Part 2 — CHAPTER IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (continued 28)

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 2, pages 694-696.

"The pursuit extended over a distance of eight miles, and the total loss of the Scots amounted to 3,000 killed and 10,000 prisoners, while 30 guns and 15,000 stand of arms were taken; the casualties of the English army did not exceed 20 men. Of the prisoners, 5,000, being wounded, old men or boys, were allowed to return home; the remaining 5,000 were sent into England, whence, after enduring terrible hardships, they were, as had been the prisoners taken at Preston, sold either as slaves to the planters or as soldiers to the Venetians. On the day following that of the battle, Lambert pushed on to Edinburgh with six regiments of horse and one of foot; Cromwell himself, after a rest of a few days, advanced on the capital, which at once surrendered to the victors. The example thus set was followed by Leith, but Edinburgh Castle still held out [until the following December] against the English. The remnant of the Scottish army (but 1,300 horse remained of the 6,000 who took part in the battle) retired on Stirling, while Charles himself took up his residence at Perth."

N. L. Walford, Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: A. Bisset, Omitted Chapters of the History of England, chapter 6.

T. Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, part 6.

{2870}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August). Charles' rash advance into England. Cromwell's pursuit and crushing victory at Worcester.

"Lesley was gathering the wreck of his army about him at Stirling. Charles, with the Scottish authorities, had retired to Perth. The Presbyterian party became divided; and the royalists obtained a higher influence in the direction of the national policy. Charles, without further question of his real intentions, was crowned at Scone on the 1st of January, 1651. After a three months' blockade, and then a bombardment, Edinburgh Castle was surrendered to Cromwell on the 18th of December. He had little to do to make himself master of Scotland on the south of the Forth. On the 4th of February the army marched towards Stirling, but returned without any result, driven to the good quarters of Edinburgh by terrible storms of sleet and snow. The Lord-General became seriously ill through this exposure. But on the 5th of June he was out again; and at the end of the month was vigorously prosecuting the campaign. The Scottish army was entrenched at Stirling. The king had been invited to take its command in person. Cromwell, on the 2nd of August, had succeeded in possessing himself of Perth. At that juncture the news reached him that the royal camp at Stirling was broken up, on the 31st of July; and that Charles was on his march southward, at the head of 11,000 men, his lieutenant-general being David Lesley. Argyll was opposed to this bold resolution, and had retired to Inverary. Charles took the western road by Carlisle; and when on English ground issued a proclamation offering pardon to those who would return to their allegiance—exempting from his promised amnesty Bradshaw, Cromwell, and Cook. He was also proclaimed king of England, at the head of his army: and similar proclamation was made at Penrith and other market-towns. Strict discipline was preserved, and although the presence of Scots in arms was hateful to the people, they were not outraged by any attempts at plunder. Charles, however, had few important accessions of strength. There was no general rising in his favour. The gates of Shrewsbury were shut against him. At Warrington, his passage of the Mersey was opposed by Lambert and Harrison, who had got before him with their cavalry. On the 22nd of August Charles reached Worcester, the parliamentary garrison having evacuated the city. He there set up his standard, and a summons went forth for all male subjects of due age to gather round their Sovereign Lord, at the general muster of his forces on the 26th of August. An inconsiderable number of gentlemen came, with about 200 followers. Meanwhile Cromwell had marched rapidly from Scotland with 10,000 men, leaving behind him 6,000 men under Monk. The militias of the counties joined him with a zeal which showed their belief that another civil war would not be a national blessing. On the 28th of August the General of the Commonwealth was close to Worcester, with 30,000 men." On the 3d of September (the anniversary of the victory of Dunbar, won just a year before), he attacked the royalist army and made an end of it. "'We beat the enemy from hedge to hedge [he wrote to parliament] till we beat him into Worcester. The enemy then drew all his forces on the other side the town, all but what he had lost; and made a very considerable fight with us, for three hours' space; but in the end we beat him totally, and pursued him to his royal fort, which we took,—and indeed have beaten his whole army.' The prisoners taken at the battle of Worcester, and in the subsequent flight, exceeded 7,000. They included some of the most distinguished leaders of the royalists in England and Scotland. Courts-martial were held upon nine of these; and three, amongst whom was the earl of Derby, were executed." Charles Stuart escaped by flight, with his long cavalier locks cut close and his royal person ignobly disguised, wandering and hiding for six weeks before he reached the coast and got ship for France. The story of his adventures—his concealment in the oak at Boscobel, his ride to Bristol as a serving man, with a lady on the pillion behind him, &c., &c.,—has been told often enough.

C. Knight, Crown History of England, chapter 27.

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, part 6, letters 96-124.

Earl of Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, book 13 (volume 5).

A. Bisset, Omitted Chapters of English History, chapters 10-11 (volume 2).

F. P. Guizot, History of Oliver Cromwell, book 2 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August-September). The conquest completed by Monk.

When Cromwell followed Charles and his Scottish army into England, to destroy them at Worcester, he left Monk in Scotland, with a few thousand men, and that resolute general soon completed the conquest of the kingdom. He met with most resistance at Dundee. "Dundee was a town well fortified, supplied with a good garrison under Lumisden, and full of all the rich furniture, the plate, and money of the kingdom, which had been sent thither as to a place of safety. Monk appeared before it: and having made a breach, gave a general assault. He carried the town; and, following the example and instructions of Cromwell, put all the inhabitants to the sword, in order to strike a general terror into the kingdom. Warned by this example, Aberdeen, St. Andrew's, Inverness, and other towns and forts, yielded, of their own accord, to the enemy. … That kingdom, which had hitherto, through all ages, by means of its situation, poverty, and valour, maintained its independence, was reduced to total subjection."

D. Hume, History of England, chapter 60 (volume 5).

ALSO IN: J. Browne, History of the Highlands, volume 2, chapter 4.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1654. Incorporated with England by Protector Cromwell.

In 1654, "Cromwell completed another work which the Long Parliament and the Barebone Parliament had both undertaken and left unfinished. Under favour of the discussions which had arisen between the great powers of the Commonwealth, the Scottish royalists had once more conceived hopes, and taken up arms. … The insurrection, though chiefly confined to the Highlands, descended occasionally to ravage the plains; and towards the beginning of February, 1654, Middleton had been sent from France, by Charles II., to attempt to give, in the king's name, that unity and consistency of action in which it had until then been deficient. {2871} No sooner had he been proclaimed Protector, than Cromwell took decisive measures to crush these dangers in their infancy: he despatched to Ireland his second son, Henry, an intelligent, circumspect, and resolute young man, and to Scotland, Monk, whom that country had already once recognized as her conqueror. Both succeeded in their mission. … Monk, with his usual prompt and intrepid boldness, carried the war into the very heart of the Highlands, established his quarters there, pursued the insurgents into their most inaccessible retreats, defeated Middleton and compelled him to re-embark for the Continent, and, after a campaign of four months, returned to Edinburgh at the end of August, 1654, and began once more, without passion or noise, to govern the country which he had twice subjugated. Cromwell had reckoned beforehand on his success, for, on the 12th of April, 1654, at the very period when he ordered Monk to march against the Scottish insurgents, be had, by a sovereign ordinance, incorporated Scotland with England, abolished all monarchical or feudal jurisdiction in the ancient realm of the Stuarts, and determined the place which its representatives, as well as those of Ireland, should occupy in the common Parliament of the new State."

F. P. Guizot, History of Oliver Cromwell, book 5 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. Lingard, History of England, volume 11, chapter 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666. The restored King and the restored prelatical Church. The oppression of the Covenanters.

"In Scotland the restoration of the Stuarts had been hailed with delight; for it was regarded as the restoration of national independence. And true it was that the yoke which Cromwell had imposed was, in appearance, taken away, that the Scottish Estates again met in their old hall at Edinburgh, and that the Senators of the College of Justice again administered the Scottish law according to the old forms. Yet was the independence of the little kingdom necessarily rather nominal than real: for, as long as the King had England on his side, he had nothing to apprehend from disaffection in his other dominions. He was now in such a situation that he could renew the attempt which had proved destructive to his father without any danger of his father's fate. … The government resolved to set up a prelatical church in Scotland. The design was disapproved by every Scotchman whose judgment was entitled to respect. … The Scottish Parliament was so constituted that it had scarcely ever offered any serious opposition even to Kings much weaker than Charles then was. Episcopacy, therefore, was established by law. As to the form of worship, a large discretion was left to the clergy. In some churches the English Liturgy was used. In others, the ministers selected from that Liturgy such prayers and thanksgivings as were likely to be least offensive to the people. But in general the doxology was sung at the close of public worship, and the Apostles' Creed was recited when baptism was administered. By the great body of the Scottish nation the new Church was detested both as superstitious and as foreign; as tainted with the corruptions of Rome, and as a mark of the predominance of England. There was, however, no general insurrection. The country was not what it had been twenty-two years before. Disastrous war and alien domination had tamed the spirit of the people. … The bulk of the Scottish nation, therefore, sullenly submitted, and, with many misgivings of conscience, attended the ministrations of the Episcopal clergy, or of Presbyterian divines who had consented to accept from the government a half toleration known by the name of the Indulgence. But there were, particularly in the western lowlands, many fierce and resolute men who held that the obligation to observe the Covenant was paramount to the obligation to obey the magistrate. These people, in defiance of the law, persisted in meeting to worship God after their own fashion. The Indulgence they regarded, not as a partial reparation of the wrongs inflicted by the State on the Church, but as a new wrong, the more odious because it was disguised under the appearance of a benefit. Persecution, they said, could only kill the body; but the black Indulgence was deadly to the soul. Driven from the towns, they assembled on, heaths and mountains. Attacked by the civil power, they without scruple repelled force by force. At every conventicle they mustered in arms. They repeatedly broke out into open rebellion. They were easily defeated and mercilessly punished: but neither defeat nor punishment could subdue their spirit. Hunted down like wild beasts, tortured till their bones were beaten fiat, imprisoned by hundreds, hanged by scores, exposed at one time to the license of soldiers from England, abandoned at another time to the mercy of troops of marauders from the Highlands, they still stood at bay, in a mood so savage that the boldest and mightiest oppressor could not but dread the audacity of their despair."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 2 (volume 1).

