changing and improving. In 1599, Arthur Smith, a native of
Banff, had got into trouble for coining, but he contrived to escape
the punishment of the law by making a lock of a peculiar device, which
gained him the favour of the King. Afterwards, having entered the
service of the Earl of Caithness, he commenced and continued coining
for seven years in a recess under the Earl’s castle. Naturally the
counties of Caithness, Sutherland, and Orkney, were soon found to be
flooded with counterfeit coins, both of silver and gold. Sir Robert
Gordon reported the case, and the Privy Council commissioned him to
apprehend Smith and bring him to Edinburgh. While this case was pending,
William M‘Angus, a noted freebooter, was captured and imprisoned in
the Earl’s castle, but he escaped and fled into Strathnaver. There
the Sinclairs made an attempt to seize him, but he eluded them; they,
however, took a man, Angus Herriach, who they thought had assisted
M‘Angus to escape. This man was also lodged in the Earl’s castle
without a warrant; and Mackay then appeared and claimed Angus as his
man, and Caithness had to give him up.
Smith, the coiner, was living in Thurso under the protection of the
Earl of Caithness, when a party of the Gordons and Mackays arrived to
execute the warrant for apprehending him. They had already seized him
and a quantity of his counterfeit coins, and were making off, when
a party of the Sinclairs came to the rescue, and a fierce conflict
ensued on the streets. John Sinclair, the Earl’s nephew, was slain,
his brother wounded, and the Earl’s retainers were driven back. During
the fight Smith was coolly put to death, lest he should escape, and the
invading party then retired. The Earl of Caithness was greatly enraged,
and considered the affair a disgraceful encroachment upon him in the
heart of his own county. The strife was next transferred to Edinburgh,
where the parties raised counter-actions against each other before the
Council. Both parties appeared in the capital on the appointed day,
accompanied by their friends. With the Earl of Caithness there was
his son, Lord Gray, the Lairds of Roslin and Cowdenknowes, the Earl’s
two brothers――Lairds of Murkle and Glenland; these were the chief men
on Caithness’ side. With Sir Robert Gordon and Donald Mackay there
were the Earls of Winton, Eglinton, and their followers, the Earl of
Linlithgow with the Livingstons, Lord Elphinstone with his friends,
Lord Forbes with his friends, Lord Balfour, Mackay the Laird of Larg,
in Galloway, the Laird of Foulis, the Laird of Duffus, and their
followers, and others of the name of Gordon. The Earl of Caithness was
much grieved, when he saw that his opponents so far outnumbered him.
All these parties had come to Edinburgh to see that justice should
be done, and to outbrave each other in forcing the Court to give a
favourable decision on their own side. While the Privy Council was
trying to exact security from the opposing parties for their peaceable
behaviour, both parties despatched private messengers to the King to
give him a favourable impression of their cases. The King repeatedly
sent instructions to proceed against them with all the rigour of
law and justice, but this was a difficult matter. While the affair
was pending, the Marquis of Huntly’s son, Lord Gordon, arrived at
Edinburgh from court, and the Earl of Caithness imagined that he had
an unfavourable view of his case, “So, late in the evening, the Lord
Gordon, coming from his own lodgings accompanied with Sir Alexander
Gordon and others of the Sutherland men, met the Earl of Caithness
and his company on the High Street; and, at the first sight, they fell
to jostling and to talking, then to drawing of swords, and friends
speedily assembled on both sides. Sir Robert and Mackay, with the best
of the company, came presently to them; but the Earl of Caithness,
after some blows given and received, perceiving that he could not
make good his part, left the street and retired to his lodging; and if
the darkness of the night had not favoured him, he had not escaped so.
The Lord Gordon taking this broil very highly, was not satisfied that
the Earl of Caithness had given place, and departed, but moreover, he
with all his company crossed thrice to the Earl of Caithness’ lodgings,
thereby to provoke him to come forth; but perceiving no appearance
thereof, he retired himself to his own lodging. The next day the Earl
of Caithness and Lord Gordon were reconciled by the Privy Council.” But
several years passed ere these troubles were terminated.¹
¹ Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume III., pages 32, 231‒232;
_Register of the Privy Council_, Volume IX., pages 352, 413,
731; Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of Scotland_, Volume I.,
pages 436, 439.
The Earl of Caithness was one of the most unruly men of his time, and
in his own district wielded an almost despotic sway. He is represented
as a base and selfish man, about half of his life being passed in
outlawry. Sometimes he was at war with the Sutherland family, sometimes
with the Mackays of Strathnaver; one year he was proclaimed a rebel, at
another time he was honoured with a royal commission against some other
rebels. He was deeply in debt, but this did not disturb him much; and
his son, having become responsible for him, was imprisoned in Edinburgh
for five years by his father’s creditors, while Caithness himself
enjoyed a life of freedom in the far north. He was denounced a rebel
in 1621; and Lord Berridale, his son, asked and obtained a commission
to pursue his father, and was released from prison for the purpose of
assisting in bringing him within the grasp of the law. In September,
1623, Berridale and Sir Robert Gordon entered Caithness at the head of
a strong force, but they had not advanced far when the Earl, perceiving
that he was unable to face them, fled, and sought refuge in Orkney,
thence intending to go to Norway. Many of the inhabitants received
Gordon with civility; and the Commissioners having taken possession
of the castles in the Earl’s territory, and made arrangements for
the peaceable government of the county, Sir Robert Gordon returned
in triumph to Dunrobin Castle, and disbanded his men. This Earl of
Caithness died in his own county in comparative obscurity in 1643, at
the advanced age of seventy-eight.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; Pitcairn’s _Criminal
Trials_, Volume III., page 310; Gordon’s _History of the
Earldom of Sutherland_.
In 1614, he was entrusted with a royal commission to reduce the Earl
of Orkney; and a brief notice of this Earl’s career may serve to
illustrate the state of society in that remote part of the kingdom.
Patrick Stewart, Earl of Orkney, was related to the royal family,
as his father was a natural son of James V.; and it seems that he
attempted to make himself king over the Orkney Islands. It is stated
in contemporary records that he collected a large yearly revenue, and
that he rigorously exacted very high rents and dues from his vassals
and tenants; further, that “his pomp was so great in Kirkwall, as he
never went from his castle to the church, nor abroad otherwise, without
a company of fifty musketeers and other gentlemen of guard; and such
like, before dinner and supper, there were trumpeters that sounded till
the meat of the first service was set at table, and also at the second
service, and consequently after the grace. He also had his ships sent
to the sea to intercept pirates, and to collect tribute of foreign
fishers, that came yearly to these seas. Whereby he made such a
collection of great guns and other weapons of war as no house, palace,
or castle in all Scotland was furnished with the like.”
On 27th December, 1608, the Earl of Orkney was summoned to answer for
acts of usurpation of the royal authority during the preceding twenty
years. His indictment contained a long list of charges, but he denied
that these were crimes, and maintained that he had sufficient authority
to do all that he had done, which he could show at the proper time and
place. He was present at a meeting of the Privy Council on the 27th of
June, 1609, and on the 4th of July he was imprisoned in the Castle of
Edinburgh. The people of Orkney and Shetland were still oppressed by
the Earl’s brother, James Stewart, and other deputies and agents whom
the Earl had appointed to rule during his absence. Referring to this,
the record stated that the King had expected that the proceedings
against the Earl would have procured some peace to the “poor distressed
people there,” and would have restrained the insolence of his deputies
and servants. Yet it appeared that the Earl’s agents and friends,
assisted by the captain of the Castle of Kirkwall and the soldiers
under him, still “continue all forms of oppression, not only against
those who presented their complaints against the Earl, but also against
all others of whom they hope to extort any profit; so that the King’s
poor subjects within these bounds are in as bad a state and condition
now under the tyranny of the persons above mentioned as they were
before in the time of the Earl’s own rule.” Stewart, the Earl’s brother,
and others were denounced as rebels for non-appearance in court. The
Earl’s case was hung up, and he was detained a prisoner in Edinburgh
Castle; and it seems that the King was inclined to come to a compromise
with him, but he was not disposed to temporise, and still entertained
the hope of regaining his island kingdom. He attempted to escape from
Edinburgh Castle, and was then removed to Dumbarton Castle, where it
was thought he would be more secure. But in spite of this, he found
means of instructing his natural son Robert, who proceeded to Orkney in
1614, mustered a company, seized the castle of Kirkwall, and fortified
the church. A great number of the inhabitants joined him, and it soon
became known that Orkney had rebelled against the Crown. The Earl of
Caithness was then in Edinburgh endeavouring to obtain a settlement
for crimes and offences of his own, and it occurred to him that it
might be easier to make a compromise with the Government by offering
his assistance to punish others. His service was accepted, and he
immediately sailed for Kirkwall with a strong force to reduce the
Lord of Orkney. He found that the castle was strong, and many of the
inhabitants in favour of the rebels, while he had great difficulty in
finding provision for his men. He besieged the castle for the space of
a month; it surrendered in September, 1614, and Lord Robert Stewart was
carried to Edinburgh a prisoner.
This youth of twenty-two years was then tried for high treason,
condemned to death, and executed on the 6th of January, 1615, with five
of his companions. His father, the Earl, the real moving spirit of the
rising, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death, and beheaded at
the Cross of Edinburgh on the 6th of February, 1615.¹
¹ Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume III., pages 81‒87,
272‒307, 308, 327; _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume
VIII., pages 214, 306, 312, 433, 611, 619, 845, also Volumes
IX. and X.
The Government had several modes of dealing with the feuds and unruly
habits of the Highlanders, some of which have already been indicated
in the preceding volumes. Sometimes, as in the Lowlands, authority was
given by the Government to one party to make private war on another, as
in the cases noticed above; in other instances, the Crown entered into
an arrangement with Argyle in the south-west, and with Huntly in the
north, to restrain and punish, and even “to extirpate the barbarous
people.” Lastly, there was the extreme expedient of granting “letters
of fire and sword.” These were licences from the Government for the
most severe and cruel kind of civil war, with the aid and encouragement
of the executive to one side in the strife. These letters authorised
the favoured individual or clan to burn, to waste, and to slay, all
within the territory of their enemies, or the district specified in the
licence; and the licenced parties were freed from any legal annoyance
as the result of the conflict. Such letters or commissions usually
read thus:――“Whatever slaughter, mutilation, bloodshed, fire-raising
or violence, may be committed, shall be regarded as laudable, good,
and warrantable service to his Majesty and to his Government.”¹ The
frequent granting of letters of fire and sword is a lamentable proof of
the weakness of the government, of the law, and of the lack of police
organisation.
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._
After the accession of the King to the throne of England, various
attempts were made to reduce the people of the Highlands and the
Western Isles to the authority of the Crown. The efforts of the
Government for a time promised considerable success; a number of
Highland and Island chiefs were captured and imprisoned, and others
placed under caution for their good behaviour. The King commissioned
Bishop Knox with power to make arrangements for promoting the peace
and obedience of the Isles; and, at his instance, nine chiefs agreed
to a bond of obedience to the authority of the King at Icolmkill on the
24th of August 1609. The names of these chiefs were――Angus Macdonald
of Dunivaig in Islay; Hector Maclean of Duart in Mull; Donald Gorm
Macdonald of Sleat in Skye; Rory Macleod of Harris; Rory Mackinnon
of Strathordaill in Skye; Lauchlan Maclean of Coll; Donald Macdonald
of Ylanterim in Moydart, Captain of Clanranald; Lauchlan Maclean
of Lochbuy in Mull; and Gellespie Macquharrie of Ulva: these bound
themselves by solemn oaths to future obedience to the King and the
laws of Scotland. This bond is known under the title of “the Statutes
of Icolmkill.” The statutes were nine in number and dealt with the
following subjects:――1. The ruinous churches to be repaired, and a
regular parochial ministry to be established and maintained, with the
same discipline as in other parts of the kingdom, the same observance
of Sunday and other moral rules, and the suppression of irregular
marriages. 2. Inns to be erected in convenient places in all the
Islands for the accommodation of travellers, so as to extinguish mere
idle wandering, and the burden on the resources of poor tenants and
crofters by the habit of indiscriminate quartering. 3. That all idle
vagabonds without visible and honest means of living should be cleared
out of the Isles; and that the chiefs should cease from capricious
exactions upon their clans, and be content with a household retinue
of as many gentlemen and servants as his means will support,――that
is, Maclean of Duart with eight gentleman, Angus Macdonald, Donald
Macdonald, Rory Macleod, and the Captain of Clanranald, with six
gentlemen each, and so on with the rest. 4. All sorning and begging,
and the custom of conjie to be put down. 5. A main cause of the poverty
and disorder of the Islanders being their excessive drinking of strong
wines and _aqua vitæ_, brought in amongst them partly by merchants of
the mainland and partly by some traffickers dwelling amongst themselves,
all general importation or sale of wine or _aqua vitæ_ to be stopped
under penalties, reserving liberty, however, to all persons in the
Islands to brew _aqua vitæ_ and other drink to serve their own houses,
and to the chiefs and other gentlemen to send to the Lowlands for
the purchase of as much wine and whisky as they may require for their
households. 6. Every man in the Islands possessing sixty cows, and
having children, should send at least his eldest son, or failing sons,
his eldest daughter, to some school in the Lowlands, and there to be
taught until they be able to speak, read, and write English. 7. An
Act of Parliament prohibiting all persons from carrying firearms out
of their own houses, or shooting with such at deer, hares, or fowls,
to be strictly enforced within the Islands. 8. The chiefs should not
entertain wandering bards or other vagabonds of that sort; and all such
persons should be apprehended, put in the stocks, and expelled from the
Islands. 9. For the better keeping of these statutes, and in accordance
with the rule that the principal man of every clan is answerable
for all his kinsmen and dependents, this present agreement to be a
sufficient warrant to all chiefs and sub-chiefs to apprehend and try
malefactors within their bounds, seize their goods for the King’s use,
and deliver over their persons to the competent judge to be further
dealt with; the chiefs become bound not to reset or maintain within
their bounds any malefactor that may be fugitive from the bounds of his
own natural superior.¹ The Government of the time seem to have thought
the above regulations a great achievement; yet it does not appear that
they became operative. The Government continued to pursue the clan
Gregor with the utmost extremity of fire and sword.
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume IX. pages 24‒30.
The social state of the Highlands, however, was not much improved
in the seventeenth century. Old feuds and grudges among neighbouring
clans often led to a kind of invasion of the territories of each other,
ending in extensive depredations, and frequently in loss of life. About
the year 1666, the Government appointed some of the chief men in the
disturbed districts to raise a force among their dependents, to put
the law into execution against the offenders. The region of Strathspey,
and the mountainous tract thence extending towards Perthshire and
Aberdeenshire, had often been in a disturbed state during the century;
and at this time the Council granted a commission of “fire and sword”
to John Lyon of Muiresk, and Alexander, his son, against a large number
of outlawed persons, enumerated by name. But before he was prepared to
carry his commission into effect, the outlaws attacked his house, set
it on fire, and slew him and his son. The lawless party then proceeded
to the small town of Keith, attacked and plundered it, and decamped.
A commission of fire and sword was given to the Earl of Moray, which
had the effect of bringing Patrick Roy Macgregor, who seems to have
been the ringleader of the gang, and some others of his confederates
to justice. In March, 1667, they were tried at Edinburgh for sorning,
fire-raising, theft, and murder, and condemned and executed; and in
May, 1668, other two men of this gang were tried and executed.
In 1670, the Privy Council issued an order, stating that many persons
in the Highlands were in the habit of travelling through the country
attended by idle bands, which occasioned stealing and sorning; all
persons were therefore forbidden to travel or congregate in this
fashion.
The messenger-at-arms and officers of the law often encountered violent
resistance in the Highlands when delivering their summonses, and
attempting to apprehend debtors and offenders. In the winter of 1671,
John Campbell, with two witnesses, proceeded to Caithness, to execute
letters of caption and inhibition against some gentlemen in that region,
but they were seized by Captain Sinclair and shipped for France. By the
action of winds and waves, however, the ship, after being some time at
sea, came back to Thurso, and the three officers of the law were again
seized and imprisoned, and guarded as if they had been criminals. The
Privy Council ordered that they should be released, on the singular
ground that they had given security to answer any charge which Captain
Sinclair might bring against them.
Rudeness and contempt of the law were often manifested, and outrages
frequently occurred on Sunday, even during public worship. An Act of
Parliament had been passed in 1592 against outrages in churches, but
it had little effect. In 1608, a complaint was lodged against Alexander
Mortimer for assaulting the minister, by taking off his hat and
striking him in the face with it. A complaint came before the Synod of
Aberdeen, in 1664, against William Creichton and his wife, stating that
they had, in the parish church of Auchterless, on a Sunday, blasphemed,
cursed and swore, and reproached and threatened the minister in
the pulpit. While at the same date, Forbes of Newe, and Forbes of
Edinglassie, with their friends, fought and wounded each other on
Sunday.
Society in the chief burghs was more peaceful and life more secure
than in the Highlands and in some parts of the Lowlands; yet even in
them crimes of violence were constantly occurring. In 1608, one of the
bailies of Glasgow, James Inglis, in company with James Young, in the
exercise of his functions charged Thomas Paterson to go with him to
the jail, which he had before broken out of, and while in the act of
taking him back, he was interfered with by Robert Macgill, who declared
that he would not allow Paterson to go, and immediately threatened the
bailie with a dagger, at the same time using abusive language to him.
Macgill was convicted for this offence, and sentenced by the council
to pay a sum of a hundred pounds to the city treasurer, to be banished
from the town for seven years, “and to be put in irons and to remain in
them during Bailie Inglis’ pleasure, and lastly, to walk from the place
where he assaulted the bailie to the Cross, bareheaded and barefooted,
and there upon his knees, to deliver the dagger by the point to the
bailie, and ask God’s mercy and the bailie’s forgiveness for his great
offence.” In the end of September the following year, Andrew Craig was
accused of abusing Matthew Trumble, one of the bailies, in presence
of the people. The bailie had ordered him to be imprisoned upon just
grounds, but he retorted that the bailie had no power to charge him
to be imprisoned, and when the officers had got him up the Tolbooth
stair, he said to the bailie――“An thou were out of thy office, I shall
be up sides with thee,” to the contempt of the King’s authority as
represented in the bailie’s person; and when he was in prison he said
that he would set it on fire. When his trial came on he pleaded guilty
and threw himself on the mercy of the council, and they ordered him to
be detained in prison till they resolved what further punishment was
necessary. Other persons were tried and punished for contempt of the
dean of guild, and of the town clerk, but in 1612 another bailie was
threatened by one of the citizens. In 1610, the town council of Glasgow
had under consideration the manifold assaults and wrongs which were
committed by notorious tusslers, fighters, and night-walkers, who had
nothing to pay their fines or to satisfy the parties whom they injured,
and who daily committed breaches of the peace and disturbances, because
there was no other severe punishment inflicted upon them. Therefore the
council enacted that all persons convicted of assaults and disturbances,
who had nothing to pay their fine or to satisfy the injured party,
should be punished thus:――If a man, he should be imprisoned for eight
days, and if a woman, she should be put in the branks upon a Monday and
a Friday, for two hours on each occasion, and thereafter such persons
should ask God’s mercy and the forgiveness of the parties injured by
them.¹
¹ _Records of the Kirk-Session and Presbytery of Aberdeen_,
pages 61, 277, 278, 1846. _Burgh Records of Glasgow_, pages
290, 293, 303, 317, 326, 316.
The number of convictions before the bailies of Aberdeen, for the year
1641, seems to indicate that there was much crime in the city. In March,
three of the pickmen at the town’s mills were convicted and fined for
exacting a handful out of every sackful of malt ground at the mills
more than the lawful mulcture and dues allowed to the lessee and his
servants for their work. The council enacted that all workmen convicted
of this offence should be treated as receivers of stolen malt, and be
scourged and banished or otherwise punished at the discretion of the
magistrates. On the 19th of March, Helen Vulgine and Margaret Bellie
were convicted and fined for “stricking, scratching, and riving of
each other’s faces.” On the 4th of May, Helen Sherar was convicted
for “throwing a cup and a wooden stoup at Margaret Burnet, and hitting
her to the effusion of blood,” and Margaret also was convicted for
striking Helen, and for insisting on taking her child from her. Both
were sentenced to be put in the stocks if they failed to pay the fines
imposed. On the 15th of June, Marjorie Jack was convicted and fined
for assaulting another woman. On July 6th, Elspet Fraser was convicted
for assaulting Bessie Forbes on the street, both being married women;
and Elspet was fined four merks, and also ordered to offer amends to
the injured person in the presence of the magistrates. The same day,
Christian Watson, wife of John Tough, was convicted “for assaulting a
woman and knocking her down on the street and breaking her leg;” at the
same time, Robert Massie was convicted “for assaulting William Gordon,
a tailor, on Sunday night, by taking off his bonnet and striking him
in the face, and chancelling him to combat, which he refused.” Gordon
was sentenced to pay four merks to the dean of guild, and other four
to the injured person, and to beg his pardon in the presence of the
magistrates. On August 3rd, William Walker, a fisher, was convicted
“for injuring James Anderson, his master, by provocking him and calling
him a thief’s son, pushing him into the water and hitting him with
a stone on the breast.” The same day, James Alexander was accused
by Alexander Davie, a lister, for assaulting him in a house in the
Gallowgate; he was convicted and fined four merks, and ordered to ask
the offended party’s pardon. On the 6th of September, Elspet Smith,
a servant of a maltman, was convicted “for assaulting Elspet Craig,
a tailor’s wife, by tearing down her hair about her eyes, bruising
her face, and then dragging her to a sellar ‘and almost wirred her;’”
therefore Smith was sentenced to pay a fine of four merks to the dean
of guild, and also to crave pardon from God and the offended party, and
further, she was bound not to trouble Craig again, under the penalty
of banishment. On the 17th of the same month, Peter Crombie, merchant,
was accused of going to John Scot’s house and assaulting his wife, by
striking her on the breast and throwing her down; he was fined eight
merks. On the 20th of November, James Smith, a weaver, and Alexander
Kemp, a wright, were both convicted, for going to the house of
Alexander Sangster, a weaver, in the silence of night, and breaking
up the door with a forehammer, and then entering the house with drawn
swords in their hands; for this they were sentenced to be imprisoned
for eight days, and thereafter banished from the city. The same day
William Duncan, a servant of Thomas Walker, shoemaker, was convicted
for going to the house of James Hall, shoemaker, at night, and drawing
a sword and threatening to attack him, and also uttering most abusive
expressions towards him, because he would not allow his servant to
go out of the shop with him to eat a lamb’s leg as he desired. Duncan
was sentenced to imprisonment for eight days, and to find caution for
his good behaviour in future. The same day Robert Gordon, a tailor,
was convicted for drawing a sword to William Walker, and threatening
to strike him, both of them being drunk; Gordon was sentenced to
imprisonment till he relieved himself by the payment of his fine. The
11th of December, Sara Fowler was convicted for scolding and defaming
Andrew Birnie, merchant, by “calling him a cankered carle, exclaiming
on the streets and saying to his wife that she was as gentle a woman
as herself.” Sara was sentenced to be imprisoned for eight days, with
an intimation that if ever she should be again convicted, she would be
put in the stocks.¹ Of course this enumeration is not complete, as it
does not include the higher class of crimes which were tried before the
sheriff and the circuit court.
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume III., pages 255, 256,
259, 261, 264, 265, 267, 269, 271, 272‒274. In 1662, the
town council of Aberdeen agreed to give the town’s scourger
thirteen shillings and fourpence of weekly wages; and also
gave him the two little houses under the Gallowgate Port to
dwell in, while he continued scourger.――_Burgh Records_,
Volume IV., page 203.
Theft was not so prevalent in the burghs as it had been at an earlier
period. In Glasgow, on the 23rd of November, 1611, two men were
banished for theft. The magistrates, in August, 1613, passed an act
for preserving the growing crops from thieves; and it was proclaimed by
sound of drum, “that no person be found bringing to this burgh any kind
of stuff, as peas, beans, corn, barley, wheat, or rye, upon horseback
in burdens, after the hour of four in the afternoon during the harvest;
and any one found contravening this, shall be held as a thief and an
oppressor of his neighbour, and shall pay a fine of five pounds and be
placed in the stocks.” It was stated in 1642 that the city was abused
by thieves, who escaped punishment.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Glasgow_, pages 325, 338, 437.
In preceding chapters the attempts of the Government to provide for the
poor and helpless were noticed,¹ and Parliament continued to pass Acts
touching the poor, and the repression of beggars and idle vagabonds.
These classes were numerous in Scotland, and great difficulty was
experienced in dealing with them. By a short Act passed in 1597, the
administration of the poor-law was entrusted to the kirk-sessions; and,
by an Act of 1600, the sessions were to be assisted by one or two of
the presbytery. The common aim of all the early Acts relating to the
poor was to prevent begging, as much as to make provision for the aged,
the helpless, and the infirm. It was therefore provided that strong
beggars and their children――terms which were meant to include all the
able-bodied poor――should be employed at common labour. But it seemed
this arrangement was not effective, as vagrancy still prevailed. An
elaborate act was passed in 1617, entitled “An Act anent the Justices,
for keeping of the King’s peace, and their Constables.” The object of
this statute appears to have been to establish a more complete local
system of police organisation. The various duties of the Justices of
the Peace are minutely described. They were directed to hold a session
quarterly, and to put the law into full execution against all wilful
beggars and vagabonds, against idle men and women, without any trade
or certain occupation, lurking in ale-houses, and reputed as vagabonds,
and against all those persons commonly called Egyptians. They were also
enjoined to punish and to fine those who received or let houses to such
persons, and not to permit innkeepers to receive masterless men, rebels,
or persons guilty of known crimes. They were empowered to impose a
rate on every parish for a weekly portion not exceeding the sum of
five shillings Scots, for the support of poor parishioners, who might
otherwise starve before the trial came on. They were ordered at their
quarter sessions to appoint constables to every parish, two or more
according to its extent; but in the royal burghs the constables were
to be appointed by the magistrates. Anyone named as a constable, who
refused to accept the charge, was to be imprisoned and fined at the
discretion of the justices. The duties of the constables were to arrest
all vagabonds, sturdy beggars, and Egyptians, and to bring them before
the nearest justice of peace. They were further directed to apprehend
all idle persons, whom they knew to have no means of livelihood, or who
would not betake themselves to any honest labour; and they might also
arrest any suspected person, “who sleeps all day and walks all night,”
and convey him to the nearest justice of the peace.²
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
II., pages 238‒39, 266‒68.
² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.
At the same date, an act directly touching the poor was passed,
differing from previous ones, inasmuch as it proposed to educate poor
children and train them to labour. It recommended that the children
and orphans of poor and indigent parents might be taken into families
and brought up and educated, and put to learn honest callings. The
children to be thus treated were to be certified by a magistrate or
the kirk-session in burghs, and by the kirk-session in county parishes,
to be poor and without any means of living. When under the age of
fourteen, they were, with the consent of their parents, if they had
any, and if above that age, with their own consent, to be delivered
to their masters with a testimonial, which was to be a warrant for
receiving them, and for their masters partaking of the benefit of the
act. To encourage people to receive such poor children, it was enacted,
“that they should be bound and restricted to their masters, their
heirs, and assignees, in all kinds of service which should be enjoined
until they be past the age of thirty, and that they should be subject
to their master’s discipline in all sorts of punishments, except
torture and death.”¹ As this act was permissive it had little effect;
but it was objectionable in principle, as it sanctioned a kind of
modified slavery. Still, begging and vagrancy were great social evils
in Scotland, and any means which promised to check them would appear to
have been justifiable to the legislators of those times.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.
In 1649, Parliament took into consideration the great number of poor
and distressed persons throughout the kingdom, exposed to misery,
because there was no general and regular mode of granting them relief,
which was a reproach to their Christian profession. Therefore, it was
enacted that each parish and presbytery should be bound to support
their own native poor. It was enacted that a list of the poor in every
parish should be made up twice a year, on the 1st of December and the
1st of June, at which times parties were requested to intimate to the
parish what sum of money or quantity of victuals they were willing
to give per month, as a charitable contribution for the support of
the poor in every parish. But if the common good and this yearly
contribution proved insufficient to support the poor, then the Act
authorised a rate to be imposed, to make up the requisite amount.
Touching the levying of the rate for the poor, the following occurs in
the Act:――“The same shall be imposed on the heritors and others by the
elders and deacons of every parish respectively, with as much equality
as is possible; wherein they are to have special regard to lay the
greater proportion on those masters that deal rigorously with their
tenants, and thereby impoverish and put them to beggary, and to deal
the more favourably with those masters who endeavour to maintain their
tenants, and deal charitably with them: and in distributing of the alms,
special regard is to be had to the pious, and a distinction to be made
between such and the profane debauchee or drunken sort.” A section of
the Act was directed against beggars and other vagabonds and idlers,
and power was given to any one “to take and apprehend such idle and
sturdy beggars and to employ them, or dispose of them to others to be
employed, in working for their meat and clothes only.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages
389‒391.
In 1661, another Act was passed authorising the establishment of
manufacturing companies; and with the view of reaching the children of
the idle and vagabond class, it was directed that in each parish one
or more persons should be appointed at the expense of the heritors
for instructing poor children, vagabonds, and other idlers, in mixing
wool, spinning worsted, and knitting stockings. The carrying out of
this Act was entrusted to the heritors of each parish, but it does
not appear to have been put into operation. The same year an Act was
passed containing instructions to Justices of Peace, which was mainly
a repetition and extension of the Act of 1617, touching the local
organisation of police and the administration of the law in petty
offences and crimes. The clause concerning the poor enacted that the
Justices should, twice in the year, on the 1st of December and the 1st
of June, make up a roll of the poor in every parish, to include only
those who were unable to work or incapable of gaining their own living.
They were then to appoint two or more overseers in every parish, who
should inquire and ascertain the state and the number of the poor,
the sick, the lame, and the impotent inhabitants, of poor orphans,
and destitute children; to provide dwellings for them, and after
ascertaining what the necessary expense would amount to weekly, to
call for the collections of the parish, or other sums appointed for the
support of the poor, which the overseers were directed to distribute
among the poor people according to their needs.¹ The powers conferred
by this Act on Justices of Peace seems never to have been exercised by
them; but the Act clearly indicated what classes of persons were deemed
entitled to parochial relief, as it excluded all who were in any way
able to gain their own living. Thus the casual or able-bodied poor were
not recognised as legally entitled to any relief, the law treating them
as bound to earn their own living.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
255‒256, 306‒314; Dunlop’s _Law of Scotland Relating to the
Poor_, page 16.
An Act touching beggars and vagabonds was passed in 1663, which, after
referring to the failure of the many former acts on this matter,
proceeds to declare it lawful “for all persons or companies, who have
or may erect manufactories, to seize any vagabonds who shall be found
begging, or masterless and out of service, and have nothing to maintain
themselves; and then to employ them in their works as they shall think
fit; this being done with the advice of the magistrates of the place
where these persons are seized; and commands that the parishes where
such vagabonds and idle persons were born, or in case the place of
their nativity be unknown, then the parishes where they have any
residence, haunt, or frequent resort, for the three years preceding
their apprehension, which, being thus relieved of the burden of
them, to make payment to the persons or companies who may happen to
employ them――the sum of twopence per day for the first year, and one
penny for the next three years; the one-half of this to be paid by
the proprietors of the several parishes, and the other half by the
possessors and the inhabitants dwelling upon the land of each heritor.”
The Act also directed, that public intimation of a meeting should be
made at the parish church, to frame a rate-roll for the support of the
poor in their parish, who should be employed as above stated. “The poor
thus employed shall continue in the service of their employers, under
their direction and correction, not only during the time which the
parishes pay for them, but also for seven years thereafter, receiving
only their meat and clothing.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
485‒486.
At the first glance, this Act appears to offer great facilities to
commercial companies and corporations, as they were empowered to seize,
and compel to work for their benefit, all beggars, vagabonds, and
persons out of employment; and instead of paying for their labour,
being themselves paid for employing such persons. This was carrying the
encouragement of manufactures far enough; and as such companies were
also exempted from all import and export duties, and protected from
home competitors by a previous Act, and to have labour for nothing,
what more could they desire? But work performed under these conditions
could hardly have been successful, and it does not appear that any
attempt was ever made to put the Act into operation.
In September, 1672, it was stated in Parliament that in bypast
times many good laws had been passed for the suppression of beggars,
vagabonds, and other idle persons, but still a numerous brood of such
persons remained, and were daily increasing, living without law or
rule, civil or sacred, and a great burden and a reproach to the kingdom.
Therefore it was enacted that the magistrates of all the burghs in the
kingdom should provide correction-houses for beggars, vagabonds, and
other idle persons, before the month of June, 1673, under the penalty
of five hundred merks quarterly until such houses were provided: and
the sums raised from these penalties were to be applied for building
or purchasing correction-houses. They were directed to be built with
an open close, that the health of the poor people might not be hurt
by keeping them always within doors. At the same time, it was again
declared to be lawful for coal-masters, salt-masters, and manufacturers,
“to seize upon any vagabonds and beggars, wherever they can find them,
and put them to work in their coal-haughs and manufactories.” The
execution of the Act was committed to the Privy Council, with full
powers to enforce it. But in spite of all this, no correction-houses
were erected in conformity with the provisions of the Act, which
remained inoperative.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII.,
pages 89‒91. “There does not exist in Scotland a single
correction-house applied to the purposes set forth in the
act.”――_Dunlop on the Poor-Law of Scotland_, page 20.
In the three years from the beginning of 1692 to 1694, the Privy
Council emitted several proclamations concerning the poor; and
Parliament, in 1695, revived and ratified all the former acts for
maintaining paupers, and for the repression and punishment of beggars,
and ordered them to be put into vigorous execution. Owing to a
succession of bad harvests during the later years of the century,
the distress among the lower classes in Scotland was very great,
the sufferings of the poor, and mendicancy were increased, and the
Government had to endeavour to meet and to mitigate both. In 1698,
Parliament passed another Act touching the poor, ratifying former Acts
for repressing beggars and for maintaining paupers; reciting portions
of the Act of 1617 referring to the employment and upbringing of
poor children; quoting the Act of 1663 which empowered the masters of
manufactories to seize idle vagabonds and set them to work; and also
referring to the Act of 1672, and to the proclamations of the Council,
ordering the erection of correction-houses――all of which were commanded
to be put into vigorous execution in every point. The Privy Council
was empowered to appoint supervisors and inspectors of the poor, to
see that the laws were put into effect: and moreover, it was authorised
to frame and issue regulations (as far as consistent with the standing
laws) to ensure employment and maintenance of the poor, and freeing
the kingdom of vagabonds and idle beggars.¹ For a long time the various
burghs had their own regulations for the relief of the poor. In the
beginning of the year 1639 the magistrates of Glasgow adopted a rule
to the effect “that the sum of six hundred pounds be advanced, and for
the better collection of it, they have ordered, that there should be a
fifth part added to the rate of each parish, and the bailies to collect
it with the stint-money.” About the end of April the same year, the
magistrates “concluded that the poor be kept in their houses for a
quarter to come, and ordered a contribution to be gathered to that
effect, and intimation made through the town by sound of drum, to come
on Wednesday next at the ringing of the bell, with certification to be
poinded for the double of the sum if they failed.”²
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., page 463;
Volume X., pages 177‒178.
² _Burgh Records of Glasgow_, page 400.
The preceding is but a brief account of what was attempted to be done
to provide for the poor, and to relieve the nation of the mass of
vagabondism and vagrancy. Throughout the history of the nation the
difficulty of treating the matter effectively resulted from the fact
that the country was oppressed with a great number of able-bodied
idlers and wandering characters, well able, but determined not to
work; being from circumstances and by evil habits engendered through
centuries of idleness, socially and morally insensible of the duty of
supporting themselves by honest energy and industry. Accordingly the
attempt to introduce the labour test was distinctly and repeatedly made,
and it has continued as a special feature of the Scotch Poor-Law system
down to the present century.
The idle and vagrant population in the later years of the seventeenth
century was enormous. Besides the general causes of the prevalence of
vagrancy in Scotland, which had engaged the attention of Government
from an early period, there were, in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, particular causes which tended greatly to increase
the number of such persons. For a time, at least, the religious
revolution of the sixteenth century augmented the pauper classes; and
in Scotland this was followed by the Civil War in the first half of
the seventeenth century, which again was succeeded by twenty-seven
years of misgovernment and persecution. This latter period especially
was attended with so much confiscation of property, so many ruinous
fines, so many apprehensions, imprisonments, and banishments, so much
interruption of regular industry by military occupation and execution,
and so much waste of the means and goods of the most industrious
classes of the people――all which could not fail to increase their
poverty. Thus it was that, toward the close of the seventeenth century,
in spite of all the legislative enactments, in spite of the influences
of religion, in spite of all the restraints and the inducements to
honest exertion, arising from a slowly advancing civilisation, Scotland
still presented the gloomy spectacle of an enormous mass of vagrancy.
Fletcher estimated the idle and vagabond population of Scotland at
200,000, living without religious, moral, or domestic restraint,
revelling in iniquity, and committing crime with impunity.¹ Though his
statement is probably exaggerated, we know from other sources that the
amount of vagrancy and wretchedness was very great in proportion to the
population, and that several generations later, there was still a large
body of poor in Scotland.
¹ Fletcher’s _Second Discourse on Public Affairs_, published in
1698.
The police arrangements of the kingdom were extremely imperfect; while
in many places the local hereditary powers continued intact with all
their capriciousness and irregularity. Even in the chief towns there
was no regularly organised police force, their place being supplied
by the town-sergeants, and in times of special danger or the alarm of
impending war, a night-watch was appointed.
From the earliest times the Scots had a vivid and deep sense of the
supernatural, and the ideas and dogmas associated with the Reformation
had taken a firm hold on their minds. Their leading ideas of religion,
indeed, had been modified, and a new external form of polity adopted by
the people; yet many of the older notions and customs, interwoven with
their former beliefs and habits, still survived here and there in more
or less vigour. Their ideas of supernatural powers, of evil spirits,
and of witchcraft, were little abated: while they were animated with
an earnestness of conviction and a fervency of feeling, which stir the
deepest cores of the human heart. In an age when beliefs are firmly
held, and ideas and doctrines vividly realised in the mind, when
belief in a definite creed is deemed essential to secure salvation
and everlasting happiness, when people are fully satisfied and quite
certain that they are right, there is an inevitable tendency to
intolerance. This was the condition of the nation in the seventeenth
century; to expect tolerant views of religion was vain.¹
¹ A good example of the religious ideas and feelings of the
time may be seen in the _Diary of Alexander Brodie_, printed
for the Spalding Club, 1863; it embraces the period from 1652
to 1685. Brodie was a Lord of Session, and had held a seat in
parliament.
From the Reformation onwards, the laws against Roman Catholics
were severe, while they were more or less persecuted throughout
the seventeenth century, save during the short reign of James VII.
About the middle of the century, the Quakers, against whom the Scots
manifested much aversion, began to attract attention. During the
government of Cromwell these dissenters began to multiply; they having
been allowed at that time more freedom than was usual in Scotland.
In 1656, they became bold, and held meetings on the Castle-hill
of Edinburgh, which were well attended; about the same time their
doctrines began to spread among the people. On the 30th of April,
1657, the presbytery of Lanark excommunicated eight persons for their
adherence to Quakerism.
In 1665, three Quakers were imprisoned in Edinburgh. In the end of
the year 1663, the town council of Aberdeen ordered that George Keith,
William Neper, and William Stuart, three trafficking Quakers, should
be conveyed out of the town by the officers, and warned that, if they
returned, they would be given in charge to the hangman, and punished
as the magistrates thought fit. The inhabitants of the town were
forbidden to receive such persons into their houses or families, under
the following penalties for each offence: If a burgess of guild, sixty
pounds; if a tradesman, thirty pounds; and if one of the lower classes,
ten pounds; and for the offence of attending any of their meetings, a
penalty of five hundred merks was to be exacted.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_,
Volume IV., page 207.
The magistrates of Aberdeen, in 1670, stated, that in spite of the Acts
of Parliament, of the Privy Council, and the former acts of the town
council, it was found that the Roman Catholics and the Quakers often
held meetings in the city. They had expected that at least some respect
would have been shown to the laws by the citizens; and to manifest
their own earnestness in attempting to reclaim the obstinate and
disobedient, they ratified the former acts against such persons, and
ordered them to be proclaimed. But only a month after, the authorities
again met to consider the fact that, notwithstanding all the acts
emitted against the Quakers’ meetings, they still continued to be
held. It was then resolved that all persons found at the next Quakers’
meeting should be apprehended and imprisoned, and detained till they
became bound to desist from meeting; and lest the female Quakers might
also meet, it was commanded that the doors of the houses where they
usually met should be closed and the keys taken from them, that the
city might be entirely free from their meetings. The hopes of the
council were not realised. In November, 1671, they were informed that
Thomas Milne, a shoemaker, and a professed Quaker, had buried his
child on a Sunday afternoon, in a kail yard, on the east side of the
Gallowgate, which was never before used as a burial-place. This was
an intolerable encroachment upon the privileges of the burgh and the
rights of the citizens, and after deliberation, the magistrates ordered
that the body of the child should be disinterred, and carried to
Footdee Chapel burial-ground, and there re-interred. At the same time,
they resolved to deprive Milne of the rights of a citizen, and ordered
his shop to be shut up, and himself to be removed from the burgh within
one month. This, however, was not carried out, for the following year
his case was again before the council, and he was accused of burying
his child in a kail-yard on the east side of the Gallowgate. He was now
fined twenty pounds for contempt, and sentenced to be imprisoned till
he paid it. The Quakers had enclosed the piece of ground in question
with the intention of using it as a burial-place for themselves, but
the council ordered the walls to be destroyed, and the place to be
used as it was before.¹ The council were, however, unsuccessful, many
Quakers afterwards being interred in the same ground.
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 261, 265, 277,
280, 283, 289.
In November, 1674, the town council of Aberdeen received an order
from the Government to liberate two Quakers, Thomas Dockey and William
Gelley, who had petitioned for liberation. They had been long in prison,
and were set free on condition that if they were again found attending
meetings, they would be punished according to the laws. At a meeting
in 1675, the council had under consideration the increase of Popery
and Quakerism in the city, and since the town council was prohibited
by Acts of Parliament and Council from letting houses to such persons
under penalties, it was resolved that no Catholic or Quaker should
hereafter be admitted a burgess or freeman of the city, and that they
“are and shall be altogether debarred therefrom, excepting always the
sons of burgesses of guild succeeding to their fathers in lands or
in waters held by the town, who are and may be allowed the foresaid
liberty in virtue of their fathers’ right.” In March, 1676, one of
the bailies informed the council that he had discovered that John
Forbes was printing a book for the Quakers, and that he had seized a
part of it from the printer. The council approved of his action, and
resolved to consult the bishop on the matter. The Synod of Aberdeen,
in 1668, adopted a special form of excommunication against the Quakers:
“Forasmuch as A. B. has fallen from the truth of God and the unity of
the Church into pernicious errors and unchristian practices of that
lately risen sect, commonly called Quakers, particularly in slighting
and reviling the public ordinances of God, and being convicted thereof
... I do, in the name of the Great God, and by the authority of His Son,
our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Head of this Church, excommunicate
the said A. B. from the communion of the Church, and reject him from
the privileges and fellowship of the faithful, leaving him bound to
the judgment of the Lord, until he gives sufficient evidence of his
repentance; requiring you, and all Christian people, according to the
commandment of Christ, to avoid the said person, and to have no company
with him, that he may be ashamed, until he be reconciled to the Church,
as you would not incur the displeasure of God and the servants of
the Church, which upon such as transgress therein will be inflicted.”
The Synod, in 1671, also commanded the ministers of the presbytery of
Garioch to use their utmost endeavours to restrain Quakerism.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 289, 292,
294; _Selections from the Register of the Synod of Aberdeen_,
pages 288‒289, 295.
About the year 1671, Robert Barclay of Urie, the author of the
well-known work, _An Apology for the Quakers_, joined this sect. In
the dedication of his work to the King, he stated that the Quakers did
not intermeddle with politics; and even when they were subjected to the
most violent persecution, they boldly stood to their testimony for God,
without creeping into holes or corners, or hiding themselves, as other
dissenters had done. But the authorities continued to treat the Quakers
with great severity. In the beginning of 1672, fifteen of them were
imprisoned at once for holding a meeting at Montrose; and in March,
1673, eleven persons were imprisoned at Kelso for holding a meeting.
Yea, in 1683, the Bishop of Aberdeen reported to the Privy Council that
in this district the Quakers were so bold as to build meeting-houses
for their worship, and schools for their children, instructing them
“in their godless and heretical opinions;” and also providing funds
for supporting these establishments, and in some places adding
burial-grounds for their own special use. The council issued orders
for an inquiry among the leading Quakers concerning the owners of the
ground on which these unnecessary houses and schools had been built.
The result of such an inquiry is obvious. Even after the Revolution,
the Quakers in Edinburgh, in Glasgow, and in other towns, were very
severely treated.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._
Trials and executions of witches frequently occurred in this century,
but it would be tedious to enter into particulars of the trials. Indeed,
many of these are quite unfit for publication, such as the descriptions
of the dealings of some of the witches with the devil, and the horrible
stories which were adduced as evidence.
In 1622, Margaret Wallace, the wife of John Dinning, clothier in
Glasgow, was tried before the Justiciary Court at Edinburgh, for
various acts of witchcraft, and as a common practiser of witchery. It
was stated, as an element against her, that she had been a confederate
of Christian Graham, a notable witch, executed in the preceding year.
It was affirmed that she had been a witch for eight years, and a common
consulter with witches. It was alleged that she had conceived a deadly
hatred of Cuthbert Greig, a cooper and a burgess of Glasgow, because he
had spoken against Christian Graham. “She avowed that she should make
him, within a few days thereafter, unable to work or to win a cake of
bread for himself.” Accordingly he was soon after attacked and troubled
with a strange, unnatural, and unknown disease, by which he was most
cruelly tormented with continual sweating for two weeks, when he was
reduced to extreme weakness. The man’s friends endeavoured to induce
her to interpose for his recovery, but she for a long time refused. At
last she came to his house, and “to manifest her skill for his help,
took him by the wrist with the one hand, and laid the other hand upon
his breast, and, without speaking a word, save only moving her lips,
left him immediately. She returned next morning, took him by the hand
and bade him arise, who at that time, and for fifteen days before, was
unable to move his limbs without help; having urged him to rise, she
took him by the hand, brought him out of his bed, and through the house
into the outer room, where, by her sorcery and charming, he walked up
and down the floor without any support.” After this, it was stated,
that he soon recovered from his illness. She was also associated with
Graham in curing children of sickness by unlawful means, “by devilry,
sorcery, and witchcraft.” The onlaying and offtaking of sickness among
children form a considerable part of the indictment against her, and it
was alleged that in one instance, when she had inflicted sickness on a
child, she allowed it to die. At her trial she was ably defended; but
she was convicted and sentenced to be hanged and burned, and she was
accordingly executed on the Castle-hill of Edinburgh.¹
¹ Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume III., pages 508‒536.
Margaret Wallace’s trial was a very long one; her counsel
contested every point of the indictment, which consisted of
ten charges. The jury was unanimous in finding her guilty
of the general charge――“as a common consulter with witches
these eight or nine years ... and as practising devilry,
incantation, and witchcraft, especially forbidden by the
laws of Almighty God, and the municipal laws of the realm.”
In 1623, Thomas Grieve was tried in Edinburgh for practising a sort of
medical witchcraft. He was accused of having cured a number of persons
of sickness and grievous diseases, by sorcery and witchcraft, by making
signs and crosses, and the uttering of certain unknown words. “He took
sickness off a woman in Fife, and put it upon a cow, which thereafter
ran mad and died.” He also cured a woman “of a great and painful
sickness, by drawing her nine times backwards and forwards by the
leg.” He cured a child of a disease which was rapidly consuming
it, “by straiking back the hair of his head, and wrapping him in an
anointed cloth, and by that means putting him asleep, and thus through
his devilry and witchcraft cured the child.” Another point of his
indictment was, “for curing of William Cousine’s wife by sorcery and
witchcraft, by causing her husband to heat the coulter of his plough,
and to cool the same in water brought from the Holy Well of Hillside,
and thereafter making certain conjurations, crosses, and signs upon
the water, causing her to drink thereof for her health, and thus,
by sorcery, cured her of her sickness.” One point of the indictment
described a different mode of curing sickness. “For curing of James
Mudie, with his wife and children, of the fever, and namely, in curing
of his wife, he caused a great fire to be put on, and a hole to be made
in the north wall of the house, and a live fowl to be put forth thereat,
at three several times, and taken in at the house-door backwards) or
contrary to the course of the sun), and thereafter taking the fowl
and putting it under the sick woman’s arm-pit, and then carrying it to
the fire, where it was held down and burnt alive; and in that devilish
manner, practiced by him, cured her of her sickness.” For this he
received twenty pounds from her husband. When curing diseased cattle,
he put them thrice through a hesp of yarn, and sprinkled the fire with
enchanted water. The hesp of yarn was supposed to possess peculiar
healing virtues. Thomas Grieve put several of his patients three times
through a hesp of yarn, and then threw it into the fire, where it
burned blue, so that his patients were cured. The jury found him guilty
of sorcery and witchcraft, and he was sentenced to be executed on the
Castle-hill of Edinburgh.¹
¹ Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume III., pages 555‒558.
In the appendix to the third volume of Pitcairn’s _Criminal
Trials_, the confessions of three women accused of witchcraft,
in the years 1649 and 1662, are given at length; and they
contain a great mass of the most repulsive details of this
degrading superstition. Of all the records of witchcraft
which I have examined, these are the most vulgar and absurd.
During the reign of Charles I. many witches were tried and executed
in Scotland. When such crude notions prevailed, it was not surprising
that pretence and imposture should come to the surface. So in 1633,
John Balfour in Corshouse had assumed the profession of a discoverer of
witches, “by observing the devil’s mark upon some part of their person,
and thrusting of pins in the same.” The Privy Council record mentions
that, “upon presumption of this knowledge, he goes through the country,
abusing simple and ignorant people, for his own private gains.” It was
therefore resolved to inquire into his pretensions to such knowledge,
and by what means he acquired it.
In the records of the Church courts many notices of witchcraft, and of
persons using charms for curing disease, occur throughout the century.
The kirk-session of Aberdeen, in 1630, summoned James Hall to appear
in the church before God and the congregation, to confess his fault,
and to crave forgiveness for seeking relief of his fever by means
of charming. In 1637, Isabel Malcolm appeared before the presbytery
of Strathbogie, and when accused of charming, she confessed that she
had practised charming for twenty years.¹ The case “was continued in
the hope that she should be found yet more guilty.” These cases of
witchcraft and charming referred to in the ecclesiastical records were
often connected with attempts to cure some severe disease. Associated
with this form of the superstition there was a kindred one called
“neid-fire,” that is, fire produced by the friction of two pieces of
wood; and this was resorted to for curing diseased cattle, and seems
to have descended from prehistoric times.
¹ _Selections from the Records of the Kirk-Session of
Aberdeen_, page 111; _Extracts from the Presbytery Book of
Strathbogie_, page 15. Other notices of charming and sorcery
occur in the records of this presbytery.
The General Assembly of 1649 had under consideration the sin of
charming and witchcraft, and appointed a commission to deal with the
matter. At this time there was a general attack made upon the witches
and charmers throughout the kingdom; and in the summer many of these
poor creatures were tried, condemned, and executed; while the Committee
of Estates issued various commissions for the trial and execution of
the witches. It also passed an Act “against consulters with devils and
familiar spirits, and against witches and consulters with them,” and
ratified all former acts on the subject. These trials were infectious,
as when one witch was brought up, she often accused others, and under
the influence of this mania strange declarations were uttered. In the
month of March, 1650, Janet Couts, a confessed witch then imprisoned
in Peebles, accused eleven women in Lanark of witchcraft. They were
accordingly apprehended, and Cathie, the pricker, before witnesses,
“did prick pins in every one of them, and in several of them without
pain when the pin was put in, as the witnesses can testify;” the women
were therefore detained in prison. Efforts were made to induce them to
confess their guilt, and every exertion was made to collect evidence
against them, but hardly anything could be found, though at length
charges were framed against three of the women. One of them, however,
was liberated upon the statement of Janet Couts herself. The other two
were tried by a Commission, and witnesses on oath minutely examined,
but nothing could be proved against them; and they were dismissed on
giving caution to appear again if required. About this time a man of
the name of John Kincaid acted as a pricker of the witches. A quotation
from his evidence in a trial for witchcraft will give an idea of this
feature of the proceedings. The parties accused, Patrick Watson and
Manie Haliburton, were tried in 1649, and the pricker’s testimony was
to this effect:――“I, John Kincaid, was desired to use my trial of them,
as I have done to others; which, when I had done, I found the devil’s
mark upon the back of the said Patrick Watson, a little under the
point of his left shoulder; and upon the left side of the said Manie
Haliburton’s neck, a little above the left shoulder; whereof they were
not sensible, neither came forth thereof any blood, after I had tried
the same as exactly as ever I did any others. This I testify to be of
verity upon my credit and conscience.” At the same period, there was a
pricker in the north of Scotland, called John Dick. And he, without any
authority, pricked an old man, John Hay, a messenger in Tain, and then
caused him to be sent to Edinburgh and imprisoned. But on a petition
from Hay, accompanied with certificates of character, the Lords of
Council ordered him to be liberated. In this way suspected women were
sometimes subjected to great torture.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VI., pages 447,
464‒465, 492, 359; Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume III.,
page 599.
Thus it was, that under the influence of a malignant and debasing
belief, many innocent persons were insulted, annoyed, injured, and
imprisoned, dragged to trial, and sometimes sentenced to death itself.
During Cromwell’s sway in Scotland, the prosecutions for witchcraft
were much restrained; but after the Restoration, for two or three years,
many were executed. The first session of the Restoration Parliament of
1661 granted many commissions for trying persons accused of witchcraft,
to make up for the lenity of the past period. In illustration of the
notions adduced as facts at these trials, the case of Margaret Bryson
may be taken: she came to words with her husband about selling her
cow, “went in a passion to the door of the house in the night-time,
and there did imprecate that God or the devil might take her from her
husband; and the devil immediately appeared to her, and threatened to
take her body and soul, if she did not enter into his service.” Another
woman covenanted with the devil, and received a sixpence from him;
he said that God bade him give her that, and asked how the minister
was, and other questions. A domestic servant named Scott had much
intercourse with the devil, and by his aid she raised gales of wind
for the destruction of shipping. She often met the devil at night.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
123, 196, 233, 235, 247, 248, 268, 283, 336; _Register of
the Privy Council_. In the records of the Council there are
instances of witches being acquitted, but detained in prison
at the request of magistrates and clergymen, in the hope that
more conclusive evidence would yet be obtained against them.
During the period of the persecution, the zeal against witches flagged,
and the executions for witchcraft decreased. After the Revolution
there was a short outburst against them; but from this time onward,
the belief began to languish, until it has gradually, and with
difficulty in some parts of the country, died out. The last execution
for witchcraft in Scotland occurred in 1722. The crude and most
pernicious notions associated with witchcraft faded with the advance
of education, the diffusion of definite intelligence, and more exacting
modes of testing evidence; and lingered longest in the remote corners
of the country, least affected by the stirring influences of modern
civilisation.
The social morality of the nation in the seventeenth century cannot be
characterised as elevated, though in some directions there was evidence
of improvement. An account of the means adopted for the amelioration
of the morals of the people after the Reformation was given in the
second volume of this work, and an indication of its operation on
the national character throughout the century under review is all
that seems requisite. The discipline exercised by the Presbyterian
Church was rather severe and rigid, though from this standpoint it has
frequently been greatly exaggerated. It should be distinctly remembered
that the presbyterian form of worship and polity was the choice of the
people themselves, that they were fully represented in all the Church
courts, in the sessions, the presbyteries, the synods, and the General
Assemblies; they had a voice in the election of their ministers, and
members of every congregation had votes in the election of the elders
and deacons, who constituted the session. In fact, in the history
of presbyterianism, we meet with evidence at every turn, that the
clergy themselves were much under the influence of the people, who
in various ways wielded a practical and effective control over their
ministers. The Scots submitted to some severe rules and curious forms
of punishment for social and moral offences, which emanated from the
Church courts; but even in these matters resistance was frequent, and
the tyranny of the presbyterians over one another was never of long
duration.
All licentious conduct in the relations of the different sexes was
severely handled. In the beginning of the century the kirk session of
Aberdeen was exercising a strict surveillance over the citizens. John
Mitchel was ordered to be imprisoned in the vault of the church, until
he found caution that he would adhere to his wife, and maintain her.
At the same time, John Davidson, a wright, who had been twice warned
to appear and answer to the complaint of his wife, but had failed to
appear, was for his contumacy ordered by the session to be apprehended,
and put into the steeple until he obeyed their ordinance touching his
adhering to his wife and his future behaviour to her. Christian Burnet
was ordained to stand a certain time in the session-house, “and then
to be led through the town in a cart, with a crown of paper on her
head, and to be publicly banished at the market-cross, because she had
seduced her sister to harlotry with James Sinclair, which was committed
in Christian’s own house; and the reason why she was so punished to be
openly proclaimed by the hangman.” It was quite common for the Session
to interfere on the side of a wife against her husband, or on the
side of a husband against his wife, when either of them had failed in
performing their mutual duties.¹
¹ _Selections from the Records of the Kirk-Session of
Aberdeen_, pages 23, 40‒1.
The kirk session of Aberdeen adopted the following heads of reformation
in 1604, applicable to every family in the city. The whole family
should keep the Sabbath, abstaining from all manual labour, attending
all the sermons in the parish church, and all those who could read
should learn to sing publicly. The heads of families should attend all
the sermons on the week days, and should meet to the catechising as
often as they were called by the church-officer. All families should
humble themselves, privately or openly, twice every day, using divine
worship and frequent prayers. There should be no swearing, no profane
language, no unseemly behaviour in any family; and if a member of the
family transgressed, he was “to be sharply punished with a palmer on
the hand, or a penalty in money, and in case of persistence, it should
be reported to the visitors. The masters of families should diligently
report all persons guilty or suspected of charming, popery, harlotry,
drinking, night-walking, or any other inordinate livers. No house
proprietor in the town should let houses to, or lodge, persons
known or suspected to be excommunicated, or any obstinate Catholic,
Jesuit, priest, or other stranger, till they have first informed the
magistrates and the minister, and received their permission.” Certain
rules were also approved for the guidance of the visitors of the burgh.
The ministers resolved that every Thursday afternoon they should wait
on their people for examining and catechising them, and to continue
this instead of the morning sermons until the people be better
acquainted with the knowledge and the grounds of their salvation.
The visitors were instructed to assemble the families under them for
examination, and to inform the examiners of such faults in the families
as required rebuke and admonition, before making any public complaint
against them.¹
¹ _Selections from the Records of the Kirk-Session of
Aberdeen_, pages 32‒34.
At stated times each presbytery visited the churches within its bounds,
when a strict and searching examination was instituted into the life
and the work of the pastors, as well as their flocks. An example or
two will give an idea of these proceedings, and of the ecclesiastical
economy of the time. In September, 1609, the presbytery of Aberdeen
visited the church of Durris, and after prayer by the bishop, they
proceeded with the matters of the visitation. The elders of the
congregation were present, and Alexander Youngson, the minister, was
removed, and then the elders gave their opinion of his ministry. The
record says that he was well commended both by the eldership and the
parishioners, “praising God for him.” The minister and the elders were
commanded to put their acts into execution against all who contravened
them, and amongst the rest against sleepers in the church during divine
service.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 201‒202.
The presbytery of Strathbogie visited the church of Gartly on the 16th
of July, 1651, and directly proceeded to business. John Chalmer, the
minister of the parish, was called, and gave in a list of the elders
and deacons of the parish, containing eighteen names, and they were all
sworn “to declare boldly what they knew in their minister, his doctrine,
his life, his conversation, and the exercise of his calling among them,
as in the sight of God, before whom they were shortly to answer. The
minister and the other elders being removed, John Innes of Codrain, one
of the elders, was asked whether the minister behaved himself like a
man of his calling in his private conversation: answered, he did lead
an innocent, blameless life, and exemplary in these points, and that
he did not frequent ale-houses or such places, but was diligent in the
restraint of such unlawful exercise when occasion offered. Being asked
whether he had the worship of God set up in his own family, and reading
of the Bible morning and evening: answered, that he had indeed, and
that he was not forgetful of such holy exercise to have his children
also instructed in this. Being asked concerning his doctrine, how he
taught, how often, and if on the week-days: answered, that he did teach
them soundly and convincingly out of the Scriptures, and seasonably,
bringing forth ordinarily abundance of food, conveniently, sensibly,
and articulately delivering the same in such a manner as all might
be able to understand it; and that sometimes, as his text led him,
as he saw the necessity, he did express himself against the errors
of the times, to wit, malignancy and sectarianism; in his sermons
he constantly showed himself against both, and argued for obedience
to the public resolutions of the times. He preached twice on Sunday,
and lectured before sermon in summer, baptised after it, before the
blessing, with such reverence and due respect as stirs up all to be
attentive and to countenance the ordinance. Sometimes he lectured on
the week-days, and sometimes catechised; always had the psalms sung in
the time of divine service; and before the celebration of the Lord’s
Supper, was more punctual and frequent in examining his people than
ordinarily. Moreover, he declared that the minister was exact in
discipline, and used no partiality in punishing delinquents, and was
careful both in admonishing and in censuring when he saw it expedient;
and he visited the sick of his parish, and urged family worship. In a
word, he remembered nothing at present to have the minister admonished
for.” Gordon of Colithy, the next elder called, concurred in everything
that the last one had said, and added: “that their minister had a good
popular gift of preaching, and was every day improving, for he applied
himself to his work more than before, and engaged less in worldly
business.” All the rest of the elders intimated their concurrence, and
also said that he was active in the distribution of the poor’s money
at set times of the year, according to their necessities, and was not
behind anyone in giving them of his own when he saw it needful.
The minister was then recalled, “and gravely encouraged to the work,
with serious entreaty to consider the weight of his calling, and to be
earnest with God for assistance and direction in it.” The elders were
then removed, and the minister reported favourably of their fidelity
to the discipline of the Church. When recalled, they were encouraged
to further diligence, and exhorted to hold family worship in their own
homes.¹
¹ _Extracts from the Presbytery Book of Strathbogie_, pages
200‒202.
In August, 1651, at a similar visitation by the Presbytery of the
Church of Rhynie, Mr. William Watson, the schoolmaster, being removed,
“was called a tippler and idle speaker sometimes; but he was careful
enough of the children, and had taken much pains in educating them.
He was admonished for the time, and exhorted to amend; or otherwise
to be removed.” In 1652, James Reid, having been nominated and elected
by the session of Grange to be schoolmaster there, appeared before the
Presbytery: “and having produced famous testimony of his literature and
Christian conversation under the hands of presbytery of Old Aberdeen,
his election was approved; and for his trial, prescribed to him the
3rd Ode, book 4, of Horace, to expound and explain, grammatically,
logically, and rhetorically.”¹
¹ _Extracts from the Presbytery Book of Strathbogie_, pages
202, 209, 226.
Under the presbyterian polity, the members of the congregation were
generally allowed to choose their own minister, and throughout the
local records of the sessions, the presbyteries, and the synods, there
is much interesting information on this matter. The people were not the
mere slaves of the clergy; they had a pretty strong hold over the
ministers. In 1642, James Horne, in the parish of Kinnor, was summoned
before the presbytery, and accused of being drunk in the time of divine
service. When called before the session for this, he had publicly
railed against the minister and the elders. He told them, “all that he
had said he would say it again, and worse also; and took up a straw and
held it out before the session, and said that he would not give that
straw for all they could say or do to him, and that there were none
there that would cause him to make his repentance for anything that
he had said.” The presbytery ordered him to be summoned again, and if
he failed to appear, then to censure him without any more citation.
In July, 1643, the case of George Mitchell was reported to a meeting
of the presbytery at Gartly; his offence was, that he prevented his
wife from satisfying the discipline of the session, for her visiting
of wells and chapels, and for assaulting the minister and the
elders――especially for upbraiding George Gordon of Colithie: “saying
that he would not be corrected by him, and told him to go home and
correct his cottars; and that he had as much money as himself; and that
he should meet him whenever he pleased, with other abusive speeches,
and went out of the session with threatening and menacing words.” The
presbytery commanded him to pay a fine of twenty pounds, and to make
his public repentance in the church next Sunday. But the same day,
Mitchell gave in a complaint against George Gordon of Colithie for
slandering him; he was told, however, that he must lodge a pledge to
prove it, according to the order. He then answered, “that he saw no
law for him here, and would crave no law; ye may direct what ye please,
but he would not obey, and he should get a better advocate against the
next day.” In 1644, James Middleton of Tullobeg was brought before the
presbytery for speeches which he had uttered in the church, and for
quarrelling with the minister. The witnesses against him deponed that,
“when the minister chided him for his ignorance, he said that he cared
not for him nor any minister in Scotland, and bade the minister come
out to the churchyard and try himself if he pleased. Also, when the
minister said that he should cause him to be put in the stocks, he
replied, that neither he nor the best minister within seven miles durst
do so much.” The presbytery ordered that he should make satisfaction in
sackcloth, and pay ten pounds; but when this was intimated to him, he
answered in the hearing of the minister, “that he should as soon go and
hang himself as obey anything of the kind.” Thomas Dey in the parish
of Glass, was summoned by the presbytery, in October, 1648, because he
had failed to give satisfaction for his absence from church. Instead
of giving satisfaction on the appointed day when he was called by
the minister, he sat in his own seat opposite the pulpit and railed
against the minister, “and with execrable oaths said that he would not
acknowledge them nor their sentence.” The presbytery ordered him to be
again summoned.¹
¹ _Extracts from the Presbytery Book of Strathbogie_, pages 34,
37‒38, 46, 93.
These are only a few instances out of many of a similar character,
which tend to show that the clergy had not always submissive people to
deal with; indeed, they often encountered extreme opposition in their
efforts to reform the people to regular habits of life. Even during the
heat of the Covenanting period, when the Presbyterians attained their
greatest height of power, there was no lack of opposition to many of
their proceedings.
In the last volume it was stated that the reformed clergy and the
authorities continuously exerted themselves to secure the observance of
Sunday, but rooted customs and habits are persistent, and it requires
a long time to change or to direct them into other channels. It will
be remembered that, prior to the Reformation, it was the universal
custom to hold markets on Sunday, military musters of the people, and
to engage in many other affairs not at all connected with religion.
Accordingly, in spite of all the laws enacted after the Reformation,
all the efforts of the local magistrates, and all the discipline of
the Church, the complete observance of Sunday was not attained till
well through the seventeenth century. In the Acts of Parliament, the
proceedings of the Privy Council, the records of the burghs, and in
the records of all the Church courts, from the sessions to the General
Assemblies, there is a great mass of evidence of the vehemence of the
struggle for the observance of Sunday; and without entering into long
details, I will give illustrative and expository instances to complete
this part of social history.
The magistrates of Aberdeen, in 1608, asserted that one of the manifold
sins of the city was the breaking of Sunday by openly fishing salmon,
though this had been already four times condemned, “the possessors of
the waters preferring, as it appears, their own greed and avarice to
the glory and the worship of God, the manifest contempt of His law, and
the slander of the gospel.” Some promised to desist from this practice
of fishing on Sunday if their neighbours would do so, but others
refused to abandon it. The following year the session ordered visitors
to be appointed at the four chief outlets of the city, to watch those
who went out of the town on Sunday. The town’s piper was forbidden
to play his pipes on Sunday, under the penalty of losing his office,
and banishment from the city; while William Stewart, a fiddler, was
admonished not to play on Sunday. The tailors, the shoemakers, and the
bakers, were still in the habit of working in their booths every Sunday
morning for three or four hours, “to the dishonour of God and the
slander of the gospel,” and these parties were henceforth prohibited
from working at their trade on Sunday, under the penalty of ten
shillings. In 1647 the Town Council passed an act for enforcing a more
strict observance of Sunday. Many of the citizens were in the habit of
going to the Old Town and to other places, before and in the time of
preaching, quite regardless of the laudable acts of the kirk-session
which forbade such wandering upon Sunday; therefore, the council not
only ratified these acts in all points, but also anew ordained that
all should attend the parish church on Sunday in the forenoon and in
the afternoon, and hear the Word of God. All who disobeyed the act were
to be fined forty shillings, one-half of which was to be applied to
maintain the fabric of the church, and the other half to be given to
the poor. The council recommended the kirk-session to appoint captains
for taking the names of all who were found going to the Old Town fields
or walking about; and this was ordered to be intimated to the people
from the pulpit.¹
¹ _Selections from the Kirk-Session of Aberdeen_, pages 64‒68;
_Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., page 76.
