THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AT EDINBURGH, 1639.

Before proceeding with a detail of the Acts and discussions of the Assembly of 1639, it is fitting, in conformity with the general plan of this work, to state briefly the occurrences which resulted from that of the preceding year—events, the character of which must, in some measure, have been anticipated in the perusal of the numerous documents which we have already concentrated in the foregoing pages.

It is evident, from many indications in the correspondence and public documents of the period, that, from the first movements of the Covenanters against the Service Book and Prelacy, both the King and the Scotch Leaders contemplated the contingency of an appeal to arms, although both parties disguised, as much as possible, their mutual anticipations and arrangements. The rupture which ensued on the Commissioner’s dissolution of the Assembly on the 29th of November 1638; the continuance of the Assembly in defiance of the King’s authority, (apart altogether from the nature of its subsequent proceedings;) and the proclamations by Hamilton, after his retirement from the Assembly—in which all who continued in it were denounced as liable to the penalties of treason—amounted, in substance and effect, to a declaration of war, on the part of Charles, against the great body of his Scottish subjects, as rebels. Nor, in the circumstances, could aught else be expected; for, with the Sovereign’s notions of the royal prerogative, and influenced by the spirit disclosed in all his letters and instructions to the Commissioner, nothing, save consciousness of utter want of power, was likely to deter him from enforcing full and unlimited authority over all his subjects; while, on the other hand, the bold, numerous, and influential representatives of national feeling that composed the Glasgow Assembly of 1638, must have been prepared, from the first hour of its meeting, to raise the standard of revolt in the field, unless the objects at which they aimed with such intense enthusiasm, were otherwise attained. In fact, even before the meeting of that Assembly, both the King and the Covenanters had secretly prepared for a conflict; and, after its dissolution, and the scornful rejection of its supplication for a sanction to its Acts, the exertions of both parties were commensurate to their means and their relative positions.

The chief Acts of the Assembly of 1638—some of which have been made subjects of controversy—were, 1st, The election of their Moderator and Clerk, and their constituting the Court before receiving the Declinature tendered by the Prelates; 2d, The Acts approving of the Registers; 3d, The continuing to sit after the Commissioner ordered it to dissolve; 4th, The Act condemning the spurious Assemblies from 1606 to 1618, inclusive; 5th, The Act condemning the Service Book, and other Books forced on the country and Church, by the royal prerogative, without the sanction of Parliament or of the Church; 6th, The deposition and excommunication of the Prelates and others; 7th, The prohibition, by its own authority, of Episcopacy and the practice of the Five Articles of Perth, under the pains of censure and excommunication; 8th, The Act against the Press.

Of these, the first five, and some other relative Acts, reviving former laws of the Church, appear to be quite unexceptionable, and fully within the competency of a free General Assembly, according to the laws of the land, and the consuetudes of the Reformed Church, from the time of the Reformation; and these were all Acts, legitimately within the range of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. We know not on what ground it can be contended that it was bound to dissolve itself on the mandate of the King or his Commissioner. It was confessedly convened by the royal proclamation; but we know of no authority by which the executive power was at that time warranted to dissolve a General Assembly, by its mere fiat, after being so assembled, upon an anticipation that it was about to act ultra vires and illegally.

The 6th, 7th, and 8th classes of Acts to which we have alluded, were of a different character, and imported an assumption of civil power and jurisdiction. Had that Assembly, upon the points referred to, confined itself to an expression of opinion in the first instance, or taken cognizance only, and in an orderly manner, of the moral and ministerial delinquencies of the prelates and ministers, there does not appear to be any good ground for challenging its procedure; and, having exhausted its proper spiritual jurisdiction, it could then have applied to the supreme legislature for a ratification of its ecclesiastical conclusions, and thus avoided the rock on which it split, and, for many “evil days,” made shipwreck of the genuine and legitimate Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

It would be disingenuous, as well as absurd, to disguise the fact, that several of the Acts of the Assembly of 1638 were violations of, and irreconcilable with, the existing law of the land, and imported an assumption of authority identical with that of the State. In fact, that Assembly was a Political Convention, as much, at least, as an Ecclesiastical Synod—having fully a hundred Members of Parliament in its composition; and, in many of its enactments and decrees, it directly rescinded and superseded a great number of Acts of Parliament. Without entering at all on controversial ground, we may remark, as a matter of fact and of notoriety, established on the face of the Statute Book, and by the tenor of the Assembly’s Acts, that that Assembly, virtually and explicitly, abrogated a series of Acts of Parliament, by which Prelacy was fully and distinctly settled as the Established Church of Scotland, for a period of above thirty years preceding, under which the greater number of the Clergy in that Assembly had received ordination and benefices, and in which the lay members had acquiesced without any visible opposition.141 In addition to the assumption of civil authority, in practically repealing Acts of Parliament, the Assembly sustained Complaints against the Prelates and others, at the instance of miscellaneous and self-constituted public prosecutors—a practice never recognised as competent in the law of Scotland at any period.142 It deposed the Prelates, not solely for erroneous doctrine or immoralities, which was quite competent to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Assembly, but chiefly because they held offices conferred on them under the existing law of the country. It superseded the uniform and settled law, both of the Church and State, from the time of the Reformation, on the point of ecclesiastical presentations to benefices, and transported ministers from place to place, regardless of the rights of patrons and the wishes of incumbents. It imposed an absolute veto on the liberty of the press; and, above all, it issued an edict for coercing the whole people into an adoption of the Covenant or Confession, and, in obedience to its decrees, under the terrors of excommunication, (a penalty which, at that time, was tantamount to outlawry, confiscation of property, and proscription,) in each and all of these particulars deviating from the spiritual into the civil track of jurisprudence and legislation. Of this, indeed, that sagacious and gifted man, Henderson, the Moderator, was fully aware; for he says explicitly—“Neither can we thinke ourselves secure in peace and quyetness, till civill auctoritie ratifie what is heir done by ecclesiasticall constitution.”

