Chapter XXVII: The Conflict from the Restoration to the Revolution (3)

All had not so high an opinion of the Duke as the members of the Privy Council. He desired to strengthen his prospective claim and title to the throne; and, as it was thought that the Estates would oblige him, and do what they were ordered, a parliament was summoned, which met at Edinburgh in the end of July, 1681, and when the Duke of York assumed his place as royal Commissioner. After disposing of various preliminary matters, on the 13th of August, an act touching the right of succession to the imperial Crown of Scotland was passed. This act repeated the assertion “that the kings of the realm derived their royal power from God alone,” and succeeded to it by lineal descent, which could not be altered without involving the nation in perjury and rebellion. That no difference in religion, nor law, nor act of parliament, could divert the right of succession of the Crown from the nearest heir; and that all who contradicted or in any way opposed this, should incur the penalties of high treason. Another act imposed new and more severe penalties on all who attended conventicles. It authorised the proprietors of land to turn any of their tenants or cottars out of their holdings without warning, and at any time of the year, if they were implicated in field conventicles. The landlords were also enjoined to retain as much of the goods and stock of their tenants, cottars, or servants, as would pay the fines and penalties incurred by them under the acts of parliament. The Test Act, which was re-enacted and passed on the last day of August, caused much stir. It provided that all persons in public office, from the highest to the humblest, should swear that they sincerely professed the true Protestant religion, as contained in the Confession of Faith, recorded in the first parliament of James VI., 1568; and that they believed the same to be founded on the written word of God; and to swear that the King’s power was supreme in all cases and over all persons, that they would maintain and defend this to the utmost of their power; and solemnly swear that it was unlawful on any pretence to enter into covenants, to hold meetings, or to treat of and discuss government, without the King’s licence. A part of the Test Act may be quoted:――“I further affirm and swear by this my solemn oath, that I judge it unlawful for subjects, upon pretence of reformation or any pretence whatever, to enter into covenants or leagues, or to assemble in any meeting to treat, consult, or determine, in any matter of State whatever, without his Majesty’s special command or express licence; or to take up arms against the King or those commissioned by him; and that I shall never so rise in arms, or enter into such covenants or assemblies; and that there lies no obligation on me from the National Covenant, or Solemn League and Covenant, or in any other way whatever, to endeavour to change or alter the government, either in Church or State, as it is now established by the laws of the kingdom. And I promise and swear that I shall to the utmost of my power defend, assist, and maintain his Majesty’s jurisdiction against all deadly: and I shall never decline his Majesty’s power and jurisdiction, as I shall answer to God. Finally, I affirm and swear, that this my solemn oath is given in the plain genuine sense and meaning of the words, without any equivocation, mental reservation, or any kind of evasion whatever; and that I shall not accept or use dispensation from any creature whatsoever. So help me God.”¹ The act was hurried through parliament, and it contained such a jumble of inconsistencies that some declined to sign it. Some of the clergy refused to take the test, and left their parishes; and others only took it with limitations and explanations. The Earl of Argyle took it in so far as it was consistent with itself: and stated that he could not bind himself from doing what he deemed requisite and consistent with the Protestant religion, and the duty of a loyal subject. For this he was charged with high treason, on the ground of giving the act a different meaning from what parliament intended it to bear. Argyle was tried and convicted, but he escaped from the Castle of Edinburgh on the 20th of December, 1681, and fled to Holland. On the 23rd of December, 1682, sentence of death was pronounced against him, and his coat of arms was defaced.²

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
231‒245.

² Fountainhall’s _Notes_, page 20; Burnet’s _History of His Own
Time_, Volume II., pages 309‒314. The Duke of York was blamed
for encouraging the proceedings against Argyle. “The Duke
seeing how great a man the Earl of Argyle was in Scotland,
concluded it was necessary for him either to be gained or
to ruin him. Argyle gave him all possible assurance that
he would adhere to his interest in everything except in
the matter of religion.... This was well enough taken in
show, but Argyle said he observed ever after such a visible
coldness and distrust that he saw what he might expect from
him.”――_Burnet_, page 295.

In the beginning of the year 1682, a party of the Society People entered the town of Lanark, and published a declaration of their principles, and then burned the Succession and Test Acts. They styled themselves in this declaration, “the Presbyterians of the Church of Scotland.” Two days after, the Privy Council ordered the Solemn League and Covenant, and the declarations published at Rutherglen, Sanquhar, and Lanark, to be burned by the common hangman at the Cross of Edinburgh, and the magistrates in their robes attended to see this executed. Thus the government and the Society men imitated each other in their modes of manifesting their contempt.

