Chapter XXVII: The Conflict from the Restoration to the Revolution (2)

The Estates passed an act for the protection of the episcopal clergy from the violence of disaffected and disloyal persons, and ratified all the former acts and proclamations of the Privy Council on this point, and all previous acts of parliament. Land-owners, life-renters, and others were commanded to protect, to defend, and to secure the persons, families, and goods of their ministers; guarding them not merely in the exercise of their functions, but in their houses and elsewhere, from all injuries and affronts at the hands of disaffected persons;¹ while an act was passed for facilitating the payment of disputed parts of the bishops’ and curates’ stipends and rents.

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., page 556.

The presbyterians had frequently met in private houses, but now they began to assemble in the fields; the men sometimes attending the conventicles armed, in case of being surprised by the soldiers who were always scouring the country. On the 13th of January, 1670, additional orders were given to the troops; and on the 3rd of February, a proclamation concerning conventicles was issued, by which the soldiers were commanded to seize the persons of landlords, ejected ministers, tenants, and others, who attended the conventicles, to compel them to find bail, and if they refused it, then to send them to the Council, with a list of the witnesses against them. This year many field meetings were held, three of them attracting particular notice owing to the crowds assembled. One met at Beithhill, in the parish of Dunfermline, in the middle of June; another at Livingseat, in the parish of Carnwath, about the same date; and the third at the Torwood, in Stirlingshire, in the beginning of July. One of the ministers who preached at the first of these meetings, has himself given an interesting account of it. The people began to gather on Saturday afternoon, and many lay all night upon the hill-side. The ministers who officiated were Mr. John Dickson and Mr. John Blackadder, the latter having come from Edinburgh on Saturday night. It was resolved to hold the meeting on the summit of the hill, for greater security; and a fitting spot having been chosen, they pitched their tent. Mr. Dickson conducted the service in the forenoon; and while this was going on, Mr. Blackadder placed himself at the outskirts of the crowd, with the men appointed to watch. During the time of the service some ill-affected people were observed to come in among them, and amongst others the two sons of the curate, with fourteen strong fellows at their back. Mr. Blackadder permitted them to come and hear, but not to depart, lest they should give the alarm, and the watch kept their eyes on them. The morning preaching, which began at eight, was peaceably concluded about eleven.

Mr. Blackadder preached in the afternoon; but before going to the tent, when revolving his sermon in his mind, he heard a noise, and found that it proceeded from a party bringing back the curate’s two sons, with some violence, for which he rebuked them, and ordered the men to let the youths come back without hurting them. After he had begun his sermon, the lieutenant of the militia stationed in the district, with a few others, arrived; he gave his horse to a man to hold, and passed in among the people and listened to the preaching for a time. He then returned to his horse and prepared to remount, when some of the guard interfered and requested him to stay, lest his abrupt departure should offend and disturb the meeting; but he refused to remain, and began to threaten by drawing his staff. The guards then seized him as he was putting his foot in the stirrup, and presented pistols at him. The minister fearing that they might kill him, stopped his sermon, and persuaded the people to allow the lieutenant to depart, and thus to manifest their peaceable intentions. After settling this stir, which lasted about half-an-hour, the minister returned to his tent and resumed his sermon, and brought the meeting to a close. But this interference with the King’s servant was afterwards made the occasion of several severe prosecutions, so intent and determined was the government on extinguishing conventicles.¹

¹ Blackadder’s _Memoirs_, pages 144‒148; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume II., pages 154‒159.

These meetings greatly irritated the government, and it was resolved to adopt more severe measures of repression. Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 28th of July, 1670, and passed a number of acts against all who disagreed with the Established Church. One act concerning the giving of evidence, commanded that every person in the kingdom when asked, should declare upon oath whatever they knew about conventicles and the individuals present at them. This oath to reveal what they knew might be administered by anyone authorised by the King; and refusal to take it was followed by fines, imprisonment, or banishment to the plantations in the Indies, “or elsewhere, as his Majesty’s Council shall think fit.” Another act touching field conventicles was still more severe. After stating the fines and punishments imposed for attending religious meetings in private houses, it was enunciated, “that field meetings are the rendezvous of rebellion, and tend in a high degree to the disturbance of the public peace; therefore it is statuted and declared, that whosoever, without licence or authority, shall preach, expound scripture, or pray, at any of these meetings in the fields, or in any house where there are more persons than the house contains, so that some of them be standing without doors, which is hereby declared to be a field conventicle, shall be punished by death and confiscation of goods. And it is hereby offered and assured, that if any of his Majesty’s subjects shall seize and secure the persons of any who shall either preach or pray at these field meetings, or convene any persons thereto, they shall for each person so secured have five hundred merks paid to them for reward, out of his Majesty’s treasury, by the commissioners, who are hereby authorised to pay the same; and the said seizers and their assistants are hereby indemnified from any slaughter that may be committed in the apprehending and securing of such persons.” A more mischievous act it would be difficult to conceive; and that its operation would drive a portion of the people into rebellion might have been expected. The act enforcing attendance at public worship in the parish churches was re-enacted under a different title; while another act was passed to punish those who offered their children to be baptised by any other minister than their own parish one, “or else by such as are authorised by the present established government of the Church, or licensed by his Majesty’s Council.” The aim of this was to prevent the ejected ministers from baptising; but one act of exclusive legislation usually demands another of a similar character. So parliament, in 1672, passed an act against those who were unwilling to have their children baptised in an orderly form; and enacting that these persons who failed to have their children baptised by their parish ministers, within thirty days after birth, rendered themselves liable to heavy fines. Thus, “every proprietor of land and life-renter shall be fined a fourth part of his valued yearly rent; every person above the rank of a tenant, having a personal but no real estate, in a fine of one hundred pounds Scots; every considerable merchant a fine of one hundred pounds Scots; every inferior merchant or considerable tradesman, and every tenant labouring land, fifty pounds; every meaner burgess, inhabitant of a burgh, and every cottar, twenty pounds; and every servant half a year’s fee.”¹ This act has the merit of definiteness and minuteness; but the enormous fines meant ruin to the offending parties.