During the Covenanting period, Parliament passed several acts for
securing a more complete observance of Sunday. After the custom of
holding markets on Sunday was abolished, it was found when they were
held on Mondays and Saturdays that they encroached upon the observance
of the Sabbath. A series of acts was therefore passed prohibiting
markets on Saturdays and Mondays, and everything was done to obtain
an entire cessation of all work and business on Sunday. But from
the frequent re-enactment of the acts prohibiting work on Sunday, it
may be inferred that they were often disregarded. According to the
acts of Parliament, the labour most persistently engaged in on Sunday
was the working of mills, salt-works, and salmon fishing, which were
emphatically specified in all the acts prohibiting labour on Sunday.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., pages 300,
301, 302, 473; Volume VI., pages 127, 128, 215, 370.
It was announced from the pulpits of Aberdeen in 1651, that no
inhabitant of the town should walk about the fields or go in companies
to the Castle Hill on Sunday. The same year, Jane Barclay was sharply
rebuked and admonished for going to the Old Town between the sermons,
and several other persons were called before the session for travelling
on Sunday.¹
¹ _Selections from the Records of the Kirk-Session of
Aberdeen_, pages 115, 136, 137.
The subject of Sunday-breaking by salmon fishing in the Dee and the
Don came before the synod of Aberdeen in 1657, and the discipline of
the Church was ordered to be enforced against all who engaged in such
profanation, and the assistance of the magistrates was asked to curb
the offenders. In 1663, the synod ordered that the Lord’s Day should
be strictly kept, and notice taken of those who travelled on Sunday,
who were to be censured according to the degree of their offence. As
late as 1680, it was stated that the Lord’s Day was everywhere profaned
by drinking, travelling to markets, engaging of servants, and making
bargains and contracts.¹
¹ _Selections from the Register of the Synod of Aberdeen_,
pages 234, 271, 272, 285, 332. There is some curious
information on the attempts to secure the observance of
Sunday in Dr. Davidson’s _History of Inverurie and the
Earldom of the Garioch_. This work contains much valuable
matter of a varied character, and to those with a taste for
local lore it is exceedingly interesting.
But, by the combined application of the means above indicated,
and chiefly by the constant exertion of the Church, ultimately an
observance of the Sabbath was attained in Scotland, unmatched in any
other nation.
Besides the devotion of Sunday to religious exercises, there were
daily morning and evening prayers in the churches of the burghs, and
preaching on two or three days of the week, and this was continued
until near the end of the seventeenth century. In the records of the
burghs, and of the Church courts, there are many acts, rules, and
notices touching the week-day meeting and preaching. In Edinburgh, in
1650, there was a lecture every afternoon, and the ministers of the
city performing the duty by turns. The town council of Aberdeen, in
1694, appointed the week-day sermons to be held in the new church; but
the next year, the council found that the morning and evening prayers
were not frequented as in former times, and therefore they were to
be discontinued.¹ As the energy of the people became more directed to
trade and industry, the preaching and the religious exercises in the
churches on week-days gradually fell into disuse, though in some towns
the practice has lingered on to the present time.
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 315, 317.
But the religious feeling of the age had yet another channel in which
it occasionally sought emphatic expression, under the form of the
national fast or humiliation. The General Assembly appointed the
national fasts, and gave the reasons why they should be held. One was
appointed in 1615, to begin on the last Sunday of March, and to be
continued to the first Sunday of April; and to enhance the solemnity
of the fast, it was enjoined that there should be public preaching in
all the burghs of the kingdom every day in the week, preceding the two
Sundays. “For many weighty causes moving the Church thereto, and among
the rest, by reason of the great number of Jesuits and seminary priests
come into this Island, and spread through all the corners thereof,
pressing by all possible means to subvert the true religion established
in this Isle.” In 1644, a fast was proclaimed throughout the kingdom,
chiefly on account of backsliding from the Covenant, the prevalence of
vice, and to entreat the favour of God for the parliamentary armies;
and also to pray that the King’s heart might be filled with the spirit
of reformation. A public fast was appointed to be held on the last
Sunday of August, 1649, for the following reasons:――“The sins of
the land, especially the sin of witchcraft; and the interruption of
the Lord’s work in England and in Ireland; to entreat the Lord to
deliver our King from the hands of malignants, and incline his heart
to give satisfaction in those things that concern religion; to pray for
steadfastness to this land, and especially to those in charge of public
affairs; to entreat the Lord to carry on his work in England and in
Ireland against all opposers of the same; and lastly, for a blessing
upon the harvest.”¹ In 1696, the Assembly appointed a national fast
to be observed on the 21st of January, to deprecate the wrath of God,
“which is very visible against the land, in the judgments of great
sickness and mortality in most parts of the kingdom, as also of growing
dearth and famine threatened, with the imminent hazard of an invasion
from cruel enemies abroad――all the just deservings and effects of
our continuing and abounding sins, and of our great security and
impenitence under them.”²
¹ _Acts of the General Assembly_; _Selections from the Records
of the Kirk-Session of Aberdeen_, page 82.
² _Acts of the General Assembly._
Besides the national fasts appointed by the Assembly, the local
authorities occasionally ordered fasts to be observed within the limits
of their jurisdiction. Thus the magistrates of Aberdeen commanded
fasts to be observed in the city in January, 1658, and in 1669; and
on the latter occasion the council, “considering the prevalence of
all sorts of sins within this burgh, such as drunkenness, uncleanness,
cursing, and the like, to the effect that the just judgments of God
may be averted, finds it expedient to indict a fast, to be kept by
the inhabitants of this burgh, and recommends to the magistrates to
intimate this to the ministers.” The Synod of Aberdeen ordered a fast
to be observed on the 28th of November, 1651, for the sins of the
land.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 170, 177, 253.
Drunkenness seems to have been rather prevalent. The light wines of
France were the common drink among the gentry, and ale among the people,
but stronger spirits were often used. The kirk-sessions frequently
took cognisance of cases of drunkenness. In the beginning of the year
1604, the Kirk-Session of Aberdeen had before them Robert Cuthberd,
a shoemaker, and Thomas Hay, a tinkler, and they were seriously
admonished to abstain from their excessive drinking and night-walking;
and that they should never entice Alexander Smith, shoemaker, to drink,
or draw him out for that purpose in the night, under the penalty of
being punished as night-walkers and drunkards. The Session in 1606
cited Alexander Mortimer and John Leslie for having abused themselves
by inordinate drinking of aquavitæ (whisky), and bringing slander on
this congregation by their drunkenness. In 1611, the Privy Council
renewed the former acts against night-walkers in Edinburgh, and idle
and debauched persons who went about the streets at night, indulging
their evil passions and frequently committing serious crimes. Direct
reference was made to several persons of this character, some of them
strangers, who wallowed in all kinds of excesses, riot and drunkenness,
committing enormities upon peaceable citizens, and cruelly attacking
the officers appointed to watch the city, and unmercifully slaying
them. The Council ordered that in future no one should remain on the
streets after ten at night. In 1619, Robert Hunter and James Hay were
admonished by the Kirk-Session of Aberdeen, to behave themselves better,
and to desist from their drinking. The town council of Aberdeen, in
1625, passed an act, “that no person should at any public or private
meeting presume to compel his neighbour to drink more wine or beer than
what he pleased, under the penalty of forty pounds.”¹
¹ _Selections from the Records of the Kirk-Session of
Aberdeen_, pages 29, 50, 78; _Register of the Privy Council_;
_Burgh Records of Aberdeen_.
It appears from the financial accounts of the burghs that drink was
pretty freely used on all public occasions; and in the accounts for
work done to the corporations, the sums given as drink-money are
frequently stated. For half-a-day’s work at the bridge of Tweed, a
workman was paid six shillings and sixpence Scots, and one shilling
and eightpence for drink. In the burgh of Peebles, Stephen Grieve and
his son were employed a day and a half erecting the gallows on which
the witches were to be hung, and they received forty shillings, and
eightpence for drink.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Peebles_, pages 50, 423, 224.
After the Restoration, among a portion of the upper classes,
drunkenness greatly increased. Excessive drinking was indulged in
without shame, and some men even gloried in it. Sometimes a company
of these gentlemen fell a carousing, and encouraged each other by
giving healths, and when they had exhausted their resources in drinking
healths, “not knowing whose to give next, one of them gives the devil’s
health, and the rest pledges him.”¹
¹ Robert Law’s _Memorials_, page 43.
Then, as now, habits of drinking and swearing were often associated,
and in many of the Acts of Parliament both offences were classed
together, and received the same kind of punishment. Besides the Acts of
Council, Parliament passed a series of acts from 1617 to 1696, for the
punishment of ♦drunkards; and in 1644, an act was passed which imposed
penalties upon the keepers of inns and ale-houses, if they sold drink
after ten at night or on Sunday. The act of 1617 asserted that the
detestable vice of drunkenness was daily increasing. It enacted that
public-houses should be closed at ten at night, and proposed a scale
of punishments for drunkards, consisting of fines, the stocks, and
imprisonment. For the execution of the act, special power was given to
the sheriffs, stewards, magistrates of burghs, and to the kirk-session
of every parish; and they were directed to meet and try drunkards,
and do everything requisite for the execution of the law. Innkeepers
who induced parties to become drunk were to be punished. The part
of the act of 1617 touching the punishment of offenders is to this
effect:――“All persons lawfully convicted of drunkenness, or of haunting
taverns or ale-houses after ten at night, or at any time of the day,
except when travelling or for ordinary refreshments, shall for the
first fault pay three pounds, and in case of inability to pay, to
be put in the stocks or into the jail for six hours; for the second
offence to pay five pounds, or be kept in the stocks or the jail for
twelve hours; for the third fault ten pounds, or twenty-four hours
in the stocks or the jail; and afterwards if they transgress, to be
imprisoned till they find caution for their good behaviour in time
coming.” In an act passed in 1645, “against swearing, drinking, and
mocking of piety,” the scale of punishments was stated thus: “Whosoever
shall swear or blaspheme, and whosoever shall drink excessively,
especially under the name of healths ... who shall be found guilty of
all or any one or other of the foresaid vices, by any kirk judicatories
to which they are subject, having been once already censured by
these courts for the same vice, shall after the second conviction be
censurable in the following manner: Each nobleman shall pay twenty
pounds for the second conviction, and for each one thereafter; each
baron twenty merks; each gentleman, proprietor, and burgess, ten merks;
each yeoman forty shillings, each servant twenty shillings, and each
minister the fifth part of his year’s stipend. And that wives who
offend against this act shall be punished according to the rank of
their husbands, and the husbands shall be liable for the payment of
their wives’ fines.” The money raised by these fines was to be applied
to pious uses in the parishes where the offenders resided. The act
against swearing and excessive drinking of 1661 repeats the scale
of fines of the act of 1645, with this addition, “and if any of the
parties offending be unable to pay the foresaid penalties, then to be
exemplarily punished in their bodies according to the degree of their
faults.”¹
♦ “drunkarks” replaced with “drunkards”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.; Volume
VI., page 128; Volume VII., pages 195, 262.
There was a constant struggle against immorality and drunkenness; and
in 1696, parliament passed an act ratifying and renewing “all former
laws and acts of parliament made against drunkenness, Sabbath-breaking,
swearing, fornication, uncleanness, mocking and reproaching religion
and the exercise thereof, and generally all laws made against
profaneness, and ordained the same to be put in full and vigorous
execution. And further, considering how much profanity and immorality
do abound over all the nation, to the dishonour of God, the reproach
of religion, and the discredit and weakening of the Government,
notwithstanding the many good laws that have been made against
profaneness,” therefore it was anew enacted that all those in authority
in every parish in the ♦kingdom should be obliged and required to put
these acts against profanity and immorality into full and due execution.
This act declared “that no pretence of different persuasion in matters
of religion shall exempt the offender from being censured and punished
for such immoralities as by the laws of this kingdom are declared to
be punishable by fining.” The Estates also recommended to the Lords of
the Privy Council to take such further steps as seemed requisite “for
restraining and punishing of all sorts of profanity and wickedness.”¹
♦ “kingdon” replaced with “kingdom”
¹ _Ibid._, Volume X. pages 65‒66.
Those at the head of the Government may not always have shown a good
example, but the magistrates of the burghs and the kirk-sessions
struggled manfully against drunkenness and immorality. In December,
1648, the town council of Aberdeen had before them a request from the
ministers, “desiring them to take notice of all the country people
found in the town, either drunk, swearing, or otherwise debauching
themselves, and notify their names to the ministers, who were then to
send such names to their own ministers, so that these offenders may be
punished as their own session thinks fit.” The council enacted “that
all persons, of whatever rank, found drunk, swearing, or debauching
themselves, should be ♦apprehended, imprisoned, and punished, at the
discretion of the magistrates.” In 1655, the council enacted that no
mariners, masons, stablers, slaters, millers, or any unfree person,
should presume to brew, vent, or sell ale, strong waters, or aquavitæ,
without a special licence from the council. The synod of Aberdeen,
in 1667, commanded all the ministers in the diocese to be careful
to execute the censures of the Church on drunkards, swearers, and
Sabbath-breakers. But in 1680, the synod had to announce that,
notwithstanding the glorious gospel vouchsafed to the people, with
plenty of temporal benefits, “iniquity does exceedingly abound in this
diocese, and part of the Church and kingdom, and especially the sins
of drunkenness, whoredom, and horrid cursing and swearing.”¹ The habit
of swearing and using imprecations had descended from pre-Reformation
times, and was extremely difficult to eradicate.
♦ “appreheneed” replaced with “apprehended”
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 93, 156;
_Selections from the Register of the Synod of Aberdeen_,
pages 284, 332.
Under the authority of the acts of parliament, the town councils
throughout the kingdom framed rules from time to time for restraining
this heinous offence. In 1642, the town council of Aberdeen stated
that the sin of swearing was increasing; and for curbing and punishing
all offenders of this character, they resolved “to ratify and approve
of all the acts passed by their predecessors in bygone times, and
particularly an act of the 7th of December, 1605, and anew ordained
that every master and mistress of a family in the burgh, as often as
any of them happens to be found banning and swearing any sort of oath,
shall pay eighteenpence to the poor, and each servant fourpence, which
shall be presently exacted of them by the master of the family, and
a box to be kept in every family for this purpose. For restraining
of children from swearing, there should be palmers in every family
wherewith to punish the children on their hands as often as they were
found swearing; and those of the poorer classes thus offending, as
beggars, scolds, and vagabonds, having no means to pay the penalties,
to be put in the stocks, and to stand there for three hours or longer,
according to the degree of their fault.” As swearing was most common
on the streets, at the burn-head, the flesh, the fish, the malt, and
the meal markets, and at the cross, where coals, fruit, and such things
were sold, the magistrates appointed captors and searchers to note
all persons found swearing at any of the above places. The names of
the captors and their several districts were minutely stated, and they
were empowered “to execute the penalties above specified; and if anyone
resisted and refused to give obedience, then the captors were to note
down their names and hand them to the magistrates, that they may take
steps for punishing and censuring the offenders according to the tenor
of this act.” These captors were also to visit families once a month,
to see if the act was obeyed and if any reformation was effected,
and to report those who had failed to obey to the kirk-session, to
be treated as they should think fit. Moreover, the captors had to
report if parents were careful in training their children, or if they
neglected them; and if there were idle and wicked rogues living without
all order and persisting in their evil ways, these were to be brought
to the correction-house, and there under the eyes of the captors
themselves, properly punished.¹ In 1678, the council commanded that all
persons found swearing on the streets, or in any other public place,
should be sharply punished.
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume III., pages 279‒281.
The relation of the different sexes was still somewhat lax; and
complaints were occasionally made of men and women living together
as married persons, though not lawfully married. Sometimes parties
who could not obtain marriage by the law and constitution of Scotland,
went to neighbouring countries and got themselves married; but in 1641,
Parliament prohibited this under severe penalties. An act was passed
in 1661 against clandestine and unlawful marriages, which also imposed
severe fines and penalties on the parties who entered into such unions,
and enacted “that the celebrators of such marriages shall be banished
from the kingdom, never to return thereto, under the pain of death.”
In 1695, an act was passed against clandestine and irregular marriages,
and another in 1698. The latter act enjoined for the better suppression
of these marriages, “that over and above the penalties contained in
the acts of 1661 and 1695 against clandestine and irregular marriages,
the celebrator of them shall be liable to be summarily seized and
imprisoned by any ordinary magistrate or justice of the peace, and
further punished by the Lords of his Majesty’s Privy Council, not only
by perpetual banishment, but also by such pecuniary or corporal pains
as the council shall think fit to inflict.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., page 388;
Volume VII., page 231; Volume X., page 149.
The church courts had frequently to deal with irregular and scandalous
marriages. All incestuous connections were severely treated both by
the civil law and by the Church. In 1668, the synod of Aberdeen passed
an act for restraining scandals at marriages. “It being represented
to the bishop and the synod that there had been frequently disorderly
marriages contrary to the authorised custom of the Church, to the great
offence of God and scandal of Christian people; therefore, for curbing
and restraining these enormities, the bishop and synod have ordained,
that ministers take diligent notice in their respective parishes of
such scandalous persons, and that whoever shall be convicted of having
violently carried away unmarried women, shall be censured to remove
the scandal in the same manner as it is enjoined for adulterers, even
should he afterwards extort the woman’s consent to marry him; and if
it be found that the woman carried away has been privy to the same, and
in collusion with the man, without the knowledge of her parents, then
the woman also should be censured. And further, it is enacted that all
those found guilty of accession to such scandalous violence in covering
and assisting any man in carrying away a woman, shall also be enjoined
to remove the scandal of his conduct in sackcloth, ... and the persons
so censured, in case of disobedience, to be excommunicated.” It was
also ordered that persons cohabiting together and pretending that they
were married by popish priests, should be proceeded against until they
made public acknowledgement of their sin of disorderly marriage, in
the face of the congregation. “Also, all persons cohabiting together
as married, who allege that they have privately plighted their faith to
one another; but if it be found that there was no intimation of their
purpose to the congregation, nor the marriage solemnised nor blessed
by any minister, then all that have so cohabited shall be censured as
fornicators, yea, and until they separate from each other, and having
removed the scandal, be lawfully married according to the order of
the Church. In like manner, when two persons come before a minister
in private or in public, declaring that they take each other as
husband and wife, and do forthwith cohabit together, and will not wait
the public intimation of their purpose to the congregation, or its
solemnisation by the minister, according to the order of the Church,
it is ordained that those guilty of this, for the time that is bygone,
shall make their public appearance in their own parish church, and
there, in the presence of the minister and of the congregation, confess
and crave God’s forgiveness of their sin, and thereupon receive the
orderly blessing to their marriage from the minister.”¹
¹ _Selections from the Register of the ♦Synod of Aberdeen_,
pages 290‒292. Some of the particulars of irregular marriage
indicated in the above quotation are exactly similar to
those which the reformed clergy had to deal with after the
Reformation in the sixteenth century, which I noticed in the
second volume, pages 261‒264.
♦ “Sgnod” replaced with “Synod”
Some of the old customs associated with marriages and burials still
survived. The custom of casting knots at marriages was occasionally
practised, but then punishable as a form of enchantment. In 1666,
James Smith was cited by the minister of Cluny, before the Synod of
Aberdeen, “for using enchantment by casting of the knots at marriages,
for unlawful ends, and the Synod ordained that he should give evidence
of his repentance in sackcloth.”¹ It had been long customary among the
people when a young couple were married, to receive a mixed company and
hold a sort of ball, while each person contributed something towards
the expense, a part of which was usually left over for the benefit
of the newly-wedded pair. This custom soon drew the attention of
the reformed clergy, and the kirk-sessions endeavoured to suppress
these promiscuous merry-makings, called “penny bridals;” and in 1581,
Parliament passed an act limiting the expense of marriages and banquets,
and similar acts were passed in 1621 and 1681. The General Assembly
passed an act against penny bridals, which enjoined the presbyteries
to use severe means to restrict them. In the Burgh Records of Aberdeen,
references to the act on superfluous banqueting at baptisms and other
meetings frequently occur, and in 1633, the Town Council made the
following additions to this act: “That none be found dancing through
the town at marriage feasts; nor any person invited to night-wakes
hereafter, but a few of the nearest neighbours of the deceased, ... and
ordains this to be proclaimed from the pulpits of both the churches of
the burgh.” They repeated this act, “in all points,” in 1636, again in
1661, and once more in 1671, with this addition, “that no inhabitant of
the burgh, of whatever rank, shall invite more persons to the baptism
of their children than four men and four women,” under the penalty
of a fine for each person above that number. The Act of Parliament of
1681, for restraining the expense of marriages, baptisms, and burials,
enacted, “that at marriages, besides the married persons, their parents,
children, brothers, and sisters, and the family wherein they live,
there shall not be present at any marriage above four friends on
either side, with their ordinary domestic servants. And that neither
bridegroom nor bride, nor their parents or relations, shall make above
two changes of raiment at that time or upon that occasion,” under
the penalty of forfeiting the fourth part of their annual income or a
fourth part of their goods. The number of the company at baptisms was
limited the same as at marriages. The number of persons permitted to
attend the funerals of the different ranks are also stated in the act.¹
¹ _Selections from the Register of the Synod of Aberdeen_, page
280.
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume III., pages 54, 105;
Volume IV., pages 213, 274; also, _Burgh Records of Glasgow_;
and _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., page
350.
It seems that at penny marriages fights and other excesses sometimes
occurred, and that intoxicating spirits were freely indulged in. In
some parts of the country the lairds bound their tenants to hold all
their marriages at an alehouse.¹
¹ Dr. Davidson says, “Alehouses were largely established by
the lairds in order to the sell and consumption of the bear
crops in malt, and their tenants were required to make all
their weddings penny bridals, and held at an alehouse; where
the innkeeper supplied the eatables on the occasion gratis,
finding his profit in the ale consumed during the festivities,
which were prolonged for days.”――_Inverurie, and the Earldom
of the Garioch_, pages 319, 340.
In 1643 the Town Council of Aberdeen resolved to correct the disorders
connected with the dead, as ringing of bells and other superstitious
rites at funerals. They henceforth “discharged the tolling of bells
at funerals, and laying of the bier and mortcloth on the graves of
deceased persons; and prohibited all the inhabitants from inviting the
master doctor of the grammar school to sing or read at likewakes, under
a penalty of forty pounds.”¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., page 6.
The Government deemed it a duty to regulate the dress of the people,
and to prescribe the exact habit which each rank should wear. In 1621
Parliament enacted that no one should wear gold or silver lacing on
their clothes, nor any velvet, satin, or silks, save the nobles. The
King’s councillors, lords of Parliament, lords of session, and barons
with a yearly rent of six thousand merks of silver, were allowed to
appear in silk and satin apparel; while the provosts and magistrates
of the principal burghs, and the rectors of the universities, were to
be permitted to wear fine dresses under the condition “that they should
have no embroidering or lace or passements upon them, save only a plain
welting lace of silk upon the seams and borders of their garments,
with belts and hatbands embroidered with silk; and that their wives,
their eldest sons, their unmarried daughters, and the children of all
noblemen, should wear their dress in the aforesaid manner only, under
a penalty of a thousand pounds.” All other persons were prohibited from
having pearling or ribboning upon their ruffles, shirts, napkins, and
socks; if the people still resolved to have pearling upon their clothes,
it should be produced in Scotland. “Further, that no one should wear
upon their heads buskings or feathers; that no other persons except
those privileged should wear any pearls or precious stones, under the
penalty of a thousand merks. It was also stated that no persons should
wear upon their bodies tiffanies, under the penalty of a hundred pounds;
that no servants should wear any clothing save that made of cloth,
fustians, canvas, or stuffs produced in the kingdom; they should have
no silk upon their clothes except the buttons and button-holes, and
silk garters without pearling or roses, under the penalty of a hundred
merks. But it was declared to be lawful for them to wear their masters’
old clothes. It was also declared that heralds, trumpeters, and
minstrels, were exempted from the act. It was further enacted that no
one save the privileged classes should wear damask napery brought from
abroad, under a penalty of a hundred pounds. It was likewise statuted
that no more mourning weeds should be made at the death of an Earl or
a Countess than twenty-four at the utmost, and for a lord of Parliament
or his wife not more than sixteen, and for all other privileged persons,
twelve; and that none but these should have any honours carried, and
that no mourning weeds should be given to the heralds, trumpeters,
or sachs, except by the Earls, the lords of parliament and their
wives, and that the number of sachs should be exactly according to the
mourning weeds, under the penalty of a thousand pounds. It was enacted
that the fashion of clothes then in use should not be changed by man
nor woman, under the penalty of forfeiting the clothes and a hundred
pounds to be paid by the wearers thereof, and as much by the makers of
the clothes. And also that no castor hats should be used or worn but by
the privileged classes, under the penalty of a hundred pounds. That the
husbandmen and the labourers of the land should wear no clothing but
grey, white, blue, and serge black cloth, made in Scotland, and that
their wives and their children should wear the same, under the penalty
of forty pounds. Finally, it was enjoined that after the publication of
this act, no clothes should be made but according to the manner and the
style before expressed, and that none of the former discharged clothing
be worn by anyone after Martinmas, 1623, under the respective penalties
above stated.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.
This act, with some alterations, was re-enacted in 1672, and again in
the following year, with the removal of some of the former restrictions
touching the wearing of white lace or pearling made of thread, and
some other explanations. But as late as 1696, a proposal was mooted
in Parliament for a constant fashion of clothes for men, and another
for women. Two years after, Parliament had under consideration an act
for restraining the expense of apparel; and a debate ensued on the
point whether the prohibition of gold and silver on clothes should be
extended to house furniture, and it was carried that it should. It was
then put to a division, whether gold and silver lace manufactured in
Scotland should be allowed on clothes, and the majority voted against
it; and thereupon, an act was passed prohibiting the wearing of gold
and silver lace, and also the importation of the same, under the
penalties of burning of the articles on which it was found, and five
hundred merks of a fine imposed upon the person wearing it.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume VIII., pages 71‒72, 212; Volume X., Appendix,
page 6, pages 142, 144, 150.
The dress of the common people was made of a plain cloth, called hodden
gray, spun at home and manufactured from the undyed wool. In summer
the women usually went barefooted, and the children generally ran about
without shoes or stockings in summer.
In the preceding periods, the defective sanitary condition of the
towns was noticed, and with it the consequent and frequent recurrence
of pestilence. One of the first requisites of a town where a large
population is located within a limited space, is a constant and
sufficient supply of clean water; but in the seventeenth century,
even the capital of Scotland had not a constant supply of pure water.
It is recorded in 1654, that owing to the drought of the summer the
wells ran dry, and the inhabitants of Edinburgh could not get enough
of water for cooking their food, and some of them had to go a mile and
more before they could obtain clean water. In Glasgow, notices of the
public wells occur in the records of the city from the latter half of
the sixteenth century onward to the present time. The magistrates, in
1610, authorised a well to be built upon the side of the Highgate, “so
that it be built five quarter height above the ground, with asler work
for the safety of the bairns and other persons ... and the well to be
common to all men of this town.” In 1630, they ordered that the new
well in the Trongate should be slated in the best form, and two pumps
attached to it, and that it should be cleaned as soon as possible; and
in 1638, some improvements were made on the common wells.¹
¹ Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of Scotland_, Volume II., page
226; _Burgh Records of Glasgow_, pages 312, 390. In 1575, the
provost and council of Glasgow ordered that “the new common
wells in the Gallowgate shall be opened daily in the morning
and locked at even, and appointed a man to attend thereto,
and to keep the well and the key thereof, and to get forty
shillings of fee for his trouble during the year.”――_Burgh
Records of Glasgow_, page 39.
In 1632, the town council of Aberdeen had under their consideration
the inconvenience which the people suffered for want of clean and pure
water. As the most of the water which they were then using, “coming
only from the loch, is filthy, defiled, and corrupted, not only by the
gutters daily running in the burn, but also by listers, and the washing
of clothes, and pollution of the water in several parts, with other
sorts of uncleanness,” they therefore resolved that fountains should be
erected as soon as possible to supply the town with pure water. Some of
the crafts objected to the payment of their share of the requisite tax;
but upon the petition of the magistrates, the Privy Council empowered
the town council to impose a tax to defray the expense of the new
fountains, and to enforce its payment. Yet these efforts to supply
the citizens with pure water were only partly successful. In 1683,
the deficiency of clean water was again before the magistrates, and it
was stated that the bringing in of water and of erecting fountains had
often been attempted, but had not as yet been effectively accomplished.
The dean of guild was requested to inquire among the inhabitants what
they would be willing to contribute to forward this work, and to report;
but more than twenty years elapsed ere the city was supplied with pure
water. The council granted authority to purchase lead for the pipes
and the cisterns required for bringing in the water from Carden well;
and James Mackie and John Burnet were engaged to build the first fount
at the spring of Carden’s well, for the sum of ten pounds sterling.
The treasurer was allowed to borrow money for bringing in this water;
and it seems that the work was completed in 1708, as the council then
resolved, on account of the many obstacles which Joseph Foster, plumber,
had encountered in bringing in the water, to give him a gratuity of two
hundred pounds Scots, with thirty-six shillings of drink money to his
servants.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume III., pages 50, 51, 55,
58, 303, 333‒334; Volume IV.
As regards cleanness, the state of the towns was most wretched. In
March, 1619, the Privy Council communicated with the magistrates
of Edinburgh touching the cleaning of the streets in the following
terms:――“The city is now become so filthy and unclean, the streets,
the vennels, the wynds, and the closes thereof, so overlaid and covered
with middings, and with the filth of man and of beast, as that the
noble councillors, servants, and others of His Majesty’s subjects, who
are lodged in the burgh, cannot have clean or clear passage and entry
to their lodgings; and because of this, their lodgings have become
so loathsome to them, as they are resolved rather to make choice of
lodgings in the Canongate and in Leith, or some other parts about the
town, than to abide the sight of this shameful uncleanness, which is
so universal and in such abundance throughout all parts of this burgh,
as in the heat of summer it corrupts the air and gives great occasion
to sickness. And further, this shameful and beastly filthiness is
most detestable and odious in the sight of strangers, who, beholding
the same, are constrained, with reason, to give out many disgraceful
speeches against this burgh, calling it a puddle of filth and
uncleanness, the like of which is not to be seen in any part of the
world.” The plan proposed by the council was, that each householder
should keep the street clean opposite his own door, as was done in
other well-governed cities.¹ There was no idea of a cleaning department
of police, but there was a sort of arrangement adopted for cleaning
the streets of Edinburgh at stated times, though it long remained in a
very defective condition. During the reign of Cromwell, more effective
measures were taken for cleaning the streets, and for preventing foul
water from being thrown out at the windows.
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._
In 1686, Parliament passed an act for cleaning the streets of Edinburgh,
in which it was stated that there had been many complaints of the
nastiness of the streets, wynds, closes, and other places of the city.
And the magistrates were commanded to adopt effectual means for freeing
the capital of such nastiness; and at the same time to purge it of
“those numerous beggars who resort in and about the burgh, and that
under the penalty of a thousand pounds Scots yearly, to be paid by the
magistrates to the Lords of Session, to be applied by them for the end
and use aforesaid.” The magistrates were to be authorised to impose a
tax for cleaning the streets of the city.¹
¹ Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of Scotland_, Volume II., page
212; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII.,
page 595.
The arrangements for cleaning the other burghs of the kingdom were
equally defective. In 1674, the town council of Aberdeen stated, that
in spite of the many acts of their predecessors emitted for cleaning
the streets of the burgh, and removing the middings and filth, yet
there had been little observance of them. Therefore, they resolved
that a fit person should be employed, and one or two horses and carts
furnished to him at the town’s charge, “for keeping the streets and the
common passages of the burgh clean, and for taking away the middings
and dubs off the streets.” This person was empowered to go through
all the streets and lanes of the town every morning, and at all other
times which he thought fit, to remove all the middings and dubs which
he found upon them. In this act there are some curious and amusing
statements. “The man appointed to clean the streets was to apply the
dung for the use of the burgh and the freedom lands of the same, and
no otherwise, at such price as shall be appointed by the council; and
for any red, middings, or filth, that shall be taken out of the closes
and laid down upon the front streets, if the owners do not within
twenty-four hours after the same is laid down, take away or remove it
to a convenient place of the street, that then the aforesaid person is
hereby empowered to remove it for his own use; and that if the person
appointed for this purpose, coming to any midding to take it away,
and the owner at the same time coming and instantly taking it to
a convenient place of the street, he shall be permitted to do so.
Also, it is and shall be lawful for any labourers or others to take
and remove any middings and filth which they shall first attack and
apprehend, and apply the same to their own use only, and no otherwise,
if the owner thereof shall not instantly remove the same as aforesaid.”
In 1679, the town council ordered that no one should throw out at their
windows filth upon the streets, or permit it to lie before their doors
on the streets, under a penalty of forty shillings.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 291, 299.
It was already mentioned that, in the sixteenth century, swine were
allowed to run about the streets of the burghs, and the magistrates of
Aberdeen passed many acts for expelling them from the streets of the
city. But in spite of this, swine were still kept within the town in
greater numbers than formerly; and in 1696, they had become a great
nuisance and an unseemly sight in the burgh. Therefore, the council
enacted that parties who had swine in the town should remove them all
out of the burgh, and a quarter of a mile beyond it, before two o’clock
the next day; and that in future all the swine found on the streets
or within doors should be confiscated, and one half of the proceeds
to be given to the poor, and the other half to those who seized the
swine; and anyone who seized swine in the city was to be freed from all
trouble. The act was ordered to be proclaimed at the cross and through
all the streets of the town, that none might pretend ignorance. It was
stated in the council “that there was a great number of swine, which
formerly were not permitted to stay within this burgh, and seeing by
experience they are found very prejudicial to the yards in and about
the town, in digging up the same, as also by their digging in the
middings and in all sorts of filth, does rise an intolerable smell,
besides the danger to children by them, and the unseemliness of having
such creatures within the walls of a city.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume IV., page 319.
The local trade in the various burghs of the kingdom was still hampered
by monopoly. It was as yet common to fix the price of articles of daily
use, such as bread, ale, shoes, and tallow. In 1640, the Committee of
Estates passed an act fixing the price of shoes, boots, hides, and the
tanning of leather, which was approved by Parliament, and proclaimed at
the cross of Edinburgh. This act commanded the shoemakers to sell their
boots and shoes at the following prices:――Three-soled shoes of the best
leather were to be sold at two shillings and twopence per inch, and
the third quality of three-soled shoes at twentypence the inch; the
best single-soled shoes at sixteenpence the inch, and the second sort
at fourteenpence the inch. Children’s double-soled shoes of the best
quality, sixteenpence the inch; and the second sort of lighter leather
at fourteenpence the inch, and for single-soled shoes, of eight inches
and under, twelvepence the inch. Women’s shoes of the best quality,
timber-heeled, to be sold at two shillings and twopence per inch;
the second sort, with timber heels, at one shilling and eightpence.
Touching the price of boots it was enacted, “that there be allowed
of the best leather for each inch of the length of the boots eight
shillings and eightpence per inch, the tops being long and of the
best quality.” For various reasons the Committee of Estates thought
fit to fix the price of boots and shoes in Edinburgh at fourpence per
inch higher than the above on the best kind of shoes, and so on in
proportion for the cheaper classes of the same articles.
The penalties to be imposed on all who refused to sell at the stated
prices, and the fines for using insufficient materials, were to be
divided, one half to the informer, and the other half to the judge,
for the public use. If any of the shoemakers refused to work and left
off, they were to be fined forty pounds, besides other punishment which
might be inflicted upon their persons.
The Town Council of Aberdeen, in 1656, fixed the price of shoes at
the following rates:――Double soled shoes made of foreign leather,
three shillings per inch; double-soled shoes made of Scotch leather,
two shillings and sixpence the inch; single soled shoes without walts,
sixteenpence the inch; and children’s shoes, double-soled, eightpence
the inch. Those who broke the above prices rendered themselves liable
to a penalty of five pounds.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., page 163.
In the year 1659, the tailors of Inverness petitioned the magistrates,
that they were much injured in their trade by its being encroached
upon and taken away by outlandish men, dwelling around the burgh, and
evading the taxes, and yet they came and stole away the trade of the
place, “to our great and apparent ruin.” The authorities listened to
their complaint, and empowered them to restrain all outlandish tailors,
and to seize their work, and then bring the whole affair before the
magistrates. But two years later they were again petitioning the
magistrates and complaining of the outlandish hands, and they argued
that all unfreemen should be prevented from usurping the rights of
freemen, and from keeping apprentices or employing servants.
Troubles of a bitter character sometimes arose from corporation
privileges. All attempts of unfreemen to work within the royal burghs
were met with measures of obstruction and punishment. In October, 1692,
William Somerville, a wright, and a burgess of Edinburgh, was engaged
in repairing the Earl of Roxburgh’s house in the Canongate, but Thomas
Kinloch, the deacon of the wrights of the latter burgh, assisted by a
party of his associates, took away all the workmen’s tools. This was
done to prevent the Edinburgh wrights from working in a district where
they were not free. Somerville shortly after demanded the restoration
of his workmen’s tools, but they were distinctly refused. The Earl
of Roxburgh was a minor, but his curators were irritated at the
proceedings, and concurred with Somerville in summoning the deacon of
the Canongate wrights before the Privy Council, for riot and oppression
in the Earl’s house. It seems, if the Earl’s house had been subject
to the jurisdiction of the Canongate, the Privy Council would have
been precluded from giving any redress, but when the Earl’s ancestor
relinquished the superiority of the Canongate, he still continued to
hold his mansion of the Crown, so it was argued that the Canongate
corporation had no jurisdiction in this case, and consequently no right
to interfere with the action of his Lordship in the choice of craftsmen
to perform work in his own house. The Council remitted this point to
the Court of Session, which at once ordered the restoration of the
workmen’s tools.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._ Chambers, in his _Domestic
Annals_, gives an instance of oppression by the Merchant
Company of Edinburgh, who had the sole right of dealing in
cloth of all kinds within the city. Volume III., page 70.
The wage of skilled workmen in Scotland was comparatively low, but then
food was usually cheap, and it is the relation which wages bears to the
price of the necessaries of life――the purchasing power of the sum at
the time――that is the really important point. About the middle of the
seventeenth century, from fourpence to sixpence a day, or about three
shillings sterling a week, would represent the wages of a tradesman;
but direct information on the subject is so scanty that a precise
statement of their wages cannot be made. In 1655, two men were employed
for twenty-four days slating and pointing a house; they got their food
during that time, and twenty-four shillings, or twopence in sterling
money per day.
The wages of servants generally, and in particular of domestic servants
and agricultural labourers, were very low. As a class these were
then, and for long after, in a very humble position, as compared with
that which they now hold. The yearly wages of farm servants in the
seventeenth century, and till the rise of modern agriculture, were only
from twenty-five to thirty-five shillings sterling; women’s wages were
about a third less than the men’s.
Any law that existed on the relation between master and servant was
mostly on the side of the former, but there was little distinct law on
the subject. In 1610, Glasgow was much annoyed with servants “who fee
themselves with two masters,” and the Town Council therefore commanded,
“that all such servants as hereafter fee themselves to two masters,
must pay to the one into whose service they fail to enter, both the fee
and the bounty which was promised to them, and also to be imprisoned
for twenty days upon bread and water.” In 1610, the magistrates of
Peebles had many complaints lodged about the misdeeds of servants――“for
drinking on the night, running about, and refusing to do any kind of
work.” They therefore enacted that no servant should drink after eight
at night, under the penalty of thirteen shillings for each fault, and
that no one should sell them drink on Sunday; that servants should not
refuse to do any kind of work, either in or out of the house, under
the penalty of six shillings and eightpence for each fault, which
sum the master may deduct from their wages; that no one should engage
another man’s servant, except the servant prove by two witnesses that
he warned his master forty days before the term, under the penalty of
five pounds, one half for the use of the poor, and the other to the
master.¹ By a clause of an Act of Parliament passed in 1617, concerning
the establishment of justices of peace, the justices of peace were
empowered to fix the rate of wages. At their quarter sessions in August
and in February, they were enjoined to fix the wages of labourers,
workmen, and servants; and those who refused to work or serve for the
wages thus settled, were to be imprisoned, and further punished at
the discretion of the justices. To induce the servants to obey their
decrees more readily, they were empowered to compel the masters to
pay the servants the stated amount of wages when duly earned. This
Act was repeated in 1661.² The circumstance affording a measure of
justification for it was the comparatively large proportion of the
population of the kingdom always living by begging and vagabondism;
this class presented a real difficulty, and the Government grasped
at any expedient which seemed to encourage the hope of reducing the
numbers of the idle and vagrant multitude.
¹ _Burgh Records of Glasgow_; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_;
_Burgh Records of Aberdeen_. Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of
Scotland_, Volume II., page 235. _Burgh Records of Peebles_,
pages 358‒360.
² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.; Volume
VII., page 308.
Partly owing to these circumstances, and partly owing to other motives,
the workmen in coal-mines and at salt-works in Scotland were kept in
a state of semi-slavery for more than a century and a half. In 1606,
Parliament passed an Act binding this class of workmen to perpetual
service at the works in which they were engaged. This Act enjoined that
no one should hire salters, colliers, or coal-bearers, without their
masters’ consent, or at least an attestation of a reasonable cause for
their removing, made in the presence of a magistrate of the district
whence they removed. Therefore, if anyone engaged persons of this
description, without conforming with the law, their former master could
reclaim them, and enforce their re-delivery, under a penalty of one
hundred pounds. Further, if the colliers, coal-bearers, and salters,
should accept forehand wages, they were to be held and reputed as
thieves, and punished in their persons. This law was re-enacted in
1661, with an addition, including the watermen engaged in drawing off
the water from the coal pits,――“as they are as necessary to the owners
and masters of the pits as the colliers and the bearers.” And because
it was found by experience that giving high wages to colliers had
been used to seduce them from their masters, therefore, it was enacted
that no coalmaster in the kingdom should give a higher wage than
twenty merks yearly to each man, that is, one pound two shillings and
sixpence sterling. It was also found that colliers and salters, and
other workers about the pits, were accustomed to stay from their work
on certain holidays, accordingly it was enacted that henceforth they
should work all the six days of the week, except Christmas, under the
penalty of twenty shillings Scots, to be paid to their masters for each
day that they failed to work, and any other corporal punishment which
their masters thought fit to inflict upon them.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume VII., page 304.
Thus it was that from the early part of the seventeenth century till
near the end of the eighteenth, the colliers and the coal-bearers,
and those employed at saltworks in Scotland, remained in a state of
semi-slavery. When collieries and saltworks were sold, the right of
the service of the workers was transferred to the new proprietor as a
portion of fixed stock. By an act of the British Parliament, in 1775,
they were emancipated, but a considerable time elapsed ere they were
able to take much advantage of their freedom. This act was clogged with
special conditions, which many of the colliers failed to comply with,
and they continued in bondage, till the act of 1799 was passed, when
they became really free.
Though the mining operations of Scotland were not as yet on a great
scale, they added to the slowly advancing progress of the nation. In
the first part of the century the coal works of Culross were worked
some distance under the sea. But it appears from a petition to the
Privy Council in 1621, that the proprietors of collieries were not
making fortunes, as it was then stated that some of the owners of
coal-haughs were ten thousand pounds, and even twenty thousand, out
of pocket. The Master of Elphinstone’s coal mine of Little Fawside had
been on fire for several years, and another mine of his had entailed
an outlay of eight thousand pounds. The pits of Sir James Richardson of
Smeaton for some years had been so unproductive as scarcely to supply
his own house; the coal of Mickle Fawside had undone the late laird’s
estate, and caused him to sell a part of his old heritage. The coal
of Pencaitland was wasted and decayed, and past hope of recovery,
except at a cost far greater than it was worth. The Council appointed
a commission to make inquiry, and to report what prices should be fixed
for coal. Upon this report it was ordered that the price of coal “at
the hill” should be seven shillings and eightpence per load――that is,
♦about sevenpence three-farthings sterling. It should, however, be
mentioned that in these days a load meant a horse’s burden.¹
♦ duplicate word “about” removed
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._
The Privy Council passed an act in 1621, in favour of Mr. Johnston, the
laird of Elphinstone, because he had expended twenty thousand merks on
his coal works, “to his great hurt and apparent ruin.” It was stated
that he sustained forty families at the work, that their weekly wages
exceeded two hundred merks; and that his coal would be lost, and all
his workers thrown out of employment, if something was not done to
assist him, as he was unable any longer to struggle with the adverse
circumstances in which he found himself. According to his statement,
the average weekly wages of a collier’s family reached about five
shillings and sixpence sterling.¹
¹ Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of Scotland_, Volume I., page 516.
As noticed in the preceding volume, the Privy Council from time to time
had made regulations for fixing the price of coal, and prohibiting the
export of it until all the people of the kingdom were supplied. A duty
of six shillings was imposed in 1644 on coal exported in Scotch or
English vessels of the value of twelve pounds, but if it was exported
in foreign ships the duty was twelve shillings. In 1655 and 1656 the
custom on Scotch coal was fixed at four shillings per ton in British
ships, but eight shillings if exported in foreign vessels. Small coal
was only charged at half the above rates. According to a Parliamentary
return of Richard, the Lord Protector, in April, 1659, the annual value
of the custom on the export of Scotch coal amounted to £2216 sterling.
The Ayr coal fields began to assume importance in the latter part of
the century.
Prior to the eighteenth century the quantity of iron produced in
Scotland was comparatively small; but there were several lead mines
worked. In 1641, Sir James Hope of Hopetoun obtained a grant of the
lead mines in Waterhead and Glengonar; and in 1649 an Act of Parliament
was passed, which enacted that any one fraudulently intromitting with
his lead ore should be punished as resetters of stolen goods. The same
year Parliament exempted Sir James Hope’s mines from the valuation
of the sheriffdom, because they were the only ones of that kind in
the kingdom, and ought to be specially favoured. In 1661 Parliament
ratified the former Acts in favour of Sir James Hope; at that time the
family possessed the lead mines in Crawford Moor, and also the copper
mines in Airthrey, and the Binnie silver mines.
In 1698, Hope of Hopetoun had a party of men constantly employed at his
lead mines far up one of the vales of Lanarkshire. As it was extremely
inconvenient for every man to go several miles for his food, and the
proprietor was anxious to make an arrangement that one should go and
purchase necessaries for himself and the rest; but under a recent Act
against forestalling, no one could venture to sell to any single person
so much victual as the miners needed. Hope, therefore, applied to the
Privy Council for permission to his baillie to purchase the quantities
of victual required, with the assurance that none of it would be stored
or sold out to any other person except his own workmen, and that it
should be sold to them at the price which it was bought for in the
market. On these grounds the Council granted Hope a license to supply
food to his workmen. At the same time licenses were granted to the
chamberlain of the Earl of Mar, for the benefit of the workmen engaged
in his Lordship’s coal mines; to the Duke of Queensberry, for the
workmen at his lead mines; to the Earl of Annandale, for his servants
and workmen; and to Alexander Inglis, factor for the collieries on the
estate of Clackmannan.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volumes V., VI., and VII. All these noblemen were
members of the Privy Council.
Means of intercourse, as roads, bridges, communication by sea, and
postal arrangements, are closely connected with trade and national
progress. Roads in the order of development naturally precede other
modes of transit, and are followed by ferry-boats, canals, improved
harbours, and a regular postal system. As civilisation advances,
these are rapidly improved, and by and by partly superseded by better
expedients and arrangements, as steamships, railways, telegraphic
and telephonic communication, all which evince the resources of the
human mind. But merely to state results leaves the steps of progress
unexplained, and gives no conception of the many difficulties and
obstacles which had to be encountered and overcome ere the desired aim
was reached; accordingly it is necessary to enter into details in order
to render the development of social organisation intelligible, as well
as to indicate the obstacles which impede the progress of civilisation.
By an Act of Parliament passed in 1617, Justices of Peace were
empowered to give orders for repairing the roads and passages to market
towns and seaports, when they deemed it necessary. Those who refused to
assist at this work might be punished at the discretion of the Justices;
but the arrangement had not proved effective. In 1669, another Act was
passed authorising the Sheriff of the county and the Justices of Peace
to meet at the head burgh of the shire on the first Tuesday of May
every year, and frame measures for repairing the roads, bridges, and
ferries within their bounds. They were enjoined to appoint some of
their number as overseers of such parts of the roads as were nearest to
their residence; and also to appoint some of themselves to survey the
roads, the bridges, and the ferries, and then report to the rest, and
continue to meet from time to time till the survey was completed. They
were authorised to convene all the tenants, their servants, and the
cottars within their district, by intimation at the parish churches
on Sunday, warning them to have in readiness their horses and carts,
sledges, spades, shovels, picks, mallets, and all implements required
for repairing the highways. Some of the more expert men should be
appointed to direct the rest, at a fixed rate of wages. According to
the Act, these parties had to work on the roads, “man and horse,” six
days every year for the first three years, and afterwards four days.
The Justices of Peace and the overseers were empowered to fine those
who absented themselves, twenty shillings for each day a man was absent,
and thirty shillings if a man and horse were absent, which money was
applied to hire others in their place. It was well understood that this
arrangement would not be sufficient for keeping the roads in repair,
accordingly all proprietors of each county were authorised to meet once
a year, and consider what was necessary for repairing the highways,
and for making and repairing bridges and ferries. For this purpose
they were empowered to impose a tax not exceeding ten shillings on
every hundred pounds of valued rental; and they were authorised to
levy moderate custom or toll at bridges and ferries. The Justices
were empowered to punish all who injured the roads, by ploughing up,
laying stones, rubbish or dung upon them; and where cultivated land
lay alongside of the roads it should be fenced with dykes, ditches, or
hedging. Where it was necessary to change the line of the road, they
were to appoint three of their number to mark the direction of the
new road, and upon oath to estimate the damage to the parties whose
properties were encroached upon. By this Act the time appointed for
repairing the roads was between seed-time and harvest; but on the
ground that other seasons of the year were more convenient for working
at the roads, Parliament passed another Act in 1670, authorising the
Sheriffs and Justices of Peace to convene those liable for this work at
any time of the year which they thought fit, excepting always seed-time
and harvest.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.; Volume
VII., pages 574‒576; Volume VIII., page 18.
With the aim of making these Acts still more effective, Parliament in
1686 passed an additional Act touching the highways and bridges. It
enjoined the Commissioners of Supply to meet with the Justices of Peace,
and to act together in their several counties according to the tenor of
the preceding Acts. They were directed to meet every year in the month
of June, five to form a quorum, and if a quorum should not assemble,
then the Sheriff was empowered to fine each of those who were absent
twenty merks, which sum was to be applied for repairing of the roads
and bridges.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume VIII., page 590.
According to a series of Acts reaching back to the twelfth century, all
the common highways between market towns had to be twenty feet broad at
the least, and where they happened to be broader, they were to remain
so. Those who put any obstruction upon the highways could be put under
caution by the Court of Session not to commit the like again, under
a severe ♦penalty.¹ Notwithstanding all this minute legislation, the
roads in Scotland, even at the end of the seventeenth century, were
in a wretched condition, and it was not till the latter half of the
eighteenth century that the roads throughout the country were put in
a proper state for traffic.
♦ “penality” replaced with “penalty”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I.; Volume II.
A single illustration of the actual condition of the roads near the
capital of the kingdom in 1680 may suffice on this point. The first
four miles of the road from Edinburgh to London, the part from the
Clockmill Bridge to Magdalen Bridge, was in such a ruinous state that
passengers were in danger of their lives, “either by their coaches
overturning, their horses falling, or their carts breaking, their loads
casting, and horses stumbling; and the poor people with their burdens
upon their backs sorely grieved and discouraged. Also, strangers do
often exclaim thereat.” The Council authorised a toll of a half-penny
for a loaded cart, and a sixth of a penny for a loaded horse, for the
purpose of keeping this portion of the road in repair.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._
Turning to the means of communication by post, it appears that the
arrangements were of the most primitive description. In the sixteenth
century there was no regular system for the transmission of letters in
Scotland. When anything was unusually pressing and important, a special
messenger was dispatched. About the end of the century, Aberdeen had
an officer called the common post, and in 1595, the magistrates ordered
that he should have a distinctive livery of blue, with the town’s
arms on it. In the early part of the seventeenth century there were
a kind of posts at certain intervals or places, where horses could
be had for travelling, and these were occasionally used for conveying
public letters; but such arrangements were limited and very imperfect.
Till 1635 there had been no constant intercourse between England and
Scotland; but then the King’s postmaster of England, for foreign parts,
commanded that there should be “one running post or two, to run day
and night between Edinburgh and London, to go thither and come back
again in six days, and to take with them all such letters as should be
directed to any post town on the said road, and the posts to be placed
in several places out of the road, to run, and bring, and carry out
of the said road the letters, as there shall ♦be occasion, and to pay
twopence for every single letter under eighty miles, and if one hundred
and forty miles, fourpence, and if above, then sixpence. The like rule
the King is pleased to order to be observed to West Chester, Holyhead,
and thence to Ireland, and also to observe the same rule from London to
Plymouth, Exeter, and other places on that road; the same for Oxford,
Bristol, Colchester, Norwich, and other places. The King commands that
no other messenger or foot-posts shall take up, carry, receive, or
deliver any letters whatsoever, other than the messengers appointed
by Thomas Witherings, Esquire, except common carriers, or a particular
messenger purposely sent with a letter to a friend.” The post between
London and Edinburgh was conducted on horseback; it commonly went
twice a week, but sometimes only once. During the Covenanting struggle,
communication became irregular.¹
♦ “he” replaced with “be”
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_,
Volume II.; _Burgh Records of Glasgow_, pages 327‒347;
Rushworth’s _Collections_.
In 1649, John Mean, the postmaster of Edinburgh, stated that “the
benefit arising from letters sent from the capital to London, and
coming thence hither by the ordinary post, amounted to four hundred
pounds sterling yearly or thereby, all charges being deducted for
payment of the postmaster from Newcastle to Edinburgh inclusive, and
no proportion thereof laid upon the Berwick packet.” In recompense for
his expenses, he was allowed to retain the eighth penny upon all the
letters sent from Edinburgh to London, and the fourth upon all those
coming from London to Edinburgh.¹
¹ Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of Scotland_, Volume II., page
187.
During the rule of Cromwell, intercourse between Scotland and London
was largely increased; in 1658, a fortnightly stage-coach was running
between the two capitals.
After the Restoration, some improvement of the postal system was
effected. In 1662, it was ordered that posts should be established
between Edinburgh and Portpatrick, the intermediate stations to
be Linlithgow, Kilsyth, Glasgow, Kilmarnock, Ayr, and Ballantrae.
The charge for each letter from Edinburgh to Glasgow was twopence
sterling, thence to any part of the kingdom threepence, and all letters
to Ireland sixpence. All other posts, either foot or horse, were
prohibited. But this mode of horse-post had not been long in operation,
when several persons were found carrying letters along the same line
on foot, to the injury of the postmaster, and at his request a warrant
was granted against all such persons. Till 1669, there was no regular
postal communication between Aberdeen and Edinburgh; and in the former
city this had long been felt as a serious want, “not only to the city,
but also to the nobility, the gentry, and others in the northern parts
of the kingdom.” There had been miscarriage of missives, as well as
untimeous delivery and receiving of the same. It was therefore arranged,
with the consent of the King’s postmaster-general, that Lieutenant
John Wales should establish a regular foot-post carrying letters
from Aberdeen to Edinburgh twice a week, and returning every Tuesday
and Thursday in the afternoon. Each single letter was to be charged
twopence, each double one fourpence, and every packet fivepence per
ounce sterling. All other common foot-posts were prohibited from
carrying any letters to or from Edinburgh, save those employed by
Lieutenant Wales, the postmaster of the city. In 1669, a foot-post was
established between Edinburgh and Inverness to go and return twice a
week to Aberdeen, and once to Inverness, “if wind and weather served.”¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 134‒138.
But at the date of the Revolution, the postal system of Scotland was
still extremely imperfect. The postmastership was sold by auction to
John Blair in 1689, who undertook to carry on the whole business at
various rates for letters, and to pay the government an annual sum
of five hundred and fifty pounds for seven years. The charges for
single letters were:――to Dumfries, Ayr, Kelso, Jedburgh, Dundee, and
Perth, twopence; to Carlisle, Portpatrick, Dunkeld, and Aberdeen,
threepence; and to Inverness fourpence.¹ In 1695, Parliament passed
an Act for establishing a general post-office in Edinburgh, under a
postmaster-general. He was invested with the exclusive privilege of
receiving and of dispatching letters; but on roads where there were
no regular posts, the common carriers were permitted to convey letters
until posts should be established. This system had only one centre,
the capital, and letters coming from London to Glasgow arrived first
in Edinburgh, and thence sent westward at the earliest opportunity.
The Privy Council were enjoined to see that branches were established
in the most convenient places all over the kingdom, and the hours
of dispatching the posts settled and published. According to this
Act, the charges for letters were these:――All single letters to
Berwick or to any part of the kingdom within fifty miles of Edinburgh,
twopence――double letters, fourpence, and so on proportionally;
(declaring, nevertheless, that all single letters with bills of lading
or exchange, invoices, or other merchants’ accounts, may be enclosed
and sent to any part of the kingdom as single letters).²
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; Chambers’ _Domestic Annals
of Scotland_, Volume III., page 21.
² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
517‒419.
It appears that the posts were sometimes attacked and the letters and
packets seized. In 1690, Parliament enacted that the robbing or seizing
of the mails should be punished with death and the confiscation of
goods; and by the Act of 1695, any person that molested or impeded the
posts in the execution of their duty by night or by day, were liable to
a penalty of one thousand pounds Scots, besides reparation and damages.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume IX., pages 241, 418.
We have seen that the roads were not in a fitting condition for wheeled
vehicles, indeed carriages or coaches were not used in England or in
Scotland till the latter part of the sixteenth century. It was said
that coaches were first used in England during the reign of Elizabeth.
In 1610, the King granted a licence to Henry Anderson to bring a
number of coaches and waggons into Scotland for the purpose of driving
his Majesty’s subjects between Edinburgh and Leith. He also obtained
for himself and his heirs an exclusive right of this business for
fifteen years, on the condition that he should be always ready to
serve the people, and charge only the sum of twopence for conveying
each passenger between Edinburgh and Leith.¹ As already mentioned,
stage-coaches ran from Edinburgh to London during the Commonwealth, and
the fare was four pounds ten shillings, “in all cases with good coaches
and fresh horses on the roads.” Street carriages did not come into use
in Scotland till the latter part of the seventeenth century, and even
then they were little used. In Edinburgh sedan-chairs were employed
instead of wheeled vehicles down to near the end of the eighteenth
century. In 1678, the Privy Council granted an exclusive privilege to
three men in Haddington to run a stage-coach between that place and
Edinburgh for five years. The same year, William Hume, a merchant in
Edinburgh, established a stage-coach between the capital and Glasgow.
He proposed that his coach should only carry six passengers, at a fare
of six shillings each in summer and nine in winter. The Privy Council
granted him an exclusive privilege for seven years, and also assured
him that his coach horses would not be pressed for any kind of public
service.²
¹ _Royal Letters_; Chambers’ _Domestic Annals of Scotland_,
Volume I., page 427.
² _Register of the Privy Council._
But it seems doubtful if any of these schemes of stage-coaching were
really successful. A writer who travelled through Scotland in 1688 has
stated: “Stage-coaches they have none.... The truth is, the roads will
hardly allow them these conveniences, which is the reason that their
gentry, men and women, choose rather to ride on their horses. However,
their great gentlemen travel with a coach and six, but with so much
caution, that besides their other attendants, they have a lusty running
footman on each side of the coach, to manage and keep it up in rough
places.” The traveller further remarks: “This carriage of persons from
place to place might be better spared were there opportunities and
means for the speedier conveyance of business by letters. They have no
horse-posts besides those which ply between Berwick and Edinburgh, and
from thence to Portpatrick, for the sake of the Irish packet.... From
Edinburgh to Perth, and so to other places, they use foot-posts and
carriers, which, though a slow way of communicating our concerns to one
another, yet it is such as they acquiesce in till they have a better.”
But in 1697 the stage-coach from York to London required a week to
accomplish its journey. This fact was noted in the _Diary_ of George
Home; the truth is, travelling was very slow everywhere throughout
Britain at that period, and for long after.¹
¹ _A Short Account of Scotland_, 1702.
Turning to the shipping of the kingdom, some information may be drawn
from the report of Thomas Tucker――one of Cromwell’s officials, upon the
settlement of the revenues of excise and customs in Scotland in 1656;
and from a Register containing notices of the state of every burgh in
the kingdom in the year 1692.¹ For fiscal purposes the Government of
the Commonwealth arranged the ports of Scotland into eight groups, and
at the head port of each group a custom office was established. Leith,
the chief port of Scotland, and the ports attached to its district (of
which the most important were Dunbar, Eyemouth, and Musselburgh) had
fourteen vessels, of which a few of the largest were of three and two
hundred tons burden. Speaking of Leith, Tucker said:――“Leith itself is
a pretty small town, having a convenient dry harbour, into which the
Firth ebbs and flows every tide; and a convenient quay on the one side
thereof, of good length, for the landing of goods. Leith was, and is,
indeed, a storehouse, not only for her own traders, but also for the
merchants of the city of Edinburgh, and did not that city, jealous of
her own safety, obstruct and impede the growing of this place, it would
from her slave, in a few years become her rival.”
¹ Both of these Reports were printed for the Scottish Burgh
Record Society in 1881.
The next head port was Borrowstounness, to which was attached a number
of small ports, but the number of their vessels was not stated; their
trade, however, was chiefly in coal and salt. The third head port was
Bruntisland, on the north side of the Firth opposite to Leith, and its
district extended from Inverkeithing along the shore of Fife to the
banks of the Tay. The trade of this district inwards was with Norway,
the East, and France, and the outward trade was mostly in coal and salt.
This group of ports had fifty vessels, but the greater part of them
were small, only three reached up to one hundred tons burden, two of
which belonged to Kirkcaldy.
The fourth head port was Dundee, to which was attached Perth, Arbroath,
and Montrose. The trade of Dundee inwards, as generally all over
Scotland, was with Norway, the East, Holland, and France; and the
outward trade consisted mainly of plaiding and salmon. Dundee had ten
ships, two of one hundred and twenty tons each, one of ninety tons, one
of sixty, and the rest smaller. Tucker said that Perth――“is a handsome
walled town, where there is an officer always attending, not so much
because of any great treading there, as to prevent the carrying out
of wool, skins, and hides, of which commodities great quantities are
brought thither out of the Highlands, and there bought up and engrossed
by the Londonmen.”
Aberdeen was the fifth head port, and those connected with it were
Stonehaven, Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Banff, and a few other small ports.
Tucker described the harbour of Aberdeen minutely, and said――“But
the wideness of the place, from the inlet of the sea coming in with
a narrow winding gut, and beating in store of sand with its waves,
has rendered it somewhat shallow in the greater part of it, and so
less useful than formerly. But the inhabitants are remedying this by
lengthening their quay, and bringing it up close to a neck of land,
which jutting out eastwards towards a headland before it, makes the
coming in so straight.” He stated that the trade outwards was “with
salmon and plaiding, commodities which are caught, and made here in
greater quantities than any other place of the nation whatsoever.”
Aberdeen had nine ships belonging to her port, one of eighty tons, one
of seventy, another of sixty, and the rest smaller; while Peterhead had
one small vessel, and Fraserburgh four.
The sixth head port was Inverness, which included in its district the
ports of the counties of Moray, Ross, Sutherland, Caithness, and the
Orkney Islands; but in these regions there were few ships. Inverness
had only one, Garmouth one, Cromarty one, and Thurso two, while the
Orkney Islands had three; but it was stated that “lately there were
other nine barks belonging to the Islands which had been taken or lost
by storm, this and the last year.”
Glasgow was the seventh head port, which appeared according to Tucker’s
view, to have been even then taking the lead in trade amongst the
Scotch ports. “This town, seated in a pleasant and fruitful soil,
consists of four streets, handsomely built in the form of a cross,
is one of the most considerable burghs of Scotland, as well for its
structure as for its trade. Its inhabitants, all save the students of
the College, are traders and dealers: Some go to Ireland with small
smiddy coals, in open boats of from four to ten tons burden, whence
they bring home hoops, barrel staves, meal, corn, and butter; some
to France with plaiding, coals, and herrings, of which there is a
great fishing yearly in the western sea; some to Norway for wood; and
everyone with their neighbours, the Highlanders, who come hither from
the Isles and the Western parts, in summer by the Mull of Cantyre, and
in winter by Torban, to the head of Loch Fyne, usually drawing their
boats over the small neck of sandy land and into the Firth of Dumbarton,
and so pass up the Clyde with plaiding, dry hides, goat, kid, and deer
skins, which they sell, and purchase with their price such commodities
and provisions as they need from time to time.” Tucker thought that
Glasgow was likely to become a great commercial city, owing to the
energy of her citizens; but the chief obstacle to her rapid growth
appeared to be the shallowness of the Clyde, on which only very small
barks could pass up to the town. Glasgow had twelve ships, three of
one hundred and fifty tons burden each, one of a hundred and forty
tons, two of one hundred tons, and the rest smaller. The other ports
associated with Glasgow were noticed in the report thus:――“Dumbarton,
a small and very poor burgh, which sometimes gives shelter to a vessel
of sixteen tons. Greenock, a small place, the inhabitants being all
seamen or fisherman, trading to Ireland or to the Isles in open boats.
Saltcoats has only a few houses inhabited by fishermen.”
Ayr was the eighth and last head port, and its district embraced “all
the shore which bounds Kyle, Carrick, and Galloway, places fuller of
moors and mosses than good towns and people, or trading.” Yet Ayr had
three ships and a few small barks. But Tucker stated that this district
of ports would scarcely yield any more revenue than would pay the
necessary outlay of the Government.
The materials and figures for comparing the shipping at the dates of
1656 and 1692 are very incomplete, as the information of a definite
character for the later is imperfect, and only admit of a comparison
of the shipping of a few of the chief ports. But the figures in the
following table may be taken as approximately correct:――
1656. 1692.
────────────────── ──────────────────
Vessels. Tonnage. Vessels. Tonnage.
──────── ──────── ──────── ────────
Leith 12 1000 29 1700
Dundee 10 498 21 1191
Glasgow 12 830 15 1172
Kirkcaldy 12 592 14 1213
Montrose 12 220 18 629
── ──── ── ────
58 3140 97 5905
It appears from the above figures that the shipping of these five ports
had increased considerably between the two dates. It may also be stated
that at the later period, various parties in Glasgow were part-owners
of several other ships besides these in the table; while only about one
half of the Kirkcaldy vessels belonged to parties in that town: and the
vessels belonging to Montrose were all small barks.
The mode of agriculture practised in Scotland was extremely rude; and
in no field of industry is there a more striking contrast than between
the husbandry of the seventeenth century and that of the ♦nineteenth.
In the seventeenth century only a small portion of the land was under
tillage, there was no regular rotation of crops, and no improved
grasses, such as clover and ryegrass; and though the chief wealth
of the farmers consisted of cattle, no efforts were made to improve
the breeds, which were all of a small class, and as yet there was no
stall-feeding.
♦ “ninteenth” replaced with “nineteenth”
The general system of farming was this. The land which was manured
extended to only about a fourth of the farm, or sometimes a fifth or
sixth of it. The remaining portion, called the outfields, was never
manured, but a certain part of it, after having been pastured on for
seven or eight years, was then ploughed up, and after yielding a poor
crop or two of oats, by which it was exhausted, it was again rested and
pastured on as before, and another portion ploughed, cropped, exhausted,
and rested in its turn. Under this system, which kept only the part of
the land nearest to the farmyard in a state fit for tillage, the whole
arable land of the country could have yielded but little, compared
with what it was capable of producing. Several parts of the south,
now celebrated as grain-producing districts, were at the end of the
seventeenth century merely stony moors and bogs. Although parliament
had passed acts touching fences, hedges, and ditches, there were few
enclosed fields anywhere in Scotland, and the practice of improving
the soil by a regular system of drainage was quite unknown. In 1686 it
was enacted that all proprietors, life-renters, tenants, and cottars
should cause their cattle, horses, sheep, goats, and swine to be herded
the whole year; and during the night to keep them in houses or folds,
that they might not eat and destroy other people’s crops, grass, woods,
planting, and hedges. Those found contravening the act were to be
liable to a penalty of half a merk for each of the animals found upon
their neighbours’ grounds, “over and above the damage done to the grass
or the planting.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., page 595.
