Chapter III (2)

[325] A letter from Sir Edw. Hyde to Lord Hatton, dated April 12, 1649
(in the _Clarendon State Papers_, vol. ii. p. 479, Oxf. 1773,
fol.), says of Charles II., that the Scotch 'sold his father to
those who murdered him.' But this is not true. Charles I., though
certainly bought by the English, was not murdered by them. He was
tried in the face of day; he was found guilty; he was executed.
And most assuredly never did a year pass, without men far less
criminal than he, suffering the same fate. Possibly, they are
right who deem all capital punishment needless. That, however, has
never been proved; and if this last and most terrible penalty is
ever to be exacted, I cannot tell where we should find a more
fitting subject to undergo it, than a despot who seeks to
subjugate the liberties of the people over whom he is called to
rule, inflicts cruel and illegal punishment on those who oppose
him, and, sooner than renounce his designs, engages in a civil
war, setting fathers against their children, disorganizing
society, and causing the land to run with blood. Such men are
outlaws; they are the enemies of the human race; who shall wonder
if they fall, or, having fallen, who shall pity them?

After the execution of Charles I., the Scotch recognized his son as his successor. But before they would crown the new king, they subjected him to a treatment which hereditary sovereigns are not much accustomed to receive. They made him sign a public declaration, expressing his regret for what had happened, and acknowledging that his father, moved by evil counsels, had unjustly shed the blood of his subjects. He was also obliged to declare, that by these things he felt humbled in spirit. He had, moreover, to apologize for his own errors, which he ascribed partly to his inexperience, and partly to the badness of his education.[326] To evince the sincerity of this confession, and in order that the confession might be generally known, he was commanded to keep a day of fasting and humiliation, in which the whole nation would weep and pray for him, in the hope that he might escape the consequences of the sins committed by his family.[327]

[326] The declaration was signed by Charles on the 16th August 1650. An
abridgment of it is given in _Balfour's Annales of Scotland_, vol.
iv. pp. 92-94; but the entire document is preserved by Sir Edward
Walker. See _Journal of Affairs in Scotland_, in _Walker's
Historical Discourses_, London, folio, 1705, pp. 170-176. In it
Charles is made to state that, 'though his Majesty as a dutiful
son be obliged to honour the memory of his Royal Father, and have
in estimation the person of his Mother; yet doth he desire to be
deeply humbled and afflicted in spirit before God, because of his
Father's hearkening unto and following evil councils, and his
opposition to the work of reformation, and to the solemn league
and covenant by which so much of the blood of the Lord's people
hath been shed in these kingdoms.' He went on to say, that though
he might palliate his own misconduct by pleading 'his education
and age,' he thinks it better to 'ingeniously acknowledge all his
own sins and the sins of his father's house.' Burnet (_History of
his own Time_, vol. i. p. 97) says of this declaration: 'In it
there were many hard things. The king owned the sin of his father
in marrying into an idolatrous family: he acknowledged the
bloodshed in the late wars lay at his father's door: he expressed
a deep sense of his own ill education,' &c.

[327] In reference to this event the following entry occurs in Lamont's
Journal: '1650, Dec. 22.--The fast appointed by the commission of
the kirke to be keiped througe the kingdome before the
coronatione, was keiped att Largo the forsaide day by Mr. Ja.
Magill; his lecture, Reu. 3. from v. 14 to the end of the chapt.;
his text Reu. 2. 4, 5. Vpon the Thursday following, the 26 of this
instant, the fast was keiped in likemaner; his lecture 2. Chro. 29
to v. 12; his text 2. Chron. 12, 12. The causes of the first day
(not read) was, the great contempt of the gospell, holden forth in
its branches; of the second day (which were read), the sinns of
the king, and of his father's house, where sundry offences of K.
James the 6 were aknowledged, and of K. Charles the 1, and of K.
Ch. the 2, nowe king.' _The Diary of Mr. John Lamont of Newton_,
p. 25, Edinburgh, 1830, 4to. See also _Baillie's Letters and
Journals_, vol. iii. p. 107; _Nicoll's Diary_, Edinburgh, 4to,
1836, p. 38; _Row's Continuation of Blair's Autobiography_, edit.
Wodrow Society, p. 255; _Bower's History of the University of
Edinburgh_, vol. i. p. 253; _Presbytery Book of Strathbogie_,
edit. Spalding Club, p. 169; and, above all, the _Registers of the
Presbytery of Lanark_, published by the Abbotsford Club,
Edinburgh, 1839, 4to, pp. 88, 89.

The spirit, of which acts like these are but symptoms, continued to animate the Scotch during the rest of the seventeenth century. And fortunately for them it did so. For, the reigns of Charles II. and James II. were but repetitions of the reigns of James I. and Charles I. From 1660 to 1688, Scotland was again subjected to a tyranny, so cruel, and so exhausting, that it would have broken the energy of almost any other nation.[328] The nobles, whose power had been slowly but constantly declining,[329] were unable to resist the English, with whom, indeed, they rather seemed willing to combine, in order that they might have a share in plundering and oppressing their own country.[330] In this, the most unhappy period through which Scotland had passed since the fourteenth century, the government was extremely powerful; the upper classes, crouching before it, thought only of securing their own safety; the judges were so corrupt, that justice, instead of being badly administered, was not administered at all;[331] and the parliament, completely overawed, consented to what was termed the recissory act, by which, at a single stroke, all laws were repealed which had been enacted since 1633; it being considered that those twenty-eight years formed an epoch of which the memory should, if possible, be effaced.[332]

[328] Wodrow, who had before him the records of the Privy Council,
besides other evidence now lost, says, that the period from 1660
to 1688 was 'a very horrid scene of oppression, hardships, and
cruelty, which, were it not incontestably true, and well vouched
and supported, could not be credited in after ages.' _Wodrow's
History of the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to the
Revolution_, vol. i. p. 57. And the Reverend Alexander Shields,
quaintly, but truly, observes, 'that the said Government was the
most untender, unpeaceable, tyrannical, arbitrary and wicked, that
ever was in Scotland in any age or period.' _Shields' Scots
Inquisition_, Edinburgh, 1745, p. 24.

