Chapter XXVII: The Conflict from the Restoration to the Revolution (1)

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.