Throughout the years of 1682 and 1683 the troops continued to harass the people; and as they were invested with irresponsible powers, they caused terror in many a quiet home. They pillaged farm-houses, exacted free quarters, levied enormous fines, and seized the refractory as prisoners. Amid these wretched scenes the worst passions of the human breast were called into action, and fed and intensified; for the soldiers wallowed in deeds of heartless cruelty and revenge; numbers of the Society People were shot down without trial or process; and the nation groaned under the yoke of dire oppression. But in spite of all the suffering which the government inflicted on the Society men, they still stood to their principles; and in October, 1684, they issued a declaration directed especially against informers. In this they affirmed their adherence to their former declarations, disowning the authority of the King, and declaring war against him and all his accomplices; but at the same time they stated――“that as we utterly detest and abhor that hellish principle of killing all who differ in judgment and in persuasion from us, so we look upon it as a duty binding upon us to publish openly to the world, that forasmuch as we are firmly and really resolved not to injure or offend any one, but to pursue the ends of our covenants, in standing to our religious work of reformation, and of our lives; yet we do hereby declare to all, that whosoever stretches forth their hands against us, while we are maintaining the cause and interest of Christ against the enemies, in the defence of our covenanted Reformation, by shedding our blood actually, either by authoritative commanding, such as councillors, and especially the so-called Justiciary, generals of forces, adjutants, captains, and all in civil and military power, who make it their work to imbue their hands in our blood, or by obeying such commands――such as bloody militiamen, malicious troopers, soldiers, and dragoons; likewise, such gentlemen and commons who, through wickedness and ill-will, ride and run with the foresaid persons, to lay search for us, or who deliver any of us into their hands, to the spilling of our blood, enticing morally, or stirring up enemies to the taking away of our lives, such as purposely advise, counsel, and encourage them to proceed against us to our utter extirpation, by informing against us wickedly, wittingly, and willingly, such as malicious bishops and curates, and all sorts of informers, who lay themselves out for the effusion of our blood, together with all who in obedience to the commands of the enemies, at the sight of us raise the hue and cry after us.... Finally.... Call to your remembrance, that all that is in peril is not lost, and all that is delayed is not forgiven. Therefore expect to be dealt with as ye deal with us, so far as our power can reach.”¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 147‒149.

After what had been done in Scotland since the Reformation, after what the people had suffered at the hands of their government, who can affirm that the Society men were not in some degree excusable in taking the course which they did? Whether was it best for the interest of peace and civilisation that an absolute king should reign in undisputed power over all in the Island, or that a measure of liberty and freedom of opinion should be allowed to the people? This in one form or another had become the problem which then filled all thoughtful minds in both divisions of the Island, and was hastening on the crisis which drove the ancient line of kings from the throne of their ancestors.

Though the policy of the government had really driven these bodies into an attitude of defence, yet it seized upon their declaration as a good pretext for crushing them as the enemies of order and peace. Immediate steps were taken, and a series of acts were passed against the enemies of the government, including the abjuration oath, an engine of the most cruel persecution. All the men and women past the age of sixteen in the southern and western counties were commanded to take this oath――“I ―――― do hereby abhor, renounce, and disown, in the presence of the Almighty God, the pretended declaration of war, lately affixed at several parish churches, in so far as it declares a war against his sacred Majesty, and asserts that it is lawful to kill such as serve his Majesty, in church, state, army, or country.” All who refused to take this oath were to be put to death, whether in arms or not; and no one was permitted to travel through the country without a certificate that they had taken it in the presence of the commissioners authorised to tender it. “And for further security and prevention of fraud, it is hereby required that the users and havers of the foresaid certificate shall be holden and obliged to swear that these are true and unforged certificates, and that they are the persons mentioned and expressed in them, if the same shall be required of them. Finally, for the encouragement of such as shall discover any of the said traitors and assassins, or any who have been accessory to this traitorous and damnable paper, or to the publishing and spreading of the same, or to have been a member of the said pretended societies and fellowships: we hereby declare and insure them, and every one of them, who shall discover any of these assassins and murderers, or pretended members, a reward of the sum of five thousand merks Scots for each of them, who shall be discovered, so as to be apprehended, and be found guilty.” The instructions to the commissioners to examine all the inhabitants on oath concerning the declaration of the Society men, and the matters touching their suppression, were very minute, and must have greatly harassed the people.¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 150‒160.

The following is part of the commissioners’ instructions:――“2. If any person own the principles, or do not disown them, they must be judged at least by three. And you must immediately give them a libel and the names of the inquest and witnesses, and they being found guilty, are to be hanged immediately in the place according to the law. But at this time you are not to examine any women, but such as have been active in the said courses in signal manner, and these are to be drowned. 3. You are to proceed against the absent men, not by denouncing them rebels, but by holding them as confessed, upon a pecuniary mulct; and they being thereupon discerned, conform to the King’s letter, their moveable goods are to be inventured and sequestrated. 5. You must likewise proceed against proprietors guilty of church disorders since their former fining. And if they have not been adequately fined, you may proceed against them for the surplus.... 7. If you find probation against proprietors not yet debited, you may take them before you, both as to the late rebellion and late conspiracy. 8. You are likewise to cause the whole packmen, cadgers, and drovers, within the bounds of your shire, find caution not to carry letters or intelligence to the rebels, or to sell to them or give them ammunition, or supply them in any other manner.”¹

¹ _Ibid._, pages 164‒165.