Agricultural implements were rough and clumsy. The plough was made of
timber, save the clathing, the coulter, and sock; while the ploughing
itself was of the most wretched description. The entire economy of
the farm was in a backward state: the manure was carried to the fields
on horseback and by manual labour, while the grain was conveyed to
the mills and to the markets on horseback, carts being as yet very
little used. Three or four returns was considered to be a good crop,
and the difficulty of finding food for cattle throughout winter was
often extreme. Animals intended for human food were slaughtered before
Martinmas, and salted, to supply the family with meat during the winter.
The trade in beef was then on a limited scale in Scotland; probably
there is more beef sold in one week at the present time than was sold
in a year at the end of the seventeenth century.
The state of the tenants and labourers of the land was not a
comfortable and happy one. Farmers themselves were poor, and part of
their rents was still paid in produce and in services to landlords.
Farm-steadings were merely clusters of hovels, without proper
accommodation even for cattle, far less for human beings.
A strong desire for exclusive privileges in trade and industry still
prevailed. Early in the seventeenth century, attempts were made to
introduce into Scotland an improved mode of tanning leather. Twelve
tanners from England, under royal patronage, came to instruct the
barkers and tanners of Scotland in the perfect mode of making leather.
They were invested with special privileges, and were located in several
parts of ♦the country, the object being to retain at home the money
which had been usually spent on foreign leather. But a tax was put on
the improved leather, at the rate of four shillings Scots per hide, for
the first twenty-one years. This caused discontent among the shoemakers
who everywhere exerted themselves to thwart the King’s purpose.
They raised the prices of their boots and shoes, twenty shillings on
the pair of boots, and six shillings on the shoes, which stirred up
the people against the tax, and a clamour arose that the nation was
oppressed, the poorer classes especially. In 1622, a complaint was
lodged with the Privy Council, that many of the tanners throughout the
kingdom still continued the old mode of letting their leather remain
only a short time in the pits, and then brought it to market in a raw
state, quite regardless of the obvious advantages of the new way of
tanning. The Council therefore ordered that a number of the old tanners
should be proclaimed rebels. The grievances of the leather-workers came
before the Estates in 1625, and again in 1633, when the tanners and
barkers of the kingdom petitioned Parliament, “to be freed and relieved
of the burden and imposition imposed upon them for tanning and barking
of hides; and that this impost should be discharged, because it does
great damage to the whole country.” Subsequently the matter was often
before the Estates;¹ but down to the present time, the tanners of
Scotland have not succeeded in producing leather of equal quality to
the best English and French. The Scotch croops, or sole leather, is
much inferior to the English, and the Scotch calf and upper leather is
also inferior both to French and English.
♦ duplicate word “the” removed
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; _Acts of the Parliaments
of Scotland_, Volume V., pages 48, 185, 264. About this time
gilded and ornamented leather was fashionable for covering
the walls of rooms in the better class of houses though,
of course, it was imported. But in 1681, Alexander Brand,
a merchant in Edinburgh, stated that he had brought workmen
and materials into Scotland, and proposed to erect a work
to produce this kind of leather as cheap as it could be
imported. The Privy Council granted him an exclusive right
of manufacturing it for nineteen years.
In the preceding volumes I referred to the making of cloth, which
branch of industry was still in a comparatively rude stage, and
various attempts were begun in the seventeenth century to introduce
improvements. In 1601, Commissioners, deputed by the burghs, engaged
seven Flemishmen to settle in Scotland and assist in setting the work
in operation; six of them being intended for making serge stuff, and
one for broadcloth. On arriving in Edinburgh, they had expected to be
immediately employed; but a debate arose as to whether they should be
dispersed among the chief towns, and thus diffuse their instructions
more widely among the Scots. While this was pending, the foreigners
complained to the Privy Council that they were neither entertained nor
sent to work, and that it was proposed to separate them, which would
greatly retard the perfecting of the work. The Council ordered that
they should all be allowed to remain in Edinburgh, and work according
to the conditions on which they had agreed with the commissioners; and
that till they began their work, they should be properly supplied with
food and drink. But six weeks later, the burghs had done nothing; and
the Council then informed them that, unless they made a beginning by
the month of November, the royal privilege would be withdrawn. Eight
years later a company of these foreigners, under the special protection
of the King, was established in the Canongate, Edinburgh, and made
cloth of various kinds. The business was managed by John Sutherland and
Joan Van Headen, and it was stated that they were diffusing much light
and knowledge of their calling amongst the Scots. In spite, however, of
the King’s letters, which invested these industrious men with special
privileges, and exemptions from local burdens, the magistrates of the
Canongate began to molest them, with the object of forcing them to
become burgesses and freemen in the regular form; on their appeal to
the Privy Council, their exemption was affirmed.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume V., page 49.
The bulk of the clothing then used in Scotland was home made, the
people supplying themselves with clothes from their own wool and
flax; each family spinning for itself the yarn, and sending it to the
village weaver to be woven. In some parts of Scotland the children
were regularly taught to spin by a mistress. The magistrates of Peebles
resolved in 1633――“to convene all the persons and parents of those
bairns given up in a roll, to be bound for a year to the small wheel
in the house to be erected to learn the young ones to spin.” And, “the
whole council have referred the taking of a house for the mistress and
bairns of the little wheel to be erected for learning the young ones to
spin, to the provost and the two bailies.”¹ It was not till towards the
end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries
that successful efforts were made to manufacture this class of goods
for general sale; although in the reign of Charles I. there were cloth
manufactories on a small scale at Newmills in Haddingtonshire, at
Bonnington near Edinburgh, and at Ayr; while in Aberdeen there was a
manufactory of plaiden goods and ginghams. In 1641, parliament passed
an act to encourage and facilitate the erection of manufactories.
This act promised the following immunities to all who had or should
erect such works:――“All Spanish and foreign fine wool for making fine
cloth shall be custom free, all dye stuffs, oil, and other materials
necessary for such works, shall be free of all custom and impost; all
parcels of cloth made by any who have erected, or shall erect such
works, shall be custom free for the space of fifteen years from the
date of their erection. The managers of such works shall be free of
any taxation to be imposed on the kingdom for any occasion bygone or
to come; and it shall not be lawful for anyone to engage, reset, or
entertain, any of the servants of these works without the consent of
the masters thereof.” By another Act passed in 1645, the masters and
all the workers of manufactories were freed from military service and
the quartering of troops upon them; and it was again declared that such
works were to be free of all taxation.²
¹ _Burgh Records of Peebles_, pages 372, 373.
² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., page 497;
Volume VI., page 174.
In 1661, Parliament passed two Acts concerning manufactories, one
recommending the establishment of companies and societies for making
linen and cloth stuffs, and the other for erecting manufactories;
while it also ratified former Acts of Parliament and of Council which
had similar ends in view. These proposed companies were authorised to
incorporate themselves, and to elect a certain number of their members
to act as a committee or council of managers, to frame rules and
regulations for the management of the manufactory, and conducting the
business of the company. For their encouragement, materials imported
for use in their manufactures, and whatever goods they produced and
exported, were to be free of custom and impost for nineteen years; the
stock invested in their works was exempted from public and local taxes;
and they themselves were to be free from quartering of soldiers. Every
encouragement was given to skilled workmen from other countries to
come and settle in Scotland, and instruct the Scots in their respective
kinds of work. The point touching foreigners was thus stated:――“If
any stranger shall come or be brought into this kingdom by natives to
set up work and teach his art in making cloth stuffs, stockings, or
any other kind of manufacture, he shall enjoy the benefit of the law
and all other privileges that a native does enjoy; with power to erect
manufactories either in burgh or landward as they shall think fit: and
there to dwell and exercise their trade without any stop or trouble.”
The managers and heads of the company were enjoined to appoint an
expert man to visit and examine the work, and to put a mark or seal
upon it, distinguishing what was sufficient and what not. The Privy
Council, or others whom the King might appoint, were empowered to
do whatever was found to be hereafter necessary for promoting the
manufactures.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume VII., pages 255, 261.
At the same time other Acts were passed with the aim of promoting home
manufactures. The export of all kinds of hides, of woollen yarn, of raw
and unwaxed cloth, excepting plaiding, all linen yarn, broken copper,
brass or pewter, was prohibited under the penalty of confiscation of
the goods. An Act was also passed in 1661, authorising and recommending
the establishment of fishing companies for promoting the fishings. This
Act contained many proposals and elaborate provisions for prosecuting
the herring fishing and white fishing in the various seas, channels,
firths, and lochs, “in his Majesty’s ancient kingdom of Scotland.” An
Act for encouraging shipping and navigation was passed; and also an Act
appointing a council of trade, which was empowered to do whatever was
necessary for regulating, improving, and advancing of trade, navigation,
and manufactures; and this was to endure until discharged by the King.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
257, 259‒261, 273, 283.
In 1681, Parliament passed another Act for encouraging trade and
manufactures, which embodied proposals that the Privy Council had
issued by proclamation six months before, and ratified all former Acts
for the encouragement of manufactures. The most remarkable part of the
Act was the long list of articles and goods which were emphatically
forbidden to be imported. All gold or silver thread, lace, fringes,
or buttons of gold, and all gold or silver worn on clothes, or
counterfeits of them, and all embroideries of silk for wearing clothes;
all foreign linen, cambric, damask, ticking, and calico; all foreign
silk or woollen stockings, silk lace, and gimp thread; all foreign
shoes, boots, or slippers, gloves and clothes, and many other things,
were forbidden to be imported under the penalties of being “burned and
destroyed, and the importers or resetters fined in the value thereof.”¹
By such measures it was thought that more money would be retained
at home, and thus enrich the nation. But it was soon discovered that
the prohibited foreign goods quickly rose in price; and then the
magistrates of Edinburgh were called before the Privy Council, and
ordered to assemble the merchants of the city, and forbid them to take
such exorbitant prices from the people for the prohibited goods, on
the ground that there was no more to be imported into the kingdom. In
fact, the prohibitive part of the Act was too extreme, and had to be
relaxed.²
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., page
348.
² _Register of the Privy Council_; _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume VIII., page 479.
About this time a company, including some of the Edinburgh merchants,
was formed for starting a new work at Newmills. It was to be placed
under the direction of James Stanfield, an Englishman, and a foreman
and six sheermen were to be brought from England. The work was opened
with two looms, which were soon increased to eight, and then to
twenty-five; and in 1683 the work was still going on. They began
by making white cloth, and next turned a number of their workers to
coarse mixed cloth, and so on gradually to fine, “till now we are upon
superfine cloths, and have brought the spinners and the best of the
workers that length that we hope by May next to have superfine cloths
as good as generally are made in England.” In the same place there
was a manufactory of silk stockings in operation.¹ There was a small
woollen manufactory in Leith; and in 1683, on a petition from the
owners, the Privy Council extended to it the privileges of the Act for
encouraging manufactures. It was reported that the partners of this
undertaking were well skilled in their business, and that it――“can dye
and mix wool and cloth; and can take in wool from the merchants and
others, and does dye and mix it and deliver it in broadcloth; and has
already made good broadcloth to many of the merchants of Edinburgh.”²
¹ _Pamphlet on Woollen Manufactories_, 1683.
² _Register of the Privy Council._
Hitherto the dress of the royal army had been of a plain description,
but it was now deemed necessary for the soldiers to have coloured coats,
that they might be easily distinguished from other skulking and vagrant
persons, who had before imitated the livery of the King’s troops.
In 1684, the Newmills manufacturing company offered to furnish from
their own works a suitable cloth of any dye that should be desired, as
cheaply and promptly as could be done in England; and they offered to
show samples and to give security for the fulfilment of the undertaking.
But the Privy Council decided to use English cloth. In the beginning of
the year 1685, the captain of the town-guard of Edinburgh was empowered
to import three hundred yards of scarlet cloth, with trappings and
other necessaries, for the clothing of his corps; and some of the
other commanders of troops got similar licenses. At this the Newmills
company were greatly offended, and petitioned that the importation of
English cloth for the army should be stopped, as it could be supplied
as good and as cheap from the home factory, and begged that a committee
should be appointed to ascertain if this was the case. The petition
was received, but nothing resulted from it. The company, however, had
resolved to protect their privileges, and directly attacked five of the
merchants of Edinburgh, who had been dealing in English cloth contrary
to the law. Their complaint contained a minute enumeration of the goods
and the quality of the cloth which each of the merchants had sold;
and the offenders were many times called before the Privy Council, and
failing to appear, they were held to be guilty, and therefore decreed
to deliver up the prohibited goods to be burned according to law; while
they had to recompense the King’s cash-keeper for the goods, “at the
rate of twelve shillings sterling for each yard of cloth, and five
shillings for each dozen of the prohibited stockings.”¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; Chambers’ _Domestic Annals
of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 419‒421. “It was not, after
all, to be in this age that good woollen cloth was to be
produced in our northern clime.” A writer, in 1697, says: “We
have tried to make several things, and particularly hats and
broadcloth, and yet we cannot make our ware so good as what
we can have from abroad. Those who would propagate any new
manufacture must lay their account to labour under several
disadvantages at first.”――_Husbandry Anatomised_, Edinburgh,
1697.
From an early period linen cloth was made in Scotland, though for long
the trade was on a very limited scale. Parliament enacted, in 1641,
that linen at tenpence per yard or upwards should be a yard in breadth,
and should be presented in the markets in folds, not in rolls. In 1661,
the Act already noticed for establishing companies enumerated linen
among the fabrics proposed to be encouraged, and enacted that all yarn
must be sold by weight.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V.; Volume VII.,
page 257.
But the commercial relations of England and Scotland were of the most
unsatisfactory character. In all the trade and commercial legislation
of the period it was the leading aim to prevent the importation of
everything, which it was thought could be produced or made at home, as
it was believed that this course was the only one which would enable
the nation to become busy and rich. So in 1663, the Scotch Parliament
imposed a scale of duties on all English goods which amounted to
prohibition, with the natural result that the English also adopted
prohibitory measures. The consequences were ruinous. A petition was
presented to the Privy Council in 1684, complaining of the severe
treatment which Scotsmen had received when selling their linen goods
in England. It was stated that before there had been a free trade for
Scotch linen in the South, but that latterly the men selling it in
England had been apprehended, and whipped as criminals, and many of
them obliged to give security that they would discontinue their traffic.
It was affirmed that about twelve thousand persons were then employed
at this branch of industry in Scotland; and therefore it was important,
not merely to the workers, but also to the landlords and to the
government, as every twelve hundred packs exported to England paid a
custom of three pounds sterling. The Council recommended the Secretary
of State to intercede with the King, that the Scotch merchants and
others might have liberty to sell linen in England, without alluding
to the fact that there was a Scotch Act which treated English woollen
goods in the same exclusive spirit.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume VII., pages 465, 466.
Another way of promoting the manufacture of, and trade in linen, was
tried in Scotland, when Parliament in 1686 enacted that the bodies
of all persons should be buried in plain linen only, spun and made
within the kingdom, under a penalty of three hundred pounds Scots,
if a nobleman. To render the Act effective, the relatives of deceased
persons were enjoined, under severe penalties, to declare upon oath to
their parish minister, within eight days of the funeral, that the law
had been obeyed. Poor tenants and cottars in the country were exempted
from the operation of the Act. This Act was repeated in 1693 and in
1695.
In the Act of 1693, it was enacted that all linen should be sold by
weight. “And further, their Majesties, considering how much the uniform
working and measuring of linen cloth may raise the value thereof with
natives and foreigners, and render the trade more easy and acceptable
to merchants: therefore, have enacted that all linen cloth made for
export or for sale in the public markets of the kingdom, should be
made exact to these two standards, namely, either of the breadth of
three-quarters and two inches unbleached, or a large ell and 2 inches
in breadth when bleached; and that no three-quarter cloth should
contain above a thousand double threads of warp, and that all cloth
above a thousand double threads of warp should be an ell and two
inches broad unbleached, and a large ell bleached: that all linen cloth
to be sold in the manner aforesaid should be made up in pieces and
half-pieces as follows: All three-quarter broad in pieces containing
eighteen ells, and half-pieces nine ells; and all ell-broad cloth in
pieces containing twenty-four ells, and half-pieces twelve ells. That
all such linen cloth should be equally and evenly wrought according
to the due thickness and closeness of sufficient marketable cloth; and
that all weavers should leave at the end of each piece three finger
breadths of warp yarn unwefted to remain for thrumbs to each piece
and half-piece, and that when they cut any web out of the loom they
knit every fifty double threads together, for the more exact numbering
of the warp threads of every web ... that the owner of all such linen
cloth, before exposing it for sale, should be obliged to bring it
to a royal borough where linen is usually sold, and there to receive
the public seal and stamp of the borough upon both ends of each piece,
which shall be a sufficient proof of the just length, breadth, and the
quality of the working, and the proper thickness and closeness.”
Another Act was passed in 1693, prohibiting the export of lint, and
permitting it to be imported free of duty. At the same time Parliament
passed Acts granting the privilege of manufactories to Paul’s works at
Edinburgh, and to the works at Leith, giving them power to incorporate
themselves with all the rights usually accorded to manufactories.
Yet another Act was passed in 1693, erecting the woollen manufactory
of Newmills into a free incorporation; and another in favour of the
manufacture of baizes, and for the encouragement of trade, in which it
was stated that James Foulis, John Holland, William Graham, and other
five merchants, had resolved to erect a manufactory for making the
cloth, commonly called “Colchester Baizes,” and all other kinds of
baizes. This, it was supposed, would consume the native wool which
could not be otherwise profitably used. The company were granted all
the privileges usually given to such undertakings; but if they failed
to put the work in operation within two years, then the Act in their
favour became null and void.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., page
598; Volume IX., pages 311‒319, 461. Touching coffins, the
Act of 1686 contained this provision, “that no wooden coffin
shall exceed one hundred merks Scots as the highest rate
for persons of the greatest quality, and so proportionally
for persons of meaner quality, under the pain of two hundred
merks Scots for each contravention.”
In May, 1694, an agreement was concluded between Nicolas Dupin, acting
for a linen company in England, and the royal burghs and others in
Scotland, for forming a company to carry on the manufacture of linen
in the latter kingdom. It was arranged that the undertaking should be
founded upon a capital of thirty thousand pounds, in five pound shares,
which were to be equally divided between Englishmen and Scotsmen.
The shares were to be paid in four instalments within four years. The
work was referred to as established in 1696, and two years later the
bleaching was executed at Corstorphine.¹
¹ _Wodrow Pamphlets._
Prior to the seventeenth ♦century, all the soap used in Scotland was
imported, chiefly from Flanders. It has been estimated that the whole
annual consumption of this essentially necessary article only amounted
to about 400,800 pounds, little more than a fraction of the quantity
which is consumed at present. In 1619, the King granted a patent to
Nathaniel Uddart, to endure for twenty-two years, for the manufacture
of soap in Scotland. This man erected a soap-work at Leith, and
furnished it with everything requisite for the business. But two years
later he petitioned the Privy Council that the importation of foreign
soap should be prohibited, and said that he was able to supply all that
was necessary for the use of the people, and thus save money from being
sent out of the kingdom. The Council made inquiries as to the quality
of the soap which he produced, and having satisfied themselves that he
could produce the necessary quantity, granted the prohibition which he
desired. At the same time they fixed the maximum price of the native
soap, which was to be £24 per barrel for green soap, and £32 for white,
and each barrel to contain sixteen stones. But the production of soap
had only been two years under protection when loud complaints arose
amongst the people. It was said that the quality of the home-made
soap was inferior, and the merchants bitterly complained that their
traffic with the Low Countries was interrupted; while the merchants of
Dumfries and other places grumbled because they were forced to carry
soap all the way from Leith, when they could have it brought by ships
to their doors. These parties presented their grievances to the Lords
of Council, who again made inquiries, and concluded that Uddart’s
privilege was hurtful to the nation, and that the people had not been
so well supplied with the soap made by him as they had been formerly
with foreign soap. The Council accordingly, in July 1623, declared that
the prohibition should cease in a year or sooner, if he continued to
produce an inferior or a dearer article.¹
♦ “centruy” replaced with “century”
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._
Uddart seems to have retained his patent till the twenty-one years were
nearly run; and in 1634, a new one, to commence on the close of the old,
was granted by the King to his servant, Patrick Mauld of Panmure. The
King’s letter is characteristic, and proceeded on this ground:――“that
it is necessary for the good of his Majesty’s ancient kingdom that the
people should be furnished with good soap, at a reasonable price within
itself, and that soap-making is not a trade that can be communicated
to all his subjects, and that the public would suffer if the same was
left indifferently to all: while it is equally true, that such being
the case, the choice of the person belongs to his Majesty as a part
of his sovereign prerogative.” As Mauld had undertaken the work with
the responsibility of continuing it, the King granted to him and
his representatives, for twenty-one years, the sole licence within
the kingdom of making soap for washing clothes, of all colours and
qualities which they may think fit. If more soap was produced than
was required for the people, the surplus might be exported; and Mauld
might employ foreigners at his works, but they were forbidden to make
soap for any other person. In connection with his patent, he got a
licence to fish and trade in the seas of Greenland, and in the Isles,
that he might provide his works with oils and other materials. The
King also granted to him the sole right of making potash of all kinds:
and for these privileges he was to pay an annual sum of twenty pounds
sterling.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._
In 1661, Parliament passed an Act for encouraging soap-works, which
stated that such works had already been of advantage to the nation,
and might be made of greater advantage: that the eastern and Greenland
fishing would be greatly assisted by the importing of potash and other
materials, and money brought into the kingdom by the exported soap made
within the same. It was therefore enacted that oil, potash, and other
materials imported for making soap, should be free of all custom; and
that any soap produced in the kingdom might be exported duty free for
nineteen years from the date of the erection of the works where it was
produced.¹ Before the end of the century there were several soap-works
in operation.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., page 203.
Another product of skill and industry associated with refinement,
glass-making, was attempted. In 1610, a patent was granted for the
erection of a glass-work in Scotland, which was begun in Wemyss, in
Fife, under the direction of Sir John Hay, who, it is also reported,
had originated an ironwork. But in 1619, he informed the Privy
Council that his works had not proved remunerative; and it was then
requested that the King should allow the glass made by Hay to be sold
unrestrictedly in England, while the export of coal into that country
should be prohibited; and if this were done he had some hope of
prospering. However, it appears the work was continued, as the Privy
Council, in 1621, appointed a commission to examine and try the quality
of the glass, to see that measures were adopted for the full supply of
the country with glass, and thus save the importation of foreign glass.
They soon reported that the Wemyss glass work was in a satisfactory
condition. The cradles contained fifteen wisps, and each wisp had
three tables, three quarters of a yard and a little more in depth. The
glass was reported to be fully as good as Danskine glass, though they
would have been better pleased if it had been a little thicker and
tougher. Touching the quality of the drinking glasses produced, the
commissioners were more doubtful, and recommended patterns of English
glass for comparing and trying the quality of the Scotch ones in future.
Upon this report the Council granted the desired monopoly against
foreign glass-makers, but under conditions limiting the price of broad
glass to twenty pounds per cradle.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; Chambers’ _Domestic Annals
of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 506, 507.
Before the end of the century several glass-works were established.
There was one in Leith which made bottles and apothecary glasses;
and in the year 1689, it was stated that this work produced a greater
quantity of wares in four months than had been sold in the country
for a whole year, and at as low prices as any similar articles from
London and Newcastle. So the Privy Council granted it the privileges
of a manufactory, and prohibited the importation of foreign bottles,
provided that the Leith company should not charge more than two
shillings and sixpence per dozen bottles. In the beginning of the year
1690, the owners of the Leith glass works complained that the work
at Newcastle, and the English, had sent large quantities of glass
and bottles into Scotland, “which was likely to over-stock the whole
country.” On their petition, the Privy Council empowered the Leith
glass company to employ officers to seize all such English bottles
and bring them in for his Majesty’s use. The laird of Prestongrange
proposed to build a glass-work on his own estate, at a place called
Newhaven, “for making all kinds of glass, as bottles, vials, drinking
glasses, window and mirror glasses.” He had arranged with foreigners
for carrying on the work, and everything looked encouraging; and in
1697, the Privy Council granted to his proposed work the privileges
accorded by Act of Parliament to manufactories. About the end of the
century, a proposal was made by James Montgomery, a merchant in Glasgow,
to erect a glass-work there, and the Council granted him the usual
privileges.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._
Connected with the department for preparing the glass intended for
mirrors, there was a refugee Frenchman, called Leblane, who had married
a Scotch woman, and became a burgess of guild in Edinburgh. His special
branch of work was to polish the glass used for making mirrors, an art
never before practiced in Scotland. He carried on his business in a
workshop in the Canongate; and the mirrors which he was commissioned
to make often required mouldings and head-pieces of wood, and sometimes
tables, drawers, and stands, corresponding to the glass, for completing
a set. Leblane offered to employ the wrights of the Canongate to
execute the woodwork which he required, but they told him that they
could not do it; he was therefore forced to employ some of the wrights
of Edinburgh. This, however, caused the Canongate wrights to complain
that their rights were encroached upon, and his work was likely to be
much impeded; but he petitioned the Privy Council, and got permission
to provide the upholstery work connected with his mirrors on the simple
principle of his making a first offer of it to the wrights of the
Canongate.
It seems that until about the beginning of the eighteenth century there
was no regular work for making earthenware in Scotland. The articles
of this description in use among the people were imported. In 1703,
William Montgomery, of Mackbiehill, and George Sim, a merchant of
Edinburgh, made arrangements for erecting a pothouse, for making
porcelain and earthenware; and had engaged foreign operatives to secure
the successful execution of the work. For the encouragement of the
enterprise Parliament granted to them an exclusive right of production
for fifteen years.¹ It was stated in the Act that the projectors of the
work “were to bring home workmen upon their own charges, until those of
this nation be instructed and capable in the said trade, provided they
be allowed such privileges and encouragement for such a number of years
as the hazard of a project new in itself, and liable and subject to
many miscarriages and accidents in the beginning, and the uncertainty
whether when the same is erected, the clay of the country will prove so
good and sufficient as to warrant us to proceed therein.”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume XI.
Paper is associated with the diffusion of knowledge and the progress
of civilisation in many ways; and the first attempts to manufacture
it in Scotland are full of interest. The trade of collecting rags in
connection with the sale of earthenware, and the production of paper,
became an important branch of industry; in fact, the value of rags as
material for the manufacture of paper could not be easily estimated.
Recently the difficulty of obtaining sufficient raw material for making
the enormous quantities, and the different kinds and qualities of paper,
have been greatly increased, and have taxed the ingenuity of able and
energetic men.
In 1590, there was a proposal made to erect a paper manufactory in
Scotland. The Privy Council granted the projected work an exclusive
right of making paper for nineteen years. But it does not appear that
this design, which was originated by a German and others associated
with him, proved successful; and we find no more attempts to produce
paper at home till 1675, when a paper work was erected at Darly Mills,
on the Water of Leith. French workmen were employed to instruct the
Scots; and in 1679, the owners of the work reported that they were able
to produce “gray and blue paper much finer than ever was done before
in this kingdom.” At this time, Alexander Deas, a merchant, and one of
the proprietors, presented a petition to the Council stating that the
work not only supplied good paper, but also promised a general benefit
to the community from the utilisation of rags, which before were not
turned to use, and in gathering of which many poor people could make a
living; while in the work itself, many Scotsmen and boys were employed,
and many more might be instructed in the art of making paper. But
in order that the rags might be fully available, it was necessary to
suppress the custom of using fine rags for wicks to candles; and it was
therefore agreed that cotton wicks should be substituted, which, though
dearer, gave a much better light. The Privy Council acceded to their
request, and prohibited the candlemakers from using clouts and rags for
the wicks of candles.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._ Chambers gives it as his
opinion, that this paper mill was not continued, and that
paper-making was not successfully established in Scotland
till the middle of the eighteenth ♦century. _Domestic Annals
of Scotland_, Volume II., page 395.
♦ “ceetury” replaced with “century”
Mr. Dupin, who was connected with paper works in England and in Ireland,
proposed to establish one in Scotland in 1693. In that year, he and his
partners applied to the Privy Council for permission to erect and carry
on a paper work; and stated that he had attained “to the art of making
all kinds of paper moulds as good, or better than any made beyond seas,
and at a far cheaper rate, inasmuch that one man can make and finish
more moulds in one week than any workman of other nations finish in two
months’ time. Moreover, whereas large timber is scarce in this kingdom,
I and my men have arts to make the greatest mortar and vessel for
making up of paper without timber; and we have also provided several
ingenious outlandish workmen to work and to teach their art in this
kingdom.” The Council granted them liberty to erect paper mills in
Scotland, “without hindering any other persons who were already set up.”
They also received permission to put the national arms upon the paper
produced at their mills. In 1695, Parliament sanctioned this enterprise
as a joint-stock company, and ordered that a charter of incorporation
should be granted to them for their security and encouragement, under
the name of “The Scots White Paper Manufactory,” “for the making of all
kinds of writing and printing white paper, throughout this kingdom,”
with all the privileges usually accorded by Acts of Parliament for
encouraging manufactories. In 1697, the work was going on and producing
“good white paper, and only needing a little more encouragement to
be an advantage to the whole kingdom.” Upon the petition of the
papermakers, the Privy Council again commanded that the candlemakers
should not use rags for making wicks.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume IX., page 429. Touching the paper company,
the Act of Parliament stated:――“It being found that the water
and air in several parts of the kingdom are very fit, and may
contribute much to the success of such work ... and that the
several attempts that have hitherto been made for rendering
such work effective may have failed because such an
undertaking could not be otherwise managed than by a society
and incorporation, and required a general joint-stock to set
up and carry on the same.”
The beginning of a smaller and less necessary branch of industry has
to be noticed, though subsequently it was developed into a great trade
in the chief city of the west of Scotland, and brought fortunes and
wealth to many individuals. Tobacco was first brought into Britain in
the latter half of the sixteenth century. The antipathy of James VI.
to tobacco is well known, and he forbade its importation into Scotland;
but his decree was much evaded, and it soon became an article of common
merchandise in the country. A duty of one shilling and eightpence
sterling was then imposed on it, but this only led to smuggling to
evade the tax; and in 1622, the Council passed an Act prohibiting the
importation of tobacco, under the penalty of confiscation. The same
year, however, the Council passed an Act explaining that the King did
not mean to deprive his subjects of the orderly sale and moderate use
of tobacco, but only to prevent the abuse and excessive use of it;
and a proclamation was emitted, intimating that the prohibition to
import it only applied to those who did not hold a licence. In 1634,
another attempt was made to put the sale of tobacco under a wholesome
restriction. Two men were appointed to sell licences to retailers of
tobacco, and to account to the royal revenue for the proceeds as might
be arranged between the parties, but this arrangement could hardly be
carried out. In 1671, Sir John Nicolson of Nicolson was allowed by the
government to impose a tax upon tobacco; but in 1673, it was stated in
an Act of Parliament, that the tax was injuring the trade of tobacco,
and therefore Sir John’s privilege was terminated, and tobacco was to
be henceforth free of any duty, except the ordinary custom and excise.
In accord with the prevailing commercial ideas of the time, in 1661, a
tax was imposed on all tobacco pipes imported into the kingdom. The Act
on the tobacco pipes contained the following:――“It being represented
to his Majesty that tobacco pipes can be made and sold at home at a
far easier rate than they can when brought from abroad: therefore, to
keep money at home, and give tradesmen work, and for the encouragement
and good of all who are skilful in making of tobacco pipes, his
Majesty does impose upon the gross of all tobacco pipes imported, eight
shillings Scots ... and does prohibit any merchant, importer, or maker
of pipes, to charge more than eighteen shillings Scots for the gross of
any pipes, whether they be made within or without the country.”¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume VII., page 65; Volume VIII., page 212.
In 1674, Andrew M‘Kairter presented a petition to the Privy Council,
stating that when the insurrection of 1666 broke out, being then a
youth at school, he joined the insurgents; and after the suppression of
the rising, “out of a childish fear he did run away to Newcastle;” and
having there, in London, and in Holland, served a long apprenticeship
in spinning tobacco, and having now returned to his native land, he had
set up this trade at Leith. He now desired to make his peace with the
government, by signing the bond required by the law; and the Council
granted his request, and he became one of the earliest tobacco spinners
in Leith.
The state of the coinage often engaged the attention of parliament and
the Privy Council in the seventeenth century, and for this period the
records of it are pretty complete. But no radical change occurred in
the coinage till the introduction of banking at the end of the century,
and only points of general interest demand notice.
In November, 1604, the government ordered gold to be coined of the
fineness of twenty-two carats, and the silver of eleven deniers. Five
kinds of gold coins were to be struck――the unit or twelve pounds Scots
piece, the double crown or six pounds Scots piece, the Britain crown
or three pounds Scots piece, the thistle crown, forty-eight shillings
Scots, and the half-crown, thirty shillings Scots. Out of every
20 pounds of gold coined, one pound at least was to be issued in
the smaller gold pieces, and the types of the coins are minutely
described in the records. The silver coinage was to be issued in seven
pieces――the crown or three pounds Scots, half-crown, shilling, sixpence,
twopence, penny, and half-penny pieces. This series of coins, which
were minted between the beginning of the year 1605 and 1610, were
exactly the same both in England and in Scotland, except the mint-mark
and the difference in workmanship; and they were authorised to pass
current throughout Great Britain.¹
¹ R. W. Cochran Patrick, _Records of the Coinage of Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 164, 165, Introduction; Lindsay’s _View of
the Coinage of Scotland_, Supplement, page 60. In July, 1604,
Alexander Reid, a cutler in Edinburgh, was tried for false
coining. It seems that he was employed in the mint, and had
got hold of some false blanks, which he stamped with the true
dies of the merk piece; and for this crime he was hanged.
Birrel’s _Diary_; Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume II.,
page 399.
By a proclamation in November, 1611, all the gold coins were raised
about one-tenth in value, and all the former acts against exporting
coin were renewed. The Privy Council ordered that a table of the prices
for gold of every standard should be prepared and placed in some public
part of the coining-house. Foreign money was only to be received as
bullion; and in December the same year, the Council prohibited the
circulation of foreign coin, and ordered it to be brought to the mint,
where it would be paid for at the settled rates.
The want of small money was still felt in Scotland, and in 1614, a new
coinage of copper was authorised. Four hundred stone weight of copper
was directed to be coined into twopenny and penny pieces. The same year
the Council renewed all the former acts for bringing in bullion, and
especially an act of the reign of James IV. In 1619, the circulation
of all foreign coins was again prohibited, and they were ordered to
be brought to the mint, and paid for as bullion at the rate of £39 3
shilling 5 pence for every ounce of twenty-two carat gold, and £2 18
shilling 10½ pence for every ounce of fine silver. It was again
declared illegal to export any coin.
In 1623, a new coinage of copper was ordered. Five hundred stone weight
of copper was to be minted in twopenny and penny pieces. The acts
against exporting money were re-enacted in 1625, and at the same time,
commissioners were appointed to consider the best means of raising
the value of the money. They held several meetings, but in June, 1627,
it was resolved not to raise the course of the money, or restrain the
course of foreign dollars, till a more fitting opportunity. In April,
1629, another copper coinage was authorised, similar to that of 1623.
From this time to 1636, various proposals and changes concerning the
coinage were presented and discussed among the public bodies of the
kingdom, relating chiefly to the currency of foreign coins, but they
were not of sufficient importance to justify entering into details. A
new copper coinage was issued in 1632, consisting of one thousand five
hundred stone weight of copper, in pieces the same as the preceding
ones; and in 1634, another of the same quantity of copper.¹
¹ _Records of the Coinage of Scotland_, Cochran Patrick, Volume
I., Introduction, pages 166‒169, 235‒237, 241; Volume II.,
pages 3, 11, 13, 18, 21, 23, 32‒37, 75, 80‒102, 108, 116.
The use of a mill was introduced in minting the silver coinage in 1637;
the former method of coining by the hammer had continued for a long
time in Scotland. In January, 1637, the Council gave permission to
Briot, the master coiner, to make a trial of his mill and press till
the Whitsunday following, and this was extended from time to time, till
the use of the hammer in coining was tacitly and finally relinquished.
“The method of coining by the mill and press was more efficient and
quicker than by the hammer.¹ The metal having been prepared in much the
same way as formerly, the flang was placed between the puncheons, the
bar of the press turned, and the impression given at once.... The irons
were prepared by the graver of the Mint, who engraved the portrait of
the sovereign in relief, and from this the dies for striking the money
were struck. The dies from which the reverses and the legends were
struck were also furnished by the chief graver.”²
¹ “In the Scottish Mint, as everywhere else, money was first
struck with the hammer. The method of proceeding was as
follows:――The gold and silver having been brought to the
required standard, was put into heated crucibles of earth,
shaped like inverted cones, and placed in a furnace. These
furnaces were of two kinds, differing in their construction
――the one generally used for gold, and the other for silver.
Whenever the metal was melted throughout, it was run into
moulds and cast into bars. These bars were again re-heated,
and afterwards lengthened by beating on an anvil. They
were then cut into pieces about the thickness of the coins
required, and adjusted to the proper weight by cutting with
shears. The pieces were then taken up together with pincers,
and while held tightly on an anvil, beaten with a hammer all
round, to blunt and soften down the marks left by the shears
on the edges. The pieces thus prepared were known as the
flangs, and were now ready for bleaching. This was done
by again beating them, shaking them in a copper sieve, and
afterwards throwing them into boiling water mixed with common
salt and the ashes of the burnt lees of wine, in which they
were boiled till quite bright, and then again thrown on the
copper sieve and dried with rubbers.
“After this the flangs were distributed to the moneiers to
have the impression put on them. Each moneier had two irons
or puncheons, one of which was called the ‘pile,’ and the
other the ‘trussel.’ The pile was from seven to eight inches
long, and was firmly fixed in a block of wood. On the pile
was engraved one side of the coin, and on the trussel the
other. The flang being placed on the pile, the trussel was
applied to the upper side of it by means of a twister wand,
or by the hand, and the moneier then struck the end of the
puncheon with a hammer until the impression was produced on
the flang.
“The legend was put on by means of small puncheons bearing
the necessary letters. The coining irons and the ‘letters of
graving’ were always destroyed or defaced when the type of
the coinage was changed, and when in use were placed in the
custody of the warden, one of the responsible officials of
the Mint.”――_Records of the Coinage of Scotland_, Cochran
Patrick, Introduction, pages 48‒50.
² _Records of the Coinage of Scotland_, Cochran Patrick,
Introduction, page 52. In 1649, there is a minute inventory
of the machinery, the tools, and the furnishings, then in the
Scottish Mint. Out of many things enumerated we may notice that
there were “a great iron mill, a justing mill with four wheels,
and a complete hand mill, three complete spring presses, and
two furnaces with their iron work.”
“A further improvement was made in the fabrication of the money
by the introduction on the coinage of ‘James VII.,’ of marking
the edges either with lettering or milling, This was done by
a machine which was originally the invention of M. Casting of
the Mint of Paris.... A thin piece of steel was firmly screwed
upon a flat plate of copper fixed in a stout wooden frame. This
steel bore on one edge half of the legend or marking. Another
piece of steel, having on its edge the remainder of the legend
or marking, fixed on the copper plate, so that the flang, being
placed between them, was touched on each side by the marked
edges of the steel bands. This second steel was moved by a
mechanical arrangement of a wheel and handle, and the revolving
flang received at once the milling or inscription.”――_Records
of the Coinage of Scotland_, Cochran Patrick, Volume I.,
Introduction, page 55.
There were many complaints as to the scarcity of money, and at
length it seems that inconvenient evils had arisen from the large
quantity of small copper coins in circulation. The state of the copper
money engaged the attention of parliament in 1639 and 1641, and its
importation was prohibited under the penalty of death. In 1642, the
Council specified the foreign coins which should be current, and
fixed the rex dollar of 15 drops at fifty-four shillings. But in 1645,
parliament raised the value of the money, and fixed the rex dollar at
fifty-eight shillings.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., pages 260,
261, 283, 284, 450; Volume VI., page 197. In the end of the
year 1652, a committee of the English Parliament met with
deputies from Scotland to confer touching the coinage, but
nothing of much importance was done. The Scotch deputies
complained of the great scarcity of money in the country,
and it was proposed to issue £5000 worth of bodies for
Scotland, but the English Council thought nothing was
required.――_Records of the Coinage of Scotland_, Cochran
Patrick, Volume II., pages 133‒135.
In December, 1660, Charles Maitland, of Halton, was appointed general
of the Mint; and on the 12th of June, 1661, parliament adopted a
revised and exhaustive scale for collecting bullion. An alphabet or
table stating the exact quantities of bullion to be imposed on all
kinds of goods, and payable to the Mint, by all merchants and parties
who exported these goods, was ordered by parliament to be printed and
published, and to be in force from the date of its publication. This
mode of collecting bullion had for long been in operation in Scotland,
but it had never before been so completely systematised and extended.
As this alphabet of charges is highly interesting from a commercial
point of view, as well as in relation to the Mint, I shall go over a
few of the articles under each letter, noting the quantity of goods
of different kinds. For each barrel of whisky containing ten gallons,
there were enacted two ounces of silver; every two bolls of apples, two
ounces; each tun of drinking beer, four ounces; every four chalders of
coal, two ounces; each gross of drinking-glasses, one ounce; every five
thousand red herring, two ounces; every three hundred hart horns, two
ounces; every two thousand oxen horns, two ounces; every five thousand
sheep horns, two ounces; every twenty planks, two ounces; every four
bolls and a half of malt, two ounces; each gross of night-caps, one
ounce; each dozen of masts of all kinds, two ounce; every three oxen,
two ounces; every twenty thousand oysters, one ounce; every forty reams
of paper, two ounces; every hundred yards of plaiding, two ounces;
every three barrels of salmon, two ounces; every twenty sheep, two
ounces; and every six stones of wool, two ounces. Under the head of
skins, there is a pretty large number of kinds mentioned. Altogether
the alphabet of bullion occupies three double-column pages of a large
volume of the Scots Acts.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
250‒254.
A copper coinage was authorised by parliament on the 12th of June,
1661, consisting of three thousand stones of copper. It was directed
to be coined into pieces called turners, each weighing one drop and a
half, allowing four grains more or less for remedy. Two thousand stones
were to be coined within three years, and the remainder when the Privy
Council thought fit. After the issue of this coinage, the Council was
enjoined not only to prohibit the importation of foreign copper coin,
but also its circulation. A stock of twenty thousand merks Scots was
to be provided for the Mint; and any gold or silver found in Scotland
was to be taken to the coining-house, and paid for at the rate of one
ounce of coined gold of 22 carat for the ounce of bullion of 24 carat;
and similarly, the ounce of silver of 12 denier was to be paid by an
ounce of minted silver coin. A coinage of silver was also authorised,
consisting of a four merk piece, two merk piece, one merk piece, a half
merk piece, and a piece of the value of forty pennies――all Scots money.
The Privy Council was empowered to fix the type and legends of these
coins.¹ There were other coinages of this reign, but none of them call
for special remark.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
233, 254‒255.
During this period, however, the Mint, like every other branch of
the government in Scotland, had fallen into a deplorable state. From
various papers still preserved, it appears that the standard of the
money had been depreciated, that more copper had been coined than was
warranted, that some of the officials of the Mint had appropriated to
themselves money to which they had no right, and that the salaries of
some of the officers had been drawn though their posts had been vacant
for years. In 1862, a commission investigated the matter, and disclosed
the above state of affairs. The heads of the Mint, Lord Halton,
Sir John Falconer, Alexander Maitland, and Archibald Falconer, were
removed from their posts and from all places of public trust, and the
Lord-Advocate ordered to prosecute them.¹
¹ _Records of the Coinage of Scotland_, Cochran Patrick, Volume
II., pages 182, 199, 171‒172.
Parliament passed a long act concerning the coinage in 1686. To
encourage the importation of bullion, it was enacted that in future
anyone bringing to the Mint bullion of the standard fineness should
receive for it from the officers of the Mint the same weight in current
coin of the realm, without any charge for coining. For doing this,
and for defraying the expenses of the Mint, certain taxes were to
be imposed upon various imported goods and articles. A clerk was
to be appointed, who should keep a record on parchment books of the
quantities of bullion given in by the merchants, “which record shall
be open for the inspection of anyone who requires the same, under the
penalty of deprivation;” he had also to keep an accurate record of the
amount of money coined, “that it may be known what quantities of silver
have passed his Majesty’s irons from time to time.” The act fixed
the salaries of the officials and officers of the Mint, and a sum of
£1100 was allowed for maintaining the fabric of the establishment, and
providing new tools and incidental charges.
The kinds of current silver coins were stated to be the sixty, forty,
twenty, ten, and five shillings Scots pieces; and the weight of each
was minutely stated. It was expressly required by the act that the
sixty and forty shilling pieces should be lettered round the edges,
and the edges of the other three pieces grained. The Privy Council were
empowered to cognise and consider the gold coins, and to regulate and
determine the fineness and the weight, and the type of the coins, when
the King should think fit to grant a warrant for a gold coinage; no
copper was to be coined without the King’s express warrant, and when
it was issued it was to be in sixpenny and twopenny pieces.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, VIII., pages 603‒608.
In 1690, the government of Scotland received a warrant from the King
authorising the coining of the current pieces of silver, and ordering
that the provisions of the act of 1686 should be put into operation.
The same year, parliament sanctioned a copper coinage, not exceeding
three thousand stones, and to be spread over six years. In 1693, a
change in the rate of money was proposed, and accepted by the King, and
a general rise of about ten per cent, was proclaimed on the money then
current. But the next year, the Scots silver pieces of sixty, forty,
twenty, ten, and five shillings, were reduced to the values which were
current in 1686. On the 10th of December, 1695, sixty stones of silver
were ordered to be coined and issued in forty shilling pieces, and one
hundred and twenty stones in twenty, ten, and five shilling pieces.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX.; _Records
of the Coinage of Scotland_, Cochran Patrick, Volume II.,
page 253.
On the 6th of October, 1696, parliament passed an act authorising a
copper coinage, not exceeding three thousand stones in the space of
six years, of which two parts were to be coined in twopenny pieces, and
a third in sixpenny pieces. At the same time an act was passed against
false coiners. At the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the
eighteenth centuries, counterfeit coining had become a common crime.
In 1704, a batch of false coiners was discovered, and the authorities
proceeded vigorously to prosecute them.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume X., page 12,
Appendix, pages 53, 55, 79.
By a proclamation emitted in May, 1697, the importation of foreign
copper coin or base money was prohibited, under a penalty of ten pounds;
but in December another proclamation legalised the currency of the
French three-sous piece at three shillings Scots, and the French crown
at fifty-eight shillings Scots, and raised the forty-pence piece to
three shillings and sixpence Scots.
At the Union it was agreed that the coin should be of the same
standard and value throughout the United Kingdom. Accordingly, in 1707,
arrangements were made for changing the Scotch coinage into English;
and all the English, Scotch, and the foreign money was called in and
reminted, and reissued as the coinage of Great Britain. In April, 1708,
the Scottish coins were finally called in, and preparations made for
carrying out the recoinage exactly on the methods of the English Mint.¹
Thus one of the beneficial results of the Union was soon obtained;
since, commercially, the great advantage and the convenience of having
one coinage, and only one standard of money for the whole Island, is
too obvious to need illustration.
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; _Records of the Coinage of
Scotland_, Cochran Patrick, Volume II., pages 271‒272. Mr.
Cochran Patrick’s _Records of the Coinage of Scotland_, often
referred to in the preceding pages, was published in 1876,
and is a very valuable work. The introduction to the records
and the documents relating to the coinage, and to the mints
of Scotland, is all that could be desired; while the method
of arranging the records for easy consulting and reference is
admirable. Altogether the work is a monument of research and
industry.
The establishment of a bank in Scotland was a sign of the growing
commercial spirit of the nation, which was manifesting itself in
various directions. In Scotland, as in England, till towards the close
of the seventeenth century, exchanges and other monetary transactions
had been wholly in the hands of a few leading merchants; as in the
back-room of a clothier in the High Street of Edinburgh, or the
counting-room in the Saltmarket of Glasgow.¹ The scheme of the first
Scotch bank, as drawn in an act of parliament in 1695, was limited and
prudential in a high degree, and founded upon the joint-stock principle.
It was to begin with a subscribed capital of £1,200, 000 Scots, or
£100,000 sterling, in shares of one thousand pounds Scots, of which
no one was to have more than twenty; two-thirds of the capital was
to be subscribed by persons residing in Scotland, and one-third by
individuals in England or elsewhere. The company was to be placed
under the direction of a governor, a deputy-governor, and twenty-four
directors, who were to have the sole management of the bank. At the
beginning it was thought best that twelve of the directors should be
Englishmen, as it was assumed that they were better acquainted with
the business of banking than the Scots. The names of the original
proprietors of the bank are preserved in the act of parliament which
sanctioned its establishment; and among them were Mr. Holland, and
six London merchants, and six Edinburgh merchants. Mr. Holland came
down to Edinburgh and resided there for some time, superintending
the proceedings of the bank; and he found that the Scots were rather
ignorant about banking matters. But the bank prospered, and in a few
months after it was opened, it had attained a wonderful degree of
credit. Shortly after the bank was fairly put in operation, by the
common consent of the company, the whole of the directors were elected
by the Scotch shareholders, the English ones being left to act as
trustees, and to manage what business the bank might have in London.
At length, when there were no longer thirteen proprietors of the bank
in England, this arrangement also was relinquished.²
¹ The dates at which banks were established in the countries
of Europe are as follows:――In Venice, 1157; in Geneva, 1345;
in Barcelona, 1401; in Genoa, 1407; in Amsterdam, 1407; in
Hamburg, 1619; in Rotterdam, 1635; in Stockholm, 1688; in
England, 1694; in Copenhagen, 1736; in Berlin, 1764; in St.
Petersburg, 1786.
² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
494‒497; _Account of the Bank of Scotland_, 1728.
At first the chief business of the bank consisted in lending money on
heritable bonds and other securities. The giving of bills of exchange
was next tried, with the object of extending the advantages of the bank
as much as possible; and with the same aim, to carry the circulation
of their notes throughout the country, branch-offices were opened in
Glasgow, Montrose, Dundee, and Aberdeen, for receiving money and paying
money in the form of inland exchange, by notes and bills prepared for
the purpose. But after a trial of this branch business, the directors
came to the conclusion “that the exchange trade was not proper for a
banking company; a bank, they thought, should be chiefly designed as
a common repository of the nation’s cash, a ready fund for affording
credit and loans, and for making receipts and payments of money
easy, by the company’s notes. To deal in exchange interfered with the
trade and the business of private merchants, and the Bank of Scotland
had found it very troublesome, unsafe, and improper.” After a short
trial, it was also found that the bank could not continue the four
branch-offices, except at a loss far exceeding any advantage which
could be derived from them; and after spending a considerable sum on
these branches, the directors felt obliged to relinquish them, and
recall their money to Edinburgh. For many years the business of the
bank was entirely limited to lending money.¹
¹ _Account of the Bank of Scotland_, page 6.
Touching the paper currency then introduced, the Bank of Scotland
issued from the first, five, ten, twenty, fifty, and hundred pound
notes. It was not till the year 1699 that the bank began to issue one
pound notes, which have ever since been a special and an important
feature of Scottish banking, and of the circulating medium of the
country. These twenty shilling notes soon got into circulation in
Edinburgh, and in some other parts of the kingdom, but some time
elapsed before they obtained a ready and general currency in the
markets of the country, for among the common people of that day nothing
answered so well as silver money: gold was then little used among
them.¹ The one pound notes, however, it is well known, became and have
long continued great favourites among the Scots; indeed, they have as
much confidence in the paper notes of the old banks as they have in
gold or in silver money.
¹ _Ibid._
Having presented the foregoing details of the rise of the industrial
arts, and noted the difficulties in the way of their progress, and
indicated that there was a growing spirit in the nation towards
trade and commercial enterprise, it seems requisite to adduce further
evidence of the strength and generality of this spirit, which was
vigorously struggling to find new means of outlet. Thus the consecutive
and rapid progress of industry, trade, and commerce which subsequently
ensued in Scotland will be better appreciated and easier understood,
when it has been shown to flow from a natural succession of causes. Let
us, therefore, briefly notice some of the numerous projects and trade
adventures which were originated or proposed in the closing years of
the seventeenth century, and the opening years of the eighteenth.
A sugar work was erected in Glasgow in 1667, and a second in 1683――the
only ones in the kingdom. In 1696, parliament passed an act authorising
Hugh and James Montgomery, merchants in Glasgow, and others whom they
might assume, to form a company and erect a sugar work at Glasgow.
They were granted all the privileges accorded to manufactories for a
period of nineteen years, under the name of “The New Sugar Manufactory
at Glasgow.” William Corse, a merchant in Glasgow, in 1700, proposed
to establish a similar work, and petitioned Parliament for the same
privileges as the other sugar works. In 1701, Matthew and Daniel
Campbell, merchants in Glasgow, proposed to erect another sugar work;
and in connection with it, a work for distilling brandy and other
kinds of spirits from malt produced within the kingdom. They undertook
to produce as good liquor “as any that is imported from France;” and,
besides, a distillery, they said, could not fail “to be exceedingly
profitable both for the consumption of malt, a native product, and for
the convenience of the country, and especially for foreign trade on
the coasts of Guinea and America, seeing that no trade can be managed
to these places or to the East Indies without great quantities of such
liquors.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume X., page 66,
pages 52, 67, Appendix; _Register of the Privy Council_.
In 1695, parliament passed many acts for the encouragement and
authorisation of trade enterprises. Patrick Houston and his partners
were granted the privileges of a manufactory for a rope-work in
Glasgow. This company was founded upon a stock of forty thousand pounds
Scots, and they proposed to introduce foreign workmen to instruct the
natives. A company, chiefly composed of Glasgow merchants, with Dunlop,
the Principal of the University, was formed in 1699, for carrying on
the woollen manufacture there. They proposed to produce all kinds of
woollen goods, damasks, half-silks, tartans, crapes, russets, and other
stuffs for apparel either for summer or winter. The following year,
William Marshall, William Gray, and two other merchants of Glasgow,
proposed to erect a work for making pins and needles, boxes, shears,
scythes, knives, and other kinds of hardware; and the Privy Council
granted them the privileges of a manufactory. The same year, James and
William Walkinshaw, and other merchants in Glasgow, proposed to erect a
manufactory for cordage, canvas, and other requisites for shipping, and
petitioned Parliament for the usual privileges.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX.; Volume X.,
pages 146, 154, 231; _Register of the Privy Council_.
In 1695, the Estates passed an Act in favour of William Scot and his
partners, for erecting a sawmill at Leith. It was stated that such a
mill established at so convenient a port would be a great advantage
to the nation, because there oak trees and all kinds of wood might be
landed from abroad, for building ships and other great works in the
kingdom, which before could not be done for want of skill in sawing
wood. Another act authorised the erection of windmills for sawing all
kinds of wood. Alexander Fearn, an engraver in Edinburgh, was granted
the privileges of a manufactory for the practice of his art. It was
stated that he had employed himself from his infancy in learning his
art, “until by the blessing of God on his faithful endeavours, he
has attained to such perfection in this art, once much admired and
encouraged, that he can undertake to serve the people in that point
of the art called sinking of seals in gold, silver, or steel, either
cutting coats of arms, ciphering names, or other devices such as
parties may order him to perform for them; and particularly that point
of the art which is yet more singular――cutting or sinking the exact
effigies of any person who pleases to sit three hours; and thus the
people may be served with this kind of work as good, and as cheap, and
much easier than when they were obliged to employ foreigners; and all
the money that used to be spent on that account may be kept in the
country.” In 1693, parliament passed an act in favour of William Scot,
cabinetmaker, who proposed to build a manufactory for making coaches,
chariots, harness, and other things belonging to that business, and
also for grinding glasses of all kinds. He promised to bring home and
employ foreign workmen, until the Scots themselves were instructed and
capable of working at this trade. On these terms the usual privileges
of a manufactory were granted to him. In 1695, parliament confirmed
two former acts of the Privy Council, in favour of James Turner, a
cabinetmaker and mirror-glass maker. The wrights of Edinburgh thought
that Turner was encroaching upon their trade, and seized his tools
and materials, and otherwise annoyed him; and Parliament therefore
commanded that James Turner “should have the full and free liberty
to exercise his calling and his art and trade within the burgh of
Edinburgh in all time coming;” and forbade the deacons of crafts or
their officers, or anyone else, to interfere with him and his work.¹ At
the same time parliament passed an act in favour of John Holmes, Thomas
Fershman, and William Park, combmakers in Leith. They, having formed
a joint-stock company, were empowered to make all kinds of combs, and
accorded the privileges of a manufactory. It was stated in the act that
they had been practising this trade for several years, and successfully
teaching apprentices; and that they were even then able to supply the
whole kingdom with combs, at a cheaper rate than they could be imported.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
490‒491, 321, 523.
James Lyell, of Garden, in 1695, obtained the privileges of a
manufactory to make oil from lint seed and rape seed; and also for
an establishment for preparing hare and rabbit skins and making hats.
The same year, liberty was granted to erect a manufactory for making
gun-powder and alum, and it was stated that there was no powder-mill
in the kingdom, and that there had never been a work for making alum
in Scotland. In 1698, a company was formed for casting shot, which
obtained the usual privileges of a manufactory for nineteen years.
In 1697, James Ormiston and William Elliot, merchants, proposed to
erect a work for winding, throwing, twisting, and dyeing all kinds
of raw silk. They thought that the undertaking would prove to be
beneficial to the nation, as this branch being the groundwork for all
other silk manufactures would diminish the foreign import, and make
the balance of trade much more favourable: “and also in time be the
means of opening a trade directly from Scotland to Turkey, which is
one of the most profitable and enriching known, and further tends to
advance other manufactories which are dependent on it, such as buttons,
silk stockings, and the like.” The Privy Council granted the usual
privileges. In 1698, a number of men in Aberdeen petitioned the Privy
Council for permission to erect a woollen manufactory, which was also
granted. A cloth manufactory was in full operation at Gordon’s Mills,
in the vicinity of Aberdeen, in 1703, and it was recorded that it was
producing broadcloths, druggets, and goods of other kinds, such as
half-silks, serges, damasks, and plush made of wool, “which looks
nearly as fine as that made of hair.”¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_; _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 419‒420; Volume X., pages 22‒23,
Appendix.
In these years also it is very remarkable that almost every seaport
of any consequence in Scotland applied to parliament for permission
to impose a tax for the purpose of building new harbours or improving
the ones which they already possessed. At the same time the weekly,
quarterly, half-yearly, and yearly markets, greatly increased all over
the kingdom. Thus it is pretty evident that the energy which projected
the colony of Caledonia-Darien was only a symptom of the awakening
spirit of the nation, which was seeking vent in trading pursuits and
in new commercial enterprises.
At the same period various notices of inventions for draining mines and
other purposes occur in the records. In 1684, James Young, a writer in
Edinburgh, represented to the Privy Council that after much labour and
expense he had completed an engine for writing “whereby five copies can
be had at once,” and he requested an exclusive right of making it, and
the Council granted this for nine years. The next year he came before
the Council as the inventor of a new lock, which was minutely described
in the record, and an exclusive privilege of making it was also granted
for fifteen years. In 1696, Young again appeared before the Council and
stated that he had invented and perfected “an engine for weaving, never
before practised in any nation, whereby several kinds of cloths may be
manufactured without manual operation or weaving looms.” He affirmed
that he had actually made cloth with his engine, and he believed that
it would prove highly useful, especially for the “trade to Africa and
the Indies; and therefore he petitioned the Council for the privileges
of a manufactory, and for a patent,” and the Council granted to him an
exclusive use of his engine for thirteen years.¹
¹ _Register of the Privy Council._
Nicolas Dupin, already mentioned as a paper manufacturer, came before
the Privy Council in 1695, asking a patent for a new invention for
draining water out of coal pits. He stated, “that in twenty fathoms
deep we can raise in two minutes’ time a ton of water, provided the
pit or shaft will admit of two such casks to pass one another....
The machine was calculated to be useful for all kinds of corn mills,
where water was scarce or frozen, for we can grind by one man’s hand
as much as any watermill does. It was adapted for draining lakes or
for bringing water to any place where it was wanted, and for clearing
of harbour mouths from great rocks or sand.” He had also a smaller
engine, with economised power for lighter work, “as mincing of tallow
for candles, a very exact way of cutting tobacco, for cutting tanners’
bark, and similar sorts of work, without the assistance of either wind
or water.” It was stated that several gentlemen were ready to contract
with the inventor for the draining of some flooded coal-pits. The
Council granted him a patent for eleven years.¹
¹ _Ibid._ Occasionally a foolish proposal occurs in the records.
For instance, Robert Logan, a cabinetmaker, asserted that he
could make kettles and caldrons of wood which could “abide
the strongest fire, while boiling any liquor put into them,
as well as any vessel made of brass, copper, or any other
metal,” with the advantage of being more durable, and only
a third of the price. The Council granted him the exclusive
right of making such articles for nineteen years.
Scotland as yet had not many great ships¹ or much commerce, but it
was manifest that the mind of the nation was turning more and more
to secular and commercial pursuits than it had formerly been; and all
that was wanted for the rapid development of industry and commercial
enterprise was a field for the energy of the people. But, while
Scotland was forced to continue in an antagonistic attitude to England
this could not be obtained; and the difficulty was how to change
the relations of the two kingdoms, and to place both upon a footing
of equality and commercial freedom. The Union at length solved the
difficulty; and, as already stated, it has proved an immense advantage
to the progress of civilisation in Scotland, while it has contributed
to the power and to the glory of the British Empire.
¹ See under page 303.
In concluding this exposition of the social state of the nation, let
me briefly recapitulate some of the leading points. Commencing with the
administration of justice and the powers of the executive, I proceeded
to show the state of crime, the condition of the poor, and the means
employed for their relief, and touched on the laws for suppressing
and reforming the vagrant and idle classes. The ideas and the beliefs
prevailing among the people, and the causes of their persistence,
were indicated; and the social morality of the nation, the relations
of the people and the clergy, the observance of Sunday and religious
services, drinking habits, the relations of the different sexes,
sumptuary regulations, and the sanitary condition of the kingdom, were
explained at some length. Having noticed the state of the roads, and
the introduction of postal communication, the shipping of the kingdom,
and indicated the state of agriculture, I then traced the rise and slow
progress of industry and manufactories, noting some of the obstacles
which impeded their development in Scotland; the coinage, and the
introduction of banking; and especially remarked that more energy began
to be thrown into trading and commercial matters towards the end of the
century. When all the distracting influences springing out of civil and
religious war, and other adverse circumstances which the nation had to
face, are taken into account, it is surprising that the people entered
so soon upon the remarkable career of industry and rapid commercial
progress which have characterised the succeeding centuries; and which,
along with the rise and the diffusion of science, of invention, of
literature, of philosophy, and art, constitute an era of true glory
in the history of Scotland. Here, therefore, I may repeat, that there
is hardly anything, hardly any difficulties, which will not yield “to
the persistent energy of man.”¹ The intellectual and moral impetus of
the Reformation continued till new influences came, and then one by
one the links of tradition and the shackles of authority became weaker
and weaker; a philosophy of surpassing vigour and boldness arose,
far-reaching in its results, shaking the foundations of the received
principles of belief and the current theories of knowledge to their
core, thus inaugurating a new point of departure for the human mind.
To elucidate the historical antecedents of this philosophy will be the
special aim of the concluding chapter of this volume; and ultimately
the whole movement of European thought will open before us with amazing
clearness.
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
I., page 17.
CHAPTER XXXI.
_Ballad, and Jacobite Literature of Scotland._
WHEN attempting to reach an exhaustive explanation of the causes and
influences which have contributed to the development of the mind and
character of a nation, everything which has affected their civilisation,
and especially whatever has been mainly produced by the people
themselves, demands the careful attention of the historian. It is
admitted on all hands that the ballad literature and national songs of
Scotland are of this character. For centuries these compositions have
exercised an influence on the feelings and sentiments of the people.
The songs associated with the national music, and with the popular
tunes and dances, are essential elements of the national life, and have
long been a source of real enjoyment to the people. But the field of
Scottish ballad and song is wide and varied, and cannot be treated in
minute detail here, my aim being to ascertain and indicate the bearing
of this class of writings on the life of the nation. And yet if one
must try as far as possible to escape the error of forming imperfect
and unjust estimates of the national character, it is necessary to
look at this branch of literature, as it contains real evidence of the
states of feeling, of the opinions, and of the manners of the people.
Some account of the origin, the progress, and the value of our ballad
literature was given in the eleventh chapter of this work, and its
influence upon the Reformation was noticed in the thirteenth and in
the twenty-first chapters;¹ in the present chapter the exposition
is continued till past the midde of the eighteenth century, and thus
includes the Jacobite ballads as well as compositions of a satirical
turn, and the popular songs of the people, beginning with those of a
historical and satirical description, and closing with the popular or
lyric songs.
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
I., pages 441‒451, _seq._; Volume II., pages 22‒24, 331‒340,
_et seq._
The disturbed state of the nation from the death of James VI. to
the Union, was unpropitious to literary culture of any kind. Yet the
opinions and the sentiments of the contending parties occasionally
sought vent in rude ballads and rhymed compositions. There are ballads
on the Covenanting armies and battles, and on some of the events of
the long struggle from the Restoration to the Revolution, after which
the distinctive Scotch Jacobite ballads and satires begin. The greater
part of the Jacobite ballads are rather rude and coarse in phraseology,
but they gave expression to the feelings and sentiments of one of
the parties in the struggle; indeed, the Jacobite ballads and songs
embodied a kind of creed of the party, and, historically, they are
valuable.
It was reported that Argyle was the first who raised fire in the Civil
War, by burning the house of Airlie, in June, 1639, thus originating
the ballad “The Bonnie House of Airlie.” It was long popular, and
there are several versions of it extant. Argyle being intent on the
destruction of the house, was represented as working with his own
hands in “knocking down the doorposts and the headstone of Airlie.”
The ballad opens thus:――
“It fell on a day, and a bonnie summer day,
When the corn grew green and yellow,
That there fell out a great dispute
Between Argyle and Airlie.
The Earl o’ Montrose has written to Argyle,
To come in the morning early,
An’ lead his men by the back o’ Dunkeld,
To plunder the bonnie house o’ Airlie.
The lady looked o’er her window sae hie,
And oh, but she looked weary,
And there she espied the great Argyle,
Come to plunder the bonnie house o’ Airlie.
‘Come down, come down, Lady Margaret,’ he says,
‘Come down and kiss me fairly,
Or before the morning clear day-light,
I’ll not leave a standing stane in Airlie.’”¹
¹ Another version contains a pointed reference to a blemish
in Argyle’s eyes, and has two additional verses. It is
conjectured by Maidment “that the grim chief of the Campbells
had been a rejected suitor, and that the lady treated by him
in so base a manner preferred the Loyalist lover of Airlie
to the Covenanting lord of Lochow.”――Maidment’s _Scottish
Ballads_, Volume I., pages 272‒274.
The lady replied that she would not submit, even though he should carry
out his threat.
The short satirical ballad, called “Leslie’s March to Long-Marston
Moor,” is curious, and contains a few hits at the prevailing feeling
of the Covenanters:――
“Stand till it, and fight like men,
True gospel to maintain;
The parliament’s blyth to see us a’ coming.
When to the Kirk we come,
We’ll purge it each room
From popish relics and a’ such innovation,
That the world may see,
There’s none in the right but we,
O’ the sons of the auld Scottish nation;
And the kist fu’ o’ whistles, that mak sic a cleiro,
Our pipers brave shall have them a’,
Whate’er comes o’ it.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume I., page 293.
The aversion of the Presbyterians to the organ in churches was emphatic;
and they were also very sure of the truth of their own opinions, and
determined to maintain them.
The battle of Philiphaugh was fought on the 13th of September, 1645,
when Montrose was completely defeated by a portion of the Covenanting
army, under the command of David Leslie. This battle terminated the
short and brilliant career of Montrose. The ballad gives an account
of the battle from the Covenanters’ standpoint, and expressed their
feeling of exultation:――
“Sir David from the borders came,
Wi’ heart and hand came he,
Wi’ him three thousand bonny Scots,
To bear him company.”
After describing the movements of the army and the battle pretty
accurately, the ballad concludes with these words:――
“Now let us a’ for Leslie pray,
And his brave company,
For they have vanquished great Montrose,
Our cruel enemy.”
Montrose escaped from the field; but five years afterwards he fell
into the hands of his enemies, and perished upon the scaffold. From
time to time various writers have attempted to make him a hero, and
a contemporary ballad, entitled “The Gallant Grahams,” contains a
lamentation over his final discomfiture and cruel end. This ballad
enumerates the deeds of the Grahams at some length, and gives
particulars of the military achievements of Montrose, and of several
of his companions in arms who fought for the royal cause; and concludes
with the following lines on the last exploit of Montrose:――
“Montrose again, that chieftain bold,
Back into Scotland fair he came,
For to redeem fair Scotland’s land,
The pleasant, gallant, worthy Graham.