[329] When James I. ascended the throne of England, 'the principal
native nobility' accompanied him; and 'the very peace which ensued
upon the union of the crowns, may be considered as the
commencement of an era in which many of our national strongholds
were either transformed into simple residences or utterly
deserted.' _Irving's History of Dumbartonshire_, 4to, 1860, pp.
137, 166. The nobles 'had no further occasion to make a figure in
war, their power in vassalage was of little use, and their
influence of course decayed. They knew little of the arts of
peace, and had no disposition to cultivate them.' _The Interest of
Scotland Considered_, Edinburgh, 1733, p. 85. Under Charles I.,
the movement continued; 'which fell out, partly through the
giddiness of the times, but more by the way his Majesty had taken
at the beginning of his reign; at which time he did recover from
divers of them their hereditary offices, and also pressed them to
quit their tithes (which formerly had kept the gentry in a
dependance upon them), whereby they were so weaken'd that now when
he stood most in need of them (except the chief of the clans) they
could command none but their vassals.' _Guthry's Memoirs_, edit.
1702, pp. 127, 128. Then came the civil wars, and the rule of
Cromwell, during which they suffered both in person and in
property. Compare _Chambers' Annals_, vol. ii. p. 225, with
_Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. pp. 515, 516. In 1654,
Baillie writes (_Letters and Journals_, vol. iii. p. 249): 'Our
nobilitie, weell near all, are wracked.' In 1656, 'Our nobles
lying up in prisons, and under forfaultries, or debts, private or
publict, are for the most part either broken or breaking.'
_Ibid._, p. 317. And, in 1658, the same observer writes (vol. iii.
p. 387): 'Our noble families are almost gone: Lennox hes little in
Scotland unsold; Hamilton's estate, except Arran and the Baronrie
of Hamilton, is sold; Argyle can pay little annuelrent for seven
or eight hundred thousand merks; and he is no more drowned in debt
than publict hatred, almost of all, both Scottish and English; the
Gordons are gone; the Douglasses little better; Eglintoun and
Glencairn on the brink of breaking; many of our chief families
estates are cracking; nor is there any appearance of any human
relief for the tyme.'

The result of all this is thus described by Wodrow, under the year
1661: 'Our nobility and gentry were remarkably changed to the
worst: it was but few of such, who had been active in the former
years, were now alive, and those few were marked out for ruin. A
young generation had sprung up under the English government,
educated under penury and oppression; their estates were under
burden, and many of them had little other prospect of mending
their fortunes, but by the king's favour, and so were ready to act
that part he was best pleased with.' _Wodrow's History of the
Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 89.

[330] 'At the Restoration, Charles II. regained full possession of the
royal prerogative in Scotland; and the nobles, whose estates were
wasted, or their spirit broken, by the calamities to which they
have been exposed, were less able and less willing than ever to
resist the power of the crown. During his reign, and that of James
VII., the dictates of the monarch were received in Scotland with
most abject submission. The poverty to which many of the nobles
were reduced, rendered them meaner slaves and more intolerable
tyrants than ever. The people, always neglected, were now odious,
and loaded with every injury, on account of their attachment to
religious and political principles, extremely repugnant to those
adopted by their princes.' _Robertson's History of Scotland_, book
viii. pp. 257, 258.

[331] A writer of great authority, speaking of the time of William III.,
says: 'It is scarcely possible to conceive how utterly polluted
the fountain of justice had become during the two preceding
reigns. The Scottish bench had been profligate and subservient to
the utmost conceivable extent of profligacy and subserviency.'
_Burton's History of Scotland_, from 1689 to 1748, London, 1853,
vol. i p. 72. See also vol. ii. p. 37; and _Brown's History of
Glasgow_, vol. i. p. 194, Glasgow, 1795.

[332] _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 10. _Baillie's Letters
and Journals_, vol. iii. p. 458. As few persons take the trouble
to read Scotch Acts of Parliament, I will extract from this one,
its most argumentative passage. 'And forasmuch as now it hath
pleased Almighty God, by the power of his oune right hand, so
miracoulously to restore the Kings Maiestie to the Government of
his Kingdomes, and to the exercise of his Royall power and
Soveranity over the same: The estates of Parlia^t doe conceave
themselffs obleidged in dischairge of ther duetie and conscience
to God and the Kings Maiestie, to imploy all their power and
interest for vindicateing his Maiesties Authority from all these
violent invasions that have been made upon it; And so far as is
possible to _remove out of the way every thing that may retaine
any remembrance of these things_ which have been so enjurious to
his Màtie and his Authority, so prejudiciall and dishonourable to
the kingdome, and distructive to all just and true interests
within the same.' ... 'Not to retaine any remembrance thairof, but
that the same shall be held in _everlasting oblivion_.' _Acts of
the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. vii. p. 87, edit. folio, 1820.
The date of this Act is 28th March 1661.

But, though the higher ranks ignominiously deserted their post, and destroyed the laws which upheld the liberties of Scotland, the result proved that the liberties themselves were indestructible. This was because the spirit remained, by which the liberties had been won. The nation was sound at the core; and while that was the case, legislators could, indeed, abolish the external manifestations of freedom, but could by no means touch the causes on which the freedom depended. Liberty was prostrate, but yet it lived. And the time would surely come, when a people, who loved it so dearly, would vindicate their rights. The time would come, when, in the words of the great poet of English liberty, the nation would rouse herself like a strong man after sleep, and, shaking her invincible locks, would be as an eagle muing her mighty youth, kindling her undazzled eyes at the midday beam, and purging and unscaling her sight at the heavenly fountain; while the timorous birds of her evil destiny, loving the twilight, should flutter about, amazed at what she meant.

