Chapter XXVIII: The Revolution and the Union (1)

ALTHOUGH at the centre of authority, the Revolution, had been accomplished, the principles and the difficulties which had caused it, were not solved. The opposite interests and influences, and the diverse sentiments and convictions in politics and religion, which had characterised parties in Scotland since the Reformation, were not harmonised. On some political ideas and points keener feelings than ever had been generated and aroused. The deposed dynasty had still many adherents in Scotland, so that the new government found itself face to face with embarrassment and a complicated series of obstacles. The Covenanters, or the extreme party of the presbyterians, were dissatisfied with the way in which the Convention had treated the question of Church government, as they disapproved of all compromises, while the bishops and the episcopal party were bitterly offended and disappointed. The leading Jacobites were preparing to assail the new government by force of arms.

King William had a difficult task in nominating ministers for the government of Scotland. The leader of a revolutionary movement, and each subordinate actor in it imagines that he is well entitled to a place in the new arrangement of affairs, or to some important post in the administration; hence, whomsoever the King might appoint, he would offend those who found their own claims ignored. A numerous class of Scotsmen were eager to proffer their advice and their service to King William, recommending him not to govern the kingdom by a faction, or to be led by those who had their own personal interest in view, but to be guided solely by considerations for the public good. The position of the King in Scotland was complicated and perplexing, inasmuch as both the Church and the parliament demanded reform of a radical character. But King William had at least one ♦Scotsman whom he could trust, William Carstairs, a presbyterian minister, and afterwards Principal of the University of Edinburgh. He had suffered persecution under the preceding reigns, and his hand still bore the marks of the thumbscrew. He had been long deep in the secrets and schemes of the Prince of Orange, and no man of that period was more worthy of confidence; William knew him well, and implicitly trusted him. He was appointed chaplain to their Majesties for Scotland; but he continued to be much with the King, and from the first advised him to adopt a moderate policy in Scotland. Carstairs’ own sentiments were liberal, and the severe persecution which he had undergone, had not in the least hardened his nature or clouded the judgment of his remarkable mind. The Duke of Hamilton was appointed royal commissioner when the Convention was turned into a parliament, yet it was reported that he did not consider himself sufficiently rewarded for his services. The Earl of Crawford was nominated a Privy Councillor, and President of Parliament; he was a presbyterian, and warmly supported that party. Lord Melville was appointed Secretary of State, and he also belonged to the presbyterians, and commanded their respect and confidence. Sir James Montgomery had thought himself entitled to the secretaryship, and though he was offered the office of Lord Justice Clerk, he deemed it below his merits, and therefore returned from London to Edinburgh a disappointed man, with feelings of aversion to the King and government, and determined on concerting plans of opposition. Lord Stair was made President of the Court of Session; and his son, John Dalrymple, was appointed Lord Advocate. Both of these had been concerned in the proceedings of the former reigns, so that many who considered themselves free from this blemish were greatly displeased and chagrined at their re-elevation.¹

♦ “Scotsmen” replaced with “Scotsman”

¹ M‘Cormick’s _Life of Carstairs_; Burnet’s _History of His Own
Time_, Volume IV., pages 42, 43.

A number of the Scotch Whigs, disappointed by the new arrangements, assembled in Edinburgh, and brooded over plans of opposition to the government. Among these angry politicians, the highest in rank were the Earl of Annandale and Lord Ross, who found a leader and a kindred spirit in Montgomery. Under this bold man, they formed themselves into a society called “The Club,” appointed a clerk, and met daily in a public-house to concert modes of opposition. With them Sir Patrick Hume, (who had returned from exile), and Fletcher of Saltoun, became associated, while many others joined them, and appeared on the side of the opposition. In conjunction with these men, Montgomery exerted himself to the utmost to form a party, which might be strong enough to control the proceedings of the Convention.¹

¹ _Leven and Melville Papers._

The Convention reassembled on the 5th of June, 1689, and passed an act which converted it into a parliament. Hamilton, the royal commissioner, was instructed to give the King’s assent to acts for reforming the constitution of the committee of the Lords of the Articles, establishing the presbyterian polity, and ♦remedying other grievances. But the members of the Club were intently bent on a teasing opposition to the government. They had determined, if possible, to ruin the Dalrymples, and reiterated that both the father and son had served under the late reigns, and oppressed the people. A form of conflict of a novel character was thus begun in the Scotch parliament. The chief contention was for a free debating parliament, such as England enjoyed, and thus it became necessary to abolish the committee called the Lords of the Articles. This was a very old institution of elective origin,¹ but it had been from time to time modified and transformed to suit the ends of the Crown. Nearly all parliamentary business and action had become concentrated in this committee; it had always been an aim of the recent kings to reduce a session to as few normal sittings as possible, and thus prevent discussions of their measures before the house. A majority of the members clamoured loudly for parliamentary reform, and a long and vehement debate ensued on the abolition of the Committee of the Articles. The King’s proposal to modify the constitution of the Lords of the Articles and still retain them, was repeatedly rejected, and total abolition demanded; but this was not then obtained. In the debate touching the nomination of the judges of the Court of Session, the members of the Club maintained that parliament should have a veto on their appointment.

♦ “remeding” replaced with “remedying”

¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
I., pages 369‒370. In the century under review the mode of
forming it was stated at page 130.