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII. pages 7,
8‒10, 11, 72‒73.

In spite of this severity, the people in some districts continued to meet in the fields; and every fresh attempt to enforce uniformity only drove them into stronger dissent. Efforts of a more peaceful character were tried by Bishop Leighton to win over the ejected ministers and the nonconforming people of the west; but he met with little success. He selected six persons, among whom were Bishop Burnet and Lawrence Charteris, to preach to the people in the vacant churches throughout the western counties. Their sermons were attended by numbers of the people, but few of them were convinced or moved to change their views by the arguments of the episcopal preachers. Burnet himself says, “The people of the country came generally to hear us, though not in great crowds. We were indeed amazed to see a poor commonalty so capable of arguing upon points of government, and on the bounds to be set to the power of princes in matters of religion. Upon all these topics they had texts of scripture at hand; and were ready with their answers to anything that was said to them. This measure of knowledge was spread even among the meanest of them, their cottagers and their servants. They were, indeed, vain of their knowledge, much conceited of themselves, and were full of a most entangling scrupulosity; so that they found or made difficulties in everything that could be laid before them. We stayed about three months in the country, and in that time there was a stand in the frequency of conventicles, but as soon as we were gone, a set of these hot preachers went round all the places in which we had been, to defeat all the good we could hope to do. They told them the devil was never so formidable as when he was transformed into an angel of light.”¹

¹ _History of His Own Time._ “The harvest they reapt was scorn
and contempt; a congregation they could never gather; they
never pretended to have made a proselyte.”――Kirkton’s
_History_, page 294.

Parliament met at Edinburgh in June, 1672, Lauderdale being again royal commissioner; and excepting a short session in the following year, there were no more meetings of parliament for nine years. An act was passed renewing the former acts against conventicles; and the act specially commanding the observance of the 29th of May, in commemoration of his Majesty’s restoration to the kingdoms of his ancestors: this act was repeatedly passed, and all the people commanded to celebrate the event on the appointed day, by the ringing of bells, bonfires at night, and other manifestations of joy; while all the ministers were ordered to preach on this day, “that they, with the whole people, may give thanks to God Almighty for His so signal goodness to these kingdoms.” Those who failed to obey were to be severely punished. Along with other acts this one afforded ground for oppression.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
73, 89.

In September, 1672, the Privy Council granted another indulgence to the ejected ministers. They were enjoined to repair to certain parishes, which were named, in the dioceses of Galloway, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Argyle, and two and sometimes three ministers were appointed for each parish. They were permitted to preach and exercise their functions within the limits assigned to them, a portion of the stipend being allowed for their support. But this indulgence was disliked by many of the presbyterian ministers; and those who accepted it were hampered by many difficulties, while it gave little satisfaction to any.¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 201‒211.

On the 7th of March, 1673, the Privy Council ordered all the ejected ministers in Edinburgh to remove from it to a distance of five miles, unless they bound themselves to hold no conventicles. In April, the Council issued a proclamation announcing more severe penalties against conventicles; and some of the indulged ministers were punished for not confining themselves to the limits prescribed to them.¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, pages 211‒233.