The Scottish Parliament by which Episcopacy was established at the king's bidding is known as the Drunken Parliament. "Every man of them, with one exception, is said to have been intoxicated at the time of passing it [October 1, 1662]. Its effect was that 350 ministers were ejected from their livings. The apparatus of ecclesiastical tyranny was completed by a Mile Act, similar to the Five Mile Act of England, forbidding any recusant minister to reside within twenty miles of his own parish, or within three miles of a royal borough."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 2, page 729.

"The violence of the drunken parliament was finally shown in the absurdity of what was called the 'Act Rescissory,' by which every law that had been passed in the Scottish parliament during twenty-eight years was wholly annulled. The legal foundations of Presbytery were thus swept away."

C. Knight, Crown History of England, chapter 29.

ALSO IN: J. Aikman, Annals of the Persecution in Scotland, volume 1, books 2-5.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679. Lauderdale's despotism. The Highland host.

"A new Parliament was assembled [October 19, 1669] at Edinburgh, and Lauderdale was sent down commissioner. … It were endless to recount every act of violence and arbitrary authority exercised during Lauderdale's administration. All the lawyers were put from the bar, nay banished, by the king's order, twelve miles from the capital, and by that means the whole justice of the kingdom was suspended for a year, till these lawyers were brought to declare it as their opinion that all appeals to Parliament were illegal. A letter was procured from the king, for expelling twelve of the chief magistrates of Edinburgh, and declaring them incapable of an public office, though their only crime had been their want of compliance with Lauderdale. … {2872} The private deportment of Lauderdale was as insolent and provoking as his public administration was violent and tyrannical. Justice likewise was universally perverted by faction and interest: and from the great rapacity of that duke, and still more of his duchess, all offices and favours were openly put to sale. No one was allowed to approach the throne who was not dependent on him; and no remedy could be hoped for or obtained against his manifold oppressions. … The law enacted against conventicles had called them seminaries of rebellion. This expression, which was nothing but a flourish of rhetoric, Lauderdale and the privy council were willing to understand in a literal sense; and because the western counties abounded in conventicles, though otherwise in profound peace, they pretended that these counties were in a state of actual war and rebellion. They made therefore an agreement with some highland chieftains to call out their clans, to the number of 8,000 men; to these they joined the guards, and the militia of Angus: and they sent the whole to live at free quarters upon the lands of such as had refused the bonds [engaging them as landlords to restrain their tenants from attending conventicles] illegally required of them. The obnoxious counties were the most populous and most industrious in Scotland. The highlanders were the people the most disorderly and the least civilized. It is easy to imagine the havoc and destruction which ensued. … After two months' free quarter, the highlanders were sent back to their hills, loaded with the spoils and the execrations of the west. … Lest the cry of an oppressed people should reach the throne, the council forbad, under severe penalties, all noblemen or gentlemen of landed property to leave the kingdom. … It is reported that Charles, after a full hearing of the debates concerning Scottish affairs, said, 'I perceive that Lauderdale has been guilty of many bad things against the people of Scotland; but I cannot find that he has acted anything contrary to my interest.'"

D. Hume, History of England, chapter 66 (volume 6).

ALSO IN: G. Burnet, History of My Own Time, books 2-3.

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 78 (volume 7).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (May-June). The Defeat of Claverhouse at Drumclog.

"The public indignation which these measures [under Lauderdale] roused was chiefly directed against the Archbishop of St. Andrews [Dr. James Sharp], who was generally regarded as their author or instigator, and was doubly obnoxious as the Judas of the Presbyterian Church." On the 3d of May, 1679, the Archbishop was dragged from his carriage on Magus Moor, three miles from St. Andrews, and murdered, by a band of twelve Covenanters, headed by Hackston of Rathillet, and Balfour of Burley, his brother-in-law. "The great body of the Presbyterians, though doubtless thinking that 'the loon was weel away,' condemned this cruel and bloody deed as a foul murder; and they could not fail to see that it would greatly increase the severity of the persecution against their party. … It was now declared a treasonable act to attend a conventicle, and orders were issued to the commanders of the troops in the western district to disperse all such meetings at the point of the sword. … Towards the end of May preparations were made to hold a great conventicle on a moor in the parish of Avondale, near the borders of Lanarkshire. The day selected for the service was the first of June. No secret was made of the arrangement, and it became known to John Graham of Claverhouse, the 'Bloody Claverhouse,' as he was called, who commanded a body of dragoons, stationed at Glasgow, for the purpose of suppressing the Covenanters in that district. … Having been apprised of the intended meeting, he hastened towards the spot at the head of his own troop of horse and two companies of dragoons. … The Covenanters had assembled on the farm of Drumclog, in the midst of a high and moorland district out of which rises the wild craggy eminence of Loudoun Hill, in whose vicinity Robert Bruce gained his first victory. … The preacher, Thomas Douglas, had proceeded only a short way with his sermon when a watchman posted on an adjoining height fired his gun as a signal that the enemy was approaching. The preacher paused in his discourse, and closed with the oft-quoted words—'You have got the theory; now for the practice.' The women and children were sent to the rear. The armed men separated from the rest of the meeting and took up their position. … Claverhouse and his dragoons were descending the slope of the opposite eminence, called Calder Hill, and with a loud cheer they rushed towards the morass and fired a volley at the Covenanters. It was returned with great effect, emptying a number of saddles. The dragoons made several unsuccessful attempts to cross the marsh, and flanking parties sent to the right and to the left were repulsed with considerable loss. At this juncture John Nisbet [an old soldier of the Thirty Years' War] cried out, 'Jump the ditch and charge the enemy.' The order was instantly obeyed. Balfour, at the head of the horsemen, and Cleland, with a portion of the infantry, crossed the marsh and attacked the dragoons with such fury that they were thrown into confusion and took to flight, leaving from forty to fifty of their number dead on the field. Claverhouse himself had his horse killed under him and narrowly escaped his pursuers. … The victory at Drumclog roused the whole country. Great numbers poured in to join the victors, and in a short time their ranks had swelled to upwards of 6,000 men."

J. Taylor, The Scottish Covenanters, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: M. Morris, Claverhouse, chapter 4.

Sir W. Scott, Old Morality.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (June). Monmouth's success at Bothwell Bridge.

"The King was for suppressing the insurrection immediately by forces from England to join those in Scotland, and the Duke of Monmouth to command them all. … The Duke of Monmouth, after a friendly parting with the King, who had been displeased with him, set out from London, June 18, for Scotland, where he arrived in three days, with an expedition considered incredible, and took the command. The Covenanters were 5,000 or 6,000 strong, and had taken up a position six miles from Hamilton, at Bothwell Bridge, which they barricaded and disputed the Duke's passage. These Covenanters were irresolute. An attempt to negotiate was made, but they were told that no proposal could be received from rebels in arms. One half hour was allowed. The Covenanters went on consuming their time in theological controversy, considering 'the Duke to be in rebellion against the Lord and his people.' {2873} While thus almost unprepared, they were entirely defeated in an action, 22d of June, which, in compliment to the Duke of Monmouth, was too proudly called the battle of Bothwell Bridge. Four hundred Covenanters were killed, and 1,200 made prisoners. Monmouth was evidently favourable to them. … The Duke would not let the dragoons pursue and massacre those (as Oldmixon calls them) Protestants. … The same historian adds, that the Duke of York talked of Monmouth's expedition to Scotland, as a courting the people there, and their friends in England, by his sparing those that were left alive; and that Charles himself said to Monmouth, 'If I had been there, we would not have had the trouble of prisoners.' The Duke answered, 'I cannot kill men in cold blood; that's work only for butchers.' The prisoners who promised to live peaceably were set at liberty; the others, about 270, were transported to our plantations, but were all cast away at sea! The Duke of Lauderdale's creatures pressed the keeping the army some time in Scotland, with a design to have them eat it up; but the Duke of Monmouth sent home the militia, and put the troops under discipline; so that all the country was sensible he had preserved them from ruin. The Duke asked the King to grant an indemnity for what was past, and liberty to the Covenanters to hold their meetings under the King's license; but these softening measures fell with Monmouth, and rage and slaughter again reigned when the Duke of York obtained the government of Scotland."

G. Roberts, Life of Monmouth, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 79 (volume 7).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689. The pitiless rule of James II. The hunting of the Cameronians. Claverhouse's brutalities.

In 1681 the government of Scotland was committed to the king's brother, the duke of York (afterwards James II.), as viceroy. "Succeeding the duke of Monmouth, who was universally beloved, he was anxious to exhibit as a statesman that capacity which he thought he had given sufficient proof of as a general and as a naval commander. In assuming the direction of the affairs of Scotland, he at first affected moderation; but at a very early period an occasion presented itself for displaying severity; he was then pitiless. A few hundred presbyterians, under the conduct of two ministers, Cameron and Cargill, having taken arms and declared that they would acknowledge neither the king nor the bishops, he sent the troops against them. The insurgents, who called themselves Cargillites and Cameronians, were beaten, and a great number of them killed. The prisoners, taken to Edinburgh, were tortured and put to death. The duke was present at the executions, which he witnessed with an unmoved countenance, and as though they were curious experiments."

A. Carrel, History of the Counter-Revolution in England, chapter 2.

"Unlike the English Puritans, the great majority of the Scottish Presbyterians were staunch supporters of monarchy. … Now, however, owing to the 'oppression which maketh a wise man mad,' an extreme party arose among them, who not only condemned the Indulgence and refused to pay cess, but publicly threw off their allegiance to the King, on the ground of his violation of his coronation oath, his breach of the Covenant which he solemnly swore to maintain, his perfidy, and his 'tyranny in matters civil.' A declaration to this effect was publicly read, and then affixed (June 22d, 1680) to the market cross of Sanquhar in Dumfriesshire, by Richard Cameron and Donald Cargill, two of the most distinguished Covenanting ministers, accompanied by an armed party of about twenty persons. … These acts of the 'Society men,' or Cameronians, as they were called after their leader, afforded the government a plausible pretext for far more severe measures than they had yet taken against the Hillmen, whom they hunted for several weeks through the moors and wild glens of Ayr and Galloway."