Much of the time of the session was spent in fruitless efforts. But on the 22nd of July, an act abolishing episcopacy was passed, which stated that the King, with the consent of parliament, would settle in Scotland the form of Church government most agreeable to the inclinations of the people. The royal commissioner adjourned the session on the 2nd of August.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 98,
104; Appendix, Minutes of Estates.

Thus, when the Estates adjourned, no form of Church polity was legally established; but the Privy Council was empowered to allow the ministers to continue their meetings of kirk-sessions, presbyteries, and synods, till the government of the Church should be further established by an Act of Parliament, and by the authority of the General Assembly.

Meanwhile Viscount Dundee and the Jacobites in the north were struggling to the utmost against the government. Since Dundee left Edinburgh, he had concerted a rising in the Highlands. General Mackay, with the royal army, was making desperate but unavailing efforts to crush the rising. His first campaign in the Highlands was an utter failure. Dundee resolved to muster the chiefs and clansmen in Lochaber, and a force of about two thousand assembled, consisting mainly of the Macdonalds, the Camerons, and Macleans. He marched through Badenoch to Athole, and arrived at Blair Castle on the morning of the 27th of July, 1689, where he received tidings that the royal army under General Mackay had entered the Pass of Killiecrankie. Dundee allowed Mackay to advance through the Pass, and gave him battle on the open ground. He immediately marched from the Castle of Blair along the Water of Tilt, and turned round the Hill of Lude, and took up his position on the brow of the hill which overlooked Mackay’s army. When Mackay perceived the approach of Dundee’s followers, he at once prepared for action. His army consisted of three thousand five hundred men, and two troops of cavalry. After examining the ground, he formed his men into one line three deep. Near the centre of his line was a piece of marshy ground, and behind it he placed his cavalry, which might be ready to attack the enemy in flank, after the fire of the infantry was spent. His line of battle was longer than Dundee’s, hence, when the latter was advancing to the attack, some companies of the clansmen were exposed to a raking flank fire. The two armies had faced each other for several hours, and the Highlanders were becoming impatient. At three quarters of an hour before sunset, they were ordered to prepare for action, and Dundee placed himself at the head of his company of cavalry, and resolved to charge in person. The signal to charge was given, and the Highlanders raised a shout which re-echoed afar from the surrounding hills. They advanced down the hill firing their guns, but the royal line returned the fire briskly, and thinned their ranks. As they came close upon the hostile line, they threw down their guns, drew their broadswords, and, with yells which rent the air, rushed on the royalists before they had time to fix their bayonets. The onset was fierce and irresistible, and at once broke the ranks of the enemy, who had no effective means of defence against the strokes of the broadswords, and the royal troops fled down the valley in utter confusion. In a few minutes the Battle of Killiecrankie was fought and won. Dundee fell mortally wounded by a shot, expiring in the moment of victory; about six hundred of his followers were slain.

In spite of the disaster, the General never lost his coolness and courage. As soon as he saw Dundee’s mode of attack, he ordered his cavalry to charge the Highlanders in flank, and in person he led a troop to charge their right flank, and spurred through the thickest of the enemy, but only one single horseman followed their General. When he turned round to observe the state of matters, his army was out of sight; “in the twinkling of an eye,” he said, “our men were out of sight, having gone down pell mell to the river, where the baggage stood.” After some time, he found that only about four hundred of his army remained; some of his men had fled, and two thousand of them slain or taken prisoners. Having collected the remnants of his army, he placed himself at its head, and retired from the scene of the battle. His officers recommended a retreat through the Pass of Killiecrankie, but he wisely rejected their advice, and proceeded across the hills toward Strath Tay, and thence to Stirling, which he reached on the 29th of July.

News of the defeat of the royal army reached Edinburgh on the 28th of July, the day after the battle, and caused intense consternation. It was reported that Mackay was killed and his army destroyed; that Dundee was already master of the country beyond the Forth, and rapidly advancing to take possession of the capital. A meeting of the Privy Council was immediately held, and orders issued to muster all the fencible men in the west, and to concentrate all the troops at Stirling to defend the passage of the Forth. Some of the members of the Council proposed to transfer the seat of Government to Glasgow, others were for retiring into England. This ferment of excitement continued for two days, but on the third intelligence was received of Dundee’s death――an event which was regarded both in Edinburgh and London as a full compensation for the defeat and destruction of the royal army. The fall of Dundee was a fatal blow to the cause of King James in Scotland. Cannon, who succeeded him in command, mismanaged everything; the war against the Government languished, and soon ceased.