But the conventicles became more and more common, and in March the government proclaimed an indemnity and pardon for past fines and offences incurred through the contravention of the penal acts, excepting the penalties already imposed, and all sentences of banishment and imprisonment. This indemnity extended to the penalties against conventicles, irregular baptisms, and marriages, up to the date of its publication. But the people looked upon it rather as an encouragement for the future than as a remission for past offences; and from this time conventicles of all kinds increased still faster, in houses, in churches, and in the fields. In the south, in the west, and in Fife, the people fixed upon positions in fields, on moors, and on the hills, where multitudes assembled every Sunday, till the defeat at Bothwell Bridge. “Then the conversation up and down Scotland was the quality and success of the last Sunday’s conventicle, who the preachers were, what the number of the people was, what doctrine the minister preached, what change was among the people; how sometimes the soldiers assaulted them, and sometimes killed some of them; sometimes the soldiers were beaten, and some of them killed. And this was the exercise of the people of Scotland for a period of six years.” In the summer of 1674, it was recorded that――“Because men durst not, the women of Edinburgh would needs appear in a petition to the Council, wherein they desired that a gospel ministry might be provided for the starving congregations of Scotland. Fifteen of them, mostly ministers’ widows, engaged to present so many copies to the principal Lords of Council, and upon the 4th of June filled the whole Parliament Close. When the Chancellor came up, Sharp kept close to his back, fearing, it may be, bodily harm, which he then escaped. Only some of them reproached him, calling him Judas and traitor, and one of them laid her hand upon his neck, and told him that neck must pay for it ere all was done, and in that guessed right; but this was all he suffered at that time. Mr. John Livingston’s widow undertook to present her copy to the Chancellor, which she did. He received it, and civilly pulled off his hat. When she began to speak, and took hold of his sleeve, he bowed his head and listened to her, even till he came to the Council chamber door. She who presented her copy to Stair found no such kind reception, for he threw it upon the ground, which made one tell him he did not so with the remonstrance which he helped to write. But when the Council met, the petition was turned into a seditious libel by the vote of the Court. The provost and guard were sent for, but none of these were very cruel; only they threatened, and the women dissolved. Thereafter, for an example, some of them were cited, and some denounced rebels. Three women they imprisoned also for a time――James Clelland’s wife, Miss Campbell, and a daughter of Johnston of Warriston――and this was the end of that brush.”――Sir George Mackenzie gives this account of the affair;――“And petitions for able ministers were given in to the Council, by many hundreds of women, who filled the Parliament Close, threatened the Archbishop of St. Andrews, who passed along with the Chancellor, for whose coming he had waited in his own chamber; and some of them had conspired to set upon him, when a woman, who I shun to name, should raise her hand on high as a signal: to prevent which, the Chancellor, by entertaining the woman with insinuating speeches all the time as he passed to the Council, did divert that bloody design.”¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 266‒267; Kirkton’s
_History_, pages 342‒346; _Memoirs_, page 273.

The government taxed its ingenuity to the utmost in devising means to prohibit conventicles, and to crush the spirit of the people. In June, 1674, the heads of families were made liable for their wives and children, and their servants; and the proprietors of land for their tenants and servants. They were obliged to subscribe a bond that they would obey this, under severe penalties. The bond is in these terms: “I――bind and oblige me, that I, my wife, or any of my children in family with me, my cottars, or servants, shall not keep or be present at conventicles, either in houses or in the fields, as the same is defined by the 5th Act of the second session of his Majesty’s second parliament, under the fines therein contained.... And for the more security, I am content, and consent that these presents be inserted in the books of the Privy Council, books of Council and Session, or any other competent judges’ books, that letters and execution may pass thereupon.... God save the King.” Proclamations and orders were issued for apprehending the ministers who preached at conventicles, and the people who attended them, while the promise of rewards to persons who seized them was renewed. Indeed, every one in the kingdom was in some way obliged or encouraged to inform upon another, and every man to ruin his neighbour. On the 16th of July, 1674, thirty-nine of the ejected ministers, having been shortly before summoned to appear before the Council, and having failed to comply, were proclaimed rebels, and put to the horn; amongst the list of ministers thus denounced some were dead, and others had been indulged, but all were indiscriminately proscribed. Donald Cargill, the noted field preacher, and James Kirkton, the author of a history of the Church of Scotland, and other notable Covenanters, were included in this sentence. These ministers, along with others before denounced, then formed themselves into a body completely separated from the bishops and the curates; and a number of gentlemen and many of the people joined them. Having been outlawed, they were forced to betake themselves to hiding-places, to the fields, and to the hills. Being exposed to the attacks of the soldiers at their meetings, these parties usually carried arms.¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 234‒248; Kirkton’s
_History_, pages 348‒352.

Nevertheless the rigorous laws of the government failed to prevent preaching in private houses and in the fields. In 1675, garrisons were placed in private mansions, where the nonconformists were most numerous; while letters of intercommuning were issued against upwards of a hundred persons, of whom eighteen were ministers. Thus the dissenters were not only outlawed but also deprived of all intercourse with their fellow men; all who held any intercourse with them became implicated in their crimes, and rendered themselves liable to the same punishment. In the terms of the law then proclaimed――“We command and charge all our subjects, that they, nor none of them, presume to reset, supply, or intercommune with any of the aforesaid persons or rebels, for the causes foresaid, nor furnish them with meat, drink, house, harbour, victuals, or any other thing useful or comfortable to them, nor have any intelligence with them by word, writing, message, or any other way, under the penalty of being reputed and esteemed art and part with them in their crimes, and pursued therefore with all rigour to the terror of others.”¹ These modes of persecution forced many to leave their homes, and wander from place to place in want and weariness, shunned, spurned, and hunted by the authorities, sustained by nothing but by the glow and strength of their faith.

