Chapter XXIV

Influence of the Union of the Crowns upon Scotland.

AT the opening of this period, it may be recalled that it was not the head of the Government who reformed the Church in Scotland. The change of religion was carried through in opposition to Queen Mary and the representatives of her rights; while her son only accepted the reformed doctrines. From his youth, indeed, he had manifested a strong aversion to the polity of the Reformed Church of his kingdom. In past times the Crown had always found support from its connection with the hierarchy; and nothing was more natural than that James VI. should endeavour to restore Episcopacy whenever he could command the power to do so. He was inflexibly possessed with the idea that Episcopacy must be established in Scotland; but the means which he employed to attain this end were unwise and short-sighted. He was convinced that kingly government could not exist side by side with a Presbyterian Church; and he had mused so long on this view of the matter, that at last it assumed the place of an idol in his mind. This unfortunately became the foremost tenet in the political creed of the Stuarts, and eventually issued in the fall of their dynasty.

The influence of the union of the Crowns was soon felt. In the hands of a really wise ruler, this union might have been rendered highly beneficial to both nations; but James had too much faith in his own opinion and in his royal prerogatives; his adherence to these in face of the adverse elements of thought and feeling among the people, led on to a course of policy which tended to extinguish the freedom and the rights of the nation.

After the union of the Crowns the government of Scotland was conducted by the Privy Council. This body consisted of the chief official members, including John Graham, third Earl of Montrose, who was Lord High Chancellor and Chief or Prime Minister till March, 1605, and then Lord High Commissioner. He was succeeded in the Chancellorship by Alexander Seton, previously known as Lord Fyvie, and President of the Court of Session; he was created Earl of Dunfermline on the 4th of March, 1605, and then became chief minister or official head of the Privy Council. Sir George Home of Spott, had been Lord High Treasurer of Scotland since 1601, and having accompanied the King to England, he became a special favourite, and in March, 1605, was created Earl of Dunbar. Although he retained his Scottish office, he was the chief Scottish minister at the English Court, and sent to Scotland as the King’s envoy when any measure of special importance was to be carried into effect; and although he only appeared occasionally at the meetings of the Scottish Privy Council, yet his influence in the government was frequently dominant. James Elphinstone, created Lord Balmerino on the 25th April, 1604, was Secretary of State; and after March 1605, he was also President of the Court of Session. He was a very active member of the Council, and attended many of its meetings. David Murray, created Lord Scone in 1604, held the office of Comptroller. Sir Richard Cockburn of Clerkington, one of the Lords of the Court of Session, filled the office of the Lord Privy Seal; while Sir John Skene of Curriehill, also one of the Lords of Session, held the office of Clerk Register. Sir John Cockburn of Ormiston, was Justice Clerk; and Sir Thomas Hamilton of Monkland, was Lord Advocate. The preceding members of the Council formed the official ministry. The total number of names in the list of Privy Councillors was ninety-three, and consisted of nobles, lawyers, lairds, and bishops. But only about one half of these usually attended the meetings of the Council. After the chief officials or ministry as indicated above, the members most regular in their attendance at the meetings of the Council were the following:​—John Bothwell, Commendator of Holyroodhouse, one of the Lords of Session, who was created Lord Holyroodhouse on the 20th of December, 1607; Peter Rollock, an Extraordinary Lord of Session, and for several years titular bishop of Dunkeld; Mark Ker, Lord Newbattle, and created Earl of Lothian on the 10th day of July, 1606; Sir Archibald Douglas of Whittinghame, one of the Lords of Session; Alexander Elphinstone, Master of Elphinstone, son of Lord Elphinstone; Andrew Stewart, fourth Lord of Ochiltree; David Lindsay, Bishop of Ross; Alexander Hay of Fosterseat, one of the Lords of Session; Sir Robert Melvill of Bruntisland, an Extraordinary Lord of Session; Sir Robert Melvill of Murdocairny, an Extraordinary Lord of Session, and father of the preceding; Walter Stewart, Commendator of Blantyre, and created Lord Blantyre in 1606; William Douglas, Earl of Angus; Sir James Scrymgeour of Dudhope, Constable of Dundee; John Spottiswood, Archbishop of Glasgow; Alexander Elphinstone, fourth Lord Elphinstone; Sir William Livingstone of Kilsyth, a Lord of Session; John Erskine, Earl of Mar; John Kennedy, fifth Earl of Cassillis; Earl Marischal; Patrick Lyon, Lord Glamis, and created Earl of Kinghorn in July 1606; Robert Ker, Lord Roseburgh; Alexander Livingston, first Earl of Linlithgow; Robert Ker, Master of Lothian, son of the Earl of Lothian; Francis Hay, ninth Earl of Errol; Sir James Hay of Fingask; Kenneth MacKenzie of Kintail; James Hamilton, Master of Paisley, and created Earl of Abercorn on the 10th of July 1606; and George Gledstanes, Archbishop of St. Andrews.

These men, it may be said, formed the body who were mainly responsible for the policy of the government of Scotland. But it must be stated, that they were merely the agents of this policy, which directly emanated from the King himself, and the evidence that such was the case is, in fact, very complete. Immediately after James VI. ascended the throne of England, he became fully conscious of his enormous accession of new power over the people of Scotland, and the effects of this upon the Scottish nation were for a time almost incredible. James declared that it was himself, and no one else, who sent from England the messages by which Scotland was governed. In a speech which he delivered to the English Parliament on the 31st of March, 1607, having embraced the occasion to contrast the easy way in which he continued to rule Scotland with the difficulties he had experienced in England, he uttered the following words:​—“This I must say for Scotland, and may truly vaunt it: here I sit and govern it with my pen: I write, and it is done; and by a Clerk of the Council I govern Scotland now, which others could not do by the sword.” This was really the truth. For King James in his communications with the Scottish Council always addressed the members in the tone of an imperious and absolute master; and they humbly yielded to the royal will, and became the mere tools of the King. It is surprising to find in the records how submissively the Council bowed before him. In short, James VI. assumed and exercised a despotic control over the Privy Council and the proceedings of Parliament, as will appear in the sequel.

In the beginning of the year 1610, the Privy Council was recast. The Council as then remodelled, was in future to consist of thirty-five persons and no more, each to be specially nominated by the King, and of whom seven were to be a quorum. The Council was to hold two meetings every week, one to deal with matters of State, and the other with judicial business; and no one but the Councillors themselves and the Clerk of Council were to be present at the meetings. Any Councillor absent from four consecutive meetings without leave, or allowing himself to remain at the horn for debt or any other cause unrelaxed for forty days, or failed to give proof of sound churchmanship by receiving the communion at least once a year, was to be deprived of his office. The thirty-five men of the new Council had all been members of the old one, excepting George Young, archdeacon of St. Andrews, who was a new member. The Council continued, as before, to be the mere agent of the King’s will. For James had succeeded in introducing a system of monarchical absolutism. From the highest Councillors to the humblest of the officials, they were all equally the puppets of their absent King, executing his commands in everything to the utmost of their ability, and trembling for fear of his mere rebuke. In May, 1608, the King it appears was displeased at some recent evasiveness of the Council, and had sent them one of his rebukes, and also proposed a remedy for the future. He then commanded that the votes of the Council on any special matter of his service, should no longer be given by an unrecorded show of hands at the Council Board; but each Councillor’s vote, “Ay or No,” on whatever motion might be before the Board, was to be carefully recorded, and all such records were to be duly certified by the Chancellor and the Secretary, and then despatched to his Majesty,​—“that so we may discern the goats from the sheep.”¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume VII., pages 15‒28, Introduction, Volume VIII., pages 12‒14, et seq.