J. Taylor, The Scottish Covenanters, chapter 4.

"He [James II.], whose favourite theme had been the injustice of requiring civil functionaries to take religious tests, established in Scotland, when he resided there as Viceroy, the most rigorous religious test that has ever been known in the empire. He, who had expressed just indignation when the priests of his own faith were hanged and quartered, amused himself with hearing Covenanters shriek and seeing them writhe while their knees were beaten flat in the boots. In this mood he became King, and he immediately demanded and obtained from the obsequious Estates of Scotland, as the surest pledge of their loyalty, the most sanguinary law that has ever in our islands been enacted against Protestant Nonconformists. With this law the whole spirit of his administration was in perfect harmony. The fiery persecution, which had raged when he ruled Scotland as vicegerent, waxed hotter than ever from the day on which he he came sovereign. Those shires in which the Covenanters were most numerous were given up to the license of the army. … Preeminent among the bands which oppressed and wasted these unhappy districts were the dragoons commanded by John Graham of Claverhouse. The story ran that these wicked men used in their revels to play at the torments of hell, and to call each other by the names of devils and damned souls. The chief of this Tophet, a soldier of distinguished courage and professional skill, but rapacious and profane, of violent temper and obdurate heart, has left a name which, wherever the Scottish race is settled on the face of the globe, is mentioned with a peculiar energy of hatred. To recapitulate all the crimes by which this man, and men like him, goaded the peasantry of the Western Lowlands into madness, would be an endless task."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: J. Cunningham, History of the Church of Scotland, volume 2, chapter 6.

M. Morris, Claverhouse.

J. Aikman, Annals of the Persecution in Scotland, volume 2, books 5-12.

A Cloud of Witnesses.

J. Howie, The Scots Worthies.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1685. Argyll's invasion. Monmouth's rebellion.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1687. Declarations of Indulgence by James II.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

{2874}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690. The Revolution. Fall of the Stuarts and their Bishops. Presbyterianism finally restored and established.

"At the first prospect of invasion from Holland [by William of Orange], James had ordered the regiments on duty in Scotland to march southward. The withdrawal of the troops was followed by outbreaks in various parts. In Glasgow the Covenanters rose, and proclaimed the Prince of Orange king. In Edinburgh riots broke out. The chapel of Holyrood Palace was dismantled, and the Romish bishops and priests fled in fear for their lives. On hearing that William had entered into London, the leading Whigs, under the Duke of Hamilton, repaired thither, and had an interview with him. He invited them to meet in Convention. This they accordingly did, and on January 9, 1689, it was resolved to request William to summon a meeting of the Scottish Estates for the 14th of March, and in the interim to administer the government. To this William consented. The Estates of Scotland met on the appointed day. All the bishops, and a great number of the peers were adherents of James. After a stormy debate, the Duke of Hamilton was elected President. But the minority (Jacobites) was a large one. … The Duke of Gordon still held Edinburgh Castle for James, and when the minority found it hopeless to carry their measures, he proposed they should with him withdraw from Edinburgh and hold a rival Convention at Stirling. But these intentions were discovered, many Jacobites were arrested, and many others, amongst them Viscount Dundee, escaped to the Highlands. In the end, the crown was offered to William and Mary on the same terms on which it had been offered by the English Convention. The offer was accompanied by a claim of rights, almost identical with the English declaration, but containing the additional clause, that 'prelacy was a great and insupportable grievance.' On April 11, 1689, William and Mary were solemnly proclaimed at the Cross of Edinburgh. It was high time some form of government should be settled, for, throughout the Lowlands, scenes of mob violence were daily witnessed. The Presbyterians, so long down-trodden, rose in many a parish. The Episcopal clergy were ejected, in some cases with bloodshed. The 'rabbling,' as it is called in Scotch history, continued for some months, until the Presbyterian Church was reinstated by law as the Established Church of Scotland, in June 1690."

E. Hale, The Fall of the Stuarts, chapter 13.

"Episcopacy was now thrown down; but Presbytery was yet to be built up. … Months passed away, and the year 1690 began. King William was quite prepared to establish Presbytery, but he was most unwilling to abolish patronage. Moreover, he was desirous that the foundations of the new Church should be as widely laid as possible, and that it should comprehend all the ministers of the old Church who chose to conform to its discipline. But he began to see that some concession was necessary, if a Church was to be built up at all. On the 25th of April the Parliament met which was to give us the Establishment which we still enjoy. Its first act was to abolish the Act 1669, which asserted the king's supremacy over all persons and in all causes. Its second act was to restore all the Presbyterian ministers who had been ejected from their livings for not complying with Prelacy. This done, the parliament paused in its full career of ecclesiastical legislation, and abolished the Lords of the Articles, who for so many centuries had managed the whole business of the Scotch Estates, and ordained that the electors of commissioners to the Estates should take the Oath of Allegiance before exercising the franchise. The next act forms the foundation of our present Establishment. It ratifies the 'Westminster Confession of Faith'; it revives the Act 1592; it repeals all the laws in favour of Episcopacy; it legalizes the ejections of the western rabble; it declares that the government of the Church was to be vested in the ministers who were outed for nonconformity, on and after the 1st January 1661, and were now restored, and those who had been or should be admitted by them; it appoints the General Assembly to meet; and empowers it to nominate visitors to purge out all insufficient, negligent, scandalous, and erroneous ministers, by due course of ecclesiastical process. In this act the Presbyterians gained all that they could desire, as Presbytery was established, and the government of the Church was placed entirely in their hands. By this act, the Westminster Confession became the creed of the Church, and is recorded at length in the minutes of the parliament. But the Catechisms and the 'Directory of Worship' are not found by its side. A pamphleteer of the day declares that the Confession was read amid much yawning and weariness, and, by the time it was finished, the Estates grew restive, and would hear no more. It is at least certain that the Catechisms and Directory are not once mentioned, though the Presbyterian ministers were very anxious that they should. From this it would appear that, while the State has fixed the Church's faith, it has not fixed the Church's worship. … The Covenants were utterly ignored, though there were many in the Church who would have wished them revived."

J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, volume 2, chapter 7.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 July). War in the Highlands. The Battle of Killiecrankie.

"The duke of Gordon still held out the castle of Edinburgh for James; and the viscount Dundee [Graham of Claverhouse], the soul of the Jacobite party in Scotland, having collected a small but gallant army of Highlanders, threatened with subjection the whole northern part of the kingdom. Dundee, who had publicly disavowed the authority of the Scottish convention, had been declared an outlaw by that assembly; and general Mackay was sent against him with a body of regular troops. The castle of Blair being occupied by the adherents of James, Mackay resolved to attempt its reduction. The viscount, apprised of the design of his antagonist, summoned up all his enterprising spirit, and by forced marches arrived at Athol before him. He was soon [July 27, 1689] informed that Mackay's vanguard had cleared the pass of Killicranky; a narrow defile, formed by the steep sides of the Grampian hills, and a dark, rapid, and deep river. Though chagrined at this intelligence he was not disconcerted. He despatched Sir Alexander Maclean to attack the enemy's advanced party while he himself should approach with the main body of the Highlanders. But before Maclean had proceeded a mile, Dundee received information that Mackay had marched through the pass with his whole army. He commanded Maclean to halt, and boldly advanced with his faithful band, determined to give battle to the enemy." Mackay's army, consisting of four thousand five hundred foot, and two troops of horse, was formed in eight battalions, and ready for action when Dundee came in view. His own brave but undisciplined followers, of all ranks and conditions, did not exceed 3,300 men. "These he instantly ranged in hostile array. {2875} They stood inactive for several hours in sight of the enemy, on the steep side of a hill, which faced the narrow plain where Mackay had formed his line, neither party choosing to change its ground. But the signal for battle was no sooner given, than the Highlanders rushed down the hill in deep columns; and having discharged their muskets with effect, they had recourse to the broadsword, their proper weapon, with which they furiously attacked the enemy. Mackay's left wing was instantly broken, and driven from the field with great slaughter by the Macleans, who formed the right of Dundee's army. The Macdonalds, who composed his left, were not equally successful: Colonel Hasting's regiment of English foot repelled their most vigorous efforts, and obliged them to retreat. But Maclean and Cameron, at the head of part of their respective clans, suddenly assailed this gallant regiment in flank, and put it to the rout. Two thousand of Mackay's army were slain; and his artillery, baggage, ammunition, provisions, and even king William's Dutch standard, fell into the hands of the Highlanders. But their joy, like a smile upon the cheek of death, delusive and insincere, was of short duration. Dundee was mortally wounded by a musket shot as he was pursuing the fugitives; he expired soon after his victory, and with him perished the hopes of James in Scotland. The castle of Edinburgh had already surrendered to the convention; and the Highlanders, discouraged by the loss of a leader whom they loved and almost adored, gradually dispersed themselves, and returned to their savage mountains, to bewail him in their songs. His memory is still dear to them; he is considered as the last of their heroes; and his name, even to this day, is seldom mentioned among them without a sigh or a tear."

W. Russell, History of Modern Europe, part 2, letter 17 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. Browne, History of the Highlands, volume 2, chapters 6-7.

M. Morris, Claverhouse, chapter 11.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (August). Cameronian victory at Dunkeld.

After the victory and death of Dundee at Killiecrankie, the command of his Highlanders had devolved upon Cannon, an Irish officer. "With an army increased to 4,000 men, he continued to coast along the Grampians, followed by Mackay; the one afraid to descend from the mountains, and the other to quit, with his cavalry, the advantage of the open plains. Returning by a secret march to Dunkeld [August 21], he surrounded the regiment of Cameronians, whose destruction appeared so inevitable that they were abandoned by a party of horse to their fate. But the Cameronians, notwithstanding the loss of Cleland, their gallant commander, defended themselves … with such desperate enthusiasm that the highlanders, discouraged by the repulse, and incapable of persevering fortitude, dispersed and returned to their homes."