Still, the crisis was sad and dangerous. The people, deserted by every one except their clergy, were ruthlessly plundered, murdered, and hunted, like wild-beasts, from place to place. From the tyranny of the bishops, they had so recently smarted, that they abhorred episcopacy more than ever; and yet that institution was not only forced upon them, but government put at its head Sharp, a cruel and rapacious man, who, in 1661, was raised to the archbishopric of St. Andrews.[333] He set up a court of ecclesiastical commission, which filled the prisons to overflowing; and when they would hold no more, the victims were transported to Barbadoes, and other unhealthy settlements.[334] The people, being determined not to submit to the dictation of government respecting their religious worship, met together in private houses; and, when that was declared illegal, they fled from their houses to the fields. But there, too, the bishops were upon them.[335] Lauderdale, who, for many years, was at the head of affairs, was greatly influenced by the new prelates, and aided them with the authority of the executive.[336] Under their united auspices, a new contrivance was hit upon; and a body of soldiers, commanded by Turner, a drunken and ferocious soldier, was let loose upon the people.[337] The sufferers, galled to madness, rose in arms. This was made the pretence, in 1667, for fresh military executions, by which some of the fairest parts of western Scotland were devastated, houses burned, men tortured, women ravished.[338] In 1670, an act of parliament was passed, declaring that whoever preached in the fields without permission should be put to death.[339] Some lawyers were found bold enough to defend innocent men, when they were tried for their lives; it was therefore determined to silence them also, and, in 1674, a great part of the Faculty of Advocates was expelled from Edinburgh.[340] In 1678, by the express command of government, the Highlanders were brought down from their mountains, and, during three months, were encouraged to slay, plunder, and burn at their pleasure, the inhabitants of the most populous and industrious parts of Scotland. For centuries, the bitterest animosity had existed between the Highlanders and Lowlanders; and now these savage mountaineers were called from their homes, that they might take full revenge. And well they glutted their ire. During three months, they enjoyed every license. Eight thousand[341] armed Highlanders, invited by the English government, and receiving beforehand an indemnity for every excess,[342] were left to work their will upon the towns and villages of Western Scotland. They spared neither age nor sex. They deprived the people of their property; they even stripped them of their clothes, and sent them out naked to die in the fields. Upon many, they inflicted the most horrible tortures. Children, torn from their mothers, were foully abused; while both mothers and daughters were subjected to a fate, compared to which death would have been a joyful alternative.[343]

[333] He was made 'primate' in 1661, but did not arrive in Scotland till
April 1662. _Wodrow's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i.
pp. 236, 247; and _Nicoll's Diary_, pp. 363, 364. 'That he was
decent, if not regular, in his deportment, endued with the most
industrious diligence, and not illiterate, was never disputed;
that he was vain, vindictive, perfidious, at once haughty and
servile, rapacious and cruel, his friends have never attempted to
disown.' _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 98, 99. The
formal establishment of episcopacy was in the autumn of 1661, as
we learn from an entry in Lamont's Diary. '1661. Sept. 5 being
Thursday, (the chancelour, Glencairne, and the E. of Rothes,
haueing come downe from court some dayes before,) the cownsell of
state satt att Edb., and the nixt day, being Fryday, they caused
emitte and be proclaimed ouer the Crosse, a proclamation in his
Maj. name, for establishing Episcopacie againe in the church of
Scotlande; which was done with great solemnitie, and was
afterwarde printed. _All persons, wither men or weomen, were
discharged to speake against that office, under the paine of
treason._' _The Diary of Mr. John Lamont_, p. 140. This, as we
learn from another contemporary, was on account of 'the Kinges
Majestie having stedfastlie resolvit to promove the estait, power,
and dignitie of Bischops, and to _remove all impedimentes contrary
thairto_.' _Nicoll's Diary_, 4to, p. 353; on 21st November 1661.
This curious diary, written by John Nicoll, and extending from
1650 to 1667, was printed at Edinburgh, in 1836, by the Bannatyne
Club, and is now not often met with.

[334] _Wodrow's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 383,
390-395. _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 38: 'A court
of ecclesiastical commission was procured by Sharp.' See also p.
41: 'Under the influence of Sharp and the prelates, which
Lauderdale's friends were unable to resist, the government seemed
to be actuated by a blind resentment against its own subjects.'
Compare _Burnet's History of his own Time_, vol. i. p. 365. 'The
truth is, the whole face of the government looked liker the
proceedings of an inquisition than of legal courts; and yet Sharp
was never satisfied.' Another contemporary, Kirkton, says of these
Commissioners: 'For ought I could hear, never one appeared before
them that escapt without punishment. Their custom was without
premonition or lybell, to ask a man a question, and judge him
presently, either upon his silence or his answer.' ... 'They many
times doubled the legal punishment; and not being satisfied with
the fyne appointed by law, they used to add religation to some
remote places, or deportation to Barbadoes, or selling into
slavery.' _Kirkton's History of the Church of Scotland_, p. 206.
See also _Naphtali, or the Wrestlings of the Church of Scotland_,
1667, pp. 126-130. But as particular cases bring such matters more
clearly before the mind, I will transcribe, from _Crookshank's
History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 154, the sentences
pronounced on a single occasion by this episcopal court. 'The
treatment of some of the parishioners of Ancrum is not to be
omitted. When their excellent minister, Mr. Livingstone, was taken
from them, one Mr. James Scot, who was under the sentence of
excommunication, was presented to that charge. On the day fixed
for his settlement, several people did meet together to oppose it;
and particularly a country woman, desiring to speak with him in
order to dissuade him from intruding himself upon a reclaiming
people, pulled him by the cloak, intreating him to hear her a
little; whereupon he turned and beat her with his staff. This
provoked two or three boys to throw a few stones, which neither
touched him nor any of his company. However, it was presently
looked upon as a treasonable tumult, and therefore the sheriff and
justices of the peace in that bounds fined and imprisoned some of
these people, which, one would think, might atone for a crime of
this nature. But the high-commission, not thinking that
sufficient, ordered those criminals to be brought before them.
Accordingly, the four boys and this woman, with two brothers of
hers of the name of Turnbull, were brought prisoners to Edinburgh.
The four boys confessed, that, upon Scot's beating the woman, they
had thrown each his stone. The commissioner told them that hanging
was too good for them. However, the sentence of this merciless
court only was, that they should be scourged through the city of
Edinburgh, burnt in the face with a hot iron, and then sold as
slaves to Barbadoes. The boys endured their punishment like men
and Christians, to the admiration of multitudes. The two brothers
were banished to Virginia; and the woman was ordered to be whipped
through the town of Jedburgh. Burnet, bishop of Glasgow, when
applied to that she might be spared lest she should be with child,
mildly answered, That he would make them claw the itch out of her
shoulders.'