At the water of Carron he did begin,
And fought the battle to the end;
And there were killed for our noble King
Two thousand of our Danish men.¹
* * * * *
“Then woe to Strachan and Hacket both,
And, Lesly, ill death may thou die,
For ye have betrayed the gallant Grahams,
Who aye were true to Majesty.
And the Laird of Assaint has seized Montrose,
And led him into Edinburgh town,
And frae his body taken the head,
And quartered him upon a trone.
“And Huntly’s gone the self-same way,
And our noble King is also gone;
He suffered death for our nation,
Our mourning tears can ne’er be done.
But our brave young King is now come home,
King Charles the Second in degree;
The Lord send peace into his time,
And God preserve his Majesty.”²
¹ “The Danish men” were Montrose’s foreign auxiliaries, but in
all they did not exceed six hundred men.
² Scott’s _Minstrelsy_, Volume II., pages 187‒194. At the
present time, John Skelton, writing on the death of Montrose,
says, among other and very fine touches:――“When at length his
doom was read to him in the crowded house, he lifted up his
face without any word speaking.” He lifted up his face! A
grand speech――eloquent in its solemn simplicity. A silent
protest――a silent appeal. Was it with him as with an old
martyr?
“And looking upward, full of grace,
He prayed, and from a happy place,
God’s glory smote him on the face.”
The opposing parties in religion and in politics often assailed each
other in satirical rhymes, in pasquils, and in lampoons, which were
printed on broadsheets and circulated through the country. But this
class of composition generally was extremely coarse and profane, and
hardly fit for publication in the present day. On both sides they could
scarcely find language abusive and vulgar enough in which to describe,
traduce, and stigmatise each other; nevertheless, without entering into
long details on this subject, a few illustrations of it as explicative
of the spirit of the times in some of its modes seem requisite. In 1638,
a pasquil against the bishops appeared, written in a sort of rhyme,
beginning thus, “St. Andrews is an atheist, and Glasgow is a gouke,”
and so on touching the rest of the bishops. On the other hand, some
of the Episcopal party produced a satire on the General Assembly of
1638――a curious performance consisting of two parts, and opening with
the following description of the meeting of the Assembly:――
“From Glasgow Raid to which made meeting,
Huge troops from all quarters came fleeting,
With dags and guns in form of war,
All loyal subjects to debar;
Where bishops might not show their faces,
And mushroom elders filled their places;
From such mad pranks of Catharus,
Almighty God, deliver us.”¹
¹ _A Book of Scottish Pasquils_, edited by Mr. Maidment, page
29, 1868.
The Assembly and its leading members were caricatured at length, and
sometimes with effect, but with extreme coarseness and vulgarity.
Henderson, the moderator of the Assembly, was called a pope, and
some of the covenanting nobles were severely dealt with, and also the
small gentry: “From beggars, beggar-makers, from all bold and blood
undertakers, from hungry calepoles, knighted loons, from perfumed
puppies and baboons, from caterpillars, mothes and rats, horse-letches,
state blood-sucking brats,” the writer prayed to be delivered from
all such. Another lampoon, called “The New Litany,” assailed the
Covenanters in a similar strain. The author prayed that he might be
preserved from all the actions of the party then contending against
the King:――
“From the long prayers of devote sisters,
From master madcaps’ rotten glisters,
From sermons made to blow the fire,
From bishops that betray the cause,
And advocates that write the laws;
From the table, nay tables three,
Of lords, barons, and ministry――
From their decrees and all new glosses,
And from all conspiracy and treason.
* * * * *
“From pupil, pastor, tutor, flock,
From gutter Jennie, pulpit Jock,
From covenanting tage and rage,
From horsruber, scudler, scold, and hage,
From tinker, treulerd, slouene, and sluit,
Dick, Jack, and Tom, long-tail and coitt,
Drunkard, thief, and whore――infamous
rascals by the score.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 53, 57.
In England the Long Parliament got its share of buffets from the wits
of the time; and as the Covenanters became associated with the Long
Parliament, the following notice of this famous assembly may be given
here:――
“It’s full of questions and commands,
It’s armed with muskets and pikes; it fears
Naught in the world but cavaliers;
It was born in England, but begot
Between the English and the Scot;
Though some are of opinion rather,
That the devil was its father.”
Another contemporary rhyme on the Long Parliament has a slight touch of
grim humour in it:――
“O God preserve the parliament,
And grant it long to reign,
From three years’ unto three years’ end,
And then to three again.
That neither king, nor bishop lord,
So long as they are alive,
Have power to rebuke their souls,
Or hurt the members five.
For they be good and godly men,
No wicked paths they tread;
For they are pulling bishops down,
And setting up Roundhead.
For holy Burton, Baswick, Pryme,
Lord keep them in Thy bosom;
Keep him who did keep out the King,
Worshipful Sir John Hotham.
Pull down the King and Hartsford both,
And keep them down for ay;
But set Thy chosen Pym on high,
And eik my good lord Say.
For Warwick we entreat the Lord,
Be Thou his strong defence;
For Bedford, Hollis, Fairfax, Brooke,
And also his Excellence.
Bliss once again Thy parliament,
And let them sit secure,
And may their consultations,
From aye to aye endure.
Let all the people say Amen,
Then let us praises sing,
To God and to the parliament,
And all that hate the King.”
The Rising of 1666, which was terminated by the engagement of the
Pentland Hills, where the Royal army defeated the Covenanters, is
commemorated in the ballad entitled “The Battle of Pentland Hills.”
The Covenanters having been dispersed, the ballad is interesting as
an expression of the feeling of their opponents:――
“Between Dumfries and Argyle,
The lads they marched many a mile;
Souters and tailors unto them drew,
Their Covenants for to renew.
The Whigs they wi’ their merry cracks,
Gar’d the poor pedlars lay down their packs;
But aye sinsyne they do repent,
The renewing o’ their Covenant.
* * * * *
“General Dalziel held to the hill,
Asked at them what was their will,
And who gave them this protestation,
To rise in arms against the nation?
‘Lay down your arms in the king’s name,
And ye shall a’ gae safely hame;’
But they a’ cried out, wi’ ae consent,
‘We’ll fight for a broken Covenant.’
‘O weel,’ says he, ‘since it is so,
A wilful man never wanted woe.’
He then gave a sign unto his lads,
And they drew up in three brigades.
The trumpets blew, and the colours flew,
And every man to his armour drew;
The Whigs were never so much aghast,
And to see their saddles toom sae fast.
The cleverest men stood in the van,
The Whigs they took their heels and ran;
But such a raking was never seen,
As the raking of the Rullion Green.”¹
¹ Scott’s _Minstrelsy_, Volume II., pages 203‒205.
As we have seen, the oppressed people again rebelled in 1679, and in
June they defeated a party of the Royal army under Captain Graham,
at Drumclog. In the ballad on the engagement it is called “The Battle
of Loudon Hill.” The Covenanters were led by Robert Hamilton and John
Balfour of Kinloch, the latter, commonly called Burly, a vehement and
determined man. Graham was represented as ordering an attack upon the
westland men, while his officers attempted to dissuade him from it on
the ground that it would be courting certain defeat:――
“There is not one of yon men,
But who is worthy other three;
There is not one among them a’
That in his cause will stap to die.
As for Burly, him I know,
He’s a man of honour, truth, and fame;
Gie him a sword into his hand,
He’ll fight thyself, and other three.
* * * * *
“Then up he drew in battle rank,
I wat he had a bonnie train,
But the first time that bullets flew,
Ay he lost twenty o’ his men.
Then back he came the way he gaed,
I wat right soon and suddenly,
He gave command among his men,
And sent them back, and bade them flee.
Then up came Burly, bauld and stout,
Wi’s little train o’ westland men,
Who more than either once or twice,
In Edinburgh confined had been.
They had been up to Loudon sent,
An’ yet they’ve a’ come safely down,
Six troop o’ horsemen they have beat,
And chased them into Glasgow town.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume II., pages 222‒225.
There is a ballad on the Battle of Bothwell Bridge, where the
Covenanters were defeated in 1679. Though none of these ballads on the
Civil War have much merit, they are comparatively free from coarseness,
and occasionally touches of feeling occur in them. The ballad on
Bothwell Bridge concludes thus:――
“Alang the brae, beyond the brig,
Many brave men lies cauld and still;
But lang we’ll mind, and sair we’ll rue,
The bloody fight of Bothwell Hill.”
The ballad on this battle is printed in most of the collections of
ballads and songs; and there is another contemporary one, beginning “Ye
are welcome Whigs from Bothwell Bridge.” Hogg composed a modern ballad
on the battle of Bothwell Bridge, from which I quote the following
verse:――
“When rank oppression rends the heart,
And rules wi’ stroke o’ death,
Wha wadna spend their dear heart’s blood,
For the tenets of their faith.”
In the satirical rhymes and lampoons from the Restoration to the
Revolution there is ample evidence of the dissolute life of the ruling
party; but the far greater part of these compositions are unsuitable
for quotation. There is a vehement and violent satire on the Stair
family, and the famous lawyer himself is made the object of much bitter
abuse. His crooked neck is constantly alluded to; while his wife had
the reputation of being a witch. The apparent inconsistencies and
shortcomings in the career of the great President of the Session, and
of his eminent son, were mercilessly exposed and held up to scorn;
and their changes of front in politics were sharply brought out, with
damaging effect.¹
¹ _Book of Scottish Pasquils_, pages 179‒190.
A dispute, already noticed, arose between the Court of Session and
the bar, touching the question whether a party aggrieved by a sentence
of this court might lawfully appeal to the parliament of Scotland.
Many of the advocates maintained the affirmative, which greatly
offended the lords and the government, and they were dismissed from
their places, and forbidden to reside in Edinburgh, being treated as
malcontents, because they had disagreed with the lords, and ventured to
defend law and justice. But after a short time, many of them yielded,
acknowledging the error of their ways, and professed repentance. The
lords, however, did not long enjoy their victory, as shortly afterwards
parliament began to entertain appeals, though not with the aim of
checking the corruption of the judges, but because some of the chief
members of the Estates desired to have a share of the good things which
were agoing, and thus to be enabled to assist the fortunes of their
friends. In the satirical squibs on this matter, the President of the
Session received much attention; and the verses to the advocates who
stayed behind contain the following lines:――
“Even so, of advocates you’re but the Rump,
That noble faculty’s turn’d to a stump;
And so Dundonald does you much commend,
Because you are the faculty’s wrong end.
But since a Rumple president does sit,
That rumps at bar should domineer was fit;
Yet where the tail is thus in the head’s place,
No doubt the body has a sh――――en face.
Thus, thus, some men reform our laws and gown,
As tailors do, by turning upside down.”
The following lines refer to the president’s threats against the
malcontent advocates:――
“The president with his head on one side,
He swears that for treason we all shall be tried.
* * * * *
The president bids us repent of our sin,
And swears we’ll be forfeit if we don’t come in:
We answer him all, we care not a pin.”¹
¹ _Book of Scottish Pasquils_, pages 216, 218‒221.
At this period there were persons in Scotland called peats or pats,
whose function was to extract as much as could be got from the pockets
of clients, “whether rich or poor, for the purpose of perverting
justice.” On this there is a curious contemporary rhyme entitled,
“Robert Cook’s Petition against the Peats,” addressed to the Lords
of Session, which begins thus:――
“The humble petition of Master Robert Cook,
Having spent all his money in following his book,
Now humbly does show to the Lords of the seat,
That he is likely to starve unless made a peat.
Yet first he must know whose peat he must be,
The president’s he cannot, because he has three,
And for my lord Hatton,¹ his son now Sir John,
By all is declared to be peattie patron.”
¹ Mr. Charles Maitland.
And so on the rhyme proceeded, naming the different lords, and showing
that they all employed peats; and that John Hay of Murray, by virtue of
his daughter, had a peatry which yielded thousands annually; that Lord
Newbyth had hitherto run halves with the peats, but having found that
they were all cheats, he resolved that his own son, William Baird,
should be peat of the house as well as heir; that Lord Newton was
always ready to take whatever men would give, and when he was peat to
himself, avoided all the danger of sharing the half. After hearing the
petition, the bench remitted it to Lord Castlehill,¹ who, after duly
considering it, declared that the peats were grievous to the nation, as
by some inspiration they pled without speaking, and consulted without
writing.²
¹ Sir John Lockhart.
² _Book of Scottish Pasquils_, pages 224‒227.
Without attaching much importance to writings of this description, we
know from various sources of information that instances of disgraceful
judicial delinquency were then common in Scotland.
A satirical rhyme on the government of the Duke of Lauderdale, and
his wife, called “A Litany,” was written about 1671. There are several
other satires on his wife, under the name of Bessie; and it is stated
that she swayed both Church and State. “She plots with her tail, and
her lord with his pate――with a head on one side, and a hand lifted
high――she kills us with frowning, and makes us to die――the nobles and
barons, boroughs and clownes――she threatened at home even the principal
towns――but now she usurps both the sceptre and crown――and thinks to
destroy us with a flap of her gown.”¹
¹ The following lines are from the “Litany”:――
“From this huffing Hector,ᵃ and his queen of love,
From all his blank letters from above,
From a parliamentary council that does rage and rave,
From an archbishopᵇ graft on a presbyterian stock,
From the declaration built on a covenant dock,
From opposite oathsᶜ that would make a man chock.”
ᵃ Duke of Lauderdale. ᵇ Sharpe. ᶜ The Test.
The Revolution and the events flowing from it called forth many
satirical ballads and rhymes, especially from the party who adhered to
the banished dynasty. It is from this date that Jacobitism assumed the
form of a political creed, and became a distinctive name of a party
in the State. This party, in manifesting their opinion and feeling in
favour of the exiled family, endeavoured by all means to depreciate the
Revolution settlement, and the whole course of subsequent proceedings,
by satirising and abusing all who adhered to the new order of affairs.
Many of the Jacobite ballads and songs are rude and coarse, but some
of them are very humorous, and occasionally pathetic. They afford
important elements for the history of the period from the Revolution
to the Rising of 1745; and at that time they supplied to many of the
people the chief political and literary food within their reach.
Here it may be stated that satire is and always has been a powerful
weapon when properly wielded; but none of the Jacobite ballads or
rhymes have attained to high rank as really genuine and effective
satires. Indeed, though they are not often deficient in the elements of
contempt and scorn of a kind, they seldom or never rise to the height
of vigorous sarcasm; they never hit on the strain of that seething
and stinging roll of sarcasm which smites its victims right and left,
till they fall helpless under its piercing force. The Jacobite ballads
have more of the comic and the ludicrous elements, of homely but
effective forms of humour and wit, which together constitute their main
characteristics.
The ballad entitled “The Coronation Song,” 1689, is a comic and
ridiculous description of King William and Queen Mary. It is full
of rough humour, and excessively coarse in phraseology. William is
represented as descended from the orange tree, but it was hoped that
he will soon descend from a tree of another class――the gallows. His
personal appearance was minutely described: “he had the head of a goose,
and the legs of a crane,” and rode in Hyde Park like a hog in armour,
and in Whitehall carped like a country farmer. He had not stood to
his declaration, but had completely cheated the nation. Cromwell only
smelt at the crown through the rump; but, though there were three who
had better claims than Orange, yet he with a jump ventured his neck to
place himself upon the throne. Some of the verses are extremely profane
and vulgar, and the song concludes with this wish:――
“Then may the confusion that hither has brought us
Always attend them, until it has wrought us,
To bring back King James, as loyalty taught us――
Our gracious King again,
Our gracious King again.”
After the Revolution, the Presbyterians were assailed in popular rhymes
by the party who adhered to the banished royal family, and the Duke
of Hamilton and the Union formed ample topics for satirical rhymes and
lampoons. The Duke of Hamilton was chosen president of the Revolution
convention, which declared the throne vacant; and directly after he
was appointed royal commissioner. He has been represented as a proud,
impatient, and overbearing man; he died in 1694. He was severely
handled in a rhyme called “The Presbyterians’ Address,” beginning
thus:――
“Welcome, great Duke, with all the joy that’s due,
To the blest union of our friends and you;
The Lord has done it, is all that we can say;
But first to reverence, and next to pray.
Not free of fears, we beg in the first place,
For grace of perseverance to your grace;
For when with holy zeal we think upon,
The old malignant house of Hamilton,
Who our reforming course at first withstood,
At Langside bathed themselves and us in blood,
While the next heir the nation made consent
To the five articles in parliament.”
The story proceeded to mention other heads of the house and their fate;
and then stated that his grace had taken Bradshaw for his patron, and,
as the latter had judged the father, the former had forfeited the son,
but advises him to proceed:――
“Go on, great Duke, your hand is at the plough,
For looking back’s both sin and follow now;
Let Crawford,¹ Cardross,² Melvin, you advise,
Let Polwart³ flourish out the enterprise;
Here and hereafter both the malignants damn,
Down o’er their throats the new allegiance cram,
First fill the prisons till they’ll hold no more,
Then let the scaffolds, reeking with their gore,
Be the gam’d theatres that shall express,
Your pious princely zeal to be no less,
Than old Argyle, when he the maxim prov’d,
That it was safer to be fear’d than lov’d.
Thus we take leave, and all with one consent
Does rest your grace’s servants in the Lord.”⁴
¹ The Earl of Crawford.
² Lord Cardross, a warm supporter of the Covenant.
³ Sir Patrick Home, afterwards Earl of Marchmont.
⁴ _A Book of Scottish Pasquils_, pages 255‒257. The severest
attack of this class on the Presbyterians was the one
entitled “The Western Presbyterian’s Address to the Prince
of Orange.”
The Scotch Jacobites satirised King William from time to time till the
end of his reign, under the names of Willie Winkie, Willie Wanbeard,
and Willie the Wage. But none of these pieces have much merit, their
humour being homely and often coarse. The Jacobites were most bitterly
opposed to the Union, and exerted themselves to the utmost to prevent
it from being brought to a successful issue. The Parliament of 1704 was
attacked and denounced in a rhyme beginning thus:――
“Our parliament is met on a hellish design,
’Gainst God and the true heir knaves do combine,
To play the game over of old forty-nine,
But unless they repent they’ll be d――――d.”
It proceeded to traduce and condemn all who in any way assisted in
changing the succession of the throne, and vehemently caricatured many
of the Scotch nobles, satirising them in the rudest strain. Indeed,
this is one of the most outrageous and scurrilous compositions of
the period. Johnston, the secretary, a son of Lord Warriston’s, was
described in the following terms:――
“Thou, Johnston, thou spawn of a villain and traitor,
A varlet by birth, education, and nature.
Old Scotland’s base cut-throat, and false England’s creature.
For which sin on and be d――――d.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 379‒384.
The most of the nobles who adhered to the Government were handled in a
similar style.
Contemporary rhymes and ballads on the Union Parliament, and on
the Union itself, were numerous, and most of them emanated from the
Jacobite party. But they are all marked by the characteristics which
have already been sufficiently illustrated, and very few of them have
assumed a popular and purified form, or lived into the present age.
But many of the Jacobite songs written between the accession of the
House of Hanover and the middle of the eighteenth century, were,
and still are, exceedingly popular. The satirical songs on George I.
and the members of his family are generally humorous and homely,
such as the well-known song of “The Riding Mare,” “The Wee, Wee
German Lairdie,” “The Sow’s Tail to Geordie,” and others of a similar
character, all so full of derision and contempt that they became
national favourites――the fact of their being usually sung to old and
popular airs greatly enhancing their merit in the estimation of the
populace. The immorality of the courts of the Georges afforded ample
scope for coarse satire; and Lady Darlington, one of the mistresses
of George I., who figures under the name of the “Sow,” was a constant
theme for lampoon and satire. In person she was excessively large and
corpulent.¹
¹ The air of the song, “The Sow’s Tail to Geordie,” has always
been highly popular, and has been rendered from time to time
with innumerable variations.
The Whigs were another subject for Jacobite invective and biting song.
While the conflict of the two parties raged, and the result of the
struggle was still uncertain, the arts of ridicule, depreciation, and
jeering scorn, were more effective for stirring the passions of the
people than elevated appeals to patriotism and the better sentiments
of the mind. Hence it was not until the cause of Jacobitism was seen
to be lost past all hope of recovery, that the best and most pathetic
of their songs appeared,――it is only then that their songs begin to
manifest the touching strains and the ennobling glow of genuine poetry.
The song entitled “Awa’, Whigs, Awa’,” was long popular, though more on
account of the beauty of its air than of the merit of the song itself.
Another one entitled, “What’s the matter with the Whigs?” was written
in the early part of the reign of George I., and opens with these
lines:――
“O what’s the matter with the Whigs,
I think they’re all gone mad, sir,
By dancing one and forty jigs,
Our dancing may be dad, sir.
* * * * *
“Did you not swear, in Anna’s reign,
And vow too, and protest, sir,
If Hanover were once come o’er,
Then we should all be blest, sir?
* * * * *
“And was there ever such a King
As our brave German prince, sir?
Our wealth supplies him everything
Save what he wants――good sense, sir.
Our jails with British subjects crammed,
Our scaffolds reek with blood, sir,
And all but Whigs and Dutch are damn’d
By the fanatic crowd, sir.”
The Jacobite song entitled, “The Wind has Blawn my Plaidie Awa’,” which
is sung to the popular air “O’er the Hills and Far Awa’,” was very
popular, and has appeared in various forms. The Whigs too had their
songs, some of which were a sort of parody on the Jacobite ones; while
the English also had many Jacobite songs and rhymes. The popular song
beginning “From Caledonia’s loyal lands, where justice uncontrolled
commands,” had its counterpart in a song used by the Whigs of the
Revolution Club, in Edinburgh. It was sung to the tune of “O’er the
Hills and Far Awa’,” and opened with the following lines:――
“From barren Caledonian lands,
Where rapine uncontrolled commands,
The rebel clans in search of prey,
Came o’er the hills and far away.
Regardless whether right or wrong,
For booty, not for fame, they fight;
Banditti-like, they kill, they slay,
They plunder, rob, and run away.
* * * * *
“With them a vain pretender came,
And perjured traitors, dupes to Rome,
Resolved all, without delay,
To conquer, die, or run away.
Our sons of war, with martial frame,
Shall bravely merit lasting fame;
Great George shall Britain’s sceptre sway,
And chase rebellion far away. Amen.”¹
¹ _English Jacobite Ballads_, edited by the Rev. A. B. Grosart,
pages 176‒177.
From the Revolution to the suppression of the last Rising, rhymes,
ballads, and songs were the common outcome of the rhymers of the street,
the alehouse, the club, and the festive board, or it might be of the
farm-house, or the cot among the valleys and hills. It was a time when
men of strong passions and feelings, rude humour, homely and coarse
wit, could express themselves in language intelligible to all ranks of
the nation. The Jacobites always eagerly endeavoured to gain the ear
and enlist the favour of the people. Accordingly they were constantly
appealing to the lighter emotions, the selfish feelings, and the
passions, under the guise of a mass of rough and vulgar humour, and
coarse satire, thrown at the new dynasty, and at the Whigs――the alleged
authors of the ruin and all the woes of the nation.
But after the Battle of Culloden, a higher strain was struck. The
bitterness of the sense of defeat, of suffering, of sorrow, and
lamentation, filled the souls of the Jacobites, and inspired them with
a mournful and yet noble resolution to yield to their fate, and to make
the best of the changed circumstances. Having referred in a preceding
chapter to the sentiments expressed after Culloden, it is only
necessary to give one or two illustrations in concluding this brief
account of the Jacobite songs and ballads.
The following lines are from the ballad called “The Lament of Old
Duncan Skene of the Clan Donochie:”――¹
“Thy foes they were many, and ruthless their wrath,
Thy glens they defaced with ravage and death,
Thy children were hunted and slain on the heath,
And the best of thy sons are no more.”
¹ Mackay’s _Jacobite Songs and Ballads_, page 247.
The song entitled “The Highlander’s Farewell,” is exceedingly pathetic.
It was composed in Gaelic, and the following quotation is from an
English translation:――
“O where shall I gae seek my bread?
O where shall I gae wander?
O where shall I gae hide my head?
For here I’ll bide nae langer.
The seas may row, the winds may blow,
And swath me round in danger,
My native land I must forego,
And roam a lonely stranger.
The glen that was my father’s own,
Must be by his forsaken;
The house that was my father’s home,
Is levell’d with the bracken.
Ochon, ochon, our glory’s o’er,
Stolen by a mean deceiver,
Our hands are on the broad claymore,
But the might is broke forever.
Farewell, farewell, dear Caledon,
Land of the Gael no longer,
A stranger fills thy ancient throne,
In guilt and treachery stronger.
Thy brave and just fall in the dust,
On ruin’s brink they quiver;
Heaven’s pitying e’e is clos’d on thee,
Adieu, adieu, for ever!”¹
¹ Mackay’s _Jacobite Songs and Ballads_, pages 251‒252. In
passing from the subject. I may mention that Mr. Robert
Malcolm edited a collection of Jacobite songs and ballads,
published at Glasgow in 1829; while Hogg’s _Jacobite Relics_,
first and second series, are well worth careful perusal.
For all this the Highlanders soon betook themselves to other forms of
energy, and as already mentioned, they have done good service to the
empire since the collapse of their memorable and last Rising in Britain.
The Lowland Scottish ballad literature embraces a wide and rich field,
ranging over and engrossing almost every element of poetry, save
the purely religious. The songs and ballads, of course, present all
degrees of merit and variety, of love and pathos, of keen feelings,
of wild passions, and of glowing emotions; but only a few examples
may be presented here, as every reader can easily go himself to the
fountain-head. Perhaps the ballad called “The Lament of the Border
Widow,” is among the most touching of the pathetic class. It has been
supposed to relate to the execution of Cockburn of Henderland, who was
hanged over the gate of his own tower, by the order of the King, in
1529. In its present form it was obtained from recitation, and printed
in Scott’s Minstrelsy:――
“My love he built me a bonnie bower,
And clad it a’ wi’ lilye flouer,
A brawer bower ye ne’er did see,
Than my true love he built for me.
There came a man, by middle day,
He spied his sport, and went away,
And brought the King that very night,
Who brake my bower, and slew my knight.
He slew my knight, to me sae dear;
He slew my knight, and poin’d his gear;
My servants all for life did flee,
And left me in extremitie.
I sew’d his sheet, making my mane,
I watched the corpse, myself alane,
I watched his body, night and day;
No living creature came that way.
I took his body on my back,
And whiles I gaed, and whiles I sat;
I digg’d a grave, and laid him in,
And happ’d him with the sod sae green.
But think na ye my heart was sair,
When I laid the moul’ on his yellow hair;
O think na ye my heart was wae,
When I turned about away to gae.
Na living man I’ll love again,
Since that my lovely knight is slain.
Wi’ a lock of his yellow hair,
I’ll chain my heart for ever mair.”
The simple and natural pathos of these lines is inimitable, and at once
touches the heart.
There are not only pathos, genuine feeling and fire in many of the
national songs, but also in some of them good sense and shrewd judgment
of the world. A song by the author of “Tullochgorum,” the Rev. John
Skinner, presents in a brief compass a kind of philosophy of life. It
is entitled, “John o’ Badenyon,” and I tempted to quote it:――
“When first I came to be a man of twenty years or so,
I thought myself a handsome youth, and fain the world would
know.
In best attire I stept about, with spirits brisk and gay:
And here, and there, and everywhere was like a morn in May.
No care I had, no fear of want, but rambled up and down,
And for a beau I might have passed in country or in town;
I still was pleased where’er I went, and when I was alone,
I tuned my pipe, and pleased myself wi’ John o’ Badenyon.
Now in the days of youthful prime, a mistress I must find,
For love, they say, gives one an air, and even improves the
mind:
On Phillis fair, above the rest, kind fortune fixed mine eyes,
Her piercing beauty struck my heart, and she became my choice.
To Cupid now, with hearty prayer, I offered many a vow,
And danced, and sang, and sigh’d, and swore, as other lovers
do:
But when at last I breathed my flame, I found her cold as
stone――
I left the girl, and tuned my pipe to John o’ Badenyon.
When love had thus my heart beguiled with foolish hopes and
vain,
To friendship’s port I steer’d my course, and laugh’d at
lover’s pain.
A friend I got by lucky chance――’twas something like divine;
An honest friend’s a precious gift, and such a gift was mine.
And now, whatever may betide, a happy man was I,
In my strait I knew to whom I freely might apply.
A strait soon came, my friend I tried, he laugh’d and spurn’d
my moan;
I hied me home, and tuned my pipe to John o’ Badenyon.
I thought I should be wiser next, and would a patriot turn,
Began to doat on Johnnie Wilkes, and cry’d up parson Horne;
Their noble spirits I admired, and praised their noble zeal,
Who had with flaming tongue and pen maintained the public weal.
But ere a month or two had passed, I found myself betrayed;
’Twas self and party, after all, for all the stir they made.
At last I saw these factious knaves insult the very throne,
I cursed them all, and tuned my pipe to John o’ Badenyon.
What next to do I mused a while, still hoping to succeed;
I pitched on books for company, and gravely tried to read:
I bought and borrowed everywhere, and studied night and day,
Nor miss’d what dean or doctor wrote, that happened in my way.
Philosophy I now esteemed the ornament of youth,
And carefully, through many a page, I hunted after truth:
A thousand various schemes I tried, and yet was pleased with
none,
I threw them by, and tuned my pipe to John o’ Badenyon.
And now ye youngsters everywhere, who wish to make a show,
Take heed in time, nor vainly hope for happiness below;
What you may fancy pleasure here, is but an empty name;
And girls, and friends, and books also, you’ll find them all
the same.
Then be advised, and warning take from such a man as me;
I am neither pope, nor cardinal, nor one of high degree;
You’ll meet displeasure everywhere; then do as I have done――
Even tune your pipe and please yourself with John o’ Badenyon.”
There are some points which I might illustrate in greater detail;
but, as already stated, a lengthy account of this branch of literature
does not seem necessary. Besides, in a work of this character, some
proportion must be observed in treating the various subjects which
properly comes within its range, and suggestion and stimulation may
be legitimately used where space for criticism cannot be afforded. An
appropriate conclusion to this chapter will be found in the following
lines by the late John Imlach, entitled “Auld Scotia’s Songs,” and
prefixed to Whitelaw’s Book of Scottish Song:――
“Auld Scotia’s Songs, Auld Scotia’s Songs,――the strains o’ youth
and yore,
O lilt to me, and I will list――will list them o’er and o’er,
Though mak’ me wae, or mak’ me wud, or changefu’ as a child,
Yet lilt to me, and I will list――the native woodnotes wild.
They mak’ me present wi’ the past――they bring up fresh and fair,
The Bonnie Broom o’ Cowden Knowes, the Bush aboon Traquair;
The Dowie Dens o’ Yarrow, or the Birks o’ Invermay,
Or Catrine’s green and yellow woods in autumn’s dawning day.
Now melt we o’er the lay that wails for Flodden’s day o’ dule:
And now some rant will gar us loup like daffin’ youth at Yule――
Now o’er youth’s love’s impassion’d strain our conscious heart
will yearn――
And now our blude fires at the call o’ Bruce o’ Bannockburn.
* * * * *
“O born o’ feeling’s warmest depths――o’ fancy’s wildest dreams,
They’re twined wi’ monie lovely thoughts, wi’ monie lo’esome
themes;
They gar the glass o’ memory glint back wi’ brichter shine,
On far-off scenes, and far-off friends――and Auld Lang Syne.
Auld Scotia’s Songs, Auld Scotia’s Songs――the native woodnotes
wild,
Her monie artless melodies, that move me like a child;
Sing on, sing on, and I will list, will list them o’er and
o’er――
Auld Scotia’s Songs, Auld Scotia’s Songs, the songs o’ youth
and yore.”
CHAPTER XXXII.
_Literature of the Nation in the Seventeenth Century._
THROUGHOUT the seventeenth century the ablest minds in Scotland were
mainly absorbed in religious and political struggles, or devoted to
theology and practical religious duties; yet law, science, and cognate
subjects began to attract more attention, especially towards the end
of the century. The theological and religious literature diverged but
little from the leading doctrines of the Reformation, for though in
some writings there might be greater elaboration of doctrinal points,
there was no radical change in the method of investigation or of
interpretation of the fundamental doctrines. The Westminster Confession,
like the Reformation one of the Scotch Reformers, is essentially
Calvinistic; and the chief doctrines in both are viewed from the same
standpoint. After the lengthy account of the social condition of the
nation, and of the tendency of the stream of history given in the
preceding chapters, it would be superfluous to enter into a minute
detail of the religious literature of the century. Both the contending
parties were represented by writers of reputation and authority in
their day; but comparatively few persons now read their productions.
The religious difficulties which demand discussion in the present day
have assumed different forms, for in the interval of two centuries,
the ideas and convictions of the people have gradually undergone a
great modification and change. It will be the aim of the remaining part
of the work to explain the causes of this change in the opinions and
habits of the people.
David Calderwood, a Presbyterian minister, is the author of numerous
works, mostly of a polemical character.¹ He was a man of unbending
integrity, bold and fearless in maintaining his opinions, and
thoroughly consistent in his profession. He was acute and learned, and
familiar with the writings of the Fathers, and theological literature
generally. The greater part of his writings and pamphlets related to
ecclesiastical disputes in the reigns of James VI. and Charles I.;
such as the polity of the Church, the five articles of Perth, and
cognate matters. But the most important and valuable of his writings
is “The History of the Church of Scotland, from the beginning of the
Reformation to the end of the reign of James VI.”; although, strictly
speaking, it is not a history, but rather a collection of the materials
for history, than a digested and critical narrative of events. It
contains a great number of historical papers, Acts of Parliament,
Acts of the Privy Council, Acts and proceedings of the General
Assembly, royal proclamations, and other documents of a public
character. Calderwood was extremely greedy of information, and notices
incidentally many curious facts and notions which prevailed amongst
the people. Hence his History of the Church is very valuable to the
historical student.
¹ Born 1572, died 1650.
John Spottiswood,¹ Archbishop of St. Andrews, is the author of a
“History of the Church and State of Scotland.” Though he leans to
the side of his own party in the Church, his statement of facts is
generally fair and moderate. In extent and variety of material his
history falls much below Calderwood’s, but in arrangement and in style,
it is superior to any contemporary history composed in the vernacular
language.
¹ Born 1565, died 1639.
Robert Baillie was one of the most eminent and learned of the
Presbyterian clergyman of the Covenanting period.¹ He was actively
engaged in the struggle of the Civil War, but he was more reasonable
and moderate in his views than the majority of his brethren. His
writings are numerous, and were chiefly devoted to Church polity
and religion. He wrote both in English and in Latin, but the greater
part of his works were published in the former language. He devoted
much attention to the Oriental languages, and was conversant with the
Hebrew and cognate tongues. He was one of the Scotch ministers who
sat in the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and subsequently he was
appointed Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow. After the
Restoration, he was admitted Principal of the University of Glasgow,
an office which he held until his death. His principal works are “An
Historical Vindication of the Government of the Church of Scotland,”
a work of considerable ability, and his “Chronology,” written in Latin.
One of Baillie’s first productions was levelled against Laud, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and published in 1640, under the title,
“The Canterburians Self-convicted, or an evident demonstration of
the avowed Arminianism, popery, and tyranny of that faction, by their
own confession.” A third and enlarged edition of this pamphlet was
published in 1641, and a fourth in 1643. Several of Baillie’s pamphlets
directly attacked the Liturgy, as his “Comparison of the Liturgy with
the Mass-book, Breviary, the Ceremonial, and other Romish Rituals,”
published in 1641; “Inquiries anent the Service-book, an antidote
against Arminianism.” He was earnest in addressing the people on
the reforming work of the time, especially in his sermons preached
before Parliament in 1643 and 1645, the former entitled “Satan the
Leader-in-chief to all who Resist the Reformation of Zion,” and
the latter, “Errors and Induration are the great Sins and the great
Judgments of the Times.” A list of Baillie’s publications was given
in Dr. Irving’s _Lives of Scottish Writers_. But his Letters and
Journals relating to the wars and the affairs of the period from 1637
to 1662, are now the most interesting and the most valuable of his
compositions.²
¹ Born 1599, died 1662.
² An imperfect edition of his _Letters and Journals_ was
published in 1775, but a more complete one in three volumes,
edited by the late Dr. Laing, appeared in 1841‒42.
Zachary Boyd, minister of the Barony Parish, in the suburbs of Glasgow,
was a writer of note in the first half of the century.¹ At first he
seemed inclined to side with the Loyalist party, but at last he signed
the Covenant, and continued a firm adherent of the popular cause,
although he did not take so active a part in the field as some of his
brethren. But when Cromwell, with his army, arrived at Glasgow, “he
rallied on them all to their face in the High Church.” Having chosen
for his text the eighth chapter of the book of Daniel, he expounded the
vision of the ram with two horns, which was overcome and trampled down
by a he-goat, and exerted all his ingenuity to extend the parable to
existing circumstances, and demonstrating that Cromwell was the he-goat.
In another sermon, on some verses of the thirty-eighth Psalm, he made
many pointed and bitter references to the sectarian General; and it was
reported that one of the officers whispered into Cromwell’s ear, and
asked permission to “shoot the scoundrel at once,” but he replied that
“we will manage him in another way.” Cromwell invited Boyd to dine with
him, and completely gained the preacher’s respect by the fervour of
the devotions in which he spent the evening, and it was said that their
mutual exercise was continued till three in the morning.²
¹ Born 1590, died 1653.
² _Life of Boyd_, prefixed to his _Last Battle of the Soul_.
Boyd was the author of various works, chiefly of a religious character.
In 1629, he published a work entitled “The Last Battle of the Soul
in Death,” which is written in a kind of dramatic form, and sustained
with spirit and interest, and differs from most of the religious works
of the period in not being controversial. He had an imaginative and
vigorous mind, and his thought is often strikingly original; and, with
an exceedingly copious command of words and imagery, he combined a
style which was remarkably good for the period. His highest flights
are embodied in a work of two volumes, entitled “Zion’s Flowers,” which
have received the name of “Boyd’s Bible.” They consist of a collection
of poems on subjects of Scripture history, such as David, Jonah, and
others, presented in a dramatic form, in the execution of which he
sometimes produced extremely ludicrous and grotesque passages.
James Durham, minister of the Blackfriars Church in Glasgow, from
1647 to 1658,¹ was one of the most popular preachers of his day. His
writings consist of commentaries on Scripture, and a large number
of sermons on a variety of subjects. “He was a burning and shining
light, a star of the first magnitude, and of whom it may be said,
without derogation from the merit of any, that he had a name among the
mighty.”²
¹ Born 1622, died 1658.
² _Scots Worthies_, Volume I., page 220.
David Dickson¹ was minister of Irvine for upwards of twenty years,
and subsequently a professor in the University of Glasgow, and also in
that of Edinburgh. He was a successful teacher and a popular preacher,
and, as we have seen, he was a man of standing and influence among the
Covenanting party. He is the author of commentaries on the Psalms, and
on various parts of the New Testament, of a series of lectures, and
other pieces, and his writings were for long popular.
¹ Born 1583, died 1663.
But none of the presbyterian ministers were more popular and famous
than Samuel Rutherford.¹ He was actively engaged in the Covenanting
struggle; and for the last ten years of his life, he maintained the
battle on the side of the protestors. A talented, a consistent, and a
learned man, he wrote on various topics of absorbing interest in his
time, including his “Peaceable Plea for Presbytery,” a well-digested
book, which he published in 1642. In 1649, he published, at London,
“A Free Disputation against the Pretended Liberty of Conscience,”
especially directed against the Independents, who were then rapidly
rising to the height of power in England. Besides these he wrote
several other treatises, some of them composed in Latin; but the most
famous of his productions was “Lex Rex,” The Law and the King.²
¹ Born 1600, died 1661.
² His _Letters_ were published after his death, and reprinted
in 1824, and again quite recently.
This work on government is elaborate, and a good example of deductive
exposition. After a very long preface, in which he says:――“That which
moved the author was not, as my excommunicated adversary says, the
escape of some fears, which necessitated him to write, for many before
me have learnedly trodden in the path, but that I might add a new
testimony to the times.” He gives a full and formal table of contents,
and then proceeds to the discussion of his subject. He divided it into
forty-four questions or leading topics, under each of which a great
mass of matter comes in for discussion. He appeals to the authority
of Scripture throughout, and refers to the examples in the Bible. But
the general strain of the book leads to the utter overthrow of the
idea that kings have prerogatives and absolute powers above the laws
and acts of parliament; and this branch of the subject is well and
conclusively reasoned. In the course of the long discussion, many other
important political points are handled with ability and judgment. But
it is a tedious book to read, though a valuable contribution to the
principles of constitutional government.
Rutherford began his work by stating that, “I reduce all that I am to
speak of the power of kings: (1) To the author or efficient, (2) the
matter or subject, (3) the form or power, (4) the end and fruit of
their government, and (5) to some cases of resistance.”¹ From these
simple terms he proceeded deductively to expound his views and opinions
on the origin of government, the power and rights of the king and of
the people.
¹ Page 1. “It is reported that when Charles saw _Lex Rex_, he
said it could scarcely ever get an answer, nor did it ever
get any, except what the parliament in 1661 gave it, when
they caused it to be burned at the Cross of Edinburgh by
the hands of the common hangman. This was a summary way of
answering a book, but it was somewhat more innocent than the
practice of burning the authors of books. Charles’ parliament,
by the hangman’s hands, burned the body of the book, but they
could not consume its immortal spirit, with which the minds
of the patriots of that age were deeply imbued, which they
communicated to their children, and which ultimately produced
the Revolution.” Claud’s _Defence of the Reformation_ was
condemned to be burned, on which the editor of an old edition
very properly observes that “books have souls as well as
men, which survive their martyrdom, and are not burned, but
crowned by the flames that encircle them.”――_Scots Worthies_,
Volume I., page 223.
In discussing the powers of the king, he stated that, “The royal
power rests in three ways in the people: 1. Radically and virtually,
as in the first subject. 2. Collectively, by way of free donation,
they giving it to this man, not to this man that he may rule over
them. 3. Under limitation, they giving it so as that these three acts
remain with the people: 1. That they may measure out, by ounce weights,
so much royal power, and no more, and no less. 2. So as they limit,
moderate, and set bounds to the exercise of it. 3. That they give it
out, conditionally, upon that and this condition, that they take again
to themselves what they gave out, if the conditions be violated. The
first, I conceive, is clear: 1. Because if every living creature have
radically in them a power of self-preservation to defend themselves
from violence, as we see lions with paws, some beasts have horns, some
claws, men being reasonable creatures united in society, must have
power in a more reasonable and honourable way to put this power of
warding off violence in the hands of one or more rulers, to defend
themselves by magistrates. 2. If all men be born as concerning civil
power alike, for no man comes out of the womb with a diadem on his
head or a sceptre in his hand, and yet men united in society may give
crown and sceptre to this man, and not to that man, then this power was
in the united society, but it was not in them formally, ... therefore
this power must have been virtually in them, because neither man, nor
community of men, can give that which they neither have formally, nor
virtually, in themselves. 3. Royalists cannot deny that cities have
power to choose inferior magistrates: therefore, many cities united
have power to create a higher ruler, for royal is but the united and
superlative power of inferior judges, in one great judge, whom they
call king.”
Thus it is concluded that the people make the king. “The power of
creating a man a king is from the people, because those who may create
this man a king, rather than another man, have power to appoint a king.
For a comparative action does positively infer an action; if a man have
a power to marry this woman, not that woman, we may strongly conclude,
therefore, that he has power to marry.”¹
¹ Page 10, edition 1644.
Rutherford had the reputation of being an effective preacher and an
able and successful professor of divinity in the New College of St.
Andrews, where he occupied a chair for about twelve years. But he was
under the influence of the intolerant spirit of the age, and wrote
earnestly against toleration of religious opinions. Yet, at that period
few had risen to the idea of toleration, though the Independents had
approached nearer it than the other religious bodies in the Island.
In the estimation of his own party he held a high place, one of them
summing up his character in these words: “He seems to have been one of
the most resplendent lights that ever arose on our horizon.”¹
¹ Wodrow; _Scots Worthies_, Volume I., page 229.
George Gillespie¹ was one of the prominent ministers of the Covenanting
period. He was the author of a work which was long popular, entitled
“Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, or the Divine Ordinance of Church Government
Vindicated,” published at London in 1646; he also wrote several
controversial papers and tracts.
¹ Born 1613, died 1648.
There were a number of other presbyterian ministers celebrated in their
day as preachers, of whom may be mentioned James Guthrie, Hugh Binning,
Robert Blair, Andrew Gray, John Livingston, and James Wood; while
there were others, like Henderson, who were too ardently engaged in
the struggles of the times to produce works for publication.
Dr. John Forbes was the second son of the estimable Bishop Forbes, of
Aberdeen.¹ He was appointed professor of divinity in King’s College,
Aberdeen, in 1619, and was the author of several learned works. In
discharging the duties of his chair, he delivered lectures on the
history and progress of Christian doctrine. He was disposed to peaceful
measures, and to promote this he published a pamphlet in 1638, under
the title of “A Peaceful Warning to the Subjects of Scotland.” This
was quickly answered by a tract attributed to Calderwood, the warm
defender of the presbyterian polity. The professors and the ministers
of Aberdeen offered a determined opposition to the Covenant, argued
against it and disputed its lawfulness, and at last issued a printed
paper containing, “General Demands concerning the Covenant.” This was
answered by Henderson, Dickson, and Andrew Cant, whereupon the Aberdeen
Doctors emitted replies, which called forth further answers from the
Covenanters’ side; to these the Doctors published a rejoinder, and thus
they had the satisfaction of the last word. Their learning, however,
could not protect them, for they were all deprived of their offices
in the Church and in the University, because they refused to sign the
Covenant.²
¹ Bishop Forbes himself is the author of several works, some
of which were published in a volume, entitled “A Learned
Commentary upon the Revelation of St. John, newly corrected
and revised, Middleburgh, 1614.” The volume also contained
a treatise in defence of the lawful calling of the ministers
of the Reformed churches. He is the author of “A Dialogue,
wherein a rugged Romish Rhyme (Inscribed questions to the
Protestant) is confuted, and the questions thereof answered,”
Aberdeen, 1627.
Soon after his death, a volume, with a portrait, was
published, under the title, “Funerals of a Right Reverend
Father in God, Patrick Forbes of Corse, Bishop of Aberdeen,
1635.” It contains five funeral sermons in English by
different professors and doctors, a Latin oration and a
dissertation, and also a large collection of verses in
the form of laudatory epitaphs on the deceased prelate,
contributed by many of the learned men of the day; and at the
end, “Edward Raban, master printer, the first in Aberdeen,”
contributed the last epitaph himself, which concludes with
these lines:
“Good Sir, I am behind the rest,
I do confess, for want of skill:
But not a whit behind the best
To show the affection of good will.”
² The general demands of the Aberdeen Doctors, and the answers
and replies, were published at Aberdeen by order of the
Scotch parliament. A collected edition of Dr. Forbes’ Latin
works was published in 1703.
Robert Leighton, Archbishop of Glasgow, in the reign of Charles II.,
was perhaps the most cultured and learned, as well as the most humane
of the prelates of the period. He was educated in the University of
Edinburgh, and graduated in the year 1631. Afterwards having lived
for several years in France, he learned to speak French like a native.
Having returned to Scotland, he became a minister of the Presbyterian
Church, and was appointed pastor of the parish of Newbattle in 1641,
in which he laboured quietly till 1652, when he resigned his charge.
In 1653, he was installed principal of the University of Edinburgh, to
which office the chair of divinity was joined. After the Restoration,
he accepted the bishopric of Dunblane, in which he officiated for
about eight years, and was exceedingly attentive to his duties. He
endeavoured to promote measures of moderation and conciliation, and
disapproved of the severe modes of forcing a formal compliance with the
established worship, and accordingly granted the nonconformists of his
own diocese that liberty of conscience, which the laws of the times had
ignored. In 1670, when he became Archbishop of Glasgow, he redoubled
his efforts to persuade the ejected ministers to listen to terms of
accommodation, but failed. At last, disheartened and tired of his
position, he resolved to retire from all public employment, tendered
his resignation, finally relinquishing the See of Glasgow in 1674.
Afterwards, this truly religious and humane man retired to England,
where he died in 1684.
Leighton’s writings consist of his “Commentaries on St. Peter,”
sermons preached at Newbattle, lectures delivered in Latin before
the University of Edinburgh, spiritual exercises, letters and other
papers. None of his works were published in his lifetime, but collected
editions of them have been issued in England and America, the most
complete one having appeared in 1869‒70. His writings have been
long and widely known, and it is unnecessary to enter into a lengthy
criticism of them. His style is simple and easy, and glowing with
genuine piety, the expression of a warm and generous heart.
Bishop Burnet was the greatest name in literature which Scotland
produced in the seventeenth century. He was born in Edinburgh in
1643, but belonged to an Aberdeenshire family, and was educated at
the University of Aberdeen. He was licensed to preach at the age of
eighteen, visited England, Holland, and France, and having returned
home, was appointed minister of the parish of Saltoun in 1665.
Subsequently he became professor of divinity in the University of
Glasgow. After the Revolution he was appointed a bishop in the Church
of England. He was an exceedingly voluminous writer, and tried his hand
on many subjects. He is the author of a large number of sermons, many
of which were delivered on public occasions, of numerous discourses
and tracts on divinity, and of tracts and pamphlets of a polemical
description on popery, politics, and miscellaneous subjects. A
considerable number of historical works emanated from his fertile
mind, of which the most important are his “Memoirs of James and
William, Dukes of Hamilton,” “History of the Reformation of the Church
of England,” and his great work entitled, “History of His Own Time.”
Burnet was a man of varied accomplishments and vast information, and
was himself engaged in many of the events and transactions which he
recorded in the above named work.
He had a wide and ready command of language, and his historical method
and style are equal, if not superior, to the best English writers of
his day. His narrative is always methodical, and runs on naturally with
much simplicity and ease. His chief historical works are still valuable
as sources of information, and they are also more interesting reading
than almost any writings on the same subjects of that generation or
the succeeding one. As a single specimen of his style, I may quote
the passages of his history on the character of Archbishop Tillotson.
“Tillotson was a man of a clear head and a sweet temper. He had the
brightest thoughts and the most correct style of all our divines, and
was esteemed the best preacher of the age. He was a very prudent man,
and had such a management with it, that I never knew any clergyman so
universally esteemed and beloved, as he was for above twenty years.
He was eminent for his opposition to popery. He was no friend to
persecution, and stood up much against atheism. Nor did many men do
more to bring the city to love our worship than he did. But there was
so little superstition, and so much reason and gentleness in his way
of explaining things, that malice was long levelled at him, and in
conclusion broke out fiercely on him.
“I preached his funeral sermon, in which I gave a character of him
which was so severely true, that I perhaps kept too much within bounds,
and said less than he deserved. But we had lived in such friendship
together, that I thought it was more decent, as it always is more safe,
to err on that hand. He was the man of the truest judgment and best
temper I had ever known; he had a clear head, with a most tender and
compassionate heart; he was a faithful and jealous friend, but a gentle
and soon-conquered enemy; he was truly and seriously religious, but
without affectation, bigotry, or superstition; his notions of morality
were fine and sublime; his thread of reasoning was easy, clear, and
solid; he was not only the best preacher of the age, but seemed to have
brought preaching to perfection; his sermons were so well liked and
heard, and so much read, that all the nation proposed him as a pattern,
and studied to copy after him; his parts remained with him clear and
unclouded, but the perpetual slanders and other ill-usage he had been
followed with for many years, more particularly since his advancement
to that great post, gave him too much trouble and too deep a concern;
it could neither provoke him, nor fright him from his duty, but it
affected his mind so much that this was thought to have shortened his
days.”¹
¹ _History of His Own Time_, Volume I., pages 324‒325, 1823.
In the department of poetry, Scotland in the seventeenth century,
unlike the two preceding ones, was rather barren. Sir William Alexander,
subsequently better known as the Earl of Stirling, was a writer of
rhymed compositions in the reigns of James VI. and Charles I. He broke
away from his native dialect, and essayed to write in the literary
English of the period; but his style is not pure or correct. He had
a good command of language, but he lacked the poetic glow, though
he tried his hand at various themes; his poetry is commonplace and
monotonous, and often pervaded with a moralising strain.¹
¹ Alexander’s so-called “Monarchic Tragedy” was published at
Edinburgh in 1603. “Thus known to James in Scotland as one
of the most accomplished of his subjects there, Alexander
continued after the union of the Crowns to put forth volume
after volume, professedly as a British poet using the common
literary tongue, vying with his English contemporaries.... At
length, in 1614, appeared the huge poem, in twelve cantos of
heavy eight-line stanzas, entitled ‘Doom’s Day, or the Great
Day of the Lord’s Judgment.’” About this time he entered the
King’s service, and was promoted step by step till he became
Earl of Stirling in 1633.――Dr. Masson’s _Life of Milton_,
Volume I., page 421.
William Drummond, of Hawthornden, attained to some distinction as a
poet in the first half of the century. He was a notable man in his own
lifetime, having travelled abroad, residing for some time in Paris and
in Rome, and visited the most celebrated universities of the Continent.
He corresponded with Ben Jonson and other English poets, and they
recognised him as a member of their fraternity. He wrote a number of
poems and sonnets, also a history of the first five Jameses; but his
history is not of much historic value, as his special information on
the subject was limited and incomplete. He left behind him various
political papers relating to affairs between the years of 1632 and 1646,
mainly written in support of the cause of Charles I. He died in 1649.
Drummond holds a place among the minor English poets, but represented
nothing distinctively Scottish, as he wrote in the literary English of
the period. His taste and culture were formed under the influences of
Italian and English literature, and he seems to have shut himself out
from the association and the inspiration of the vernacular. His poetry
lacks fire and force, and emotional power; but on the other hand, he
had a cultured taste, fancy, and a command of descriptive imagery.
Some of his sacred poems exhibit poetical imagery and an easy flow
of versification. In one of them, called “The Shadow of Death,” the
following lines occur:――
“So seeing earth, of angels once the inn,
Mansion of saints, deflowered all by sin,
And quite confus’d by wretches here beneath,
The world’s great sovereign moved was to wrath.
Thrice did he rouse himself, thrice from his face,
Flames sparkle did throughout the heavenly place,
The stars, though fixed, in their rounds did quake,
The earth, and earth-embracing sea did quake.”
His piece composed on the King’s visit to his native land in 1617, is
one of his best; and in it he pays a warm tribute to the King’s love
of peace.
But “his sonnets in particular have been praised in modern times, as
among the second best in the language. In his narrative and descriptive
poems he is decidedly one of the English Arcadians, with something of
Browne’s sweet sensuousness, and using very musically the same metrical
couplet.... If, as a poet of sensuous circumstance, Drummond has any
one particular excellence, entitling him to a kind of pre-eminence,
so far as that excellence could bestow it, among the minor poets, it
is the description of the clear nocturnal sky and the effects of quiet
moonlight on streams and fields”; as in these lines:――
“To western worlds when wearied day goes down,
And from Heaven’s windows each star shows her head,
Earth’s silent daughter Night is fair though brown,
Fair is the moon though in love’s livery clad.”¹
¹ Dr. Masson’s _Life of Milton_, Volume I., pages 424‒425. An
edition of Drummond’s Poems was published in 1656; a fuller
one in 1711; but the most complete edition of his poems was
printed for the Maitland Club in 1832.
With the progress of social organisation and civilisation, laws and
legal writings accumulate; hence more legal literature was produced in
Scotland in the seventeenth century than in the sixteenth. Sir Thomas
Hope, the eminent advocate, and warm Covenanter, was the author of
several well-known legal treatises, which were long esteemed among the
faculty.
But the most famous writer of Scottish Jurisprudence was James
Dalrymple, Viscount Stair, and president of the Court of Session.¹
His chief work, “The Institution of the Law of Scotland,” was long the
standard authority on legal matters.² He is also the author of a digest
of “The Decisions of the Court of Session, in the important cases
debated before the judges, with the Acts of Sederunt,” published at
Edinburgh in 1683‒87. It contained a report of cases from 1660 to
the month of August, 1681, and thus it has an interesting and special
historic value.
¹ Born 1619, died 1696.
² The first edition of Stair’s _Institutions_ appeared in 1681;
a second edition greatly enlarged, was published at Edinburgh
in 1693; a third, corrected and enlarged, with notes, in
1759; a fourth, with commentaries and supplement by George
Brodie, in 1829‒31; and another with notes and illustrations
by John S. More, 1832, in two volumes.
But Lord Stair was the author of several other works of a different
character. In 1686, he published in Latin a treatise entitled
“Physiologia nova Experimentalis,” which was favourably noticed by
Boyle. His last publication was “A Vindication of Divine Perfections,
illustrating the Glory of God, by Reason and Revelation, methodically
digested into several Meditations,” which appeared in 1695. In 1690,
he published a defence of himself in a tract of four leaves.
Sir George Mackenzie, the notorious lord-advocate of the reign of
Charles II., was a writer of reputation in his time, and a clear and
vigorous thinker. He tried his hand on various subjects. His legal
writings consist of “Institutes of the Law of Scotland,” “Laws and
Customs in matters Criminal,” “Observations on the Laws and Customs of
Nations as to precedency, with the Science of Heraldry as part of the
Law of Nations.” Of these, the first is a well-arranged and digested
treatise, but it is short and summary, and falls much behind Stair’s
work on the same subject. The other two contain useful information
forcibly expressed.
Concerning both the knowledge and the art of medicine the civilised
world was still in a backward condition. The practice of surgery
especially was very rude, even in its most elementary principles. In
the treatment of simple wounds, “instead of bringing the edges of the
wound together, and endeavouring to unite them by the first intention,
as is practised in the present day, the wound was filled with dressing
and acid balsams, or distended with tents and leaden tubes.... In those
days every lap of skin, instead of being reunited was cut away, and
every open wound was dressed as a sore, and every deep one was filled
with a tent lest it should heal.”¹ Although in this branch of science
there was no great advance in Scotland, yet more interest began to be
manifested in the subject, and some progress was made.
¹ _Physic and Physicians_, Volume I., pages 42‒43.
It was stated that Sir Andrew Balfour¹ first introduced the dissection
of the human body into Scotland. He projected a sick hospital for the
relief of pain and poverty at the public expense. He also drew up a
scheme for the Royal College of Physicians at Edinburgh, and formed
the botanic garden there. To the public he bequeathed a museum which at
that time would have been considered a great acquisition to any city.
Further, he introduced into Scotland many foreign plants; and as in his
youth he had travelled in foreign countries, he greatly extended his
information, his culture, and experience.²
¹ Born 1630, died 1694.
² Though the Royal College of Physicians was not incorporated
till 1681, it is recorded that “the doctors of physic”
petitioned parliament in 1693, craving that a college of
physicians should be established in Edinburgh.――_Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., page 283.
James Sutherland was appointed keeper of the new botanic garden in
1683. He published “A Catalogue of the Plants in the Physic Gardens at
Edinburgh, containing their most proper names in Latin and in English.”
In the dedication of it to the Provost of Edinburgh he says, “It has
been my business for seven years past, wherein I have had the honour
to serve the city as ♦intendant over the garden, to use all care and
industry, by foreign correspondence, to acquire both seeds and plants
from the Levant, Italy, Spain, Holland, England, and the East and West
Indies, and by many painful journeys, in all seasons of the year, to
recover whatever this kingdom possesses of variety, and to cultivate
and to preserve them, with all possible care.”
♦ “intendent” replaced with “intendant”
After Dr. Balfour’s death, his library, consisting of about three
thousand volumes, besides manuscripts, was dispersed; but his museum
was placed in the hall which, till 1829, was used as the University.
“There it remained many years useless and neglected, some parts of it
falling into inevitable decay, and other parts being abstracted. Yet
even after 1750, it still contained a considerable collection, which I
have good reason to remember, as it was the sight of it about that time
that inspired me with an attachment to natural history. Soon after that
it was dislodged from the hall where it had been long kept, was thrown
aside and exposed as lumber; was further and further dilapidated, and
at length almost completely demolished. In the year 1782, out of its
ruins and rubbish I extracted many pieces still valuable and useful,
and placed them here in the best order I could. These, I hope, may long
remain, and be considered as so many precious relics of one of the best
and greatest men this country has produced.”¹
¹ Walker’s _Essay on Natural History_.
Sir Robert Sibbald attained a reputation as a physician and a
naturalist. When the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh was
incorporated in 1681, he became a member of that institution. In
1684, he published his valuable work entitled, “Scotia Illustrata sive
Prodromus Historiæ Naturalis Scotiæ,” and a second edition appeared in
1696. He devoted much attention to the indigenous plants of Scotland,
and discovered some rare species. In 1694, he published an interesting
treatise containing “Observations on some Animals of the Whale Genus,
lately thrown on the shores of Scotland.” He was also the author of
a number of essays and papers, chiefly on topics connected with the
antiquities of Scotland, which were written for the Royal Society,
and published after his death in 1739. He wrote a description of Fife,
published in 1710, which is full of interesting and curious information.
Dr. Robert Morison¹ was an industrious and persevering student of
botany, and for ten years he held the position of intendant of the
gardens of the Duke of Orleans. After the Restoration, the King invited
him to England, and on his arrival, he was appointed royal physician,
and professor of botany. In 1669, having been elected professor of
botany in the University of Oxford, “he made his first entrance on
the botanic lecture in the medicine school, on the 2nd of September,
1670, ♦and on the 5th of the same month, he translated himself to the
physic garden, where he read in the middle of it, with a table before
him, on herbs and plants thrice a week for five weeks, not without a
considerable auditory. In the month of May, 1673, he read again, and
so likewise in the autumn following; which course, spring and fall,
he proposed always to follow, but was diverted for several years, by
prosecuting his large design of publishing the universal knowledge of
simples.”²
¹ Born 1620, died 1683.
♦ “aud” replaced with “and”
² Wood’s _Fasti Oxonienses_
He produced a work on botany which claimed to make some improvement on
the system of classification, the first part of which appeared in 1672,
and the second in 1680, but he did not live to finish it, having only
completed nine of the fifteen classes of his own system.
Dr. Archibald Pitcairn was one of the original members of the Royal
College of Physicians, and one of the most eminent of the profession
in Scotland at that period.¹ He was a keen supporter and promulgator
of Harvey’s doctrine of the circulation of the blood, and in 1688 he
published a treatise touching that subject. He composed a number of
dissertations on medical matters, which were published in a collected
form in 1701; and in 1713, shortly before his death, he issued a new
and enlarged edition. He belonged historically to what was sometimes
called the mathematical school of physicians, that is, those who then
insisted on the application of mathematical reasoning and demonstration
to subjects of anatomy and physiology. Be that as it may, Pitcairn
contributed to the improvement of the theory and practice of medicine,
having assisted to complete Harvey’s theory of the blood, and made some
advance in explaining the process of secretion. He exerted himself to
explode some of the errors of preceding writers, and adopted a clear
and concise mode of reasoning, and his dissertations are admirable
specimens of exposition.²
¹ Born 1652, died 1713.
² An English translation of Dr. Pitcairn’s works was published
in 1727, and there have been several editions of his writings
issued.
Notwithstanding the unsettled state of Scotland in the seventeenth
century, some of her sons contributed to the progress of science,
although no genius of the highest rank arose to illuminate the pages
of our annals; still several steps in science were taken which tended
to extend the bounds of knowledge. Dr. James Gregory,¹ the inventor
of the reflecting telescope, had directed his attention to the study
of mathematical science from his boyhood, and in 1663, when only
twenty-five, he published his treatise on optics. In this work he
gave the first description of the reflecting telescope. The year after
the publication of his work, he went to London, with the intention of
having his telescope constructed, and was introduced to Mr. Reves, an
optical instrument maker, but he could not finish the mirrors on the
tool so as to preserve the figure. Indeed so unsuccessful was the trial
of the telescope, that the inventor was discouraged from making more
attempts to improve it. Thus the want of mere mechanical manipulation
for a time delayed the completion of the instrument, and the inventor
never had the satisfaction of seeing it completed.
¹ Born 1638, died 1675.
Sir Isaac Newton objected to this telescope on the ground that ♦the
hole in the large speculum would cause the loss of so much light,
and six years later invented his own one, in which this defect was
obviated. Both forms, however, were long used, the Gregorian when the
instrument was of moderate size, and the Newtonian one generally when
the instrument was required to be large.¹
♦ duplicate word “the” removed
¹ Hutton’s _Philosophical and Mathematical Dictionary_; _Life
of Dr. Reid_, prefixed to Hamilton’s edition of Reid’s works.
Dr. Gregory was the author of several other geometrical treatises,
which were important contributions to the science of the time. Having
been elected a member of the Royal Society, he read various papers
before it. He was also appointed professor of mathematics in the
University of St. Andrews; but was subsequently transferred to the
mathematical chair in the University of Edinburgh, which he held till
his death in 1675, at the early age of thirty-seven.
David Gregory, a nephew of the preceding professor, attained
distinction as a professor of mathematics, a scientific writer, and
a commentator.¹ He was educated at the Universities of Aberdeen and
Edinburgh, and when only twenty-three years of age, he was appointed
professor of mathematics in the latter. The following year he published
a small treatise in Latin concerning the dimensions of figures, in
which he made various references to the speculations of his uncle, from
whom he received some of his materials.
¹ Born 1661, died 1708.
He has the distinction of being the first public teacher who taught
the Newtonian system in the schools, which his brother James likewise
introduced into the University of St. Andrews. David Gregory remained
in the University of Edinburgh for seven years, expounding “The
Principia” of Newton, and lecturing on optics. In 1691, the Savilian
professorship of Astronomy in the University of Oxford became vacant,
and Gregory proceeded to London with the view of offering himself
as a candidate for the post. There he was introduced to Newton, who
gave him a testimonial, which stated: “Being desired by David Gregory,
mathematical professor of the College in Edinburgh, to testify my
knowledge of him, and having known him by his printed mathematical
performances, and by discoursing with travellers from Scotland, and
of late by conversation with him, I do account him one of the most
able and judicious mathematicians of his age now living. He is very
well skilled in analysis and geometry, both old and new. He has been
conversant with the best writers about astronomy, and understands
that science very well. He is not only acquainted with books, but
his invention in mathematical things is also good. He has performed
his duties in Edinburgh with credit, as I hear, and advanced the
mathematics. He is reputed the greatest mathematician in Scotland,
and that deservedly so far as my knowledge reaches, for I esteem him
an ornament to his country, and upon these accounts do recommend him
to the electors of the astronomy professor for the place in Oxford now
vacant.” Newton also gave him a letter of introduction to Mr. Flamsteed,
the astronomer-royal. Gregory was elected professor of astronomy at
Oxford in 1692; and about the same time he was admitted a member of the
Royal Society, and he contributed to their transactions various papers.
He occupied the chair of astronomy till his death.¹
¹ _Letters Written by Eminent Persons_, Volume I., page 177,
1813; Whiston’s _Memoirs_.
Gregory’s writings were mainly on mathematical subjects and the
principles of the Newtonian system. In 1702 he published his greatest
work, “Astronomiæ Physicæ et Geometricæ Elementa,” the aim of which was
to present a connected view of Newton’s system, and thus it contained
a digest of the “Principia.” Gregory manifested a great faculty of
arrangement and exposition, and it was admitted by Newton himself that
the work gave an excellent exposition and defence of his system. Much
ability was shown in the illustrations. It appears that Newton had
communicated to the author his theory of the moon, and given him some
other curious information touching the notions of the ancients on the
subject of gravitation. This work was reprinted at Geneva in 1713, and
two editions of an English translation of it appeared, the last in 1726,
in two volumes. Dr. Gregory edited an edition of the works of Euclid,
which was published in 1703. He also left unpublished works, some of
which were printed after his death.
John Keill was the author of several treatises on the new physics. He
was a warm adherent of the Newtonian system, and it was reported that
he was amongst the first who explained and illustrated the new system
by experiments at Oxford about the end of the seventeenth century. His
first work was an examination of Dr. Burnet’s “Theory of the Earth,”
with some remarks on Whiston’s “Theory of the Earth,” published in 1698.
It involved him in a controversy with the authors whose works he had
attacked. In 1700 he published “An Introduction to Natural Philosophy,”
being lectures read in the University of Oxford in Latin, but an
English translation soon after appeared. This work was considered an
able and useful introduction to the Newtonian system, and it has often
been reprinted in England, and was translated into French.