The year 1685 opened in Scotland amid gloom and persecution. No one was safe from the violence of the army; many were shot on the highways, in the fields and mountains, and at their own doors. The reign of Charles II. closed on the 6th of February, amidst a scene of oppression, suffering, and corruption, unmatched in the worst times of the nation’s history.¹

¹ Fountainhall’s _Notes_, pages 19‒122; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume IV., pages 182‒199.

The Duke of York now ascended the throne, and on the 10th of February, a royal proclamation was read at the Cross of Edinburgh, announcing his accession to the Scots, as “the only, the undoubted, and lawful King of the realm.” In this singular proclamation the supreme authority of the King was fully acknowledged, and the Privy Council, and other barons with uplifted hands swore, “Humbly to obey, dutifully and faithfully to serve, maintain and defend him, with our lives and fortunes, against all deadly, as our only righteous King and Sovereign, over all persons, and in all cases, as holding his imperial Crown from God alone.” James dispensed with the coronation oath, lest it should seem that he in any way derived his right and power from the people, and the dominant party humoured him in all points.¹

¹ _Records of the Privy Council._ Touching the proclamation
of the King, Fountainhall says:――“See it in print, entitled
a proclamation of the sovereign authority, and not a
proclamation of him, lest that should seem to import that
the people had any hand in giving him his power. The English
proclamation reserved power to him to consider the bygone
errors and misgovernments, that he might redress them. The
Castle shot many guns, Mr. John Robertson preached a sermon,
and the Privy Council called for the seals, and broke them.
The Council sent Lord Drumlanrig, the treasurer’s son, who
after proved a vile traitor, and the clergy Dr. Law, to
condole the King’s death, and congratulate the present King’s
accession to the Crown” (page 123).

One of the peculiarities of the English Crown after the Reformation was its assumption of the powers of the papacy. Such was its position when the Stuarts succeeded to the throne. The notions of their divine right, royal prerogative, and supremacy was enlarged and confirmed; and they claimed the sole right to command, the simple duty of every subject being to obey their divinely-appointed and anointed head. These claims of the Crown were at the root of the struggles from the accession of James VI. to the period now under review. It was reserved for the man who had just succeeded to the throne of three kingdoms to give the culminating touch to the idea of the “divine right of Kings.” He was suffered to play his tune for a few years, until he lost the confidence of the English nation, and, finding the influences of the revolutionary movement too strong for him, he was forced to flee for refuge to the representative of that system against which the English and the Scots were contending. Then he was made to feel that his ideas were not in accordance with the national sentiment of the people, or with their best and highest aspirations.

The persecution of the Society People and of the Presbyterians still continued under the new reign. Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 23rd of April, 1685, and directly proceeded to legislate in accordance with the views of the new King. The Duke of Queensberry was royal commissioner, and opened the proceedings by reading the King’s letter, which he supported by a speech of his own, making the following reference to the nonconformists and the Society People――“My lords, his Majesty certainly expects from the prudence and loyalty of this parliament, that effectual means will be fallen upon for destroying that desperate, fanatical, and irreclaimable party, who have brought us to the brink of ruin and disgrace, and are no more rebels against the King than enemies of mankind, wretches of such monstrous principles and practices as past ages never heard, nor those to come will hardly believe: what indemnities and acts of grace and clemency have they not contemned? and all the use they made of them has still been to harden and confirm them in their execrable ♦villainies; and how inconsiderable soever they appear, assure yourselves they ought not absolutely to be contemned, for if they had not support and correspondence not yet discovered, it is not to be supposed that they could have so long escaped the care and vigilance of the government: it therefore concerns you both in honour and prudence, no longer to dally with them, but that the utmost severities be most effectively applied, and always taken to find out their favourers, and retired and secret haunts.” The Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Rothes, also spoke and described the enemies of the government in these words:――“We have a new sect sprung up amongst us from the dunghill, the very dregs of the people, who filled by pretended inspiration, and instead of the temple of the Lord, have nothing in their mouths but the Word of God, wresting that blessed conveyance of His holy will to us, to justify a practice suggested to them by him who was a murderer from the beginning, who, having modelled themselves into a commonwealth, whose idol is that accursed paper, the Covenant, and whose only rule is to have none at all, have proceeded to declare themselves no longer his Majesty’s subjects, to forfeit all of us, who have the honour to serve him in any considerable station.... It is how to rid ourselves of these men, and of all who incline to their principles, that we are to offer to his Majesty our advice, and concurrence, and utmost assistance.” After more reproaches in a similar strain, let us hear what he says about the character of the King, by contrast to the description of the Covenanters. “To encourage us to do all we can towards the service and the honour of our glorious monarch, let us consider him in all his personal advantages. Whether in what relates to war or peace, where has the world afforded such another? One whose natural endowments have been improved by his great experience at home and abroad, in armies and in courts, by the greatest trials of the most differing kinds, those of prosperity and success, and of adversity and opposition, of hazard and toil, and of authority and command. Did ever man show so exact an honesty in the strictest adhering to his word, such temperance and sobriety, so indefatigable a diligence in affairs, so undaunted a courage upon all occasions, and so unwearied a clemency towards the most obstinate and malicious offenders? Did ever hero complete the character so fully, in overcoming bravely, and showing gentleness to the vanquished? And I must say the triumphs of his patience are not his obscurest glories, nor is the forgiving of those whose virulent tongues would have tainted his fame, if their malice could have reached it, what is least to be admired in him; what reputation other princes have laboured for, at the vast expense of blood and treasure, and putting of a constant restraint upon themselves, sits so easily upon him, that what they would have he forces from the consciences of his very enemies by his merit, and it costs him no more than to be himself. But this theme is not for me; I do him wrong.... I am detracting from him here, by giving him too low a character. I shall add that he gave to subjects the greatest example of loyalty and obedience when he was one himself; and now he is an example to all kings in his love, in his clemency, and in his care towards his people. Let us give him the return of our love, our fidelity, and our obedience.”¹