Immediately after James VI. ascended the throne of England, he called the Borders the “Middle Shires of Great Britain,” and ordained that henceforth the elements of disorder which had so long prevailed in this region, and the rude customs of the inhabitants, were to be extirpated. The real effort to settle the Borders was begun in March, 1605. At this time ten commissioners, five English and five Scottish, were appointed to the full charge of the English counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and part of Durham, and of the Scottish counties of Berwick, Roxburgh, Dumfries, Selkirk, Peebles, and the Stewartries of Kirkcudbright and Annandale. These were empowered to meet as they thought fit, six to be a quorum, and to take the most effective means for the prevention and punishment of murders, felonies, riots, and all disorders within those territories. The English commissioners were Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Sir Robert Dolabel, Sir William Selby, Joseph Pennington, Esquire, and Edward Gray of Morpeth; the Scottish commissioners were Sir William Seton, Sir William Horne, Patrick Chirnside of East Nisbet, Robert Charters of Annisfield, and Gideon Murray of Elibank. The conjoint commissioners elected Sir Wilfrid Lawson, their President for three months. On the English side, a company of horsemen was placed under the command of Sir Henry Leigh, and on the Scottish side a company of twenty-five horsemen was under the command of Sir William Cranstoun, and these mounted men were to assist the Commissioners as police in bringing the guilty to justice.

The Commissioners agreed on regulations for their common procedure, which were of the following import:​—“It is agreed that concerning old feuds between the two countries there should be a general assurance. It is agreed that old feuds shall be put to agreement, or else the offending parties to be confined​—the Englishmen in Edinburgh, and the Scotsmen in Newcastle, until they will agree, and meantime the parties to be bound to keep the peace; and, for the new feuds, that justice shall be executed upon the offenders according to the laws reciprocally.

“It is agreed that, if any Englishman strike a Scotsman, or a Scotsman strike an Englishman, with a weapon, the party offending shall be committed to the nearest prison, and there to remain for three days without bail; and if the said parties shall strike with any weapon, then to place them in prison for twenty days without bail; and if that the party be hurt, then he shall not be delivered at the end of the twenty days until he make such further satisfaction to the party hurt as the Commissioners who committed him shall think fit; but, if the hurt fall out to be a maiming, then that the party offending shall not be delivered after the twenty days’ imprisonment until he perform the order of two of his Majesty’s Commissioners for satisfaction of the party maimed; and if death follow, then the offender to receive his punishment according to his Majesty’s laws reciprocally.

“It is agreed that, if any Englishman steal in Scotland, or a Scotsman steal in England, any goods amounting to the value of 12 pence, he shall be punished by death, and that all accessories to such felonies, viz., outputting and resetting, shall likewise suffer death for the same.”

It was also agreed that proclamation should be made warning all the inhabitants within the bounds of the Commissioners, “saving noblemen and gentlemen unsuspected of felony and theft and not belonging to broken clans, should put away all armour and weapons, both offensive and defensive, such as jacks, spears, lances, swords, daggers, stellcaps, hauberks, pistols, and such like, before the 20th of May next, under the penalty of confiscation of the same and imprisonment during his Majesty’s pleasure: and that no one of whatever calling should wear or carry any arms, except in his Majesty’s service: and that after the above date they should not keep any horse above the value of fifty shillings sterling, or thirty pounds Scots under the like penalty and imprisonment.”

As these Commissioners, “intended not only to punish and root out all malefactors for the present, but also to continue a severe course of justice by fit ministers for the perpetual preservation of these districts in peace and justice; they therefore charge all persons who have cause of complaint against any one for murder, burglaries, felonies, or misdemeanours, or any who have compounded for such offences for friendship, money, or any other consideration, to send in information to the Commissioners, so that they may receive justice.”

The Commissioners proceeded vigorously with the work assigned to them. They found great difficulties on many points, especially in the matter of the old and new feuds which were so numerous. The Commissioners frequently sought advice from the Scottish Privy Council in the form of questions, as touching feuds:​—Question: “The nature of old feuds is of two sorts. And first, as to the one of that quality in which the whole parties committers of blood and slaughter, hence from here are departed this life, yet grudge remaining among the parties’ posterity unreconciled. In hoc genere quomodo procedendum? whether with the band of keeping his Majesty’s common peace, or forcing them to subject themselves to arbitrament for reconciliation? Answer: The Commissioners to deal with this matter as they think most fit for the peace of the country.

“Question: A second sort of feud is when some of either, or at least of the one, party are yet alive who has been art, or part, or actual doers in the old feud,​—some possibly clad with remission and others without it. In these old causes, first, utrum par erit ratio utriusque necne? next, if with them we shall proceed likewise to enforce agreement, or otherwise content ourselves with the band of his Majesty’s common peace? Answer: The Lords think that in old feuds of this nature the Commissioners should charge the parties with the band of the general peace.

“Question: Is new feuds conceived always of that nature to be before the devolution of both the Crowns in his Majesty’s royal person? Because since then we understand no proceeding in deeds of blood but by justice:​—First, whether in those anterior to his Majesty’s reception of both the Crowns we shall proceed with justice where there is no remission, or, after the enforcing of both the parties to his Majesty’s common peace, we shall proceed causing submission of arbitrament to be made, though unsuited by any of the parties, or not? Next, when slaughter and blood having been reciprocal in some degree all alike, the one party being clad with remission by favour, and the other wanting it, or the one committing the slaughter under colour of law, and the other without the same, what shall we do therein? Last, where the party offended being willing to receive satisfaction and craving the same, if we may compel the party offender to offer and do reason? Answer: Where no remission is produced, the Commissioners to do justice according to their commission; where there is remission, they shall take caution of the criminals to satisfy the party offended; and where the party craves satisfaction the Commissioners shall cause the offenders to find caution for satisfaction and see that all be bound to keep the common peace.”

The preceding quotations will give some idea of the complexity and difficulty of the task which the Commissioners had to execute. There is ample evidence that the Commissioners conscientiously endeavoured to do their work, and not infrequently showed a leaning to the side of mercy, an instance or two of which may be presented. As indicated in a preceding page, the Commissioners’ instructions regarding the punishment of theft were very severe, still they reported some cases for the opinion of the Scottish Privy Council. Thus “one called Thome Armstrong, a proper young man, to whom neither new nor old thift have been known heretofore, but very suspicious for not being settled to any good calling,​—charged for the art and part of the stelling of a horse, and convicted by a jury for the same; and by chance upon the morning after the conviction, the owner of the said horse coming to Peebles said that although Thome Armstrong was universally presumed to have been art and part in the stelling of his horse, that by his knowledge he understood Armstrong had nothing to do with the case:​—continued upon presumption of his innocence.” Answer of the Privy Council​—“The Lords ordains the Commissioners to do justice upon this Thome Armstrong,” that was to hang him. Again “one called Richie Elliot of Heuchhouse, indicted only for stelling one sheep and convicted of the same, without anything more, either new or old, layed to his charge:​—continued in respect of the meanness of the crime, ♦notwithstanding our ordinances bears new thift to be punished to the death when passing the value of twelvepence sterling.” Answer of the Privy Council​—“The Lords ordains the Commissioners to keep their own act in this matter,” that was to hang the man.

At the end of the first year, on the 17th day of May, 1606, the Commissioners appeared personally before the Privy Council at Edinburgh and reported their proceedings. It appeared that they had executed “by water and gallows thirty-two persons;” and banished from the kingdom fifteen persons; while one hundred and sixty were declared to be fugitive outlaws, who should be pursued with hue and cry wherever they have dispersed themselves. All persons who had resetted or in any way assisted the outlawed fugitives, were to be subjected to severe penalties. In the month of October, 1606, the Commissioners reported that they had executed other fifteen persons in Dumfries, Annan, and Jedburgh. At the end of this year, the number of fugitives from the law, whose names were to be advertised on the market crosses of all the towns and the doors of all the parish churches, then amounted to one thousand and three hundred. There can be no doubt that there was much rough and severe work. On the 15th of December, 1606, the King signed an Act of Indemnity in favour of Sir William Cranstoun, who had command of the mounted police, and which exonerated him for all the things hitherto done by him in his office in the Marches, including his summary execution of outlaws and prisoners without form of trial. In this Act the King said:​—“Our well-beloved Sir William Cranstoun, Captain of the garrison appointed to attend our service of quieting and bringing to obedience of those Middle Shires of this Island, has in that his charge most dutifully done us very good service ... since the necessity of the service in which he was employed, and many sudden incidents that must needs often occur therein, might not always permit those prolix forms used in the civil parts of the kingdom, but often, for the advancement of the service, and that by the retaining of the numbers of outlaws who would oftimes be at once apprehended, and spending time in conveying them to prisons, in the mean season the good occasion and opportunity of affecting better service should slip or be omitted, and therewith the consideration of the unsecurity of himself and his company to have the charge of too many prisoners desperate of their life or pardon all at once, moved the said Sir William often times summarily to make a quick despatch of a great many notable and notorious thieves by putting them to instant death without any preceding trial by jury, or any conviction or doom.... And he being directed by us as surgeon to make incision and cut away the rotten and cankered members and flesh in those parts of our kingdom, however the cure perhaps has been to the other members some way grievous, yet his intention in the doing of it was so dutifully grounded, and his work therein having produced so much benefit to those parts, it carries no reason at all in the after ages any of his evil willers should then forge and pretend any matter of action, challenge, or accusation against him for any point of service done by him during his employment.” From this, it must be inferred that the actual havoc of human life during the years 1605‒6 was much greater than appears in the existing record.