Keill entered the arena as a warm supporter and defender of Newton in
the famous dispute between Leibnitz and Newton about the priority of
their claims to the invention of fluxions and the calculus. Into the
evidence or the merits of this question I cannot enter here, but it
may be said that Keill and some others who took part in the discussion
introduced into it rather too much vehemence and passion. In 1712
Keill was appointed Professor of Astronomy in the University of Oxford,
and in 1718 he published “An Introduction to the True Astronomy: or
Astronomical Lectures read in the Astronomical School of the University
of Oxford,” of which an English translation was published in 1721,
which was long regarded as a standard work.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
_Education and Art in the Seventeenth Century._
AS we have seen in the second volume, after the Reformation many
efforts were made to extend the elements of Education to the people.
Though the nation was disturbed touching forms of Church polity, and
often torn by civil war and persecution, yet the parish and elementary
schools increased in number during the century, while the number of
adventure-schools which appeared throughout the kingdom humbly praying
for liberty to teach, indicates a growing and pretty general desire
among the people to partake of the benefits of education. Thus there
were signs that the mass of ignorance was slowly but surely yielding
to the influences of civilisation. Still, the vagrant habits of
many persons, the severe oppression of a portion of the people, and
many other obstacles, required a long time to elapse ere they could
be thoroughly overcome or a complete system of national education
established.
The legislature, the church, and the local authorities, all endeavoured
to promote the education of the people. In 1616 the Privy Council
enacted that there should be a school established in every parish
of the kingdom, and the Act was to be carried into effect with the
concurrence of the burghs. But this Act was not fully carried out,
and so ten years later the Government ordered a report to be drawn
up on the state of the parishes throughout the kingdom, from which it
appeared that the majority of the parishes were then without regular
schools. Parliament in 1633 ratified the Act of Council, and further
enacted that the bishops, with the consent of the majority of the
parishioners, might impose a rate upon the possessors of land for
establishing and supporting the parish schools. In 1641 the subject
came again before Parliament in the form of an overture, which, among
other points concerning schools and education, stated that “every
parish should have a reader and a school wherein children are to be
taught in reading and writing, and the grounds of religion, according
to the laudable acts both of church and parliament before enacted.”
One of the articles in the overture on the schools was to this effect:
“The Assembly would supplicate the parliament that for youths of the
finest and best spirits of the Highlands and Borders, maintenance may
be allowed as to bursars, to be trained in the Universities.” Again,
in 1645, Parliament ordered “that there be a school founded, and a
schoolmaster appointed in every parish not already provided.” For this
purpose the proprietors in every congregation were enjoined to meet
and to provide a suitable building for a school, and modify a salary to
the schoolmaster, which should not be under one hundred merks or above
two hundred annually. A rate was to be imposed by the proprietors to
maintain the schools and pay the schoolmasters; but if they could not
agree among themselves to settle the matter, then in that case, the
presbytery were to nominate twelve honest men within its bounds, who
should be empowered to execute the work of establishing a school, which
should be as valid as if the proprietors had done it themselves.¹ But
troubles came fast and thick upon the party then at the head of affairs,
and this Act was not put into operation.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., pages 21,
367; Volume VI., page 216.
In 1696 Parliament anew enacted that a school and schoolmaster should
be established in every parish not already provided “by advice of the
proprietors and the minister of the parish.” As in the Act of 1645,
they were enjoined to provide a suitable building for a school, and
settle a salary to a schoolmaster, which should not be under one
hundred merks (five pounds and eleven shillings) sterling, or above
two hundred merks (eleven pounds, two shillings, and twopence.) The
proprietors were to pay a share of the rate according to their valued
rent within the parish, “allowing each of them relief from his tenants
of the half of his proportion for settling and maintaining of a school
and payment of the schoolmaster’s salary.... If the proprietors, or
a majority of them, shall not meet, or being met and shall not agree
among themselves, then in that case, the Presbytery shall apply to the
commissioners of supply of the shire, who, or any five of them, shall
have power to establish a school, and settle and modify a salary for
the schoolmaster, and to rate and lay on the same upon the proprietors
according to their valued rent, which shall be as valid and effectual
as if it had been done by the proprietors themselves. And because the
proportion imposed upon each proprietor will be but small, therefore
for the better and more ready payment thereof, it is ordained that if
two terms’ proportions run in and the third unpaid, then those that
so fail in payment shall be liable in double of their proportions then
resting, and in the double of every term’s proportion that shall be
resting thereafter, until the schoolmaster be completely paid, and
that without any defalcation.”¹ From this date the parish system of
primary schools became established and continued without interruption,
excepting in some parts of the Highlands, where parishes were so
large as to render the act inoperative; but ultimately other means of
providing elementary education in those remote quarters of the kingdom
were adopted.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume X., page 63.
Throughout this period there were elementary schools in many of
the towns distinct from the grammar or burgh schools. But it must
be observed that the grammar schools from an early period enjoyed a
monopoly of teaching certain branches, as they were protected more or
less strictly until recent times. Education like trade and everything
else was subject to the spirit and the influences of the age, and a few
examples of the modes of protection in this field may be interesting to
many. In 1668, the town council of Edinburgh stated that it was illegal
for any person to teach Latin or grammar within the city, except the
masters of the high school, and that none residing in the town might
send their children to be taught without the gates; nevertheless,
several persons were teaching within the city, “to its public loss,
and to the overthrow of the high school.” And therefore the council
“ordained that no person upon any pretence whatever teach grammar
within the city except at the schools of Leith, Canongate, and the
readers’ school of West Port; and that no inhabitant send their
children to any other place within the liberties of the city; and
anyone teaching in contempt of this act shall be imprisoned, and
parents sending their children elsewhere shall pay quarterly to the
master of the high school as much as his other scholars.”¹ Yet “the
adventure schools seemed to have gained ground on the high school in
the course of 1684, when the doctors appeal for augmentation, because
of the number of private schools which, if suppressed, will become
their mortal enemies, slandering them to all concerned.”²
¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh._
² Grant’s _History of the Burgh Schools of Scotland_, page 136.
In 1686, the town of Wigton ordered that no other school but the burgh
one should be permitted there, except for girls to learn sewing, under
a fine on the teachers of ten pounds quarterly, and five groats on
parents for each child. The town council of Banff, in 1688, prohibited
private schools within the burgh under the penalty of banishment. In
1693, the council of Edinburgh ordered the doors of private schools
to be closed; while, in 1698, the council of Stirling ordained that no
child above six years of age should be taught in any school but the
grammar school, no private school was to be permitted. The town council
of Selkirk, in 1721, having appointed an English master, prohibited all
other persons from teaching English to boys within the burgh.¹
¹ Grant’s _History of the Burgh Schools of Scotland_, pages
138‒140; _Burgh Records of Banff_; _Burgh Records of
Stirling_.
The English or primary schools in the burghs were partly under the
control of the magistrates, and their sanction had to be obtained
before a teacher could open a school. In March, 1636, the town council
of Aberdeen discovered that three women had opened a school without
asking or receiving a license from the council, and that they were
teaching their scholars to read, and thus injuring the masters of the
English schools, who had been authorised and admitted by the council;
therefore, the council prohibited these women from keeping a school for
teaching the children, excepting only schools for “learning the bairns”
to sew and weave, and no further; “and that with the licence of the
council, sought and obtained, and in no other way.”¹ In 1658, William
Findlay applied to the council for liberty to teach an English school,
stating that he had been a teacher in John Brown’s school, that he
thought himself capable of conducting an English and writing school,
and that he was very anxious to do it, if their honours should see
fit to authorise him. The council, having considered his application,
granted him a licence to open a school in the Green or Shoregate, “for
teaching the young ones and children of the inhabitants of this burgh,
during the council’s pleasure, and his good service in that charge.”²
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume III., page 98.
² _Ibid._, Volume IV., page 176.
The council of Glasgow, in 1639, enacted that there should be four
English schools in the city, with a writing school, “and the masters
of these schools to be admitted by the council, and to receive
instructions from them touching the school hours and other matters,
and this act to be proclaimed by sound of drum.” But in 1654, eight
teachers had taken up Scots schools without authority in the city, and
they then humbly supplicated the magistrates to be allowed to continue
them, while two others prayed that they might be permitted to open new
Scots schools. After consideration, the magistrates authorised them, on
condition that they conducted themselves religiously, praying morning
and evening in the schools, exacting only certain fees, and instructing
all poor children without fees, whose parents or friends required
them to do this; while it was declared that the opening of ♦schools
without the authority of the magistrates “was against all reason, and
contrary to precedent, and to what had been heretofore observed.” In
1663, fourteen persons, male and female, were authorised to keep Scots
schools in Glasgow.¹
♦ “scheols” replaced with “schools”
¹ _Burgh Records of Glasgow_, page 397; Grant’s _History of the
Burgh Schools of Scotland_, page 385.
In 1662, the town council of ♦Aberdeen concluded that the English and
reading schools of the burgh had been for several years much neglected
and abused, owing to there being too many licenced to teach, who were
incapable of teaching. But the council, having now brought John Gormak
from Edinburgh, a highly qualified teacher of reading and writing, to
assume the duties of teaching in the city, and that the schools may be
better regulated and the youth better instructed in future, “resolved
to have a school for teaching the young ones in reading and in writing;
and that Robert Webster, who also has the liberty of the school,
continue it for teaching and instructing the children in reading
and arithmetic; and John Moubray to have the liberty of a school for
teaching the children of Footdee and the Castlegate; prohibiting all
other persons from keeping any English schools for reading, writing, or
arithmetic, within this burgh, except such women as the council shall
permit, for instructing children in the grounds of reading.” The same
year, the council admitted Barbara Mollison as teacher of the school
founded by the Lady of Rothiemay, “in this burgh, for teaching the
young ones in reading, writing, and sewing.”¹
♦ “Aberbeen” replaced with “Aberdeen”
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., page 201.
From an early period, French was very generally taught in Scotland,
but no other modern language was introduced into the schools until
very recent times. In 1635, the town council of Aberdeen authorised
Alexander Rolland to open a French school in the city, “for teaching
the youth, and such as shall please to come to him, and for that end
to put up a sign before his school door, to give notice of his licence,
to all who are anxious to learn the French tongue.”¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume III., page 80.
The Church was invested with the power of visiting and examining all
the parish schools of the kingdom, and she manifested a deep interest
in their welfare. But the Church also claimed, and generally exercised
the right of visiting and examining all the schools in the realm,
though, in the case of the burgh or grammar schools, she usually
acted in conjunction with the town councils or the magistrates. These
visitations of the schools were made at stated times, and helped to
sustain their spirit and efficiency.
Thus in 1629, the town council of Aberdeen appointed four men to
assist Dr. Forbes, Dr. Dun, Dr. Johnston, and Mr. Robert Barron, in
the visitation of the Grammar, English, and Music schools of the city,
enjoining them to take notice of the form of doctrine and discipline
in all of them, and how the masters and the scholars observed the rules
and the instructions set down for their guidance. “And wherein they
find any of the masters deficient, either in doctrine or discipline,
to report this to the council, with their proposals as to how all
such defects should be remedied, to the end that the magistrates
may order reformation, according to an act formerly drawn up. It was
also commanded that the laws of all the schools should be printed and
affixed in every school, that neither master nor scholar may pretend
ignorance.”¹ In 1652, the council of Peebles ordered the school to
be visited, and the minister to be informed thereof. The town council
of Jedburgh, in 1656, ordered visitations of the school to be made
twice a year, in May and November, “in order that the master and
assistant shall be tried, concerning the soundness of their judgment
in matters of religion, their ability as teachers, the honesty of their
conversation, and the fidelity with which they discharge their duties,
so that the proficiency of the scholars may be known.”²
¹ _Ibid._, Volume III., pages 14, 26, _et seq._
² _Burgh Records of Peebles_; _Burgh Records of Jedburgh_;
Grant’s _History of the Burgh Schools of Scotland_, page 148.
The General Assembly of 1642 appointed a committee to consider the
time and manner of visiting schools, and the best and most orderly
course for teaching grammar. And in 1645, the Assembly, with the aim
of advancing learning and good order in grammar schools, enacted that
every grammar school should be visited twice in the year by visitors
appointed by the presbytery and kirk-session in landward parishes,
by the town council and ministers in burghs, and by the universities
where there are any, always with the consent of the patrons of the
school, in order that the diligence of masters, and the proficiency of
scholars may be ascertained, and deficiency censured.¹ The Presbyteries,
generally, were painstaking and careful in assisting to conduct these
examinations.
¹ _Acts of the General Assembly._
In 1659, the town council of Aberdeen, considering that the quarterly
visitation of the grammar and music schools of the city, appointed
by the former acts, if rightly conducted, would tend to promote the
learning of the youth, approved the following regulations, together
with the laws of the school adopted in 1636: 1. That there should be
four solemn visitations of the grammar school every year, one at the
beginning of every quarter, at which the scholars should be tried in
making themes, interpreting and analysing authors, and making verses,
which will take up one day, if rightly done. 2. That the master of
the grammar school should keep a register of visitations, in which
should be entered “the laws of the school,” printed about the year
1636, and also the act of council approving these regulations; and the
scholar who at the quarterly visitation gains the prize, should with
his own hand insert his name in the register, mentioning whether he
gained it by making a theme or a verse, or analysing authors, and also
recording the date of the visitation, which must be done by _nonas
idus calendus_, the master helping those of the lower classes to enter
it correctly, and the prizeman’s name to be affixed above his class
till the next visitation. 3. That each scholar in the school should
have an antagonist, who as near as possible should be his equal, for
stirring up emulation, and neither to receive help in his trials at
the visitation. 4. The masters should keep the themes of the present
visitation until the next quarterly visitation, that their proficiency
may be observed. 5. Those who make the best verse and the best theme
should each have a prize, after it appears by examination to be their
own composition. 6. At every quarterly visitation there should be
public acting, short recitations and declamations before the visitors,
that the scholars may learn boldness and vivacity in public speaking.
7. When two or more are equal in making a theme or in any other point
of trial, they may be put to an extempore trial for ascertaining the
order of merit; but the visitors must be careful not to discourage
the unsuccessful competitor, who should also receive a word of public
commendation when the prize is given to the victor. 8. That the
visitors should test the scholars on the grounds of religion by asking
some questions of the Shorter Catechism, and to ascertain if they
understood them.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 180‒182.
The Town Council of Aberdeen passed an act for redressing abuses which
had arisen in the Grammar School in 1671. The scholars were interrupted
in their learning by being changed from one teacher to another too
often, as the assistant teachers were changed from one class to another
every quarter, therefore it was settled that all the assistant teachers
should begin with the scholars they received at each of the four
quarters of the year, and carry them on continuously till they were fit
for entering the master’s class. “Seeing that in the three years’ time,
the scholars coming in May and in August cannot be so far advanced
as those who came in autumn and at Candlemas, their teacher having
delivered up the autumn scholars to the master’s class, he may begin
to receive the new class in the elementary branch at the same time,
and also perfect the rest of his former classes, and always as he
receives a new class every quarter so he may give off the class of his
former course every quarter to the master’s class, and so every third
year each teacher of the school is to receive the scholars of a whole
year, and at the four general quarters go up with his own scholars
to the master’s class. And if any boy through neglect or dullness of
understanding fall short of his fellows, by the advice of the visitors
or with consent of his parents, he ought to descend under the master
that teaches next to that class.” The mode of exercising discipline
being defective, it was enjoined that the head master and the assistant
teachers should exercise discipline every twenty-four hours upon the
scholars under their respective charges. The master and teachers had
been in the habit of not attending to their duty till eight in the
morning, therefore it was enacted that one of the teachers should be
in the school every day at six in the morning, and the head master and
the rest of the teachers should be in the school every day before seven,
that the scholars might not be idle when they came. It was ordered that
one at least of the teachers should attend the scholars when they were
at their play, to keep them in the usual playgrounds, and see that they
did not hurt each other.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 270‒272.
In 1700 the council of Aberdeen, the principal and regents of Marischal
College, and the ministers of the city, framed a set of rules for
the government of the Grammar School. It was resolved that a solemn
visitation of the school should be held annually in the beginning of
October, at which the scholars were to be examined, and prizes awarded
to the most deserving. Besides this, there should be three other
visitations at intervals of three months conducted by members of the
council, the ministers of the burgh, and one or two of the regents of
the College. Further, two or more of the magistrates should visit the
school on the first Tuesday of every month and inquire how the rules
and the discipline of the school were observed. At the same time they
appointed the method of teaching grammar and the classical authors, and
enjoined that they should be diligently pursued.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., page 327.
As to the subjects taught in the grammar schools and the method of
teaching, there seems to have been a gradual improvement. In the higher
class of schools the course extended to five years. At the High School
of Edinburgh in 1640 the order of teaching was as follows:――For the
first half of the first year the scholars were taught the principles
of grammar “in vernaculo sermone,” at the same time learning the
Latin names of everything on earth and in heaven; and during the
second half they had daily to repeat a certain portion of grammar,
and learn particular sentences relating to life and manners. The first
half of the second year they daily repeated certain parts of grammar,
especially as laid down by Despauter,¹ translating it into English,
and at the same time reading Cordery’s Colloquies; while, during the
second half, they were taught daily the Syntax of Erasmus, the masters
teaching and the scholars learning in the Latin language. Throughout
the third year they repeated daily a portion of etymology and syntax,
being exercised in reading Cicero’s De Senectute and De Amicitia,
Terence’s Comedies and Elegies, Ovid’s Tristia, Buchanan’s Psalms,
and Cicero’s Epistles, reading the same _clara voce_. The fourth
year, for the first month they repeated daily what they had already
learned, being taught Buchanan’s Prosody, Despauter’s Select Rules,
and Buchanan’s Epigrams and Poetry. During the rest of the year they
were exercised in poetry and in the practice of the rules of grammar,
reading Virgil, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Horace, Buchanan’s Psalms,
translating Cicero, Cæsar, and Terence, and the beauties of these
authors were explained to them. The fifth year they studied the
rhetoric of Tully, and the compendious rhetoric of Cassander, read
Cicero’s Orations, the short speeches in Sallust, Virgil, and Lucan,
and were at all times enjoined to read audibly and distinctly, and
declaim.²
¹ A notable Flemish grammarian, who flourished from 1460 to
1520, and whose grammar long continued to be used in our
schools.
² Chalmers’ _Life of Ruddiman_, pages 88‒90; Grant’s _History
of the Burgh Schools of Scotland_, page 339. For comparison
of the above course of instruction in this school with the
earlier one adopted in 1598, see the second volume of this
history, pages 404‒5.
The course of the Grammar School of Glasgow and that of Aberdeen also
extended to five years, and the class of subjects and the instruction
imparted being very similar in these schools, though there were some
variations which may be a little further illustrated. In 1685, at the
request of the Town Council of Glasgow, the regents of the College and
the ministers of the city framed a scheme of teaching for the Grammar
School. According to it, the first year the scholars were to be taught
the common rudiments of Latin, including the Vocables; the second year
the larger half of the first part of grammar, with Cordery’s Colloquies,
Erasmus’s Minor Colloquies, and some select epistles of Cicero and
Cato. The third year they were to be taught the other half of the first
part of grammar, and a short piece of the second, as far as Regimen
Genitivi; and for authors they were to have Ovid’s Epistles, Buchanan’s
Psalms, especially such of them as are written in elegiac verse, with
themes and versions from the best authors. The fourth year they were
to learn the rest of Syntax from Regimen Genitivi, repeating the former
parts, and reading Cæsar’s Commentaries, Justin’s History, Ovid’s
Metamorphoses, and Virgil. The fifth year they were to be perfected
in the third and fourth parts of the Latin grammar, and to learn
Buchanan’s Epigrams, Jephtes, and Baptistes, and also select parts of
Horace and Juvenal, with exercises in poetry, in themes and versions.¹
¹ Grant’s _History of the Burgh Schools of Scotland_, page 338.
The course of instruction in the grammar school of Aberdeen, in 1700,
was ordered as follows: “The entrants should read Latin during the
first quarter, or longer if the masters thought fit. After this, they
should learn the declensions, comparisons, pronouns, conjugations, and
the rest of the rudiments, to the constructions, and they should also
learn by heart the first four sections of Webberburn’s Vocables, and
decline and conjugate them; with the constructions they should have
the two last sections of Vocables. With the first part of the grammar
they should have Tully, Sulpicius, Distich of Cato, Ovid’s Epistles,
Virgil’s Epigrams, and Terentii Andria; and for prose authors, Cordery,
Erasmus’s Minor Colloquies, and Cicero’s Minor Epistles; and for sacred
prose, Ursin’s Catechism, Dialogi Sacra Sebastiani. With the second
part of the grammar, Virgil’s Eclogues and the fourth book of his
Georgics, and Ovid’s Metamorphoses, should be used; for prose authors,
Curtius, Sallust, and Cæsar’s Commentaries; and for sacred lessons,
Buchanan’s Paraphrase of the Psalms. With the third part of the grammar,
Virgil’s second and sixth Æneids, and Horace’s Odes; and for prose
authors, Cicero’s Offices, and Erasmus’s Minor Colloquies; and for
sacred lessons, Buchanan’s ♦Paraphrase continued. With the fourth
part of the grammar, some of the select Satires of Horace, the tenth
and thirteenth Satires of Juvenal, and some of the Satires of Persius;
and for prose authors, Livy’s First Decade, and Buchanan’s History,
together with the turning and making of verse, dictates of rhetoric
and rules of elegance, to which should be added some practice in
composing and resolving orations according to the rules of rhetoric.
After Despauter’s Grammar, Kirkwood’s Orthography and Syntax should be
learned, with his tract, De Variis Carminum Generibus. Throughout the
prose authors, the choicest sentences of each day’s lesson should be
dictated in Latin and in English, together with the versions of each
day’s lesson, and for each lesson throughout the several factions, a
daily conference should be appointed. As to composition, the public
arguments should be dictated thrice a week, and besides these the high
class should have five arguments more. On Saturday afternoon there
should be disputes, repeating of rules and authors publicly by the
several classes in turn; and all the rules and questions of the Shorter
Catechism should be repeated once a week publicly. In the winter
quarter each scholar of the higher class should repeat a fable of Æsop
from the public desk before the whole class.” Rules were also adopted
for regulating the discipline of the school, the play-days, and the
tasks for Sunday.¹
♦ “Paraphase” replaced with “Paraphrase”
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., 327‒332.
Though provision was made for teaching Greek in some of the grammar
schools, it was not generally taught in these schools during the
seventeenth century. There are some notices of the teaching of Greek
in the schools; thus in the high school of Edinburgh, a class was
established for teaching the rudiments of Greek, in 1614. In 1625, 1642,
1656, the masters of the grammar school of Stirling promised to teach
all the scholars both Latin and Greek grammar. The town council of
Aberdeen, in 1661, authorised Mr. William Aidy to teach scholars in the
Greek tongue at such hours as should not interfere with the teaching
of the grammar school. In 1663, Latin and Greek were taught in the
school of Dumfries. As indicated before, Latin, and its classic writers,
formed the chief subject-matter in the higher grammar schools. But
in most of the smaller grammar or burgh schools, English was taught,
including even reading, spelling, and writing. Throughout this period,
however, there is little mention of the teaching of arithmetic, or
any branch of mathematics, geography, or drawing; and, indeed, in
these and other cognate branches of knowledge the nation as yet was
not far advanced.¹ From about the end of the seventeenth century onward
the subject of navigation was assiduously taught in the schools of
the chief seaport towns of Scotland. In 1673, the master of the Scots
school at Ayr was enjoined to teach the children to paint, but there
was little teaching of drawing anywhere.
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV.; _Burgh Records
of Stirling_; Grant’s _History of the Burgh Schools of
Scotland_, page 332.
The town councils throughout the kingdom frequently encouraged and
rewarded their school teachers. In 1620, the master of the grammar
school of Paisley was made a burgess and freeman of the burgh, and in
1632, the assistant teacher, for his encouragement, was made a burgess
without paying any composition; and again, in 1685, the master of
the grammar school was admitted a burgess gratis, on account of his
service to the town, and for his encouragement. In 1677, the master
of the grammar school of Ayr was made a burgess and guild brother
“for the good service which he had done in attending on the scholars
in the school.” The town council of Aberdeen, in 1632, granted to
David Wedderburn, master of the grammar school, the sum of two hundred
merks Scots, for printing his grammar, lately published, which he had
dedicated to the council.
During the century some interest was manifested in the teaching of
music. In a considerable number of the schools music was taught as
a subordinate branch of education, and there were also, in different
places, separate schools for teaching the vocal and instrumental forms.
In 1624, the town council of Glasgow arranged with James Sanders to
teach all the children of the burgh who should be sent to his music
school, allowing him ten shillings each quarter, and three shillings
and fourpence for his assistant. Then the provost and magistrates
prohibited all other schools from teaching music in the city, unless
they were licensed by the council. But in 1638, their music school had
decayed, “to the disgrace of the city, and the regret of all honest
citizens;” the council, therefore, with the consent of James Sanders,
appointed Duncan Burnett to teach the music school. In 1669, the
council agreed to give the teacher of music three hundred and fifty
merks annually, and the bishop of Glasgow also was to give one hundred
pounds Scots. In 1691, the music master was to receive fourteen
shillings monthly for teaching one hour daily, and for writing the
thirteen common tunes and some psalms, fourteen shillings; and further,
the magistrates allowed him one hundred pounds Scots yearly.¹ The
town council of Stirling, in 1620, granted to the teacher of music
an annual salary of twenty pounds, with six shillings and eightpence
quarterly, for every scholar of the town learning music; and in 1694,
the precentor of the burgh was appointed to keep a public school for
teaching singing and playing. Frequently the master of the song school
was also English or rather Scots master, and taught the children
reading and spelling, and sometimes writing and grammar. In 1621, the
master of the music school of Dunbar was also the English master of
the town school. Shortly before the Restoration, the music school of
Elgin was converted into an English school, music, however, being still
taught.²
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume III., page 50; _Burgh
Records of Paisley_; _Burgh Records of Ayr_; _Burgh Records
of Glasgow_, pages 354, 388, _et seq._
² Grant’s _History of the Burgh Schools of Scotland_, pages
381‒382.
In 1636, the town council of Aberdeen admitted Andrew Melville to be
master of the music school. He had already been a teacher of music
for eighteen years, and the council thought he had produced sufficient
evidence of his qualifications in the art. They, therefore, appointed
him master of the music school, to teach the art of singing and playing,
stipulated that he should find a properly qualified assistant, to
instruct and attend to scholars, and also to take up the psalms in
both the churches of the city, at preaching and at prayers, evening
and morning, on week-days and Sunday. In 1666, the council agreed
to give Thomas Davidson, the master of the music school, a salary of
two hundred and fifty merks annually, with school fees. The council,
in 1675, issued a notice inviting persons expert in the science of
music to compete for the office of master of the song school; and this
brought an application from a Frenchman, who had been teaching music
in Edinburgh with much success. The council engaged him for one year,
or longer if they thought fit, at an annual salary of two hundred
pounds, and thirty shillings quarterly from each scholar. His hours
for teaching were fixed from seven to nine, and ten to eleven, in the
forenoon, and from two to three in the afternoon.¹
¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume IV., pages 212, 226,
292‒293. In 1682, the town council of Aberdeen granted John
Forbes, printer, one hundred pounds Scots, as a gratuity,
in recognition of his merit in publishing a book for the
instruction of the young, which he dedicated to the provost
and council. _Ibid._, page 302. The council, in 1643, granted
John Row four hundred merks Scots, in consideration of his
having taught the Hebrew tongue, and published a Hebrew
Dictionary, which he dedicated to the council. _Ibid._,
Volume III., pages 165, 248.
Passing to the Universities of Scotland, we cannot record that they
exhibited any marked advance in the seventeenth century. There was
scarcely any improvement or change in the regular methods of imparting
knowledge, but some additional subjects were introduced. Amidst the
ecclesiastical and political wars under which the nation groaned,
letters, science, philosophy, and art, could not be expected to bloom
and ripen. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to find that in spite of
adverse circumstances, much violence, suffering, and poverty, many of
the people continued to take a lively interest in the diffusion of the
higher education.
About the beginning of the century, the magistrates and council of
Glasgow manifested a keen interest in the preservation of the rights
of their University. And in 1630, the town council, upon a petition
from the principal and the regents of the University for assistance to
erect a new building, agreed to contribute a sum of one thousand merks
when the building was commenced, and another thousand merks to purchase
books for increasing the number of volumes in the library. Later in
the century, we find the council still taking a warm interest in the
College.¹ The town council of Aberdeen, in 1634, granted four hundred
merks to the masters and regents of King’s College, to help to repair
the crown of the College, which had lately been broken down by a
tempest. In 1642, the council granted four hundred merks to aid in
repairing the College of the burgh. The same year the council commanded
that all the bursars admitted into the College of the burgh should
diligently attend all the public lectures and lessons of the several
professors, during the time that they received the benefit of their
bursaries. The town council also appointed Mr. John Row to teach Hebrew
in the College of the burgh. Dr. Robert Dun bequeathed his books to
the College, and the town council was careful to see them placed in
the library, and entered in a catalogue. In 1694, the council gave a
contribution of five hundred merks for the observatory of Marischal
College.²
¹ _Burgh Records of Glasgow_, pages 217‒223, 245, 275, 336,
340, 345, 351, 352.
² _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume III., pages 26, 59, 67;
Volume IV., pages 169, 199, 232, 315.
As observed in the last volume, each dominant party in the government
eagerly sought to impose their views upon the universities. When the
Covenanting party gained the ascendancy, it was resolved, in 1639, that
all masters and teachers of universities, colleges, and schools, and
all scholars at the passing of their examination for degrees, should
subscribe the Covenant, and this resolution was carried out by a
commission of visitation between 1639 and 1642.¹ One of the proposals
touching the universities which the General Assembly presented to
Parliament in 1641, was to the following effect:――That in order to
remove and to prevent abuses in the universities, to promote piety and
learning, it was very requisite and highly expedient that a constant
intercourse and correspondence should be kept up between all the
universities and colleges of the kingdom. And, therefore, it should
be ordained that a meeting of commissioners from all the universities
and colleges should be held once every year, at such time and place as
should be agreed upon, who should consult and determine upon their
common affairs, and the best means of advancing the end above specified;
and who also, or some of their number, should represent to parliament,
and to the General Assembly, what should be necessary and best for the
universities. Another item was, that special care should be taken that
all the chairs in the universities, and more especially the chairs of
divinity, should be filled with the ablest men, and the best affected
to the Reformation and the order of the Church.²
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., pages
291‒293.
² _Ibid._, Volume V., page 367.
It was not merely the doctrines and political opinions taught in the
universities that were affected by the changes and the revolutions in
the government, but even the funds of these institutions were greatly
affected, being often diminished and sometimes a little increased.
The general seizure of Church property and funds at the Reformation
has been already explained. The portion that belonged to the
universities was, like the rest, generally diverted from its purpose,
notwithstanding the efforts made to recover it; but without enlarging
on this, it may be well to state a few facts. In 1641, parliament
passed an act, granting the revenues of the bishopric and the priory
of St. Andrews to the University of St. Andrews; that is, the income
of the dismissed primate of Scotland was now to be transferred to
the principal, the regents, and the professors of the University of
St. Andrews. Accordingly, the Estates appointed a commission for the
visitation of the Colleges of St. Andrews, to distribute the above fund
among the principals, professors, and other members of the University,
assigning due proportions to each of the three Colleges. The commission
was also empowered to order the course of studies, to rectify what was
wrong, to recommend what was best for training the students in religion
and in learning, and to report their proceedings to the Estates.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, pages 382, 448‒450,
483, 498‒499.
In 1641, the King and parliament granted to the University of Glasgow
the temporality of the bishopric of Galloway, and ordered that the name
and the memory of this bishopric should be suppressed and extinguished.
The same year the Estates passed an act assigning the revenues of
the bishopric of Aberdeen to the Colleges of Old and New Aberdeen.
Cromwell, as we have seen, had to listen to some scathing preaching
against himself in Glasgow; and though the majority of the professors
and masters of the University submitted, with much reluctance to his
government, still, Oliver and his council renewed all its immunities
and privileges, adding that of printing bibles and all kinds of books
relating to the liberal sciences or licensed by the University. The
Protector further confirmed all former foundations, mortifications,
and donations made in favour of the University, and particularly those
of the bishopric of Galloway, adding thereto, for seven years to come,
the vacant stipends of the parishes which had been in the patronage of
the bishop of Galloway, also in perpetuity, the revenues of the deanery
and sub-deanery of Glasgow. This last gift, however, was under several
restrictions, by which the University could not obtain possession
of the subjects during Cromwell’s rule; however, as his acts were
rescinded at the Restoration, it fell to the ground.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., page 566;
Dr. Reid’s _Account of the University of Glasgow_.
At the Restoration, the universities were as far as possible made
subservient to the government and its principles. When Episcopacy
was re-established, the funds which the universities were receiving
from the revenues of the bishoprics, as above indicated, were at once
withdrawn. This crippled them for some time. At this time there were
eight chairs in the University of Glasgow, but three of them had to be
given up, and the five which remained were reduced to very low salaries,
while the College buildings remained in an unfinished condition.
According to the report of a visitation appointed by parliament in 1644,
an annual sum of three thousand nine hundred and forty-one pounds Scots
should speedily be provided for the University, otherwise it would
quickly decay and go to ruin; for it had a great load of debt, and many
chairs wanting which it should have, but cannot for want of revenue. In
this state, however, it continued till after the Revolution. In 1693,
however, each of the Scotch universities received a grant of three
hundred pounds annually out of the bishops’ rents in Scotland. They
continued to struggle on, but none of them have yet become very rich
institutions.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., page 498.
Dr. Reid’s _Account of the University of Glasgow_.
After the Revolution, of course, the universities had to be purged, and
in 1690, parliament passed an act authorising the visitation of all the
educational establishments of the kingdom. A long list of commissioners
were named in the act, and empowered to proceed, and to see that no
person disaffected to the government, or otherwise disqualified, should
be permitted to remain in any of the universities or schools, upon
the ground of its being necessary “for the advancement of religion and
learning, the good of the Church, and the peace of the kingdom, that
the universities, colleges, and schools be provided and served with
pious, able, and qualified principals, professors, regents, masters,
and others bearing office therein, well affected to their Majesties,
and the established government of Church and State.” Therefore it was
enacted that henceforward “no professors, principals, regents, masters,
or others bearing office in any university, college, or school, in this
kingdom, be permitted to continue in the exercise of their functions,
but such as shall acknowledge and profess, and subscribe, the
Confession of Faith, ratified by this parliament; and also swear and
subscribe the oath of allegiance to their Majesties: and withal shall
be found of a pious, loyal, and peaceable conversation, and of good and
sufficient literature and abilities for their respective employments;
and submitting to the government of the Church now settled by law.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
163‒164.
In 1695, the commissioners of the universities had arrived at the
conclusion that none of the text-books should be of foreign origin.
“They tell the commissioners of parliament that it is altogether
dishonourable to the universities, and the famed learning of the nation,
that a course of philosophy should be made the standard of authority,
which none belonging to the universities have composed. They criticise
the existing books and systems of logic and philosophy. The existing
courses of philosophy are either not intended and suited for students,
or they are in themselves objectionable. The course that runs the
fairest is, ‘Philosophia Vetus et Nova,’ which is done by a popish
author, and bears marks of that religion; but therein the logics are
barren, the ethics erroneous, and the physics too prolix. Henry Moir’s
ethics cannot be admitted; they are grossly Arminian, particularly in
his opinion ‘de libero arbitrio.’ The determinations and pneumatology
of De Vries are too short. Le Clerc is merely sceptical and Socinian.
For Cartesius, Rohault, and others of his gang, besides what may be
said against their doctrine, they all labour under this inconvenience
――that they give not any sufficient account of the other hypotheses,
and the old philosophy, which must not be ejected.”¹
¹ _Printed Muniments of the University of Glasgow_, Volume II.,
page 531.
In accordance with this conclusion, the University of St. Andrews
was ordered to draw up the logics and general metaphysics; to that
of Edinburgh was given the pneumatology; to Glasgow, the general and
special ethics; and to the two Colleges of Aberdeen the general and
special physics. The treatises were written and placed before the
commissioners of parliament in 1697, who were empowered to revise
them. Two of these productions were printed in London in 1701. The one
produced in Edinburgh is entitled “An Introduction to Metaphysics,” and
contains fifty-six pages; the other from St. Andrews, “An Introduction
to Logic,” of the same size. But no more was heard of the project, and
it produced no practical effect on the course of university education.
In short, these compends, and the views which they expressed, may
be regarded as the closing words of the regenting system, and of the
older method of philosophical teaching in the Scotch universities. The
leading peculiarity of this method has been pointed out in the previous
volume.¹ The professorial system was finally instituted in Glasgow in
1727: it was introduced there by Melville in 1577, but regenting was
resumed in 1642; in Edinburgh in 1708; in St. Andrews, 1747; but in
Aberdeen the regenting continued till 1754.
¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
II., page 407, 416.
The chief point of difference between this system and that of the
regents is the limiting of the teaching of the professor to a special
subject, out of the many subjects which the regent had to teach. Then
in the newer system, the professor is not usually restricted to the
teaching of specific books, but may arrange and develop his subject
as he thinks fit, and in his lectures contribute what he can to
its progress. Thus the professorial system allows the instructor
full freedom to exert his powers in presenting the various points
and relations of his subject, as well as its special exposition and
practical applications. But the mode of instruction in the universities
will be fully explained in the next volume, in connection with the
history of Scottish philosophy.
In what is usually termed the fine arts, Scotland long remained
behind other modern nations. Indeed the circumstances of the nation
were exceptionally unfavourable to the growth of art. There was too
much internal strife, too few of the elements of wealth, too little
culture or love of refinement, or elevated ideal feeling, among the
Scotch aristocracy, to prompt and encourage art; even though the
Scots naturally possessed aptitude for art, the conditions for its
encouragement and realisation did not exist. Hence the seventeenth
century produced only one eminent Scottish artist, George Jamesone.
George Jamesone, a son of Andrew Jamesone, master mason, was born in
Aberdeen about the year 1588, and was the first Scottish painter who
attained to historic character. He received his early education at the
Grammar School of Aberdeen. On leaving the school in 1601, it seems
probable that he studied for some time at Marischal College. At the age
of eighteen years he probably had fixed on his calling, and commenced
to try his hand and eye in drawing and painting. Strictly speaking,
he could have had no teacher, and only a few primitive examples to
stimulate him. Little is known of Jamesone’s early career as an artist.
“Who first encouraged the young artist with the responsibility of
perpetuating their features on canvas or panel we do not know, but a
test of his quality as a faithful painter would quickly justify their
trust in him, and induce that current of popularity which never forsook
him, but went on ever broadening till his death.... Jamesone’s merit
in a great measure, consists in this, that without examples worthy of
mention, without a master of any kind, and, probably, with very poor
materials――with nothing, in short, but his own sense of the beautiful,
and a strong determination to arrest it by his brush――he reached such
a degree of excellence.... Ten years, then, of assiduous work brought
their legitimate rewards of improvement and appreciation.... Something
like a fatality seems to exist in obliterating almost every historical
proof of Jamesone’s early career and movements. It follows us when we
seek to verify the tradition that he went to Antwerp and entered the
study of the famous Rubens, where he met, among others, the brilliant
Vandyck, the prince of portrait painters. But whilst there is no
positive evidence, there is at the same time no moral doubt. The only
doubt on the subject of his having studied abroad is as to the date.”
It seems probable that Jamesone went abroad in 1618, and returned home
about the year 1620.¹
¹ Bullock’s _Life of Jamesone_, pages 36‒45. 1885.
Jamesone established himself as a portrait-painter in his native city
in 1620, and several references to him occur in the Burgh Records. In
1621 he produced a portrait of John Stewart, Earl of Traquair; it is a
bust portrait representing the Earl as a man past middle age. From this
time onward Jamesone was busily engaged. His early patrons were chiefly
local and north country people; and subsequently some of the southern
nobles and gentry patronised him. On the occasion of the coronation
of Charles I. at Edinburgh in the summer of 1633, Jamesone visited the
capital, and was introduced at Court. Charles sat to Jamesone for his
portrait, and the King was highly pleased with it. It was said that he
presented to the artist a diamond ring from his own hand as a special
mark of his approval. The picture of the King was a full length figure,
but it is lost. Amongst many other persons of rank whom Jamesone met
during his visit to Edinburgh, Sir Colin Campbell of Glenorchy, the
chief of the house of Breadalbane, was the most important. Campbell
became an appreciative patron and a warm friend of the artist. Sir
Colin was a man of culture and an admirer of art. Jamesone painted
many portraits for him; and nineteen specimens of the artist’s work
are still in Taymouth Castle.
In May, 1635, Jamesone acquired from the town council of Aberdeen a
lease of a piece of ground lying along the banks of the Denburn valley,
which he laid out as a garden, and erected a summer house in the middle
of it.
Jamesone’s usual scale of prices was, for a half length portrait,
twenty merks, if he provided a gold-gilded frame the price was twenty
pounds. In making arrangements for a list of sixteen portraits for Sir
Colin Campbell, Jamesone said in the postscript to his letter:――“If
I begin the pictures in July, I will have the sixteen ready about the
last of September.” Sixteen portraits in three months was pretty rapid
work. It has ♦been calculated that “In full employment, and at his own
prices, Jamesone was making a very good annual income of not less than
£1000 or £1500 a year.”¹ Considering the position of the nation this
was a handsome sum.
♦ “beeu” replaced with “been”
¹ Bullock’s _Life of Jamesone_, pages 91‒93.
In Mr. Bullock’s interesting and valuable work a very careful
catalogue of Jamesone’s works is presented, accompanied with much
interesting information. The list includes one hundred and eighty-six
well authenticated works of Jamesone, and indicates where they were
preserved in 1885. Amongst these may be mentioned, a half-length
portrait of the Marquis of Montrose, dated 1640; a half-length portrait
of General Alexander Leslie, the commander-in-chief of the Covenanters;
George, first Marquis of Huntly; George, second Marquis of Huntly; Lord
Loudon; Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston; and a fine portrait of
William, sixth Earl Marischal. Jamesone was working for the Haddington
family in 1644. In the autumn of that year he died at Edinburgh, and
was interred in the Churchyard of Greyfriars.
Jamesone’s style was comparatively simple and uniform. The greater
part of his portraits are half-lengths. “The face is a three-quarter,
looking to the sitter’s left.” The head is usually somewhat smaller
than life-size, which slightly detracts from the dignity of the
portraits. The drawing of the face is mannered, though presenting a
naturalness of expression; the eyes are well formed and restful; the
nose long; and the corners of the mouth slightly turned up. Hands are
seldom introduced.¹
¹ Bullock’s _Jamesone_, page 115.
His chief merit lay in portraying the human countenance, and in making
it appear as if animated by a soul within; he concentrated his power
on the face and the head: he rarely introduced accessories to arrest
attention.
It was reported that Michael Wright had been a pupil of Jamesone’s,
but there is no evidence of this; and it seems unlikely that he really
trained any one to his art. Wright was an artist of some note, and
went to London when a youth, and it does not appear that he returned to
Scotland. Thomas Murray was born about the year 1666. He studied under
John Riley, painter to King William. Murray was an eminent painter
of portraits, and was very successful in his profession. He died in
1724. John Scougal had an extensive practice as a portrait painter
in Edinburgh in the latter part of the seventeenth century. Three
full-length portraits by him, representing William III., Queen Mary,
and Queen Anne, are in the Glasgow Collection. He died at Prestonpans
in 1730.
The art of architecture showed some progress in the seventeenth century,
despite the unfavourable conditions of society. But there is little
information as to the names of architects in any branch of the art
before the eighteenth century; although the names of certain persons,
called masters of works, occasionally occurs in the national and
local records. Sir William Bruce was the son of Robert, third baron of
Blairhall. He was trained abroad; and appears as architect to Charles
II. in 1671. He prepared designs for rebuilding a part and restoring
the palace of Holyrood. He had intended the interior of the quadrangle
to be finely decorated, but this was not carried out, because “his
Majesty thinks the way proposed for the inner court would be very noble,
but he will not go to that charge; and therefore his pleasure is that
it be plain ashlar, as the front is, with table divisions for storeys;
and if that be deemed too great an expense, his Majesty will rest
satisfied if it be good handsome rough work, with handsome mouldings
for the windows and table divisions for the storeys.” This work was
completed in 1679 at a cost of £127,000 Scots. Sir William planned
Hopetoun House, Linlithgowshire, which was commenced in 1698, but not
completed for several years. He also designed several other mansions
and buildings, and died in 1710.¹
¹ _Notes on Early Scottish Architects, in Transactions of the
Architectural Institute of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 64‒67.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
_Outline of European Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century,
and the early part of the Eighteenth._
HAVING in the second volume of this work referred to the state of
philosophy in relation to the Reformation, and the influence of that
revolution in stimulating inquiry, an outline of the philosophic
thought of Europe in the seventeenth century and the early part of
the eighteenth will be an appropriate introduction to the subsequent
history of Scottish philosophy. This will enable us to estimate the
position and the claims of Scottish philosophy. Although the stream
of European thought seems to run in several channels, these meet and
influence each other at many points, and thus it is impossible to
attain a just appreciation of the philosophy of one school or nation,
without some general knowledge of the preceding and contemporaneous
schools. So far as we know, there is nothing in the universe completely
isolated, as all systems of philosophy are more or less related to
each other, an entirely original idea is a rare phenomenon. But the
field thus opened is exceedingly wide, and cannot be covered within
the limits at my disposal. Therefore, it is to be distinctly understood
that the aim of this outline is only to indicate the historical
antecedents of the philosophy which subsequently arose in Scotland,――a
matter of such interest and importance as to justify the attempt to
elucidate its historic significance and relation to preceding systems
of thought.
After the series of struggles which issued in the Reformation, the
human mind continued to strive after independence and freedom for
more than a century. Most of the philosophers of the sixteenth century
were scholars and men of research, rather than unfettered thinkers,
and exerted themselves in collecting old manuscripts, translating,
annotating, and lecturing on the writings of Aristotle and Plato,
while some of them manifested a tendency to theosophy, and others
to materialism and scepticism. The veneration for the opinions of
antiquity and the shackles of authority were not easily broken, and
many curious moves were made ere reason and common-sense attained sway.
At length men began to enter more and more on independent investigation
of nature and mind, and the problem of moral freedom.
When undeterred by fear, interest, or authority, the human mind is
the most powerful and wonderful agent in the universe. This was anew
exemplified in the rapid development of mathematical science, and the
adoption of more accurate methods of investigation in the seventeenth
century, and ever since the progress of discovery and of invention have
been continuous. It is my task to indicate briefly some of the intense
wrestlings of those strong and exalted minds who have contributed
to weaken the power of traditional authority, to brave the force of
ignorance, of biting scorn, and of death itself.
Giordano Bruno was one of the boldest thinkers in the sixteenth century.
Born at Nola――in the province of Naples――in 1548, he entered the Order
of the Dominicans, but relinquished it when he found his convictions
in conflict with the doctrines of the Church. From that time onward
he lived a wandering life, sometimes sojourning in France, in England,
in Germany, and sometimes in other countries. But having returned to
Venice, he fell into the hands of the Inquisition in 1592, and after
suffering a long imprisonment in Rome, was tried for heresy, condemned,
and burned in 1600.
He was a voluminous author, and wrote both in Italian and in Latin, but
several of his treatises and tracts have been lost. He was gifted with
a lively, warm, and exuberant imagination, which often impelled him to
express his views in a poetical form, and thus sometimes he embodied
his thoughts in a haze of clouds; at other times, however, he delivered
his opinions with remarkable force and clearness. The elements of
sympathy were excessively strong in him, and entered into his modes of
thought and coloured all his philosophic efforts.
Bruno boldly essayed the reconstruction of the universe on the
principle of the unity and universality of substance. In astronomy
he embraced the Copernican view, and expounded it. According to him,
the universe is infinite in time and in space, the solar system being
merely one of innumerable worlds, of which God is the original and
immanent cause. The attributes of God are power, wisdom, and love. The
stars are not moved by a prime mover, but by the souls inherent in them.
He rejected the idea of a dualism of matter and form, and identified
the form or moving cause with the end and matter of all organic things;
thus matter contains in herself the forms of all things, and brings
them forth from her own bosom as the travailing mother expels her
offspring. The elements of all that exists are the monads, which are
a kind of points, not entirely unextended but spherical, and at once
material and psychical. The soul is a monad, and it is never wholly
without a body. God is the monad of monads, and He is the least, as all
things are external to Him, and the greatest, because all things are
in Him. God caused the worlds to spring out of Himself, not by an act
of mere will, but by an inner necessity, moving freely and without any
compulsion. The worlds being nature realised, and God nature working,
thus God is present in all things. Each of the worlds is perfect in its
kind, and there is no positive evil. All individual objects and living
organisms are subject to change, but the universe remains in its entire
perfection always like itself.
Bruno’s philosophy is full of the unity of being, which is the
principle and end of all philosophy. God is the infinite All, the
One, the prime and universal substance, of Himself, excluding all
delimitation, and is not to be sought beyond the universe and the
infinity of things. “Why think of any twofold substance, one corporal
and another spiritual, when in sum these have but one essence and one
root, for corporal substance, which manifests to us that which it
involves, must be held a thing divine, parent of natural things; and
if you think aright, you will find a divine essence in all things.” Yet
he occasionally speaks of the supernatural. “The highest contemplation
which transcends nature is impossible and null to him who is without
belief, for we attain to this by supernatural, not by natural light;
and such light they have not who hold all things to be corporal, and
who do not seek Deity beyond the infinite world and the infinity of
things, but within this and these.”¹
¹ The works in which Bruno chiefly developed his system were
written in Italian, and of these the most important is
the “Della Causa, Principio et Uno,” 1584, and in the
same year appeared his “De l’Infinito Universo e Mondi.” A
complete list of his writings is given in the second volume
of Ueberweg’s _History of Philosophy_ (page 469). In the
present century the extant writings of Bruno have been
carefully studied and ably expounded by several eminent
writers and historians of philosophy.
It is obvious that Bruno’s philosophy is a form of pantheism, one of
the most fascinating systems of thought ever propounded. The system
originates from the difficulty of conceiving the action of the mind
or thought except when conjoined with a body――an insuperable and
far-reaching difficulty, because there is no direct evidence anywhere
of a mind operating without the conjunction of an organism. Hence
the strong temptation to identify God and the universe in one idea or
principle: that is, the universe is God, and God is the universe. This
is a proposition which imparts no light, but it is, nevertheless, the
fundamental idea of the system which figures the external substance
of the universe as God, from which step by step all things have issued.
Thus the prime idea of pantheism is a constant quantity or unity,
although the developments of the system in the hands of different
thinkers has assumed varied modifications in detail.
Bruno’s views have influenced the subsequent developments of several
once famous philosophies. The noted Spinoza was indebted to him for
several of his ideas, but the fundamental idea of pantheism is much
older than the times of either of the two philosophers, as it stretches
back to an early period in the evolution of human thought. Through
Spinoza’s system German speculation has been largely influenced,
and even some recent Scottish speculations bear distinct traces of a
similar descent.
In France, during the latter part of the sixteenth century, the
Jesuits were the most active instructors and disseminators of doctrine.
Their schools were planted in all the chief towns of the nations. They
encouraged the study of classical literature, and prepared the best
text-books and lexicons. But they were a conservative and obstructive
body, and wielded much influence over the intellect of the French. At
the same time a form of ancient scepticism was revived in France by
Montaigne. “In fact, Montaigne represents, if he did not inaugurate,
the school of French satirists, who, standing between, as it were,
Calvin and Rabelais, avoided both the coarseness and abandon of
the latter, and the ascetic sternness and awkward pleasantries of
the former.”¹ His sceptical views were more or less directed to the
doctrines of Christianity, but from whatever motive or reason, he
generally concluded with a recognition of the necessity of a revelation,
and thus avoided a conflict with theology. In their ultimate result
his reflections pointed to such conclusions as――whether we are not a
rather presumptuous class of beings in fancying that we have any higher
faculties than those which are bestowed on other animals; whether the
pursuit of truth may not be a pleasant amusement, rather than one that
promises any result; whether religious forms may not be serviceable
to the business of life, and therefore to be defended; whether they do
not become mischievous when they lead to conflicts and to persecutions;
whether a full recognition of our folly, ignorance, and uncertainty,
might not save us from the dogmatism which produces such things? A
similar strain of thought was indulged in by Charron and other French
writers.²
¹ Van Laun’s _History of French Literature_, Volume II., pages
299‒300.
² Montaigne’s _Essays_. He states himself that Buchanan was
one of his preceptors; and some traces of this Scotsman’s
opinions may be found in the easy and self-satisfied
Frenchman’s writings.
Another Frenchman, Gassendi, undertook the defence of Epicureanism,
showing that it contained the best doctrine of physics, and also
attempting to combine it with Christian theology. In physics, he
embraced the theory of atomism; but he saw its weak side, namely,
the difficulty of explaining the derivation of sensation out of atoms
and space. He discussed this problem at great length, but admitted
that there was something left unexplained. He was a voluminous writer.
Gassendi has been claimed by the historians of materialism as the chief
reviver of systematic materialism in modern times. “We lay especial
stress upon this, that Gassendi drew again into the light, adapted to
the circumstances of the time, the fullest of the materialistic systems
of antiquity, that of Epikuros.” Again, in reference to his historical
qualifications, “Gassendi, whose thorough philological and historical
training equipped him with a knowledge of all the systems of antiquity,
embraced with a sure glance exactly what was best suited to modern
times, and to the empirical tendency of his age. Atomism, by his means
drawn again from antiquity, attained a lasting importance, however
much it was gradually modified as it passed through the hands of
later inquirers.” Once more, “Gassendi is, of all the most prominent
representatives of materialism, the only one gifted with a historic
sense, and that he has in an eminent degree. Even in his ‘Syntagma
Philosophicum,’ he treats every subject at first historically, from
all possible points of view.”¹
¹ Lange’s _History of Materialism_, Volume I., pages 253‒269.
“The evolution and dissolution of things is nothing but the
union and separation of atoms. When a piece of wood is burned,
the flame, smell, and ashes, and so on, have already existed
in their atoms, only in other conditions. All change is only
movement in the constituents of a thing, and hence the simple
substance cannot change, but only continues its movements in
space.”――_Ibid._, page 267.
Descartes was born in 1596 at La Haye, in the province of Touraine.
At the age of eight he was sent to the Jesuit College of La Flèche,
and placed under the instruction of the Jesuits, where he remained for
eight years, and received his general education. He was a contemporary
of Gassendi, and a more famous philosopher; each represented opposite
systems and assailed one another, but neither of them influenced the
other in his views. The two were contrasted in every way. Descartes
always aimed at being original, and often was so, while Gassendi was
more historical and dependent, and more learned, but he lacked the
genius of his contemporary; both, however, were the fathers of great
modern schools of thought. In philosophy and in scientific method, the
real turning-point came in the early part of the seventeenth century,
and in the great movement Descartes holds a foremost place, entitling
him to some account, however brief, in this exposition.
Descartes was eminent both as a philosopher and as a mathematician;
in the latter department of science he takes a position among the
great mathematicians of the seventeenth century. In algebra he was
the first to place the doctrine of powers on a clear basis, freeing it
from its dependence on geometry, which prevented its proper expansion;
while, by introducing the index notation, he gave the science a new and
potent means of expression. He also advanced the treatment of negative
quantities, and first brought into prominence the equal significance of
the negative roots, and for determining a limit to their number, gave
the rule which still bears his name. But his fame as a mathematician
rests chiefly on his application of algebra for “the expression of
continuously varying quantity.” By this invention he may be considered
as the founder of analytic geometry, or the algebraic treatment of
curves, and he is well entitled to a place in the history of the
mathematical achievements which ultimately led to the discovery of
the Differential Calculus.¹
¹ _Descartes_, by J. P. Mahaffy, pages 207‒209, 1880. It was
a curious feature in the character of Descartes that he
designedly so composed his Essay on Geometry as to be very
difficult, “and only understood by mathematicians of a high
order. He omitted what was obvious, and in the solving of
problems only gave the means of solution, and not each step
in the demonstrations. He even chuckles in his letters at the
number of professed mathematicians who were unable to follow
his arguments, and tells us that not a single professor in
the new universities of Holland was able to open his mouth
upon the subject.”
In physics, his achievements were mainly in the science of optics.
He at least contributed to the discovery and statement of the law
of refraction, though his independent discovery of this law has been
keenly disputed. He explained the colours of the rainbow, and it
appears that he originated the undulatory theory of light. But his
positive contributions to science were not the most important elements
of his philosophy, as its influence sprang more from its spirit and
method, which were the expression of his own acute and determined mind.
Descartes’ philosophy is fundamentally a deductive system, based
on mathematical principles, but in its development it assumed the
form of a methodical and rather dogmatic rationalism. Although the
initial steps of his method are founded in doubt, this is not the most
distinctive feature of his philosophy. His doubt, at the threshold,
merely gave him the data of his own thought and existence, and enabled
him to assert a right to discard authority, and to erect a standard
independent of all former times and thinkers. In the development of
his system he attempted to find the ultimate principle in the order
of synthesis, which would afford the conditions of philosophy and of
science, or that something which is the highest of all. This principle
must be self-evident, and Descartes found it in his famous “cogito
ergo sum;” then he struggled hard and determinedly to connect this with
the idea of God, and thus associating the criterion of truth with the
perception of Deity, makes the one in a sense dependent on the other.
In his first published work, which appeared in 1637, and marks an epoch
in the history of human thought, he enunciated four rules of method in
the following order:――“1. Never to accept anything as true which was
not clearly known to be such; that is, carefully to avoid precipitancy
and prejudice, and to include nothing more in my judgment than what
was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all
ground of doubt. 2. To divide each of the difficulties into as many
parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution.
3. To conduct my thoughts in order, by commencing with objects, the
simplest and easiest kind to know, that I might ascend by degrees, as
it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex; assigning
in thought a definite order even to objects which in their own nature
do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence. 4. In every
case to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I
might be assured that nothing was omitted.”¹ This work was entitled,
“Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking
Truth in the Sciences; also the Dioptrics, the Meteors, and the
Geometry, which are Essays in this Method.” Thus Descartes introduced
his Method to the world with the recommendation of his own discoveries
in mathematics, and with the solution of problems which were then
beyond the reach of ordinary minds, as was indicated in the last note.
The three essays presented as applications of his Method have long
been superseded or absorbed in later works, but the discourse on Method
will always be valuable. The volume containing the whole was written in
French, which in that day was itself a bold innovation.
¹ _Discourse on Method_, Part II.
The Discourse on Method though only a short treatise, which might be
read at a single sitting, nevertheless was a memorable proclamation
against the ages of inert formalism, and the thraldom of the human mind.
It contains details relating to the formation of his opinions, and the
beginning of the development of his system. It is a book of absorbing
interest, and should be carefully read by every student of philosophy.
It is divided into six parts, which treat of the following topics:
――1. Various considerations touching the Sciences. 2. The principal
rules of the author’s method, the heads of which I have stated above.
3. Some rules of morals deduced from this method. 4. His reasonings
establishing the existence of God and of the human soul. 5. The order
of the questions in physics, the explanation of the motion of the heart
and of some other difficulties, as also the difference between the soul
of man and that of the brutes. 6. What he believes to be requisite in
order to greater advancement in the investigation of nature than has
yet been made, with the reasons that have induced him to write. I had
transcribed several passages for quotation, but space forbids their
insertion; and as the work is now easily accessible to English readers,
long quotations are unnecessary. But to lighten the exposition, I may
briefly dispose of some of his peculiar views touching the organisation
of man and the lower animals.
He adopted a mechanical theory of the universe, attributing to
matter only pressure and impulsion, by which to explain all material
phenomena. Then developing his theory in accounting for life, plants,
and animals, he ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the functions
and actions of animals and living organisms are purely the result of
heat and motion, as mechanically as the going of a clock is the result
of cog-wheels and pulleys. Thus man so far as his body is concerned, is
merely an automaton, while all the lower animals are automatons, mere
machines, constructed by the Deity according to the general laws which
He has impressed upon matter: they have no rational soul, as they use
no language, or perform any actions which cannot be proved to be the
direct result of their internal organism.
Touching the origin of the human soul, he followed the very old notion
of supposing that God infused a soul into every human being at the
first moment of its existence, and thus the soul was radically distinct
from the body, though closely united with it. As an unextended entity,
however, the soul can be in contact with the body only at one point,
which is the brain, or more precisely, in the single centre of the mass,
the conarium, or pineal gland. He says, “Although the human soul is
united to the whole body, it has, nevertheless, its principal seat in
the brain, where alone it not only understands and imagines, but also
perceives, and this by the medium of the nerves, which are extended
like threads from the brain to all the other members, with which they
are so connected that we can hardly touch any one of them without
moving the extremities of those nerves which are collected in the brain
round the seat of the soul.” Again, “It is clearly established, however,
that the soul does not perceive in so far as it is in each member of
the body, but only so far as it is in the brain, when the nerves by
their movements convey to it the diverse actions of external objects
that touch the parts of the body in which they are inserted.”¹
¹ _Principles of Philosophy_, IV., 189, 196.
The Discourse on Method contained in a condensed form the principles
and chief characteristics of Descartes’ system, and it was followed
by his “Meditations,” which were published in 1641. As the subject was
so full of difficulties, and thus liable to much misunderstanding and
misconception, he had manuscript copies of his “Meditations,” submitted
for criticism to some of the most learned men and philosophers of the
time, among whom were Gassendi, Arnauld, Hobbes, and others. A summary
of their objections, with his replies, was published, and many of their
criticisms were able and just. But Descartes so firmly believed in
his own system, and was so convinced that he saw it all clearly and
distinctly, that he could hardly be moved to change any of his settled
ideas. He simply wanted these learned men’s objections, that he might
refute them, and thus more effectually establish the certainty of his
own system in other minds. To the Catholic theologians only, for the
sake of their patronage and peace, he conceded some trifling points.
The Meditations are an expansion of the metaphysics of his Discourse
on Method, and the work embraced six meditations, which treat on the
following subjects: “Of the Things of which we may Doubt; of the Nature
of the Human Mind, and that it is more easily known than the body; of
God, that He Exists; of Truth and Error; of the Essence of Material
Things, and of God; of the Existence of Material Things, and of the
real distinction between the mind and body of man.” In his preface to
these Meditations he says: “Now that I have once, in some measure, made
proof of the opinions of men regarding my work, I again undertake to
treat of God and the human soul, and at the same time to discuss the
principles of the entire First Philosophy, without, however, expecting
any commendation from the crowd for my endeavours, or a wide circle of
readers. On the contrary, I would advise none to read this work unless
such as are able and willing to meditate with me in earnest, to detach
their minds from commerce with the senses, and likewise to deliver
themselves from prejudice; and individuals of this character are, as
I well know, remarkably rare. But with regard to those who, without
caring to comprehend the order and connection of the reasonings,
shall study only detached clauses for the purpose of small but noisy
criticism, as is the custom with many, I may say that such persons
will not profit greatly by the reading of this treatise; and although,
perhaps, they may find opportunity for cavilling in several places,
they will yet hardly start any pressing objections, or such as shall
be deserving of reply.”
Thus the Meditations were intended to be a discussion on the first
or fundamental principles of philosophy, but their main drift is to
prove that the knowledge of God and of the mind is the most certain
of all things. This was attempted in two ways: first, by showing the
uncertainty of all our knowledge of bodies, and then by presenting
demonstrations of our own existence as thinking beings, and of the
existence of the Deity. The first Meditation expounded the grounds
on which we may doubt of all things, and especially of all material
objects. After showing the uncertainty of all things, save some points
in arithmetic and geometry, he affirmed his own strong belief in the
existence of an all-powerful God, who created him such as he was, and
then says: “If, however, it were repugnant to the goodness of God to
have created me subject to constant deception, it would seem likewise
to be contrary to his goodness to allow me to be occasionally deceived,
and yet it is clear that this is permitted. Some, indeed, might perhaps
be found who would be disposed rather to deny the existence of a Being
so powerful than to believe that there is nothing certain. But let us
for the present refrain from opposing this opinion, and grant that all
which is here said of God is fabulous, nevertheless, in whatever way it
may be supposed that I reached the state in which I exist, whether by
fate, or chance, or by an endless series of antecedents and consequents,
or by any other means, it is clear (since to be deceived and to err
is a certain defect) that the probability of my being so imperfect as
to be the constant victim of deception, will be increased exactly in
proportion as the power possessed by the cause, to which they assign
my origin, is lessened. To these reasonings I have assuredly nothing
to reply, but am constrained at last to avow that there is nothing
of all that I formerly believed to be true of which it is impossible
to doubt.” Having now disposed so far of all material objects, in the
second, he repeats his argument affirming from the fact of doubt, our
own existence as doubting beings. “But what, then, am I? A thinking
thing, it has been said. But what is a thinking thing? It is a thing
that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, that
imagines also, and perceives. Assuredly it is not little, if all these
properties belong to my nature. But why should they not belong to it?
Am I not that very being who now doubts of almost everything, who,
for all that, understands and conceives certain things, who affirms
one alone as true, and denies the others, who desires to know more of
them, and does not wish to be deceived”; and so on in the same line
of argument. He next showed that external objects can only be known
when they become or are made the objects of thought, and then makes
a vigorous effort showing that mind itself is more clearly known than
any or all the objects of the external world. “But, finally, what
shall I say of the mind itself, that is, of myself? for as yet I do not
admit that I am anything but mind. What, then? I who seem to possess
so distinct an apprehension of the piece of wax,――do I not know myself,
both with greater truth and certitude, and also much more distinctly
and clearly? For if I judge that the wax exists because I see it, it
assuredly follows, much more evidently, that I myself am or exist, for
the same reason, it is possible that what I see may not in truth be wax,
and that I do not even possess eyes with which to see anything; but it
cannot be that when I see, or, which comes to the same thing, when I
think I see, I myself who think am nothing. So, likewise, if I judge
that the wax exists because I touch it, it will still also follow
that I am, and if I determine that my imagination, or any other cause,
whatever it be, persuades me of the existence of the wax, I will still
draw the same conclusion. And what is here remarked of the piece of wax
is applicable to all the other things that are external to me.”
In the third Meditation he unfolded his chief argument for the
existence of God. He insisted that as the idea of God in the human mind
is innate, God himself is its cause. And he described God thus:――“By
the name of God, I understand a substance infinite, eternal, immutable,
independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself, and
every other thing that exists, if any such there be, were created.”
Here he associates God, or the idea of God, with his own criterion of
truth. In the fourth, he proceeded to show that all which we clearly
and distinctly perceive must be true, and then explained the nature
of intellectual error. Referring to the will as the cause of error,
he says: “I have no reason to complain because God has given me a will
more ample than my understanding, since, as the will consists only
of a single element, and that indivisible, it would appear that this
faculty is of such a nature that nothing could be taken from it without
destroying it; and certainly, the more extensive it is, the more cause
I have to thank the goodness of Him who bestowed it upon me.... For
as often as I so restrain my will within the limits of my knowledge,
that it forms no judgment except regarding objects which are clearly
and distinctly represented to it by the understanding, I can never
be deceived, because every clear and distinct conception is doubtless
something, and as such cannot owe its origin to nothing, but must
of necessity have God for its author――God, I say, who, as supremely
perfect, cannot, without a contradiction, be the cause of any error,
and consequently it is necessary to conclude that every such conception
or judgment is true.”
He began the fifth Meditation by expounding the essence of material
things, giving some examples from quantity and form. And he asserted
that the figure of a triangle ♦and other mathematical figures possess
a certain determinate form, or essence, which is immutable and eternal;
and again repeated that whatever is clearly and distinctly perceived
is true, truth being identical with existence. He then proceeded
to demonstrate in a somewhat new form his arguments for proving the
existence of God, and making all knowledge dependent upon this. “But I
remark further that the certainty of all other truths is so absolutely
dependent on it, that without this knowledge it is impossible ever
to know anything perfectly.... And thus I very clearly see that the
certainty and truth of all science depends on the knowledge alone of
the true God, inasmuch that, before I knew him, I could have no perfect
knowledge of any other thing. And now that I know him, I possess the
means of acquiring a perfect knowledge regarding innumerable matters,
as well relating to God himself and other intellectual objects as to
corporeal nature.” In the sixth he explained the difference between
imagination and pure intellection; reviewed the errors of the senses,
pointing out the means of avoiding them, the distinct difference of
the mind and the body, and their relation to each other, and then
adduces the evidence from which the existence of the external world
may be inferred, and all with the aim of showing that our knowledge of
external objects is not so clear and distinct as the knowledge which we
have of our own minds and of God. Thus far I have attempted to explain
Descartes’ own efforts to develop his philosophy.