One of the most unaccountable characteristics of the Reformation in this country, is the intolerance and coercive courses adopted by the Protestants, from their Popish predecessors, for compelling uniformity to the new doctrines and worship. This appears to be inconsistent, and indeed irreconcilable with the great first principle of the Reformation—the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and in interpreting the Scriptures according to the conclusions of that judgment. It was the assertion of this right which shook the Papal domination; and nothing contributed more largely to the overthrow of Popery in Scotland, than the civil persecutions which ushered in the dawn of the Reformation, and which excited the sympathy and indignation of the people; yet no sooner were our first Reformers disenthralled from that bloody yoke, than they resorted to similar methods of compelling assent to their principles, and obedience to the authority of the Kirk. From 1449, in the reign of James II., “cursing” or “excommunication” by the Church, both Catholic and Protestant, for nonconformity or other kindred offences, inferred imprisonment and forfeiture of property in the recusant; and the unhappy victim of ecclesiastical censure was doomed to exclusion from society and all its charities, to destitution, to imprisonment, to exile from his native country, and even to death. Self-preservation may, perhaps, have prompted this course at first, when the Reformers were struggling to secure that religious liberty which was the great object of their zeal; and “The Booke of the Universall Kirk” affords numberless examples of the eagerness betrayed for constraining, by civil penalties, all persons to profess the reformed doctrine, and submit themselves to ecclesiastical authority. During the space of 140 years after, the spirit of intolerance continued to govern every party that was dominant for the time; in the reigns of Mary, James VI., and his son Charles, and his grandsons Charles II. and James VII. The triumph of the Covenanters was not more distinguished than any other portion of the period referred to, for greater relaxation in this respect, than either the Popish or Episcopal Churches; and, during all the vicissitudes of their fortune, as already in some measure disclosed, and to be further illustrated, we cannot find even a trace of any proposal to give freedom of conscience to others, even when they were waging war against Popery and Prelacy in the name of religious liberty. This strikes us as an anomaly in the moral history of our country, of which we have never seen any satisfactory solution; but the rigorous enforcement of the Covenant and submission to the Presbyterian Kirk, and the excommunications, which were directed against the Prelates and others at the time to which our attention is more immediately directed, perhaps paved the way, in some degree, as a precedent, for the interdicts, intercommunings, and diversified persecutions, which have rendered the reigns of the two last monarchs of the Stuart dynasty, a byword and a reproach to the land in which these horrors were perpetrated. It was not till the year 1690 that the civil penalties on religious nonconformity were blotted from our statute-book, after the settlement of William and Mary on the throne of Britain.

Greatly as we admire the talents, the courage, and the piety of many individuals in the Assembly of 1638, we do not deem it necessary to canonize their errors, or to ascribe a sort of plenary inspiration to all their proceedings. That in their great objects, they were right, and that much good resulted from their stern and intrepid course, we most willingly admit; but (if we may be permitted to express any opinion of our own) we should say, that the true and only justification of some Acts, which were ultra vires of a church assembly, is, that in fact they were partly a political as well as an ecclesiastical body, constrained, by the necessity of the case, to resist and to resent the assumption of arbitrary power, which by its stretches had virtually broken up the fabric of society in Scotland, and reduced it nearly to its primary elements. The Covenanters had but too much reason to apprehend that their civil as well as their religious liberties were in the utmost jeopardy; and, therefore, it is by no means surprising if, in the tumult of emotions by which the nation was at that time convulsed, they in some points passed beyond the strict line of demarcation which separates the spiritual from the civil authorities in peaceful and well-ordered states—Inter arma silent leges.

Such was the position of the parties—the King and the Kingdom of Scotland—in the beginning of the year 1639, after the Assembly of 1638 had terminated its labours.

Immediately after the dissolution of the Assembly, the several Commissions which it had appointed proceeded to “purge out” all persons who, either by adherence to Prelacy, or for other causes, were obnoxious to the now ruling power: and Baillie informs us that “many ministers who remained obstinate in scandals were deposed at Edinʳ, St Andrews, Dundee, Irvine, and elsewhere.”143 We learn, however, from the Acts of 1639 that these depositions were to be relaxed, (except in the case of gross faults,) upon submission to the new order of things.144 The members of the late Assembly, according to its injunctions, had made known to their several parishes the nature of its proceedings; but at Aberdeen, where there was a stiff opposition to its authority, Dr Guild was deterred from doing so; and Lundie, the Commissioner from King’s College, was summoned before the Senatus Academicus, and threatened with deprivation for having continued in the Assembly after it was dissolved by the Commissioner.145

But the attention of the Covenanters was called from such matters to others of more serious importance. Hamilton had, on the 17th of December preceding, put forth a full proclamation, containing his reasons for dissolving the Assembly. His health had suffered much from mental anxiety and the exertions which he had been called on to make; and it was not until the 28th of that month that he proceeded on his journey to London.146 Previously to his final departure from Scotland, however, the chiefs of the Covenanters waited on him, to solicit his good offices at Court; but we are told that he replied to them—“You must not think to use your Kings now as you did formerly, when they were only Kings of rebels: the King has now another royal and warlike nation at his command, and you shall soon feel it to your cost.”147 Hamilton reached Whitehall on the 5th of January, when he found the King highly exasperated, and resolved, by force of arms, to subdue his obstreperous subjects, the Covenanters of Scotland.

The plan of operations designed for carrying this object into effect was, that an English army of 30,000 horse and foot, under the immediate command of Charles, should invade Scotland on the eastern borders—that Carlisle and Berwick should be strongly garrisoned—that 5000 men should be landed in the north, to co-operate with Huntly and his followers—that the Earl of Antrim should land in Argyleshire—that Strafford, with such forces as he could withdraw from Ireland, should enter the Clyde—that another fleet should enter the Forth, and scour the eastern coast—and thus, by a simultaneous attack on all sides, distract and overwhelm the Covenanters. And had this well-devised plan of operations been fully and promptly carried into effect, there can be but little doubt that it would have been attended with at least temporary success.