On the 2nd of August, 1607, a new Commission of Justiciary over the late Marches was given to the Earl of Dunbar and the Earl of Cumberland, which empowered them to act as they thought fit for establishing and preserving peace in the “Middle Shires of Great Britain.” Power was also given to them to muster all the force in these bounds, and the disposal of the men and horsemen placed under them by the King, for preserving the peace and apprehending malefactors. Seeing that the execution of the Commission would be very difficult and required great care, Sir William Seton, Sir William Cranstoun, Sir Robert Charteris, Sir Gideon Murray, and Sir William Selby, Sir ♦Wilfrid Lawson, Sir John Fenwick, and Sir Christopher Pickering, were commanded to assist the two chief Commissioners to the utmost of their power.

But the main part of the work of reducing the unruly inhabitants of the Borders was now nearly accomplished; and the vigorous and continuous proceedings of the new Commissioners, with the Earl of Dunbar at their head, and Sir William Cranstoun, captain of the garrison and mounted men, soon completed it. The unruly families and men of the Borders were hunted down, captured, and many of them slain at once, without question or trial of any kind; others were imprisoned, tried, condemned, and executed; some were banished; a very large number fled from their former homes and haunts, and hid themselves in the hope of escaping the doom which hung over them; and then their goods were seized and their dwellings burned; while those who remained were disarmed and deprived of their weapons, and all were bound under cautions and severe penalties to keep the peace. Thus, the traditional habits and the unruly spirit of the inhabitants of the Borders​—the result of ages of anarchy, generated by external conditions, were interrupted and effectively shaken; and under new conditions and modified circumstances, these people became orderly and peaceable subjects.

Other influences calculated to pacify the people were not neglected. At the instance of the King, the Privy Council on the 28th of March 1609, passed an act empowering John Spottiswood, archbishop of Glasgow, to proceed to the Borders for the purpose of repairing the churches and reorganising the means of religious instruction in that region. He was to plant new ministers where it was necessary; to call the parishioners of every parish before him, and their pastors, wherever they had any; and with their consent to devise and resolve upon such measures as seemed best and most expedient for the speedy repairing and building of the churches, and making provision for the ministers: and to do everything lawful which might advance the object in view. The archbishop went over the region, carefully surveyed it, and ecclesiastically rectified it. He captured some Roman Catholic emissaries who had long evaded the authorities; and thus crushed Scottish Roman Catholicism out of its haunts in Dumfriesshire.

But the traditional habits and the unruly spirit of the Borderers could not be summarily extinguished by any measures short of utter extermination. It required years to moderate, sober, and modify their character. In the end of July 1609, the Earl of Dunbar proceeded to Dumfries, where he held a Justiciary Court, and hanged a number of Border thieves, apprehended previously by Sir William Cranstoun. On the 26th of November, 1607, the Privy Council passed an order for removing a number of troublesome Border lairds to other parts of the country. John Carmichael of Meadowflatt, to be confined in Dundee; and the Master of Maxwell to be confined in Dunkeld or any parts of Fife and Angus; Sir Alexander Jardine of Applegirth, and John Carruthers of Holmends, to St. Andrews; Robert Elliot of Redheugh, and Walter Scott of Goldielands, to Cupar in Fife; while others were to be confined within the limits of specified places. In August of the following year a considerable number of lairds, chiefly in Dumfriesshire and Galloway, were ordered to be imprisoned beyond the Tay, and a number of others within the bounds of Fife. It appears from the proceedings of the Justiciary Courts, in 1611, that there was still much crime in these quarters. At the court held at Jedburgh in July, ten persons were convicted and executed, and two were acquitted; in a court held at the same town in the month of October, eight persons were convicted and executed, three reprieved, and thirteen acquitted, while fifty-eight persons were fugitive from justice, and penalties were exacted from their cautioners; while other fifty-two persons were allowed out on giving caution for their appearance. At Dumfries, in October, twenty persons were convicted and executed, thirty-eight acquitted, upwards of one hundred and twenty fugitive from justice, leaving their cautioners answerable; and forty let out under caution to appear when called. Thus in the space of four months thirty-eight persons were executed in Jedburgh and Dumfries, while one hundred and seventy-eight were fugitive from justice: thus indicating what a very difficult task it was to bring the inhabitants of the Borders under law and order. A separate Commission for the administration of police in these districts was continued for a number of years, and ultimately the influences of order and progress prevailed.¹ The debatable lands were divided and apportioned to each kingdom; and gradually those parts of the country which had been so long the scene of strife and petty warfare became as peaceful as other parts of the nation.

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume VII., pages 701‒729, 743‒745, 489, 504; Volume VIII., pages 78, 86, 97, 152, 265, 584; Volume IX., pages 705‒714; Volume X., pages 184, 198, 477, 847.

One of the King’s earliest projects was a proposal that the English and the Scots should agree to an incorporating union of the two kingdoms; but neither nation was as yet prepared for this consummation. There were proceedings touching this matter both in England and in Scotland, but all that resulted from them was the abolition of hostile laws; while a proposition that all persons born in Scotland after the union of the Crowns in 1603, should be entitled in England to all the rights of Englishmen was rejected.

If the King was anxious to constitute a civil union of the two kingdoms, he was still more bent on establishing conformity in Church government throughout his dominions. While only King of Scotland, he had struggled hard to introduce Episcopacy, and now, with the resources of England at his command, he resolved to complete his long cherished scheme of Church polity, always following the underhand mode of attaining his end which was characteristic of his nature. The General Assembly had been prorogued owing to the accession; and it was postponed in the succeeding year, pending the adjustment of the proposed union. The leading Presbyterian ministers had begun to dread that attempts would be made to establish the hierarchy in Scotland and to assimilate their polity to that of the Church of England; and the Presbytery of St. Andrews met and took such steps as were deemed requisite to keep intact the right of holding General Assemblies. They easily foresaw that their Assemblies would soon cease to exist, if interrupted at the discretion of the King; accordingly a number of the Presbyteries and Synods resolved to hold a General Assembly at Aberdeen, on 2nd of July, 1605.

On the appointed day, nineteen ministers met at Aberdeen and proceeded to form the Assembly; but the meeting was prohibited by the authority of the Privy Council, and ordered to dissolve. Sir Alexander Stratton of Lauriston, the King’s Commissioner for the Church, appeared amongst them, and intimated his instructions to prevent their meeting, and delivered to them the letter of the Privy Council commanding them to disperse. The ministers, however, believing that they were within their rights, elected Mr. John Forbes, minister of Alford as their Moderator, and Mr. John Sharp, minister of Kilmany as their Clerk, and constituted themselves an Assembly; but owing to the small number of members present, and to show their respect for the King’s injunction, after appointing the last Tuesday of the following September for the next meeting of the Assembly, and drafting a reply to the Privy Council’s letter, they obeyed and dissolved. On the 5th of July, other ten ministers arrived in Aberdeen, who had intended to be present at the Assembly, but had been delayed by bad weather; and among these were John Welsh, minister of Ayr, Mr. James Greg, minister of ♦Loudon, and Mr. Henderson, minister of Whithorn. When they found that the Assembly had already dissolved, they formally affirmed their adherence to all that their brethren had done in regard to the Assembly; and, thus twenty-nine ministers had become directly associated with this famous meeting.