The King found it an extremely difficult task to rule Scotland. He could hardly find any Scottish politicians in whom he had confidence. The Duke of Hamilton had not given satisfaction as royal commissioner; and when Parliament re-assembled at Edinburgh on the 15th of April, 1690, Lord Melville appeared as the King’s representative. On the first vote being taken, the Government obtained a small majority which soon increased, and the power of the opposition Club was completely broken. The King had formed a rather low opinion of the morality and the honour of the Scottish aristocracy. His commissioner was instructed to treat with the leading men inclined to opposition, to promise them posts or money, and thus ward off troublesome opposition; and indeed, to use direct bribery, if necessary, for the ends of the Government.――“Thus you are allowed to deal with the leading men in Parliament, that they may concur for redressing of the grievances, without reflecting upon some votes of Parliament much insisted on last session, which, upon weighty considerations, we thought not fit to pass into laws; and what employment or other gratification you may think fit to promise them in our name, we shall fulfil the same. You are to deal with all other persons as you shall have occasion, whom you judge most capable to be serviceable to us, that they may be employed as instruments of taking these leading men, or for getting intelligence, or for influencing shires, or royal boroughs, that they may instruct their commissioners cordially to comply with our instructions for redressing of the grievances; and what money or other gratification you may promise them shall be made good.”¹ William promised encouragement to the Presbyterians, and advised them to proceed with discretion and moderation; but he was unwilling to abolish patronage. Further, he directed that the acts passed in the last session favourable to them should be ratified, and suggested that a bill for the final settlement of the Church should be passed. He wisely abandoned the chief points of difference touching the forms of parliamentary procedure; and it was settled that henceforth there were to be no standing committees like the Lords of the Articles; the Estates were merely to appoint their committees from time to time, to digest measures submitted to them. The officers of State, however, were still permitted to attend these committees, with a right of moving and debating, but not of voting.²

¹ _Leven and Melville Papers_, page 417.

² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., Appendix.

On the 15th of April, the statute of 1669, which so emphatically asserted the King’s supremacy in all cases and over all persons, was repealed. All the Presbyterian ministers ejected since the beginning of the year 1661 were restored, but only about sixty of them were alive; while the Episcopal incumbents in the restored ministers’ parishes were ordered to leave their manses within a few weeks. Parliament approved of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and re-established the Presbyterian polity; while the government and re-organisation of the Church were entrusted to the sixty restored ministers, and to such other ministers and elders as they should think fit to associate with themselves in the work. A General Assembly was authorised to meet at Edinburgh in October, and empowered to appoint visitors to eject all ministers who were inefficient, scandalous in morals, or erroneous in doctrine. All the churches which had been deserted by their ministers, or from which the ministers had been removed before the 13th of April, 1689, or whose ministers had been deprived, since that date, for not praying for the King and the Queen, were declared vacant. There was some opposition to these arrangements in parliament, but they were finally carried by a large majority.¹

¹ _Ibid._, Volume IX., pages 111, 132‒134.

The King wished to retain patronage, but the opposition against it was too strong, and it was abolished in this way. When a vacancy occurred, the heritors and elders had to nominate a minister for the approval of the congregation; and if the congregation disapproved of the nominee, they were to produce their reasons before the presbytery, by whom the matter was to be finally settled. In royal burghs it was specially provided that the calling of ministers should be vested in the magistrates, town council, and kirk-session.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 196,
197. The act allowed compensation to those who lost their
rights of patronage.

It was enacted that all the office-bearers in the universities and schools should sign the Confession of Faith, submit to the Presbyterian form of polity, and take the oath of allegiance to the King and the Queen. A commission was named and authorised to visit all these institutions, and to eject all unsound and scandalous persons, and all who refused to submit to the established government. In a short time all the universities were visited, and purged of obnoxious professors.¹

¹ _Ibid._; _Fasti Aberdonenses_, pages 361, ♦368, 379, 380.

♦ “168” replaced with “368”

This parliament passed an act which deprived the Church of the power of enforcing censures by the infliction of civil penalties. A draft of the Toleration Act was introduced by a private member, but it was coldly received and allowed to drop. But the King had wisely resolved not to permit the dominant party to indulge in persecuting any of those who differed from themselves.

There were, however, two parties almost equally dissatisfied with the new ecclesiastical arrangements――the genuine Episcopalians, and the extreme Presbyterians, or Cameronians. The Cameronians rejected the new settlement on principle, as it ignored the Covenants. But they were not a dangerous party to the new government, for reasons which were then and now pretty obvious. The party who firmly held Episcopal views, on the other hand, were not very numerous, but when they became identified with the Jacobites, the two united politically formed a strong party against the government. The Jacobites were not all Episcopal, but common interests and the same political object induced them to unite with the Episcopalians as one party.

Soon after the parliamentary sanction of Presbyterianism, a preliminary meeting of ministers and elders was held at Edinburgh, to prepare for the ensuing General Assembly. The meeting was rather stormy at the beginning, some opposition to the governing body of sixty being offered, and a protest entered; but peaceful counsels prevailed, and the proceedings went on smoothly. A number of young and active preachers were added to the governing body, and arrangements were made for the coming Assembly. Presbyteries were erected in various districts, and empowered to try and to eject all scandalous and negligent ministers, according to the Act of Parliament. Nearly half of the parish churches were already vacant, and the presbyteries proceeded with remarkable energy to purge the Church and to turn out more of the incumbents.¹

¹ _Historical Relation of the Late General Assembly at
Edinburgh in the year 1690_, pages 4‒14.