♦ “villanies” replaced with “villainies”

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
451‒456; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 259‒263.

The Estates, in an act offering their duty and obedience to the King, fully recognised his absolute power, and the antiquity of the nation. The nation, it was said, had continued for upwards of two thousand years in an unaltered form of monarchical government, under an uninterrupted line of one hundred and eleven kings, whose sacred authority and power had been signally owned and assisted by Almighty God; and the kingdom protected from conquest, the laws vigorously executed, and the lives and the property of the subjects securely preserved. “These great blessings we owe in the first place to divine mercy, and in dependence upon that, to the sacred race of our glorious kings, and to the absolute authority wherewith they were invested by the first and fundamental law of our monarchy.” It was only when a rebellious party invaded the absolute authority of the kings that the peace and prosperity of the kingdom was disturbed. “Therefore the Estates of parliament judge themselves obliged to declare, and they do declare, to the world, that they abhor and detest the authors and actors of all preceding rebellions against the sovereign, and also all principles and positions which are contrary or derogatory to the King’s sacred, supreme, absolute power, and authority, which none, whether persons or collective bodies, can participate of, in any way, or upon any pretext, but in dependence on him and by commission from him. As their duty formerly did bind them to own and assert the just and legal succession of the sacred line as unalterable by any human jurisdiction, so now on this occasion, they for themselves and the whole nation represented by them, in most humble and dutiful manner, do renew the hearty and sincere offer of their lives and fortunes to assist, to support, to defend, and to maintain King James VII., their present glorious monarch, and his heirs and lawful successors in the possession of their crowns, sovereignty, prerogatives, authority, dignity, rights, and possessions, against all mortals; therewithal to assure all his enemies, who shall adventure on the disloyalty of disobeying his laws, or on the impiety of invading his rights, that these shall sooner weary of their wickedness, than they of their duty, being firmly resolved to give their entire obedience to his Majesty without reserve, against all his enemies.” As tangible evidence of their desire to serve the King, they annexed the inland excise to the Crown for ever; and then passed a series of acts against the Covenanters and all the enemies of the government.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
459‒460.

Two acts were passed to facilitate processes of treason, in one of which it was stated that persons who refused to give evidence in cases of treason, conventicles, and church irregularities, should be liable to be punished as guilty of these crimes themselves. Another act declared that the giving or taking of the National Covenant, or the Solemn League and Covenant, defending or owning them as lawful, should involve the penalties of treason. It was farther enacted, that all who preached at conventicles and all who attended them, should be punished by death and confiscation of their goods. Husbands were made responsible for the attendance of their wives at church, and liable for their fines; while the Test Act was renewed with some additions.¹

¹ _Ibid._, pages 460‒461, 471.

Before parliament rose, the Earl of Argyle had arrived in Scotland. He had entered into the plans of the exiles in Holland, and in concert with the Duke of Monmouth, concocted an invasion of Britain. But the attempt utterly failed. Argyle himself was captured on the 18th of June, and carried to Edinburgh; and the King and Council having determined to put him to death, according to the terms of his former sentence, he was beheaded on the 30th of June, 1685. The people expressed much sympathy for him, while many looked upon his execution as a murder.¹

¹ Fountainhall’s _Notes_, pages 134, 137; Burnet’s _History of
His Own Time_, Volume III., pages 26‒29.