M. Laing, History of Scotland, 1603-1707, book 10 (volume 4).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692. The Massacre of Glenco.

A scheme, originating with Lord Breadalbane, for the pacifying of the Highlanders, was approved by King William and acted upon, in 1691. It offered a free pardon and a sum of money to all the chiefs who would take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary before the first of January, 1692, and it contemplated the extirpation of such clans as refused. "The last man to submit to government was Macdonald of Glenco. Towards the end of December he applied to the governor of Fort William, who refused, as not being a civil magistrate, to administer the oaths; but dispatched him in haste, with an earnest recommendation to the Sheriff of Argyle. From the snows and other interruptions which he met with on the road, the day prescribed for submission had elapsed, before he reached Inverary, the county town. The benefit of the indemnity was strictly forfeited; the sheriff was moved, however, by his tears and entreaties, to receive his oath of allegiance, and to certify the unavoidable cause of his delay. But his oath was industriously suppressed, by the advice particularly of Stair the president; the certificate was erased from the list presented to the privy council; and it appears that an extensive combination was formed for his destruction. The earl of Breadalbane, whose lands he had plundered, and … Dalrymple, the secretary, … persuaded William that Glenco was the chief obstacle to the pacification of the highlands. Perhaps they concealed the circumstance that he had applied within due time for the oaths to government, and had received them since. But they procured instructions, signed, and for their greater security, countersigned by the king himself, to proceed to military execution against such rebels as had rejected the indemnity, and had refused to submit on assurance of their lives. As these instructions were found insufficient, they obtained an additional order, signed, and also countersigned, by the king, 'that if Glenco and his clan could well be separated from the rest, it would be a proper vindication of public justice to extirpate that sect of thieves.' But the directions given by Dalrymple far exceeded even the king's instructions. … Glenco, assured of an indemnity, had remained at home, unmolested for a month, when a detachment arrived from Fort William, under Campbell of Glenlyon, whose niece was married to one of his sons. The soldiers were received on assurance of peace and friendship; and were quartered among the inhabitants of the sequestered vale. Their commander enjoyed for a fortnight the daily hospitality of his nephew's table. They had passed the evening at cards together, and the officers were to dine with his father next day. Their orders arrived that night, to attack their defenceless hosts while asleep at midnight, and not to suffer a man, under the age of seventy, to escape their swords. From some suspicious circumstances the sons were impressed with a sudden apprehension of danger, and discovered their approach; but before they could alarm their father, the massacre spread through the whole vale. Before the break of day, a party, entering as friends, shot Glenco as he rose from his bed. His wife was stript naked by the soldiers, who tore the rings with their teeth from her fingers; and she expired next morning with horror and grief. Nine men were bound and deliberately shot at Glenlyon's quarters; his landlord was shot by his orders, and a young boy, who clung to his knees for protection, was stabbed to death. At another part of the vale the inhabitants were shot while sitting around their fire; women perished with their children in their arms; an old man of eighty was put to the sword; another, who escaped to a house for concealment, was burnt alive. {2876} Thirty-eight persons were thus inhumanly massacred by their inmates and guests. The rest, alarmed by the report of musquetry, escaped to the hills, and were preserved from destruction by a tempest that added to the horrors of the night. … The carnage was succeeded by rapine and desolation. The cattle were driven off or destroyed. The houses, to fulfil Dalrymple's instructions, were burnt to the ground; and the women and children, stript naked, were left to explore their way to some remote and friendly habitation, or to perish in the snows. The outcry against the massacre of Glenco was not confined to Scotland; but, by the industry of the Jacobites, it resounded with every aggravation through Europe. Whether the inhuman rigour or the perfidious execution of the orders were considered, each part of the bloody transaction discovered a deliberate, treacherous, and an impolitic cruelty, from which the king himself was not altogether exempt. Instead of the terror which it was meant to inspire, the horror and universal execration which it excited rendered the highlanders irreconcilable to his government, and the government justly odious to his subjects."

M. Laing, History of Scotland, 1603-1707, book 10 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 18 (volume 4).

J. Browne, History of the Highlands, volume 2, chapter 10.

G. Burnet, History of My Own Time, book 5 (volume 4), 1692.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699. The Darien scheme. King William urges a Union of the kingdoms.

"The peace of Ryswic was succeeded by an event which had well nigh created a civil war between Scotland and England. As the writers of no nation are more marked by grandeur and meanness of composition in the same person, and the actors in public life by grandeur and meanness of character in the same person, than those of England; so the proceedings of the national assembly of England, the noblest that ever was on earth, except that of Rome, are often tinctured with a strange mixture of the great and the little. Of this truth an instance appeared at this time, in the proceedings of parliament with regard to the Scots colony of Darien, settled by Mr. Paterson. … Paterson, having examined the places, satisfied himself that on the isthmus of Darien there was a tract of country running across from the Atlantic to the South Sea, which the Spaniards had never possessed, and inhabited by a people continually at war with them; … that the two seas were connected by a ridge of hills, which, by their height, created a temperate climate; … that roads could be made with ease along the ridge, by which mules, and even carriages, might pass from the one sea to the other in the space of a day, and that consequently this passage seemed to be pointed out by the finger of nature, as a common centre, to connect together the trade and intercourse of the universe. … By this obscure Scotsman a project was formed to settle, on this neglected spot, a great and powerful colony, not as other colonies have for the most part been settled, by chance, and unprotected by the country from whence they went, but by system, upon foresight, and to receive the ample protection of those governments to whom he was to offer his project. And certainly no greater idea has been formed since the time of Columbus. … Paterson's original intention was to offer his project to England, as the country which had the most interest in it." Receiving no encouragement, however, in London, nor in Holland, nor Germany, to which countries he repaired, he returned finally to Scotland, and there awakened the interest of several influential gentlemen, including Mr. Fletcher of Salton, the Marquis of Tweddale, Lord Stair, and others. "These persons, in June 1695, procured a statute from parliament, and afterwards a charter from the crown in terms of it, for creating a trading company to Africa and the new world, with power to plant colonies and build forts, with consent of the inhabitants, in places not possessed by other European nations. Paterson, now finding the ground firm under him, … threw his project boldly upon the public, and opened a subscription for a company. The frenzy of the Scots nation to sign the solemn league and covenant never exceeded the rapidity with which they ran to subscribe to the Darien company. The nobility, the gentry, the merchants, the people, the royal burghs, without the exception of one, most of the other public bodies, subscribed. Young women threw their little fortunes into the stock, widows sold their jointures to get the command of money for the same purpose. Almost in an instant £400,000 were subscribed in Scotland, although it be now known that there was not at that time above £800,000 of cash in the kingdom. … The English subscribed £300,000, and the Dutch and Hamburghers £200,000 more. … In the mean time, the jealousy of trade, which has done more mischief to the trade of England than all other causes put together, created an alarm in England; and the houses of lords and commons, without previous inquiry or reflection, on the 13th December of the year 1695, concurred in a joint address to the King against the establishment of the Darien company, as detrimental to the interest of the East India company. Soon after, the commons impeached some of their own countrymen for being instrumental in erecting the company. … The King's answer was 'that he had been ill-advised in Scotland.' He soon after changed his Scottish ministers, and sent orders to his resident at Hamburgh to present a memorial to the senate, in which he disowned the company, and warned them against all connections with it. … The Scots, not discouraged, were rather animated by this oppression; for they converted it into a proof of the envy of the English, and of their consciousness of the great advantages which were to flow to Scotland from the colony. The company proceeded to build six ships in Holland, from 36 to 60 guns, and they engaged 1,200 men for the colony; among whom were younger sons of many of the noble and most ancient families of Scotland, and sixty officers who had been disbanded at the peace." The first colony sailed from Leith, July 26, 1698, and arrived safely at Darien in two months. They "fixed their station at Acta, calling it New St. Andrew, … and the country itself New Caledonia. … The first public act of the colony was to publish a declaration of freedom of trade and religion to all nations. This luminous idea originated with Paterson. {2877} But the Dutch East India company having pressed the King, in concurrence with his English subjects, to prevent the settlement of Darien, orders had been sent from England to the governors of the West Indian and American colonies, to issue proclamations against giving assistance, or even to hold correspondence with the colony; and these were more or less harshly expressed, according to the tempers of the different governors. The Scots, trusting to far different treatment, and to the supplies which they expected from those colonies, had not brought provisions enough with them; they fell into diseases, from bad food, and from want of food. … They lingered eight months, awaiting, but in vain, for assistance from Scotland, and almost all of them either died out or quitted the settlement. Paterson, who had been the first that entered the ship at Leith, was the last who went on board at Darien." To complete the destruction of the undertaking, the Spanish government, which had not moved in opposition before, now bestirred itself against the Scottish company, and entered formal complaints at London (May 3, 1699). "The Scots, ignorant of the misfortunes of their colony, but provoked at this memorial [of Spain], sent out another colony soon after of 1,300 men, to support an establishment which was now no more." This last colony, after gallant fighting and great suffering, was expelled from Darien by a Spanish expedition, and "not more than thirty, saved from war, shipwreck, or disease, ever saw their own country again. … While the second colony of the Scots were exposing themselves, far from their country, in the cause, mediately or immediately, of all who spoke the English language, the house of lords of England were a second time addressing the King at home against the settlement itself. … He answered the address of the lords, on the 12th of February 1699, in the following words: 'His Majesty does apprehend that difficulties may too often arise, with respect to the different interests of trade between his two kingdoms, unless some way he found out to unite them more nearly and completely; and therefore his Majesty takes this opportunity of putting the house of peers in mind of what he recommended to his parliament soon after his accession to the throne, that they would consider of an union between the two kingdoms.'"

Sir J. Dalrymple, Memorials of Great Britain, part 3, book 6 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of the Reign of Queen Anne, chapter 4 (volume l).