The King, though hampered by increasing discontents among his English subjects, and weakened by many errors in policy, both foreign and domestic, roused “the might of England.” He had effected a saving of £200,000 in his Exchequer; he obtained loans from the Episcopal Clergy of England, and from the Papists by means of the Queen and the priests; he had ample stores of arms, and a formidable train of artillery; and he summoned the English nobility to assemble, with their followers, at York, on the 1st of April.148

Of these designs on the part of the King, the Covenanters did not long remain ignorant; and, indeed, they had anticipated them so far that they had previously procured arms and munitions secretly from the Continent, and had secured the services of Alexander Lesly, and other veteran soldiers, trained to war in the army of the celebrated Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden. The King’s summons to the English nobility was promulgated on the 26th of January, and the ground on which it proceeded was a statement that the Scotch intended to invade England. Even before this public document appeared, the Covenanters were made aware of the King’s hostile intentions, from the circumstance of all Scotchmen at Court being required upon oath to renounce the Assembly, and to promise assistance when required against the Covenanters. Being anxious to propitiate the good opinion of the English people, and thereby to weaken the King’s hands, they had circulated extensively “a printed sheet or two” of information to the people of England, “for vindicating their intentions and actions from the unjust calumnies of their enemies.” It was dated 4th February, and, on the 27th of that month, Charles issued “A proclamation and declaration to inform the kingdom of England of the seditious practices of some in Scotland, seeking to overthrow his regal power under the false pretence of religion.”149

The deputies of the Covenanters, who assembled in Edinburgh about the middle of February, resolved to make a reply to this proclamation, which was drawn up by Henderson, and entitled, “The Remonstrance of the Nobility, Barons, Burgesses, Ministers, and Commons, within the Kingdom of Scotland, vindicating them and their proceedings from the crimes wherewith they are charged by the late proclamation in England,” &c. “These three or four most dainty sheets of paper of Mr Henderson,” says Baillie, “made such an impression, that we, over all England, began to be much more pitied than before, and our enraged party, [antagonists,] the Bishops, to be more detested.” These, and various other tracts by Henderson, Baillie, and others, on the “lawfulness of our defence in arms,”150 and which were distributed extensively through England by pedlers and otherwise, had a powerful moral influence in that kingdom; in which, besides, there was a growing discontent, occasioned by the King’s arbitrary disuse of Parliaments, and other grievances peculiar to themselves.

“When we had done diligence,” says Baillie, “to inform our neighbours of England, and make sure the courage of all our friends at home, in the third place we took course for a real opposition to our enemies.” On the 7th of March, a full meeting of the deputies and leaders of the Covenant was held, at which, resolving not to depend on any foreign auxiliaries, a general committee of the nobles, barons, and burgesses, and two senators of the College of Justice, being twenty-six in number, was appointed, (thirteen being a quorum,) to give out orders, receive intelligence, levy troops, raise money, &c.; and, exercising all the functions of a supreme, legislative, and executive body, this “Committee of Estates” issued an edict that every fourth man should be armed and trained: local committees of war were appointed, and a complete plan of military organization was established in every burgh and county in Scotland; and we have Bishop Burnet’s authority for stating, that “these committees found small resistance, and no difficulty, of levying men—greater numbers being offered than could be either armed or maintained.”151 Thus, the chimera of royal and indefeasible prerogative was reduced in Scotland to a nonentity; and the nice metaphysical problem of the lawfulness of resistance by subjects, was practically solved by the entire Kingdom appearing in arms, to resist the undefined and unlimited claims of the first Charles Stuart, to absolute power over all estates in the realm, when about to be enforced by foreign invasion.

While these transactions were in progress, the Court of Session, it appears, had remonstrated strongly with their Sovereign against his belligerent purposes. Their earlier communications on the subject appear to have been intercepted, probably by the incendiary courtiers; but, in the month of March, their Lordships sent another remonstrance to his Majesty by the Lord Justice-Clerk, which we have not observed in any of the common histories or printed collections, and which we, therefore, subjoin among the documents hereto appended, being a piece of evidence entitled to great weight, as emanating from the supreme civil judicatory of Scotland.152

Their Lordships state that, “when your Majestie was pleased to indict a General Assembly, we, and most parte of all your good subjects of this kingdome, wer overjoyed, in expectation that the doubts in religious worship and kirk government, quhilk was tossed to and fro this whyle bygone, should have then beine cleerlie settled; and altho’ the greater part of your people be weill pleased with the constitutions therein concluded, yet your Majesties displeasure against that Assembly, and the proceedings thereof, and your expresse dislike of those who adheres to the same, and the fearfull consequences therefra like to ensue, hes turned all the hopes of comfort which we expected, in sorrowes and teares.”—“Your Majestie may be pleased to pardon us to avere, that in this, they are but badd counsellours, and no better patriots, who will advis your Majestie to adde oyle and fewall to the fire.” And among their “Instructions,” (advices,) their Lordships inform his Majesty, “that, if our neighbour nation doe invaid this countrie, it will assuredlie be taken be all Scotsmen, albeit not affected the present way, for a national quarrel; and all will strive as one man, to defend themselves, as for their lives, estates, and liberties of the countrie.” This salutary advice, however, was slighted by King Charles.

We shall not pause to notice all the deliberations and preparations on either side which ensued, but hasten on to the main points of our narrative.

On the 21st of March, Leslie, and other officers, commanding about 1000 men, took Edinburgh Castle—having forced the outer gate—securing twenty-five field-pieces, and other munitions. The day following, Rothes, Lowdoun, Home, and Lothian, with a similar force, invested Dalkeith House, which was surrendered, without resistance, by Traquair, the keeper: and they seized the Regalia of Scotland, forty-eight barrels of gunpowder, twenty-four of balls, and six cart-loads of muskets, which they deposited in Edinburgh Castle. On the 23d of March, (being a Sunday,) Dumbarton Castle was secured by a stratagem; and, besides these chief forts, (Stirling was in the hands of Mar, one of their own party,) Strathaven Castle and Douglas Castle, in Lanarkshire, and Tantallan Castle, in East Lothian, Dairsy, in Fife,153 and Broderick Castle, in Arran were seized; the only enterprise of this kind which failed, being in the case of Karlaverock Castle, in the south, which it would have been hazardous to attack, and difficult to maintain. Dumfries, however, was taken possession of by a body of Covenanters.