This unsuccessful attempt at rebellion only increased the number of sufferers. The prisons were crowded with people incarcerated for nonconformity and rebellion, and huddled together without distinction of sex, in a most wretched condition. In September, 1685, about one hundred of these prisoners were shipped for New Jersey. But on the passage fever broke out and when, after four months’ sailing, they reached the New World, only forty of them were alive. Fortunately the magistrates of New Jersey declared that they were freemen; and so in a foreign land, they enjoyed that liberty and peace which had been ruthlessly denied to them at home.¹

¹ Fountainhall’s _Notes_, page 144; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume
IV., pages 331‒336.

The King had already not only shown that he was a firm Roman Catholic himself, but also manifested an intention to favour all who professed that creed, and to turn England and Scotland back to the principles of Roman Catholicism. To appear consistent, he proposed that all should have liberty of conscience, and then expatiated on the blessing which would result from a universal toleration of religious opinions, hoping thereby to secure a better chance of promoting the cause of Catholicism, and of finally re-establishing it.

The Scottish parliament was opened at Edinburgh on the 29th day of April, 1686, the Earl of Moray, a recent convert to Catholicism, acting as royal commissioner. He placed the King’s letter before the Estates, in which his Majesty stated what he desired them to pass into law. After a brief reference to matters of trade and commerce, and to acts of mercy to his enemies, the royal letter announced:――“We cannot be unmindful of others of our innocent subjects, those of the Roman Catholic religion, who have with the hazard of their lives and fortunes always assisted the Crown in the worst rebellions and usurpations, though they lay under discouragements hardly to be named: them we do heartily recommend to your care, to the end that, as they have given good experience of their true loyalty and peaceable behaviour, so by your assistance they may have the protection of our laws, and that security under our government which our other subjects have, not suffering them to lie under obligations which their religion cannot admit of.... So not only expecting your compliance with us, but that by the manner of it, you will show the world your readiness to meet our inclinations.” The Scotch parliament had indeed been servile for many years, but it seemed hardly prepared for this demand; so in answering the King’s letter it proceeded, touching that part “relating to your subjects of the Roman Catholic religion, we shall in obedience to your Majesty’s commands and with tenderness to their persons take the same into our serious and dutiful consideration, and go as great lengths therein as our consciences will allow, not doubting that your Majesty will be careful to secure the Protestant religion established by law.” A bill was prepared, and passed the Lords of the Articles, which proposed that the Roman Catholics should have the protection of the government and the laws, and be permitted to exercise their religion without incurring any punishment. The bill was debated in parliament, but it was not passed.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
576‒582; Fountainhall’s _Notes_, pages 171, 179.

When parliament had declined to do what the King desired, he thought that in virtue of his royal prerogative, he could do it himself. He accordingly commanded the Privy Council to authorise the Roman Catholics to exercise their religion, and to protect the chaplains and others whom he had placed in the chapel of Holyrood house. There was some opposition to this in the Council; but it was resolved that the King’s authority was sufficient to suspend the penal laws; they held that he was accountable only to God, and therefore they must obey him.¹

¹ Fountainhall’s _Notes_, pages 192‒193.

By the beginning of 1687 the persecution of the presbyterians was abated; though the laws for punishing the Society People were still in force. On the 13th of February, a royal proclamation was emitted at Edinburgh, in the following strain:――“We by our sovereign authority, prerogative royal, and absolute power, which all our subjects are to obey without reserve, do hereby give and grant our royal toleration to the several professors of the Christian religion after-named, under the conditions and limitations after-mentioned. In the first place, we allow and tolerate the moderate presbyterians to meet in their private houses, and there to hear all such ministers as either have or are willing to accept our indulgence only, and none other, and that there be not anything said or done contrary to the well and peace of our reign, seditious or treasonable, under the highest penalties which those crimes import; nor are they to build meeting-houses, but only to exercise in their private houses. Meantime it is our royal pleasure that field conventicles, and such as preach at them, or in any way assist or attend at them, shall be prosecuted according to the utmost severity of the laws against them, seeing, that from these rendezvouses of rebellion so much disorder has proceeded, and so much disturbance to the government.... In like manner, we do hereby tolerate Quakers to meet and exercise their own form of religion in any place appointed for them. And considering the severe and cruel laws made against Roman Catholics, therein called Papists, in the minority of our grandfather of glorious memory, without his consent and contrary to the duty of good subjects, by his regents and other enemies to their lawful sovereign, our royal great-grandmother, Queen Mary of blessed and pious memory, wherein under the pretence of religion they clothed the worst of treasons, factions, and usurpations, not against the enemies of God but their own ... we therefore, with advice and consent of our Privy Council, by our sovereign authority, royal prerogative, and absolute power, suspend, stop, and disable, all laws and acts of parliament, customs or constitutions, made against any of our Roman Catholic subjects in past times, to all intents making void all prohibitions therein mentioned or penalties therein ordered to be inflicted; so that they shall in all things be as free as any of our Protestant subjects, not only to exercise their religion, but also to enjoy all offices and other posts which we shall think fit to bestow upon them.” The proclamation went on to abolish the oaths of allegiance and the test; and then announced “that it never was our principle, nor will we ever suffer violence to be offered to any man’s conscience, nor will we use force against any man on account of his religion, or the Protestant religion.” James now proceeded rapidly with his work. On the 5th of July, 1687, by his sovereign authority and absolute power, he suspended all the penal laws against nonconformity. This afforded relief to the presbyterians, many of whom were released from prison, and some of the ministers who had been banished, shortly after returned to Scotland.¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 417‒427.