Thirty-seven years had passed since the last General Assembly was dissolved by Cromwell’s officers, and the prospect of reassembling a body that had sometimes shaken the throne, caused grave thought and much anxiety to the King and his advisers. The Government strove earnestly to secure a peaceful Assembly. Lord Melville wrote to the leading ministers beseeching them to follow moderate measures, to act discreetly and proceed quietly, as the only way to insure the success of their polity. The Earl of Crawford also exerted himself to the utmost amongst his friends, and impressed upon them that much depended on their own tact and conduct. Lord Carmichael was appointed royal commissioner to the Assembly; he was a Presbyterian, and a man of good common sense and mild temper.¹

¹ _Leven and Melville Papers._

The Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 16th of October, 1690. About one hundred and eighty ministers and elders attended; but the greater part of the kingdom beyond the Tay was unrepresented. Carmichael presented the King’s letter, which briefly stated:――“We expect that your management shall be such as we shall have no reason to repent of what we have done. A calm and peaceable procedure will be no less pleasing to us than it becometh you. We never could be of the mind that violence was suited to the advancing of true religion, nor do we intend that our authority shall ever be made a tool to the irregular passions of any party. Moderation is what religion enjoins, neighbouring churches expect from you, and we recommend to you.” The Assembly agreed to return an address to the King, and stated:――“If after the violence for conscience’ sake that we have suffered and so much detested, and those grievous abuses of authority in the late reigns, whereby through some men’s irregular passions we have smarted, we ourselves should lapse into the same errors, we should certainly prove the most unjust towards God, foolish towards ourselves, and ungrateful towards your Majesty, of all men on earth.”¹

¹ _Acts of the General Assembly._

An interesting matter came before the Assembly in the form of an offer of submission from three of the Cameronian ministers, who had exonerated their consciences by exhibiting their testimony against the corruptions of the Church. The Assembly agreed to receive them into communion, and the moderator exhorted them to walk orderly and to oppose all divisions in the Church. An act was passed which required all ministers and elders to sign the Westminster Confession of Faith. Another act enjoined the presbyteries to observe all the ministers in their bounds who neglected the fasts appointed by the Church, or administered the sacrament in private, or celebrated clandestine marriages; while private baptism was expressly prohibited. Regulations were adopted touching the union of presbyteries where the number of ministers was incomplete, reclaiming Roman Catholics, and procuring a supply of Bibles and Catechisms for the Highland parishes. The Assembly then annulled all the denunciations proclaimed nearly forty years before by the Protestors and the Resolutioners against each other. Two commissions of visitation were appointed, one for the presbyteries south of the Tay, and the other for those to the north of it; and they were instructed to eject inefficient and erroneous ministers, and to see that those retained in the Church and admitted to share in her government, signed the Confession and submitted to her discipline.

The extreme Covenanting party, who had suffered so much in the two preceding reigns without yielding an inch, and still maintained a consistent view, though a narrow one, were greatly displeased with the form of the settlement of the Church. As indicated, three ministers deserted them, and were received by the Assembly; their names were William Boyd, Alexander Shields, and Thomas Lining. Though the Cameronian ministers had joined the Church and allowed the paper which enumerated the backslidings of the nation to be suppressed, their flocks were not prepared to follow them or to homologate what they considered a wicked compliance. As soon as they knew what had occurred, they framed a paper expressing their ideas, and immediately sent it to Edinburgh, where, however, it was stopped in its progress by the committee of overtures. The Cameronians were naturally angry at this treatment. They assailed their ministers for having betrayed them, while they accused themselves for having recognised the Prince of Orange, for having been induced to assist in protecting the Convention of Estates, and for having owned the Assembly. Meanwhile they were at a loss what to do, as they had no ministers; in a short time, however, this want was supplied, and they became the first body of Scotch dissenters from the Presbyterian Church.

After sitting about a month the Assembly adjourned, and the royal commissioner gave the King a favourable report of its proceedings. The extreme views of the covenanting age were allowed to slumber in silence, no attempt being made to renew the Covenants.¹

¹ _Acts of the General Assembly_; _Faithful Contendings
Displayed_.

The commissioners appointed by the General Assembly entered with energy on their work. In the current Jacobite writings it was reported that the most frivolous pretexts were deemed sufficient to condemn an obnoxious curate. But the commissioners had often to encounter opposition, especially in the north, where their acts of deposition were resisted by the congregations, and the newly-appointed Presbyterian ministers rejected. When they arrived at Aberdeen, in March, 1691, they were assailed by a mob, and forced to return southwards without accomplishing anything. The greater part of the clergy ejected by the commissioners were Jacobites, who persisted in praying for King James. But a number of them who considered themselves unjustly treated by the commissioners, despatched a deputation to present their grievances to the King, and they managed to enlist his sympathy in their cause. Royal letters were sent to the Privy Council and to the commission, in which the King intimated that severity should cease, and that all the Episcopal ministers who were qualified for the ministry, and willingly submitted to the government in Church and State, should be permitted to remain in their parishes. But the Presbyterians deemed these letters an encroachment upon their rights, and paid no attention to them. The commission proceeded boldly with its work of purifying the Church; while a second letter from the King had no more effect than the first.¹

¹ Carstairs’ _State Papers_, page 146; Cunningham’s _Church
History of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 295‒297; Dr. Grub’s
_Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, Volume III., pages
327‒328.