In the north, the Earl of Montrose, with a well-appointed force, of seven or eight thousand men, (“the most were brave, resolute, and well-armed gentlemen,”) levied in Angus and Mearns, moved to Aberdeen, appalled Huntly and his adherents, who fled; and Montrose took possession of Aberdeen, where he levied contributions, though very generously. There was a subsequent rallying of the Royalists, headed by Aboyne, Huntly’s son, and Ogilvy of Banff, who gained some petty advantages; but they were worsted in a skirmish at Turreff; and Montrose kept all the north country in awe and subjection—Huntly being seized and conveyed to Edinburgh Castle, as the only security his opponents could get for his neutrality. In the Western Highlands, Argyle was on the alert, with a sufficient force. The enthusiasm was so high, that nobility, gentry, ladies, and persons of all ranks, joined in the humblest labours for self-defence. “Leith fortifications went on speedily—above 1000 hands daily employed; plat up towards the sea, sundry perfect and strong bastions, well garnished, with a number of double cannon, that we feared not much any landing of ships on that quarter. The towns of Fife, all along the shore, made up such sconces and fosses, and planted such a number of ship-cannon upon batteries, that they were all in the case of a tolerable defence. Thus, in a short time, by God’s extraordinary help, we cut the main sinews of our adversaries hopes; all the strength of our land came in our hands; no man among us but those who swore they were stout friends. All otherwise disposed, both Noblemen, Gentlemen, and Ministers, were got away to our professed enemies, and the whole country put in such an order and magnanimity, that we found sensibly in every thing, the hand of God going before us; so all fear of human force was clean banished away.”154

Such were the energetic and successful movements, which, in the course of a few days, put the Covenanters in possession of all the strongholds of Scotland, and inspired them with assured confidence. Let us now turn to the preparations of King Charles for his enterprise against them.

About the middle of March, the King published a declaration of the reasons for his expedition against Scotland, and soon after issued the “Large Declaration,” or Manifesto, containing a more minute statement of the grounds of his projected invasion. The latter of these, as has been already noticed, was written by Balcanquel, Dean of Durham; and, although we have had occasion to select public documents from it, which could not be materially falsified, it is to be regarded merely as a varnished and partial statement on behalf of the King’s policy, on which no reliance can be placed, except when his testimony operates against the cause which he advocated. His Majesty thereafter took his departure from London, on the 27th of March, and, on the 1st of April, arrived at York, where he remained till the beginning of May, when he moved on to Newcastle-upon-Tyne. He marched thence to Berwick-upon-Tweed, in the vicinity of which he arrived about the beginning of the month, and continued there till the negotiations and treaty, betwixt him and the Covenanters, put a stop to the impending hostilities, on the 18th of June following.

The movements of the two armies, however, during that interval, form too prominent a picture of the times to be passed over without a brief notice—referring to the Royal Letters, and other documents of the day, which will be found annexed, as embodying the most authentic accounts, not merely of what was visible to the common eye, but of what was passing behind the scenes, in the secret councils of the antagonist courts and camps.

Charles, with a well-appointed army, which had preceded and accompanied him from London to York, was there joined by the English nobility; and, from the splendour of the national chivalry who there joined his standard, the march, from thence to Berwick; of betwixt 20,000 and 30,000 infantry, cavalry, and artillery, is described as resembling a military triumph. The English host was under the nominal command of the Earl of Arundel and Essex, but having its monarch and his standard in the midst. It finally encamped at the Birks, a few miles above Berwick, on the southern bank of the Tweed. The long inaction, however, which ensued—the peculiar nature of the service, in which the sympathies of the officers, as well as of the common soldiers, were, to a great extent, with the Scotch—and the unpopularity of Charles’ Government in England, created by his arbitrary dissolutions and discontinuance of Parliaments, paralysed the energies of this showy army; and Charles ere long discovered symptoms that there was peril in relying on a force the military prowess of which was unnerved by these inherent moral affections.

During the progress of this prolonged and hesitating advance towards the boundary which divided the kingdoms, the Marquis of Hamilton, who had remained in London at the King’s departure, to superintend the outfit of the naval expedition, had only reached Yarmouth Roads on the 15th of April, and being there detained by adverse winds, it was not till the 29th of that month that he reached Holy Island with his squadron, on board of which there were about 5000 raw levies, so inefficient that the greater part of them, including even the non-commissioned officers, did not even know how to fire a musket. On the 1st of May, he entered the Frith of Forth; and his squadron, consisting of about twenty vessels, cast anchor in Leith Roads.

The Covenanters were not unprepared for the threatened invasion. Whenever the fleet appeared in the offing, the beacon fires blazed along the summits of the mountains, awakening the land to a sense of its dangers and its duties. From all quarters, the stout peasantry and burgesses of Scotland followed, with ardour; the Nobles and gentry, and veteran officers, as their “Crowners” and commanders, to the point of danger; and, ere Hamilton could refresh his sickly troops, by landing them on Inchkeith and Inchcolm, or issue the King’s proclamations, the shores of the Forth, on both sides of his fleet, gleamed with twenty thousand Scottish spears and broadswords—the well-known symbols of ancient renown and national victory—and stood, “a wall of fire,” in defence of their native land, against what every man deemed an invasion by a foreign foe. Whatever we may now think of the circumstances of a political nature which led to this unhappy difference betwixt the King and his Scottish subjects, and however clearly we may trace, as it appears to us, through the backward vista of two hundred years, the errors and the failings of our fathers—there is not a true Scotchman, of these times, or in any future generations, who can look back on the records of such a scene, without a throb of pride and of patriotism swelling in his heart, that he is descended of a race who thus gathered themselves around the altar of their country and their God, in the hour of peril—in defence of what they deemed the highest and the holiest privileges of their fathers, of themselves, and of their children.