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 286‒288.

In March, 1676, the government issued a fresh proclamation against conventicles, commanding the authorities, under severe penalties, to seize all intercommunicated persons, and to put the penal laws in force against all offenders and rebels. The Council granted commissions to form and appoint committees, to put the laws against conventicles and dissenters into execution; one was ordered to sit in Edinburgh, one in Glasgow, one for Stirling and Fife, and one for Aberdeenshire, Moray, and Ross.¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 318‒323.

A large meeting of the presbyterian ministers was held in Edinburgh in the beginning of the year 1677. A considerable section of the people had now openly disowned and separated from the episcopal clergy and Church; and indeed the presbyterians were too numerous for the effective operation of the penal laws against them; but the government still attempted to put down conventicles. Sir George Mackenzie was appointed Lord-Advocate in August, 1677, and ever after he was an open enemy to the presbyterians, or “the fanatics,” as he called them. He expressed his views thus:――“These fanatics finding all their hopes disappointed, resolved to try by force what they could not obtain from favour; and knowing that they might expect the connivance, at least, of the party in opposition to Lauderdale, and that party having blown up their expectations, by assuring them that the Parliament of England was, by many late elections, become more fanatical, they hounded out all their ministers to keep field conventicles in such numbers and so well armed, and to threaten so all the orthodox clergy, and to usurp their pulpits, that the Council was much troubled at the clouds which they saw so fast gathering; and Lauderdale was the more envenomed, that all these disorders were charged upon the late offers made by him of an indemnity and indulgence, and the news that was industriously spread, both in London and Edinburgh, of great sums of money promised to his duchess by the fanatics. Notwithstanding of all which, Sir George Mackenzie being lately admitted to be his Majesty’s Advocate, did prevail with the Council to prevent, by the ensuing articles, all the fanatics’ just exceptions against the forms formerly used against them. 1. That his Majesty’s Advocate be special as to time and place in libelling against conventicles and others pursued; but as he may libel any day within four weeks, or any place within such a parish, or near to the said parish, for else conventicles may be held upon the confines of parishes, merely to disappoint his way of libelling. 2. When any person is convened upon a libel, that in that case, he be only examined upon his own guilt and accession; seeing nothing can be referred to a defender’s oath but what concerns himself during the dependence of a process. 3. That if any person who is cited be ready to depone, or pay his fines, he be not troubled with taking bonds, or other engagements; seeing that the constant punishment of such as do transgress will supply the necessity of the bonds, and the law itself is the strongest bond that can be exacted of any man.”¹ Those who were cited never appeared, as they knew that imprisonment in the Bass awaited them, where at this time all were sent who could be seized.

¹ _Memoirs_, pages 322‒323; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II.,
pages 346‒347.

In August, the government emitted a proclamation against those who withdrew from public worship, and attended conventicles――“which we have so often declared to be the nurseries of schism, and the rendezvous of rebellion; tending to detach our subjects from that reverence due to religion, and that obedience they owe to our authority.” To this was annexed a bond for compelling the people to attend their own parish churches, under the penalties of the former acts.¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 364‒366.

Mitchell, since his attempt on the life of the Primate, had been living in Edinburgh, where Sharp frequently saw him, and caused him to be apprehended in February, 1674. When brought before the Privy Council, he was promised a pardon if he would confess his guilt, whereupon he admitted having been in the rising of 1666, and his attempt on the life of the Primate; but affirmed that no one else was connected with that deed. He was then remitted to the Court of Justiciary. When placed in the dock he denied everything, and as there was no evidence, the indictment was abandoned. He was returned to prison, and detained for two years. In January, 1676, he was again taken before the Council, and questioned whether he had been with the insurgents in 1666, and if he would acknowledge his former confession. Mitchell declined to criminate himself, and pled that when tried two years ago, the charge fell to the ground, that it was unjust to detain him in prison and insist that he should accuse himself. It was then agreed to torture him; and his right leg was placed in the boot and frightfully mangled, still he refused to acknowledge his confession, or to tell anything. After undergoing extreme suffering he was removed to prison. The policy of the government had created a host of enemies; and as the ruling party knew that their power rested solely upon fear, the Council and the bishops were loth to let any victim escape. Mitchell was again brought before the court in January, 1678, upon an indictment charging him with attempting to murder the Primate. He was defended by Lockhart, one of the foremost advocates of the time, and Mr. John Ellis, who both pleaded at great length on behalf of the panel. Ellis argued against the relevancy of the libel on five formal points; and next pled ably that a confession obtained in such circumstances could not be allowed as evidence in a court of law. Lockhart then argued with force and clearness, that as the confession was emitted upon the promise of the Privy Council to save his life, it could not be used as evidence for condemning him to death. But Rothes, Lauderdale, the Primate, and other councillors, denied upon oath that such a promise was ever given to him: Lockhart produced a copy of the act of Council in which it was recorded, and craved that the register of the Council’s acts should be produced, which the court refused; the act, however, was read, and Lockhart earnestly insisted for liberty to speak on it; but the court would not permit this. The jury found Mitchell guilty, and he was executed at the Grassmarket of Edinburgh on the 18th of January, 1678. Perhaps the lords had short memories, for the act containing the promise to Mitchell still remains in the register of the proceedings of the Privy Council.¹

¹ _State Trials_, Volume VI.; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II.,
pages 454‒473.