♦ “aud” replaced with “and”
But it is in his work entitled _The Principles of Philosophy_, written
in Latin, and published in 1644, that he developed his theories
and ideas systematically, and gave the most complete exposition and
representation of his system.¹ In this work he expounded his philosophy
synthetically. It is divided into four parts, which treat consecutively
of the principles of human knowledge, of the principles of material
things, of the visible world, and of the earth. The first part contains
an orderly summary of his metaphysical views, repeating what had
been stated in the Discourse and the Meditations, and adding some
new elucidations. And it is chiefly to this part that I must direct
attention, as being most consonant to the aim of this chapter.
¹ In a long preface to the French translation of his
_Principles of Philosophy_, which appeared in 1647, Descartes
enters at some length on several topics of an interesting
character, which are still well worth reading.
But not to leave his physics altogether unnoticed, the following
is a brief indication of his physical theory. Basing his ideas on
mathematics, he boldly asserted that extension is an eternal attribute
of matter, and that to us it is the very essence of matter. “Give
me extension and motion,” he exclaims, “and I will construct the
universe.” Matter is infinite or unlimited in space or time, and it is
everywhere identical with extension, all differences of quality being
simply produced by a different mechanical composition, and a difference
of motion in its parts.
In the second part of his Principles, he reduces all the phenomena
of nature to variations of size, figure, and motion, in the minute
particles of a homogeneous matter, there being but one kind of matter
in the whole universe. He gave special laws of motion, which are now
superseded. In the third part he treated on the theory of the solar
system, and on the nature and origin of the fixed stars, and assuming
three elements of various density in degree, explained the whole
universe by the theory of vortices or of circular motion. In the fourth
part he treated of the earth and its formation, of water, fire, and
other matters.
“When he gives _a priori_ explanations of all manner of phenomena in
heaven and in earth, deduced from the motion of diverse particles,
he confesses that the plurality of causes which may produce the same
effect is his great difficulty. He feels that endless time and outlay
is required to verify his theories by crucial experiments, and till
that has been done, he can offer nothing but the satisfactoriness
and simplicity of the explanation as a guarantee of its truth. Once,
indeed, he advances the statement that the veracity of the Deity would
come into question if he permitted us to be deceived in following such
strict and sober demonstrations. But in general the distinction of
purely mathematical and physical proof is acknowledged by Descartes,
and he confesses the possibility, though he never admits the fact, that
he might be mistaken.”¹
¹ _Descartes_, by J. W. Mahaffy, page 163.
The most notable peculiarities of Descartes’ metaphysics are his
conception of God and his definition of Substance. He says that in the
concept of God is comprised absolutely necessary and external existence,
while our concept of other things merely includes contingent existence.
God is also omniscient, all-powerful, absolutely perfect, absolutely
veracious, and the source of all light, “so that it is plainly
repugnant for him to deceive us.”¹ He exerted his great powers to make
this clear, and if his premisses were true, the conclusions of course
would follow, but his assumption of an innate idea of God in the human
mind of such a character as he assigned to it, is nowhere to be found
save among a small section of the most cultivated of the race. Besides
it is very questionable if this idea of God be obtained at all in the
way which he maintained. Then he defined substance thus: “By substance
we can conceive nothing else than a thing which exists in such a way
as to stand in need of nothing beyond itself in order to its existence.
And, in truth, there can be conceived but one substance which is
absolutely independent, and that is God.” We perceive that all other
things can exist only by the concourse of God; and, accordingly, the
term substance does not apply to God and the creatures in the same
sense, and no meaning of this word can be distinctly understood which
is common to God and them. Created substances, however, of all kinds
may be conceived as things existing by the concourse of God, but
existence by itself is not observed by us. Every substance has one
principal attribute, as thinking of the mind, extension of the body.
Thus extension in length, breadth, and depth constitutes the nature of
corporeal substance, and thought the nature of thinking substance. For
everything else that can be attributed to body presupposes extension,
and is only some mode of an extended thing, just as all the properties
which we discover in the mind are only different modes of thinking.²
¹ _Principles of Philosophy_, I. 22, 23, 29.
² _Principles of Philosophy_, I., 51, 52, 53.
His doctrine of the concourse of God is thus explained: “Because I was
in existence a short time ago, it does not follow that I must now exist,
unless in this moment some cause create me anew as it were, that is,
conserve me. In truth, it is perfectly clear and evident to all who
attentively consider the nature of duration, that the conservation of
a substance, in each moment of its duration, requires the same power
and act that would be necessary to create it, supposing it were not yet
in existence; so that it is manifestly a dictate of the natural light
that conservation and creation differ merely in respect of our mode of
thinking and not in reality.” Again, “From the fact that we now are,
it does not necessarily follow that we shall be a moment afterwards,
unless some cause, namely, that which first created us, shall, as it
were, continually recreate us, that is, conserve us. For we easily
understand that there is no power in us by which we can conserve
ourselves, and that the being who has so much power as to conserve
us out of himself, must also by so much the greater reason conserve
himself, or rather stand in need of being conserved by no one whatever,
and, in fine, be God.”¹
¹ _Meditation_, III.; _Principles of Philosophy_, I., 21.
It is pretty evident that the above view of substance contained an
element of pantheism. Since that substance which exists entirely in
itself and absolutely independent of aught beyond itself, is declared
to be God; and since there is only one kind of matter in the universe,
the sum and essence of substance being included in extension, what is
God but the universe. Hence Spinoza adopted this Cartesian conception,
and placed it at the summit of his pantheistic system of the universe;
while Descartes’ doctrine of conservation or continuous creation seems
to have suggested to his distinguished follower Geulinx the doctrine
of Occasional Causes; and Malebranche also made a modification on the
former doctrine in his own theory of seeing all things in God, who
is the place of spirits.¹ In truth, Descartes’ theory of the relation
of body and mind, even when supported by divine conservation, was
unsatisfactory and scarcely conceivable.
¹ Geulinx’s _Commentaries on Descartes’ Principles of
Philosophy_; Malebranche’s _De la Recherche_, etc.
Touching his first principle, and the criterion of truth, which are
involved in each other, he said:――“I think, therefore, I am, and this
proposition is of all others the first and most certain which occurs to
one philosophising orderly.” Thus knowledge must begin with a definite
act of a conscious being, self-revealed in the conscious act. He
did not, indeed, analyse the conditions of the object of which the
self-conscious being takes notice, or trace how the conscious act has
originated. Nevertheless, it was an important step towards placing
investigation on the true basis of conscious experience; though, of
course, on the subjective and notional side, it has often been carried
to extremes, and was so in the end by Descartes himself. He endeavoured
to deduce a criterion of truth from his first certain proposition,
and this he founded on clearness and distinctness of knowledge. This
test he defined in these words:――“I call that clear which is present
and manifest to the mind giving attention to it, just as we are said
clearly to see objects when, being present to the eye looking on,
they stimulate it with sufficient force, and it is disposed to regard
them; but the distinct is that which is so precise and different from
all other objects as to comprehend in itself only what is clear.”
As already stated, he called in the veracity of God to support this
criterion of truth.¹ But it is vague and comparatively useless in
its application, since it must be admitted that the clearness and
distinctness of an idea, a conviction, or an opinion, in the mind of
the person holding them, is not always a guarantee of their truth;
although it is a very good reason for such opinions and ideas being
strongly asserted and firmly maintained.
¹ _Principles of Philosophy_, I., 45, IV., 206; _Meditations_,
IV.
Descartes’ metaphysics does not reach the external world by a distinct
perception, but by an indirect or mediate inference. First, he resolved
to prove his own existence as a thinking being, and then deduced the
existence of God from the fact that thinking beings exist who possess
the idea of him, before the external world came into view at all.
He presented his demonstration of God’s existence under three forms,
which, however, are all essentially founded on the idea that he himself
had of God; and they are neither wholly new nor at all satisfactory,
and raised a storm of controversy which raged long and widely.
Turning to Descartes’ psychology, which is not separately or
exhaustively treated in his writings, and on some points there is
a little difficulty in ascertaining his views. He called the mind
a thinking substance or thinking thing; the word thought meant all
that we are immediately conscious of; and, accordingly, not only to
understand, to will, to imagine, but even to perceive, have here the
same meaning as thinking. There are only two modes of thinking of
which we are conscious, namely, the perception or operation of the
understanding, and volition or the operation of the will; thus to
perceive through the senses, to imagine, and to conceive purely mental
objects, are only different modes of perceiving; but to desire, to
be averse from, to affirm, to deny, to doubt, are different modes of
willing.¹
¹ _Principles of Philosophy_, I., 9, 32. He says that the
simplest self-evident notions are only obscured by logical
definitions, as these are not to be reckoned among the
cognitions acquired by study, but as born with us. _Ibid._,
10.
The word perception has a wider meaning in the writings of Descartes
and his followers than in the philosophic literature of the present
time. With them perception was generally employed to indicate an act of
mind by which we apprehended any mental object, as distinguished from
an affirmation or judgment concerning it; and thus in their writings
perception is nearly equivalent to cognition. All acts of memory,
of imagination, of sense, and of pure intellect, are merely modes of
perceiving, as in each we only know as being conscious of the object
of the act.
But here we come face to face with the relation of the mind to the
objects of its knowledge, which is the crucial problem in philosophy
and in psychology. As already implicitly stated above, according to
Descartes, the mind has no immediate perception of external objects or
of the material world. On the principles of his theory, the mind can
have no immediate knowledge of anything beyond its own modifications.
Although the mind is only conscious of its own modifications or
ideas, still it is not solely modified by its own energy, and in many
instances it is affected by the antecedent affections of the body,
owing to its junction therewith. Thus some of the modifications of the
mind are affections originating from the body, and mainly relative to
it; others, though not quite independent of corporeal contact, must
be more especially considered as affections of the mind; while others
are in themselves purely or absolutely intellectual energies in their
origin and in their continuance. The point of alliance of the mind with
the body is the brain, at this point all organic changes from external
causes terminate, and through these the mind is, owing to the nature
of its junction, hyperphysically determined to a relative modification.
There also all corporeal movements, at the call of the will, commence,
and thus produce the bodily movement answering to the volition of the
mind. The mind only perceives objects as its seat in the brain, and not
at the point of affection in the organs.¹
¹ _Principles of Philosophy_, I., 48, 53; III., 2, 3; IV., 189,
196‒198. Hamilton’s _Reid_, note N.
Thus we have only a mediate perception of an external object: a
representation of the object is all that is known to us, as it is that
only which comes within the seat of the conscious mind. This mental
representation of the external object is called an idea.¹ The organic
movement at the point of junction in the brain may also metaphorically
be called an impression, as it is the result of an external impulse,
though at the same time it has no natural resemblance to the external
object; it may be termed an image, as in some way suggesting the
representation to the mind; or it may be named a corporeal species,
though nothing similar to itself is transmitted from the object;
or it may be styled an idea, though it is not the immediate object
of the mind. If any one say that this theory of mediate perception
retains no evidence of the reality of an external world consistent
with the representations of our own minds, Descartes replies, that
in consequence of our early and deep-rooted prejudices we are led to
attribute to the immediate objects of our perceptions an external and
chief, instead of internal and vicarious, existence. “Hence arose the
belief that there was more substance or body in rocks and metals than
in water or air, because the mind perceived in them more hardness and
weight. Moreover, the air was thought to be merely nothing so long as
we experienced no agitation of it by the wind, or did not feel it hot
or cold. And because the stars gave hardly more light than the slender
flames of candles, we supposed that each star was but of this size.
Again, since the mind did not perceive that the earth moved on its axis,
or that its superficies was curved like that of a globe, it was on that
account more ready to judge the earth immovable and its surface flat.”
Of course, he also appeals to the veracity of the ♦Deity.²
¹ But whether his idea is to be considered as having an
existence independent of the mind or not, was a disputed
point among Descartes’ followers.
♦ “Diety” replaced with “Deity”
² _Principles of Philosophy_, I., 66‒72.
Descartes used the term idea to denote both mental objects and mental
acts, applying it indifferently to a material or a mental modification,
in relation to sense and imagination. Hence throughout his writings
this term appears under many relations and many different meanings. It
is often employed as an object of consciousness, as a representative
thought; while sometimes an objective and sometimes a subjective
meaning is attached to it, and this in all degrees and relations of
mind itself and its objects.
Touching his doctrine of innate ideas, which is a necessary part of
his theory of body and mind, the hyperphysical element of his system,
which he seems to have deemed requisite to cover and assist the purely
mathematical and mechanical principles upon which his philosophy is
essentially founded. By innate ideas he meant mental modifications
existing in the mind prior to all experience, and that they come into
consciousness whenever the mind begins to think and reflect. To the
class of innate modifications belong the ideas of God, of substance, of
unity, and others. These ideas might remain long inactive in the mind,
but they always exist in it potentially. And it is in relation to these
ideas that the veracity of the Deity is all-important, because a malign
Creator could have made us believe innate falsehoods.¹
¹ “With respect to ideas, some of them appear to me to be
innate.” _Meditations_ III. “The mind first of all discovers
within itself the ideas of many things ... the mind also
discovers certain common notions out of which it frames
various demonstrations that carry conviction to such a degree
as to render doubt of their truth impossible, so long as
we give attention to them. For example, the mind has within
itself ideas of numbers and figures; and it has also among
its common notions the principle that if equals be added to
equals the whole will be equal, and the like.”――_Principles
of Philosophy_, I., 13.
“In the first place, I discover that it is impossible for
God ever to deceive me, for in all fraud and deceit there is
some imperfection: and although it may seem that the ability
to deceive is a mark of subtlety or power, yet the will
testifies without doubt of malice and weakness; and such,
accordingly, cannot be found in God. In the next place, I
am conscious that I possess a certain faculty of judging
or discerning truth from error, which I doubtless received
from God, along with whatever else is mine; and since it is
impossible that he should will to deceive me, it is likewise
certain that he has not given me a faculty that will ever
lead me into error, provided I use it aright.”――_Meditations_
IV.
His exposition of the senses, or sensation, is comparatively brief, but
interesting and important.
In his treatise on the passions, he admitted six primitive passions
or emotions, namely, admiration, love, hate, desire, joy, and sadness.
From these he sought to deduce all the other passions and emotions, but
his exposition is mainly an echo of the views of Aristotle. He, however,
stated that the most perfect of all emotions is intellectual love to
God.
Touching ethics, Descartes expressly declined to produce a formal work,
on the ground that it would be liable to violent and unfair criticism
from his opponents; for a similar reason he refrained entirely from
treating of religion or of faith, preferring, as he says, to adhere
to the faith, and to submit to the authority of the Roman Catholic
Church, in which he had been educated from childhood. Yet occasionally
in his writings he touches on moral subjects, and in his letters on
the sovereign good, in his criticism of Seneca, and in his treatise on
the passions, he has indicated his ethical views. But he contributed
nothing specially original in this department, as he approached the
subject from the ancient standpoint, not from the modern, and he does
not treat the question of the moral faculty, or moral obligation. Still
his views, so far as they go, are generally wise and just.
But, as already indicated, the influence of Descartes did not quite
depend on the positive results of his philosophy. The emphatic doubt
at the threshold of his system was, in my opinion, the most influential
element in his philosophy. He had many disciples and many opponents,
while theologians generally were his bitterest enemies. Nevertheless,
Cartesianism spread in France and held its ground till about the middle
of the eighteenth century; while the influence of his system was felt
in other countries of Europe, especially in Holland. As for the general
tendency of his system in subsequent speculation and in literature,
it appeared in idealism, rationalism, and especially in scepticism and
nihilism.
The philosopher whose thought I have now to explain, Benedict Spinoza,
is an interesting character, sprung from a remarkable race. He
was born at Amsterdam, in November, 1632, a Jew by birth, and was
carefully educated in the Jewish religion and in the Hebrew language
and literature. But his energy of mind soon made him an object of
suspicion amongst his brethren, and in his twenty-fourth year he was
excommunicated, according to the Jewish ritual, from the Synagogue,
and from all intercourse with any of the tribes of Israel.¹ He earned
his livelihood by the art of grinding and polishing lenses for optical
instruments, a kind of work at which he became very skilful. He was
thus able to support himself in comparative ease and independence, as
his wants were few, and his mode of life extremely simple.
¹ _Spinoza, His Life and Philosophy_, by F. Pollock, 1880.
The chief authority for the life of Spinoza is John Colerus,
a minister of the Lutheran Church, at the Hague, who first
published his account of Spinoza in the Dutch language, in
1705, and it appeared in French in 1706 and 1733.
As he adopted a mathematical method, his system is deductive, and
the chief characteristics of his philosophy may be stated briefly as
follows. His fundamental conception is the unity of substance, and by
this he meant that which is in itself and is conceived by itself. There
is but one substance in the universe with infinite attributes, and that
is God. Two only of the attributes of this substance are cognisable
by man, namely, thought and extension: there is no extended substance
really distinct from thinking substance. All individual existence
is included among the changing modes of these attributes, but such
existence does not belong to God, else he would be finite, and not
absolute, since all determination is negation. God is the immanent
cause of all things, and operates according to the inner necessity
of his nature, and in this consists his freedom. But he produces all
finite effects only indirectly by finite causes, and nowhere proceeds
with a view to ends, and there is no such thing as human freedom apart
from causality. All that can be said is, that one mode of extension
merely acts upon another mode of extension, and one mode of thought
upon another mode of thought, and so on continually throughout the
universe. Between thought and extension, on the other hand, there
is a complete agreement, as the order of thought is identical with
the order and connection of things, each thought in every case being
merely the idea of the corresponding mode of extension. Our ideas vary
in clearness and in value from the confused representations of the
imagination to the adequate knowledge of the intellect, which conceives
all particulars from the standpoint of the whole which contains them,
and comprehends all things under the form of eternity, and as necessary.
From those confused mental representations which cannot rise above the
finite, spring passions and the bondage of the will, while intellectual
knowledge may assume the form of pure love to God, in which our
happiness and freedom consist.¹
¹ Compare Ueberweg’s _History of Philosophy_, Volume II., page
55, 1874.
Spinoza’s first published work was an exposition of the principles
of Descartes’ philosophy, which appeared in 1663. It contained the
exposition of two parts of Descartes’ Principles, and a fragment of a
third part, with an appendix of “Metaphysical Reflections.” He adopted
the geometric method of statement and argument, and so far as he went,
gave a pretty fair account of Descartes’ system. His next work was
entitled “Tractatus Theologico-politicus,” 1670. It is an elaborate and
able defence of freedom of thought and speech in matters of religion.
His final contention was, that “in a free state it should be lawful
for every man to think what he will and to speak what he thinks.”
In the development of his own thoughts, Spinoza seems to have been
much influenced by his study of Maimonides, yet the two philosophers
held different views touching the Jewish Scriptures; Spinoza adopting
a theory which permitted him to treat the Bible historically and
critically, while the earlier philosopher maintained that the Law was
given to the Jews as a revelation of the highest truths. He was the
author of several other treatises, but his chief work is his _Ethics_.
Spinoza’s _Ethics_ was not published till after his death, but it was
written several years before; and he seems to have gradually elaborated
it with much care. This work contains the fullest exposition of his
system, and is divided into five parts, which treat respectively of
God, of the nature and principle of the mind, of the source and nature
of the affections, of human slavery or the power of the passions, and
of human freedom or the power of the intellect. It is in this treatise
that he developed his leading idea of substance and other subjects.
But it is not at all an attractive work. The method of demonstration by
definitions, axioms, propositions, postulates, corollaries, and scholia,
is tedious and difficult to follow to the last degree. However, it is
requisite to give some specimens of his method and form of thought.
In the first part of the _Ethics_, touching God, the following
definitions are stated at the beginning:――“1. By self-caused I
understand that whose essence involves existence, or that which cannot
be conceived as non-existing. 2. A thing is called finite in its kind
which can be limited by another of the same nature. 3. By substance I
understand that which is self-contained and is conceived by itself. 4.
By attribute I understand that which the mind perceives in substance
as constituting its essence. 5. By mode I understand the affections
of substance, or that which is in something else, through which it
is apprehended. 6. By God I understand a Being absolutely infinite, a
substance consisting of infinite attributes, each expressing an eternal
and infinite essence. 7. A thing is called free which by the sole
necessity of its own nature is determined to action by itself alone,
but constrained, if it is determined by something else, to exist and to
act in a fixed manner. 8. By eternity I understand existence itself, so
far as it is conceived to follow necessarily from the definition of an
eternal thing.” The first definition is vague, for strictly speaking,
the term self-caused is an irrational conception; because if anything
is said to cause itself, it is assumed that it exists before itself, in
order that it may cause itself. But Spinoza intended the definition to
express the dependence of existence on essence; still the latter cannot
cause the former, unless it already exists itself, thus what was to be
caused already existed before being caused. The definition might have
been put in this form: the first cause in the universe is self-existent
and eternal and immutable in its essence. Others of his definitions
involve inconsistencies, but it is unnecessary to go over them.
The axioms are next stated thus:――“1. All that is, is either in itself,
or in some other than itself. 2. That which cannot be conceived by
another thing, must be conceived by itself. 3. From a determinate
cause an effect must follow; without such a cause no effect can follow.
4. Knowledge of an effect depends on the knowledge of the cause and
involves the same. 5. Things that have nothing in common cannot explain
each other. 6. A true idea must agree with its object. 7. Everything
that can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve
existence.”
From these definitions and axioms, he proceeded in a series of
propositions to develop his ideas of God and the universe. These
propositions extend to thirty-six, and he attempted throughout to give
them the form and the reality of demonstrations.
His main conclusions in this part of the Ethics are these:――“Besides
God, no substance can exist or be conceived to exist. Whatever is,
is in God, and nothing can be, nor can anything be conceived to be,
without God.” He demonstrated this at some length, using geometrical
illustrations, and then enunciated that “God acts by the sole laws
of his own nature, and by constraint of nothing. God is the immanent
indwelling, not the outside, cause of all things. God and all his
attributes are eternal. The existence and the essence of God are one
and the same thing. All that follows from the absolute nature of any
attribute of God must have existed from eternity. God is not only the
efficient cause of the existence of things, but also their essence.
The thing that is determined to effect anything is necessarily so
determined by God, and that which is not determined by God cannot
determine itself to act, and therefore ♦the thing that is determined
by God to do anything cannot render itself undetermined. The individual
finite thing that has determinate existence cannot be determined to
exist and act, unless it be itself determined to exist and act by
another cause, which is also finite and possessed of determinate
existence, and this cause again can neither exist nor be determined to
act save by another cause, which is also finite and has a determinate
existence, and this yet again by another, and so on to infinity. In the
nature of things there is no contingency; as all things are determined
by the necessity of the Divine nature to exist and to act in a definite
manner.”
♦ duplicate word “the” removed
“Understanding, whether as finite or infinite, must comprehend the
attributes and the affections of God, and nothing else. Will cannot
be called a free cause, but a necessary cause only. Things could have
been produced by God in no other order than as they have been produced.
Nothing exists from the nature of which some effect does not follow.”
These are some of the principal ideas which Spinoza essayed to
demonstrate; but at the end of this part of his work, he was aware that
many prejudices existed among mankind, which would prevent them from
adopting his views; and therefore he deemed it worth his trouble to
examine such prejudices more fully in an appendix, in which he assailed
the doctrine of final causes, and exerted his power of sarcasm to
extinguish it.
He began the second part of his Ethics, on the nature and origin of
the mind, as before, with definitions and axioms; and then proceeded
to demonstrate his views in a series of propositions. The first
four propositions are couched in the following terms:――“Thought is
an attribute of God, or God is a thinking entity. Extension is an
attribute of God, or God is an extended being. The idea of his own
essence, as all things that necessarily follow from it, necessarily
exist in God. The idea of God whence infinities follow in infinite
modes can only be single.” The idea of an individual thing existing in
act is considered as effected by another idea of an individual thing
existing in act, of which God is also the cause, in so far as he is
effected by a third idea existing in act, and so on to infinity; the
order and chain of ideas and causes being the same throughout the
universe.
“The human mind does not know the human body in itself, nor does it
know that the body exists except through the ideas of the affections by
which the body is influenced. There is also present in God an idea or
consciousness of the human mind, and this follows in the same way, and
is referred to God in the same manner, as the idea of consciousness of
the human body. This idea of the mind is united with the mind in the
same way as the mind itself is united with the body. The mind not only
perceives the affections of the body, but the ideas of these affections
also. The mind has no consciousness of itself, save in so far as it
perceives ideas of the affections of the body. The human mind involves
no adequate knowledge of the parts composing the human body. The idea
of each affection of the human body does not involve knowledge of an
external body. The human mind perceives no external body as existing
in fact, save through ideas of affections of the body. The idea of
any state or affection of the human body does not involve the adequate
cognition of the human body itself. Ideas of the affections of the
human body, in so far as they are referred to the mind only, are not
clear and distinct, but confused. The idea of each of the affections
of the human body does not involve the adequate cognition of the
human mind. All ideas in so far as they are referred to God, are true.
Falsehood consists in the absence of the cognition which inadequate
and confused ideas involve. Inadequate and confused ideas follow by
the same necessity as clear and distinct ones.”
All these statements are elaborated at length. Then he distinguished
three degrees of cognition. First, opinion, which is the development
of perceptions and general notions from the impression of the senses,
represented to the understanding confusedly, or through certain words
retained in the memory, which may represent imperfect ideas of things.
The second kind of cognition he called reason, which consists of common
notions and adequate ideas of the properties of things. The third
and highest kind of cognition is intuition, which proceeds from the
adequate idea of the real essence of some of the attributes of God,
to the requisite cognition of the essence of things. Cognitions of the
first kind may be uncertain or untrue; those of the second and third
kind are necessarily true, and teach us to distinguish the true from
the false. He who has a true idea, is at the same time certain of its
truth. The human mind in so far as it has true ideas, is a part of
the infinite intellect of God; and so its clear and distinct ideas
are as necessarily true as are the ideas of God.¹ As reason considers
things as they really are in themselves, it concludes that they are
not contingent but necessary. This necessity of things is the very
necessity of the eternal nature of God; therefore, reason apprehends
things under a certain form of eternity. Every idea of an actual
concrete object necessarily involves the eternal and infinite essence
of God, which pervades all alike, and is therefore adequately cognised
by the human mind.
¹ The very core of Cartesianism.
But there is no such thing in the mind as free-will, since it is a
certain and determined mode of thought. “It is determined to will
this or that by a cause which is determined by another cause, this by
another, and so on to infinity.” The will to affirm or deny ideas is
not a mere causeless act, it is the necessary consequence of the ideas;
as distinct volitions and ideas are identical, so also are will and
understanding one and the same.
The third part of the Ethics, treating on the affections and the
emotions, as usual opened with definitions. By affections and emotions,
he meant states of the body, whereby its power to act is increased
or diminished, aided or controlled, together with the mental ideas
of these affections. Opposing natures which would destroy each other
cannot exist in the same individual; and each individual thing as far
as it can strives to conserve its life. The idea of anything which
increases or diminishes the power of the body to act, in an equal
degree increases or diminishes the thinking power of the mind; hence
the mind strives to imagine such things as increase the power of the
body to act. Desire is conscious appetite, and appetite is the very
essence of man, in so far as he is determined to those actions that
subserve his own preservation.
Spinoza gave a wide meaning to the word desire, including under it
efforts, impulses, appetites, and volitions of every kind. Still this
part of his work is the most valuable portion of his philosophy.
He recognised only three primary affections, namely, joy, sorrow, and
desire. Joy is explained as the transition from a less to a higher
state of perfection, while a change in the opposite sense causes sorrow.
Love is joy associated with the idea of an external object. Hate is
sorrow accompanied by the idea of an external cause. Liking is joy
accompanied by the idea of an object which is accidentally the cause of
joy. Devotion is love of that which we admire. Scorn is pleasure sprung
from this――that something we despise is imagined in the thing we hate.
Hope is wavering joy sprung from an idea of something past or to come,
of the issue of which we are more or less in doubt. Fear is unstable
sorrow arising from the idea of something past or future, of the issue
of which we are in some degree doubtful. Security is joy derived from
the idea of something past or future in connection with which all cause
of doubt is removed. Despair is sorrow sprung from the idea of a future
or past thing combined with no cause of doubt. Thus it appears, that
security may be associated with hope, and despair with fear. Sympathy
is love so affecting man that he rejoices in another’s weal, and on the
other side, grieves over another’s woe.
Thus his descriptions of the affections are generally brief, but
careful and well stated. His general description of the affections is
to this effect: “The affection which is characterised as a passion of
the mind is a confused idea, whereby the mind affirms a stronger or
weaker power of existing than was before experienced in its body, or
some parts of its body, and which being affirmed, the mind itself is
determined to think of this thing rather than of that.” He also stated
that all our ideas of bodies rather proclaim the actual constitution
of our own body than the nature of any external body, and that those
ideas which constitute emotional forms must indicate or express
the constitution of the body, or some of its parts, increasing or
diminishing its power of acting.
The fourth part of the Ethics treated on the strength of the affections,
or human slavery, by which he meant that man is impotent in the
direction and the restraint of his own passions. In his introduction to
this part, he says: “I call man’s inability to moderate and to control
the affective and emotional element in his nature, Slavery. For man
under the dominion of his affections is not master of himself, but is
controlled by fate, as it were, so that in seeing and even in approving
of the better course, he, nevertheless, feels himself constrained to
follow the worse.” He repeats his view that there is no final causes
or free-will, and then states: “We have shown that nature does not act
with a purpose, for the eternal and infinite Being whom we call God,
or Nature, as he exists of necessity, so does he act of necessity; and
we have shown that by the same necessity that God exists, by the same
necessity does he act. The reason, therefore, why God exists and why
he acts, is one and the same, and as he does not exist for any end
or purpose, so he does not act for any end or purpose; for as he is
without beginning or end, as regards his existence, so is he infinite
and eternal as regards his acts. Now a final cause, as it is called,
is nothing but a human appetite or desire, considered as the cause of
anything.”
In this part, his moral views are mainly founded on the following
definitions of good and evil:――“By good I understand that which we know
to be useful to us. By evil I understand that which we know prevents
us from enjoying something good.” The knowledge of good and evil is
nothing more than an emotion of joy or of sorrow, so far as we are
conscious of this; hence we call that good or evil which favours or
opposes the continuance of our life, or anything which assists or
hinders our powers of action. To act virtuously is merely to act for
our own life, and to preserve ourselves by the dictates of reason.
Man always seeks to preserve his life for the sake of nothing but
that which he thinks useful to him. The mind in so far as it reasons,
desires nothing but to understand; nor does it judge anything to be
useful to it save that which leads to understanding――and therefore
we know nothing certainly as good save that which leads truly to
understanding; and on the other hand, nothing is evil save that which
prevents us from understanding. “The supreme good of the mind is the
knowledge of God, and the highest virtue is to know God.” This is the
highest knowledge that the human mind can attain. “Therefore that which
is supremely useful or good to the mind is the knowledge of God ...
the absolute virtue or power of the mind is, therefore, to understand.
But the height of the mind’s understanding is God; consequently, the
supreme power of the mind is to know God.”
We call that evil which is the cause of grief or pain to us. In so far
as anything agrees with our nature, so far it is good; hence the more
that anything accords with our nature, the more useful it is to us,
and the more it is good; and so the more useful anything is to us, the
more does it agree with our nature. “Nothing, therefore, save in so far
as it accords with our nature, can be good; even as the more a thing
accords with our nature, the more useful it is.”
The good that the virtuous man desires for himself he also desires for
his fellow-men, and this the more ardently as he has a high cognition
of God. “Therefore does the votary of virtue desire for all men the
good he desires for himself.... Thus, therefore, the greater the
conception of God involved in the essence of the mind, the greater will
be the desire of the disciple of virtue that any good he enjoys himself
should also be enjoyed by others.” Moreover, “the good which a man
desires, he will love and desire more constantly if he see that others
love and desire it also; and so he will strive to make others love it;
and because this good is common to all, and all may equally share it,
he will further strive that all should enjoy it, and this so much the
more as he himself enjoys it the more.”
All that conduces to the order of society, and tends to make men live
in amity, is good; while whatever brings disorder into the state is
evil, as everything that causes men to live amicably together, at
the same time causes them to live in conformity with reason, and is
therefore good. “The man led by reason is freer when he lives as a
member of a community under compact and bond of law, than when he lives
in solitude and obeys himself alone.... The man, therefore, who is
led by reason and desire to live in freedom is careful to observe the
common laws of his country.”
To make this part of his work more clear and compact, he gave in an
appendix an excellent summary of the whole, and concluded with the
following:――
“Man’s power is very limited, and is infinitely surpassed by the
power of external causes; and, therefore, we have no absolute power of
adapting to our own use things external to ourselves. Still, we should
bear with an even mind that which befalls us against the conditions of
our advantage, if we are aware that we have fairly done our duty, and
that the power we possess could not have gone so far as to avoid those
evils, and that we are a part of the whole order of nature, and bound
thereby. And understanding this much clearly and distinctly that the
part of us which is called intellect, our better part, will therein be
contented, and will seek to persist in that content. For, so far as we
understand, we consider only that which is necessary, and can rest in
nothing but the truth, and, therefore, so far as we rightly understand
these things, the endeavour of our better part accords with the
universal order of nature.”
The fifth and last part of the Ethics treats on the power of the
understanding or human freedom. He repeated his doctrine that the order
and connection of ideas is the same as the order of things.¹ Spinoza’s
aim in this part is mainly to expound the relation between emotion
and reason, the power of the latter over the energy of the former. A
passion itself is a confused idea, but whenever we are able to form
a clear and distinct idea of it, it ceases to be a passion; hence it
follows that to know the passions is the best way to restrain them;
understand the passions that you may be master of them. The more that
the mind recognises all things as necessary, the less does it suffer
from the passions. He who clearly and distinctly knows himself and
his passions, rejoices, because such knowledge is accompanied with the
idea of God. The love of God ought chiefly to fill the mind, as it is
associated with all the higher emotions. “God is without passions or
any emotion of joy or sorrow, because all ideas so far as they are
referred to God are true; again, God cannot pass from a greater to
a less, or from a less to a greater state of perfection. Therefore,
as God is not affected by joy nor sorrow, he can neither love or hate
anyone. No one can hate God, because the idea of God within us is
adequate and perfect; and so far as we contemplate him, to that extent
do we act, and consequently, there can be no pain associated with the
idea of God. He that loves God cannot seek that God should love him
in return; because if man looked for this, he would thereby desire
that God should not be God. This love towards God is the highest good
which man under the dictates of reason can desire; it is common to all
mankind, and we can wish that all should enjoy it as much as ourselves;
thus the love of God is not liable to be narrowed by envy or jealousy,
on the contrary, it must be cherished the more, the greater the number
of our fellow-men we imagine to enjoy it.”
¹ This identity of thought with the order of development in
things was adopted by Hegel.
Touching the duration of the human mind, though it cannot remember
anything that is past, save during the continuance of the body, yet,
as God is the cause of its existence, and also of its essence, there
is an idea in God which expresses the essence of this or that human
body under the form of eternity. Thus the human mind cannot be wholly
destroyed with the body, something of it survives which is eternal.
This idea which expresses the essence of body under the form of
eternity is a certain mode of thought belonging to the essence of the
mind, and necessarily eternal. This, however, cannot be determined by
a reference to duration in time, as we cannot remember to have existed
before our bodies; nevertheless we feel and are persuaded that we
are eternal, as the ground of this feeling and conception is logical
demonstration. Our mind can only be said to endure, and its existence
to be limited to a certain time, in so far as the existence of the body
is involved, and thus far only has the mind the power of apprehending
things under the form of time.
The highest effort of the mind and the highest virtue is to understand
things through the most perfect kind of cognition; and this is the
cognition proceeding from an adequate idea of certain attributes of
God to an adequate conception of the essence of things, and the more
we comprehend things in this way, the more we know of God. The more apt
the mind is to know things in this way the greater its desire for such
knowledge, and from this springs the highest satisfaction of the mind.
“Our mind in so far as it knows itself and the body under the form
of eternity, thus far has it a requisite knowledge of God, and knows
that it is in God and is conceived through God. This kind of intuitive
cognition depends on the mind itself as its formal cause, in so far
as the mind itself is eternal. The farther we advance in this kind of
knowledge, the more conscious are we of ourselves and of God, we take
delight in it, and our joy is associated with the idea of God as its
cause. From this intuitive cognition arises the intellectual love of
God, which is eternal. God loves himself with an infinite intellectual
love. The intellectual love of the mind for God is the very love of
God――the love wherewith God loves himself, not as He is infinite, but
as He can be interpreted by the essence of the human mind considered
under the form of eternity; that is, the intellectual love of the mind
towards God is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves Himself.
Hence it follows, that in so far as God loves Himself, He loves mankind,
and that the love of God for man, and the intellectual love of the mind
of man for God, are one and the same. From this we clearly understand
wherein consists our salvation, our happiness, and our liberty. It is
this eternal love of God, which in sacred scripture is spoken of as
glory, and with truth, for whether it be referred to the mind of man
or of God, it is rightly designated peace of mind, which, in fact, is
not to be distinguished from the glory of scripture. There is nothing
in nature opposed to this intellectual love, or to abrogate it, and
the greater the number of things that the mind knows, according to the
second and the third kinds of cognition, the less does it suffer from
evil passions, and the less does it fear death.”
He touched on other points of interest to this effect. Inasmuch as the
most perfect peace of mind arises from intuitive cognition, it follows
that the human mind may be of such a nature that what we have shown to
be liable to pass away and perish with the body, when contrasted with
what remains, may be of no significance. He who has a mind capable of
many things, has a mind the greatest part of which is eternal. Inasmuch
as human bodies are capable of a great variety of actions, it is not
doubtful that their nature may be such as to be referable to minds
which have extensive knowledge of God and of themselves, and of which
the principal part is eternal, so that they have scarcely any fear of
death. The more perfect anything is it is the more real, and the more
active it is the less it suffers; hence the more perfect a thing is
the more active it is. From this it is assumed to follow that the part
of the mind which remains after the death of the body, whatever be its
quantity, is more perfect than the rest. Now, the eternal part of the
mind is the understanding, by which we say that we act, but the part
that perishes we have shown to be that wherewith the imagination is
connected.
From what is stated above, and in other parts of his works, it appears
that the human mind, in so far as it is possessed of understanding,
is an eternal mode of thought, which is determined by another eternal
mode of thought, this by another, and so on to infinity――so that all
together constitute the eternal and infinite intelligence of God. Thus,
whatever portion of the mind of man may survive the body, is merged in
the divine mind. It has no conscious or distinct existence of its own.
It is merely a mode of thought controlled by another and another mode
of thought till united and centred in the one eternal essence of the
universe.
Spinoza then made some remarks on what he had stated on morality in
other parts of the work, and concluded with these words: “Herewith
I have finished all that I proposed to say touching the power of
the mind over the emotions and her freedom. Whence it is evident how
great is the wise man’s power and his advantage over the ignorant
man who is driven by blind desire. For as such a man is distracted by
external influences, and in many ways besides, and never attains true
contentment in his soul; he lives, as it were, without sense of himself
and God and the nature of things, and no sooner ceases to suffer than
he ceases to be. Whereas the wise man, if we take him as such, is of
a constant mind, and being aware of himself and of God and the nature
of things in a way of eternal necessity, does never cease to be, but
is ever in possession of true contentment. And if the way I have shown
to lead hither seems exceedingly hard, yet it may be discovered. That
truly must be hard which is seldom found. For if salvation were so easy
and could be found with little trouble, how should it come to pass that
nearly all mankind neglect it? But every excellent work is as difficult
as it is rare.” Thus, in the final result, Spinoza came near to the
Stoics’ position: which is, that the way is open to everyone alike, but
as things stand, the mass of mankind are ruled by the coarser motives,
which alone they appreciate. He does not seem to have believed in
any great improvement of the body of mankind; and considering the
state of Europe in his day, and all the circumstances around him, who
could blame him? Even now and here, it must be confessed that the most
sanguine thinker, and the most hopeful reformer, frequently meet with
many things which might shake the confidence of the firmest mind and
the warmest heart.
Viewing Spinoza’s work as a system of the universe, or as a philosophy
of existence, it falls far short of its end. Both in its principles and
in its details it is defective, and it contains many inconsistencies
which have often been pointed out.
But it is chiefly as a moral system that it is interesting to us.
Though he treated many moral points ably and fairly, and freely
admitted and even insisted on the value of the principle of utility,
yet the defects of his system, considered as a moral philosophy,
are obvious. If morality and religion are related subjects, which in
various ways strengthen each other, then little can be made of his
system――since a God of infinite and eternal existence, of infinite
intelligence and perfection, but without will or purpose, or moral
attributes of any kind, could hardly be an object of worship to
ordinary men. But apart from this, and taking morality in the narrowest
sense, his ethical system is defective in many points, which it is
needless to particularise.
Spinoza in several parts of his writings greatly underrated the
complexity of the problems of ethical and political science. He nowhere
signalised the distinction between positive morality and positive
law. He was often astonishingly wrong in believing that he had found
a short road to certain and perfect knowledge, and this is especially
noticeable in his treatment of politics. He thought that no important
experiment in politics remained to be tried that had not been already
discovered and attempted. He manifested no grasp of the method of
the gradual development of society and political institutions; such
shortcomings, however, were common to the philosophers of the period.
But finally, as a philosopher, and as a man, Spinoza manifested great
moral energy and force of character. He was gifted with an intellect
of a keen and original cast, though not of the most comprehensive and
highest order. His doctrine of the eternity of the human mind is one
of the boldest efforts of speculative thought on record, and exhibited
a grasp of mind rarely attained, while it has produced memorable
results. His identification of the human mind with God seems to have
suggested the speculations of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel touching
the comprehension of the Absolute or God, which raised such a stir in
Germany and in France in the first half of the present century; and,
indeed, historically, Spinoza’s writings have had much influence in
various directions.
An account of Spinoza’s philosophy is given in the chief histories of
philosophy, and there are several works which specially treat on his
system, among which may be mentioned, Pollock’s _Life and Philosophy of
Spinoza_, 1880; Willis’s _Life, Correspondence, and Ethics of Spinoza_,
1870; and others in French and German. Soon after the publication of
Spinoza’s system, a considerable number of works appeared in which his
views were combated. Though not at all a believer in the philosophy of
Spinoza myself, nevertheless, I can honestly join with Schleiermacher,
who said:――“Offer reverentially with me a lock to the manes of the
holy, rejected Spinoza! He was filled with the lofty world-spirit;
the infinite was his beginning and his end; the universe his only and
eternal love. In holy innocence and deep humility he saw himself in
the mirror of the eternal world, and saw how he too was its most lovely
mirror; full of religion was he, and full of holy spirit, and hence he
stands there alone and unrivalled, master in his art, but exalted above
the profane guild, without disciples and without civil right.”
Leibnitz, a contemporary of Spinoza, is usually regarded as the founder
of the German philosophy of the eighteenth century.¹ He attained to
eminence both in philosophy and in mathematics, and wrote on many
subjects. But he nowhere developed his philosophical views in a
systematic and complete form; a mere summary of his doctrines was
presented in his exposition of the monadology.
¹ Born 1646, and died 1716. A list of the books which specially
treat on the life, the writings, and the philosophy of
Leibnitz, is given in the second volume, Ueberweg’s _History
of Philosophy_, pages 94‒96.
He adopted the dogmatic form of philosophising, that is, he believed
that the power of human thought, when aided by clear and distinct ideas,
could transcend the limits of experience, and attain to perfect truth.
But he overstepped both the dualism of Descartes and the monism of
Spinoza, by the recognition of a graduated scale of beings. Eternal
truths are in the divine understanding, distinct from the divine will;
the divine mind being the source of the possibility of things, while
the divine will is the cause of their reality; and hence all truth
must by its nature be rational. In psychology he adopted a form
of the doctrine of innate ideas, associated with the principles of
identity and contradiction. Error arises from a want of clearness
and distinctness; while dark and confused knowledge may be raised by
demonstration to clearness and distinctness.
The aim of his theory of monads¹ is to ascertain the existence and to
determine the nature of the simplest elements of substance, into which
all other things and beings might be resolved. The primary monads seem
to be something like atoms, or units of matter and of mind, endowed
with life and ideas. All the monads have ideas, but of different
degrees of clearness. God is the first monad, the primitive substance,
and all His ideas are perfect. The souls of animals have sensation
and memory. Every soul is a monad, as its power of acting proves its
substantiality, and all substances are monads. Inorganic nature is
merely an aggregate of undeveloped monads, while plants and minerals
are a kind of sleeping monads with unconscious ideas; but in plants
these ideas are formative forces. Man is a monad that has been waked
up. The monads are not distinguishable in kind, but only in degree; the
difference between them consists in the separate stages of development
which each has attained. Every conscious monad has the clearest
perception of those parts of the universe to which it is most nearly
related; and thus from its own standpoint it is a mirror of the
universe.
¹ Leibnitz seems to have borrowed the term monads from Bruno;
see page 400.
His theory of “pre-established harmony” is thus expressed by himself:
――“Every body acts as if there were no soul, and every soul acts as if
there were no body; and yet both act as if each was influenced by the
other.” So between the succession of the ideas, and the motions of the
monad, there is a harmony pre-established by God. The soul and body
of man agree, as it were, like the two clocks originally set together,
and exactly moving at the same rate. In the same way each part of the
universe harmonises with every other part. Creation simply consisted in
first establishing, once for all, the laws of this unity and harmony;
everything being arranged, the parts assigned to their places, every
thought and every motion having been foreseen and provided for, when
the universe was first called into existence. The existing world,
therefore, is the best of all possible worlds, whether our limited
minds can understand it in this light or not. The continuity of
physical law is never broken, and yet the moral world is in harmony
with the physical world, as the course of nature in all cases must be
in accord with the highest interest of the soul.¹
¹ Compare Stewart’s _Dissertion_, pages 254‒257, 560‒561,
edition, 1854; and Ueberweg’s _History of Philosophy_, Volume
II., pages 106‒113.
Though Leibnitz endeavoured to unite the cosmological and the
theological ideas, the origin of the world from God, and its
explanation by physical laws, yet he completely failed to establish
a real harmony of the two conceptions; as everyone before and after
him has failed in their attempts to unite opposite elements in one
conception. The inconsistencies of his philosophy have often been
exposed; nevertheless, it is only justice to state that his writings
contained many valuable suggestions, which subsequently proved to be
true.¹
¹ For instance, his view of the unconscious modifications of
the mind, or latent mental modifications.
Bayle, the author of the Historical and Critical Dictionary, exercised
a pretty wide influence on philosophical opinions.¹ He had a sceptical
cast of mind, and directed his shafts against all forms of dogmatism,
often indulging in sallies of ironical humour. He was a man of
considerable erudition, an acute critic, and endowed with much logical
tact and metaphysical subtlety. There are other philosophers whose
works I should have deemed it necessary to notice, if I had been
writing a complete history of philosophy, such as Malebranche, De la
Forge, Sylvain Regis, Arnauld, P. Nicole, Pascal, Du Hamel, Wolff, and
others.
¹ Born 1647, died 1706.
Turning to English philosophy, it may be noted that at the present time
many in England are conversant with the philosophy of Germany and of
France; and the influence of the speculations of both these nations on
the English thought of the nineteenth century is probably much greater
than is commonly believed. While in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, especially in the latter, English philosophy greatly
influenced the philosophy of France, and in a less degree that of
Germany, and in the present century all sides have influenced each
other; although it appears that German speculation has recently been
in the ascendant in some quarters of England, and even in Scotland.
The place of Lord Bacon in the history of philosophy has often been
very differently estimated, according to the standpoint of those
who have essayed to discuss the subject.¹ Bacon’s avowed aim was to
increase the power of man by enlarging the range of his knowledge. But
to affect this, the mind must be freed from prejudice and superstition
of every sort, so that it may be enabled to apprehend things in their
real relations. Knowledge must begin with experience, starting from
observation and experiment, whence by induction it should proceed
methodically, first to the simpler propositions, and then to others of
higher generality, rising gradually step by step to higher universality;
and then finally, from these to descend to the particular, and thus to
arrive at discoveries which should extend the power of man over nature.
To attain such results he insisted strongly on the value and the
necessity of a patient collection and accurate comparison of facts.
¹ Born 1561, died 1625.
Bacon’s plan for the reorganisation of the sciences embraced a
general review of the whole intellectual field. This was followed
by his doctrine of method, and then by an exposition of the sciences
themselves, with their application to new discoveries. His conception
was grand, and his end highly laudable; but the development of the
principles of his method is far from complete. His own attempts at
original investigation in applying his method is often crude, and fall
much below some of the efforts of his own contemporaries. Still, he
succeeded in indicating several of the fundamental points of induction;
and thus he became the founder of the empirical school of modern
philosophers, though he himself was greater as a critic than as a
philosopher. His greatest merit was that he emphatically insisted on
the importance of the collection, arrangement, and comparison of facts.
On the other hand, he undervalued the method of deduction, and the
value of the syllogism for deductive and mediate knowledge.
His writings have had much influence in Britain, and in other countries
of Europe, especially in France; and thus his method of induction has
contributed at home and abroad to the progress of physical science.¹
¹ An excellent account of Bacon and his philosophy is given by
Kuno Fischer in a work entitled, “Franz Baco von Verulam, die
Real-philosophie und ihr Zeitalter,” 1856.
The eccentric Lord Herbert of Cherbury was a writer of some note.¹ In
his remarkable work, “De Veritate,” he treated on various points of
mental philosophy. He distinguished the faculties of the mind into four,
namely, natural instinct, the inner sense, the external sense, and the
discursive faculty. Each of these powers affords a certain class of
truths, and all truth must become known to us through one or other
of these faculties. But the truths of natural instinct are relatively
higher and more certain than any other. By this faculty (which might
have been called intellectual instinct) we apprehend the common notions
touching the relations of things, and especially those which tend
to our own preservation. They are implanted in us by nature, and
represent something of the divine image and wisdom. They are primary
notions, since they are necessary, independent, universal, certain,
and instantaneous in their manifestation.
¹ Born 1581, died 1648.
The inner sense under the direction of natural instinct, or the
common notions, embraces all the powers which are associated with the
particular forms of the agreeable and the disagreeable, of good and
evil, whether these are dependent on the body or on the mind. The chief
internal sense is conscience, which judges what is good and evil in
their various relations, and thus determines what ought to be done.
The external senses depend on the special effects of external objects
upon our external organs, jointly with the corresponding internal
senses and the natural instincts. The discursive faculty gives that
knowledge of objects presented by the internal and external senses,
which depends on special capacities for investigation, and on
the common notions; and it has reference to existence, qualities,
quantities, relations, and especially to their causes.
He was also the author of several religious treatises and historical
works. He distinguished man from animals, not merely by the gift of
reason, but specially by the capacity of religion, which is peculiar
to the former. He held that all men had the five following notions of
religion:――That there is a God; that He ought to be worshipped; that
virtue and piety are the chief elements of worship; that repentance is
a duty; and that there is a future life, with rewards and punishments.
He maintained that a revelation is possible to individuals, and
affirmed that a special revelation was made to himself; but, since
nothing can be admitted as revealed which contradicts the five common
notions, and anything beyond these can be of no importance to the human
race, therefore, no such revelation should be made public. His views
had some influence on the subsequent lines of English thought, and he
has sometimes been signalised as the earliest of that class of writers
called the English Deists.
But the most famous English philosopher of the Rebellion period was
Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Born in 1588, he was in the prime of
life when the struggle between the parliament and Charles I. began
in earnest. Hobbes firmly maintained the view that the King had an
unquestionable right to absolute and supreme power in the State; and it
is palpably evident that his philosophy, and especially his political
and religious speculations, were much influenced by the struggles
of his own day in England. He was deeply touched by the sight which
the Civil War presented, and the imprisonment and execution of the
King, the religious rancour and the hypocrisy which were mingled in
the conflict, and the consequent suffering of the nation. In such
circumstances, with his prepossessions, it would be unreasonable
to expect from him sound opinions and conclusions on politics;
nevertheless, he was an original thinker of great power, and a man of
varied accomplishments. None of his philosophical or political works
were published till he was past fifty years of age, so they were not
the crude performances of youth, but the deliberate outcome of his
matured thought. In his different treatises and works, however, he
again and again repeated his chief psychological views and political
doctrines, in slightly varied language, but identically the same in
ideas and thought.
In his “Elements of Philosophy,” published in 1655, and divided into
four parts, which treated of logic, of the first grounds of philosophy,
of the proportions of motions and magnitudes, and of physics, he
defines philosophy as the knowledge of effects by their causes, and
of causes from their observed effects, by means of true inferences.
The end of philosophy is the application of our knowledge of effects
to the utmost of our strength, for the benefit of human life, as the
end of knowledge is power, which should result in action. The utility
of philosophy is especially seen in physical science, in geometry,
in astronomy, and in navigation. From his conception of philosophy,
he excluded the doctrine of God, because He is “eternal, ingenerable,
incomprehensible, and in Whom there is nothing either to divide or
compound, or any generation to be conceived”;¹ and also knowledge
acquired by divine inspiration, and all false doctrines, such as
astrology and divinations: for all that which we know by legitimate
deduction can neither be false nor doubtful. I may state that Hobbes’s
idea of God was entirely negative. In his “Leviathan,” after running
over a number of terms and expressions which should not be applied
to God, he says:――“He that will attribute to God nothing but what is
warranted by natural reason, must either use such negative attributes
as infinite, eternal, incomprehensible; or most high, most great;
or indefinite, as good, just, holy; and in such sense as if he meant
not to declare what he is.... There is but one name to signify our
conception of his nature, and that is, I AM; and but one name of his
relation to us, and that is God.” He distinguished philosophy into
natural and civil. But in order to understand the properties of a
commonwealth, it is necessary first to know the dispositions and
manners of men; and so civil philosophy is divided into two parts, the
one treating of men’s dispositions and manners, called ethics, and the
other treating of their civil duties, called political philosophy.² In
the _Leviathan_, published in 1651, he gives a kind of classification
of the sciences, a pretty complete formulation of the knowledge
and science of the time. He reduced everything to consequences.
Matter or bodies being assumed, motion and quantity are placed at
the top of the scale; while consequences from quantity, and motion
indeterminate, which being the principles or first foundation of
philosophy, “philosophia prima,” forms the basis of the whole. Then
follow consequences from quantity, and motion determined――Mathematics,
Geometry; consequences from motion and quantity determined――Cosmography,
Astronomy, Geography, and so on, politics being classed with physics as
a part of natural philosophy.³
¹ Part I., Chapter I., Section 2, _et seq._ All my references
are to the collective ♦edition of Hobbes’s English works, by
Sir William Molesworth.
♦ “dition” replaced with “edition”
² _Leviathan_, Part II., Chapter XXXI.
³ Part I., Chapter IX.
Thinking or reasoning is merely a process of computation, of addition
and subtraction. He says, “to compute is either to collect the sum of
many things that are added together, or to know what remains when one
thing is taken out of another. Ratiocination, therefore, is the same
with addition and subtraction; and if any man add multiplication and
division, I will not be against it, seeing multiplication is nothing
but addition of equals one to another, and division nothing but a
subtraction of equals one from another, as often as possible. So
that all ratiocination is comprehended in these two operations of the
mind, addition and subtraction.” The same doctrine is stated in his
“Leviathan,” and illustrated as applicable to all things that can be
added together, or taken one out of another. Thus, “writers of politics
add together pactions to find men’s duties; and lawyers, laws and facts,
to find what is right and wrong in the actions of private men. In sum,
in whatever matter there is place for addition and subtraction, there
also is place for reason; and where these have no place, there reason
has nothing at all to do.” Finally, reason considered as a faculty of
the mind, is nothing but reckoning, “that is, adding and subtracting
of the consequences of general names agreed upon for marking and
signifying of our thoughts: I say, marking them, when we reckon by
ourselves, and signifying, when we demonstrate our reckonings to other
men.”¹
¹ _Elements of Philosophy_, Part I., Chapter I., Section 2.
_Leviathan_, Chapter V., page 30.
This was Hobbes’s form of nominalistic doctrine, and he has some good
remarks on names, the use of words, and the use and abuse of speech. He
explained this branch of knowledge both in the “Elements of Philosophy”
and in the “Leviathan” in the former at length, and in the latter
briefly. “The general use of speech is to transfer our mental discourse
into verbal, or the train of our thoughts into a train of words;
and that for two purposes, whereof one is the registering of the
consequences of our thoughts; which being apt to slip out of our memory,
and put us to a new labour, may again be recalled, by such words as
they were marked by. So that the first use of names is to serve for
marks or notes of remembrance. Another is, when many use the same words,
to signify, by their connection and order, one to another, what they
conceive, or think of each matter; and also what they desire, fear,
or have any other passion for. And for this use they are called signs.
Special uses of speech are these: first to register what by cogitation
we find to be the cause of anything, present or past, and what we
find things present or past may produce or effect; which in sum, is
acquiring of art. Secondly, to show to others that knowledge which we
have attained, which is, to counsel and teach one another. Thirdly,
to make known to others our wills and purposes, that we may have the
mutual help of one another. Fourthly, to please and delight ourselves
and others, by playing with our words, for pleasure or ornament,
innocently.” To these uses of speech there are four corresponding
abuses. When we register our thoughts wrong, by using improper words,
and stating as our conception that which we never conceived, and thus
deceive ourselves; when we use words in an unusual sense, and thereby
deceive others; when we declare by words that to be true which we know
to be false; when people use words to grieve one another: “for seeing
nature has armed living creatures, some with teeth, some with horns,
and some with hands, to grieve an enemy, it is but an abuse of speech
to grieve him with the tongue, unless it be one whom we are obliged to
govern; and then it is not to grieve, but to correct and to amend.”
He explained the use of different kinds of names, the necessity of
definitions, and stated that everything which can enter into an account
may be considered a subject for names. He gave four forms or scales of
predicaments under the heads of body, quantity, quality, and relation,
which are formed with great care. And further, he explained negative
words, and then added: “All other names are but insignificant sounds,
and those of two sorts; one when they are new, and yet their meaning
not explained by definition, whereof there have been abundance coined
by schoolmen and puzzled philosophers.”¹
¹ _Elements of Philosophy_, Part I., Chapter II.; _Leviathan_,
Part I., Chapter IV.; also his treatise _Human Nature_,
Chapter V.
Motion is the prime and fundamental idea in Hobbes’s philosophy. It
runs through all his writings, and enters into almost every explanation
which he has given of anything. He treated sense and sensation at
length as a part of physics in his “Elements of Philosophy,” and in
almost all his different works he touches more or less on this subject.
His psychology has the merit of being pretty distinct; as sensation and
thought both proceed from motion, their explanation is not a difficult
matter. Concerning sense, he says: “I have shown that no motion is
generated but by a body contagious and moved: whence it is manifest
that the immediate cause of sense or perception consists in this, that
the first organ of sense is touched or pressed. For when the uttermost
part of the organ is pressed, it no sooner yields but the part next
within it is pressed also; and, in this manner, the pressure or motion
is propagated through all the parts of the organ to the innermost.
And thus, also, the pressure of the uttermost part proceeds from
the pressure of some remote body, and so continually till we come to
that from which, as from its fountain, we derive the phantasm or idea
that is made in us by our sense. And this, whatever it be, is what we
commonly call the object. Sense, therefore, is some internal motion
in the sentient, generated by some internal motion of the parts of the
object, and propagated through all the media to the innermost part of
the organ.... Moreover, I have shown that all resistance is endeavour
opposite to another endeavour, that is to say, reaction...; so that
when that endeavour inwards is the last action in the act of sense,
then from the reaction, however little the duration of it be, a
phantasm or idea has its being; which, by reason that the endeavour
is now outwards, does always appear as something placed without the
organ.” ... Then we get this definition: “Sense is a phantasm made by
the reaction and endeavour outwards in the organ of sense, caused by
an endeavour inwards from the object, remaining for some time more or
less.” How much importance he attached to motion in the derivation of
sensation, ideas, and thought is indicated in the following passages:
“Now [that] all mutation or alteration is motion or endeavour (and
endeavour also is motion), in the internal parts of the thing that
is altered, as has been proved.... Sense, therefore, in the sentient,
can be nothing else but motion in some of the internal parts of the
sentient, and the parts so moved are parts of the organs of sense.”
Again, “the original of life being in the heart, that motion in the
sentient, which is propagated to the heart, must necessarily make
some alteration or diversion of vital motion, namely, by quickening or
slackening, helping or hindering the same. Now, when it helps, it is
pleasure; when it hinders, it is pain, trouble, grief, and so on....
Now vital motion is the motion of the blood, perpetually circulating
(as has been shown from many infallible signs and marks by Dr. Harvey,
the first observer of it) in the veins and arteries. Which motion, when
it is hindered by some other motion, made by the action of sensible
objects, may be restored again, either by bending or setting straight
the parts of the body; which is done when the spirits are carried
now into these, now into other nerves, till the pain, as far as is
possible, be quite taken away. But if vital motion be helped by motion
made by sense, then the parts of the organ will be disposed to guide
the spirits in such manner as conduces most to the preservation and
augmentation of that motion, by the help of the nerves. And in animal
motion this is the very first endeavour, and found even in the embryo;
which while it is in the womb, moves its limbs with voluntary motion,
for the avoiding of what troubles it, or for the pursuing of what
pleases it. And this first endeavour, when it tends towards such things
as are known by experience to be pleasant, is called appetite, that
is, an approaching; and when it shuns what is troublesome, aversion, or
flying from it.”¹ He goes on to associate appetite and will, and shows
that the same thing is called both will and appetite. More briefly,
he says that all ideas and thought originate from sensation, thus:
“The original of them all is that which we call sense, for there is no
conception in a man’s mind which has not at first, totally, or by parts,
been begotten upon the organs of sense. The rest are derived from that
original.” Again, originally, all conceptions proceed from the action
of the thing itself, whereof it is the conception: now when the action
is present, the conception it produces is also called sense; and the
thing by whose action the same is produced, is called the object of the
sense.² Hobbes stated the conditions of sensation and perception very
well. In order to make them clear, he distinguished the subject and
object of sense, the former being the perceiving person, and the latter
the thing perceived; and it is more correct to say that we see the sun
than that we see the light; because light and colour, heat, sound, and
other qualities, are not properly objects, but ideas in the mind. He
further stated that there must always be a variety and difference among
the objects of perception, and discriminated other points.
¹ _Elements of Philosophy_, Past IV., Chapter XXV., Section 2;
Sections 2, 12, 13.
² _Leviathan_, Part I., Chapter I.; _Human Nature_, Chapter
II., Section 2.
In further explaining his views of mind, he calls imagination “a
decaying sense,” by which he means the impressions, images, or ideas
of external objects remaining in the mind after the sensations which
caused them were past. His exposition of the subject is this:――“That
when a thing lies still, unless somewhat else stir it, it will lie
still for ever, is a truth that no man doubts of. But that when a thing
is in motion, it will eternally be in motion, unless somewhat else
stay it, though the reason be the same, namely, that nothing can change
itself, is not so easily assented to.” ... Therefore, “when a body is
once in motion, it moves, unless something else hinder it, eternally;
and whatever hinders it, cannot in an instant, but in time, and by
degrees; and as we see in the water, though the wind cease, the waves
give not over rolling for a long time after; so also it happens in that
motion which is made in the internal parts of a man, then, when he sees,
dreams, and so on. For after the object is removed, or the eye shut, we
still retain an image of the thing seen, though more obscure than when
we see it. And this is it the Latins call imagination, from the image
made in seeing.... But the Greeks call it a fancy, which signifies
appearance, and is as proper to one sense as to another. Imagination,
therefore, is nothing but decaying sense; and is found in men, and in
many other living creatures, as well sleeping as waking.
“The decay of sense in men waking is not the decay of the motion made
in sense but an obscuring of it, in such manner as the light of the
sun obscures the light of the stars.... For as at a great distance of
place, that which we look at appears dim and without distinction of the
smaller parts, so also, after great distance of time, our imagination
of the past is weak, and we lose, for example, of cities we have seen,
many particular streets, and of actions, many particular circumstances.
This decaying sense, when we would express the thing itself, I mean
fancy itself, we call imagination; but when we would express the
decay, and signify that the sense is fading, old, and past, it is
called memory.” So that imagination and memory are but one thing with
different names.¹
¹ _Leviathan_, Part I., Chapter II.; see also _Human Nature_,
Chapter III., Sections 1, 7.
Hobbes manifested a fair knowledge of the operation of those principles
which subsequent psychologists have termed the laws of association and
mental modifications and ideas. He points out and distinguishes various
ways in which ideas and thoughts are associated, though he does not
use the term association of ideas, but uses the expressions, trains of
imaginations, and trains of thoughts. But I can only afford space for
a few of his illustrations:――
“When a man thinks on anything, his next thought after is not
altogether so casual as it seems to be. Not every thought to every
thought succeeds indifferently.... All fancies are motions within us,
relics of those made in the sense: and those motions that immediately
succeed one another in the sense, continue also together after sense;
inasmuch as the former coming again to take place and be predominant,
the latter follows, by coherence of the matter moved, in such manner
as water upon a plain table is drawn which way any one part of
it is guided by the finger.” Again, “The cause of the coherence or
consequence of one conception to another, is their first coherence
at that time when they are produced by sense; as, for example, from
St. Andrew the mind runs to St. Peter, because their names are read
together; from St. Peter to a stone, for the same cause; from stone
to foundation, because we see them together; and for the same cause,
from foundation to church, and from church to people, and from people
to tumult: and according to this example, the mind may run almost
from anything to anything. But as in the sense the conception of
cause and effect may succeed one another, so may they after sense
in the imagination: and for the most part they do so.” He stated and
illustrated other ways in which the train of thoughts is regulated.
Of reminiscence he says: “Beginning with the appetite to recover
something lost, proceeding from the present backwards, from thought
of the place where we miss it, to the thought of the place whence we
came last; and from the thought of that to the thought of a place
before, till we have in our mind some place wherein we had the thing
we miss: and this is called reminiscence.” Further, “The remembrance
of succession of one thing to another, that is, of what was antecedent,
and what consequent, and what concomitant, is called an experiment,
whether the same be made by us voluntarily, as when a man puts anything
into the fire, to see what effect the fire will produce upon it, or
not made by us, as when we remember a fair morning after a red evening.
To have had many experiments is what we call experience, which is
nothing but remembrance of what antecedents have been followed by what
consequents.”¹
¹ _Leviathan_, Part I., Chapter III.; _Human Nature_, Chapter
IV., Sections 2, 5, 6.
On the side of feeling, emotion, and will, Hobbes’s psychology is of
less value. His description of the passions, feelings, and emotions,
though on some points clear and accurate, is, as a whole, imperfect
and lacking in consistency. His theory of the will was this: “In
deliberation, the last appetite, as also the last fear, is called will,
namely, the last appetite, will to do, or will to omit. It is all one,
therefore, to say will and last will. Will, therefore, is the last
appetite in deliberating.... Appetite, fear, hope, and the rest of the
passions, are not called voluntary, for they proceed not from, but are
the will; and the will is not voluntary, for a man can no more say he
will will, than he will will will, and so make an infinite repetition
of the word will, which is absurd and insignificant. Forasmuch as will
to do is appetite, and will to omit fear, the cause of appetite and
fear is the cause also of our will.” With Hobbes, will and appetite are
the same thing, till deliberation is brought into operation; so that
the action of appetite is necessitated, “and, therefore, such a liberty
as is free from necessity is not to be found either in the will of men
or beasts.” But he admits the relation of will and belief.¹
¹ _Human Nature_, Chapter XII., Sections 2, 5, 6; _Leviathan_,
Part I., Chapter VI. _Elements of Philosophy_, Part IV.,
Chapter XXV., Section 13.