The King had played his game so far with such success, that a party of the presbyterian ministers and some of the citizens of Edinburgh forwarded an address thanking him for putting an end to their long sufferings for nonconformity. But the main body of the presbyterians easily saw through the motive and design of the King’s policy of toleration; as his scheme of reconverting the people of Great Britain to Roman Catholicism was too palpable, and withal rather crude, to deceive many of them. James claimed and assumed the power, not merely of suspending laws, but also of repealing them; he was always proclaiming that by his absolute power he had suspended this law and that, and commanded something else to be put in their place. Being conceited and self-willed, he fancied himself to be above the laws and constitution of the kingdom; and when any refused to embrace his unlawful projects, he became indignant and threatening.

The Society People soon recognised the real meaning of the King’s toleration. What right had he to forbid or to allow them to preach the gospel? They had a warrant from a higher Master, and therefore they continued their field meetings, scorning alike the King’s claim of absolute power and his denunciations against them. But Renwick, their leader and preacher, was seized in the beginning of February, 1688, and executed at Edinburgh on the 17th of that month; his death being the last execution for religion in Scotland.¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, pages 427‒429; Burnet’s _History of His
Own Time_, Volume III., pages 171‒178.

The great crisis had been long preparing, and when it was seen to be nigh, great was the excitement in Scotland. As the convictions and sentiments of the people had been long repressed, the rebound threatened to be violent. The King had set up the Roman Catholic worship in the chapel of Holyrood, and schools were also opened there under the direction of Catholic priests. Although attempts were made to suppress the Prince of Orange’s declaration, which was issued in the middle of October, 1688, its import soon became known in Scotland. All the forces in the kingdom had been summoned by the King to operate against the Dutch invaders, who had landed in England in the beginning of November. The Scottish bishops saw the dark clouds gathering; they met at Edinburgh on the 3rd of November, and in an humble letter to his sacred Majesty, prayed “that God in his mercy, who has so often preserved and delivered your Majesty, will still preserve and deliver you, by giving you the hearts of your subjects, and the necks of your enemies.”¹

¹ Burnet’s _History of His Own Time_, Volume III., pages
309‒312; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 469‒470. The
Prince of Orange’s Declaration to the people of Scotland is
printed in Wodrow’s _History_. The chief points adduced in
it as reasons for William’s interference were――that where
the laws, the liberties, and the customs established by
the lawful authority were openly transgressed and annulled,
and especially when this was done with the aim of altering
religion, the peace and the happiness of the kingdom could
not be preserved; that the effects of arbitrary power and
evil counsel were manifest in the wretched condition of the
people of Scotland; that the fountain of justice had been
excessively corrupted, and the poor people mercilessly
punished.

Before the issue of the military operations in England was decided, disturbances arose in Edinburgh. The Roman Catholics were insulted on the streets; and placards were posted up threatening the ministers of the Crown. The Earl of Perth, the chancellor and head of the Privy Council, and an apostate, had been a servile tool to the King, and therefore an object of hatred; but now his courage failed him, and he fled to his own country residence. When at last it became clear that the King’s cause was falling, crowds gathered on the streets of Edinburgh, loud shouts were raised for a free parliament, and the tumult increased; a few troops attempted to quell it, but were overpowered. On Sunday the 9th of December, 1688, a great number of students, apprentices, and others, appeared on the streets; and the provost having refused to deliver the keys of the ports, they threatened to burn his house. They then proceeded to the Market Cross, and proclaimed a reward of four hundred pounds sterling to any one who should seize the Earl of Perth and bring him there dead or alive.

The following day the Town Council issued a proclamation prohibiting tumults on the streets, which was torn to tatters as soon as it was read, and the officers and drummer prevented from going through the town. The mob then prepared to attack the chapel in the palace of Holyrood for the purpose of destroying the images. The attack was begun in the evening, and after some bloodshed, the soldiers who guarded the Abbey were overcome. The chapel was rifled, and the woodwork, the images, the library, and everything in the interior which could be readily removed, were taken out and burned. The next day the mob went through all the houses of the Catholics in the city, demanding their images, crosses, and books, and burned them on the streets. The Privy Council, too, had changed their attitude, even before the final flight of the King. On the 24th of December, they emitted a proclamation calling upon all the Protestants in the kingdom to put themselves in a position of defence, for securing their religion, their lives, their liberties, and their property: thus the Council easily came round to the popular side; while the body of the nation was already arrayed on the side of the Prince of Orange.¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 472‒476.