[335] They were invested with such immense power, that 'the old set of
bishops made by the parliament, 1612, were but pigmies to the
present high and mighty lords.' _Wodrow's History of the Church of
Scotland_, vol. i. p. 262. See also, at p. 286, the remarks of
Douglas: 'It is no wonder then the complaint against their bishops
be, that their little finger is thicker than the loins of the
former.'

[336] In 1663, Middleton was dismissed; and was succeeded by Lauderdale,
who 'was dependent upon the prelates, and was compelled to yield
to their most furious demands.' _Laing's History of Scotland_,
vol. iv. p. 33. 'The influence, or rather the tyranny, which was
thus at the discretion of the prelates, was unlimited; and they
exercised it with an unsparing hand.' _Bower's History of the
University of Edinburgh_, vol. i. p. 284.

[337] 'Sir James Turner, that commanded them, was naturally fierce, but
was mad when he was drunk; and that was very often.' _Burnet's
History of his own Time_, vol. i. p. 364. Kirkton (_History of the
Church_, p. 221) says: 'Sir James Turner hade made ane expedition
to the west countrey _to subdue it to the bishops_, in the year
1664; another in the year 1665; and a third in the year 1666; and
this was the worst.' Full particulars will be found in _Wodrow's
History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 373-375, 411, vol.
ii. pp. 8, 17, vol. iii. pp. 264, 265. 'This method of dragooning
people to the church, as it is contrary to the spirit of
Christianity, so it was a stranger in Scotland, till Bishop Sharpe
and the prelates brought it in.' vol. i. p. 401.

Sir James Turner, whose Memoirs, written by himself, were not
published till thirty years ago, relates an anecdote of his own
drunkenness in a strain of maudlin piety well worthy of his
career. _Turner's Memoirs of his own Life_, Edinburgh, 1829, 4to,
pp. 42, 43. At p. 206, this impudent man writes: 'And yet I
confesse, my humour never was, nor is not yet, one of the calmest;
when it will be, God onlie knoues; yet by many sad passages of my
life, I know that _it hath beene good for me to be afflicted_.'
Perhaps, however, he may take the benefit of his assertion (p.
144), 'that I was so farre from exceeding or transgressing my
commission and instructions, that I never came the full length of
them.' Considering the cruelties he committed, what sort of
instructions could his superiors have given to him?

[338] 'Sir James Turner lately had forced Galloway to rise in arms, by
his cruelty the last and former years; but he was an easy master,
compared with General Dalziel, his ruffians, and Sir William
Bannatyne, this year.' _Wodrow's Church of Scotland_, vol. ii. p.
62. Dalziel 'cruelly tortured whom he would.' p. 63. One woman 'is
brought prisoner to Kilmarnock, where she was sentenced to be let
down to a deep pit, under the house of the dean, full of toads and
other vile creatures. Her shrieks thence were heard at a great
distance.' p. 64. Two countrymen were 'bound together with cords,
and hanged up by their thumbs to a tree, there to hang all night.'
_Ibid._ Sir William Bannatyne's soldiers seized a woman, 'and
bound her, and put lighted matches betwixt her fingers for several
hours; the torture and pain made her almost distracted; she lost
one of her hands, and in a few days she died.' _Ibid._
'Oppressions, murders, robberies, rapes.' p. 65. 'He made great
fires, and laid down men to roast before them, when they would
not, or could not, give him the money he required, or the
information he was seeking.' p. 104. See also _Crookshank's
History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 204-207. The
History is based upon Wodrow's great work, but contains many facts
with which Wodrow was unacquainted. See _Crookshank_, vol. i. p.
11. Respecting the outrages in 1667, there are some horrible
details in a book published in that very year, under the title of
_Naphtali, or the Wrestlings of the Church of Scotland_. See,
especially, the summary at p. 174: 'wounding, beating, stripping
and imprisoning mens persons, violent breaking of their houses
both by day and night, and beating and wounding of wives and
children, ravishing and deflowring of women, forcing wives and
other persons by fired matches and other tortures to discover
their husbands and nearest relations, although it be not within
the compass of their knowledge, and driving and spoiling all their
goods that can be carried away, without respect to guilt or
innocency.'

[339] 'That whosoever without licence or authoritie forsaid shall preach,
expound Scripture, or pray at any of these meetings in the ffeild,
or in any house wher ther be moe persons nor the house contains,
so as some of them be without doors (which is hereby declared to
be a feild conventicle), or who shall convocat any number of
people to these meetings, shall be punished with death and
confiscation of ther goods.' _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, vol. viii. p. 9, edit. 1820, folio. This was on the
13th August 1670.