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter. 24 (volume 5).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704. Hostility to England. The Act of Security. The Scottish Plot.

"This Parliament of 1703 was not in a temper of conciliation towards England. Glencoe and Darien were still watchwords of strife. The failure of the negotiations for Union necessarily produced exasperation. Whilst Marlborough was fighting the battles of the Allies, the Scottish Parliament manifested a decided inclination to the interests of France, by removing restrictions on the importation of French wines. The 'Act for the Security of the Kingdom' was a more open declaration not only of the independence of Scotland, but of her disposition to separate wholly from England—to abrogate, on the first opportunity, that union of the crowns which had endured for a century. The Act of Settlement, by which the crown of England was to pass in the Protestant line to the electress Sophia and her descendants, was not to be accepted; but, on the demise of queen Anne without issue, the Estates of Scotland were to name a successor from the Protestant descendants of the Stuart line, and that successor was to be under conditions to secure 'the religious freedom and trade of the nation from English or any foreign influence.' For four months this matter was vehemently debated in the Scottish Parliament. The Act of Security was carried, but the Lord High Commissioner refused his assent. Following this legislative commotion came what was called in England the Scottish plot—a most complicated affair of intrigue and official treachery, with some real treason at the bottom of it. [This Scottish Plot, otherwise called the Queensberry Plot, was a scheme to raise the Highland clans for the Pretender, abortively planned by one Simon Fraser.] The House of Lords in England took cognizance of the matter, which provoked the highest wrath in Scotland, that another nation should interfere with her affairs. … When the Scottish Estates reassembled in 1704 they denounced the proceedings of the House of Lords, as an interference with the prerogative of the queen of Scotland; and they again passed the Security Act. The royal assent was not now withheld; whether from fear or from policy on the part of the English ministry is not very clear. The Parliament of England then adopted a somewhat strong measure of retaliation. The queen was addressed, requesting her to put Carlisle, Newcastle, Tynemouth, and Hull in a state of defence, and to send forces to the border. A Statute was passed which in the first place provided for a treaty of Union; and then enacted that until the Scottish Parliament should settle the succession to the crown in the same line as that of the English Act of Settlement, no native of Scotland, except those domiciled in England, or in the navy or army, should acquire the privileges of a natural-born Englishman; and prohibiting all importations of coals, cattle, sheep, or linen from Scotland. It was evident that there must be Union or War."

C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 5, chapter 21.

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of the Reign of Queen Anne, chapters 4 and 7 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707. The Union with England.

To avert war between Scotland and England by a complete political Union of the two kingdoms in one became now the greatest object of the solicitude of the wiser statesmen on both sides. They used their influence to so good an effect that, in the spring of 1706, thirty-one Commissioners on the part of each kingdom were appointed to negotiate the terms of Union. The Commissioners held their first meeting on the 16th of April, and were in session until the 22d of July, when the Articles of Union agreed upon by them received the signature of twenty-seven of the English and twenty-six of the Scots. On the 16th of the following January (1707) these Articles were ratified with amendments by the Scottish Parliament. The English Parliament adopted them as amended a month later, and on the 6th of March the Union was perfected by the royal assent, given solemnly by the Queen, in presence of the Lords and Commons of England. "It was agreed that Great Britain should be the designation of the united island; the name of Scotland to be merged in the name of North Britain. It was agreed that the Crosses of St. George and St. Andrew should be conjoined in the flag of the united kingdom. {2878} It was agreed that the arms of the two countries—the three lions passant and guardant Or, and the lion rampant Or, within a double tressure flory and counterflory, Gules—should be quartered with all heraldic honours. It was agreed that the united kingdom should have a new Great Seal. As regards the House of Commons, the English party proposed that Scotland should be represented by 38 members. Even Scottish writers have observed that if taxation be taken as the measure of representation, and if it be remembered that the Scots of that time had asked and been allowed to limit their share of the Land-tax to one-fortieth of the share of England, it would follow that, as an addition to the 513 members of Parliament returned by England, Scotland was entitled to demand no more than 13. But even 38 seemed by no means adequate to the claims on other grounds of that ancient and renowned kingdom. The Scottish Commissioners stood out for an increase, and the English Commissioners finally conceded 45. The Peers of England were at this juncture 185 and the Peers of Scotland 154. It was intended that the latter should send representatives to the former, and the proportion was settled according to the precedent that was just decided. The 45 members from Scotland when added to the 513 from England would make one-twelfth of the whole; and 16 Peers from Scotland when added to the 185 from England would also make about one-twelfth of the whole. Sixteen was therefore the number adopted; and the mode of election both of Commoners and Peers was left to be determined by the Parliament of Scotland, before the day appointed for the Union, that is the first of May 1707. By this treaty Scotland was to retain her heritable jurisdiction, her Court of Session and her entire system of law. The Presbyterian Church as by law established was to continue unaltered, having been indeed excluded from debate by the express terms of the Commission."

Earl Stanhope, History of England: Reign of Queen Anne, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of the Reign of Queen Anne, chapter 7 (volume 1).

Sir W. Scott, Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland, series 2, chapters 12.

H. Hallam, Constitutional History of England, chapter 17 (volume 3).

The text of the Act of Union may be found in the Parliamentary History, volume 6, appendix 2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708. Hostility to the Union. Spread of Jacobitism.

"In Scotland it [the Union] was regarded with an almost universal feeling of discontent and dishonour. The Jacobite party, who had entertained great hopes of eluding the act for settling the kingdom upon the family of Hanover, beheld them entirely blighted; the Whigs, or Presbyterians, found themselves forming part of a nation in which Prelacy was an institution of the state; the Country party, who had nourished a vain but honourable idea of maintaining the independence of Scotland, now saw it, with all its symbols of ancient sovereignty, sunk and merged under the government of England. All the different professions and classes of men saw each something in the obnoxious treaty which affected their own interest. … There was, therefore, nothing save discontent and lamentation to be heard throughout Scotland, and men of every class vented their complaints against the Union the more loudly, because their sense of personal grievances might be concealed, and yet indulged under popular declamations concerning the dishonour done to the country. … Almost all the dissenting and Cameronian ministers were anti-unionists, and some of the more enthusiastic were so peculiarly vehement, that long after the controversy had fallen asleep, I have heard my grandfather say (for your grandfather, Mr. Hugh Littlejohn, had a grandfather in his time), that he had heard an old clergyman confess he could never bring his sermon, upon whatever subject, to a conclusion, without having what he called a 'blaud,' that is a slap, at the Union. … The detestation of the treaty being for the present the ruling passion of the times, all other distinctions of party, and even of religious opinions in Scotland, were laid aside, and a singular coalition took place, in which Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Cavaliers, and many friends of the revolution, drowned all former hostility in the predominant aversion to the Union. … For a time almost all the inhabitants of Scotland were disposed to join unanimously in the Restoration, as it was called, of James the Second's son to the throne of his fathers; and had his ally, the King of France, been hearty in his cause, or his Scottish partisans more united among themselves, or any leader amongst them possessed of distinguished talent, the Stewart family might have repossessed themselves of their ancient domain of Scotland, and perhaps of England also." Early in 1708 an attempt was made to take advantage of this feeling in Scotland, on behalf of the Pretender, by a naval and military expedition from France, fitted out by the French king. It was vulgarly frustrated by an attack of measles, which prostrated the Stuart adventurer (the Chevalier de St. George) at Dunkirk, until the English government had warning enough to be too well prepared.

Sir W. Scott, Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland, series 3, chapters 1-2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715. The Jacobite rising.

In 1715 "there were Jacobite risings both in Scotland and in England. Early in September John Erskine, Earl of Mar—who some years before had been a Whig and helped to bring about the Union—raised the standard of rebellion in Braemar, and in a short time found himself in command of a large Highland army. But Mar was very slow in his movements, and lingered for six weeks in Perth. The Duke of Argyle, famous as both a warrior and a statesman, was sent from London to deal with this danger; and, going to Stirling, used the time which Mar was wasting in gathering round him soldiers and loyal Low-landers. While things stood thus in the far north a few hundred Jacobites took up arms in Northumberland under Mr. Forster and Lord Derwentwater. Joining with some Southern Scots raised by Lord Kenmure, and some Highlanders whom Mar had sent to their aid, they marched to Preston, in Lancashire. The fate of the two risings was settled on the same day. At Preston the English Jacobites and their Scottish allies had to give themselves up to a small body of soldiers under General Carpenter. At Sheriffmuir, about eight miles north of Stirling, the Highlanders, whom Mar had put in motion at last, met Argyle's little army in battle, and, though not utterly beaten, were forced to fall back to Perth. There Mar's army soon dwindled to a mere handful of men. Just when things seemed at the worst the Pretender himself landed in Scotland. {2879} But he altogether lacked the daring and high spirit needful to the cause at the time; and his presence at Perth did not even delay the end, which was now sure. Late in January 1716 Argyle's troops started from Stirling northwards; and the small Highland force broke up from Perth and went to Montrose. Thence James Edward and Mar slipped away unnoticed, and sailed to France; and the Highlanders scampered off to their several homes. Of the rebels that were taken prisoners about forty were tried and put to death; and many were sent beyond the seas. Derwentwater and Kenmure were beheaded; the other leaders of rank either were forgiven or escaped from prison."

J. Rowley, The Settlement of the Constitution, book 3, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: J. McCarthy, History of the Four Georges, volume 1, chapter 7.

J. H. Jesse, Memoirs of the Pretenders, volume 1, chapters 3-4.

Earl Stanhope, History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 5-6 (volume l).

Mrs. K. Thomson, Memoirs of the Jacobites, volumes 1-2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1736. The Porteous Riot.

See EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746. The Young Pretender's invasion. The last rising of the Jacobites.