This splendid demonstration of national spirit and power, seems to have warned Hamilton that his purposes of attack were effectually frustrated, even if he was not paralyzed by the feelings inseparable from a generous nature in such a position. He lingered on in a fruitless series of negotiations with the leaders of the Covenanters, (of which the particulars are too minute for recapitulation here)—his strength frittered away by detaching a portion of his troops, and by the ravages of disease; and he continued in a state of listless distraction and impotence for many weeks, neither attempting anything hostile, nor receiving any aggression from his sagacious antagonists, until he was recalled by his royal master to headquarters, in the camp near Berwick.

It will be recollected that, by the proclamations of 9th and 22d September 1638, the General Assembly was indicted for the 21st of November that year, and the Scottish Parliament to meet on the 16th of May following.155 The time had now arrived for the assembling of Parliament, to which, in compliance with the proclamation, the Nobles, Barons, and others liable or entitled to serve in the Supreme Legislature convened at Edinburgh, while public affairs were in the attitude of which we have thus given a brief outline—the King’s Commissioner on board a naval armament in Leith Roads, for the subjection of Scotland by force, and the nation mustered in arms to resist him; the Sovereign himself being at the head of a foreign army, (for, as regarded Scotland then, it was a foreign army,) on the eve of invading her territories, and issuing proclamations against the whole nation, as guilty of treason and rebellion. It was under these extraordinary circumstances that Parliament assembled on the 16th of June 1639; and it is necessary to advert to the proceedings which the Estates, thus convoked by royal authority, adopted.

It was surmised by the royalist partisans that the Covenanters would hold a Parliament according to the indiction, and proceed, without either the King or a Commissioner being present, and establish some form of government, more or less anti-monarchical; in this, however, they were mistaken. When his Majesty sent orders to prorogate the Parliament, all agreed that it should be prorogued, after being fenced, to any period his Majesty thought fit; and it was prorogued accordingly, and by subsequent adjournment, till September following. Before separating, however, the Members concurred in granting a very ample commission to General Leslie, as Commander-in-Chief, and appointed Balmerino Governor of Edinburgh Castle. Meanwhile, the Covenanting chiefs omitted no opportunity of appealing to the justice and patriotism of the King, by supplications to himself, and communications to others whom they thought likely to have influence in his councils.

We now turn our attention to that quarter where it appeared probable the main battle would be fought, had not the consciousness of danger in the battle-field, and a sinister and double policy, induced the King to listen to the proposals of peace from his subjects; and it is one of the most honourable traits in the character of the Covenanters, that, however mistaken they might be in some of their views and actions, they ever manifested a desire to avoid the calamities of war, and ever cherished feelings of loyalty to the King, and of submission to his constitutional authority.

As the plans of the King began to be developed by his own march to the Eastern Border, and Hamilton’s expedition to the Forth, the Covenanters concentrated their forces to meet the threatened invasion at all points. On the 18th of May, peremptory orders were given by the Committee of War for general and energetic exertions. The forces which had been organized and disciplined on the Western Borders, under Monro, advanced from Dumfries through Nithsdale, Annandale, Liddisdale, and Teviotdale, towards the Merse, and took up cantonments at Kelso; while the main army (after leaving sufficient force to keep Hamilton in check) marched toward the royal camp, under the command of Alexander Leslie as Generalissimo, and pitched their tents in an entrenched camp at Dunglas, on the confines of East Lothian and Berwickshire—each body being so placed as to interpose an opposing force if the King’s army should attempt to enter Scotland through Berwick or further up the Tweed—and so posted that either portion of the army could presently coalesce with the other at any point of attack by the English. While the opposing armies were thus situated, the King was busied in issuing proclamations, one of which was more mild in its tone than those which preceded it, offering amnesty to all who should relinquish hostilities, but denouncing all who should not do so, and holding out an insidious temptation to the tenantry of Scotland that the estates of their landlords would be forfeited and partitioned among them, but withal forbidding them to come within ten miles of the royal camp, &c. Early in June these proclamations were published along the Border—at Dunse by Arundel, having an armed force along with him, without opposition; but not so at Kelso. Holland was dispatched, on the 3d of June, with 1000 horse and 3000 foot, to Kelso, professedly for a similar purpose, but evidently with the view of attacking and dispersing Monro’s corps of the Covenanters. He “advanced towards them with the horse (leaving the foot three miles behind) to a place called Maxwel-heugh, a height above Kelso; which, when the rebels discovered, they instantly marched out with 150 horse, and (as my Lord Holland sayes) eight or ten thousand foot—five or six thousand there might have been. He thereupon sent a trumpet, commanding them to retreat, according to what they had promised by the proclamation. They asked whose trumpet he was: he said—my Lord Holland’s. Their answer was—he was best to be gone; and so my Lord Holland made his retreat, and waited on his Majesty this night, to give him this account.”156 We learn, from the same authority, that this untoward result operated strongly on the royal mind. “This morning,” says Vane, in his Letter, “advertisement is brought his Majestie that Lesley, with 12,000 men, is at Cockburnspath—that 5000 will be this night or tomorrow at Dunce—6000 at Kelso; so his Majestie’s opinion is, with many of his Council, to keep himself upon a defensive, and make himself here as fast as he can.” He therefore instructed Hamilton not to act on the offensive, but to leave his fleet in the Forth in as good a posture as he could, and go in person to the royal camp.