The government now determined to extinguish conventicles by treating the west, the south-west, and other parts of the country, as if it had been in a state of rebellion. Towards the end of January, 1678, an army of ten thousand men was mustered at Stirling, of whom six thousand were Highland clansmen. This force was spread over the regions where the nonconformists, or the Whigs, as they were called in the speech of the time, were most numerous, there to live at free quarters; while a committee of the Privy Council accompanied the host, armed with special information and ample powers for punishing notable offenders. They were empowered to impose and exact such fines as they thought fit from all who refused to take the bond; and they were instructed to prosecute rigorously all who had been at field conventicles since the 1st of January 1677; while all persons who had been accessory to the building of meeting-houses, and also all landowners, and life-renters, who had connived at the erection of such houses, since the 24th March, 1674, were to be punished without mercy, and all the meeting-houses were to be razed to the ground. They were to prosecute all who had withdrawn from public worship in their own parishes, to disarm all persons, and to search for and seize arms and ammunition. The bond, tendered and backed by the presence of the army, was in the following terms:――“We ―――― faithfully bind and oblige us, that we, our wives, children, and servants, respectively, shall not be present at any conventicles or disorderly meetings in time coming, but shall live in obedience to the law, under the penalties of the acts of parliament: also we bind and oblige us, that all our tenants and cottars, their wives, children, and servants, shall likewise abstain from these conventicles, and other illegal meetings, and live in obedience to the law: and farther, that we nor they shall reset, supply, or commune with forfeited persons, intercommuned ministers, or vagrant preachers; but shall do our utmost endeavour to apprehend their persons: and in case our tenants and cottars shall contravene, we shall take and apprehend every person guilty thereof, and present them to the judge ordinary, that they may be punished therefore, according to the acts of parliament; otherwise we shall remove them and their families off our ground; and if we fail therein, we shall be liable to such penalties as the said delinquents have incurred by law.” The resistance to this form of oppression was almost universal; and even many of the landowners and small proprietors refused to sign the bond; in Lanarkshire only twenty out of three thousand householders subscribed the bond, and it was reported that those who did sign it suffered as much as those who refused, as the soldiers and Highlanders sent to execute the law spared no one, and acted without distinction of persons. The Highlanders were sent home in the end of February; and on the 24th of April the remainder of the army was disbanded, save a garrison left in Ayr. “When this goodly army returned homewards, you would have thought by their baggage that they had been at the sack of a besieged city; and therefore, when they passed Stirling Bridge, every man drew his sword, to show the world that they had returned conquerors from the enemy’s land, but they might as well have shown the pots, pans, girdles, and other household furniture with which they were loaded; and among them all, none purchased so well as the two Earls of Airly and Strathmore, chiefly the last, who sent home the money, not in purses, but in bags and great quantities. Yet under all this oppression the poor people bore all; only in Kampsey there was one of the plunderers killed by a countryman, who yet escaped punishment.”¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 378‒454. Kirkton’s
_History_, pages 390‒391. It has often been noticed that none
of the Whigs lost their life by the hands of this Highland
host, as it was called.

The government was disappointed that the Highland army had effected so little; and therefore more force was to be employed. A Convention of Estates was summoned to grant money, which met at Edinburgh in the end of June, 1678. It passed an act authorising a sum of eighteen hundred thousand pounds Scots to be raised by a tax spread over five years, to enable the King to maintain more forces to uphold the orthodox clergy, extinguish conventicles, and crush the people. This act was extremely obnoxious to the presbyterians, but all were obliged to pay the tax under severe penalties.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
213‒229; Kirkton’s _History_, pages 393‒396.

By the end of the year a considerable army was stationed, chiefly in the western and southern counties. In the beginning of 1679, detachments of troops were ordered to move up and down the country, to harass all who did not conform to episcopacy, and to collect the tax, which many of the people would not pay till they were compelled. The soldiers were commanded to search out and to pursue all who attended field meetings, to kill all who resisted them, to imprison and deliver to the magistrates, or send to the Council, all whom they apprehended.¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 492‒495; Volume III.,
pages 11‒17.

This year, in the end of February, the government added a number of new commissioners to assist those appointed in August, 1677; their special work being the suppression of all schism and opposition to the Established Church, and all seditious meetings. Among other instructions touching the execution of their task, and to interest and encourage them in it, they were authorised “to apply the one-half of the fines of all the landed men and women, and their children, who lived within the bounds of their commission, to their own use, and such as they should employ.” This was sure to make the commissioners earnest in their work. The King also issued an order authorising the sheriffs in the south and west of the kingdom to recognise, and act with, a number of special sheriff-deputes nominated by the King himself, expressly to try and judge persons accused of attending conventicles, of withdrawing from the worship of the parish churches, or of irregular baptisms and marriages.¹ That men thus invested with judicial powers should sometimes act with an imperious hand was certain; and when William Carmichael, an ex-bailie of Edinburgh, was raised by the King to the dignity of a special sheriff in the county of Fife, of course he exerted himself to the utmost to show that he was worthy of his post.