[340] The immediate pretence being, to do away with appeals. See
_Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 72-74.

[341] 'Savage hosts of Highlanders were sent down to depopulate the
western shires, to the number of ten or eleven thousand, who acted
most outrageous barbarities, even almost to the laying some
counties desolate.' _A Cloud of Witnesses for the Royal
Prerogatives of Jesus Christ_, edit. Glasgow, 1779, p. 18. But
most authorities state the number to have been eight thousand. See
_Kirkton's History_, p. 386; _Arnot's History of Edinburgh_, p.
154; _Burnet's History of his own Time_, vol. ii. p. 134;
_Denholm's History of Glasgow_, p. 67; and _Life and Sufferings of
John Nisbet_, in _Select Biographies_, published by the Wodrow
Society, vol. ii. p. 381. Chalmers, however, in his _Caledonia_,
vol. iii. p. 592, says 10,000.

[342] 'They were indemnified against all pursuits, civil and criminal,
on account of killing, wounding, apprehending, or imprisoning,
such as should oppose them.' _Crookshank's History of the Church
of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 337, 338.

[343] Short and imperfect notices of this 'Highland Host,' as it was
called at the time, may be found in _Kirkton's History_, pp.
385-390, and in _Crookshank's History_, vol. i. pp. 354, 355. But
the fullest account of the enormities committed by these
barbarians, is in Wodrow's great work, collected from authentic
and official documents. See his _History of the Church of
Scotland_, vol. ii. pp. 375-413, 421-432, vol. iii. pp. 76, 79,
486. They were provided beforehand with implements of torture.
'They had good store of iron shackles, as if they were to lead
back vast numbers of slaves, and thumb-locks, as they call them'
(_i.e._ thumb-screws), 'to make their examinations and trials
with.' vol. ii. p. 389. 'In some places they tortured people, by
scorching their bodies at vast fires, and other wise,' vol. ii. p.
422. Compare _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 88.
'Neither age nor sex was exempt from outrage, and torture was
freely employed to extort a confession of hidden wealth.' And, at
p. 91, 'The Highlanders, after exacting free quarters, and wasting
the country for three months, were dismissed to their hills with
impunity and wealth.'

It was in this way, that the English government sought to break the spirit, and to change the opinions, of the Scotch people. The nobles looked on in silence, and, so far from resisting, had not even the courage to remonstrate. The parliament was equally servile, and sanctioned whatever the government demanded. Still, the people were firm. Their clergy, drawn from the middle classes, clung to them; they clung to their clergy, and both were unchanged. The bishops were hated as allies of the government, and were with reason regarded as public enemies. They were known to have favoured, and often to have suggested, the atrocities which had been committed;[344] and they were so pleased with the punishment inflicted upon their opponents, that no one was surprised, when, a few years later, they, in an address to James II., the most cruel of all the Stuarts, declared that he was the darling of heaven, and hoped that God might give him the hearts of his subjects, and the necks of his enemies.[345]

[344] 'Indeed, the whole of the severity, hardships, and bloodshed from
this year' (1661), 'until the revolution, was either actually
brought on by the bishops, procured by them, or done for their
support.' _Wodrow's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p.
223. 'It was our prelates who pushed the council to most of their
severities.' p. 247. 'The bishops, indeed, violently pushed
prosecutions.' _Crookshank's History of the Church_, vol. i.
p. 298. In 1666, 'As to the prelates, they resolved to use all
severities, and to take all imaginable cruel and rigorous ways and
courses, first against the rest of the prisoners, and then against
the whole west of Scotland.' _Row's Continuation of Blair's
Autobiography_, pp. 505, 506, edit. Edinburgh, 1848. This
interesting work is edited by Dr. M'Crie, and published by the
Wodrow Society.

[345] In 1688, 'the bishops concurred in a pious and convivial address to
James, as the darling of heaven, that God might give him the
hearts of his subjects and the necks of his enemies.' _Laing's
History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 193.

The character of the prince, whom the bishops thus delighted to honour, is now well understood. Horrible as were the crimes which had been perpetrated, they were surpassed by what occurred, when he, in 1680, assumed the direction of affairs.[346] He had worked himself to that pitch of iniquity, as to derive actual enjoyment from witnessing the agonies of his fellow-creatures. This is an abyss of wickedness, into which even the most corrupt natures rarely fall. There have been, and always will be, many men who care nothing for human suffering, and who will inflict any amount of pain, in order to gain certain ends. But to take delight in the spectacle, is a peculiar and hideous abomination. James, however, was so dead to shame, that he did not care even to conceal his horrible tastes. Whenever torture was inflicted, he was sure to be present, feasting his eyes, and revelling with a fiendish joy.[347] It makes our flesh creep to think that such a man should have been the ruler of millions. But what shall we say to the Scotch bishops, who applauded him, of whose conduct they were daily witnesses? Where can we find language strong enough to stigmatize those recreant priests, who, having passed years in attempting to subjugate the liberties of their country, did, towards the close of their career, and just before their final fall, band together, and employ their united authority, as ministers of a holy and peaceful religion, to stamp with public approval, a prince, whose malignant cruelty made him loathed by his contemporaries, and whose revolting predilections, unless we ascribe them to a diseased brain, are not only a slur upon the age which tolerated them, but a disgrace to the higher instincts of our common nature?

[346] 'After the Duke of York came down in October'(1680), 'the
persecution turned yet more severe.' _Wodrow's History of the
Church of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 225. 'Persecution and tyranny,
mainly promoted by the Duke of York's instigation.' _Shields' Hind
let loose_, p. 147. 'Immediately upon his mounting the throne, the
executions and acts prosecuting the persecution of the poor
wanderers, were more cruel than ever.' p. 200.