All kinds of alarming rumours were rife. It was reported that an army of Irish Catholics was on the eve of landing on the coasts of Galloway, and some said it was landed. The people dreaded a massacre; for the Council had dissolved, the army had been marched into England, and there was an utter collapse of authority. The people of the western counties assembled in crowds, and proceeded to take the law into their own hands. They had naturally determined to purge the Church, and the unhappy curates became their victims. They began their work on the 25th of December, 1688; but some of the episcopal clergy had saved themselves by flight, in other instances they were seized by bands of men and exhibited in mock processions, their gowns torn over their heads, and their prayer-books burned before their eyes; and finally, they were ordered to be gone and never to return to the parish. The rioters entered many of the manses, and having thrown the furniture out at the window, and turned the inmates out at the door, took possession of the keys. This work went on for several months, till almost every parish in the west and in the south of the kingdom was relieved of its episcopal incumbent. More than two hundred were thus removed from their parishes and livings. The curates were subjected by the mob to some rough usage, and though no life was taken, they were rendered homeless with their wives and families, and many of them reduced to beggary. But the violence of the Revolution, considering its antecedents, was not great; and the only surprise is, that after twenty-eight years of persecution and severe oppression, the people did not rise more violently against their enemies. Indeed, the more moderate Covenanters disapproved of these proceedings, and a general meeting of ministers and elders was called for the purpose of preventing such excesses. They agreed on a form of notice which in future was to be sent to every curate, ordering him to quit his parish peaceably, else he would be turned out by force.¹

¹ Burnet’s _History of His Own Time_, Volume III., page 344;
_An Account of the Present Persecution of the Church of
Scotland, in several Letters_, 1690; _The Case of the Present
Afflicted Clergy of Scotland Truly Represented_, 1690.

The presbyterian ministers held a general meeting at Edinburgh in January, 1689, and agreed on a well-considered address to the Prince of Orange. They thanked him for his exertions on behalf of the reformed religion, referred to the innumerable evils and suffering which the establishment of episcopacy had brought upon them and the nation, and humbly beseeched him to adopt measures to free them from the yoke of prelacy, and to restore the presbyterian polity as the most effectual remedy against slavery and the distractions of the nation.¹

¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume IV., pages 481‒482.

Some of the Scotch nobles were in London when the Prince of Orange reached it, and many others hastened there to offer him their service. On the 7th of January, 1689, he requested them to meet him the next day at Whitehall. The meeting was led by the Duke of Hamilton, and consisted of about thirty lords and eighty gentlemen of note. The Prince desired them to deliberate, and to inform him in what way he could promote the peace and interest of their country, and then left them to form their own conclusion unrestrained by his presence. They debated three days. In the end they agreed to resolutions embodied in an address to the Prince, requesting him to call a Convention of the Estates at Edinburgh on the 14th of March, and meantime to take upon himself the administration of the kingdom. To these requests he at once acceded.¹

¹ _Sixth Collection of State Papers_, 1689; Sir J. Mackintosh’s
_History of the Revolution in England in 1688_, pages 574‒576.

Preparations for the Convention were immediately commenced, all parties being anxious to return members to decide the future position of the nation. The Roman Catholics were excluded from voting in the election of members. King William assumed the power to summon to the Convention several of the nobles, who had been deprived of their honours by sentences which public feeling condemned as unjust, dispensed with a number of other restrictions, and ordered that the members for the burghs should be elected by a poll of all the adult inhabitants. The Whigs secured a majority favourable to the Prince of Orange, though all the bishops, and some of the nobles, clung to the cause of the fugitive King. The latter party calculated on the support of the Duke of Gordon, who commanded the Castle of Edinburgh, and on Viscount Dundee, whose energy was well known and greatly feared, as they might attempt to intimidate, or to disperse the Convention. The other party mainly relied on the aid of the Cameronians from the west, if the necessity for real action arose.¹

¹ Balcarres’ _Memoirs_.

The Convention assembled at the appointed time. Nine of the bishops appeared as the representatives of the spiritual estate, forty-two peers, forty-nine members for the counties, and fifty for the burghs. The Bishop of Edinburgh opened the proceedings, and prayed that God would assist them and restore King James. The election of a president was next essayed. The supporters of James proposed the Marquis of Athole; the Whigs proposed the Duke of Hamilton, who was elected by a majority of forty. This indicated the drift of the Convention. About twenty of the minority then deserted the cause of James, and joined the majority. On the 16th, a letter from the Prince of Orange was read, in which he expressed his desire that they would settle the religion and liberties of the nation upon just grounds, in harmony with the inclination of the people and of the public good. The Estates returned a thankful reply. The same day, after some debate, a letter from King James was read; but there was nothing in it to raise the hopes of his adherents. He offered a pardon to those who returned to their allegiance before the end of the month; while to others no mercy could be shown. His adherents in the Convention were mortified, while his enemies were vehement, and the sitting closed in great excitement.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 3‒5,
6; Balcarres’ _Memoirs_.