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 17‒21, 41.

This man, who had been treating those who attended field meetings in Fife with great severity, a few bold men resolved to frighten and punish. On the 3rd of May, 1679, under Hackston of Rathillet and John Balfour, they attempted to waylay him among the hills above Cupar, where they expected him to be hunting. They searched for him from early morning to past midday without success; but just when they were about to disperse, they were told that the Primate was in the neighbourhood, and would pass along the road in his carriage. They then bethought that if the subordinate had escaped, Providence had placed their great enemy within their grasp, and they determined to murder him. The Archbishop’s coach was driving along Magus Moor, about two miles from his own city, and the party instantly pursued it. Sharp cried to the coachman to drive hard; the pursuers fired several shots, overtook the coach, cut the traces, disarmed and dismounted his attendants, and commanded Sharp to come forth, that they might not injure his daughter, who was with him in the coach. As he refused to move, they fired into the coach; but he still clung to his daughter, who was screaming with terror. Then they dragged him out, and he fell on his knees, and in piteous tones implored them to spare his life, promising them forgiveness――anything, if they would only show mercy: but they reminded him that he had imbrued his hands in the blood of many innocent people for a period of eighteen years, and that now he must die. A volley of shot was discharged at him, and his death was completed with their swords. The assassins, after rifling the coach and the Bishop’s clothes, remounted their horses and rode off, leaving the Primate’s daughter lamenting over his mangled body on the moor.¹

¹ Kirkton’s _History_, pages 403‒421; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume III., pages 41‒51.

There were a few persons in Scotland who approved of this foul deed, but the majority of the people regarded it as an atrocious murder. There were not many, however, who greatly lamented the fate of Sharp, and long afterwards some people thought that he deserved his cruel end. Assassination and murder cannot be justified under any circumstances, and must in all cases be emphatically condemned.

The murder of Sharp afforded the government a fresh excuse for greater severities against the nonconformists and all who attended field meetings. A reward was offered for the apprehension of the murderers, but they had fled to the west, where they were joined by others, and prepared to resist the authorities. The Privy Council immediately emitted proclamations against armed conventicles; but the people of the west were past the stage of being deterred by proclamation, as they were ripe for insurrection. A few of the most determined agreed to give what they called “a public testimony against the government,” and arranged to meet on the 29th of May, the anniversary of the Restoration. A party of eighty armed men marched into the burgh of Rutherglen, extinguished the bonfires, blazing in honour of the day, burned the Rescissory Act, and the acts establishing episcopacy, and then read their declaration and affixed it upon the market cross. In this manifesto they gave their testimony――“1. Against the Rescissory Act, for overthrowing the whole Covenanted Reformation. 2. Against the acts for erecting and establishing of abjured prelacy. 3. Against that declaration imposed upon, and subscribed by, all persons in public trust, wherein the Covenants are renounced and condemned. 4. Against the Act and Declaration, published at Glasgow, for ejecting of the faithful ministers who could not comply with prelacy, whereby three hundred and upwards of them were illegally ejected. 5. Against that presumptuous act for imposing an holy anniversary day, as they call it, to be kept yearly on the 29th of May, as a day of rejoicing and thanksgiving for the King’s birth and restoration, whereby the appointers intruded upon the Lord’s prerogative, and the observers have given the glory to the creature that is due to our Lord and Redeemer, and rejoiced over the setting up of the usurping power, to the destroying of the interest of Christ in the land. 6. Against the Explicatory Act of 1669, and the sacrilegious supremacy enacted and established thereby.”¹ It may be observed that there is truth and force in this manifesto, especially as to the act of supremacy and the anniversary of the Restoration.

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 52‒59, 66‒67.

A field meeting was to be held at Loudon Hill, in Clydesdale, on Sunday the 7th of June, 1679. Captain Graham of Claverhouse was then at Glasgow, and hearing of their design, he resolved to disperse the meeting. The services of the day were begun, when the watch gave the alarm that a body of troopers was approaching, and shortly Graham’s dragoons appeared on the rising ground. At this meeting of the Covenanters there were some men, such as Hackston, Balfour, and William Cleland, who possessed marked fighting abilities; and the assemblage determined on battle. After sending the women and children to the rear, the fighting men advanced to a swampy piece of ground and took up their position. A sharp but short skirmish ensued, Graham being completely defeated, and upwards of twenty of his troopers slain. The event is known in history as the battle of Drumclog. Encouraged by this success, they marched the following day upon Glasgow, but were unable to take it, and retired towards Hamilton, where they formed a camp. The outbreak threatened to assume serious proportions, as many from Ayrshire, Galloway, and other parts of the country joined them, and in a few days four thousand men were assembled. They had been driven to desperation. The extreme party of the government had at last produced what they probably desired――a general insurrection, which gave them an opportunity of insisting on the utmost extremity of persecution against the presbyterians. The government quickly prepared to meet the emergency. Intelligence of every movement of the rebels was promptly sent to London; and it was deemed necessary to commission the Duke of Monmouth, the King’s natural son, to command the royal army and suppress the rebellion.¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 68‒99.