"As early as 1744 Charles Edward [known as 'the Young Pretender'], the grandson of James II., was placed by the French government at the head of a formidable armament. But his plan of a descent on Scotland was defeated by a storm which wrecked his fleet, and by the march of the French troops which had sailed in it to the war in Flanders. In 1745, however, the young adventurer again embarked with but seven friends in a small vessel and landed on a little island of the Hebrides. For three weeks he stood almost alone; but on the 29th of August the clans rallied to his standard in Glenfinnan. … His force swelled to an army as he marched through Blair Athol on Perth, entered Edinburgh in triumph, and proclaimed 'James the Eighth' at the Town Cross: and two thousand English troops who marched against him under Sir John Cope were broken and cut to pieces on the 21st of September by a single charge of the clansmen at Preston Pans. Victory at once doubled the forces of the conqueror. The Prince was now at the head of 6,000 men; but all were still Highlanders. … After skilfully evading an army gathered at Newcastle, he marched through Lancashire, and pushed on the 4th of December as far as Derby. But here all hope of success came to an end. Hardly a man had risen in his support as he passed through the districts where Jacobitism boasted of its strength. … Catholics and Tories abounded in Lancashire, but only a single squire took up arms. … The policy of Walpole had in fact secured England for the House of Hanover. The long peace, the prosperity of the country, and the clemency of the Government, had done their work. … Even in the Highlands the Macleods rose in arms for King George, while the Gordons refused to stir, though roused by a small French force which landed at Montrose. To advance further south was impossible, and Charles fell rapidly back on Glasgow; but the reinforcements which he found there raised his army to 9,000 men, and on the 23rd January, 1746, he boldly attacked an English army under General Hawley, which had followed his retreat and had encamped near Falkirk. Again the wild charge of his Highlanders won victory for the Prince, but victory was as fatal as defeat. The bulk of his forces dispersed with their booty to the mountains, and Charles fell sullenly back to the north before the Duke of Cumberland. On the 16th of April the armies faced one another on Culloden Moor, a few miles eastward of Inverness. The Highlanders still numbered 6,000 men, but they were starving and dispirited. … In a few moments all was over, and the Stuart force was a mass of hunted fugitives. Charles himself after strange adventures escaped [in the disguise of a female servant, attending the famous Flora Macdonald] to France. In England fifty of his followers were hanged; three Scotch lords, Lovat, Balmerino, and Kilmarnock, brought to the block; and forty persons of rank attainted by Act of Parliament. More extensive measures of repression were needful in the Highlands. The feudal tenures were abolished. The hereditary jurisdictions of the chiefs were bought up and transferred to the Crown. The tartan, or garb of the Highlanders, was forbidden by law. These measures, followed by a general Act of Indemnity, proved effective for their purpose."

J. R. Green, Short History of the English People, chapter 10, section 1.

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 26-29 (volume 3).

R. Chambers, History of the Rebellion of 1745.

Mrs. K. Thomson, Memoirs of the Jacobites, volumes 2-3.

Chevalier de Johnstone, Memoirs of the Rebellion of 1745.

J. H. Jesse, Memoirs of the Pretenders.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1779. No-Popery Riots.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1832. Representation in Parliament increased by the Reform Bill.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843. The Disruption of the Church. Formation of the Free Church.

"Lay patronage was … inconsistent with the conception and the fundamental principles of the Presbyterian Church, and she opposed and rejected it, and fought against it. It was abolished shortly after the Revolution of 1688, but again restored by the British Parliament in 1712, contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Union, and to all conceptions of a wise policy toward the Scottish nation. … An internal struggle arose between the party who held firmly to these sentiments and the new party—called 'the Moderate party.' … In the middle of the 18th century the opposite views of the popular and the moderate parties had become distinct. The chief point of polity in dispute was the settlement of ministers in parishes against the wishes of the congregations. Cases of this character were constantly coming before the presbyteries and general assemblies; and in 1733 it was on matters arising from such cases that a secession took place. … In 1773 there were upwards of two hundred dissenting congregations, besides Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. … As an attempt to redress the evils involved in patronage, the popular party proposed, in the assembly of 1833, that when a majority of a congregation objected to the minister presented by the patron, the presbytery should not proceed with the settlement. … It was on this reasonable regulation [passed into an act, called the Veto Act, by the Assembly of 1834] that the struggle which issued in the Disruption was fought, although there were other principles involved in the conflict." {2880} In 1839, a case arising in the parish church of Auchterarder, in Perthshire, led to a decision in the Court of Session against the legality of the Veto Act, and this decision, on appeal, was affirmed by the House of Lords. "For several years the country rang with the clamour and talk of non-intrusion and spiritual independence, and the excitement was intense. Pamphlets, speeches and ballads were circulated through the kingdom in hundreds of thousands. The engrossing subject attracted the attention of every household, and many a family became divided in religious sentiments." Finally, in 1843, finding no prospect of legislation from Parliament to free the Church of Scotland from the odious fetters of patronage, the popular party resolved upon a general secession from it. This occurred in a memorable scene at the opening of the Assembly, in Edinburgh, on the 18th of May, 1843. The Moderator of the body, Dr. Welsh, read a protest against further proceedings in the Assembly, because of certain acts, sanctioned by the Government of the country, which had infringed on the liberties of the constitution of the Church. He then left the chair and walked out of the church. "Instantly Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Gordon, and the whole of those in the left side of the Church, rose and followed him. Upwards of two hundred ministers walked out, and they were joined outside by three hundred clergymen and other adherents. Dr. Welsh wore his Moderator's dress, and when he appeared on the street, and the people saw that principle had risen above interest, shouts of triumph rent the air such as had not been heard in Edinburgh since the days of the Covenant. They walked through Hanover Street to Canonmills, where a large hall was erected for the reception of the disestablished assembly. They elected Dr. Chalmers Moderator, and formed the first General Assembly of 'The Free Church of Scotland.' Four hundred and seventy-four ministers left the Establishment in 1843; they were also joined by two hundred probationers, nearly one hundred theological students of the University of Edinburgh, three fourths of those in Glasgow, and a majority of those in Aberdeen. The Disruption was an accomplished fact."

J. Mackintosh, Scotland, chapter 19.

"It is not every nation, it is not every age, which can produce the spectacle of nearly 500 men leaving their homes, abandoning their incomes, for the sake of opinion. It is literally true that disruption was frequently a sentence of poverty, and occasionally of death, to the ministers of the Church. Well, then, might a great Scotchman of that time [Lord Jeffrey] say that he was proud of his country, proud of the heroism and self-denial of which her pastors proved capable. But well also might a Scotchman of the present time say that he was proud of the success which Voluntaryism achieved. It was the good fortune of the Church that in the hour of her trial she had a worthy leader. Years before, while ministering to a poor congregation in Glasgow, Chalmers had insisted on the cardinal doctrine that the poor should be made to help themselves. He applied the same principle to the Scotch Church. He … called on his friends around him to 'organise, organise, organise.' It is not, however, the Church alone which deserves commendation. The nation supported the Church. … In the four years which succeeded the disruption, the Free Church raised £1,254,000, and built 654 churches. Her ministrations were extended to every district and almost every parish in the land."

S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, chapter 21 (volume 4).

"In 1874 the Patronage Act of 1712 was repealed, but it was too late to be of much use, and Scottish Presbyterianism remains split up into different camps. Some of the older secessions were in 1847 joined together to form the United Presbyterian Church, mostly distinguished from the Free Church by its upholding as a theory the 'Voluntary Principle.'"

T. F. Tout, History of England from 1689, page 238.

ALSO IN: T. Brown, Annals of the Disruption.

R. Buchanan, The Ten Years' Conflict.

W. Hanna, Memoirs of Thomas Chalmers, volume 3, chapter 18 and volume 4, chapters 6-25.

P. Bayne, Life and Letters of Hugh Miller, book 5 (volume 2).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1868. Parliamentary Reform.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1884. Enlargement of the Suffrage. Representation of the People Act.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

—————SCOTLAND: End————

SCOTS, Deliverance of Roman Britain by Theodosius from the.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

SCOTT, Dred, The case of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

SCOTT, General Winfield. In the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTT, General Winfield. The Mexican campaign of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTT, General Winfield. Defeat in Presidential Election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

SCOTT, General Winfield Retirement from military service.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

SCOTTI. SCOTS.

See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

SCOTTISH PLOT, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

SCOURGE OF GOD, The.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

SCREW PROPELLER, Invention of the.

See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.

SCRIBES, The.

"The Scribes or 'Lawyers,' that is, the learned in the Pentateuch. … It is evident that in the Scribes, rather than in any of the other functionaries of the Jewish Church, is the nearest original of the clergy of later times."

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 44.

"The learned men after Ezra were called 'Sopherim' (singular 'Sopher'), Scribes; because to be a skilled writer was the first criterion of a man of learning. To transcribe the authenticated Law as deposited in the temple was one of the Scribe's occupations. His next occupations were to read, expound and teach it. The text was without vowel points, without divisions of words, verses and chapters; hence it was nearly hieroglyphic, so that the correct reading thereof was traditional, and had to be communicated from master to disciple. As the Great Synod legislated by expounding and extending the Law, these additions also had to be taught orally."

I. M. Wise, History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth, period 1, chapter 4.

SCROOBY, The Separatist Church at.

See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

SCRUPULA.

See As.

{2881}

SCRUTIN DE LISTE.

A term applied in France to the mode of electing deputies by a general ticket in each department—that is, in groups—instead of singly, in separate districts.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

SCUTAGE.

The origin of this tax is implied in its title; it was derived from the 'service of the shield' (scutum)—one of the distinguishing marks of feudal tenure—whereby the holder of a certain quantity of land was bound to furnish to his lord the services of a fully-armed horseman for forty days in the year. The portion of land charged with this service constituted a 'knight's fee,' and was usually reckoned at the extent of five hides, or the value of twenty pounds annually."

K. Norgate, England Under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: W. Stubbs, The Early Plantagenets, page 54.

SCUTARI: A. D. 1473-1479. Stubborn resistance and final surrender to the Turks.

See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

SCUTUM.

A long wooden shield, covered with leather, having the form of a cylinder cut in half, which the Romans are said to have adopted from the Samnites.

E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans, section 107.

SCYRI, The.