Indeed, the old conflict between the Church and the Crown was threatening to revive. The Assembly had been adjourned to the 1st of November, 1691, but before that date, it was adjourned by the King to the 15th of January, 1692. When this day came, the Assembly met at Edinburgh; the southern Presbyterians were fairly represented, but only five commissioners from the presbyteries north of Dundee appeared. The entire Assembly consisted of one hundred and eleven ministers, and fifty-four ruling elders.¹

¹ _Register of the Proceedings of the Assembly._

The Earl of Lothian acted as royal commissioner, and presented a letter from the King. William referred to the letters which he had sent to the commission, and complained that the indications he had received of their readiness to admit their Episcopal brethren into communion with them had not been realised; and said he had been informed that they were not a full General Assembly, as a majority of the ministers of the Church were not allowed to be represented; that he had instructed those ministers who wished to conform to apply to them for admission, according to a form and declaration which he had sent with his commissioner, and he thought it right that the commissioners for arranging these matters should be composed of an equal number of Episcopal and Presbyterian members. The commissioner produced the form proposed by the King for the conforming Episcopal ministers. It required the subscriber to declare and promise to submit to and concur with the Presbyterian government of the Church, and sign the Confession of Faith and the Catechism. The Assembly referred the matter to a committee. Meanwhile many of the Episcopal clergy sent in addresses to the Assembly requesting to be admitted into the Church on the conditions proposed, and these were also remitted to a committee. The Presbyterians were not prepared for a union of this character; as they were suspicious of the King’s proposals. After sitting four weeks, the royal commissioner addressed the Assembly in a reproachful style for not having shown any disposition to promote unity with their brethren, and in the King’s name dissolved the Assembly. When he sat down the moderator rose, and asked if the Assembly was dissolved without appointing a day for its next meeting. The commissioner said that his Majesty would appoint another Assembly in due time, and give notice of it. The moderator then asked liberty to speak, but he was told that he could only be heard as a private person, not as representing the Assembly. Yet he delivered his opinion on the point, and stated that though they were under many obligations to the King, and always ready to obey his lawful commands, still in the name of his brethren, he begged to declare “that the office-bearers in the house of God have a spiritual intrinsic power from Jesus Christ, the only Head of the Church, to meet in assemblies concerning the affairs thereof, the necessity of the same being first represented to the magistrate; and farther, I humbly crave that the dissolution of this Assembly, without inducting a new one to a certain day, may not be to the prejudice of our yearly General Assemblies, granted to us by the laws of the kingdom.” Touching the state of parties at this time, Burnet says: “The Episcopal party carried it very high; they gave it out that the King was now theirs; and that they were willing to come to a concurrence with Presbytery, on design to bring all about to Episcopacy in a little time. The Presbyterians, who at all times were stiff and peevish, were more than ordinary so at this time: they were jealous of the King; their friends were disgraced, and their bitterest enemies were coming into power: so they were surly, and would not abate one point of their government: and upon that the Assembly was dissolved.”¹

¹ _Register of the Proceedings of the Assembly._ _History of
his Own Time_, Volume IV., page 151. Dr. Grub says: “There
is some reason to doubt whether the Episcopal clergy were
sincere in their profession of a wish for union on the terms
proposed; in any event, it was hardly to be expected that the
Presbyterians would voluntarily consent to a plan which if
carried out would have given their opponents a majority in
the General Assembly.”――_Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae_, Volume
III., page 330.

This was represented to the King as an insolent invasion of the rights of the Crown, and much angry feeling was evoked on both sides. William had pretty high ideas of his kingly powers, and was jealous of all the prerogatives which he thought belonged to the Crown.

Though open war against the government had ceased, still the exiled King had many adherents in Scotland, especially in the north and among the Highland chiefs. As past and subsequent events had proved, the Celtic portion of the inhabitants could make themselves extremely troublesome to any government. An attempt was therefore made to purchase the friendship of the Highland clans. The King and his government had avowedly adopted a system of bribery and corruption. It should be stated that at this period dishonesty, treachery, and cruelty were not specially limited to the Highlanders of Scotland; and if truth and morality be the standard of estimation, neither the King nor his government had much claim to be regarded as examples of high morality.

The Government engaged the Earl of Breadalbane to corrupt the Highland chiefs――in other words, to purchase their submission, and if possible to secure their allegiance to King William; for this purpose a sum of money, reported to be twenty thousand pounds, was placed at the Earl’s disposal. It was in the month of April, 1690, that the Earl was authorised to execute this business; and the King in his instructions to him directed particular attention to Sir Donald McDonald, Maclean, Clanranald, Glengarry, Lochiel, and the Mackenzies. The King named a sum not exceeding two thousand pounds to be offered, or a dignity under an earldom, to any chief whose allegiance it might be necessary to buy at so high a price;¹ and to give these money operations more effect, a proclamation was emitted in August, 1691, commanding all the chiefs to take the oath of allegiance in the presence of a civil magistrate before the 1st of January, 1692, under the penalties of treason and military execution. The chiefs at first refused to rely on the promises of Breadalbane, and continued for months suspicious, but at length the most of them complied with the terms of the proclamation, and took the oath of allegiance.