There was no special illegality in this meeting​—it was quite within the recognised rights of the Church. But the King had the power in his hands, and he determined to crush all encroachments on his supreme and divine claims. By his explicit command thirteen of the ministers were imprisoned, and the Privy Council proceeded to prosecute them. When cited before the Privy Council, they declined its jurisdiction on the question in dispute. Out of fourteen who hesitated to disclaim the lawfulness of the Assembly, Forbes, minister of Alford, Welsh, Dury, and three others were selected for an exemplary punishment. They were indicted before the Court of Justiciary on a charge of treason, because they had declined the jurisdiction of the Privy Council. They were tried at Linlithgow on the 10th of January, 1606. They were ably defended, but the influence of the Crown prevailed, and they were convicted of treason, for denying the jurisdiction of the civil court in spiritual matters. They were then remitted to prison till the King should notify his pleasure touching their punishment. At last, on the 23rd of October, 1606, the sentence of the six ministers convicted for treason, was announced to be banishment from the King’s dominions for life, and they retired to the Protestant Churches of France and Holland. The other eight ministers, without any trial, were banished to the most remote quarters of the kingdom​—the Western Islands and the Highlands.¹ James was quite conscious that he had gained a great victory, and his extreme vanity associated with an insatiable desire for absolute supremacy over every one in the island, prompted him to command the Council to put the other eight imprisoned ministers on their trial for treason. For once the Council was forced to tell his Majesty that it had been extremely difficult to obtain a conviction against the six ministers in the late trial at Linlithgow, and that it was only obtained after much straining of the law and underhand action; and, therefore in the present state of the national feeling, the trial of the other eight ministers which he so much desired, was utterly impossible. The King then brought up his old grudge against Mr. Robert Bruce, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, touching the Gowrie Conspiracy, and at the instance of the King, the Council banished Bruce to Inverness. At the same time Mr. Henry Blyth, minister of the Canongate, was imprisoned for speaking in favour of the victims of the Aberdeen Assembly. Thus seventeen ministers were lying in prison, and one banished.

¹ Melville’s Diary, pages 570‒575; Forbes’ Records, pages 463, 496; Hailes’ Memorials on the Affairs of Great Britain in the reign of James VI.; Register of the Privy Council, Volume VII.

The King summoned a Parliament to meet at Perth, in July, 1606, at which the Earl of Montrose presided, while the Earl of Dunbar and the Earl of Dunfermline managed it. The first act of this Parliament exhibited an unusual spirit of servility in its remarkable acknowledgement of the powers of the King; and it may be taken as an authoritative statement of what James considered as his rights and prerogatives. The following are the chief points of the act​—“God has indued His Majesty with so many extraordinary graces, and most rare and excellent virtues, as it is not only known by daily and manifest experience in matters of greatest difficulty and consequence, to the unspeakable comfort of all his faithful subjects, to be capable of the happy government of his kingdoms; but also by his most singular judgment, foresight, and princely wisdom, worthy to possess, and able to govern far greater kingdoms and numbers of people. And in respect thereof, the Estates plainly perceiving that by His Majesty’s exaltation, not only in pre-eminence and power, but also in all royal qualities requisite for the happy discharge thereof, God has manifestly expressed His heavenly will to be, that his Majesty’s imperial power, which God has so graciously enlarged, should not by them, in any way, be impaired, prejudiced, or diminished, but rather reverenced and augmented so far as they possibly can. Wherefore the whole body of this Parliament unanimously, humbly, and faithfully, with united heart and mind​—consent and truly acknowledge his Majesty’s sovereign authority, princely power, royal prerogative, and privilege of his Crown, over all ranks, persons, and causes whatever, within this kingdom.... Likewise annuls, abrogates, retracts, rescinds, all things attempted, enacted, done, or hereafter to be done or intended, to the violation, hurt, derogation, impairing, or prejudice of his sovereign authority, royal prerogative, and privilege of his Crown, or any point or part thereof, in any time to come. And the whole Estates for themselves and their successors faithfully promises perpetually to acknowledge, obey, maintain, defend, and to advance the life, the honour, the safety, the dignity, the authority, and the royal prerogative of his sacred Majesty, his heirs and successors, and the privilege of his Highness’ Crown, with their lives, their lands, and their goods, to the utmost of their power, constantly and faithfully to withstand all persons and powers who shall presume, press, or intend in any way to impugn the same, directly or indirectly, in all time coming.” After the Estates had passed this act, it was not likely that they would oppose the King’s schemes till their own special interests were touched.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IV.

This Parliament also passed an act restoring the bishops to their ancient honours, dignities, privileges, livings, lands, rents, thirds, and estates, as these stood before the act of annexation in 1587. Touching the honours and dignities there was little difficulty; but the restoration of the revenues of the Sees was a much harder matter to settle. The party of the clergy who were opposed to Episcopacy endeavoured to defeat the measure, but their efforts were unavailing. Although the bishops were legally restored, still the hierarchy was incomplete; as they were not yet invested with spiritual supremacy in the Church.

We have already seen that on the Reformation itself, and on the history of Protestantism in Scotland, the disposal of the property of the old Church had much influence in determining the results. The attempt which followed upon this act, to restore what remained of the Church domains to the several bishoprics, was almost a complete failure. The Estates were ready to acknowledge the absolute power of the King in so many words, but when it came to the practical issue of slackening their own hold on the revenues of the old Church, they manifested a remarkable pertinacity in maintaining the supremacy of themselves. The bishops were continually bewailing their poverty, and the utter hopelessness of maintaining their position upon the small funds which fell to their lot.

The King wished to stifle the leaders of the Presbyterian party, that he might more easily complete his scheme. Andrew Melville, his nephew James Melville, and six others of the eminent ministers, were summoned to the English court, in September 1606. The aim of the King was twofold, first, to engage the Scotch Presbyterian ministers and the English bishops in a conference concerning the superior merits of Episcopacy, and to dazzle the fancy of the north countrymen with the splendour of the English ritual; second, to entangle them by queries touching the late Assembly at Aberdeen, and especially to keep them out of Scotland, where their presence might endanger his own scheme. By the command of the King, these ministers attended a course of sermons preached by four English divines​—on the bishops, the supremacy of the Crown, and the absence of all authority in Scripture and in antiquity for the office of lay elders. This performance was held in the King’s chapel at Hampton Court. The King himself attended several conferences; and at one of these, before a company of bishops and Scottish nobles, he asked their opinion touching the lawfulness of the Aberdeen Assembly, and the best way of obtaining a peaceful Assembly to restore order in the Church. All the Scottish bishops condemned the Assembly as turbulent and illegal; but Andrew Melville, after some questioning, replied that the Assembly had authority from the Word of God, and from the laws of the kingdom; and the other Presbyterian ministers concurred in this opinion. When reference was made to other matters which had arisen out of it, such as the trial of the six ministers for treason, and other teasing questions were put as to whether they sympathised with, or prayed for, their brethren who had been convicted of treason, they at once protested against this treatment as illegal and unjust, and asked to be allowed to return to Scotland; but this was not granted to them.

It soon became manifest that the King and his bishops had entirely failed to produce any change on the convictions of the Scottish ministers. They heard the sermons of the English bishops with silent contempt. The service was caricatured by Andrew Melville in a Latin epigram, which was brought under the notice of the English Privy Council, and on the 30th of November, 1606, he was summoned to answer for it before that august tribunal. Melville in a moment of passion lost all command of his temper, and when delivering a vehement invective against the hierarchy, seized and shook the white sleeves of Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, at the same time calling them “Romish rags.” For this offence and a subsequent one of a similar character, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London for five years; and at the end of that period he obtained his liberty only on the condition of living for the remainder of his life out of the King’s dominions. Melville then retired to Sedan, and was engaged in teaching till his death in 1620. In May, 1607, James Melville was confined first to Newcastle, and afterwards to Berwick, but never permitted to return to his own country; while four of the other six ministers were permitted to return to their own parishes on their good behaviour, the other two were not allowed to enter their parishes but banished to other places.¹ This treatment of some of the ablest men and ministers of the kingdom formed a part of the means which the King condescended to use, in order to subdue the opposition to his scheme of Church government in Scotland; how far this was calculated to secure ultimate success, the sequel will show.

¹ Melville’s Diary, pages 644‒646, 654, 681, 708, 709; Calderwood, Volume VI., pages 586‒589, 591, 596‒600, et seq.; Register of the Privy Council, Volume VII.