Baillie gives an account of this same affair, varying but little from Lord Holland’s. After stating that the Scotch troops willingly stood at the required distance from the King’s encampment, in order to shew that they did not meditate any invasion of England, and mentioning the proclamation at Dunse, he adds:—“The like was intended at Kelso; but there Monro, Fleming, and Erskine, presenting themselves in battle array, made Holland, with some thousand foot and horse, with their show alone, to retire in haste in a shamefull disorder. It is thought Holland’s commission was to cut off all he met in opposition to him; but his soldiers that day was a great deal more nimble in their legs than arms, except their cavilliers, whose right arms were no less weary in whipping, than their heels in jading their horses. We were informed that, to repair that disgrace, Holland was commanded to return with far more forces to execute his former commission; wherupon our Generall raises his camp from Dunglass, advertises his troops at Kelso to march towards him. Both of them met together that night at Dunse, and there they sat down on the head of their fair Law.”157 He continues—“This our march did much affray the English camp. Dunse Law was in their sight within six or seven miles; for they lay in pavilions some two miles above Berwick, on the other side of the Tweed, in a fair plain along the river. The King himself, beholding us through a prospect, conjectured us to be about 16,000 or 18,000 men. We were, indeed, above twelve; but at once we were above twenty-four. We might have doubled that number, but we had none there from the one full half of Scotland—not a man beyond Tay—few from Lothian, Fife, Edinburgh, the Merse; for they were waiting on the ships or employed in carriages; the south behoved to observe the border about Carlisle; and the west, the Irish shore; albeit that was needless.”

Baillie states the English army at that time to have been only about 16,000, “and these not of the stoutest.” “One night,” says he, “a false alarm being in our camp, when our drums began to beat, and our matches on the hill to shine through the darkness, there arose such a fray in the English camp, that very many betook them to their heels, expecting from us a present invasion; yea, had not our wise and valorous Prince, with his General Arundel, done diligence to encourage and to find out the grundless vanity of the fray, there had bein a greater flight than with honour could have been gotten stayed.”

Although anxious to compress, as much as possible, these illustrative historical details, we cannot resist gratifying ourselves, and, we trust, our readers, by giving Baillie’s most graphical, though quaint, description of the Scottish camp on Dunse Law. It affords a more lively impression of the character, the manners, and the spirit of those times, than any modern description could possibly convey; and as this was, perhaps, the last great national demonstration of “Scotland’s might and Scotland’s right” which her a___ls afford, we must be forgiven for recording it in these pages, in connection with the history of the Presbyterian Church.

“It would have done you good,” says the reverend patriot, “to have cast your eyes athort our brave and rich hills, as oft as I did, with greater contentment and joy; for I was there among the rest, being chosen preacher by the gentlemen of our shire, who came late with Lord Eglinton. I furnished to half a dozen of good fellows, muskets and pikes, and to my boy a broad sword. I carried myself, as the fashion was, a sword, and a couple of Dutch pistols at my saddle; but I promise, for the offence of no man except a robber in the way; for it was our part alone to pray and preach for the encouragement of our countrymen, which I did to my power most chearfully.

“Our hill was garnished on the top, towards the south and east, with our mounted cannon, well near to the number of forty, great and small. Our regiment lay on the sides of the hill, almost round about. The place was not ample in circle; a pretty round, rising in a declivity, without steepness, to the height of a bow-shot; on the top somewhat plain; about a quarter of a mile in length, and as much in breadth, as I remember, capable of tents for 40,000 men. The Crowners lay in canvas lodges, high and wide; their captains about them in lesser ones; the soldiers about, all in huts of timber, covered with divot or straw. Our Crowners for the most part were noblemen; Rothes, Lindsay, Sinclair, had among them two full regiments at least from Fife; Balcarras a horse-troop; Loudon, Montgomery, Erskine, Boyd, Fleming, Kircudbright, Dalhousie, Yester, Eglinton, Cassils, and others, either with a whole or half regiments. Montrose’s regiment was above 1500 men in the castle of Edinburgh; himself was expected; but what detained him ye shall hear at once.

“Argyle was sent for to the treaty of peace; for without him none would mint to treat. He came, and set up his tent in the hill; but few of his people with him. It was thought meet that he and his should lie about Stirling, in the heart of the country, to be always ready in subsidies for unexpected accidents, to be a terror to our neutralists or but masked friends; to make all, without din, march forward, lest his uncanny trewsmen should light on to call them up in their rear; always to have an eye what either the north, or the shires, or the west, or our stail host should mister of help. It was thought the country of England was more afraid of the barbarity of his Highlanders, than of any other terror. Those of the English that came to visit our camp, did gaze much with admiration upon these supple fellows, with their plaids, targes, and dorlachs. There were some companies of them under Captain Buchanan, and others in Erskine’s regiment; our captains, for the most part barons or gentlemen of good note; our lieutenants, most of old soldiers, who had served over sea in good charges. Every company had, fleeing at the captain’s tent-door, a brave new colour, stamped with the Scottish arms, and this motto, ‘For Christ’s Crown and Covenant,’ in golden letters.

“Our General had a brave royal tent; but it was not set up. His constant guard was some hundreds of our lawyers, musquetiers, under Durie and Hope’s command, all the good way standing in arms, with locked matches, before his high gate, well apparelled. He lay at the foot of the hill, with Baillie his sergeant-major or lieutenant-general. That place was destined for Almond, in whose wisdom and valour we had but too much confidence; yet in the time of our most need, the greatness of his gravel, or the pretence of it, made him go to France to be cut. Always, when he came there, it was found he needed no incision, so he passed to his charge in Holland, where to us he was as dead in all our dangers.