¹ _Leven and Melville Papers._

But there were some persons, and one man high in office in particular, who was greatly disappointed that the body of the Highland chiefs were yielding to the demands of the government. The individual specially offended at their submission was Sir John Dalrymple of Stair, who had been Lord-Advocate, and was then Secretary of State for Scotland. He was exceedingly anxious that a number of the clans should stand out, and thus afford an excuse for their complete slaughter; indeed, there is ample evidence that he was wildly angry, as his hope of exterminating the Celtic people became day by day less probable. In the end of October, 1691, he wrote: “It must be a strange inadventure if the Highlanders be not convinced of the King’s extraordinary goodness to them, when he is content to be at a charge to accommodate them, and give them the plain prospect of future peace, security, and advantage, when he can gratify many by destroying them with as little charge. And certainly, if there do remain any obstinacy, these advices will be taken. The King, by the offer of mercy, has sufficiently shown his good intentions, and by their ruin he will rid himself of a suspicious crew.” In November, 1691, he intimated to Breadalbane, “I wrote to you formerly, that if the rest were willing to concur, as the crows do, to pull down Glengarry’s nest this winter, so as the King be not hindered to draw four regiments from Scotland,――in that case destroying him and his clan, and garrisoning his house as a middle for communication between Inverlochy and Inverness, will be fully as acceptable as if he had come in. This answers all ends, and satisfies those who complain of the King’s too great gentleness.”¹ On the eve of the massacre, the Secretary wrote――“Just now, my lord, Argyle tells me that Glencoe has not taken the oaths, at which I rejoice; it’s a great work of charity to be exact in rooting out that damnable sept, the worst in all the Highlands.”²

¹ Sir John Dalrymple’s _Memoirs_, Volume II., page 265;
Burton’s _History of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 525‒528,
1853.

² Graham’s _Annals and Correspondence of the Viscount, and the
First and Second Earl of Stair_, Volume I., page 159, 1875.

Macdonald of Glencoe, owing to several untoward circumstances, was a few days behind the prescribed time for taking the oath of allegiance; but he did take it before the Sheriff of Argyle at Inveraray; and the sheriff forwarded it to the Privy Council in Edinburgh, but the clerks refused to take it. The upshot was that the massacre of the Chief of Glencoe, and all his retainers, was ordered by the King, and despatches sent to the commander of the forces in that quarter to execute it. The King’s instructions were issued on the 11th and 16th of January, 1692. The instructions of the later date touching Glencoe, were as follows:――“If Macdonald of Glencoe and that tribe can be well separated from the rest, it will be a proper vindication of public justice to extirpate that sept of thieves.――W. Rex.” On the same day Secretary Stair wrote to Livingstone, the Commander of the Forces: “I send you the King’s instructions, super and subscribed by himself. I am confident you will see there are full powers given you in very plain terms, and yet the method is left very much to your own discretion.” The result of these instructions was, that on the 1st of February, Campbell of Glenlyon, with a company of one hundred and twenty soldiers, entered Glencoe, and were hospitably treated in the homes of Macdonald and his clan for twelve days; but, on the cold stormy night of the 13th of February, 1692, the chief and forty of his clan were ruthlessly murdered by the King’s troops under Glenlyon. A number of the intended victims escaped, owing to the darkness of the night and the severity of the snowstorm, and fled almost naked to the rocks and mountains. The deserted houses of the doomed clan were burned down. The soldiers collected the property of their victims, which consisted of nine hundred cattle, and two hundred ponies, and a number of sheep and goats, and drove the whole to Fort William, where they were divided among the officers of the garrison.

Although the massacre was deliberately planned and treacherously executed, it was not nearly so complete as intended, for the storm prevented four hundred of the troops from reaching the scene till after the appointed hour. Considered politically, it was a hideous blunder, as it tended to render the clansmen more suspicious, and roused in their hearts a bitter hatred of the Government. Indeed the Government was much surprised at the sentiments of the people touching the massacre. Secretary Stair was greatly astonished when he heard the expressions in which he was characterised, and that his services to the King were bitterly assailed; but he openly declared that his only regret was, that every soul of the clan was not slain on that stormy morning. Several attempts have been made to free King William of the responsibility of the massacre, although he not only authorised it, but also by his subsequent action fully condoned it. The deed has left a stain on his character which time can never obliterate.¹

¹ The substance of the original information about the massacre
is contained in the report of the commissioners who were
appointed to investigate the matter on the 29th of April,
1695.

Parliament met at Edinburgh in April, 1693, with the Duke of Hamilton as royal commissioner. There was a feeling of uneasiness throughout the nation. A Jacobite rising was dreaded, as the massacre of Glencoe had raised the hopes of the Jacobites: it was accordingly enacted that the oath of allegiance should be taken, and a declaration of assurance subscribed, by which William and Mary were acknowledged as King and Queen, as well by right as in fact. All persons in office were commanded to take the oath of allegiance, and to sign the assurance; and in the latter a promise was made to maintain their Majesties’ title and government against the late King James and his adherents, and all other enemies.

Another act enjoined that no one should be admitted or continued as a minister in the Established Church, unless he had first taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance and the assurance, signed the Confession, and owned the established Presbyterian polity of the Church as the only true one, declaring that he would submit to it, and never attempt directly or indirectly to subvert it. The Estates requested the King to call a General Assembly for settling the affairs of the Church, and especially for admitting all the Episcopal ministers holding benefices to a share in her government who should qualify themselves as stated above; at the same time intimating that all who failed to qualify might be deposed, while all who complied would be protected in their livings.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
262‒264, 303.