The Duke arrived at Edinburgh on the 18th of June, 1679, and immediately placed himself at the head of the army. He marched westward on the 21st, and came within sight of the insurgents, lying on Hamilton Moor. The insurgents, however, were divided among themselves. There was bitter dissension concerning the indulgence; some proposing to hold a fast day to mourn for their sins, but on this all could not agree; while others were for recognising the King according to the Covenant, and others insisted on renouncing him. There was little discipline amongst them, and no united front was presented, when, on the 22nd of June, the royal army appeared on the opposite side of the Clyde. After much debate it was agreed to petition the Duke for terms of peace; but they found that his instructions demanded their immediate and unconditional surrender. These tidings increased the confusion amongst them; Hamilton, who had assumed the command, was opposed to any proposal of peace with an uncovenanted King; others were inclined to yield; but they came to no final resolution, and returned no answer to the Duke. The royal army, therefore, advanced to the attack, and the presbyterians were utterly defeated. Many were slain in the flight, and more than a thousand taken prisoners. The insurgent army being badly led, suffered severely.¹

¹ Kirkton’s _History_, pages 461‒472; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume III., pages 99‒111.

The following day the prisoners, tied two and two were driven into Edinburgh, and placed in the Greyfriars Churchyard, where they were kept in the open air for several weeks. Two of the ministers were hanged at the Grassmarket; and five of the other prisoners were executed on Magus Moor, on the 18th of November, as an atonement for the murder of the Primate. Those of the prisoners who acknowledged that the rising was a rebellion, and signed a bond promising to keep the peace and not rise again against the King’s authority, were liberated; but upwards of two hundred, who refused to sign the bond, were crammed into a ship and transported to Barbadoes, to be sold as slaves in the plantations.¹

¹ _Proceedings of the Privy Council_; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume III., pages 123‒140.

Many others suffered severely for being at Bothwell Bridge, or otherwise implicated in the rising. For about two months after this event, the soldiers committed many outrages upon the people, and sometimes upon innocent individuals and families.

In August an indemnity was offered to all who had been in the rebellions of 1666 and 1679, upon condition of promising not to rise again in arms against his Majesty’s authority, and of ceasing from attending field meetings in the future. In July, an act was published by the authority of the King, permitting the presbyterian ministers not yet indulged to preach and administer the communion, if they refrained from holding field meetings. This indulgence, however, was soon withdrawn: and it appears that many failed to take advantage of it from principle and conviction, and some from other reasons.¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 111‒122, 140‒146,
147‒157.

The difference between the two parties of the presbyterians had become more marked. Some of the extreme party had always protested against the indulgence; and they now took up a position apart from those of more moderate views, and unhesitatingly proclaimed and carried out their own principles. Donald Cargill was their first leader, and after him Richard Cameron and James Renwick may be mentioned as the heads of the party. This body was variously designated in the records of the time, as The Wild Whigs, The Wanderers, The Faithful Remnant, Covenanters, The Hillmen, The Cameronians, Macmillanites, and in later times Reformed Presbyterians, and other names. They were a bold, uncompromising, and determined class of men, who clung consistently and bravely to their creed and to their principles. They were not merely content to resist some of the measures of the government, they adopted a bolder line of action. They treated the offer of indulgence with scorn; they refused to pay taxes; and at last they renounced their allegiance to a King, who had utterly broken his Covenant engagements, and, by his tyrannical government, had forfeited his right to the throne; and therefore, they declared war against him and his government. They declined to hold communion with the moderate presbyterians, and formed themselves into a number of societies, and calling themselves The Society People. They exhibited much capacity for business and organisation; and they may be truly described as the party of honesty and vigour in the nation, amid the wreck of character, of time-serving, and of corruption, which then prevailed.