Hobbes’s politics need not detain us long, as his political theory is
simple and distinct. He maintained that by nature all men were nearly
equal: that all society and government originated, not in social
feelings, or any elements of sympathy for each other, but in their
mutual fear of one another; and that by nature every man was his own
judge, and had a right to all things, but which in effect was no right
at all; because in the state of nature mankind were continually at war
and killing one another: then every man was an enemy to every other man,
each depending on his own strength; and as there was no security, but
everything uncertain, so there was no place for industry, no culture
of the earth, no navigation or means of communication, no knowledge
of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters,
and no society; and what was worst of all, continual fear and danger
of violent death prevailed; and the life of man was solitary and poor,
brutish and short.¹
¹ _De Corpore Politico_, Part I., Chapter I., Sections 1, 3,
4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; _Leviathan_, Part I., Chapter
XIII.; also his treatise, _Elements of Philosophy, or a True
Citizen_, Chapter I., Sections 2, 3, 10, 11, 12. He indeed
says, “It may perhaps be thought there never was such a
time, or condition of war as this; and I believe it was never
generally so over all the world: but there are many places
where they live so now in that brutish manner which I have
described.”――_Leviathan._
Such being the state of mankind originally, how to get out of it was
the great problem. It seems reason at last dictated to every man that
it was for his own good to seek after peace, as far as there was any
hope of attaining it,¹ then to strengthen himself as much as he can for
his own defence against those who would not come to terms of peace. And
it follows from this law of reason or nature, that every man by common
consent should divest himself of the right to all things which he has
by nature, and to be content with a limited liberty.² Hobbes proceeded
to describe the circumstances and the proceedings relating to that once
famous “Contract Theory of Society,” when at some far-off and unknown
period in the history of the race, a multitude of men assembled with
the intention of uniting themselves, and thus established peace and
regular government.³ When men met to form regular governments for the
first time, then as to what they sanctioned, “it is to be understood
that each man has consented to it, and not the majority only. Secondly,
though thus assembled with intention to unite themselves, they are
yet in that estate in which every man has right to everything, and
consequently, as has been said, Chapter I., Section 10, in an estate
of enjoying nothing. And, therefore, meum and tuum has no place amongst
them. The first thing, therefore, they are to do, is expressly every
man to consent to something, by which they may come near to their
ends, which can be nothing else imaginable but this, that they allow
the wills of the majority of their whole number, or the wills of the
majority of some certain number of men by them determined and named; or
lastly, the will of some one man, to involve and be taken for the wills
of every man. And this done, they are united, and a body politic. And
if the majority of their whole number be supposed to involve the wills
of all the particulars, then they are said to be a democracy, that is,
a government in which the whole number, or so many of them as please,
being assembled together, are the sovereign, and every particular
man a subject. If the majority of a certain number of men, named
or distinguished from the rest, be supposed to involve the wills of
every one of the particulars, then are they said to be an oligarchy or
aristocracy, which two words signify the same thing, together with the
diverse passions of those that use them.... Lastly, if their consent
be such, that the will of one man, whom they name, shall stand for the
wills of them all, then is their government or union called a monarchy,
and that one man a sovereign, and all the rest subjects.
¹ “As long as this natural right of every man to everything
endures, there can be no security to any man, however strong
or wise he may be, of living out the time which nature
commonly allows men to live. And consequently, it is a
general rule of reason that every man ought to endeavour
peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he
cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all means to
defend himself.”――_Leviathan_, Part I., Chapter XIV.
² “From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are
commanded to endeavour peace, is derived this second law:
that a man be willing, when others are so, as far forth, as
for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary,
to lay down this right to all things, and be content with so
much liberty against other men as he would allow other men
against himself.”――_Ibid._, also _De Corpore Politico_, Part
I., Chapter II., Sections 1, 2, 3.
³ _Leviathan_, Part I., Chapter XIV.
“And these several unions, governments, and subjection of man’s will,
may be understood to be made absolutely for all future time, or for a
limited time only. But as we speak here of a body politic, instituted
for the perpetual benefit and defence of them that make it, which,
therefore, men desire should last for ever, I will only treat of this
class.”¹
¹ _De Corpore Politico_, Part II., Chapter I., Sections 2, 3, 4.
Thus having found the state, he proceeded to develop his political
philosophy. As a matter of logical sequence it fell to the state to
determine the distinctions of right and wrong, of virtue and vice, of
good and bad; and therefore, whatever the supreme power of the state
sanctioned and commanded was good, and the opposite bad. Religion
and superstition are both the same, in so far as they embody the
fear of invisible powers, whether imaginary or believed on tradition;
and whichever of these the state recognised, is religion, the others
superstition. Anyone who places his private religious convictions in
opposition to the faith sanctioned by the state, thereby commits a
revolutionary act which tended to dissolve society; and, therefore, no
man has any just pretence for making religion a cause of disobedience
to the laws of the commonwealth. For God speaks through the supreme
powers on earth, “by sovereign kings, or such as have sovereign
authority as well as they.” But, though the rights of sovereignty
should be as absolute as it is possible to make them, yet the sovereign
has duties, namely, to procure the safety of the people, to which he is
obliged by the law of nature, and to render an account of this to God,
the author of that law, and to none but him. And for the same reason
the sovereign authority is bound to establish that religion which in
their conscience they believe to be best, inasmuch as eternal good is
better than temporal; and unless they do this, it cannot really be said
that they have done their utmost for their people.¹
¹ _De Corpore Politico_, Part II., Chapters VI., VII., IX.;
_Leviathan_, Part II., Chapters XVIII., XIX., XX., XXX.
This was the current view of the king’s power, which we find
so emphatically stated and reiterated in the Scots Acts of
Parliament from the Restoration to the Revolution.
But he is specially emphatic in placing the civil power above the
ecclesiastical. He quoted an enormous quantity of Scripture, and
treated at great length on its meaning and interpretation; and
maintained throughout that the king himself was the supreme pastor of
his people, and therefore he had a right to appoint all other pastors
within his kingdom. The King also in virtue of his office, might preach
and baptise if he pleased, and read lectures on science too, in any
university within his kingdom. In short, Christian sovereigns have all
manner of power over their subjects which can be given to man for the
regulation of men’s external actions, both in policy and religion; and
may make whatever laws they should think fittest for the government of
their own subjects, as they are the commonwealth and the church, and
both state and church being the same men.¹
¹ _Leviathan_, Part IV., Chapter XLII.
Hobbes has some good remarks on law, and on moral philosophy too, and
clearly distinguished moral law and positive law. But owing to the
conception and the necessities of his political views and opinions,
he took a short cut, and made the positive or civil law the standard
and measure of right and wrong: and consequently, whatever the supreme
sovereign forbade was wrong, and whatever it commanded was right.¹ This
feature of his ethical theory, as well as the heterodoxy of many of his
religious and theological opinions, called forth a host of opponents.
¹ _De Corpore Politico_, Part II., Chapter X.
There is no evidence in Hobbes’s writings that he had any conception
of the historical growth of society, or the gradual development
of a nation. The complex organisation of human society can only be
understood by a careful examination and study of the long processes
of development. Man as we now find him is the product of many forces,
which have operated for a long series of ages, and gradually modified
his character. But Hobbes failed to grasp or even to recognise this,
and hence we have his imaginary state of nature――continual war, and the
equally imaginary social contract theory.
Some of Milton’s prose writings touched on political principles, and
also on some important moral points, as in his treatise on divorce.
Although he is not usually regarded as a philosopher, nevertheless
he was a thinker of exceptional power, a masterly writer, vehement
and impassioned, often abusive, and not always fair to his opponents.
His pamphlets and controversial writings during the period of the
great Rebellion and the Commonwealth form a study of themselves; and
altogether he was one of the great men of the Commonwealth.
Milton threw the whole force of his mind into the anti-episcopal
pamphlets, and they are extremely vehement and bold. He entered deeply
and warmly into the Church questions which were then so fiercely
contested; and in some of his pamphlets he wrote decidedly in favour
of the democratic and presbyterian form of polity. In his pamphlet
entitled, “Of Reformation touching Church Discipline in England, and
the causes that hitherto have hindered it,” he discussed both the
question of fact and of reason involved in the subject, as why the
English Church had not been thoroughly reformed. He made some scathing
charges against the bishops, and concludes his work with a prayer,
which for fire and force is unmatched in English literature.
His treatise entitled, “The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates,” was
published a fortnight after the King’s execution, and a week after the
Republic was proclaimed. The chief aim of the treatise was to argue
for the democratic principle, on which he insisted strongly. Touching
the right of a nation to depose a king who had become a tyrant, Milton
followed Buchanan’s line of argument. He assumed throughout that
Charles I. was unquestionably a tyrant, and explicitly avowed that the
people were justified in bringing the King, and such as he, to account
and punishment. In short, he justified Cromwell and his colleagues
in bringing the King to trial and execution. He continued a warm and
powerful defender of the Commonwealth and its leaders.
I will quote a single specimen of Milton’s power as a defender of the
Commonwealth, from his attack on Salmasius’s “Defence of Charles I.”
Salmasius himself was a voluminous writer and commentator, a very
learned man, with a European reputation; but he had oftener than once
changed some of his opinions, and now appeared as the defender of the
late King. So it fell to Milton to reply to this learned man’s book;
and the following quotation is a specimen of how he executed his task:
――“Who are you that bark at us? You, a learned man, who seem rather
to have been turning over lexicons and glossaries and collections of
extracts all your life, than to have read good authors with judgment
and profit; whence your chatter is of nothing but codices, various
readings, disarrangements and corruptions of text, while you show that
you have not imbibed even the smallest drop of more real learning? You
a wise man, who are constantly quarrelling about the merest minutiæ,
and carrying on beggarly wars, and making railing attacks, now on
astronomers, now on medical men, of good credit in their respective
sciences, though yourself without skill or accomplishment in either;
who, if anyone should try to snatch from you the petty glory of a
little word, or a little letter, restored by you in some copy, would
interdict him, if you could, from fire and water? And yet you are angry,
and yet you show your teeth, because people call you a grammarian. In
some trifling book of yours, you openly call Hammond, the beloved and
most favoured of the late King’s chaplains, a rascal, merely because
he had called you a grammarian; and you would be ready, I believe, to
say the same of the King himself, and to retract this whole defence of
him, if you heard that he had approved of his chaplain’s criticism of
you. Take notice then how I, one of those English, whom you dare to
describe as ‘fanatical, unlearned, obscure, blackguardly,’ do here on
my private account (for that the English nation itself should publicly
think anything at all about a weevil like you would be a degradation),
do here, I say, on my private account, despise you and make a
laughing-stock of you, declaring that, turn you upside down, downside
up, round about, or anyhow, you are still nothing but a Grammarian; ay,
and that, as if you had made a more foolish promise to some god than
even Midas did, whatever you touch, except when you commit solecisms,
is still only grammar. Whoever, then, of these ‘dregs of the common
people,’ that you so denounce (for those truly noble men among us,
whose wisdom, virtue, and nobility are proved by their illustrious acts,
I will not so dishonour as to think of comparing you to them or them
to you), whoever, I say, of these dregs of the common people, has only
persuaded himself to this principle, that he was not born for kings,
but for God and his country, is a far more learned, far wiser, far
better, man than you are, and deserves to be esteemed of far greater
worth to all time. For he is learned without letters; you have letters
but no learning, who know so many languages, turn over so many volumes,
write so many yourself, and are but a sheep after all.”¹
¹ Masson’s _Life of Milton_, Volume IV., pages 264‒265.
As an advocate of freedom, Milton has great merit, though he is not
always consistent. His “Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing,”
was a scathing and powerful attack on the existing laws of censorship
of the press and licensing of books. It is comparatively short, but
it has much historic interest, though the doctrine which he so ably
pleaded for is now fully admitted in Britain.
James Harrington was the author of a political romance, entitled “The
Commonwealth of Oceana,” which was published in 1656, and attracted
some attention. In 1658 he issued another treatise, called “The
Prerogative of Popular Government,” reasserting his views in a more
direct style. He drew up a constitution for a commonwealth, the
legislative part consisting of two houses, and both to be elected
by the people. One of the houses should have the power of proposing
and debating laws; while the other, which was to be the largest body,
should have the power of passing or rejecting the laws thus proposed by
the smaller house. Further, it was proposed that a third of the members
of both houses should retire every year, not to be re-eligible for a
considerable time, and their places filled by newly-elected members:
thus the whole membership of both houses would be entirely renewed
every third year.
Richard Cumberland, bishop of Peterborough, was an ethical writer of
historical note, and an opponent of the moral doctrines of Hobbes. His
views were expressed in a work entitled “De Legibus Naturæ Disquisitio
Philosophica,” etc., etc., which appeared in 1672, and an English
translation of it was published in 1727. His chief aim was to show
that there are moral laws made known by nature, but not in the way
enunciated by Hobbes. He began with an exposition of the nature of
man and of things, and whence proceeded to derive the special ethical
duties. The fundamental law of morality was enunciated thus:――“The
greatest benevolence of every rational agent towards all, forms the
happiest state of each and of all the benevolent, as far as in their
power; and it is essentially requisite to the happiness which they can
attain; and, therefore, the common good is the supreme law.”
He insisted that the mind has an original regulative faculty, and
earnestly contended that the social feelings and the disinterested
affections are original elements of man’s nature. The human mind
is endowed with certain innate capacities, and has the power of
apprehending first principles, and whence deducting conclusions. True
propositions agree with the nature of things, and the dictates of
practical reason are propositions which point out the ethical end,
and the means by which it should be attained.
In the last half of the seventeenth century there arose in England
a class of writers sometimes called Platonists, Cambridge men, or
English Cartesians, but it should be observed that these writers
held diverse views on some important points, though they generally
agreed in assailing the psychology and the ethics of Hobbes. The most
distinguished amongst them all was the learned Ralph Cudworth.¹ In
his great work, “The Intellectual System of the Universe,” which he
did not live to complete, he assumed a plastic principle in nature,
and by this explained organic development. He supposed that this power,
or unconscious force, possessed a general and a special activity which
produced the results of design. He contended that the doctrine of
efficient causes does not exclude the possibility of final causes.
He attacked the position of the unlimited power of God as taught by
Descartes, on the ground that it would annul logical and geometrical
reasoning, and obliterate moral distinctions. He assailed Hobbes’s
nominalism, and his limitation of the powers of the human mind to sense
and fancy, and maintained that there was a higher faculty of reason.
Cudworth exhibited an enormous amount of learning and considerable
reasoning power. He gave many quotations from ancient writers, and
those who have the courage and perseverance to read his “Intellectual
System of the Universe,” will find that it is a curious and valuable
work, and a great monument of erudition.²
¹ Born 1617, died 1688.
² _The True Intellectual System of the Universe_, 1678; compare
Dr. Tulloch’s _Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in
England in the Seventeenth Century_, Volume II.
His “Treatise concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality,” and also
one on “Free-will,” are unfinished fragments of long discussions,
originally designed to complete his Intellectual System, and not
published till long after his death. He argued for the independence of
moral distinctions, and maintained that they were discovered directly
by human reason.
Henry More was the author of several theological and ethical works of
an essentially Platonic and transcendental cast, interwoven with his
own notions and dreams. The leading principle of his ethics was that
moral goodness is simple and absolute, and that reason is the judge of
its nature and truth; but its distinctive beauty is felt by a special
capacity, a something like the moral sense of later writers. All moral
goodness may be called intellectual and divine. By the aid of reason
we are enabled to state the principles of ethics in propositions, and
hence derive the special maxims and rules.
An Englishman who holds a distinguished place in the history of modern
philosophy, and especially in psychology, now claims attention, namely,
John Locke. In political theory he was the chief expounder of the
principles of the Revolution of 1688; and indeed his political writings
became the source whence the Whig politicians drew their arguments for
several generations. But the “Social Contract Theory,” of which he was
an able exponent, is now entirely obsolete.
In his “Essay concerning Human Understanding,” the fundamental idea is
that all our knowledge is derived from experience. The work was mainly
directed to the exposition of two questions, namely, first to ascertain
the origin of human knowledge, and then to determine the limits and
the degrees of objective truth. His method was that of observation, the
object of investigation being his own mind, “looking into it and seeing
how it wrought.” He could find no innate ideas or principles in the
mind. The primary source of all our knowledge is sensation or external
perception, and reflection or internal perception; the former embraced
the apprehension of external objects through the senses, while the
latter comprised the apprehension of mental objects by internal or
self-reflection, a subjective operation of thought. The different
objects of external perception are variously related to objective
reality. Thus extension, figure, motion, and other qualities of bodies,
belong to the external objects themselves; while colour, sound, and
sensible qualities are only in ourselves, and not properly in the
objects perceived, being signs not copies of changes which take place
in external things. In the reception of simple ideas the mind is
merely passive, it cannot refuse to have them, or blot them out, any
more than a mirror can refuse to receive, alter, or obliterate the
images reflected on it; all that man can do is to unite them together,
classify them or separate them. By internal reflection we know the
action of our thinking and willing faculties; while through sensation
and reflection together we obtain the feelings of pleasure and pain,
the ideas of power, unity, existence, and others, but we have no clear
idea of substance.
The word idea has a wide meaning in Locke’s Essay, as he uses it to
denote whatever we apprehend, whether it be a mental modification
of an external object, or a subjective thought, the perception or
consciousness of feelings and passions; as when I form a mental picture
or image of anything, or am conscious of a pleasant sound――when I see
the moon or any external object, and when I remember any of these,
again when I understand the meaning of right, of property, or any other
abstract term――in all such cases, according to Locke, I am having ideas.
Thus he employed the term idea in its most unrestricted universality.
The theory of knowledge requires some definite word or words to
indicate the dependence of what is known on the power of knowing.
Descartes, Locke, and others, used the word idea in this relation,
sometimes with perception, and at a later date, with impression. At
present some use the term phenomenon to express those aspects of
existence of which we are conscious, rather than the words, ideas,
perceptions, or impressions; others, again, use the word consciousness
with a wide meaning, to express mental facts, modes, or states, in
their relation to the knowing mind. But all terms thus used touch
the prime assumption of philosophy, namely, that the universe and all
things which exist can become known to us only through our mental and
self-conscious experience; and thus arises the problem of the relation
of the human mind to the external world.
Now as already indicated in this chapter, there is a real difficulty
involved in understanding and stating the exact relation between mind
and matter; and the nature of the relation of the object known and
the knowing mind is still unknown. All that we know is that knowledge
consists in a certain relation of the object known to the knowing
subject. Of mind in itself or matter in itself we know nothing; simply
because we know only the qualities of our own faculties of knowledge,
as relations to their objects, and we only know the qualities of their
objects as relations to our minds: thus all qualities both of mind
and of matter are only known to us as relations, we know nothing in
itself.¹
¹ Hamilton’s _Reid_, Note N., page 965.
In Locke’s Essay the word idea is used to recall the truth that
external things become known to us through our presentative and
representative conscious experience; but on the other side of his
theory, ideas also represent qualities which exist external to our
conscious mind; thus they are, as it were, “effects in us,” produced
by powers that are independent of us: that is, he assumed that the mind
is merely passive in the reception of simple ideas.
Locke devoted the First Book of his Essay to the refutation in detail
of the doctrine of innate ideas. The argument that certain speculative
and practical principles are universally accepted as true, he disputed,
by showing that there was a mass of evidence against this alleged
agreement, and that though it were otherwise, innate ideas would not
be proved, as it might be shown that such agreement had arisen in
other ways. He had little difficulty in proving that the principles of
identity and of contradiction are unknown to children, and to all who
are not specially educated: and, therefore, it could not be maintained
that truths are inherent in the mind of which it has no consciousness
and no knowledge. To say that an idea is imprinted on the mind, and
yet at the same time to admit that the mind is ignorant of it, and
never took notice of it, is to make this impression nothing. But it is
true that the capacity to know is innate, though all actual knowledge
is and must be acquired. And, therefore, those who adopt the theory
of innate ideas should distinguish them from other ideas which are
not innate; and thus they must hold that innate knowledge is from the
first conscious knowledge, for to be in the understanding means to be
understood. If it be asserted, that these principles are recognised
and admitted by all men when they come to exercise their reason, this
is not true or conclusive, whether in the sense that we know them
deductively by the use of reason, or in the sense that we think them
when we arrive at the use of reason, for we know many things before
them. That the bitter is not sweet, that a rod and a cherry are not the
same thing, are known by a child long before he understands and assents
to the universal proposition that it is impossible for the same thing
to be and not to be at the same moment. Practical principles stand
upon the same footing as speculative ones, none of them being innate;
and, moreover, they are not so clear or so universally received as the
principle just indicated. If principles are innate, the ideas involved
in them must also be innate. Now the most general principles contain
the most abstract ideas, which are the furthest from the thoughts
of children, and are unintelligible to them, and can only be clearly
formed after they have attained some degree of attention and reflection.
The ideas of identity of difference, possibility and impossibility, and
others of a similar character, are not in the child’s consciousness at
birth; and they are farthest removed in the order of development from
the sensations of hunger and thirst, heat and cold, pleasure and pain,
which in reality are the earliest conscious experiences of a child.
Locke strongly maintained that the idea of God is not innate. And
he attempted to prove that some tribes in the lowest stages of
civilisation had no idea of God at all. He also pointed out the fact
that the ideas and conceptions which the various tribes and nations of
mankind have of God differed greatly.
Having thus cleared the ground, Locke, in his Second Book, proceeded
to show whence the understanding receives its ideas. He asks, “Whence
comes it by that vast store, which the busy and boundless fancy of man
has painted on it, with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all
the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer in one word,
from experience: in that all our knowledge is founded, and from that
it ultimately derives itself. Our observation employed either about
external or sensible objects, or about the internal operations of our
minds perceived and reflected on by ourselves, is that which supplies
our understanding with all the materials of thinking. These two are
the fountains of knowledge, from which all the ideas we have, or can
naturally have, do spring.”¹ Thus experience is twofold, external and
internal, sensation and reflection, according as its object is the
outer world of things, or the internal operations of our own minds.
The senses in contact with external objects supply the mind with the
elements and materials of ideas; and thus we attain the ideas of yellow,
white, heat, cold, soft, hard, and all those called sensible qualities.
Then when the mind attends and thinks on its own internal operations,
the understanding thence attains another set of ideas: such as
perception, thinking, doubting, believing, reasoning, knowing, willing,
and all the different operations of our minds of which we are conscious
and observe within ourselves.
¹ Book II., Chapter I., Section 2.
When the first impression is made on his senses, man begins to have
ideas. But before the first sensible impression, the mind no more
thinks than it does afterwards in a deep and dreamless sleep. That the
mind always thinks is as groundless an assertion as that all bodies are
continually in motion.
Some of our ideas are simple, others are complex; and of the former
class, some come into the mind by one sense only, some by more senses
than one, others through reflection, while some come both by the senses
and reflection. The simple ideas received by touch are heat, cold,
solidity, roughness, hardness, smoothness, and many others; by the
sense of sight, the ideas of light and colours; while the ideas which
we receive by more than one sense, by sight and touch, are those
of space, figure, rest, and motion. The simple ideas of reflection
which the mind acquires when it becomes conscious and observes its
own operations, are mainly two, namely, perception or thinking, and
volition or willing. But the other simple ideas acquired through all
the channels of the senses and reflection, are those of pleasure and
pain, power, existence, unity, and succession.
But most of the ideas of sensation are no more like anything existing
externally to ourselves, than words are like the ideas for which they
stand, and which they serve to recall to the mind. The inseparable
qualities of bodies themselves are those of bulk, figure, number,
position, motion and rest; and these he called the primary qualities of
body. Now our ideas of these primary qualities of bodies are copies of
these qualities; that is, they represent the thing mentally as it is in
itself. But the secondary qualities of bodies affect us in a different
way, they operate on the senses, and cause in us the sensations of
colours, sounds, smells, and the like, which are not in the bodies
themselves, but in our own minds. He further names a third class of
qualities: these are the powers of some bodies, which, owing to the
constitution of their primary qualities, make such changes in the bulk,
figure, and motion of other bodies as cause them to operate upon our
senses differently from what they did before; among these he instances
the power of the sun to make wax white, and of fire to melt lead.¹
¹ Book II., Chapters I.‒VIII.
Under the head of simple ideas acquired by reflection, he minutely
investigated the faculties of perception, retention, discerning,
compounding, abstracting, and other operations of the mind. The faculty
of perception distinguished man from animal and plant. The faculty of
memory is the power of preserving ideas by continued contemplation,
or by reviving them after their temporary absence from the mind, which
is too limited to be conscious at the same time of many ideas. Memory
is common to man and the lower animals. The power of abstraction is
peculiar to man. By this generalising faculty the ideas of single
objects are separated from all accidental qualities, and raised to the
rank of universal conceptions of the genera to which they belong.
The simple ideas being the elements of the complex ones, he reduced
complex ideas to three classes, namely, modes, substances, and
relations. Modes are complex ideas, but not involving existence by
themselves, being merely modifications of simple ideas when their
elements are similar, and mixed modes or modifications when their
elements are dissimilar. Ideas of substances are those combinations
of simple ideas employed to represent things existing by themselves.
The ideas of relation arise from the comparison of one idea with
another. To the purely modal ideas belong the mental modifications of
space, time, thought, power, and other abstract conceptions. Our own
experience and observation of the constant change of ideas in the mind,
partly depending on the impressions of external objects, and partly
on our own choice, soon leads the understanding to the conclusion
that the same changes as have already been observed will continue to
take place in the same objects through the same causes; accordingly,
the understanding conceives in one thing or object a liability to
change its form, and in another, the possibility of being the agent of
that change, and thus the mind attains the idea of a power. Thus the
clearest idea of power is derived from observing the activities of our
own minds, as internal experience teaches us that by a mere volition
we can set in motion parts of the body which were before at rest. If a
substance possessing a power manifest it by an action, it is called a
cause; and that which it brings to pass is called its effect. A cause
is that through which something else begins to be; an effect is that
which depends for its existence on something besides itself. The idea
of substance itself contains nothing but the supposition of an unknown
something serving as a support for qualities; we have no clear idea
of it. Nor is our idea of material substance more distinct than our
idea of spiritual substance. There is no reason for assuming that a
spiritual substance cannot exist; we have no more reason to doubt or
deny the existence of spirits, than we have to deny the existence of
bodies. Locke, in his treatment of the term substance――the term which
plays so great a part in the systems of Descartes and Spinoza――plainly
admitted his impotence. He says, “If anyone will examine himself
concerning his notion of pure substance in general, he will find he
has no other idea of it at all, but only a supposition of he knows not
what support of such qualities, which are capable of producing simple
ideas in us; which qualities are commonly called accidents. If anyone
should be asked, what is the subject wherein colour or weight inheres,
he would have nothing to say, but the solid, extended parts; and if
he were demanded, what is it that solidity and extension adheres in,”
he would be in much the same plight as the Indian was who supported
the world on the broad-backed tortoise. “And thus here, as in all
other cases where we use words without having clear and distinct
ideas, we talk like children.... The idea then we have, to which we
give the general name substance, being nothing but the supposed, but
unknown support of those qualities we find existing, which we imagine
cannot subsist without something to support them, we call that
support, substantia, which means in plain English, standing under, or
upholding.” But again, in comparing our ideas of spirit and of body,
he says, “In short, the idea we have of spirit, compared with the idea
we have of body, stands thus: the substance of spirit is unknown to
us; and so is the substance of body equally unknown to us.”¹ An idea of
substance in itself, that is, apart from any qualities in relation to
our minds, is utterly barren; as we only conceive it as inconceivable
――as nothing at all.
¹ Chapter XXIII., Section 2, Section 30.
He treated at length of relations, including that of cause and effect,
of identity and diversity, of clear and distinct, obscure and confused
ideas, of adequate and inadequate ideas, of real and fanatical ideas,
of true and false ideas. Strictly speaking, truth and falsehood
belong only to propositions; but ideas are sometimes termed true or
false, though when so styled, there is some tacit proposition assumed,
as ideas are but bare perceptions in our own minds, and cannot in
themselves be said to be true or false. Any idea which we have in our
minds, whether it accords or not with the existence of things, or with
any ideas in the minds of other men, cannot properly for this alone
be called false. But an idea is false when formed of inconsistent
qualities or elements, or when it is judged to contain in it the real
essence of any existing body, whereas it only contains a few of these;
or again, when the mind judges its own idea to be the same as it is
in other men’s minds, signified by the same word, when in fact it is
not the same. He closed the Second Book with a short and interesting
chapter on the “Association of Ideas.” He was among the first to use
this expression which is now so familiar to all students of psychology.
In the Third Book, Locke treated on language at length as the medium
of stating and expressing our ideas and thoughts. Words are signs and
marks which are necessary for communication――general terms and names
of our ideas, considered as aids to the acquisition of knowledge, and
for recording and communicating our thoughts. This part of the work
is valuable, and contains some of Locke’s best thoughts. He sums up
his view of general terms in the following sentence:――“All the great
business of genera and species, and their essences, amounts to no more
but this, that men, making abstract ideas, and settling them in their
minds, with names annexed to them, do thereby enable themselves to
consider things, and to discourse of them, as it were in bundles, for
the easier and readier improvement and communication of their knowledge;
which would advance but slowly were their words and thoughts confined
only to particulars.”¹
¹ Chapter III., Section 30.
The Fourth Book dealt with knowledge and opinion, and extended to
twenty-one chapters, in which many important and interesting matters
are handled with great candour and ability. Such as the degrees,
the limits, and the reality of our knowledge, of truth, universal
propositions, maxims, the existence of God; the improvement of our
knowledge, probability, and the degrees of assent; reason, faith and
reason, and the causes of error, were all handled.
According to Locke, knowledge is the perception of the agreement or
disagreement of our ideas; this agreement being fourfold, namely,
identity or diversity, relation, co-existence or necessary connection,
and real existence. He explained these kinds of knowledge and relations
of ideas at length, and proceeded to show that we know our own
existence, and the existence of God. His reasoning and arguments to
prove the existence of God are founded on the principle of mediate
inference, the only method which his system of the mind permitted; but
on this ground he argues well and wisely.
Locke discussed the provinces of faith and reason, and though faith
in divine revelation transcends rational knowledge, nevertheless
nothing can be regarded as a revelation which directly contradicts well
ascertained and distinct rational knowledge.¹
¹ Chapter XVIII.
In the discussion of the limits of human knowledge, though he made
many true and sagacious statements, yet it was here, perhaps, that
his main inconsistency culminated. Notwithstanding his doctrine that
we have only an obscure and relative idea of substance, he adopted
and expounded the distinction between the primary and the secondary
qualities of bodies, describing the primary qualities as those which
are inseparable from the conception of body. The primary qualities are
really in bodies, whether our senses perceive them or not, and when
we do perceive primary qualities, our ideas of them are resemblances
of qualities really existing in these bodies. His own words are “that
the ideas of primary qualities of bodies are resemblances of them, and
their patterns do really exist in the bodies themselves.” While, on the
other hand, “the ideas produced in us by these secondary qualities have
no resemblance of them at all. There is nothing like our ideas existing
in the bodies themselves.” Thus it seems we know primary qualities, not
simply as manifested to us, but as they exist in themselves; thus too
the primary qualities of bodies must be independent of the human mind.
Hence when he came to treat of the limits of knowledge, no necessary
connection between the primary and the secondary qualities could be
discovered; because the ideas obtained through the primary qualities
of bodies were entirely different from the ideas obtained through the
secondary qualities, there was no common root among these ideas for
comparison, and consequently no knowledge. There was no science of
bodies, or definite physics: “because we want perfect and adequate
ideas of those very bodies which are nearest to us, and most under our
command. Those which we have ranked into classes under names, and we
think ourselves best acquainted with, we have but very imperfect and
incomplete ideas of.... Adequate ideas, I suspect, we have not of any
body.”¹ Here the door was opened for the scepticism which Hume deduced
from the principles of Locke’s Essay. In treating on the limits of
our knowledge, Locke says:――“He that knows anything, knows this in the
first place, that he need not seek long for instances of his ignorance.
The meanest and most obvious things that come in our way have dark
sides, that the quickest sight cannot penetrate into. The clearest and
most enlarged understandings of thinking men find themselves puzzled,
and at a loss, in every particle of matter. We shall the less wonder
to find it so when we consider the causes of our ignorance, which, I
suppose, will be found to be chiefly these three:――1. Want of ideas;
2. Want of discoverable connection between the ideas we have; 3. Want
of tracing and examining our ideas.”
¹ Book II., Chapter VIII.; Book IV., Chapter III.
I have not space to speak of Locke’s other writings, and
restrict myself to a few words on his ethical doctrines. He
maintained that morality is solely based on the Will of God,
and that what is most conducive to the public welfare is to
be regarded as the expression of the Divine Will. Each man is
required by the Divine Law to do all the good and prevent all
the evil that he can; and good and evil being resolved into
pleasure and pain, the ultimate test of moral conduct is its
tendency to promote the pleasures and to avert the pains of
mankind. Book I., Chapter III., Section 6; Book II., Chapter
XXVIII.
Locke also maintained that morality is a science which can
be demonstrated as clearly as mathematics. Book IV., Chapter
III., Section 18; Chapter IV., Section 7; Chapter XII.,
Section 8.
Touching the will, he held that though a man is free to act,
the will itself is always determined by motives; this theory
is usually called determinism. Book II., Chapter XXI.
Although we have now a more scientific psychology than was possible in
Locke’s day, nevertheless, his “Essay concerning Human Understanding”
is a great monument of his genius, and one of the most interesting
works in this department of literature. Its merit consists in its
method, its general scope, its vast variety of topics, and the
spirit of candour which pervades it. It has had a wide and remarkable
influence on subsequent speculation, and on psychology, though at first
it met with opposition in various quarters.
At any given time, the causes favourable to the success of a novel line
of thought are various and complicated, and without at all pretending
to exhaust them, I may indicate some of the conditions which conduced
to the acceptance of Locke’s philosophy. A well-marked though slow
transformation of thought had been proceeding in Europe for several
centuries prior to Locke, which embraced in its sweep with more or
less distinctness physical science, religion, ethics, and politics,
while its social effects were manifested partly in the long political
struggles of the different nations among themselves, and especially
in the civil wars and internal conflicts of each nation within itself.
This vast movement had a general tendency throughout toward greater
freedom of thought, and religious and political liberty; but these
results were more keenly and earnestly fought for, and sooner obtained
in some of the nations than in others; in Britain the struggle for
political and religious freedom was very severe but not prolonged.
Hence Locke’s philosophy being in accord with the general movement
of the period, and more directly in unison with the intellectual and
social tendencies of England, as manifested in the Revolution of 1688,
it became a great power in history.¹
¹ Soon after the publication of Locke’s Essay, opponents and
critics, as well as defenders of it appeared, and Locke
himself entered the field to defend some of his views, his
controversy with Stillingfleet is well-known; indeed, many
attacks were made upon his philosophy, but it is unnecessary
to particularise them here.
There is a correlation between the creeds of a community and its
political and social organisation. The belief in the divine right and
the absolute power of a king, or a caste, the prevalence of certain
moral views touching the nature of marriage, or the highest ends of
national life, are often necessary for the continuance of a certain
order of society. When the belief is modified, the order shakes and
disappears, and the ties which hold a community together then assume
a somewhat different form. Anything which involves an attack upon
the theories implied in the existing social order, may modify the
principles or notions upon which power rests. As a struggle between
two different forms of government compels each to consider its own
constitution, this may issue in strengthening or in weakening the chief
features of their respective beliefs. In short, anything which really
stirs the social organism, afford a chance for the progress of fresh
seeds of thought and belief.¹
¹ It is mainly by the thorough investigation of the subjects
indicated above, in the two preceding paragraphs, and other
cognate matters, ♦and the proper use of the sources of facts
thus obtained, that philosophers can hope that at some future
day there will be a science of sociology. “Then we shall
unravel the laws of the growth of the social organism, and
determine the conditions of its health or disease. Then,
and not till then, will it be possible to present political
science as a coherent body of doctrines, deduced from certain
axioms of universal validity, but leading to different
conclusions, according to the varying conditions of human
society. We shall be able to say what form of government is
most favourable to the happiness of a nation at any given
period of its development.... But we are still so far from
possessing anything like a science of politics, that most
of the current maxims involve conceptions which could hardly
find place in a scientific system. Fragments of the old
theories by which men endeavoured to explain the origin of
government, or to show how it might be best administered,
still perplex our discussions, and hinder the attempt to lay
a sound foundation of theory.
“The difficulty of discovering anything approaching to
an historical development of political theory is the
greater, inasmuch as theories have followed, more than
they have guided, events. Happy is the nation which has no
political philosophy, for such philosophy is generally the
offspring of a recent, or the symptom of an approaching
revolution. During the quieter hours of the eighteenth
century, Englishmen rather played with political theories
than seriously discussed them. The interest in politics
was chiefly personal. References to general principles are
introduced in rhetorical flourishes, but do not form the
basis of serious argument. In the mass of pamphlets and
speeches which fill our library shelves, it is rare to find
even the show of political philosophy. The Tory argument is
that De Foe has been put in the pillory; the Whig argument is
that the French wear wooden shoes. Walpole’s friends rail at
the Pope and the Pretender; and Bolingbroke’s friends abuse
the excise and the Hanoverian subsidies.”――Stephen’s _History
of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century_, Volume II.,
pages 130‒131.
♦ “aud” replaced with “and”
Before the close of the seventeenth century, the discoveries in
physical science, wider geographical knowledge than formerly, and
many other influences, had enlarged men’s conceptions of the universe.
This was modifying religious ideas, while a marked tendency towards
rationalism was manifesting itself in the current theology, as well
as in philosophy. The movement in England appeared in various forms.
Discussions and disputes touching the immortality of the soul began
in the seventeenth century, increased amazingly after the Revolution,
and were continued through the greater part of the eighteenth century.
Locke had stated that matter might be endowed with the power of
thinking. The opponents of Christianity maintained that the future
existence of the soul was impossible, and many writers engaged in the
discussion of this subject.
English Deism was in some degree effected by the philosophy of Locke.
But the deistic creed was not essentially strong, as it was not founded
on the deepest convictions, or associated with the most powerful
emotions of the human breast, while its leaders lacked the glowing
sympathetic feeling, and the warm aspiration, the intense earnestness,
and the simple note of sincerity, which characterise the genuine
apostles of mankind. The conception of the Supreme Being which the
Deists presented, could not excite fervour in the heart of worshippers;
yet, though Deism soon decayed and died, rationalism and scepticism
have continued to spread.
Among the most eminent of the Deists who assailed the doctrines of
Christianity, were John Toland, Matthew Tindal, and Anthony Collins;
while on the other side may be mentioned, Samuel Clark, Bishop Berkeley,
and Dr. Butler, and many other less known men. But the grounds and the
methods of the attack and the defence of Christianity have undergone a
transformation since the middle of the eighteenth century.
Toland published in 1696, “Christianity not Mysterious.” The aim
of this work was to show that there is nothing in the New Testament
contrary to reason, or above it, and, therefore, no Christian doctrine
can properly be called a mystery. Adopting Locke’s definition of
knowledge, he explained what was within man’s reach of knowing; and
maintained that statements which contradicted reason cannot be admitted,
and if above reason they cannot be understood. Reason was our only safe
guide; and Christianity itself does not claim to be mysterious. Many of
his explanations, however, were crude and unsatisfactory.¹
¹ Toland is the author of many pamphlets and unfinished
fragments, political, religious, and on other subjects. A
full account of his writings was given in Leland’s _View of
the Principal Deistical Writers_, 1754‒56; compare Skelton’s
_Deism Revealed_, 2 volumes, 1749; A. F. Farrar’s _Critical
History of Free Thought_.
Anthony Collins was a prominent representative of Deism, and is the
author of several treatises, which were famous in their day. His
“Discourse on Free Thinking” appeared in 1713, and in it he argued
that all sound belief must be based on free inquiry, and seemed anxious
to show that the adoption of this tenet would not necessitate the
relinquishment of a belief in the supernatural. In 1724 he published
his work entitled, “A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the
Christian Religion,” containing a plausible attack on Christianity.
But the most important of his works is the “Inquiry concerning Human
Liberty and Necessity,” and he gives the following account of its
scope:――“1. Though I deny not liberty in a certain meaning of that word,
yet I contend for liberty, as it signifies a power in man to do as he
wills or pleases. 2. When I affirm necessity, I contend only for moral
necessity, meaning thereby that man, who is an intelligent and sensible
being, is determined by his reason and senses; and I deny man to be
subject to such necessity, as in clocks, watches, and such other things,
which for want of intelligence are subject to an absolute physical and
mechanical necessity. 3. I have undertaken to show that the notions
advanced are so far from being inconsistent with, that they are the
sole foundations of morality and laws, and of awards and punishments
in society; and that the notions I explode are subversive of them.” The
arguments which he advanced in support of his theory were six, namely:
“1. From experience; 2. From the impossibility of liberty; 3. From the
imperfection of liberty, and the perfection of necessity; 4. From the
consideration of the divine prescience; 5. From the nature and use of
rewards and punishments; 6. From the nature of morality.” He worked
out these arguments with much skill and ingenuity, and the following
six objections were concisely but ably answered:――“1. That if men
are necessary agents, punishments are unjust; 2. And are useless;
3. Reasoning, entreaties, blame, and praise, are useless; 4. Also the
use of physical remedies is useless; 5. The reproaches of conscience
are groundless; 6. The murder of Julius Cæsar could not possibly have
been murder.” The treatise is characteristic throughout, and had some
influence on subsequent speculation.
Mathew Tindal held a fellowship in All Souls at Oxford, and was past
seventy years of age when the first volume of his work, “Christianity
as Old as the Creation,” was published in 1732. Though the work was not
remarkable for its method or grasp of thought, the arrangement being
confused and abounding in repetitions, yet it attracted much attention.
Tindal maintained that natural religion is complete and sufficient,
consequently a revelation is unnecessary, so there can be no obligation
to accept it. All religion must have one aim, which is to attain human
perfection of character by a life in accord with human nature. In a
word, his theory is this: “Whosoever so regulates his natural appetites
as will conduce most to the exercise of his reason, the health of his
body, and the pleasures of his senses, taken and considered altogether,
since herein his happiness consists, may be certain he can never offend
his Maker; who, as He governs all things according to their natures,
cannot but expect His rational creatures should act according to
their natures.” He stated that there is no difference between religion
and morality, save that the one is acting according to the reason of
things considered in themselves, the other according to the same reason
of things considered as the rule of God; Christianity being only a
republication of the law of nature.¹
¹ _Christianity as Old as the Creation_, pages 2, 14, _et
seq._, page 270; compare Stephen’s _History of English
Thought in the Eighteenth Century_, Volume I., pages 134‒145.
Anthony Ashley Cooper, third Earl of Shaftesbury, may be noticed among
those whose writings have influenced subsequent ethical views. He was
essentially a moralist, his chief aim being to show how a rational
scheme of life might be formed. A belief in God was an element of his
system. “For whoever thinks that there is a just God, and pretends
formally to believe that He is just and good, must suppose that there
is independently such a thing as justice and injustice, truth and
falsehood, right and wrong, according to which he pronounces that God
is just, righteous, and true. If the mere will, decree, or law of God
be said absolutely to constitute right and wrong, then are these latter
words of no significance at all.” Thus it seems a sound theism follows
from morality, not morality from theism. Hence also religion, according
to the conception which it presents of the character of God, “is
capable of doing great good or harm, and atheism nothing positive in
either way.”¹ Atheism indicates an unhealthy state of mind, as nothing
can be more distressing “than the thought of living in a distracted
universe from which many ills may be suspected, and where nothing good
or lovely presents itself, nothing which can satisfy in contemplation
or raise any passion, besides that of contempt, hatred, and dislike.”
This tends to embitter the temper, and “to impair and ruin the very
principle of virtue, namely, natural and kind affection.” In the main,
he argued that whoever has a firm belief in a just and benignant God
has a far stronger incentive to virtuous action than those who have
no such belief; and there is thus a relation between virtue and piety,
as where piety is wanting “there can neither be the same benignity,
firmness, or constancy, the same good composure of the affections, or
uniformity of mind.”²
¹ _Characteristics: An Inquiry concerning Virtue_, Book I.,
Part 3, Section 2.
² _Ibid._, Section 3.
He contended strongly for the existence of disinterested affection
in man, and used the term “moral sense” to express his doctrine.
He indicated the rise of this moral sense, and argued that it has
a foundation in nature. “There is in reality no rational creature
whatsoever who knows not that when he voluntarily offends or does harm
to anyone, he cannot fail to create an apprehension and fear of like
harm, and consequently a resentment and animosity in everyone that
observes him. So that the offender must be conscious of being liable to
such treatment from everyone, as if he had in some degree offended all
... of this the wickedest creature living must have a sense. So that
if there be any farther meaning in this sense of right and wrong, if
in reality there be any sense of this kind which an absolutely wicked
creature has not, it must consist in a real antipathy or aversion to
injustice or wrong, and in a real affection towards equity and right
for its own sake, and on account of its natural beauty and worth.
“It is impossible to suppose a mere sensible creature, originally so
ill-conditioned and unnatural, as that from the moment he comes to
be tried by sensible objects, he should have no good passion towards
his kind, no foundation either of piety, love, kindness, or social
affection. It is fully as impossible to conceive that a rational
creature coming first to be tried by rational objects, and receiving
into his mind the images or representations of justice, generosity,
gratitude, or other virtue, should have no liking of these, or dislike
of their contraries, but be found absolutely indifferent towards
whatsoever is presented to him of this sort. A soul, indeed, may as
well be without a sense, as without admiration in the things of which
it has any knowledge.... Sense of right and wrong, therefore, being as
natural to us as natural affection itself, and being a first principle
in our constitution, there is no speculative idea or belief which is
capable immediately or directly to exclude or destroy it.”¹ From these
passages and from others of a similar import, it may be observed that
several of Shaftesbury’s ethical views were transferred into Scottish
philosophy. His influence is also notable on Kant’s doctrine of the
relation between Morality and Religion.
¹ _Inquiry concerning Virtue_, Part II., Section 3; Part III.,
Section 1; _Moralist_, Part III., Section 3.
Shaftesbury was a real optimist, and held that there was no positive
evil in the world. He exerted all his eloquence and ingenuity in
efforts to exalt the wondrous harmonies of nature. “Everything is for
the best in the best of all possible worlds.” In the opening section
of the “Inquiry concerning Virtue,” he argued that there can be no real
ill in the universe. “If everything which exists be according to good,
and for the best, then, of necessity, there is no such thing as real
ill in the universe, nothing ill with respect to the whole.... To
believe, therefore, that everything is governed, ordered, and regulated
for the best, by a designing principle or mind, necessarily good and
permanent, is to be a perfect theist.”¹
¹ Part I., Section 2; also his _Moralist_, Part III., Section
1. The influence of these views is observable in the
theory of the harmony between the kingdoms of nature and
grace, developed in the “Théodicée” of Leibnitz; indeed,
Shaftesbury’s views had considerable influence in various
directions.
His usual method of arguing is that of placing alternatives before the
mind; he manifests no great metaphysical grasp of principles, and his
power of exposition was very limited. He often repeats himself, and his
style, though sometimes vigorous, is diffuse and stilted.
Dr. Samuel Clarke was a great authority in his day, both in theology
and in philosophy. But as his method of philosophising has almost
ceased to have influence in Britain, I will only give a brief statement
of his ethical theory and views.
His moral theory may be shortly stated as follows:――All existing things
have their necessary relations one to another. Man must attribute the
same law of perception to every being to whom he attributes thought,
and, therefore, he must believe that the sum of the relations of all
things to each other must have always been present to God; and these
relations, then, are eternal, however recent the things may be between
which they subsist; and the whole together constitute truth. These
eternal different relations of things, one to another, involve a
consequent eternal fitness in the application of things one to another,
with regard to which the will of God always chooses, and which also
ought to determine the wills of all subordinate rational beings. Such
eternal relations make it fit and reasonable for the creatures thus
to act; and, indeed, it becomes their duty so to act, prior to and
independent of any foreseen advantage or reward.¹
¹ _Being and Attributes of God_, Proposition 12; _Evidence of
Natural and Revealed Religion_.
The three great classes of primary duties, namely, the duties we owe
to God, to each other, and to ourselves, might be deduced in the same
way as the propositions of geometry. Thus Clarke attempted to give the
rules of morality a mathematical cast; and his theory also sought to
found moral distinctions solely upon reason. But reason can never be
a complete basis for morality, because it does not afford the motives
of action. “The abusive extension of the term reason to the moral
faculties, one of the predominant errors of ancient and modern times,
has arisen from causes which it is not difficult to discover. Reason
does in truth perform a great part in every case of moral sentiment. To
reason often belong the preliminaries of the act; to reason altogether
belongs the choice of the means of execution. The operations of reason,
in both cases, are comparatively slow and lasting, they are capable
of being distinctly recalled by memory. The emotion which intervenes
between the previous and succeeding exertions of reason is often faint,
generally transient, and scarcely ever capable of being reproduced
by an effort of the mind. Hence the name of reason is applied to this
mixed state of mind, more especially when the feeling, being of a
cold and general nature, and scarcely ruffling the surface of the
soul, such as those of prudence, and ordinary kindness, and propriety,
almost passes unnoticed, and is irretrievably forgotten. Hence the
mind is, in such conditions, said by the moralists to act from reason,
in contra-distinction to its more excited and disturbed state, when it
is said to act from passion. The calmness of reason gives to the whole
compound the appearance of unmixed reason. The illusion is further
promoted by a mode of expression used in most languages. A man is
said to act reasonably when his conduct is such as may be reasonably
expected.”¹
¹ Mackintosh’s _Dissertation on Ethical Philosophy_, pages
155‒156, 1837.
Bishop Berkeley is the author of a form of idealism, explained in
several works which appeared at different periods of his life. He
maintained that the external world had no real existence in itself,
apart from thinking and reasoning beings. By this he meant that
matter and all external objects have only a phenomenal existence, an
appearance, but no real existence at all, distinct from their being
perceived by some person, or mind and spirit. If, therefore, we detach
external objects from perception, they cease to be, because they
have no existence apart from perception. All the choir of heaven, and
all the bodies composing the mighty frame of the world, have not any
substance without a mind; and that their very being is to be perceived
as part of the significant sense-experience of a conscious person;
“consequently, so long as they are not actually perceived by me, or do
not actually exist in my mind, or in that of any created spirit, they
must either have no existence at all, or they must exist in the mind of
some Eternal Spirit.”¹
¹ _Compare._ Berkeley’s Works, edited by Professor Fraser, and
the excellent volume by the same author on Berkeley and his
Philosophy, in the series of “Philosophical Classics for
English Readers.”
Thus in result, Berkeley’s external world consisted of spirits, as it
were, external to his own spirit; conscious, in concert with himself,
of intelligible sense-impressions, by which they could communicate
with one another. By a refined process of thought, he arrived at
the conclusion that there was an external will and an external
intellect, and that will and intellect constituted spirit. This was
his explanation of the problem of the relation of the human mind to
the external world.
In the later stage of the development of his views, he attempted to
explain what is meant by God. He maintained that the supreme power is
Spirit; God is more than the unknowable behind the phenomena of nature.
God means the eternally sustaining spirit――the active conscious reason
of the universe; the Supreme Spirit or Universal Mind. But he did not
intend to reduce all to God and phenomena; he recognises the existence
of finite free agents, responsible and subject to a moral government.
Still he seemed to approach the principle of pantheism.
The aim of his speculations was to extinguish the scheme of materialism;
he thought that, when matter was expelled out of nature, sceptical and
impious ideas would have no ground to stand upon. But in the hands of
subsequent thinkers, his principles have yielded very different results.
Berkeley wrote a fine pleasing style, and contributed much to excite
the philosophic mind in England and Scotland. Indeed, he said himself
that his reasonings had been nowhere better understood than among a
club of young Scotchmen in Edinburgh.
* * * * *
In conclusion, the period covered in this volume has been exceedingly
important in the history of Scotland. After the Union of the Crowns,
the king’s power was vastly increased, and one of the baneful results
of this was that the kings used their power to enforce their own
religious and political views upon the people, and attempted to
extinguish their freedom of thought and speech, and their civil rights.
Hence the Covenanting struggle, and after the Restoration the long and
severe persecution of the Covenanters; yet, despite all the harassments
of war, of persecution, and oppression, the Covenanters executed their
work heroically and successfully, and contributed considerably to the
Revolution of 1688, and to the freedom of the British people. Peace and
glory to the memory of the heroes, who boldly faced danger, privation,
and death for the tenets of their faith! The proceedings connected
with the passing of the Union were narrated; and an account of the
subsequent disaffection in Scotland, and the risings of 1715 and
1745 was presented. A detailed and exhaustive account of the social
condition of the people, and the introduction of manufactures,
the progress of industry and commercial enterprise were given. I
then treated the ballad and Jacobite literature and other branches,
historically, and noted the progress of science, of education, and art.
In the closing chapter, I have presented an outline of European Thought,
in which the systems of Bruno, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Hobbes,
Locke, Shaftesbury, and others are concisely expounded, in order to
show the historic relations of the philosophy which subsequently arose
in Scotland.
INDEX.
Abercorn, i., 116;
castle of, 343, 390;
Earl of, iii., 19.
Abercromby, Dr. Patrick, iv., 143.
Aberdeen, i., 148, 151, 234, 238‒9, 264, 284, 288, 306, 325, 366,
370, 386‒7, 390;
ii., 116, 123, 192, 202, 212, 241, 247;
iii., 28, 90, 91, 219, 223, 228;
iv., 370, 375;
University of, i., 415, 467;
ii., 412, 413;
iii., 62, 392‒3;
iv., 60, 139, 317‒320.
Aberdeen, Earl of, iv., 482.
Aberdeenshire, i., 28, 49, 52, 68, 75, 90, 95, 140, 184, 271, 284,
287, 325;
ii., 154;
iii., 244;
iv., 370, 371.
Abernethy, i., 114, 165, 245.
Aboyne, i., 174;
Viscount of, iii., 93.
Ada, daughter of Earl David, i., 204, 256.
Adam,
Dr. Alexander, iv., 153;
William, Robert, James, 402.
Adamson, Archbishop of St. Andrews, ii., 182‒4, 189, 271, 380.
Aed, King, i., 136.
Agricola, General, i., 105, 109.
Agriculture, i., 100, 133, 150, 250‒254, 376‒381;
ii., 266, 289, 290;
iii., 303‒305;
iv., 332‒339.
Aidan, King of Dalriada, i., 117‒8.
Aikman, iv., ♦429.
♦ page number provided by transcriber
Airlie, Earl of, iii., 90;
castle of, 337.
Alan, Lord of Galloway, i., 211.
Albany,
Duke of, i., 319, 321‒2, 324‒6;
Murdoch, 326, 327, 328;
Alexander, 348‒351;
John, Regent, ii., 36‒37.
Ale, i., 251, 399, 400, 401, 402, 404;
ii., 291‒292;
iii., 217‒219;
iv., 395.
Alexander I., reign of, i., 200, 201.
Alexander II., reign of, i., 209‒212, 242.
Alexander, III.,
coronation of, i., 213;
reign of, 213‒217.
Alexander, William, iv., 209‒211.
Alison,
Rev. Archibald, iv., 86;
Sir Archibald, 155‒6;
Dr. William, 312.
Allan,
David, iv., 433;
Sir William, 443.
Alloa, iv., 433.
Alnwick castle, i., 143, 300.
Amberley, Viscount, ii., 43, 44.
Anderson,
Dr. Joseph, i., 52, 55, 57, 61, 65, 66, 168, 180;
William, ii., 68;
James, iv., 143, 144;
Robert, 173.
Angles, i., 113, 118, 119.
Angus,
Pictish King, i., 120;
Angus, Chief, 116, 202;
Angus Duff, 329;
Angus, Lord of the Isles, 218, 285, 292, 293;
Angus, Earl of, 342, 343, 350, 351;
ii., 36, 37, 38, 61, 63, 64, 65, 181, 195, 212.
Annandale, i., 26, 203, 223, 349.
Annandale, Earl of, iii., 179.
Anne, Queen, iii., 204, 205, 209, 211, 220, 222.
Anstruther, ii., 192.
Arbroath,
monastery of, i., 249, 296, 432, 433, 434;
town of, 238, 409;
iii., 93, 301;
iv., 375.
Arbuthnot,
Alexander, ii., 372, 373, 413;
Dr. John, iv., 228‒230.
Architecture, i., 157‒165, 247‒250, 428‒431;
ii., 396, 397;
iii., 396‒7;
iv., 401‒411.
Ardnamurchan, i., 24, 261, 356;
iii., 90.
Ardoch, i., 106.
Argyle,
Earl of, i., 356‒7, 364, 365;
ii., 63, 64, 89, 96, 97, 130, 134, 135, 145, 150, 181, 201,
202, 224, 226, 229;
iii., 90, 91, 92, 99, 104, 121, 123, 159, 167, 192;
Duke of, 206, 223, 241.
Argyleshire, i., 53, 116, ♦117, 121, 127, 210, 261, 369;
iii., 91; iv.
♦ “177” replaced with “117”
Arkinholm, battle of, i., 343.
Armada, ii., 191, 192.
Armstrong,
John, a marauder, ii., 224, 225;
Dr. John, iv., 169.
Arran, island of, i., 23, 95, 216, 286, 379, 380.
Arran,
Earl of, i., 346;
Regent, ii., 63, 65, 67, 70, 74, 78, 86, 87;
Stewart, Earl of Arran, 175, 177, 181, 184, 185, 187.
Arrowheads, i., 49, 50.
Art,
early, i., 52, 75‒79, 166‒174, 176‒180, 241‒243, 470, 471;
ii., 423‒425;
iii., 393‒396;
Progress of, in Scotland, iv., 428.
Aryan race, i., 38‒42;
language of, 43.
Arth, a friar, ii., 51‒53.
Asceticism, i., 131, 156, 157, 244;
ii., 43‒46, 261, 262.
Assembly, General,
ii., 115, 129, 149, 151, 160, 166, 167, 169, 188, 193, 211,
213;
iii., 28, 34, 36, 39, 69‒72, 77, 83, 84, 98, 104, 186;
iv., 465‒485.
Athole,
Earl of, i., 208, 209, 214, 217, 255, 263, 283, 285, 305, 306,
335, 337;
ii., 143, 148;
iii., 110;
Marquis of, 174;
Duke of, 207, 212.
Attwood, iv., 143, 144.
Auldearn, battle of, iii., 94.
Ayr,
Burgh of, i., 240, 356, 359, 386, 387;
ii., 69;
iii., 303;
iv., 369‒372;
Castle of, i., 215, 248, 274, 287.
Ayrshire, i., 29, 114, 286, 287, 379;
ii., 78;
iii., 134, 153;
iv., 341, 342.
Aytoun, William E., iv., 194.
Bacon, Lord, ii., 395;
iii., 434‒435.
Badenoch, i., 211, 276, 356;
iii., 181.
Badenoch, Lord of, i., 217, 256, 271, 274, 275, 277.
Baillie,
General, iii., 93, 94, 95;
Rev. Robert, 75, 76, 87, 88, 357, 358.
Bain, Dr. Alexander, ii., 420;
iv., 139, 140, 141, 155.
Balcanqhall, Walter, ii., 177, 184, 187, 206.
Balfour,
Sir James, ii., 75, 135, 144, 146;
John, of Burley, iii., 151, 153, 343;
Sir Andrew, 369.
Baliol, Bernard de, i., 203.
Baliol,
King John, i., 256, 258, 259, 260‒262, 263, 264, 366;
Edward, 304, 305, 306, 307.
Ballads,
early, i., 184‒5, 441‒450;
ii., 76, 77, 244, 245, 341‒345;
referring to the Civil War and persecution, iii., 237‒346;
Jacobite ballads, 346‒353.
Balmerino, Lord, iii., 18, 60.
Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, iii., 32.
Bane, Donald, King, i., 144.
Banff, i., 148, 248, 307, 385, 390, 391;
iii., 301;
iv., 373.
Bank of Scotland established, iii., 327‒329.
Bannatyne, George, ii., 371, 372.
Bannockburn, battle of, i., 291‒295.
Barbour, John, i., 451‒454.
Barclay,
Robert, iii., 258;
Dr., iv., 308.
Barlow, Bishop, ii., 54, 56.
Barmekyn hill, fort on, i., 90.
Barony, i., 223, 225.
Barton, Captain, i., 359, 363.
Beaton,
James, Archbishop, ii., 38, 58;
David, Cardinal, 58, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70‒72, 79.
Beaumont, Henry, i., 301, 305, 306.
Beck, Bishop of Durham, i., 266, 270.
Bede, i., 116, 122, 126.
Bellhaven, Lord, iii., 197, 211‒12.
Bell Rock, i., 23.
Bell,
Dr. John, iv., 306, 307;
Sir Charles, 307, 308.
Bellenden,
John, ii., 317, 318;
Sir John, 158;
Sir Lewis, 274.
Berkeley, Bishop, iii., 470, 471.
Berwick-North, i., 387, 389.
Berwick, i., 206, 233, 234, 236, 238, 239, 248, 259, 260, 263,
264, 268, 279, 285, 295, 305, 350, 382;
Treaty of, ii., 100, 272.
Bible, translations of, ii., 25‒27, 49, 170.
Bisset, Thomas, i., 271.
Black,
David, ii., 204‒206;
Dr. Joseph iv., 260‒263, 273, 276, 278.
Blackadder, John, iii., 139.
Blackie, John S., iv., 247‒249.
Blakey, Robert, iv., 160.
Blacklock, Dr. Thomas, iv., 171, 172.
Blair,
Robert, iv., 169, 170;
Dr. Hugh, 215.
Blair Athole, iii., 90.
Blair Castle, iii., 181.
Bœce, Hector, ii., 316.
Bondmen, i., 252, 380‒382.
Book of Common Order, ii., 113, 114;
Book of Discipline, the first, 105‒113;
the second, 171‒173.
Book of Canons, iii., 45, 46.
Boot and shoe manufactures, iv., 392, 393.
Borders,
state of, i., 309, 315‒318, 322, 324, 342;
ii., 223‒225;
order established on the Borders, iii., 20‒28.
Borthwick Castle, ii., 143.
Bothwell,
Earl of, i., 353, 426;
ii., 69, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138‒145;
Francis Stewart, Earl of, 198, 272, 273, 274‒276.
Bothwell Bridge, Battle of, iii., 153, 154.
Botriphnie, i., 378;
iv., 197.
Bower, Walter, i., 376, 463.
Boyd,
Robert, of Kilmarnock, i., 283;
Robert, Lord Boyd, 345, 346, 347;
Sir Thomas, created Earl of Arran, 146, 147.
Boyd, Zachary, iii., 358, 359.
Braemar, iii., 222.
Brahmanism, ii., 428, 429, 431, 433.
Braxfield, Lord, iv., 458.
Breadalbane, Earl of, iii., 190, 191.
Brechin, i., 138, 164, 183, 238, 249, 276, 409;
Castle of, 264, 276;
Battle of, 342.
Bridges, Early, i., 250.
Briggs, Henry, ii., 389, 390, 391.
Brigham, treaty of, i., 218.
Britons of Strathclyde, i., 113, 114, 117, 123‒125, 138.
Britons and Scots, early laws of, i., 151‒153.
Brochs, i., 157‒163.
Brodick Castle, i., 286.
Brodie,
Alexander, iii., 255;
William, iv., 454.
Bronze weapons and tools, i., 74‒79.
Brooches, i., 117‒119.
Brown,
Janet, ii., 231;
Dr. Thomas, iv., 87‒97;
John, 216;
Dr. John, 217;
Dr. William L., 218, 219.
Bruce,
Robert, of Annandale, i., 203, 218, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259,
260;
Robert, Earl of Carrick, 266, 267, 271, 276, 278, 281‒283.
Bruce,
Nigel, Thomas, Alexander, i., 285;
Edward, 287, 290, 291, 292;
Robert, ii., 201, 208, 216, 381, 382;
Michael, iv., 177.
Brude, King of the Picts, i., 127.
Bruno, Giordano, writings of, iii., 399‒401.
Brunston, Laird of, ii., 69.
Buchan, Earl of, i., 208, 209, 211, 213, 217, 262, 287, 288, 319,
325, 352, 353, 373.
Buchan, Peter, i., 446.
Buchanan,
George, ii., 58, 145;
writings of, 364‒369, 409;
Thomas, 260;
Dr. Robert, iv., 224.
Buddha, his life and work, ii., 429‒432.
Buddhism, ii., 233, 432.
Burghs,
the origin and organisation of, i., 33, 82, 83, 152, 232‒237;
Custom and trade of, 382‒391;
Social life and characteristics of the burghal communities,
397‒408, 414, 438, 439;
ii., 230‒243, 291‒294;
iii., 245‒248, 274‒278, 283‒289.
Burghs of regality, barony, and church, i., 226, 237, 238, 408,
409.
Burial dues exacted by the Church, ii., 39, 40.
Burnet,
Bishop, his works, iii., 364‒366;
John, iv., 441.
Burns, Robert, iv., 179‒182.
Burntisland, iii., 301.
Burton, Dr. John H., iv., 160.
Caerlaverock Castle, i., 247, 272.
Cairns, burial, chambered, i., 53‒64, 91, 92.
Caithness,
prehistoric structures in, i., 53‒58;
Norseman inroads, 136, 138, 139.
Caithness, Earls of, i., 207, 208;
ii., 227;
iii., 237, 238, 239.
Calderwood, David, iii., 38, 356, 357.
Caledonians, i., 105‒109, 110, 111, 114.
Caledonian Canal, iv., 354.
Calvin, ii., 119, 357‒360.
Cambuskenneth, i., 249, 367.
Cameron of Lochiel, i., 356;
iii., 181.
Cameron, Richard, iii., 155, 156.
Cameronians, iii., 155, 174, 185, 186, 187.
Campbell of Glenlyon, iii., 192.
Campbell,
Sir Colin, iii., 395;
Dr. John, iv., 144;
Dr. George, 85, 86;
Thomas, his writings, 185‒187;
Colin, architect, 402;
Thomas, sculptor, 454.
Candlish, Dr. R. T., iv., 221, 222.
Canterbury, Archbishop of, i., 200, 201, 272.
Cantyre, i., 21, 215, 261, 285, 348.
Canute, i., 139, 192.
Carberry Hill, ii., 144.
Cardross, i., 302, 303.
Cargill, Donald, iii., 155, 156, 157.
Carham, battle of, i., 138.
Carlisle, i., 210, 318;
iii., 227.
Carlyle,
Thomas, iv., 156‒159;
Dr. Alexander, 19, 43, 44.
Carmichael, Lord, iii., 186, 187.
Carmichael,
John, of ♦Meadowflat, iii., 27;
William, 151;
Gershom, iv., 18.
♦ “Meadowflatt” replaced with “Meadowflat”
♦Carmon, Colonel, iii., 183.
♦ Printed out of alphabetic order.
Carrick, Earl of, i., 217, 266, 271, 278, 281, 302, 305, 314,
316.
Carswell, John, ii., 108.
Carstairs, William, iii., 178, 179.
Carved woodwork, i., 430;
ii., 423.
Casket Letters, ii., 141, 142;
iv., 145.
Cassillis, Earl of, i., 365;
ii., 69, 150;
iii., 19, 56, 87, 99, 104.
Castellio, Sebastia, ii., 359.
Castles, i., 247, 248, 428, 430;
ii., 422, 423.
Catechisms, ii., 77, 78, 85, 109, 110;
iii., 89.
Caterthun, hill fort, i., 89, 90.
Cathen, the King’s adviser, i., 125.
Caves, i., 43, 83, 163.
Celestius, ii., 356.
Celibacy, i., 131, 156, 244, 245;
ii., 21, 22, 41‒43, 45, 46, 261, 262.
Celtic tribes, i., 44, 45, 90, 100, 101, 105, 110, 113‒116, 119.
Censorship of the press, ii., 277, 278.
Chalmer, James, ii., 90.
Chalmers,
George, iv., 153;
Dr. Thomas, 219‒221.
Chambered Cairns, i., 53‒65.
Chambers,
Thomas, i., 336, 337;
David, ii., 138;
Dr. Robert, iv., 163.
Charles I.,
reign of, iii., 42‒100;
policy of, 43‒50, 51‒54, 57, 58, 59, 63‒65, 66‒68, 71, 73‒75,
76, 77, 78‒82, 90, 95, 96, 97.
Charles II., reign of, iii., 103, 107, 110, 119‒163.
Charles Stewart, prince, iii., 226‒229.
Charters, i., 148, 201, 223‒225, 227, 232‒234, 373, 387, 422.
Chartularies, i., 247.
Chatelherault, Duke of, ii., 86, 130.
Chemical Science, iv., 260‒266, 273, 286, 296‒298, 397.
Chepman, Walter, ii., 300‒302.
Christian I., King of Denmark, i., 346.
Christianity,
introduced, i., 121‒129;
early form of, 130‒134;
influence of, 134, 135, 168, 181, 186, 232, 245, 248‒250, 288,
289, 466, 467;
ii., 437‒439, 443.
Church,
early, i., 130‒134, 155‒157, 200, 201;
re-organisation of, 212, 213, 243‒245;
property of, 227, 252‒254, 380, 431‒433;
state of, 332, 333, 431, 432;
ii., 40‒43, 51, 76‒78, 79, 102.
Church, the Reformed,
organisation of, ii., 104‒115;
conflict with the Government, 165‒173, 177‒189, 192‒194,
197‒220;
iii., 20‒42, 46‒82, 83‒87, 95‒101, 110, 120‒163, 164‒169;
internal struggles of, iv., 467, _et seq._
Circuit Courts, i., 222, 355, 356, 424;
Lords of Council, Judicial Committee, i., 370, 371;
Court of Session, ii., 216, 223;
iii., 112, 113, 124, 232‒235; iv.;
Church Courts, i., 227, 230, 371.