[347] This was well known in Scotland; and is evidently alluded to by a
writer of that time, the Rev. Alexander Shields, who calls James,
not a man, but a monster. See _Shields' Hind let loose_, 1687, p.
365. 'This man, or monster rather, that is now mounted the
throne.' And a monster surely he was. Compare _Crookshank's
History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 66, where it is
mentioned that, when Spreul was tortured, 'the Duke of York was
pleased to gratify his eyes with this delightful scene.' Also,
_Wodrow's History_, vol. iii. p. 253, and _Laing's History of
Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 116. According to Burnet, 'the duke's
pleasure at witnessing human agony was a cold, and, as it were, a
speculative pleasure, as if he were present for the purpose of
contemplating some curious experiment. But James was so excitable
a man, that this is hardly likely. At all events, the remarks of
Burnet have a painful interest for those who study these dark,
and, as we may rejoice to think, these very rare, forms of human
malignity.' 'When any are to be struck in the boots, it is done in
the presence of the council; and upon that occasion, almost all
offer to run away. The sight is so dreadful, that without an order
restraining such a number to stay, the board would be forsaken.
But the duke, while he had been in Scotland, was so far from
withdrawing, that he looked on all the while with an unmoved
indifference, and _with an attention, as if he had been to look on
some curious experiment_. This gave a terrible idea of him to all
that observed it, as of a man that had no bowels nor humanity in
him.' _Burnet's History of his own Time_, vol. ii. pp. 416, 417.

So utterly corrupt, however, were the ruling classes in Scotland, that such crimes seem hardly to have excited indignation. The sufferers were refractory subjects, and against them every thing was lawful. The usual torture, which was called the torture of the boots, was to place the leg in a frame, into which wedges were driven, until the bones were broken.[348] But when James visited Scotland, an opinion began to grow up, that this was too lenient, and that other means must be devised. The spirit which he communicated to his subordinates, animated his immediate successors, and, in 1684, during his absence, a new instrument was introduced, termed the thumbikins. This was composed of small steel screws, arranged with such diabolical art, that not only the thumb, but also the whole hand, could be compressed by them, producing pain more exquisite than any hitherto known, and having, moreover, the advantage of not endangering life; so that the torture could be frequently repeated on the same person.[349]

[348] Shields (_A Hind let loose_, p. 186) describes the boots, as 'a
cruel engine of iron, whereby, with wedges, the leg is tortured,
until the marrow come out of the bone.' Compare _Naphtali, or the
Wrestlings of the Church of Scotland_, 1667, p. 268: 'the
extraordinary compression both of flesh, sinews, and bones, by the
force of timber wedges and hammer.'

[349] In 1684, Carstairs was subjected to this torture. See his own
account, in a letter printed in _Wodrow's History of the Church of
Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 96-100. He writes (p. 99): 'After this
communing, the king's smith was called in, to bring in a new
instrument to torture by the thumbkins, that had never been used
before. For whereas the former was only to screw on two pieces of
iron above and below with finger and thumb, these were made to
turn about the screw with the whole hand. And under this torture,
I continued near an hour and a half.' See also the case of Spence,
in the same year, in _Burnet's History of his own Time_, vol. ii.
p. 418. 'Little screws of steel were made use of, that screwed the
thumbs with so exquisite a torment, that he sunk under this; for
Lord Perth told him, they would screw every joint of his whole
body, one after another, till he took the oath.' Laing (_History
of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 143) says, 'the thumbikins; small screws
of steel that compressed the thumb and the whole hand with an
exquisite torture;' an invention brought by Drummond and Dalziel
from Russia. For other notices, see _Fountainhall's Notes of
Scottish Affairs_ from 1680 till 1701, Edinburgh, 4to, 1822, pp.
41, 97, 101; _Bower's History of the University of Edinburgh_,
vol. ii. p. 30; _Crookshank's History of the Church of Scotland_,
vol. ii. p. 192; _A Cloud of Witnesses for the Royal Prerogatives
of Jesus Christ_, edit. Glasgow, 1779, p. 371; and _Life of Walter
Smith_, p. 85, in the second volume of _Walker's Biographia
Presbyteriana_, Edinburgh, 1827.

After this, little more need be said.[350] From the mere mention of such things, the mind recoils with disgust. The reader of the history of that time sickens and faints at the contrivances by which these abject creatures sought to stifle public opinion, and to ruin, for ever, a gallant and high-spirited people. But now, as before, they laboured in vain. More yet was, however, to be borne. The short reign of James II. was ushered in by an act of singular barbarity. A few weeks after this bad man came to the throne, all the children in Annandale and Nithsdale, between the ages of six and ten, were seized by the soldiers, separated from their parents, and threatened with immediate death.[351] The next step was, to banish, by wholesale, large numbers of adults, who were shipped off to unhealthy settlements; many of the men first losing their ears, and the women being branded, some on the hand, some on the cheek.[352] Those, however, who remained behind, were equal to the emergency, and were ready to do what remained to be done. In 1688, as in 1642, the Scotch people and the English people united against their common oppressor, who saved himself by sudden and ignominious flight. He was a coward as well as a despot, and from him there was no further danger. The bishops, indeed, loved him; but they were an insignificant body, and had enough to do to look to themselves. His only powerful friends were the Highlanders. That barbarous race thought, with regret, of those bygone days when the government had not only allowed them, but had ordered them, to plunder and oppress their southern neighbours. For this purpose, Charles II. had availed himself of their services; and it could hardly be doubted, that if the Stuart dynasty were restored, they would be again employed, and would again enrich themselves by pillaging the Lowlanders.[353] War was their chief amusement; it was also their livelihood; and it was the only thing that they understood.[354] Besides this, the mere fact that James no longer possessed authority, wonderfully increased their loyalty towards him. The Highlanders flourished by rapine, and traded in anarchy.[355] They, therefore, hated any government which was strong enough to punish crime; and the Stuarts being now far away, this nation of thieves loved them with an ardour which nothing but their absence could have caused. From William III., they feared restraint; but the exiled prince could do them no hurt, and would look on their excesses as the natural result of their zeal. Not that they cared about the principle of monarchical succession, or speculated on the doctrine of divine right.[356] The only succession that interested them, was that of their chiefs. Their only notion of right, was to do what those chiefs commanded. Being miserably poor,[357] they, in raising a rebellion, risked nothing except their lives, of which, in that state of society, men are always reckless. If they failed, they encountered a speedy, and, as they deemed it, an honourable death. If they succeeded, they gained fame and wealth. In either case, they were sure of many enjoyments. They were sure of being able, for a time at least, to indulge in pillage and murder, and to practise, without restraint, those excesses which they regarded as the choicest guerdon of a soldier's career.