The Scyri were a tribe known to the Greeks as early as the second century B. C. They were then on the shores of the Black Sea. In the fifth century of the Christian era, after the breaking up of the Hunnish empire of Attila, they appeared among the people occupying the region embraced in modern Austria,—on the Hungarian borders. They seem to have spoken the Gothic language.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2).

SCYRIS, The dynasty of the.

See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.

SCYTALISM AT ARGOS, The.

The city of Argos was the scene of a terrible outbreak of mob violence (B. C. 370) consequent on the discovery of an oligarchical conspiracy to overturn the democratic constitution. The furious multitude, armed with clubs, slew twelve hundred of the more prominent citizens, including the democratic leaders who tried to restrain them. "This was the rebellion at Argos known under the name of the Scytalism (cudgelling): an event hitherto unparalleled in Greek history,—so unprecedented, that even abroad it was looked upon as an awful sign of the times, and that the Athenians instituted a purification of their city, being of opinion that the whole Hellenic people was polluted by these horrors."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 6, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 78.

SCYTHIANS, The.

"Their name, unnoticed by Homer, occurs for the first time in the Hesiodic poems. When the Homeric Zeus in the Iliad turns his eye away from Troy towards Thrace, he sees, besides the Thracians and Mysians, other tribes, whose names cannot be made out, but whom the poet knows as milk-eaters and mare-milkers. The same characteristic attributes, coupled with that of 'having waggons for their dwelling-houses,' appear in Hesiod connected with the name of the Scythians. … Herodotus, who personally visited the town of Olbia, together with the inland regions adjoining to it, and probably other Grecian settlements in the Euxine (at a time which we may presume to have been about 450-440 B. C.)—and who conversed with both Scythians and Greeks competent to give him information—has left us far more valuable statements respecting the Scythian people, dominion, and manners, as they stood in his day. His conception of the Scythians, as well as that of Hippokrates, is precise and well-defined—very different from that of the later authors, who use the word almost indiscriminately to denote all barbarous Nomads. His territory called Scythia is a square area, twenty days' journey or 4,000 stadia (somewhat less than 500 English miles) in each direction—bounded by the Danube (the course of which river he conceives in a direction from Northwest to Southeast), the Euxine, and the Palus Mæotis with the river Tanais, on three sides respectively—and on the fourth or north side by the nations called Agathyrsi, Neuri, Androphagi and Melanchlæni. … The whole area was either occupied by or subject to the Scythians. And this name comprised tribes differing materially in habits and civilization. The great mass of the people who bore it, strictly Nomadic in their habits—neither sowing nor planting, but living only on food derived from animals, especially mare's-milk and cheese—moved from place to place, carrying their families in waggons covered with wicker and leather, themselves always on horseback with their flocks and herds, between the Borysthenes [the Dnieper] and the Palus Mæotis [sea of Azov]. … It is the purely Nomadic Scythians whom he [Herodotus] depicts, the earliest specimens of the Mongolian race (so it seems probable) known to history, and prototypes of the Huns and Bulgarians of later centuries."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 17.

"The Scythians Proper of Herodotus and Hippocrates extended from the Danube and the Carpathians on the one side, to the Tanais or Don upon the other. The Sauromatæ, a race at least half-Scythic, then succeeded, and held the country from the Tanais to the Wolga. Beyond this were the Massagetæ, Scythian in dress and customs, reaching down to the Jaxartes on the east side of the Caspian. In the same neighbourhood were the Asiatic Scyths or Sacæ, who seem to have bordered upon the Bactrians."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Assyria, chapter 9, footnote.

For an account of the Scythian expedition of Darius, B. C. 508.

See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, of Athens.

"The Athenian State also possessed slaves of its own. Such slaves were, first of all, the so-called Scythæ or archers, a corps at first of 300, then of 600 or even 1,200 men, who were also called Speusinii, after a certain Speusinus, who first (at what time is uncertain) effected the raising of the corps. They served as gendarmes or armed police, and their guard-house was at first in the market, afterwards in the Areopagus. They were also used in war, and the corps of Hippotoxotæ or mounted archers 200 strong, which is named in the same connection with them, likewise without doubt consisted of slaves."

G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: A. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens: The State, book 2, chapter 11.

SEARCH, The Right of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

SEBASTE.

See SAMARIA: REBUILDING OF THE CITY BY HEROD.

{2882}

SEBASTIAN, King of Portugal, A. D. 1557-1578.

SEBASTOPOL: The Name.

"The Greeks translated the name of Augustus into Sebastos …, in consequence of which a colony founded by Augustus on the shores of the Black Sea was called Sebastopolis."

H. N. Humphreys, History of the Art of Printing, page 68.

SEBASTOPOL: A. D. 1854-1855. Siege and capture by the English, French, and Sardinians.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and 1854-1856.

SECESH.

See Boys IN BLUE.

SECESSION, AMERICAN WAR OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.

SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.

During the prolonged struggle of the plebeians of Rome to extort civil and political rights from the originally governing order, the patricians, they gained their end on several occasions by marching out in a body from the city, refusing military service and threatening to found a new city. The first of these secessions was about 494 B. C. when they wrung from the patricians the extraordinary concession of the Tribunate.

See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

The second was B. C. 449, when the tyranny of the Decemvirs was overthrown. The third was four years later, on the demand for the Canuleian Law. The last was B. C. 286, and resulted in the securing of the Hortensian Laws.

See ROME: B. C. 445-400; and 286.

SECOFFEE INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SECOND EMPIRE (French), The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852, to 1870 (SEPTEMBER).

SECOND REPUBLIC (French), The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, to 1851-1852.

SECULAR CLERGY.

The secular clergy of the monastic ages "was so called because it lived in the world, in the 'siècle.' It was composed of all the ecclesiastics who were not under vows in a religious community. The ecclesiastical members of communities, or inhabitants of convents, composed the 'regular clergy.'"

E. de Bonnechose, History of France, epoch 2, book 1, chapter 6, foot-note.

See, also, BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

SECULAR GAMES AT ROME, The.

The Ludi Sæculares, or secular games, at Rome, were supposed to celebrate points of time which marked the successive ages of the city. According to tradition, the first age was determined by the death of the last survivor of those who were born in the year of the founding of Rome. Afterwards, the period became a fixed one; but whether it was 100 or 110 years is a debated question. At all events, during the period of the empire, the secular games were celebrated five times (by Augustus, Claudius, Domitian, Severus and Philip) with irregularity, as suited the caprice of the emperors. The last celebration was in the year A. U. 1000—A. D. 247.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 35, with footnote.

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 7.

SECURITY, The Act of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

SEDAN, The French Catastrophe at.

See FRANCE; A. D. 1870 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SEDAN: The Sovereign Principality and its extinction.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

SEDGEMOOR, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

SEFAVEAN DYNASTY, The.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

SEGESVAR, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SEGNI, The.

The Segni were a tribe in ancient Gaul who occupied a region on the Rhine supposed to be indicated by the name of the modern small town of Sinei or Segnei, a small town in the territory of Namur on the Meuse above Liège.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 8.

SEGONTIACI, The.

A tribe of ancient Britons living near the Thames.

SEGONTIUM.

"One of the most important Roman towns in Wales, the walls of which are still visible at Caer Seiont, near Caernarvon, on the coast of the Irish Sea."

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

SEGUSIAVI, The.

One of the tribes of Gaul which occupied the ancient Forez (departments of the Rhone and the Loire) and extended to the left bank of the Saone.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.

SEISACHTHEIA OF SOLON, The.

See DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

SEJANUS, The malign influence of.

See ROME: A. D. 14-37.

SELAH.

The city in the rocks—Petra—of the Edomites, Idumeans, or Nabatheans.

See NABATHEANS.

SELDJUKS, OR SELJUKS, The.

See TURKS: THE SELJUKS.

SELECTMEN.

In 1665 the General Court or Town Meeting of Plymouth Colony enacted that "'in every Towne of this Jurisdiction there be three or five Celectmen chosen by the Townsmen out of the freemen such as shal be approved by the Court; for the better managing of the afaires of the respective Townships; and that the Celect men in every Towne or the major parte of them are heerby Impowered to heare and determine all debtes and differences arising between pson and pson within theire respective Townships not exceeding forty shillings,' &c. … The origin of the title 'Selectmen' it is difficult to determine. It may possibly be referred to the tun-gerefa of the old Anglo-Saxon township, who, with 'the four best men,' was the legal representative of the community, or to the 'probi homines' of more ancient times. The prefix 'select' would seem to indicate the best, the most approved, but, as in the Massachusetts Colony, they were called, as early as 1642. 'selected townsmen,' it is probable that without reference to any historic type they were merely the men appointed, chosen, selected from the townsmen, to have charge of town affairs."

W. T. Davis, Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth, pages 84-85.

See, also, TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.

SELEUCIA.

Seleucia, about forty-five miles from Babylon, on the Tigris, was one of the capitals founded by Seleucus Nicator. "Many ages after the fall of [the Macedonian or Seleucid Empire in Asia] … Seleucia retained the genuine characters of a Grecian colony—arts, military virtue, and the love of freedom. {2883} The independent republic was governed by a senate of three hundred nobles; the people consisted of 600,000 citizens; the walls were strong, and, as long as concord prevailed among the several orders of the State, they viewed with contempt the power of the Parthian; but the madness of faction was sometimes provoked to implore the dangerous aid of the common enemy, who was posted almost at the gates of the colony." The Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, grew up at a distance of only three miles from Seleucia. "Under the reign of Marcus, the Roman generals penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia. They were received as friends by the Greek colony; they attacked as enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both cities experienced the same treatment. The sack and conflagration of Seleucia, with the massacre of 300,000 of the inhabitants, tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 8.

See, also, CTESIPHON; SELEUCIDÆ; and MEDAIN.

—————SELEUCIDÆ: Start————

SELEUCIDÆ, The Empire of the.