James having thus disposed of the leading and most energetic opponents of his scheme, summoned the clergy to meet at Linlithgow, on 10th December, 1606, there to consult with a number of the nobles concerning the order of the Church, and obedience to the royal authority. At the instance of the King, a proposal was brought before the meeting to appoint permanent moderators; and also that this office should be always filled at the meetings of the Presbyteries and of the Synods, by the bishops. Some of the clergy were surprised at the proposal, but the royal influence prevailed, and the meeting adopted it. At the close of the proceedings the ministers were admonished to beware of expressing anything against his sacred Majesty. Several of the Synods and the Presbyteries protested against the constant moderators, and refused to accept them; but this opposition was soon broken, and the influence of the Crown for a time silenced all refractory members.¹

¹ Calderwood, Volume VI., pages 604‒629.

The Government seemed ready to do anything in order to increase the power of the bishops. A Parliament held in August, 1607, passed an act authorising the Archbishop of St. Andrews to select the ministers of seven parishes within his diocese, to act as the chapter of the See, instead of the prior and the canons, whose dignities had become secularised. Another Parliament which met at Edinburgh in June, 1609, restored the consistorial courts to the bishops, with all the causes of an ecclesiastical and quasi-civil description which formerly belonged to them. In the winter of 1610, new tribunals were introduced by the King, who in the exercise of his prerogative erected two courts of High Commission, one at St. Andrews and the other at Glasgow. Each court consisted of the archbishop with his suffragans and a few nobles. Five years later the two courts were merged into one. One of the archbishops, as head of the court, and four others were to form a quorum; and thus the head of the court could at any time summon four of the members devoted to his will. Their jurisdiction was comprehensive: they could cite any one on the ground of immorality or erroneous doctrine, and sentence them to be fined or imprisoned, and if necessary excommunicated. The ministers, the schoolmasters, and the professors in the Universities, who dared to speak against the established order of the Church, or any of the recent conclusions concerning her, were to be cited before the commission and punished. Any minister who failed to obey the injunctions of the commission, could be censured, suspended, or deposed, according to the opinion of the court. In reality, this court had unlimited powers; it rested upon no law, it was merely erected by a royal proclamation, and its sentence was final.¹ In short, the court of High Commission could fine and imprison any one at discretion. It has been stated by Dr. Burton that the Court of Session could review the decisions of this court, which in theory may be true: but when it is remembered what the Court of Session was then, and for long after, it is easily seen that protection from oppression and injustice was not likely to come very promptly from such a quarter. Then the bishops themselves were lords of Parliament, some of them members of the Privy Council, constant moderators of Presbyteries and Synods, and patrons of benefices, backed at every turn by the royal authority and prerogative of the King.

¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 57‒62, 204‒210; History of Scotland, Volume VI., pages 242‒243.

Still the bishops felt that they lacked the confidence of the nation, and they were anxious to obtain the sanction of the highest ecclesiastical authority recognised by the people. So the King summoned a General Assembly to meet at Glasgow, in June 1610, composed of members favourable to the organisation of Episcopacy. The influence of the Crown was openly and freely employed in directing the choice of members. In this Assembly, as in all those of the period, there was no fair and open discussion permitted, no disputed point was allowed to be debated at a full sitting of the members, but was settled at a private conference, and the result only presented to the Assembly to be recorded. In this way a number of articles were smuggled in and declared to be carried, which would not have passed if they had been debated in a regular form before a General Assembly. The chief points passed by this Assembly were, that the calling of General Assemblies belonged exclusively to the King as a prerogative of his Crown, and therefore the alleged Assembly held at Aberdeen in 1605 was unlawful and null; that Synods should be held in every diocese twice in the year, at which the bishops were to be moderators; that all presentations to benefices should be directed to the bishop of the diocese who, with the assistance of some of the ministers, should examine those presented, and if they found them qualified, should ordain them; that in deposing of ministers, the bishop should join with himself the ministry of the bounds where the delinquent served, and after a fair trial should pronounce sentence; that every minister at his admission should swear obedience to the King and his ordinary; that a bishop or a minister named by him should preside in all the meetings of the ministers; and finally, that none of the ministers, either in their pulpits or in any of their meetings, should speak or reason against the acts of this Assembly, or disobey them, under the penalty of deposition; and especially that the question of equality among the ministry should not be treated in the pulpit, under the same penalty.

The acts of this Assembly were confirmed and amplified by an Act of Parliament in 1612, which at the same time repealed the Act of 1592 which had sanctioned the Presbyterian polity. In the autumn of 1610, three of the Scottish Bishops were consecrated in England, Spottiswood, Bishop of Glasgow; Lamb, Bishop of Brechin; and Hamilton, Bishop of Galloway; and when they returned home, they consecrated the rest of the Scottish Bishops.¹ Thus the restoration of Episcopacy was completed.

¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 94‒103, 150, 152, 154, 165‒171; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IV.

Though the external form of Episcopacy was restored, yet in many of the congregations the Presbyterian form of worship was retained. But the King recommended more ceremonies to hasten on conformity to the Church of England. In the spring of 1614, he issued a proclamation commanding that all persons should partake of the communion on Easter Day; and the following year a royal proclamation ordered the celebration of the communion on Easter Day, in all time coming.¹

¹ Acts of the Privy Council, March 3rd, 1614; Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 191, 196.

In August, 1616, a General Assembly met at Aberdeen, then and afterwards the famed centre of the opposition to Presbyterianism in Scotland. The King’s party had a majority in the Assembly, and many proposals were made, among others, “that all the children in schools shall have and learn by heart the catechism entitled, ‘God and the King,’ which, by an act of Council, is already ordained to be read and taught in all schools.” This Assembly authorised the preparation of a Liturgy and a new Confession of Faith. The communion was to be administered four times a year in towns, and twice in country parishes; and one of these times to be always on Easter Day. The Presbyterian historian passed the following remarks on the Assembly​—“Although it began with preaching and fasting, yet the Holy Ghost was enclosed in a packet of letters sent from the court whereby they were directed. The King ordained by his letter the Primate to rule the clergy, and his commissioner, the Earl of Montrose, to order the laity.... So the Primate stepped into the moderator’s place without election, against the practice and acts of our Church, not as yet repealed by the Assembly of Glasgow or any other.... The roll of the Presbyteries was not called, nor commissions considered, whether free or limited. A number of lords and barons decorated the Assembly with silks and satins, but without lawful commission to vote. Bishops had no commissions from Presbyteries as they ought to have had, according to the practice of our Church. The moderators of Presbyteries came by the bishop’s missives, and a forged clause of an act made at a pretended Assembly held at Linlithgow in the year 1606.”¹

¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 222‒242; Volume VII., pages 222, 223.

But the resolutions of the Assembly did not satisfy the King, and he transmitted to the bishops five articles of his own, which he ordered them to adopt. These articles enjoined that the communion should always be received in a kneeling posture; that in cases of sickness the communion should be administered in private houses; that baptism in like circumstances should be administered in the same way; that holydays should be appointed for the commemoration of the birth, passion, and resurrection of Christ, and of the descent of the Holy Ghost; and that children should be brought to the bishop for a blessing. There was much and determined opposition among the Scots to these ceremonies, which in history are known as the “Five Articles of Perth.” On the suggestion of Archbishop Spottiswood, the King was induced to refrain from issuing them by his royal authority for another year, till they received the assent of a General Assembly.¹

¹ Spottiswood’s History of the Church of Scotland, pages 528, 529. 1655.

James turned his visit to Scotland into an occasion for an exhibition of his opinions and feelings on Church matters. He gave express commands and directions for fitting up and decorating the Chapel of Holyrood, for the celebration of worship in the English form. Organs were sent to Edinburgh for this purpose, and the King himself was accompanied by several English bishops and divines. When he arrived in Scotland in May, and reached Edinburgh on the 16th of the month, 1617, he issued peremptory orders that all the nobles, the privy councillors, and the bishops then in Edinburgh should receive the communion on their knees in the chapel on Whitsunday. The most of those who were summoned at once complied; but those who absented themselves from the service, and some of those who appeared and abstained from presenting themselves at the table, were again summoned, and commanded to attend on the following Sunday. At this time, the ministers of Edinburgh were silent, and said nothing openly against this innovation.¹

¹ Original Letters of the Reign of James VI., Volume II.