“The councils of war were kept daily in the castle; the ecclesiastick meetings in Rothes’s large tent. The General, with Baillie, came nightly for the setting of the watch on their horses. Our soldiers were all lusty and full of courage; the most of them, stout young plowmen; great chearfulness in the face of all: the only difficulty was, to get them dollars or two the man, for that voyage from home, and the time they entered in pay; for among our yeoman, money at any time, let be then, uses to be very scarce; but once having entered on the common pay, their sixpence a-day, they were galliard. None of our gentlemen were any thing worse of lying some weeks together in their cloaks and boots on the ground, or standing all night in arms in the greatest storm. Whiles, through storm of weather, and neglect of the commissaries, our bread would be too long a-coming, which made some of the eastland soldiers half-mutiny; but at once, order being taken for our victuals at Edinburgh, East Lothian, and the country about us, we were answered better than we could have been at home. Our meanest soldiers were always served in wheat-bread, and a groat would have gotten them a lamb-leg, which was a dainty world to the most of them. There had been an extraordinary crop in that country the former year, beside abundance that was stolen away to the English camp for great prices. We would have feared no inlack for little money for some months to come. Merse and Teviotdale are the best mixt and most plentiful shires, both for grass and corn, for flesh and bread, in all our land. We were much obliged to the town of Edinburgh for money. Mr Harry Pollock, by his sermons, moved them to shake out their purses; the garners of non-covenanters, especially of James Maxwell and Lord Winton, gave us plenty of wheat. One of our ordinances was, to seize on the rents of non-covenanters; for we thought it but reasonable, since they sided with these who put our lives and our lands for ever to sale, for the defence of our church and country, to employ for that cause, wherein their interest was as great as ours if they would be Scotsmen, a part of their rent for one year; but, for all that, few of them did incur any loss by that our decree, for the peace prevented the execution.

“Our soldiers grew in experience of arms, in courage, in favour daily. Every one encouraged another. The sight of the nobles, and their beloved pastors, daily raised their hearts. The good sermons and prayers, morning and evening, under the roof of heaven, to which their drums did call them for bells; the remonstrances very frequent, of the goodness of their cause; of their conduct hitherto, by a hand clearlie divine; also Lesly’s skill, and prudence, and fortune, made them as resolute for battle as could be wished. We were feared that emulation among our nobles might have done harm, when they should be met in the field; but such was the wisdom and authority of that old, little, crooked soldier, that all, with an incredible submission, from the beginning to the end, gave over themselves to be guided by him, as if he had been great Solyman. Certainly the obedience of our noblemen to that man’s advice was as great as their forebeers wont to be to their King’s commands: yet that was the man’s understanding of our Scots humours, that gave out, not only to the nobles, but to very mean gentlemen, his directions in a very homely and simple form, as if they had been but the advices of their neighbour and companion: for, as he rightly observed, a difference would be used in commanding soldiers of fortune, and of soldiers volunteers, of which kind the most part of our camp did stand. He kept daily in the castle of Dunse an honourable table for the nobles and strangers with himself; for gentlemen-waiters thereafter, at a long side-table. I had the honour, by accident, one day to be his chaplain at table, on his left hand. The fare was as became a General in time of war: not so curious by far as Arundel’s to our nobles; but ye know that the English fare sumptuously, both in war and peace.”

“It seems our General’s table was on his own charge; for, so far as yet I know, neither he, nor any noble or gentleman of considerable rent, got any thing for their charge. Well I know, that Englinton our Crowner entertained all the gentlemen of note that were with him, at his own table, all the time of our abode; and his son, Montgomery, kept with him very oft the chief officers of his regiments: for this was a voyage wherein we were glad to bestow our lives, let be our estates.

“Had you lent your ear in the morning, or especially at even, and heard in the tents of some, the sound of singing psalms, some praying, and some reading scripture, ye would have been refreshed. True, there was swearing, and cursing, and brawling, in some quarters, whereat we were grieved; but we hoped, if our camp had been a little settled, to have gotten some way for these misorders; for all of any fashion did regret, and all promised to do their best endeavours for helping all abuses. For myself, I never found my mind in better temper than it was all that time since I came from home, till my head was again homeward; for I was as a man who had taken my leave from the world, and was resolved to die in that service, without return. I found the favour of God shining upon me, and a sweet, meek, humble, yet strong and vehement spirit leading me all along; but I was no sooner on my way westward, after the conclusion of the peace, than my old security returned.

“It was not our General’s intention to sit long at Dunse; only till our army had grown to a considerable number: he thought meet to lie on that strength which was in the midst betwixt the two ways to Edinburgh, that if the English had moved either towards Haddington or Soutra, he might have been on their backs; for we knew not then well either of the estate or designs of the enemy: but after we were above 20,000 men, he gave out not obscurely his purpose to approach the English camp. Their fear of this, made them cast up some trenches on our side of Tweed, and work at them both on Sunday and Saturday. They had no will we should come so near them; therefore occasion was sought with all diligence of the treaty. The way of the procedure was this: Robin Lesly, one of the old pages, being come over to Dunse Castle, made, as it were of his own head, an overture, that we would be pleased yet to supplicate, or else the English forces did so multiply, that at once we would be overflown with them. Our fear daily diminished of their violence; we knew at once the great advantages we had of the King: yet such was our tenderness to his honour, that with our hearts we were ever willing to supplicate his offcoming; yea, had we been ten times victorious in set battles, it was our conclusion to have laid down our army at his feet, and on our knees presented nought but our first supplications. We had no other end of our wars; we sought no crowns; we aimed at no lands and honours as our party; we desired but to keep our own in the service of our Prince, as our ancestors had done; we loved no new masters. Had our throne been void, and our voices sought for the filling of Fergus’s chair, we would have died ere any other had sat down on that fatal marble but Charles alone.”

While the two armies were in the position thus described by an eye-witness—the Royal army, on the one hand, weak, wavering, and almost panic-struck, the Royal coffers nearly exhausted, and the spirit of the English troops and followers sunk to the most abject state; the Scotch, on the other hand, outnumbering their adversary, bold, eager for the fight, and full of high enthusiasm and confidence in superhuman support, yet with limited means for a protracted campaign, and anxious to avoid acts of deadly hostility against their native King—overtures for pacification were made; and in a very short space agreed to. In consequence of the hints given by Robert Leslie, which the Scotch leaders interpreted as an indication of his Master’s wishes, the Earl of Dunfermling was despatched to the Royal camp (on the 7th or 8th of June) with a short Supplication to his Majesty, and Letters to the English Council; and this mission terminated on the 18th of June, after various conferences and negotiations, in a Declaration by the King, and Articles of Pacification, signed by the Commissioners on both sides, which, for a season, put an end to the further progress of hostilities.