[350] 'In 1684, the Scottish nation was in the most distressing and
pitiable situation that can be imagined.' ... 'The state of
society had now become such, that, in Edinburgh, attention to
ordinary business was neglected, and every one was jealous of his
neighbour.' _Bower's History of the University of Edinburgh_,
vol. i. p. 307.

[351] 'Upon the 10th of March, all freeholders, heritors, and gentlemen
in Nithsdale and Annandale, and, I suppose, in most other shires
of the kingdom, but I name those as being the scene of the
severities now used, were summoned to attend the king's standard;
and the militia in the several shires were raised. Wherever
Claverhouse came, he resolved upon narrow and universal work. He
used to set his horse upon the hills and eminences, and that in
different parties, that none might escape; and there his foot went
through the lower, marshy, and mossy places, where the horse could
not do so well. The shire he parcelled out in so many divisions,
and six or eight miles square would be taken in at once. In every
division, the whole inhabitants, men and women, young and old,
without distinction, were all driven into one convenient place.'
... 'All the children in the division were gathered together by
themselves, under ten years, and above six years of age, and a
party of soldiers were drawn out before them. Then they were bid
pray, for they were going to be shot. Some of them would answer,
Sir, we cannot pray.' ... 'At other times, they treated them most
inhumanly, threatening them with death, and at some little
distance would fire pistols without ball in their face. Some of
the poor children were frighted almost out of their wits, and
others of them stood all out with a courage perfectly above their
age. These accounts are so far out of the ordinary way of mankind,
that I would not have insert them, had I not before me several
informations agreeing in all these circumstances, written at this
time by people who knew the truth of them.' _Wodrow's History of
the Church of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 255, 256.

[352] 'Numbers were transported to Jamaica, Barbadoes, and the North
American settlements; but the women were not unfrequently burnt in
the cheek, and the ears of the men were lopt off, to prevent, or
to detect, their return,' _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iv.
p. 162. 'Great multitudes banished,' _Wodrow's History of the
Church_, vol. iv. p. 211. In July 1685, 'the men are ordered to
have their ears cropt, and the women to be marked in their hand.'
p. 217. 'To have the following stigma and mark, that they may be
known as banished persons if they shall return to this kingdom,
_viz._ that the men have one of their ears cut off by the hand of
the hangman, and that the women be burnt by the same hand on the
cheek with a burned iron.' p. 218. These are extracts from the
proceedings of the privy-council.

[353] 'James II. favoured the Highland clans,' Note in _Fountainhall's
Scottish Affairs_ from 1680 till 1701, p. 100. He could hardly do
otherwise. The alliance was natural, and ready-made for him.

[354] Except robbing, which, however, in one form or other, is always a
part of war. In this, they were very apt. Burnet (_History of his
own Time_, vol. i. p. 67) pithily describes them as 'good at
robbing;' and Burton (_Lives of Lovat and Forbes_, p. 47) says,
'To steal even vestments was considerably more creditable than to
make them.' Otherwise, they were completely absorbed by their
passion for war. See _Thomson's Memoirs of the Jacobites_,
vol. ii. pp. 175, 176, London, 1845.

[355] 'Revenge was accounted a duty, the destruction of a neighbour a
meritorious exploit, and rapine an honourable employment.'
_Browne's History of the Highlands_, vol. iv. p. 395. 'The spirit
of rivalry between the clans kept up a taste for hostility, and
converted rapine into a service of honour.' _Thomson's Memoirs of
the Jacobites_, vol. ii. p. 229.

[356] Hence, looking, as they did, merely at the physical qualities of
individuals, the appearance of the Pretender in 1715 disgusted
them, notwithstanding his splendid lineage. See some excellent
remarks in _Burton's History of Scotland_, from 1689 to 1748,
London, 1853, vol. ii. pp. 198, 199. At p. 383, Mr. Burton justly
observes, that 'those who really knew the Highlanders were aware
that the followers were no more innate supporters of King James's
claim to the throne of Britain, than of Maria Theresa's to the
throne of Hungary. They went with the policy of the head of the
clan, whatever that might be; and though upwards of half a
century's advocacy of the exiled house' (this refers to the last
rebellion in 1745) 'had made Jacobitism appear a political creed
in some clans, it was among the followers, high and low, little
better than a nomenclature, which might be changed with
circumstances.' Since Robertson, Mr. Burton and Mr. Chambers are,
I will venture to say, the two writers who have taken the most
accurate and comprehensive views of the history of Scotland.
Robertson's History stops short where the most important period
begins; and his materials were scanty. But what he effected with
those materials was wonderful. To my mind, his History of Scotland
is much the greatest of his works.