Cists, i., 55, 93, 95.
Civilisation,
primary causes of, i., 19‒20, 31‒33, 34, 35;
ii., 426, 427;
gradual progress of, i., 53, 70, 71, 98‒102, 119‒121, 135,
149‒151, 161, 164, 169, 170, 181‒188, 232‒241, 245‒55,
330‒332, 366‒371, 382‒397, 408, 418‒422, 465‒472;
ii., 109, 278‒291, 398, 419;
iii., 101, 102, 294‒335;
rapid development of, iii., 215;
iv., 142‒145, 165, 284, 324‒332; _et seq._, 341‒400.
Clackmannan, iv., 343.
Claim of Right,
of the Scotch Parliament, iii., 176, 177;
Claim of Right, of General Assembly of the Church, iv., 480,
_et seq._
Clan, i., 146;
iii., 225.
Clan Canan, i., 150.
Clan Morgan, i., 150.
Clanranald, chief of, i., 356;
ii., 226;
iii., 242, 243.
Cleland, William, iii., 153.
Clunymore, i., 378.
Coal,
early notice of, i., 238, 409;
mining, ii., 286;
iii., 292‒293;
iv., 341‒343.
Cochrane, Robert, i., 348‒350.
Cockburne, of Henderland, ii., 224.
Cockburn, Sir Richard, Sir John, iii., 18.
Coinage, i., 238, 394‒397;
ii., 279‒282;
iii., 320‒327;
paper currency, 327‒329.
Coldingham, i., 209, 246.
Colin, King, i., 137.
Colliers, iii., 291‒292;
iv., 342‒344.
Colville, John, i., 448.
Commerce, i., 239‒240, 391‒394;
ii., 286‒290;
iii., 112, 300‒303, 311;
iv., 352‒357, 359‒363, _et seq._
Compurgators, i., 228‒229.
Comyn, Clan, i., 213‒214.
Comyn,
John, i., 217, 256, 271, 275, 277;
slaughter of, 281.
Confessions of Faith, ii., 34‒35, 102, 204‒205;
iii., 89.
Constantine, Roman general, i., 112.
Constantine I., son of Kenneth M‘Alpin, i., 136.
Constantine II., 136‒137.
Constantine III., 138.
Conventicles, acts against, iii., 130, 131, 133, 138, 140, 146,
148, 149.
Convention of Royal Burgh, i., 234, 235.
Convention of Estates, iii., 173‒177.
Cope, Sir John, iii., 226, 227.
Corrichie, battle of, ii., 123, 124.
Cotterel, Colonel, iii., 110, 111.
Covenant,
National, iii., 59‒62;
Solemn League and Covenant, 83‒86.
Covenanters, iii., 68‒73, 74‒77, 78‒82, 86, 89‒102, 103‒105, 107.
♦Craftsmen, i., 335, 336, 404‒408;
ii., 240, 241, 242, 293, 294;
iii., 287‒289.
♦ “Craftesmen” replaced with “Craftsmen”
Craig,
John, ii., 110, 158, 167, 185;
Sir Thomas, 384;
Andrew, iii., 245.
Craigellachie, iv., 354.
Craigmiller Castle, i., 349.
Craigphadrig, vitrified fort, i., 91.
Crannogs, i., 42, 84‒87.
Cranstoun, Sir William, iii., 21, 24, 25, 27.
Crawar, Paul, i., 332.
Crawford, Earl of, i., 321, 340, 341, 342, 343, 364;
iii., 120, 179, 186.
Crawford, Sir William, i., 388, 389.
Crawford Moor, ii., 282;
iii., 293.
Crichton, Sir William, i., 338, 339, 340.
Crinan, Abbot of Dunkeld, i., 139, 140.
Cromwell, iii., 99, 108, 100, 110, 111, 112‒115.
Culblean, battle of, i., 306.
Cullen, burgh of, i., 385, 386.
Culloden, battle of, iii., 229, 230, 351, 352;
iv., 172, 173.
Cumberland, i., 105, 125, 142.
Cumberland, Duke of, iii., 228, 229.
Cummene, i., 181.
Cunningham, Allan, iv., 192, 193.
Cupar, i., 465;
iii., 157.
Curates, under Charles II., iii., 130, 132, 173.
Dacre, Lord, ii., 62.
Dalkeith, iii., 227;
castle of, i., 316, 342;
ii., 423.
Dalriada, i., 116, 117, 127.
Dalry, iii., 133.
Dalrymple, Sir John, iii., 191‒193, 233, 234.
Dalziel, General, iii., 134, 135, 342.
Dancing, i., 457, 468;
ii., 124, 125, 415;
iv., 416.
Darien Colony, iii., 196‒204.
Darnaway Castle, i., 360;
ii., 124.
Darnley, ii., 128, 129, 130‒136, 137, 138.
Dauney, William, iv., 416.
David I., reign of, i., 201‒204, 221, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228,
230, 232, 234, 235, 243, 244.
David II., reign of, i., 304, 306, 307‒313, 429.
David, Earl of Huntingdon, i., 204, 256.
Davidson,
John, ii., 198, 214, 373, 374;
Thomas, 302, 303;
John, Principal of the University of Glasgow, 352, 408;
Dr. Patrick, iv., 164.
Dean of Lismore’s Book, i., 442, 443.
Defence of the Country, armour, weapons, organisation of the
army, i., 409‒413.
Denmark, marriage treaty, i., 346.
Descartes, method and principles of his system, iii., 403‒418.
Dickson, David, iii., 61, 359.
Dingwall, i., 385, 386.
Divorce, ii., 265, 266.
Donald I., i., 136.
Donald II., i., 136.
Donald Bane, i., 144.
Donald Balloch, i., 329, 330.
Donald, Lord of the Isles, i., 324‒326.
Douglas,
Sir William, i., 266, 267;
Sir James, 283, 286, 287, 290, 292, 300, 303;
Sir Archibald, 305, 306;
Sir William, 307;
Sir John of Dalkeith, 342;
Sir James, 435;
Sir William of Drumlanrig, 389;
Sir James, ii., 225;
George of Parkhead, 284, 285;
Sir Archibald, iii., 18.
Douglas, Earl of, i., 316, 317, 318, 321, 323, 326, 338, 339,
340, 341, 342, 343, 349, 388, 389, 390.
Douglas,
Gavin, ii., 36, 310‒315;
Dr. James, iv., 320.
Drumclog, battle of, iii., 153.
Drummond,
Lord, i., 360;
ii., 228;
Earl of Perth, iii., 171, 172;
Lady Margaret, i., 360.
Drummond,
General, iii., 135;
James, 227;
William, 366, 367.
Dryburgh, Monastery, ii., 66.
Duff,
King, i., 137;
Angus Chief, 329;
♦Dumbarton, i., 114, 121;
castle of, 248, 278;
ii., 149, 154, 155;
burgh of, i., 386, 391;
iii., 302, 303;
iv., 361.
♦ Separate item, not part of Duff.
♦Dumfries,
Castle of, i., 248, 290;
burgh of, 282, 356, 384;
ii., 131, 186;
iii., 24, 27, 134, 212, 228, 342, 386;
iv., 371.
♦ Printed out of alphabetic order.
♦Dumplin, battle of, i., 305.
♦ Printed out of alphabetic order.
Dunaverty Castle, i., 285, 355.
Dunbar,
Castle, i., 263, 383;
ii., 133, 140, 141, 143, 149;
town of, i., 383, 503;
iii., 227, 300, 387;
battle of, 109.
Dunbar, Earl of, i., 212, 214, 217, 218;
iii., 18, 25, 26, 30.
Dunbar, William, ii., 303‒310.
Dunblane,
cathedral, i., 249;
ii., 423;
city of, i., 238, 408.
Duncan I., i., 139, 140.
Duncan II., i., 143, 144.
Duncan, Dr. Andrew, iv., 302‒304.
Dundee, i., 83, 119, 248, 265, 267, 288, 387, 391, 437;
ii., 69, 93, 197, 202, 233, 235, 237, 240, 243, 400;
iii., 93, 223, 301, 303;
iv., 243, 331, 357, 358, 375, 376.
Dundee, Viscount, iii., 174, 175, 181, 182, 183.
Dunfermline,
Abbey of, i., 141, 144, 156, 239, 248, 252, 303, 385;
burgh of, 238, 258, 408;
ii., 400;
iv., 375.
Dunfermline, Earl of, iii., 18, 30.
Dunkeld, i., 119;
church of, 120, 134;
abbot of, 138, 139, 143;
bishopric of, 210, 218, 222, 225.
Dunlop,
John, iv., 155;
Alexander, 480.
Dunnichen, i., 116.
Dunnotter, i., 136.
Duns Law, iii., 74.
Dunsinnane, i., 91, 92, 140.
Dupin, Nicolas, iii., 313, 318, 333.
Durham, i., 203;
battle of, 308;
iii., 97.
Durham, James, iii., 359.
♦Durrisdeer, i., 91.
♦ Printed out of alphabetic order.
Durward, Alan, i., 214, 216.
Dury, John, ii., 167, 178, 179, 182.
Eadmer, i., 200, 201.
Earth-houses, i., 65‒70.
Earthenware, iii., 317;
iv., 365, 366.
Edgar, King, i., 143, 144, 148.
Edinburgh,
annexed, i., 137, 144, 151, 233, 247, 258, 276, 301, 306, 312,
317, 319, 338, 352, 354, 370, 388, 389;
ii., 35, 54, 58, 65, 66, 78, 89, 90, 91, 93, 97, 99, 100,
115, 117, 119, 124, 128, 132, 133, 135, 140, 143, 148,
151, 154, 163, 167, 179, 183, 203, 206, 213, 219, 237;
iii., 37, 41, 42‒44, 48, 49, 54, 55, 56, 67, 81, 99, 110,
120, 129, 134, 135, 147, 153, 163, 168, 171‒173, 174‒176,
180, 182, 186, 203, 206, 213, 219, 227, 236, 241, 274, 285;
iv., 44, 70, 75, 87, 97, 144, 148, 165, 174, 178, 194, 211,
222, 234, 330, 391, 405‒6;
Castle of, i., 248, 264, 274, 307, 322, 339, 349, 350, 358,
429;
ii., 101, 134, 142, 144, 149, 152, 155;
iii., 73, 159, 174, 175, 227;
University of, ii., 414‒419;
iii., 392, 393;
iv., 18, 69, 70, 74, 75, 87, 97, 102, 103, 136, 148, 156,
157, 167, 257, 263, 274, 291‒315.
Edinburgh, treaty of, ii., 100.
Edmund, i., 143.
Education, i., 184, 245, 466;
first Educational Act, 466, 467, 468;
ii., 109, 110, 397‒422;
iii., 375‒393;
iv., 324‒330.
Edward I., policy of, i., 218, 219, 255‒260, 261, 262, 263‒265,
266, 269‒271, 272, 273‒279, 283, 287.
Edward II., i., 287, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 296, 298, 299, 300.
Edward III.,
Invasions of Scotland, i., 305, 306, 307;
policy of, 309, 310, 311, 312.
Edward IV., i., 348, 349, 351.
Edward VI., ii., 75, 86, 87.
Egfrid, defeat of, i., 116.
Eglinton, Earl of, ii., 140, 229;
iii., 56, 75, 99.
Elgin, i., 139, 264, 385, 390;
ii., 251;
iii., 92, 94;
iv., 370;
Elizabeth, wife of Robert I., i., 303.
Elizabeth, Queen, ii., 92, 93, 99, 100, 145, 150, 220;
iv., 147.
Elliot, Robert, iii., 27.
Ellon, iv., 370.
Elphinstone, Bishop, i., 467;
ii., 300, 301.
Elphinstone,
Lord, iii., 19;
master of, 292.
England, policy of toward Scotland, i., 206, 214, 218, 257‒260,
261, 263‒265, 271, 273, 278, 280, 283, 287, 299, 300, 301,
305, 306, 309, 310, 322, 349, 361, 362;
ii., 54‒57, 63‒67, 76, 99‒101, 155;
iii., 179, 183, 184, 190‒193, 198, 201‒204, 206, 217‒221.
English language, i., 441, 443, 464.
English money, i., 396;
ii., 282;
one standard fixed, iii., 216.
Eocha, King, i., 136.
Episcopacy, ii., 108, 109, 157‒160, 164‒171, 177, 182‒185, 188,
210‒218;
iii., 28‒42, 44‒69;
abolished, 70‒72;
reintroduced, 122‒128;
again abolished, 180, 181, 184.
Erc, Chief, i., 116.
Eric II., King of Norway, i., 217, 259.
Errol, Earl of, i., 365, 373;
ii., 195, 196, 199, 201, 212;
iii., 19.
Erskine,
Lord Robert, i., 334;
John, of Dun, ii., 88, 89, 93, 108, 158, 185;
Rev. Ebenezer, iv., 213;
Rev. Ralph, 213;
Dr. John, 213, 214;
Thomas, Lord, 232‒234.
Ethnology, i., 38‒43;
of Scotland, 43‒47, 114, 115, 116, 118.
Etive, Loch, vitrified fort on, i., 91.
Evans, Dr. John, i., 50, 51.
Exchequer, i., 221.
Excise, difficulties connected with, iii., 217‒219;
iv., 395, 396.
Excommunication of Robert I., i., 295, 303;
form of, ii., 255, 257.
Fairfax, iii., 342.
Falasie, i., 192.
Falkirk, battle of, i., 269‒271;
iii., 228.
Falkland Castle, i., 323, 430;
ii., 213, 274.
Fast Castle, i., 324, 353.
Fasting, i., 131;
ii., 257‒260;
iii., 272, 273.
Fergus,
King, i., 120;
Chief, 116, 205.
Ferguson,
David, ii., 352;
Adam, iv., 69‒74, 152.
Fergusson, Robert, iv., 178, 179.
Feudalism, i., 161, 190, 193, 198, 199, 201, 203, 209, 211,
220‒228, 256, 260, 261, 269, 337, 371‒376, 411.
Fife, Earl of, i., 143, 204, 209, 213, 217, 225, 271, 308, 314,
317, 319, 333.
Fifeshire, i., 105, 119, 121, 136, 304;
ii., 66;
iii., 151;
iv., 142, 143, 341, 373.
Finlay, John, i., 446.
Firth of Forth, i., 23, 28, 109, 110, 115, 119.
Fisheries, i., 239, 377, 390, 391, 432;
ii., 40, 54;
iii., 301, 302, 303, 308;
iv., 400.
Flanders, Count of, i., 240, 241, 391, 392.
Fleming,
Robert, i., 283;
Malcolm, 327, 339.
Fleming, Lord, i., 345;
ii., 150.
Fletcher,
Sir John, iii., 120;
Andrew, of Saltoun, 179, 206, 255.
Flint weapons and tools, i., 48‒52.
Flodden, Battle of, i., 363‒365.
Forbes, Lord, i., 353, 354.
Forbes,
Patrick, Bishop, iii., 362;
Dr. John, 362, 363;
Professor, iv., 266, 268.
Fordoun, iii., 94.
Fordun, John, i., 463.
Forest,
free, i., 223;
forest laws, 225, 417.
Forfar,
Castle of, i., 248, 267, 288;
burgh of, 373, 387;
iv., 375.
Forfarshire, i., 89, 121, 202, 264, 378;
ii., 88;
iii., 90, 110;
iv., 373.
Forfeited estates, i., 343, 344, 347;
ii., 60;
iii., 217, 224;
iv., 336.
Forman, Andrew, Archbishop of St. Andrews, i., 428;
ii., 36.
Forres, i., 248, 372, 385.
Forrest, Thomas, martyred, ii., 58.
Forrester, Robert, martyred, ii., 58.
Four Burghs, court of, i., 234, 235.
France,
Alliance with, i., 262, 274, 275, 299, 300, 315;
French troops in Scotland, 316, 317, 330, 363;
ii., 76, 97.
Franchise, iv., 456, 460, 461‒463.
Francis II., ii., 97, 116.
Frankfort, ii., 75.
Fraser, William, Bishop of St. Andrews, i., 217, 246, 255.
Fraser,
Sir Simon, i., 275, 277, 285;
Alexander, 283;
James, 305;
Simon, 305;
Captain Simon, iv., 421.
Free Trade with England under Cromwell, iii., 112.
French refugees, ii., 189.
Fyvie, i., 50, 432;
iii., 91.
Fyvie, Lord, ii., 204;
iii., 18.
Gaelic, i., 148, 175, 183, 184, 442‒444.
Galgacus, Chief, i., 106‒109.
Galloway, i., 115, 122, 201, 203;
risings in, 205, 206, 211, 212, 272;
law of, 229, 230;
castles of, 290.
Galloway,
Lord of, i., 211, 230, 256;
Bishop of, 212;
ii., 153.
Galt, John, iv., 204.
Game laws, i., 417.
Garioch, i., 325.
Gasklune, battle of, i., 319, 320.
Geddes, Sir William, iv., 142.
Geneva, ii., 75, 89, 113, 114, 359.
Geology, iv., 268‒271.
George I., iii., 222.
Gibbs, James, iv., 402‒404.
Gibson, James, ii., 188.
Gilbert, Chief, i., 206.
Gillespie, George, iii., 87, 362.
Gillies, Dr. John, iv., 152, 153.
Gladstanes, Archbishop of St. Andrews, iii., 19.
Glammis,
Lord, i., 373;
Master of, ii., 177, 181;
iii., 19.
Glasgow,
Bishop of――Wishart, i., 266, 273, 277, 283, 294;
Turnbull, 466, 467;
Laing, 467;
Archbishop of, ii., 38, 59;
iii., 19, 35, 363;
Cathedral of i., 249.
Glasgow,
city of, i., 125, 238, 403, 408, 465;
ii., 97, 252, 400, 402, 403;
iii., 50, 69, 128, 153, 218, 228, 245, 246, 248, 254, 284,
302, 303, 319, 328, 330, 331;
iv., 348‒351, 360‒363, 370, 376, 378, 380, 383, 389, 392‒393,
395, 397‒399, 406‒409, 428;
University of, i., 466;
ii., 408‒410;
iii., 388, 390, 391, 392;
iv., 18, 19, 44, 60, 102, 260‒263, 266, 272‒275, 284, 315‒317.
Glass,
introduction of, i., 420;
Glass-making, iii., 315‒317;
iv., 363‒365.
Glencairn, Earl of, ii., 69, 88, 89, 97, 130, 133, 145, 148, 177;
iii., 120, 124.
Glencoe, iii., 191‒193.
Glenfinnan, iii., 226.
Glengarry, chief, iii., 190, 191, 226.
Glenlivet, battle of, ii., 201, 202.
Glenmore, i., 25, 215.
Godly Ballads, ii., 341‒345.
Gold ornaments, ancient, i., 79‒81.
Goodal, Walter, iv., 145.
Goodsir, John, iv., 306.
Gordon, Duke of, iii., 174, 175;
iv., 421, 454.
Gordon,
Sir Adam, i., 298, 305;
Sir Alexander, 338;
Sir John, ii., 124;
George, 124;
Sir Robert, iii., 237, 238;
Sir Alexander, 238;
Lord Gordon, 238, 239;
Robert, 247;
George, 267, 268;
Dr., iv., 309;
Sir John W., 446.
Gourlay, Norman, burned, ii., 54.
Gow,
Neil, iv., 418, 420;
Nathaniel, 421, 422.
Gowrie, Earl of, ii., 177, 179, 180, 181, 218, 219.
Gowrie, Carse of, i., 28.
Graham,
Sir John, i., 271;
David de, 277;
Sir Robert, 327, 334, 335, 336, 337;
William, iii., 313;
John of Claverhouse, 153;
George F., iv., 416.
Grammar Schools, i., 465, 466;
ii., 399‒405;
iii., 380‒388;
iv., 327.
Grant, James, iv., 208.
Gray, Lord, iii., 238.
Gray, David, iv., 195.
Greenock, i., 409;
iii., 303;
iv., 394.
Gregory,
James, iii., 371, 372;
David, 372, 373;
Dr. John, iv., 300, 302;
Dr. James, 302.
Greyfriars Church, iii., 49.
Greyfriars Churchyard, iii., 61, 154.
Grub, Dr. George, iv., 164.
Gruoch, i., 139, 140.
Guilds, laws of, i., 235‒236, 404.
Guinea, iii., 330.
Guise, House of, ii., 57, 92, 93, 116, 124, 125.
Grum John, iv., 422.
Guthrie,
James, iii., 123, 326;
William, iv., 150;
Dr. Thomas, 222.
Hackston, of Rathillet, iii., 151, 153, 156.
Haco, i., 215, 216.
Haddington, i., 307, 386, 387, 465;
ii., 69, 303, 315;
iv., 370.
Haddington, Earl of, iv., 335.
Haddingtonshire, i., 271;
iv., 343, 373.
Hailes, Lord, iv., 146, 151, 152.
Halidon Hill, battle of, i., 306.
Hall, Sir John, i., 336.
Hamilton,
Lord, i., 345, 346;
Lord Claud, ii., 150, 155, 208;
Marquis of, iii., 63, 64, 65, 67, 70, 71, 74;
Duke of, 98, 99, 174, 175, 177, 179, 181, 193, 207, 211.
Hamilton, Patrick, martyred, ii., 49, 50.
Hamilton,
of Bothwellhaugh, ii., 152;
John, Archbishop of St. Andrews, 71, 77, 87, 96, 138, 150, 154,
406;
Sir Thomas, of Monkland, iii., 18;
James, Master of Paisley, 19;
Sir Robert, 154;
William, iv., 167;
William, of Bangour, 170;
Sir William, his writings, 102‒135.
Hamilton town, iii., 153;
iv., 295, 296.
Harlaw, battle of, i., 324‒326, 450.
Harold, King, i., 194.
Harold, Earl of Orkney, i., 207, 208.
Harrington, James, iii., 450.
Hastings,
John, i., 256, 259, 260;
Henry de, 204.
Hawick, iv., 369, 370, 371.
Hawley, General, iii., 228, 229.
Hay,
Gilbert, of Errol, i., 283;
Hugh, 283, 284;
Alexander, iii., 19;
Sir James, 19.
Hebrides, i., 22, 23, 118, 134, 144, 156, 215, 217, 329, 346,
348, 355, 356, 357;
ii., 60;
iii., 242, 243.
Henderson,
James, ii., 238;
Alexander, iii., 52, 55, 60, 61, 70, 87, 88, 362.
Henry, the minstrel, i., 458‒462.
Henry I., i., 195, 202.
Henry II., i., 205, 206.
Henry III., i., 214.
Henry IV., i., 322, 324.
Henry VI., i., 345.
Henry VII., i., 353, 358, 361, 362.
Henry VIII., i., 362, 363;
ii., 37, 51, 54‒56, 57, 61, 63‒67, 69, 76.
Henry II. of France, ii., 97.
Henry, Dr. Robert, iv., 151.
Henryson,
Robert, i., 376, 462, 463;
Dr. Edward, ii., 383.
Hepburn,
William, i., 353;
Patrick, Lord Hailes, 353;
John, ii., 36, 406.
Hereditary jurisdiction, i., 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 228, 237,
238, 372, 411, 424‒426;
iii., 213, 225, 226.
Heresy, i., 37, 327, 332;
ii., 18, 19, 49, 53, 58‒60, 68‒70, 74, 75, 78, 81, 91.
Hermitage Castle, i., 309.
Herries, Ralph, i., 285.
Herries, Lord, ii., 150.
Hertford, Earl of, ii., 65‒67.
Hexham, i., 253, 254, 268.
High Commission, Courts of, iii., 34, 132, 133.
Highlands, i., 23‒25, 27, 29, 206‒208, 329, 348, 355‒357;
ii., 226, 227, 290;
iii., 237‒239, 241‒244;
iv., 353, 354.
Hill, Dr. George, iv., 219, 470.
Hill forts, i., 88‒92.
Historic Interpretation, i., 33‒37.
Historical conditions, i., 19, 45, 46, 85, 88, 101, 102, 113,
119, 120, 121, 135, 136, _et seq._, 227, 228, 255‒265;
ii., 1, 2, _et seq._, 100, 103, 220;
iii., 17‒20, 176, 177, 214, 215.
History of Scottish philosophy, iv., 17‒142.
Hogarth, George, iv., ♦422, 423, 427, 429.
♦ page numbers supplied by transcriber
Hogg, James, iii., 344;
iv., 189‒191.
Holland, John, iii., 328.
Holyrood Abbey, i., 221, 222, 249, 338;
Palace of, ii., 117, 130, 133, 136, 142, 179, 206, 209, 215,
273, 275, 423;
iii., 396;
Chapel of, ii., 119, 138;
iii., 37, 51, 169, 172.
Home, Lord, i., 364;
ii., 199, 224.
Home, John, iv., 174.
Homeldon Hill, battle of, i., 323.
Homil, James, i., 348, 350.
Hope, Sir Thomas, iii., 84, 367.
Howard, Lord, i., 363.
Hume, Lord, ii., 143, 145, 148.
Hume,
Alexander, ii., 377, 378;
Alexander, 402, 403;
Sir Patrick, iii., 179;
David,
his philosophical writings, iv., 25‒44;
history, 146‒148.
Huntingdon, Earl of, i., 204.
Hunter,
Dr. Henry, iv., 217, 218;
Dr. William, 320, 321;
Dr. John, 321‒323.
Huntly,
Earl of, i., 342, 350, 354, 356, 357, 358, 364;
ii., 63, 64, 78, 116, 123, 124, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139,
150, 152, 155, 192, 195, 196, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206,
212;
Marquis of, iii., 68, 74, 90, 94, 104, 222.
Hurry, General, iii., 93, 94.
Icolmkill, statutes of, iii., 242, 243.
Inchaffary, Abbot of, i., 292.
Inchcolm, ruins of monastery, i., 163.
Inchkeith, i., 23.
Inchmahome, i., 249.
Incontinence, i., 155, 244, 245;
ii., 41.
India-rubber manufactures, iv., 391, 392, 393.
Indulf, King, i., 137.
Independents, iii., 88, 96, 97.
Influence of surrounding nature upon the Mind, i., 19, 20, 31‒33,
66;
ii., 427.
Innermaith, Lord, ii., 145, 146.
Innes,
Thomas, iv., 145;
Cosmo, 162.
Invercharron, iii., 105, 106.
Inveresk, iv., 418.
Inverkeithing, i., 307, 387;
iii., 301.
Inverlochy, battle of, iii., 92.
Inverness, i., 83, 91, 127, 151, 207, 233, 240, 306, 329, 356,
385, 390, 404;
ii., 226, 227;
iii., 94, 225, 226, 227, 228, 288, 302;
iv., 354, 373, 374.
Inverurie, i., 278‒287;
iii., 74.
Iona, i., 127‒134, 156, 175, 181, 182.
Ireland, 21, 48, 70, 77, 78, 126, 127, 133, 161, 174, 181, 211,
285, 291, 357;
iii., 65, 85, 90, 297, 302, 303.
Irish,
early writings, i., 117, 150;
note illuminated manuscripts, 172, 173.
Iron works and manufactures, iv., 345‒352.
Irvine, i., 267, 391, 434;
iii., 134.
Irvine, Sir Alexander, i., 328.
Irving, Dr., ii., 367;
iv., 163.
Isles, lordship of forfeited, i., 348, 355.
Isabella, daughter of Earl David, i., 204, 256.
Jack, Thomas, ii., 402.
Jacobites, iii., 175, 176, 181‒183, 190, 193, 195, 196, 201,
205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 213, 218, 219, 220, 222‒224,
226‒230.
Jacobite Songs, iii., 346‒353.
James I., reign of, i., 226‒337.
James II., reign of, i., 338‒344.
James III., reign of, i., 344‒352.
James IV., reign of, i., 353‒365.
James V., reign of, ii., 38‒39, 49‒62.
James VI., reign of, ii., 169‒220;
iii., 17‒42.
James VII., policy of, iii., 163‒172.
James VIII., Pretender, iii., 223.
Jamesone, George, painter, iii., 393‒396.
Jamieson, Dr., i., 280, 461.
Jedburgh, 238, 356, 383, 426;
ii., 292;
iii., 24, 27, 380;
iv., 371;
castle of, i., 248, 264, 324;
abbey of, 248;
ii., 66.
Jeffrey, Lord, iv., 234‒236.
Jesuits, ii., 82‒84, 192, 195.
Joanna, Queen of David II., i., 302, 306, 307, 310.
John, King of England, i., 208, 209, 210.
Johnstone,
of Johnstone, ii., 186, 224;
Archibald, of Warriston, iii., 60, 61, 70, 87, 121, 123;
Dr., 380;
Mrs., iv., 204, 205.
Justiciary, i., 214, 222, 330, 386, 424.
Jury trial, i., 221, 230, 371.
Justice of the Peace, iii., 248, 249, 294.
Kay, John, iv., 366.
Kells, Book of, illuminated manuscripts, i., 172, 173.
Keith, iii., 244.
Keith,
Sir Robert, i., 292, 293, 305, 367;
Sir William, of Inverugy, ii., 228;
Dr. William, iv., 319.
Kelso, i., 238, 344, 384;
iv., 369;
Abbey of, i., 216, 249, 250, 252‒254, 432;
ii., 66.
Kennedy,
Bishop of St. Andrews, i., 340, 345;
Walter, ii., 309;
Quintin, 349, 352, 353.
Kennedy, Lord, i., 360;
ii., 309.
Kenneth I., M‘Alpin, i., 120, 121, 136.
Kenneth II., i., 138.
Kenneth, M‘Duff, i., 138.
Ker,
George, ii., 195, 196;
Mark, 224;
Robert, iii., 19;
Dr. David, iv., 319.
Kilconcath, William, i., 246.
Kildelith, i., 246.
Kildrummy Castle, i., 247, 264, 276, 284, 285, 306, 307.
Killiecrankie, Battle of, iii., 181‒183.
Kilmarnock, i., 409;
iii., 297;
iv., 369, 371, 372.
Kilpatrick, West, i., 110.
Kilsyth, battle of, iii., 95.
Kincardineshire, i., 136, 137, 378.
Kinghorn, i., 217, 258.
Kinghorn, Earl of, iii., 19.
Kirk-of-Field, ii., 135.
Kirkcaldy, iii., 301, 303;
iv., 375.
Kirkcaldy, Sir William, of Grange, ii., 71, 149, 152, 153, 155,
156.
Kirkpatrick, i., 282.
Knapdale, i., 348.
Knox,
John, ii., 69, 72, 73, 74, 75, 87‒89, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99,
100, 104, 118, 119, 120, 123, 124‒127, 130, 134, 147, 153,
154, 159, 160‒165;
his writings, 345‒349, 352‒354, 360‒364;
Andrew, minister of Paisley, 195;
Bishop of the Isles, iii., 242, 243;
Dr., iv., 309.
Laing, David, ii., 300, 305, 331, 340, 343, 346;
iv., 163.
Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, i., 274, 281, 283, 285.
Lanark, i., 356, 387;
ii., 181;
iii., 160;
iv., 373.
Lanarkshire, i., 29, 81, 114, 271, 279;
iii., 134;
iv., 341, 342, 343, 344, 347, 378, 381, 388.
Land, in connection with the tribe, and organisation of society,
i., 100, 146‒150, 202, 223‒228, 250‒254, 371‒376, 377‒380,
380‒382, 421, 422;
ii., 39, 40, 110, 266, 297;
iii., 305;
iv., 336‒339.
Langside, battle of, ii., 150.
Largs, battle of, i., 216.
Latin, i., 183, 245, 463, 464;
ii., 5, 6, 379, 380.
Laud, Archbishop, iii., 45, 63, 66.
Lauder Bridge, i., 350.
Lauder, Sir Thomas D., iv., 206.
Lauderdale, Earl of, iii., 14, 129, 137, 142, 348.
Laws, early, i., 151‒153, 221, 222, 228‒231, 370, 371.
Lawson, James, ii., 162, 167, 184, 421.
Le Crocke, ii., 161.
Leibnitz, theory of monads, iii., 432‒434;
iv., 255, 256.
Leighton, Bishop, iii., 141, 363‒364.
Leith, i., 316, 333, 346, 358, 359, 419;
ii., 66, 89, 97, 98, 99, 100, 117, 132, 158, 275, 291, 294;
iii., 74, 84, 300, 301, 303, 309, 313, 331, 332;
iv., 357, 369.
Lennox,
Earl of, i., 217, 283, 285, 327, 328, 354, 364, 365;
ii., 37, 128, 131, 139, 152, 154, 155;
Duke of, iii., 54.
Lennox, Esme Stewart, Duke of, ii., 175, 176, 177, 179.
Lesley, Norman, ii., 71.
Leslie,
General Alexander, iii., 73, 76, 79, 338;
General David, 95, 338;
Sir John, iv., 263‒265.
Lesly, John, ii., 116.
Lesmahagow sanctuary, i., 232.
Leven, Earl of, iii., 175.
Lewis, island, i., 22, 357.
Leyden, University of, iv., 287, 292, 293, 304.
Leyden, John, ii., 319;
iv., 184, 185.
Liddel, Dr. Duncan, ii., 393, 394.
Lindisfarne, i., 126.
Lindores, i., 323.
Lindsay,
Alexander, i., 267, 277;
Sir James, 317;
Sir William, 321, 322;
David, Lord of Crawford, 434;
David, ii., 158, 167, 188.
Lindsay, Lord, ii., 132, 134, 143, 145, 148, 155, 175, 181, 206,
207.
Linlithgow, i., 258, 264, 274, 276, 290, 294, 307, 326, 345, 358,
387, 390;
ii., 120, 152, 207, 349, 400;
iii., 29, 80, 54;
iv., 370.
Linlithgow, Palace of, i., 333, 360, 377, 429, 430, 470;
ii., 62.
Linlithgow, Earl of, iii., 19.
Linlithgowshire, i., 29, 119;
iv., 341, 342, 343, 373.
Lismore, Book of the Dean of, i., 442.
Literature,
early, i., 181‒185, 215‒247, 441‒464;
Poetry, ii., 301‒315, 331‒341, 370‒380;
Ballad, 341‒345;
Historical and various, 315‒330, 345‒364, 364‒370, 380‒385,
393‒396;
Ballad and Jacobite Song, iii., 336‒355;
Historical and various, 356‒368;
Historical, iv., 143‒154, 154‒164;
Poetry, 165‒182, 183‒198;
Fiction, 199‒212;
Religious, 213‒228;
Miscellaneous, 228‒254.
Liturgy, iii., 44, 46‒50, 51‒58, 62, 63.
Livingston,
Sir Alexander, i., 338, 339, 340;
John of Livingston, 389, 390;
Sir William, iii., 19.
Livingston, Lord, i., 345;
ii., 150.
Livingstone, Dr. David, iv., 250.
Lochaber, i., 329, 356;
iii., 181.
Lochiel, chief of the clan Cameron, i., 356;
iii., 181, 226.
Lochindorb Castle, i., 247, 276.
Lochleven, i., 140;
ii., 144, 145, 147, 150.
Lochmaben,
Castle, i., 281;
town of, 372, 468.
Locke, John, writings of, iii., 452‒462;
iv., 17, 18, 27.
Lockhart,
Colonel, iii., 113;
Sir George, 148, 233;
Sir George of Carnwath, 208, 209, 210, 214;
John G., iv., 207, 208.
Logan, John, iv., 177, 178.
Logic, iii., 437‒439;
iv., 130‒133.
Logie, Margaret, i., 310.
Lomond, Loch, i., 29.
London, i., 271, 279, 280, 285;
ii., 99, 220;
iii., 54, 82, 86, 116, 118, 173, 179, 183, 198, 229, 296;
iv., 167, 173, 245.
Long Parliament, iii., 80, 84, 86, 87, 89, 96, 97.
Lord of the Isles, i., 285, 292, 312, 324, 325, 329, 330, 341,
348, 355.
Lords of the Articles, i., 369, 370;
iii., 37, 38, 129, 130, 180, 183, 184.
Lords of the Congregation, ii., 89, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100.
Lorne,
Lord of, i., 284, 312;
black knight of, 338; ii., 89.
Lothian, i., 47, 116, 138, 185, 189.
Lothian, Earl of, iii., 18, 188, 189, 190.
Loudon, Lord, iii., 55, 57, 58, 60, 61.
Loudon Hill, battle of, i., 286, 287.
Lowe, Dr. Peter, ii., 393.
Lovat, Lord, i., 386.
Lubeck, i., 268.
Lude Hill, iii., 181.
Lulach, i., 140.
Lumphanan, battle of, i., 140.
Luther, ii., 17, 32‒34, 49.
Lyndsay, Sir David, ii., 42, 331‒340.
M‘Ancrum, Donald B., ii., 229.
M‘Angus, William, iii., 237.
Macbeth, i., 139, 140, 148.
M‘Cowane, Donald C., ii., 229.
M‘Crie, Dr. Thomas, iv., 154.
M‘Culloch, Horatio, iv., 449.
Macdonald, Lord, i., 163.
Macdonald,
Sir Donald, iii., 190;
Chief of Glencoe, 191‒192;
of Boisdale, Glengarry, Keppoch, 191, 226;
Donald Gorm of Sleat, Donald of Ylanterim, Captain of
Clanranald, Angus of Dunivaig, 242, 243.
Macdonald, Alaster, iii., 90.
Macduff, i., 261, 271.
Macgill, James, ii., 146, 158, 274.
MacGregors,
clan of, iii., 243;
Patrick Roy, 244.
MacHeth, i., 205, 207, 209.
Mackay, ii., 227;
Donald, iii., 237, 238;
Dr. Charles, iv., 196;
Angus, 425.
Mackay, General, iii., 176, 181‒183.
Mackenzie,
Kenneth, iii., 19;
Sir George, 144, 146, 147, 234, 368;
Henry, iv., 199, 200.
Mackinnons, i., 117, note;
Rory, iii., 242.
Mackintosh,
of Borlum, iii., 224;
Sir James, iv., 97‒101;
Robert, 421.
Macknight, Dr. James, iv., 216, 471.
Maclean of Lochbuy, i., 357;
Lauchlan, iii., 242;
Hector of Duart, 242;
Lauchlan of Lochbuy, 242.
Macleod,
of Lewis, i., 357;
Rory, of Harris, iii., 242;
Dr. Norman, iv., 223, 224.
MacNeil of Barra, i., 357.
Macpherson, James, iv., 175, 176.
Macquharrie, Gellespie, iii., 242.
M‘Sevir, Farquhar, ii., 229.
MacWilliam, i., 207, 208, 209.
Magi, i., 128, 129.
Magnus VI., King of Norway, i., 216.
Maid of Norway, i., 217, 218, 219.
Mair, John, ii., 51, 315, 316.
Maitland,
Sir Richard, i., 445;
ii., 370, 371;
William, 99, 100, 120, 121, 135, 141, 152, 155, 156, 157.
Malcolm I., reign of, i., 137.
Malcolm II., reign of, i., 138, 139.
Malcolm III., reign of, i., 140‒143.
Malcolm IV., reign of, i., 204, 205.
Malise, Earl of Strathern, i., 203.
Mallet, David, iv., 169.
Man, Isle of, i., 216, 301.
Manufactures,
Textile, woollen, i., 100, 133, 150, 162, 241, 390, 392, 406,
407;
ii., 294;
iii., 306‒310;
iv., 366, 369‒372;
linen, iii., 311‒313;
iv., 372‒376, 377;
jute, 375‒377;
cotton, 377‒379, 383;
thread, 379‒380;
silk, 380;
mixed fabrics, 380, 381.
Mar,
Earl of, i., 208, 214, 216, 217, 304, 305, 312, 325, 334, 348,
349;
ii., 139, 145, 148;
elected Regent, 155, 177, 184;
iii., 19;
John, Secretary of State, 210;
his rising, 222‒224.
March, Earl of, i., 255, 270, 305, 321, 322, 328, 333, 334.
Marchmont, Earl of, iii., 262.
Margaret,
Queen of Malcolm III., i., 141, 143, 155‒157;
Queen of James III., 346, 351;
Queen of James IV., 360‒362;
ii., 36, 37.
Marischal, Earl, i., 358;
ii., 86, 419;
iii., 19, 222.
Marriage, i., 99, 153‒156, 428;
ii., 229, 261‒266;
iii., 264, 278‒281.
Mathematical Science, progress of, ii., 386‒391;
iii., 371‒374, 403;
iv., 254‒260.
Marston Moor, battle of, iii., 95.
Mary of Gueldres, Queen of James II., i., 340, 344, 345.
Mary of Guise, Queen of James V., ii., 57, 86, 87, 90, 91, 93,
95, 97, 98, 101.
Mary,
Queen of Scotland, ii., 62, 63, 79;
reign of, 116‒147;
imprisonment of, 144;
escape, flight to England, 150;
her execution, 189, 190.
Mary, Queen of England, ii., 87, 92.
Maxwell,
Lord, i., 345;
ii., 186, 187, 224;
Master of, 225;
iii., 27.
Maybole, ii., 353.
Mechanical Science, i., 408;
ii., 384‒386;
progress of, iv., 271‒285.
Medical Science,
state of, i., 414, 415;
ii., 392‒394;
iii., 368‒371;
progress of, iv., 286‒323.
Melrose, Monastery of, i., 125, 126, 246, 254, 302, 303, 432,
438;
ii., 66.
Melville,
James, ii., 71;
Sir James, 141, 142;
Andrew, 167, 182, 201, 202, 213, 214, 409, 410, 412;
iii., 32, 33;
Sir Robert, iii., 19.
Melville, Lord, iii., 179, 183, 186.
♦Menteith, Earl of, i., 213, 214, 217, 218, 263, 383, 308, 317.
♦ “Monteith” replaced with “Menteith”;
Printed out of alphabetic order.
Menteith, Sir John, i., 278, 279.
Metaphysics, iii., 399‒401, 405, 407‒414, 418‒452, 432‒434, 468,
469, 470;
iv., 126‒130, 136‒139.
Methven,
Bruce defeated at, i., 284;
lands of, 377.
Middleton, Earl, Royal Commissioner, iii., 121‒123, 125‒129.
Military service under the feudal organisation, i., 409‒412.
Mill,
Walter, executed for heresy, ii., 91;
John S., iv., 135;
James, 155.
Miller, Hugh, iv., 238‒240, 271.
Mining, ii., 282‒286;
iii., 291‒294;
iv., 340‒345.
Mitchell,
James, 135, 147, 148;
Dr. Charles, iv., 318.
Moir,
Dr. James, i., 461;
David, iv., 208.
Monk, General, iii., 110, 116.
Monmouth, Duke of, iii., 153, 154, 167.
Monro,
John, iv., 292;
Alexander, professor, 292‒294;
Alexander, 304‒305;
Alexander, 305‒306.
Montgomery,
Sir John, i., 321;
Sir Hugh, 449;
Sir Matthew, ii., 229;
Alexander, poems of, 375‒377;
Sir James, iii., 179, 180.
Montgomery, Lord, i., 345.
Montrose, i., 276, 387, 391;
ii., 69, 182, 217;
iii., 301, 303, 323;
iv., 369, 375, 424.
Montrose,
Earl of, iii., 18, 74;
Marquis of, 90‒95, 105, 106, 338, 339.
Moral philosophy, iii., 417, 418, 424‒430, 448, 451, 452,
466‒467;
iv., 19‒24, 38‒40, 45‒50, 68, 69, 71‒74, 81, 82, 94‒96,
98‒101.
Moray,
Sir Andrew, i., 266, 267, 268;
Sir Andrew of Bothwell, 306, 307, 378;
Thomas, 379.
Moray,
Earl of, Randolph, i., 283, 290, 292, 296, 298, 299, 300, 302,
304, 305, 308, 317, 360;
James Stewart, Earl of, ii., 123, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, 136;
elected Regent, 148‒152.
Morken, King, i., 124, 125.
Morton,
Earl of, ii., 132, 133, 134, 142, 143, 145, 147, 151;
elected Regent, 155, 158, 165, 169, 175, 176.
Mouat, Bernard, i., 285.
Mowbray, 291, 294.
Mure, William, iv., 163, 164.
Murray,
Lord George, iii., 227, 228;
Mungo, 227;
Gideon, 21.
Music, i., 245, 468, 469;
ii., 421‒422;
iii., 386‒388;
iv., 416‒428.
Musselburgh, ii., 144;
iii., 300.
Nairn, i., 372, 386;
castle of, 248.
Napier, John, inventor of logarithms, ii., 386‒391.
Narne, Duncan, ii., 415.
Nasmyth, iv., 436.
Navigation, teaching of, iii., 386.
Navy, under James IV., i., 363.
Negative Confession, ii., 176.
Ness, Loch of, i., 25.
Newbattle, i., 239, 434, 435.
Newbattle, Lord, iii., 18.
Newcastle, i., 318;
ii., 75, 184;
iii., 33, 79, 80, 97.
Nithsdale, Earl of, iii., 222.
Nithsdale, i., 26, 272.
Norham,
meetings at, i., 255, 256, 258;
castle of, 209, 300, 359, 363.
Normans, i., 189‒194, 196, 197, 101‒103.
Norman Conquest, i., 141, 197, 198.
Norsemen, i., 47, 118, 120, 134, 136, 214‒217.
Northallerton, battle of, i., 203, 204.
Northampton, Treaty of, i., 300, 301.
Northumberland, i., 142, 143, 262, 268, 295, 300, 318.
Northumbria, i., 116, 138, 441.
Norway, 21, 144, 215, 216, 217, 219.
Oaths associated with feudalism, i., 258, 264, 281, 372, 373.
Ochiltree, Lord, ii., 146, 275;
iii., 19, 235, 236.
Odistown, i., 303.
Ogham, writing, i., 174, 175.
Ogilvie, Sir Walter, i., 319, 320.
Oliphant, Sir William, i., 277, 278.
Oliphant, Lord, i., 373;
ii., 228.
Orkney Isles, i., 22, 47, 53, 58‒61, 138, 139, 158, 215, 217,
219, 346;
ii., 60;
iii., 302;
iv., 372, 373.
Orkney, Earl of, i., 138, 139, 207, 208;
iii., 239‒241.
Ormiegill, i., 55.
Ormiston, Laird of, ii., 69.
Ormond, Earl of, i., 343, 379.
Ossian, Ossianic poems, i., 442‒444;
iv., 175, 176.
Otterburn, battle of, i., 318, 449.
Otterburne, Thomas, i., 468.
Oxford, i., 451, 452;
iii., 372, 373, 374;
iv., 102, 134.
Pae, David P., iv., 208, 209.
Painting, i., 470;
ii., 423, 424;
iii., 393‒396;
iv., 428‒454.
Paisley, i., 83, 151, 238, 409;
ii., 195;
iii., 386;
iv., 182, 183, 205, 206, 214, 372, 377, 378, 380;
Abbey of, i., 249, 324, 355.
Paper, manufacture of, ii., 2;
iii., 317‒319;
iv., 384‒389.
Parliament,
origin and constitution of, i., 366‒370;
Meetings of, 295, 309, 310, 311, 313‒315, 316, 320, 327, 328,
329, 330, 334, 340, 343, 347, 349, 351, 353, 354, 357;
ii., 38, 49, 60, 65, 68, 91, 102, 126, 139, 149, 183, 193,
213;
iii., 30, 33, 37, 41, 44, 77, 81, 84, 97, 99, 103, 121‒128,
129, 137, 140, 142, 158‒160, 164‒167, 168, 180, 183, 193,
202, 203, 205, 206‒208, 210‒215.
Parliament of the United Kingdom, introduced changes in Scotland,
iii., 217‒218, 220.
Paterson,
Abraham, ii., 284;
Robert, 289;
William, iii., 196, 199.
Patronage, ii., 107, 172;
iii., 103, 104, 184;
iv., 467‒473 _et seq._
Peasantry,
in Normandy, i., 191, 193;
in Germany, ii., 16, 17.
Pedro de Ayala, i., 360.
Peebles, i., 282, 356, 384, 402;
ii., 260;
iii., 274, 290, 307, 380;
iv., 246, 369.
Peers, Scottish representative, iii., 214.
Pembroke, Earl of, i., 283, 284, 286, 287.
Pennington, Joseph, iii., 21.
Pentland Firth, i., 22.
Pentland, battle of, iii., 134.
Percy,
Henry, i., 266;
Sir Henry, Sir Ralph, 318, 449.
Perkin Warbeck, i., 357‒359.
Persecution, ii., 49, 50, 53, 54, 58, 68‒70, 91;
iii., 130‒135, 140, 144‒154, _et seq._
Perth, i., 119, 151, 205, 208, 233, 258, 264, 276, 278, 279, 283,
290, 307, 311, 320, 327, 333, 335, 369, 386, 387, 391, 433;
ii., 69, 93, 94, 96, 179, 214;
iii., 39‒41, 90, 193, 194, 222, 223, 226;
iv., 196, 354, 373.
Perth, Earl of, iii., 171, 172.
Peterhead, iii., 223, 301, 302;
iv., 370, 374.
Philip IV., of France, i., 262, 271.
Phillip, John, iv., 450, 451.
Philiphaugh, battle of, iii., 95, 338.
Philosophy, ii., 28‒30, 220;
outline of European in the seventeenth century, and early part
of the eighteenth, iii., 398‒471;
Scottish, iv., 17‒142.
Physical Science, progress of, iv., 255‒271.
Picts, i., 112, 114, 115, 116, 119, 120, 127, 128.
Pinkerton, John, iv., 153, 154.
Pinkie, battle of, ii., 76.
Pitcairn,
Dr. Archibald, iii., 371;
Robert, iv., 163.
Plantations, nonconformists banished to, iii., 167, 168, 223.
Pont, Robert, ii., 158, 184, 382, 383.
Poor Laws, ii., 238, 239, 267;
iii., 248‒254.
Population, i., 413;
iv., 214, 495.
Postal communication, iii., 296‒296;
iv., ♦352, 356.
♦ Page numbers supplied by transcriber.
Prehistoric period,
Stone Age, i., 36, 47‒71;
stone weapons and tools, 48‒53;
modes of disposing of the dead, chambered cairns, cremation,
53‒65;
earth-houses, 65‒70;
primitive boats, 70;
Bronze Age, 71‒74, 74‒96;
bronze weapons and implements, 74‒79;
ornaments, 79‒81;
traces of dwellings, 81‒83;
crannogs, 84‒87;
hill forts, 88‒92;
cairn, and urn interment, 92‒96;
summary, 96‒104.
Prelacy, iii., 177.
Presbyterianism, ii., 166‒175, 193‒194;
iii., 68‒72, 184‒185.
Press, censorship of, ii., 84, 277, 278.
Preston, battle of, iii., 227.
Primrose, Sir Archibald, iii., 120.
Pringle, Charles, iii., 236, 237.
Printing,
introduction of, ii., 2, 25‒27, 299‒303;
development of, iv., 389‒391.
Privy Council, ii., 223, 225, 229, 248, 273, 275, 279, 281, 283,
288, 403;
iii., 18‒20, 24, 26, 28, 30, 47, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59,
62, 67, 123, 124, 128, 131, 133, 134, 136, 142, 146, 147,
148, 163, 171, 182, 192, 195.
Protestantism, history of in Scotland, ii., 149‒218.
Protests, iii., 59, 65, 67.
Protesters, iii., 109, 110, 111.
Provincial councils of the Roman Catholic clergy, i., 212, 213;
ii., 41, 42, 76, 77, 78.
Psalms, ii., 114, 342, 422.
Psalmody, iv., 426‒427.
Psychical faculties, i., 34, 35.
Psychological phenomenon, ii., 439, 441.
Psychology, ii., 30;
iii., 414‒417, 422‒430, 435, 436, 438‒444, 453‒460, 470;
iv., 20, 27‒39, 61‒68, 77‒82, 88‒96, 108‒126.
Quakers, iii., 114, 115, 256‒259.
Quarries, iv., 406, 411, 412.
Queensberry, Duke of, iii., 164, 202, 205, 210.
Quoyness, i., 59.
Raban, Edward, iii., 363.
Raeburn, Sir Henry, iv., 436‒439.
Raid of Ruthven, ii., 179‒181.
Ramorgny, Sir John, i., 322.
Ramsay,
John, i., 460;
Allan, ii., 305;
his writings, iv., 165, 166;
Allan, painter, 429‒431.
Randolph, Thomas, i., 283, 284.
Ratisbon, ii., 351.
Reader, office of, ii., 108, 174.
Reeves, Dr., i., 127, 129, 181.
Reformation,
rise of, ii., 16‒31;
eras of, 32, 85, 86;
history of, in Scotland, 38‒54, 58‒60, 67‒103, 104, 105, 149.
Reformed Church, organisation of, ii., 104‒115, 121, 122,
161‒175.
Regalities, i., 225, 226, 373, 374, 425, 426;
iii., 225.
Regality burghs, i., 234, 237, 238.
Reid,
Dr. Thomas, writings, iv., 161‒169;
General, 427, 428.
Religion,
prehistoric in Scotland, i., 58, 63, 99;
primitive, ii., 426, 428.
Renwick, James, iii., 155, 171.
Representatives of Scotland in the United Parliament, iii., 214.
Rescissory Act, iii., 122.
Resolutioners, iii., 109, 111.
Reuchlin, ii., 17, 18.
Revenue, i., 220, 221, 391.
Revocation Act of Charles I., iii., 43‒45.
Ricco, ii., 131, 132, 133, 134.
Richard, I., i., 206.
Riderch, King, i., 125.
Ripon, iii., 80, 81.
Roads, i., 256, 413;
iii., 225, 294‒296;
iv., 352‒355.
Robert I., reign of, i., 283‒303.
Robert II., reign of, i., 313‒319.
Robert III., reign of, i., 319‒324.
Robert, Prior of Scone, i., 201.
Robertson,
William, iv., 148‒150;
Joseph, 162, 163;
E. W., 163;
George C., 139‒142;
James S., 425;
Andrew, 439.
Robin Hood, i., 451.
Rollo, a Norman hero, i., 190, 191.
Rollock,
Robert, ii., 380, 381, 415, 416;
Hercules, 402.
Roman Catholic Church, ii., 3‒14;
Power of, 14‒20;
state of the clergy, 20‒23, 40‒43, 51‒77, 78, 328, 329.
Roman invasion, i., 104‒112.
Romanised tribes, i., 112, 113.
Rome, i., 45, 122, 129, 140, 341, 354, 355;
ii., 5, 20, 33, 58, 82, 103, 434, 435, 438.
Roslin, battle of, i., 275.
Ross, Earl of, i., 209, 211, 217, 264, 306, 312, 324, 325, 326,
340, 341, 348.
Ross, Lord, iii., 179.
Ross,
Alexander, iv., 170, 171;
William, 425.
Rothes, Earl of, ii., 130, 139, 150;
iii., 56, 60, 61, 120, 129, 148, 156, 165.
Rothesay, Duke of, i., 320, 321, 322, 323.
Rowll, i., 463.
Roxburgh, i., 231, 232, 245;
Castle of, 248, 264, 290, 305, 364, 383.
Roxburgh, Earl of, iii., 49, 57.
Royal Burghs, i., 233‒237, 382‒387, 397‒408.
Runic Inscriptions, i., 59, 175.
Russell, Dr. William, iv., 152.
Rutherford, Samuel, iii., 359‒362.
Rutherglen, i., 386, 409;
iii., 152.
Ruthven,
Lord, ii., 132, 133, 134, 135, 145, 158;
Master of, 219.
Ruthwell, i., 175.
Sadler, Sir Ralph, ii., 57, 65.
St. Adamnan, his life of St. Columba, i., 126, 181‒183.
St. Andrews, i., 137, 148, 200, 201, 238, 239, 277, 322, 332,
367, 387, 408, 413;
ii., 49, 66, 69, 70, 91, 96, 120, 136, 153, 199;
iii., 38, 151;
Castle of, i., 322;
ii., 49, 70, 71, 72, 73‒75;
Cathedral of, i., 249;
Bishop of, 137, 200, 209, 217, 255, 271, 281, 283, 285, 304,
340, 345, 353, 355, 360;
ii., 36, 58, 71, 77, 78, 90, 138, 154, 159, 182, 271, 380;
iii., 19, 63, 119, 124, 129, 131, 135, 147, 151;
University of, i., 466;
ii., 405‒408, 410‒413;
iii., 390, 392, 393;
iv., 136, 178, 219, 220, 224.
St. Bartholomew, massacre of, ii., 160, 161.
St. Bridget, i., 131.
St. Columba, i., 126‒131, 132‒135, 136.
St. Cuthbert, i., 125, 126.
St. Duthac, i., 436, 438.
St. Fergus, i., 439.
St. Fillan, relics of, i., 180, 439.
St. Finnian, i., 127.
St. Giles, i., 430, 431;
ii., 239.
St. Kentigern, i., 124, 125.
St. Maclou, i., 431.
St. Monance, i., 430.
St. Nicholas, i., 431;
ii., 239, 240.
St. Ninian, i., 122, 123;
shrine of, 48.
St. Regulus, i., 148.
St. Serf, monastery of, i., 455.
St. Servanus, i., 407.
Sandlands, John, i., 358.
Salt, export of, ii., 288, 289.
Sang Schools, early, i., 245, 468;
ii., 421, 422.
Sanquhar, Declaration proclaimed at, iii., 155.
Sauchie Burn, battle of, i., 352.
Saxons, i., 47, 112, 115, 116, 119, 141, 189.
Scandinavia, i., 161, 190.
Scandinavians, i., 47, 118.
Schools, i., 245, 465, 466;
ii., 398‒405;
iii., 375‒388;
iv., 224‒327.
Schrander, Dr., i., 41.
Science, progress of, ii., 384‒391;
iii., 371‒374;
iv., 255‒323.
Scolocs, i., 184.
Scone, i., 119, 121, 137, 141, 204, 209, 213, 217, 221, 241, 260,
262, 264, 283, 305, 313‒315, 319, 327, 353;
iii., 110, 223;
Monastery of, i., 201, 227, 239, 250;
ii., 94.
Scots, i., 112, 116, 118, 120, 127.
Scott of Tuschielaw, ii., 224;
John, 303, 372;
Walter, iii., 27;
Sir Walter, iv., 187‒189, 202‒204;
William B., 453.
Scrymgeour,
Alexander, i., 366;
Sir James, iii., 19.
Sculptured stones, i., 165‒174.
Seaforth, Earl of, iii., 92, 110, 222.
Selby, Sir William, iii., 21.
Security of the Kingdom, Act for, iii., 205, 206.
Segrave, Sir John, i., 275.
Selkirk, i., 356;
ii., 189;
iii., 378;
iv., 371;
forest of, i., 223, 274, 287, 343.
Semple, Robert, ii., 374.
Serfs, i., 250, 380‒382.
Seton, Sir Christopher, i., 283, 385, 453.
Seton, Lord, ii., 138.
Seton of Pitmedden, iii., 211.
Severus, his campaign, i., 110, 111.
Sharp, James, Archbishop of St. Andrews, iii., 118, 119, 120,
124, 129, 135, 137, 143, 147, 148, 151, 152.
Shawfield, iii., 218.
Sherifmuir, battle of, iii., 223.
Sheriffs, Sheriffdoms, i., 223, 261, 423‒426;
ii., 223.
Shetland Isles, i., 22, 47, 174, 185, 215, 217, 346;
ii., 60;
iv., 372.
Shipbuilding, i., 133, 240, 333, 363;
iv., 357‒363.
Shipping, i., 239, 240, 241, 391‒393;
ii., 286‒289;
iii., 300‒303;
iv., 356‒357.
Sibbald, Sir Robert, iii., 370.
Sigurd, i., 138.
Silver, ancient ornaments of, i., 177‒178.
Siward, Earl of Northumberland, i., 140.
Simpson, Sir James Y., iv., 313‒314.
Simson,
Andrew, ii., 400, 403;
Robert, iv., 260;
William, 446.
Sinclair,
Oliver, ii., 62;
Sir John, iv., 346.
Skene,
Dr. Gilbert, ii., 392, 393;
Sir John, 383, 384;
iii., 18;
Dr. William F., iv., 161.
Smith,
Adam, iv., 25, 43, 44‒59;
Alexander, 195, 196;
William R., 226, 227;
Robert A., 426.
Smollett, Dr., iv., 150, 172, 173, 199.
Social state of the People, i., 70, 71, 98‒103, 145‒157, 220‒254,
366‒440;
ii., 222‒298;
iii., 232‒335.
Solemn League and Covenant, iii., 85, 86.
Solway Firth, 21, 26, 70, 105.
Solway Moss disaster, ii., 62.
Somerled, i., 205.
Somerset,
Earl of, i., 326;
Duke of, ii., 76.
Soulis,
John, i., 271, 274, 277;
Nicholas, 256.
Southesk, Earl of, iii., 222.
Spain, i., 357, 360, 363;
ii., 18, 19, 20, 131, 191, 192.
Spear-heads,
flint, i., 50;
bronze, 76, 77.
Spense, John, ii., 138.
Spey, i., 150;
iv., 354.
Spinoza, his method and ethics, iii., 418‒432.
Spottiswood,
John, ii., 104, 108, 349, 350;
John, Archbishop, iii., 19, 26, 39, 63;
his writings, 357.
Stair, Lord, iii., 223, 232, 235, 367, 368.
Standard, battle of, i., 203, 204.
Stephen, King, i., 202, 203.
Stevenson, Professor, iv., 18, 75.
Stevenson, Robert L., iv., 211, 212.
Steward of Scotland, i., 214, 217, 218, 267, 274, 277, 292, 306,
307, 308, 309, 312, 313.
Stewart, Lord of Brechin, i., 321.
Stewart,
Sir Walter, of Jedworth, i., 321, 384;
Sir Alexander, 328;
Sir James, 338;
Duncan, 319, 320;
Sir Walter, 327;
James, 360;
Captain James, iii., 235;
William, 236.
Stewart,
Dugald, iv., 74‒84;
Matthew, 260.
Stirling, i., 83, 116, 140, 151, 209, 233, 234, 238, 264, 276,
386, 387, 391;
ii., 58, 93, 97, 99, 120, 124, 129, 140, 147, 152, 155, 179,
181, 187;
iii., 59, 62, 123, 228;
iv., 369;
castle of, i., 206, 248, 277, 278, 291, 294, 307, 338, 341,
352, 430;
ii., 140, 152, 181;
iii., 64, 228.
Stirlingshire, i., 29, 119, 121, 265;
ii., 364;
iv., 341, 342, 343, 373, 378.
Stirling, James, iv., 259, 260.
Stirling, Earl of, iii., 366.
Stone circles, i., 94‒96.
Stone weapons and tools, i., 48‒53.
Stone of Destiny, i., 119, 137, 264, 265.
Stonehaven, i., 28, 106.
Stormont, Earl of, iii., 222.
Strachan, Colonel, iii., 106.
Strafford, iii., 80.
Strathbogie, i., 140, 284;
castle of, ii., 123, 124, 202.
Strathclyde, i., 84, 85, 114, 139.
Strathern, i., 136, 138.
Strathern, Earl of, 203, 209, 213, 214, 217, 308, 317, 333.
Strathmore, i., 28.
Strathmore, Earl of, iii., 205.
Strathspey, i., 27, 207, 267.
Strathurd, lordship of, i., 378.
Succession Acts, i., 296, 313‒315;
iii., 155.
Stuart, Lord of Aubigny, i., 362.
Stuart,
John, i., 68, 69;
Dr. Gilbert, iv., 151;
Dr. John, 162.
Sugar works, iii., 330;
refining of, iv., 394, 395.
Sunday, i., 158, 439;
observance of, enforced, ii., 247, 248, 251‒254;
iii., 269‒272.
Superintendents, ii., 108.
Surrey, Earl of, i., 264, 267, 268, 270, 364.
Sutherland, Earl of, i., 306, 308, 318;
ii., 139;
iii., 53, 61.
Sutherland, James, iii., 369.
Tables, institution of, iii., 56, 57.
Tacitus, i., 106‒108.
Tactics of the Scots, i., 412.
Taverns, i., 415.
Taxes in early times, i., 149, 150, 220, 221, 251, 386‒391.
Tay, i., 27, 105, 106, 109, 110, 119, 264, 267, 287;
iv., 354.
Test Act, iii., 158, 159.
Teviotdale, i., 26.
Thane, thanage, i., 152, 251, 252.
Thrift, early laws touching, i., 128‒131.
Thomas the Rhymer, i., 446‒448.
Thomson,
James, iv., 167, 168;
Dr. Andrew, 219;
Dr. John, 309‒311;
Sir William, Lord Colvin, 266, 284;
George, 434.
Thor, ii., 436.
Thorburn, Robert, iv., 452.
Thorfinn, i., 138, 139.
Tithes, i., 243, 244;
ii., 40;
iii., 43, 44.
Todd, Dr., i., 117.
Torture, i., 276, 427;
ii., 195, 196;
iii., 134, 147, 148, 158, 177.
Torwood, i., 291;
iii., 156.
Traquair, Earl of, iii., 58, 59, 62, 77.
Trent, Council of, ii., 79‒85, 161.
Tucker, iii., 300, 301.
Tullibardine, Marquis of, iii., 222.
Tulloch, Dr. John, iv., 224, 225.
Turgot, Bishop, i., 156, 200.
Turnberry Castle, i., 286.
Turner,
Sir James, iii., 134;
William, iv., 306.
Tweed, i., 21, 138, 203, 363;
iii., 79, 86.
Tweeddale, i., 26.
Tweeddale, Marquis of, iii., 206, 210.
Tyrie, James, ii., 353, 354.
Tytler,
William, iv., 151;
Patrick F., 155.
Ulbster, i., 55.
Umfraville, Sir Ingram, i., 274.
Union of England and Scotland,
proceedings connected with, iii., 206‒215;
advantages of, 216, 217, 231.
Universities,
institution of, i., 466‒468;
changes in, ii., 405‒419;
iii., 388‒393;
iv., 327‒330.
Urns, i., 92, 93‒96.
Vane, Sir Henry, iii., 84, 85.
Veitch, John, iv., 246, 247.
Vesy, John, i., 258.
Vienne, John de, i., 316, 317.
♦Vipont, i., 294.
♦ Printed out of alphabetic order.
Vikings, i., 118.
Vitrified forts, i., 90‒92.
Wade, General, iii., 224‒225.
Wager of battle, i., 228‒229.
Wake, Lord, i., 301, 315.
Wales, i., 125, 174.
Walker,
William, iv., 197, 198;
James, 425.
Walls, Roman, i., 109, 110.
Wallace, Sir William, i., 265‒272, 277, 278‒280.
Wallace,
Adam, ii., 78;
William, iv., 253.
Wanlock, lead mine, ii., 284.
Wardlaw, Dr. Ralph, iv., 221.
Warwick, iv., 342.
Watson, Dr. Robert, iv., 152.
Watt, James, iv., 272, 274‒281.
Weapons, prehistoric, i., 49, 50, 75‒78.
Webster, Dr. Alexander, iv., 214.
Wedderburn,
Robert, ii., 319, 341;
James, 341, 343;
John, 343.
Weights and measures, i., 239, 332, 401, 402.
Wells, venerated, i., 128, 135, 260, 261.
Welsh,
John, iii., 29;
Dr., iv., 483.
Welwood, William, ii., 384, 385.
Wemyss, glass work at, iii., 315.
Westminster Assembly of Divines, iii., 85, 87‒89.
Whig, early use of the word, iii., 155, 342, 350, 351.
Whisky, ii., 192, 193;
iv., 396, 397.
White Caterthun, i., 89, 90.
William the Conqueror, i., 142, 143, 192, 193‒195, 196, 198.
William the Lion, reign of, i., 205‒209, 222, 227, 230.
William Rufus, i., 143, 196.
William of Orange, iii., 171, 173, 174‒176, 178‒180, 183‒185,
186‒190, 192, 201‒204.
Willock, John, ii., 87, 97, 98, 101, 104, 108.
Wilson,
John, iv., 105, 205, 206;
Alexander, 182.
Wine, i., 393, 394, 415, 416, 432;
ii., 292.
Winram, John, ii., 52, 104, 108, 158.
Winzet, Ninian, ii., 349‒352.
Wishart,
Bishop of Glasgow, i., 266, 273, 283, 285;
George, ii., 69;
seized and martyred, 69, 70.
Witchcraft, ii., 9, 268‒277;
iii., 259‒264.
Witherspoon, Dr. John, iv., 214, 215.
Wool, i., 240, 333, 387, 388;
ii., 290;
iii., 306, 307, 308.
Worcester, battle of, iii., 110.
Wyntoun, Andrew, i., 455, 456.
York, Duke of, iii., 156, 157, 163.
York, Archbishop of, i., 200, 201.
Young,
Peter, ii., 403;
Dr. Thomas, iv., 267.
Yule, i., 416, 417.
Zealand, i., 392.
END OF VOLUME III.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF CIVILISATION IN SCOTLAND, VOL 3 (OF 4) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