It would swell these notes beyond the compass that is suitable to this work, were we to give even a meagre abstract of the substance of the proposals and objections which formed the subject-matter of these negotiations; but we deem the whole correspondence, proclamations, and negociations which took place during the period which intervened betwixt the Assembly of 1638 and that of 1639, to be of so much importance to the full understanding of the history of those times, that, as formerly, we intend to supply our readers with all these documents themselves. This is the more requisite, as they are nowhere to be found entire, and without mutilation or the suppression of many of them, in any single history or, collection relative to those transactions; and, indeed, a number of the most curious and valuable—as unveiling the secret history of Charles’ policy and his motives—were not disclosed to the world for more than thirty years afterwards, when Burnet, after the restoration of Charles II., published his Memoirs of the Duke of Hamilton, in which these are embodied. Referring to these documents, therefore, as containing the only true history of the period referred to, (that has fallen under our observation,) and leaving every one to draw his own inferences from these muniments, we shall here only state the leading features of the Treaty, in so far as that is necessary to explain the circumstances in which the General Assembly of 1639 convened.

By his Royal Declaration, of date the 18th of June 1639, his Majesty, referring to the various supplications, &c. of his Scotch subjects, was “pleased to declare and assure that, according to the Petitioners’ humble desires, all matters ecclesiastical shall be determined by an Assembly of the Kirk, and matters civil in the Parliament, and other inferior judicatories established by law; and Assemblies, accordingly, shall be kept once a year, or as shall be agreed upon at the next General Assembly.

“And for settling the general distractions of that our antient Kingdom, our will and pleasure is, that a Frie General Assembly be kept at Edinʳ the 6ᵗʰ day of August next ensuing, where we intend (God willing) to be personally present, and for the legal indiction thereof, we have given orders and command to our Council; and thereafter a Parliament to be holden at Edinburgh the 20ᵗʰ day of August next ensuing, for ratifying of what shall be concluded in the said Assembly,” &c.158

To this declaration seven articles were annexed, the chief of which were—the immediate disbanding of the forces of Scotland—the surrendering to the King all the castles, forts, regalia, &c.—all fortifications; and meetings not sanctioned by Act of Parliament, to be desisted from: and, on the other part, his Majesty to withdraw all his ships, &c. on delivery of the fortresses.

On considering this Declaration and the Articles, the Scotch Commissioners, (viz., Rothes, Dunfermline, Lowdon, W. Douglas, Alexander Henderson, and Archibald Johnston,) on the part of the Covenanters, subscribed the following document, which completed the pacification:—

“In obedience to his Majestys Royal commands, we shall, upon Thursday next, the 20 of this June, dismiss our forces, and immediately thereafter deliver his Majesties Castles; and shall ever, in all things, carry ourselves like humble, loyal, and obedient subjects.”

And thus, to the great joy and rejoicing of both armies, this pacification was consummated, without bloodshed; and the several hosts dispersed themselves and retired to their homes. The Covenanters, with perfect good faith, surrendered the fortresses, Regalia, and all that they had seized as sureties for their safety; but they were too well aware of the craft with which they had to cope, to omit all needful precautions against the perfidy of their adversaries. It was his necessity, and not his will, that induced the King really to yield (though his apologists call it concede) to the Scotch army, the terms recorded in his Declaration; and, reluctant as we are to think harshly of that misguided Monarch, or to anticipate the judgment which our readers may form, on examination of the evidence which we have gleaned, or to obtrude our own humble reflections on the occurrences which we record—we cannot stifle an expression of our full conviction, that, in entering into that treaty of pacification, Charles I. did it with a settled purpose to violate his faith as a man and a King; and that, with regard to it and its fulfilment, he was guided by principles the most jesuitical, dishonourable, and immoral. The documents which follow, contain the most conclusive proofs of a paltry, pettifogging dissimulation, such as is scarcely to be paralleled in the whole range of authentic history.159

But we leave this painful topic, and pass on to the incidents more immediately introductory to the meeting of Assembly.

In reference to this, one of the ticklish points connected with it was, that, in the negotiations, the King would not recognise the Assembly of the preceding year as a lawful Assembly, while the Scotch Commissioners would not relinquish its character of legality; and, therefore, it was understood, that, without assuming anything on that point, the Assembly of 1639 should proceed de novo to consider all affairs ecclesiastic. The policy of the King and his councillors—Hamilton, Traquair, and certainly Canterbury and the Scotch Prelates—was, if possible, to prevent a recognition of its lawfulness or its Acts, and to mould the proceedings of the next Assembly and Parliament so as to defeat the Presbyterian polity, and pave the way for the resumption of high regal prerogative, (“the Kingly way,” as Hamilton termed it,) and the restoration of Episcopacy. It is necessary thus far to anticipate what will be found more fully developed in the King’s Instructions and other documents, in order that the reader may be prepared, as he advances, to perceive the bearing of the proceedings which ensued.

The King, if ever he seriously purposed to attend the Assembly in person, speedily relinquished the idea; and, indeed, his personal attendance would have been very inconvenient, considering the crooked policy by which, at the time, he was guided. He might have felt very serious embarrassment in managing personally, the refined duplicity of his schemes; and having, as is fully proved, a purpose of putting his veto upon anything that might be concluded either in the Assembly or Parliament, which was not in entire accordance with his own notions, (and he could not reasonably expect that they should be so,) it was more expedient to act by a Commissioner—whose acts he might disavow and repudiate—than to compromise himself by a personal appearance and a collision with the Scottish Covenanters on their own ground. He wished Hamilton to be his Commissioner once more; but that nobleman was too wary, after his former experiences, to attempt it; and Traquair was selected for this important office. His Lordship waited on the King at Whitehall in the beginning of August; and, on the 6th, his Commission was signed, and he set out for Scotland.

Without farther prefatory explanation, therefore, we now proceed to give the Acts and proceedings of the Assembly which convened at Edinburgh on the 12th of August 1639, adhering to the same arrangement as in the former part of this work.