The King attended a meeting of Parliament in June, 1617, and delivered a speech, setting forth his own good intentions, and his desire to see the Church settled, the nation in order, and necessary reforms passed, all for the good of his people. But he submitted an act to the Lords of the Articles, which was couched in these terms​—“That whatever his Majesty should determine concerning the external government of the Church, with the advice of the archbishops, bishops, and a competent number of the clergy, should have the force of law.” James’s idea was that the bishops should rule the ministers, and that he himself should rule them both. The Lords of the Articles agreed to the act, but a party of the ministers warmly protested against it; and when it came to be read in Parliament, the King ordered it to be passed aside, though at the same time remarking that he could do as much by his own prerogative, without asking the counsel of any one. He vented his anger on the leaders of the protestors, two of whom were deprived of their offices and imprisoned, while Calderwood, the historian, was banished from the kingdom. This Parliament passed Acts relating to the election of archbishops and bishops, and to the restoration of deans and members of chapters of the Sees. An act for the plantation of churches was passed, authorising a commission of thirty-two, eight from each of the four Estates of the realm; and the special work assigned to them was, out of the tithes which were then scattered among different hands, “in every parish to give and assign at their discretion a perpetual local stipend to the present and future ministers.” Thus, each minister’s stipend was to be paid out of the tithes of the parish in which he officiated, not out of a general fund as before. The lowest stipend was fixed at five chalders of victual, and the highest at eight.¹

¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 249‒271; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IV.; Connell on Tithes, Volume I., page 180.

James persisted in his intention of introducing his five articles into the worship of the Church. On the 13th of July, he held a special meeting at St. Andrews with the bishops and a select number of the ministers. He told them that he wished to introduce a more decent order into the Church; and if they had anything to say against his five articles, he was ready to hear them. But he reminded them that his demands were just, that he was not to be resisted with impunity, and that it was the peculiar prerogative of Christian kings to regulate the external polity of the Church. They might approve or disapprove of his proceedings, but they must not imagine that anything they might say would have the slightest effect upon him, unless they could support their opinions by arguments which he found himself unable to answer. Still, all that his Majesty obtained was the postponement of the difficulty, and the expression of a wish that the articles should be referred to a General Assembly.¹

¹ Spottiswood’s History of the Church of Scotland, pages 533, 534. The Rev. David Calderwood, for his free speaking in the King’s presence at this meeting, was imprisoned, and then banished from the kingdom.

These rites which the King so eagerly sought to impose, were inconsistent with the historical standards of the Reformed Church of Scotland. To two of the articles especially, kneeling at the communion, and the observance of holidays, there was a deep feeling of opposition in the national mind; and this, in connection with other unpopular features of Episcopacy, was the reason why all the attempts of James himself, of his son, and of his grandson, utterly failed to establish it in Scotland. The Church of England was really reformed by the authority of the Crown; but the Church of Scotland was reformed at first in spite of the Crown and of the regular Government, and throughout her history she had to maintain a struggle against the claims of the royal prerogative. Thus it was that the Church of Scotland rested more on popular sentiment and feeling, and conviction, than the Church of England; and, hence also, it came to pass that all the efforts of the Crown and of the Government to change the polity of the Church of Scotland resulted in complete failure.

But the King was resolved to carry his point, and he informed those who opposed him that they should know what it was to draw upon themselves the anger of a king; at the same time he threatened all ministers who refused to accept the articles with the loss of their stipends. The primate and the bishops, prompted, threatened, and scolded by the King, now used the King’s authority to subdue the reluctant ministers; and in May, 1618, the bishops informed his Majesty that he might summon a General Assembly,¹ as it was likely that the ministers would now be more submissive. Attempts had been made by the bishops to enforce kneeling at the communion, but with little success; while the observance of the holydays had already been commanded by an act of the Privy Council.

¹ Botfield’s Original Letters, Volume II., page 522; Spottiswood’s History of the Church of Scotland, pages 535‒537.

Archbishop Spottiswood, in his sermon at the opening of the Perth Assembly, adduced nothing in support of the articles, save that they had originated with the King, and were entirely his Majesty’s own, who demanded that they must be adopted; and, as the King knew better than they did what was right, they were bound to obey him. In his sermon the following passage occurs on the King and his articles:​—“If it cannot be shown that they are repugnant to the written Word, I see not with what conscience we can refuse them, being urged as they are by our sovereign lord and King; a King who is not a stranger to divinity, but has such acquaintance with it, as Rome never found, in the confession of all men, a more potent adversary; a King neither superstitious nor inclined that way, but one that seeks to have God rightly and truly worshipped by all his subjects. His person, were he not our King, gives them sufficient authority, being recommended by him, for he knows the nature of things and the consequences of them, what is fit for a Church to have, and what not, better than we do all.” The King’s letter to the Assembly was in his usual style. He said that they should not allow the unruly and ignorant multitude to overawe the better and more judicious; and they must remember that he could impose the articles at once by his royal authority, and therefore it would do them no good to reject them; indeed, it would have become the bishops and ministry better to have begged him to establish these articles, than that he should need to urge the practice of them upon the ministry.

Yet all the influence of the court and the exertions of the bishops failed to prevent opposition in the Assembly. No open discussion of the articles being permitted in the Assembly, they were referred to a committee, which, after some debate, recommended their adoption. Then the articles were again brought before the Assembly, but those who opposed them were not allowed to discuss the question on its own merits, but were sharply told that the only question before them was, “Is the King to be obeyed or not?” In the face of this threatening of the King’s anger, the opposition ministers insisted on giving their reasons against the adoption of the articles. Before the roll was called, the King’s letter was again read to the Assembly, and when at last the vote was to be taken, Spottiswood emphatically reminded each man of the issue involved in his decision. The articles were carried by eighty-six votes to forty-five, a majority of forty-one. The majority was obtained from the votes of the nobles and the bishops, the votes of the ministers being nearly equal on each side.¹

¹ Lindsay’s True Narratives of all the Passages at Perth; Botfield’s Original Letters, page 573; Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 304‒332. In speaking of the articles of Perth, Burnet remarked, “These things were first passed in General Assemblies, which were composed of bishops and the deputes chosen by the clergy, who sat all in one house.... Great opposition was made to all these steps; and the whole force of the Government was strained to carry elections to those meetings, in which it was thought that no sort of practice was omitted.”​—History of his own Time, Volume I., page 17.

Although the Presbyterian ministers were outvoted at Perth, they had on their side the strength which flows from moral principle and firm conviction. They had also the support of many of the people, who considered that the five articles had no better recommendation than the injunctions of the King. The Presbyterian ministers warmly declared that the meeting at Perth was not a lawful General Assembly; and the King and his bishops discovered that they had still much hard work before them. The observance of the holydays and kneeling at the communion were extremely offensive to the majority of the people, and caused great discontent. Kneeling was new to all, and many thought that it was connected with the doctrine of transubstantiation; but the bishops, urged on by the King and armed with the weapons of coercion, haplessly drifted on towards destruction​—suspending, imprisoning, and banishing the ministers who declined to conform. Those who absented themselves from the public worship on the holydays, or on Sunday, were threatened and punished. The nonconforming ministers and many of their adherents deemed the High Commission and its proceedings an usurpation; and this sentiment was very strong in Edinburgh, in the southern counties, and in Fife. The displeased people in Edinburgh began to hold meetings, at which the suspended and deposed ministers preached and officiated. The court and the bishops anxiously desired that Edinburgh would conform, and various means were tried to secure this, but in vain.¹

¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 348, 352‒364, 383, 388, et seq.; Balfour’s Annals, Volume II., pages 76, 79‒81.

In August 1621, Parliament met at Edinburgh, and ratified the five articles of Perth by a small majority. In a house of one hundred and twenty members, a majority of twenty-seven voted in favour of the articles. The representatives of the burghs were on the side of the opposition, the members of the counties were nearly equally divided, and it was by the votes of the bishops and the higher nobles that the act was passed. A number of the ministers sought to petition and to protest against it, but were prevented by the authorities.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume IV.; Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 495‒504.