The struggle for power which broke out after his death among the successors of Alexander the Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316 to 297-280) may be regarded as having been brought to a close by the battle of Ipsus. "The period of fermentation was then concluded, and something like a settled condition of things brought about. A quadripartite division of Alexander's dominions was recognised, Macedonia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and Syria (or south-western Asia) becoming thenceforth distinct political entities. … Of the four powers thus established, the most important … was the kingdom of Syria (as it was called), or that ruled for 247 years by the Seleucidæ. Seleucus Nicator, the founder of this kingdom, was one of Alexander's officers, but served without much distinction through the various campaigns by which the conquest of the East was effected. At the first distribution of provinces (B. C. 323) among Alexander's generals after his death, he received no share; and it was not until B. C. 320, when upon the death of Perdiccas a fresh distribution was made at Triparadisus, that his merits were recognised, and he was given the satrapy of Babylon. … Seleucus led the flower of the eastern provinces to the field of Ipsus (B. C. 301), and contributed largely to the victory, thus winning himself a position among the foremost potentates of the day. By the terms of the agreement made after Ipsus, Seleucus was recognised as monarch of an the Greek conquests in Asia, with the sole exceptions of Lower Syria and Asia Minor. The monarchy thus established extended from the Holy Land and the Mediterranean on the west, to the Indus valley and the Bolor mountain-chain upon the east, and from the Caspian and Jaxartes towards the north, to the Persian gulf and Indian Ocean towards the south. It comprised Upper Syria, Mesopotamia, parts of Cappadocia and Phrygia, Armenia, Assyria, Media, Babylonia, Susiana, Persia, Carmania, Sagartia, Hyrcania, Parthia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Aria, Zarangia, Arachosia, Sacastana, Gedrosia, and probably some part of India."

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 3.

The original capital of the great Empire of Seleucus was Babylon; but not satisfied with it he founded and built the city of Seleucia, about forty miles from Babylon, on the Tigris. Even there he was not content, and, after the battle of Ipsus, he created, within a few years, the magnificent city of Antioch, in the valley of the Orontes, and made it his royal residence. This removal of the capital from the center of his dominions to the Syrian border is thought to have been among the causes which led to the disintegration of the kingdom. First Bactria, then Parthia, fell away, and the latter, in time, absorbed most of the Seleucid empire.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapters 58-60 (volumes 7-8).

ALSO IN: J. P. Mahaffy, The Story of Alexander's Empire.

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History, volume 3.

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 281-224. Wars with the Ptolemies and civil wars. Decay of the empire.

"Antiochus Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to his father [murdered B. C. 281—see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280] at the age of 40, received the surname of Soter [Saviour] from his complete victory [time and place unknown] over the Gauls at the time when they had crossed the Bosporus [see GALATIA]. … He reigned little more (?) than twenty years. At the beginning of his reign, Antiochus carried on wars with Antigonus and Ptolemy Ceraunus [see MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244], which, however, were soon brought to a close. The war with Antigonus had commenced as early as the time of Demetrius; it was a maritime war, in which nothing sufficiently important was done; both parties felt that it was only a useless waste of strength, and soon concluded peace. Antiochus was wise enough altogether to abstain from interfering in the affairs of Europe. In Asia he apparently enlarged the dominion of his father, and his magnificent empire extended from the mountains of Candahar as far as the Hellespont; but many parts of it, which his father had left him in a state of submission, asserted their independence, as e. g., Cappadocia and Pontus under Ariarathes, and so also Armenia and several other countries in the midst of his empire; and he was obliged to be satisfied with maintaining a nominal supremacy in those parts. There can be no doubt that in his reign Bactria also became independent under a Macedonian king. Even Seleucus had no longer ruled over the Indian states, which, having separated from the empire, returned to their own national institutions. With Ptolemy Philadelphus [Egypt] he at first concluded peace, and was on good terms with him; but during the latter years of his reign he was again involved in war with him, although Ptolemy undoubtedly was far more powerful; and this war was protracted until the reign of his son Antiochus. … The Egyptians carried on the war on the offensive against Asia Minor, where they already possessed a few places, and principally at sea. The Syrians conquered Damascus, though otherwise the war was unfavourable to them; they did not carry it on with energy, and the Egyptians at that time conquered Ephesus, the coast of Ionia, Caria, Pamphylia, and probably Cilicia also; the Cyclades likewise fell into their hands about that period. … On the death of Antiochus Soter (Olymp. 129, 3) [B. C. 252] the government passed into the hands of his surviving son, … Antiochus Theos, one of the most detestable Asiatic despots." Peace with Egypt was brought about by the marriage of Antiochus Theos to Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus; but in order to marry her he was obliged to divorce and send away his wife Laudice, or Laodice. {2884} After Ptolemy Philadelphus died, however (B. C. 248), Laodice returned, "recovered her whole influence, and Berenice, with her child, was sent to Antioch"—the royal residence of Antiochus then being at Ephesus. The next year Antiochus, who had been ill for a long time—"in a perpetual state of intoxication"—died, perhaps of poison. Laodice "caused a waxen image of him to be placed in a bed, and thus deceived the courtiers, who were obliged to stand at a respectful distance," while she, "with her sons, took possession of the government, and adopted measures to rid herself of Berenice. But the citizens of Antioch sided with Berenice, and … she for a time remained in possession of Antioch. … But she was betrayed by the nobles …; her child was dragged from her arms and murdered before her eyes; she then fled into the temple at Daphne, and was herself murdered there in the asylum. The two brothers, Seleucus Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax, then assumed the crown; but they seem to have divided the empire, and Antiochus obtained Asia Minor. … Ptolemy Euergetes, the third among the Ptolemies, and the last in the series that deserves praise, now rose in just indignation at the fate of his unhappy sister (Olymp. 133, 3) [B. C. 246]. He marched out with all the forces of his empire, and wherever he went the nations declared in his favour. … 'All the Ionian, Cilician, and other towns, which were already in arms to support Berenice,' joined Euergetes, and he traversed the whole of the Syrian empire. … He himself proceeded as far as Babylon. Media, Persia, and the upper satrapies, southern Chorassan and Sistan as far as Cabul, all of which belonged to Syria, submitted to him. He was equally successful in Asia Minor: the acropolis of Sardes, a part of Lydia, and Phrygia Major, alone maintained themselves. Even the countries on the coast of Thrace … were conquered by the Egyptians. … Seleucus Callinicus, in the meantime, probably maintained himself in the mountainous districts of Armenia, in Aderbidjan. 'His brother, Antiochus, deserted him, and negotiated with Ptolemy.' In the conquered countries, Ptolemy everywhere exercised the rights of a conqueror in the harsh Egyptian manner. … While he was thus levying contributions abroad, an insurrection broke out in Egypt, which obliged him to return." He, thereupon, divided his conquests, "retaining for himself Syria as far as the Euphrates, and the coast districts of Asia Minor and Thrace, so that he had a complete maritime empire. The remaining territories he divided into two states: the country beyond the Euphrates was given, according to St. Jerome on Daniel (xi. 7 foll.), to one Xanthippus, who is otherwise unknown, and western Asia was left to Antiochus Hierax. It would seem that after this he never visited those countries again. After he had withdrawn, a party hostile to him came forward to oppose him. … The confederates formed a fleet, with the assistance of which, and supported by a general insurrection of the Asiatics, who were exasperated against the Egyptians on account of their rapacity, Seleucus Callinicus rallied again. He recovered the whole of upper Asia, and for a time he was united with his brother Antiochus Hierax. … Ptolemy being pressed on all sides concluded a truce of ten years with Seleucus on the basis 'uti possidetis.' Both parties seem to have retained the places which they possessed at the time, so that all the disadvantage was on the side of the Seleucidae, for the fortified town of Seleucia, e. g., remained in the hands of the Egyptians, whereby the capital was placed in a dangerous position. 'A part of Cilicia, the whole of Caria, the Ionian cities, the Thracian Chersonesus, and several Macedonian towns likewise continued to belong to Egypt.' During this period, a war broke out between the brothers Seleucus and Antiochus. … The war between the two brothers lasted for years: its seat was Asia Minor. … 'Seleucus established himself in upper Asia, where the Parthians, who during the war between the brothers had subdued Sistan and lower Chorassan, were in the possession of Media, Babylonia and Persia.'" In the end, Antiochus was overcome, and fled into Thrace. "But there he was taken prisoner by a general of Euergetes, 'and orders were sent from Alexandria to keep him in safe custody'; for in the mean time a peace had been concluded between Seleucus and Ptolemy, by which the Egyptian empire in its immense extent was strengthened again." Antiochus Hierax then escaped and took refuge among the Gauls, but was murdered for the jewels that he carried with him. "Notwithstanding its successful enterprises, Egypt had been shaken by the war to its foundations and had lost its strength. … The empire was already in a state of internal decay, and even more so than that of Syria. The death of Euergetes [B. C. 221] decided its downfall. 'But in Syria too the long wars had loosened the connection among the provinces more than ever, and those of Asia Minor, the jewels of the Syrian crown, were separated from the rest. For while Seleucus was in Upper Asia, Achaeus, his uncle, availed himself of the opportunity of making himself an independent satrap in western Asia.' Seleucus did not reign long after this. He was succeeded by his son Seleucus Ceraunus (Olymp. 138, 2) [B. C. 227] who marched against the younger Achaeus, but was murdered by a Gaul named Apaturius, at the instigation of the same Achaeus (Olymp. 130, 1) [B. C. 224]. He had reigned only three years, and resided in western Asia. He was succeeded by his younger brother Antiochus, surnamed the Great. … Under Antiochus the Syrian empire revived again and acquired a great extent, especially in the south. Although he was not a great man, his courtiers, not without reason, gave him the surname of the Great, because he restored the empire. This happened at the time when Antigonus Doson [king of Macedonia] died. Achaeus, in Asia Minor, was in a state of insurrection; the satrap of Media was likewise revolting, and the Syrian empire was confined to Syria, Babylonia, and Persia. During this confusion, new sovereigns ascended the thrones everywhere. In Macedonia, Philip succeeded; in Egypt, Ptolemy Philopator; in Media, Molon; and in Bactria a consolidated Macedonian dynasty had already established itself."