The government continued the persecution of those who attended field meetings and absented themselves from the parish churches. On the 22nd of June, 1680, about twenty of the Whigs, headed by Cameron and Cargill, marched into the town of Sanquhar with drawn swords, halted at the market cross, and read and then posted up a declaration, in which they disowned Charles Stuart, because of his tyranny and his perjury――“For which reasons, we declare, that several years since he should have been denuded of being king, ruler, or magistrate, or of having any power to act or to be obeyed as such. As also, we being under the standard of our Lord Jesus Christ, Captain of Salvation, do declare a war with such a tyrant and usurper, and all the men of his practices, as enemies to our Lord Jesus Christ, and his cause and covenants, and against all such as have strengthened him, sided with him, or any way acknowledged him in his tyranny, civil or ecclesiastical――yea, against all such as shall strengthen, side with, or any way acknowledge any other in the like usurpation and tyranny, far more against such as would betray or deliver our free reformed mother Church into bondage.... As also, we disown, and by this resent the reception of the Duke of York, that professed papist, as repugnant to our principles and vows to the most high God, and as that which is the great, though not the only, just reproach of our Church and nation. We also by this protest against his succession to the throne; and in whatever has been done, or any one essaying to do in this land, given to the Lord, in prejudice of our work of reformation. And to conclude, we hope after this none will blame us for, or be offended at, our rewarding those that are against us, as they have done to us, as the Lord gives opportunity.”¹

¹ Given at Sanquhar, June 22nd, 1680.

This renunciation called forth a royal proclamation, offering large rewards for the apprehension of Richard Cameron, his brother, Cargill, and Thomas Douglas, dead or alive. The army harassed all nonconformists throughout the country, and inflicted great suffering upon many besides those who had joined the Society People. On the 20th of July, 1680, a company of about sixty of the Society People, or Cameronians, was surprised by an overwhelming number of the royal army at Ayrsmoss, in the parish of Auchinleck. They fought bravely, but they were all cut down, wounded, or taken on the spot; Richard Cameron himself, his brother, and others were slain. But Hackston of Rathillet, who had acted as the leader in the scuffle, was conveyed to Edinburgh a prisoner, with the head of Richard Cameron carried in triumph before him. Shortly afterwards Hackston and other prisoners were sentenced to death; and the execution of Hackston, by the instructions of the Privy Council, was carried out in a most shocking and cruel way.¹

¹ _Records of the Privy Council_, 1680; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume III., pages 215‒223. Hackston himself gives an account
of the affair at Ayrsmoss, which is printed in _Wodrow_,
Volume III., page 219.

The remnant of the Whigs, though savagely persecuted, still stood firm, unshaken and untouched in their faith and in their principles. In September, 1680, they held a great meeting with Cargill, their minister, at the Torwood in Stirlingshire. He delivered one of his stirring sermons to an eager assemblage of listeners; and then excommunicated the King, the Duke of York, the Duke of Lauderdale, General Dalziel, the Earl of Rothes, the Duke of Monmouth, and the Lord-Advocate, for their breach of the Covenant and their persecution of God’s people. It should be observed that the main body of the presbyterians had no concern in these proceedings; as they disapproved of the extreme steps taken by this party. The government exerted itself more than ever to suppress field meetings, and to get hold of the daring preacher Cargill. On the 5th of May, 1681, Cargill held a fast near Loudon Hill, and escaped at that time. But in July he was taken and conveyed to Glasgow by a party of soldiers; thence he was carried to Edinburgh. He was then brought before the Council and interrogated at length. He denied that the rising at Bothwell Bridge was a rebellion against the King; as he deemed it right to rebel in cases of necessity; those who rose at Bothwell were oppressed, and therefore rose in their own defence. Interrogated touching the King, he said that he was not obliged to obey his government, as it was then established by the act of supremacy; when asked if he owned the excommunication of the King, he refused to answer. He was tried before the Court of Justiciary on the 26th of July, condemned, and sentenced to be executed the following day. He was hanged along with other four Covenanters, all of whom left their testimony behind them.¹

¹ _Records of the Privy Council_; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume
III., pages 278‒284; _The Cloud of Witnesses._

In the end of October, 1680, the Duke of York arrived in Scotland, and was warmly welcomed by the orthodox clergy. During the few months of his sojourn in Scotland before, the Privy Council were so much impressed with his goodness, that they gave him an exceedingly high character to his royal brother, on the occasion of his leaving for England, of which the following is a specimen:――“The remembrance of having been under the protection of your royal family above two thousand years, of having been preserved, by their valour, from the slavery to which others were so often reduced, and of having received from their bounty the lands which we possess, has been very much refreshed and renewed by having your royal brother among us, in whom we have seen the moderation of spirit and equality of justice that is remarkable in your sacred race, and has raised in us a just abhorrence of those seditious persons and pernicious principles which would lead us back to those dreadful confusions which grew up by degrees, from tumultuary petitioners for reformation and parliaments, to a rebellion that in the last age destroyed both, and which must do so still, since all who think that subjects should direct their king, design nothing, in effect, but to be kings themselves: the convictions of all which did prevail so far with all degrees of persons, and with persons of all persuasions here, that it has been observed our nobility and gentry of both sexes attended their royal highnesses with much joy and assiduity, expressed in all their confluences great respect and satisfaction, that even the most malicious abstained from all manner of rebellious risings and undutiful speeches: no breach of the peace, no libel, no pasquil, having been ever discovered during his abode here; so that this too short time has been the most peaceful and serene part of our life, and the happiest days we ever saw, except your Majesty’s miraculous restoration.”¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume III., pages 23, 3‒234;
Fountainhall’s _Notes_, page 3.