The citizens of Edinburgh were intensely agitated as well as the members of the Convention. The Whigs had summoned the Duke of Gordon to surrender the Castle, but he refused. He might at any moment open a ♦cannonade on the Parliament House or the citizens, as it was known that the Jacobites would not yield without a severe struggle, and might attempt some desperate move. Viscount Dundee and Sir George Mackenzie complained that their lives were in danger, alleging that the Cameronians had resolved to slay them, and they applied to the Duke of Hamilton for protection. When the Convention met on the 18th of March, tidings were brought into the House that Viscount Dundee was on the Stirling road with a troop of dragoons, and that he had been seen conferring with the Duke of Gordon at the Castle gate. This news threw the members into a state of violent alarm, and Hamilton, the president, started to his feet and cried:――“It is high time that we should look to ourselves. The enemies of our religion, and of our civil freedom, are mustering all around us; and we may well suspect that they have accomplices even here. Lock the doors. Lay the keys on the table. Let no one go out but those lords and gentlemen, whom we shall appoint to call the citizens to arms. There are some good men from the west in Edinburgh, men for whom I can answer.” The majority of the members shouted assent, and what he proposed was immediately done. Leven went out and ordered the drums to be beat. The Covenanters promptly answered to the call, and mustered in such numbers as overawed all the Jacobites in Edinburgh. They protected the arrival of the Scotch regiments under the command of General Mackay.¹

♦ “canonade” replaced with “cannonade”

¹ Balcarres’ _Memoirs_; _History of the late Revolution in
Scotland_, 1690.

The members of the Convention now prepared to settle the prime point of the conflict. As usual, a committee was appointed to draft the acts; and the special task of framing a plan for settling the government was entrusted to eight peers, eight representatives of counties, and eight representatives of the burghs, the majority being Whigs. They proceeded to debate and frame the decisive resolution, which required some time for deliberate consideration. The resolution of the Convention finally assumed the following form:――“That James VII. was a professed papist, that he had assumed the royal power and acted as king without ever taking the oath required by law; and by the advice of evil and wicked councillors he had invaded the fundamental constitution of the kingdom, and altered it from a limited monarchy to an arbitrary and despotic power, and did exercise the same to the subversion of the Protestant religion, and the violation of the laws and the liberties of the kingdom, whereby he forfeited his right to the crown, and his throne has become vacant.” This resolution was accompanied by another, which tendered the crown of Scotland to William and Mary. When the two resolutions were put to the vote, nine voted against them, namely, seven bishops, and other two members. Immediately after the vote of the Convention, the new sovereigns were proclaimed at the Cross of Edinburgh.¹ At the same time the Estates issued an order to the parish ministers to intimate from their pulpits the contents of the proclamation, and to pray for King William and Queen Mary, under the penalty of deprivation.

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 33,
38‒39.

The Scotch Convention, like the English parliament, embodied a Claim of Right, to be presented along with the resolutions tendering the Crown to the new sovereigns. It was meant to be declaratory of the law as it then stood, and also, to state clearly what institutions and liberties the late kings had infringed. The chief points of this important document were these:――“That according to the laws of the kingdom no papist could ascend the throne. That all proclamations assuming an absolute power to suspend the laws were illegal. That the measures employed to establish popery, the imposing of bonds and oaths, and the exacting of money without the authority of parliament, Convention till the were contrary to law. That it was illegal to invest the officers of the army with judicial powers, to inflict death without trial, jury, or record; to exact exorbitant fines or bail; to imprison without expressing the reason, or to delay the trial; to prosecute and procure the forfeiture of persons by the straining of old and obsolete statutes; to nominate the magistrates and the common council of the burghs; to dictate the proceedings of courts of justice; to employ torture without evidence or in ordinary crimes; to garrison private houses, or to introduce an hostile army into the country to live at free quarters in a time of peace. That it was illegal to treat persons as guilty of treason for refusing to state their private sentiments touching the treasonable doctrines or actions of others. That prelacy and the superiority of any office in the Church above presbyters is, and has been, a great and insufferable grievance and trouble to this nation, and contrary to the inclination of the majority of the people, ever since the Reformation, when they were reformed from popery to presbytery; and therefore prelacy ought to be abolished. The rights of appeal to parliament, and of petition to the throne, were asserted; frequent meetings of parliament were demanded; and all the preceding points were declared to be undoubted rights against which no declaration or precedent ought to operate to the injury of the people.”¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
39‒40.

The convention empowered Hamilton to take any steps that might be necessary for preserving the public peace till the end of the interregnum; and the Estates then adjourned for five weeks. Thus the Revolution was formally recognised in Scotland.