[357] A curious description of their appearance, given by the _Derby
Mercury_ in 1746 (in _Thomson's Memoirs of the Jacobites_, vol.
iii. p. 115), may be compared with the more general statement in
_Anderson's Prize Essay on the Highlands_, Edinburgh, 1827, p.
128. 'Cattle were the main resources of the tribe--the acquisition
of these the great object of their hostile forrays. The precarious
crops gave them wherewithal to bake their oaten cakes, or distil
their ale or whisky. When these failed, the crowded population
suffered every extreme of misery and want. At one time in
particular, in Sutherland, they were compelled to subsist on broth
made of nettles, thickened with a little oatmeal. At another,
those who had cattle, to have recourse to the expedient of
bleeding them, and mixing the blood with oatmeal, which they
afterwards cut into slices and fried.'

So far, therefore, from wondering at the rebellions of 1715 and 1745,[358] the only wonder is, that they did not break out sooner, and that they were not better supported. In 1745, when the sudden appearance of the rebels struck England with terror, and when they penetrated even to the heart of the kingdom, their numbers, even at their height, including Lowland and English recruits, never reached six thousand men. The ordinary amount was five thousand;[359] and they cared so little about the cause for which they professed to fight, that, in 1715, when they numbered much stronger than in 1745, they refused to enter England, and make head against the government, until they were bribed by the promise of additional pay.[360] So, too, in 1745, after they had won the battle of Preston-pans, the only result of that great victory was, that the Highlanders, instead of striking a fresh blow, deserted in large bodies, that they might secure the booty they had obtained, and which alone they valued. They heeded not whether Stuart or Hanoverian gained the day; and at this critical moment, they were unable, says the historian, to resist their desire to return to their glens, and decorate their huts with the spoil.[361]

[358] Several writers erroneously term them 'unnatural.' See, for
instance, _Rae's History of the Rebellion_, London, 1746, pp. 158,
169: and _Home's History of the Rebellion_, London, 1802, 4to,
p. 347.

[359] 'When the rebels began their march to the southward, they were not
6000 men complete,' _Home's History of the Rebellion in the Year
1745_, 4to, p. 137. At Stirling, the army, 'after the junction was
made, amounted to somewhat more than 9000 men, the greatest number
that Charles ever had under his command,' p. 164. But the actual
invaders of England were much fewer. 'The number of the rebels
when they began their march into England was a few above 5000
foot, with about 500 on horseback.' _Home_, p. 331. Browne
(_History of the Highlands_, vol. iii. p. 140) says: 'When
mustered at Carlisle, the prince's army amounted only to about
4500 men;' and Lord George Murray states that, at Derby, 'we were
not above five thousand fighting men, if so many.' _Jacobite
Memoirs of the Rebellion of 1745_, edited by Robert Chambers,
Edinburgh, 1834, p. 54. Another writer, relying mainly on
traditional evidence, says, 'Charles, at the head of 4000
Highlanders, marched as far as Derby.' _Brown's History of
Glasgow_, vol. ii. p. 41, Edinburgh, 1797. Compare _Johnstone's
Memoirs of the Rebellion_, 3rd edit., London, 1822, pp. xxxvii.
xxxviii. 30-32, 52. Johnstone says, p. 60, 'M. Patullo, our
muster-master, reviewed our army at Carlisle, when it did not
exceed four thousand five hundred men.' Afterwards, returning to
Scotland, 'our army was suddenly increased to eight thousand men,
the double of what it was when we were in England.' p. 111.

[360] 'Orders were given to proceed in the direction of Carlisle, and
recall the detachment sent forward to Dumfries. The Highlanders,
still true to their stagnant principles, refused obedience.' ...
'Pecuniary negotiations were now commenced, and they were offered
sixpence a day of regular pay--reasonable remuneration at that
period to ordinary troops, but to the wild children of the
mountain a glittering bribe, which the most steady obstinacy would
alone resist. It was partly effective.' _Burton's History of
Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 168. 'And from this day, the Highlanders
had sixpence a head per day payed them to keep them in good order
and under command.' _Patten's History of the late Rebellion_,
London, 1717, p. 73. See also, on the unwillingness of the
Highlanders to enter England, _Rae's History of the Rebellion_,
London, 1746, 2d edit. pp. 270, 271. Browne says (_History of the
Highlands_, vol. ii. pp. 300, 304): 'The aversion of the
Highlanders, from different considerations, to a campaign in
England, was almost insuperable;' but 'by the aid of great
promises and money, the greater part of the Highlanders were
prevailed upon to follow the fortunes of their commander.'

[361] 'Few victories have been more entire. It is said that scarcely two
hundred of the infantry escaped.' ... 'The Highlanders obtained a
glorious booty in arms and clothes, besides self-moving watches,
and other products of civilisation, which surprised and puzzled
them. Excited by such acquisitions, a considerable number could
not resist the old practice of their people to return to their
glens, and decorate their huts with their spoil.' _Burton's
History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 465. Compare _Home's History of
the Rebellion_, p. 123. This was an old practice of theirs, as
Montrose found out, a century earlier, 'when many of the
Highlanders, being loaded with spoil, deserted privately, and soon
after returned to their own country.' _Wishart's Memoirs of the
Marquis of Montrose_, Edinburgh, 1819, p. 189. So, too, Burnet
(_Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, p. 272): 'Besides, any
companies could be brought down from the Highlands might do well
enough for a while, but no order could be expected from them, for
as soon as they were loaded with plunder and spoil, they would run
away home to their lurking holes, and desert those who had trusted
them.' See also p. 354. A more recent writer, drawing a veil over
this little infirmity, remarks, with much delicacy, that 'the
Highlanders, brave as they were, had a custom of returning home
after a battle.' _Thomson's Memoirs of the Jacobites_, London,
1845, vol. i. p. 122. Not unfrequently they first robbed their
fellow-soldiers. In 1746, Bisset writes: 'The Highlanders, who
went off after the battel, carried off horses and baggage from
their own men, the Lowlanders.' _Diary of the Reverend John
Bisset_, in _Miscellany of the Spalding Club_, vol. i. p. 377,
Aberdeen, 1841, 4to.