It might have been expected that the Episcopal clergy would object to the oath of allegiance and assurance, but Parliament seems to have thought that the Presbyterian ministers would have no scruple in taking the oath of assurance――though when it came to be applied, they were found to be opposed to it on various grounds. They canvassed it sharply, and distinctly asked, “Where is there a point that has been more earnestly and obstinately disputed than the doctrine of deposing kings and magistrates? Are there not arguments brought from the Holy Scripture, from the nature of magistracy, from the peace of society, from the dreadful consequences, the vast deluge of blood, the lamentable dissolution of kingdoms, which have followed such undertakings? whereby many learned and pious men have endeavoured, at all times, to overthrow that king-dethroning power, which never can be practised without greater effusion of blood and violation of all rights than the greatest of tyrants have ever occasioned. And why, then, should Parliament at this time of day impose a yoke upon the Church, which neither we nor our fathers were made sensible of before? Amidst all the past struggles about controverted titles to the Crown, the Church was never bound by oath to either of the contending parties, and why should a party oath be imposed now?”¹

¹ M‘Cormick’s _Life of Carstairs_, pages 52‒56.

The Presbyterian ministers applied to the Privy Council to be relieved from taking the oath of assurance. But it was reported that the Council advised the King to insist that every minister should subscribe the oath before taking his seat in the ensuing General Assembly. The King seems to have been inclined to follow this course, but at last, on the advice of his chaplain, Carstairs, yielded the point; and when the Assembly met on the 29th of March, 1694, no attempt was made to force the oath of assurance on the members. The Assembly appointed a commission to receive into communion the Episcopal ministers who qualified themselves in terms of the recent Act of Parliament; but few of them sought admission into the Church on the prescribed conditions. Many of them, however, still remained in the parish churches; as yet, in the northern quarter of the kingdom, they were hardly touched. In the summer of 1694, the commission of the Assembly visited Aberdeen and Inverness, and attempted to displace the old clergy, but it was found to be impossible to proceed with the intended deprivations; in Aberdeen, and some country parishes, the people were attached to the Episcopal ministers, and would not allow them to be ejected. To meet this, Parliament in 1695 passed several acts. It was provided that a portion of the stipend of each of the vacant churches north of the Forth should be applied to pay temporary missionaries, appointed by the presbyteries to officiate in these churches. It was enacted that any one intruding themselves into a church, manse, or benefice, without a regular call and legal admission by the presbytery of the bounds, should be declared incapable of enjoying any church in the kingdom for a period of seven years after their removal from the church into which they had intruded. The Privy Council was ordered to remove those who had intruded into vacant churches since the establishment of the Presbyterian polity, without a regular call and legal admission. The deprived ministers were prohibited from celebrating marriages and baptisms under the penalty of imprisonment.¹

¹ M‘Cormick’s _Life of Carstairs_, pages 57‒64; _Acts of the
General Assembly_; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_,
Volume IX., pages 387, 415, 420.

But on the other hand, this session of Parliament passed some Acts more favourable to the Episcopal clergy. They were allowed a longer period for taking the oaths of allegiance and assurance. It was also enacted that all who qualified themselves within the appointed time should be permitted to continue in their manses and churches, and to perform their functions in these parishes, without taking part in ordination or Church government, unless duly assumed by a competent Church court. It was provided that all the Episcopal ministers thus qualified, should be free to apply or not to the Church court for admission to a share in her government, and that these courts should also be free to admit or not admit them, if they did apply. Under this act many of the Episcopal clergy continued in possession of their churches. Within three months, more than a hundred of them took advantage of its provisions, which were not fettered as former acts had been with any promise of conformity to Presbyterianism.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
491‒450; Burnet’s _History of His Own Time_, Volume IV., page
275.

There still remained a compact body of the Episcopal clergy who refused to make any move towards the King’s government or Presbyterianism, and these were naturally regarded as open enemies to the Revolution settlement, and usually classed amongst the Jacobites. Their religion was closely associated with their politics, and they became the active champions of the Jacobite party and the exiled King. The national records down to the Union are full of complaints against them. Even when the Jacobite incumbent had died, in some places it was found to be impossible, till after the lapse of several years, to plant a Presbyterian successor in his church. At the time of the Union there were one hundred and sixty-five Episcopal ministers within the pale of the Established Church, living in the manses, preaching in the pulpits, and enjoying the stipends, but gradually these died out, and then Presbyterian ministers took their places.¹

¹ _Acts of the General Assembly_; Skinner’s _An Ecclesiastical
History Of Scotland_.

Since the Reformation the national mind had been pre-occupied with religious struggles, which were mixed up with politics; but its attention now became directed to different enterprises. Directly after the Revolution, the spirit of the nation began to incline more toward industry, to the erection of manufactories, to trade, and to commerce. Dreams of commercial greatness and vast wealth rose before the national imagination and captivated it; and one person appeared with dazzling schemes to satisfy the people and the cravings of the time. William Paterson had a mind overflowing with grand commercial projects, and it was reported that he had given hints which led to the establishment of several banking companies; but his enemies maliciously said that he had acquired his knowledge of foreign countries in his buccaneering adventures. As a part of the Isthmus of Darien was unoccupied by the Spaniards, Paterson formed the idea of founding on it a central emporium for the merchandise of the world. He thought that a link could be formed there to connect the trade of Europe and Asia, so that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans might be ploughed with ships from every quarter of the globe, directing their prows to that narrow neck of land, and thus enriching the Scots, who, by occupying the Isthmus, would hold the keys of the commercial world in their hands. The scheme assumed a definite form in an act of the Scotch parliament passed in June, 1695, which authorised the establishment of a trading company to America, Africa, and the Indies.