When the King heard the result of the Parliamentary vote, he hounded on the bishops to greater severity. He said, “hereafter that rebellious and disobedient crew must either obey, or resist both God, their natural King, and the laws of their country.... The sword is now put into your hands, go on therefore to use it, and let it rest no longer till you have perfected the service entrusted to you. For otherwise we must use it both against you and them.” During the remainder of his reign, there was a constant effort to enforce the observance of the articles. The King was always exhorting and threatening in vain; nonconforming ministers were imprisoned and banished without effect. Some of the conforming ministers of Edinburgh complained to the Privy Council that there could be no peace among the people while the deprived and suspended ministers resorted to the city, and held private meetings. A proclamation was therefore issued prohibiting such meetings, under the penalties of sedition and rebellion. Six of the citizens of Edinburgh were cited before the Privy Council, and some of them imprisoned. In spite of this, many of the churches of the conforming ministers began to be deserted; so that they were left to declaim against schism and rebellion to the paupers of the parish, or to empty benches.¹

¹ Melrose Papers, Volume II., page 637; Spottiswood’s History of the Church of Scotland, page 542; Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 507‒509, 512, 514, 517‒520, 533‒546, 596‒615, 618‒631.

King James died on the 27th March, 1625, at the age of fifty-nine. His reign in Scotland had been rather stormy; and after his accession to the throne of England, it cannot be said that his policy was beneficial to his native country. Though naturally timid, he was vindictive, and at all times extremely conceited, a feature of his character which was much fed and gratified by the indiscreet and excessive flattery of the English bishops. In literature he was a pedant. Of his kingly prerogative and powers he had the most extravagant and absurd ideas. The bishops had always been submissive and yielding to his demands, and to please him they had preached and enforced an order of ceremonies which had offended and alienated many of the people; and now, with a king on the throne who heeded not their warnings, they drifted closer to the rocks on which they were ultimately wrecked.

Soon after the accession of Charles I., the Scotch ministers forwarded to him a petition craving that they might be relieved from the observance of the five articles of Perth; but they found that little relief could be expected. In the summer of 1626, Charles did send instructions to the archbishops, that the ministers who had been admitted before the Perth Assembly, and had scruples about the articles, might be exempted from observing them, if they did not openly argue against them, or refuse the communion to any one who wished to partake of it kneeling. The banished, imprisoned, and suspended ministers were to be restored on similar conditions; but all those who had been admitted after the Perth Assembly, were commanded to observe the articles.¹ The King, however, was firmly resolved to pursue the ecclesiastical policy of his father.

¹ Balfour’s Annals, Volume VII., pages 142‒145.

In October, 1626, Charles issued an act of revocation of all grants of land by the Crown, either before or after his father’s act of annexation in 1587. This was intended for the benefit of the bishops and the clergy, and to remedy some of the evils connected with tithes; but from another standpoint, it may be regarded as the opening of one side of that bitter contest of which Charles I. never saw the end. The proposal of the Crown to retake all the Church lands which had passed into the hands of the nobles since the Reformation, aroused violent feelings amongst the class whose interests were invaded; but it soon became manifest that the King had resolved to fight a hard battle, and pursue his end with great firmness.

Charles subsequently found it necessary to limit the scope of his contemplated revocation, and summonses of reduction were then raised to reduce the grants upon legal grounds. Still this caused much alarm among the nobility; and a deputation was sent to London to treat with the King. After some discussion, a commission was appointed in January, 1627, to examine the whole subject. The commissioners continued their investigation throughout the following summer, and prosecutions were commenced against all who refused to accede to the proposals of the Crown. After a long and tedious inquiry, a compromise was effected. The Church lands, and the property in dispute were to remain in the hands of those who held them, upon the payment of a certain proportion in the form of rents to the Crown. The Crown also insisted on a right of feudal superiority over all the property at issue, and from this, additional dues would fall to the public revenue. The tithes were disposed of in this way; the landowner got liberty to extinguish the right of levying tithes on his property, by payment of a sum calculated at nine years’ purchase; if he did not choose to exercise this option, then the tithe in kind was to be commuted into a rent charge, and from this was to be deducted the stipend payable to the ministers, and an annuity reserved for the Crown.¹

¹ Connell on Tithes, Book III.; Forbes’s Treatise on Church Lands and Tithes. “The tithes at this time were more rigidly exacted by their lay owners than ever they had been during the most corrupt times of the hierarchy; yet these persons grudged the small portion which the law compelled them to bestow on the Church.”​—Dr. Grub’s Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, Volume II., page 357.

This adjustment of the tithes, which was sanctioned by Parliament, in 1633, has proved a beneficial measure to Scotland. It extinguished a teasing class of disputes between landowners and tithe owners, between tenants of land and tithe owners, and between the ministers and their flocks. Yet the arrangement, though beneficial to the nation, was not received with universal satisfaction. Many of the nobles surrendered their tithes and their full claims to the Church lands with a grudge which embittered their minds, and predisposed them to join in the struggle which subsequently ensued. They still dreaded that the King might attempt further encroachments upon their landed rights.

Various circumstances had delayed the King’s visit to Scotland, but in 1633, he crossed the border and entered Edinburgh in June. He received a respectful reception, and was crowned on the 18th of June, at Holyrood. Charles was anxious to complete the scheme of religious polity which his father had begun; and proceeded to treat all difficulties with an imperious hand. For a time, the opposition was overborne by his presence and his power, though unconverted to his opinions or policy. The Scots were well aware of the King’s quarrels with his English subjects, and on every side the elements of a fierce conflict were forming.

Charles was firmly convinced that it was necessary to introduce a new liturgy to complete his scheme of government in Scotland, and he seems to have thought that the time was come to execute his purpose. A form of Episcopacy had existed in Scotland for about thirty years, and some parts of the English ritual had been introduced; but the ecclesiastical system still retained many traces of the organisation of Presbyterianism. It was only a kind of mixed Episcopacy; it had the external form of the hierarchy, archbishops and bishops as in ancient times, but they were merely the chief ecclesiastical ministers of the King, their master, and had little authority of their own. The titles of dean and archdeacon had been restored, but such persons appeared in the Church courts only as parish ministers; while there still existed the Kirk Sessions, the Presbyteries, and the Synods, though their organisation was maimed. The Book of Common Prayer, adopted at the Reformation, was still in common use, though less esteemed among the Presbyterians, who were becoming averse to set forms of prayer; while the Episcopal party considered it defective. The five articles of Perth were not universally observed. Though there might have been slight differences of opinion touching some doctrines, the general creed of the clergy and the people was in harmony with the Reformation Confession of Faith. Thus matters stood when Charles and Laud began their work.

Preparations were made for composing a book of canons and a liturgy for Scotland. The book of canons as finally revised by Laud, and the Bishops of London and Norwich, was ratified by the King in May, 1635, and promulgated in 1636. It was prefaced by the sanction of the King, and the announcement of his will concerning its observance, in the following terms​—“We do, not only by our royal prerogative and supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical, ratify and confirm, by these our letters patent, the said canons and constitutions, and everything contained in them; but likewise we command, by our royal authority, the same to be diligently observed and executed by all our loving subjects of that kingdom, in all points ... according to this our will and pleasure, hereby expressed and declared. We strictly charge and command all archbishops, bishops, and all others who exercise any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, within our realm, to see and procure as much as they can, that all and each of these canons, orders, and constitutions be in all points duly observed; not sparing to execute the penalties, in them severally mentioned, upon any that shall willingly and wilfully break or neglect to observe the same.”

This book is a very small volume, divided into nineteen chapters, with the different paragraphs or headings of each chapter numbered.¹ In arrangement and composition it is an admirable production of the class to which it belongs.

¹ The first edition of the Canons, printed at Aberdeen in 1636, is the one used and referred to in the text.

The first chapter contains a statement of the powers and prerogatives of the King in religious matters. The doctrine of the royal supremacy is laid down and enforced under the penalty of excommunication against all who dared to resist it, upon the ground that it had been exercised by the Jewish kings and by the early Christian emperors. To secure reverence for this divine supremacy of the King, it was stated that “none shall be permitted to teach in any college or school, either as principal, regent, or fellow, except he first take the oath of allegiance and supremacy. And having taken the charge upon them, they shall acquaint their scholars, and train them up according to their capacity, in the grounds contained in the book entitled Deus et Rex, God and the King.”¹

¹ Page 28.