This act presented an outline of the scheme, and the powers and privileges of the company, and it was carefully drawn in all its details. In virtue of a former act passed in 1683, for encouraging foreign trade, and granting power to merchants to form companies for carrying on foreign trade, the new act sketched out the constitution of a joint-stock company very minutely, under the name of the Company of Scotland, trading to Africa and the Indies. The act empowered the company to equip, freight, and navigate their own or hired ships, in any manner which they thought fit, and to trade from any of the ports of Scotland, or the ports of other countries not at war with Britain; and to plant colonies, to build forts and towns, in any part of Asia, Africa, or America, in uninhabited places, or in other regions with the consent of the inhabitants, if such countries were not possessed by any European power: and with liberty to employ all lawful means for their own defence and protection, and the advancement of their special objects; and to make and conclude treaties of peace and commerce with kings, princes, or proprietors of lands or countries, in the above quarters of the globe. They were authorised if attacked to make reprisals. The company was to have the free right of their own property of all kinds, in whatever part of the world they might acquire, possess, and establish it; and simply acknowledging their allegiance to the King of Britain by the annual payments of a hogshead of tobacco, in name of blench duty, and that only if demanded. All other Scotsmen were prohibited from trading within the company’s privileges without their license, and they were empowered to seize on all intruders, “by force of arms, at our own hands,” for a period of twenty-one years. The ships, goods, and merchandise of the company were to be free from taxes and dues imposed by the parliament, for twenty-one years. It was arranged that only the half of the subscribed capital of the company could be held by persons non-resident in Scotland. The following are the names of some of the partners of the company recorded in the Act of Parliament:――Lord Belhaven, Adam Cockburn of Ormiston, the Lord Justice-Clerk, Sir John Maxwell of Pollok; George Clark, late bailie of Edinburgh; John Cross, merchant in Glasgow; William Paterson, Esquire, James ♦Foulis, David Nairn, Esquire, Thomas Deans, Esquire, and Walter Stuart, merchants in London; and all others joining with them within one year after the 1st of August, 1695. And these having assembled, were then to be regarded as an incorporate body, “and a free incorporation, with perpetual succession, by the name of the Company of Scotland, trading to Africa and the Indies.”¹

♦ “Fowlis” replaced with “Foulis”

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
377‒381.

Even though this company completely failed in its objects, its origin and formation are interesting and important events in the commercial history and civilisation of the nation: and therefore the following part of the original Act may be quoted:――“And farther, it is enacted that the company, by commission under their seal, may make and constitute all and each of their directors, governors, and commanders-in-chief, and other officers, civil or military, by land or by sea; as also that the company may enlist, enrol, hire, and retain all such persons, subjects of this kingdom, or others who shall be willing to enter into their service or pay, providing always that they uplift or levy none in this kingdom to be soldiers, without warrant from his Majesty or of his Privy Council, over which governors, commanders-in-chief, or other officers, and all in their service and pay, the company shall have the power, command, and disposition, both by sea and by land.... And lastly, all persons concerned in this company are hereby declared to be free denizens of this kingdom; and that they, with all that shall settle, or inhabit, or be born in any of the foresaid plantations, colonies, towns, factories, and other places, that shall be purchased and possessed by the company, shall be reputed as natives of this kingdom, and have the privileges thereof.”

The stock or subscribed capital of the company was to be £600,000. When the books were opened in London, in October, 1695, the £300,000 offered to the English merchants was quickly subscribed. But the enterprise soon aroused the jealousy of the privileged English companies. The English Parliament presented an address to the King against it, and the books and documents of the company were seized by the orders of the House of Commons. At last, they concluded that the directors of the company were guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour, for attempting such a thing, and that Lord Belhaven and the other Scotch nobles, whose names appeared as directors should be impeached. These hostile proceedings alarmed the London subscribers, and they slipped out of the company by failing to pay the instalments of their shares, and thus forfeited their stock. But this action of the English rather irritated than discouraged the promoters of the concern in Scotland; it seemed to have touched the national pride of the Scots, and they pushed on their enterprise. One month after the denunciations of the English Parliament, the books were opened in Edinburgh; and on the first day, the 26th of February, 1696, more than £50,000 was subscribed; and within five months £400,000 was subscribed. It seemed as if nearly all the realised capital of the nation had rushed into the project.

The company proceeded with remarkable energy. A house for conducting their business was erected in Edinburgh; and schemes of trading with Greenland, Archangel, and the Gold Coast, were considered; the possible improvements of machinery, the qualities of goods, and the exportable produce of the country were all under inquiry. Certainly the main points of the scheme presented a grasp of principles, a distinctness of conception, and a liberality of mind, which cast the mass of speculative trading adventures into the shade. The enterprise, as designed by Paterson, was to be conducted on free trade principles. He called on his countrymen to discard the narrow policy of British commerce; he contemplated a system for the good of mankind, and told his countrymen not to try to enrich themselves by making other nations poor, but to embrace such liberal policy as would be beneficial to all. His conduct throughout was that of a man of exceptional grasp of mind, and elevated above sordid considerations.