One of the canons was directed against the press. “In setting forth books, satirical libels, and other pamphlets, repugnant to the truth, or not agreeing with honesty and good manners, it is ordained that nothing hereafter be printed except the same be seen, and allowed, by the visitors appointed to that purpose.”

These canons placed the whole internal life of the Church in the hands of the bishops. They alone were invested with the right of expounding the Bible, all private meetings of ministers for this were to be strictly prohibited; and no one was to be permitted to impugn the opinion of another minister in the same or in the neighbouring church without the permission of the bishop. The whole drift of the book of canons is well expressed in its concluding sentences:​—“In all this book of Canons, wherever there is no penalty expressly set down, it is to be understood that the punishment shall be arbitrary, as the ordinary shall think fittest.”

The manner in which these canons were introduced certainly was unusual, and it touched the national pride, as well as the religious sentiments of the Scots. They also made direct reference to a Liturgy, which had not yet been published. These canons had little resemblance to any Scottish ecclesiastical rules or acts subsequent to the Reformation; but such was the King’s blind confidence in the efficacy of the royal supremacy, that he imagined he had only to command what he pleased, and the people would obey him. Acting on this assumption, he signed a warrant to the Privy Council, on the 18th of October, 1636, containing his instructions concerning the introduction of the Liturgy. These stated that the King had several times recommended to the Scotch archbishops and bishops the introduction of a regular form of service to be observed in the public worship; and as this had now been definitely undertaken, he believed that all his Scottish subjects would receive it with becoming reverence. “Yet thinking it necessary to make known our pleasure concerning the authorising of the book, we require you to command, by open proclamation, all our subjects, both ecclesiastical and civil, to conform themselves to the practice thereof. It being the only form which we, having taken the counsel of our clergy, think fit to be used in God’s public worship there. Also, we require you to enjoin all archbishops and bishops, and other presbyters and churchmen, to take care that the same be duly obeyed, and the contraveners to be condignly censured and punished. And to see that every parish procure to themselves, within such a time as you shall think fit to appoint, two copies at least of the Book of Common Prayer for the use of the parish.” In compliance with his Majesty’s commands, the Privy Council passed an act on the 20th of December, and issued a proclamation ordering all the people to conform themselves to the new liturgy.¹

¹ Baillie’s Letters and Journals, Volume I., pages 440‒441.

The nation was soon in a ferment. A suspicion arose among the people that Roman Catholicism was to be reintroduced. They had already yielded so far to the King, and restrained their feelings in deference to the royal authority; but now the limit of their passive obedience was passed. They declared that the King had no right to impose a service-book upon them without the consent of Parliament and the General Assembly; they asserted that it was popish, that it taught popish doctrines, and that it was little better than a massbook. Some attempted to defend it, but in vain.¹

¹ In a note to the first volume of Baillie’s Letters and Journals, it is stated that the Liturgy itself was not completed till May, 1637; but Dr. Grub says, “before Easter, copies of the book were ready for distribution.” Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, Volume II., page 378.

The liturgy itself was framed upon the form of the English Book of Common Prayer, with some slight differences, especially in the office of the communion. After the proclamation commanding its use, and a preface, it began with remarks on ceremonies; how the psalter was appointed to be read; how the rest of the Scriptures was appointed to be read; a table of proper psalms and lessons for Sunday and other holydays; a table for the order of psalms at daily prayers; an almanac; a table and calendar for the daily psalms and lessons; and a list of holydays which were to be observed. The order for the administration of the communion differed in some important points from the English office. This form was elaborate, and out of many points minutely stated, it may be mentioned that a commemoration of the faithful departed was inserted at the end of the prayer for the Church militant. In the form of marriage, it was enjoined that the newly married persons should receive the communion on the day of their marriage.

The royal proclamation ordered the new Liturgy to be observed in all the churches on Easter, 1637. The authorities, however, postponed it, but this only heightened the feeling and excitement against it. The bishops themselves were not unanimous regarding the expediency of enforcing its observance; some of them indeed brought the subject before their synods, but little progress was made. On the 13th of June, the Privy Council passed an act which declared that some of the ministers had perversely failed to obey the former proclamation: “Therefore the Lords ordain letters to be directed, charging the whole presbyteries and ministers within the kingdom, that they and every one of them provide themselves, for the use of their parishes, with two copies of the said Book of Common Prayers, within fifteen days after this charge, under the penalty of rebellion, and being put to the horn.”¹

¹ Baillie’s Letters and Journals, Volume I., page 4, et seq.; pages 442, 447.

At a meeting of the bishops it was agreed that the public reading of the new liturgy should begin in Edinburgh, on Sunday, the 23rd of July, 1637; and this was ordered to be intimated in all the churches in the city on the previous Sunday. The congregations listened to the intimation in silence; but in the following week speeches, declarations, and pamphlets were launched on every hand against the new liturgy; while no really vigorous efforts were made in favour of its introduction.

On the appointed Sunday, preparations were made to celebrate the new service with the utmost solemnity, and to ♦give the occasion of its introduction in the capital an imposing character. In the historic Church of St. Giles, the two archbishops, the Bishop of Edinburgh, and several other bishops, the Lords of the Privy Council, the Judges of the Court of Session, and the Magistrates of the city, all attired in their official robes, attended in the forenoon to grace the proceedings. The Bishop of Edinburgh was to preach, and the Dean to read the service. A large congregation had assembled, but they looked restless and wistful; and the dean had scarcely begun to read when confused cries arose. As he proceeded, the clamour became louder, and the prayers could not be heard. The people started to their feet and the church was a scene of hideous uproar. The voices of the women were the loudest, some cried “Woe, woe me,” and others shouted that “they were bringing in popery”; and instantly stools were thrown at the Dean and the Bishop of Edinburgh. The Archbishop of St. Andrews and the Lords of the Privy Council then interposed, but in vain; the tumult continued till the Magistrates came from their seats in the gallery, and with extreme difficulty thrust out the unruly members. The Dean read the service, and the Bishop preached with barred doors. But the crowd stood around the church in a state of vehement excitement, rapping at the doors and throwing stones at the windows, and shouting “popery, popery,” and calling the bishops the most abusive names. When the bishops came out of the church, the multitude attacked Bishop Lindsay on his way home, and he narrowly escaped with his life. Similar disturbances occurred in the other churches of the city, though less violent. In the Greyfriars church, the Bishop of Argyle was obliged to stop reading the service. Between the hours of worship, the Lords and the Magistrates met, and made such arrangements that the evening service at St. Giles, and some of the other churches, passed without interruption; though the Bishop of Edinburgh was again attacked in company with the Earl of Roxburgh, but the armed servants of the Earl enabled him to escape without serious injury.¹

¹ Rothes’ Relation. “So on Sunday morning when the bishop and his dean, in the great church, and the Bishop of Argyle in the Greyfriars, began to officiate, as they spoke, immediately the serving maids began such a tumult as was never heard of since the Reformation in our nation. However, no wound given to any yet such was the contumelies in words, in clamours, runnings and flinging of stones in the eyes of the magistrates, and the chancellor himself, that a little opposition would have infallibly moved that enraged people to have rent sundry of the bishops in pieces. The day after, I had occasion to be in town, I found the people nothing settled; but, if that service had been presented to them again, resolved to have done some mischief.” Baillie’s Letters and Journals, Volume I., pages 18, 448.

The excitement was rapidly spreading and becoming more intense; and it was manifest that the actors in the tumults in Edinburgh could not be punished. Indeed, the Liturgy was almost universally spurned. In the face of this heated feeling, the authorities were comparatively powerless. On the 4th of August, the Privy Council received a letter from the King, commanding them to search out and to punish the persons concerned in the late disturbances, and to support the bishops and the clergy in establishing the new liturgy. The Council resolved that another attempt should be made to use the new service on Sunday, the 13th of August; but when this day came it was not tried in the churches of Edinburgh, because among other reasons, readers could not be got to officiate. At Glasgow there was strong opposition to the Liturgy, and Baillie gives some particulars of the treatment which Mr. Annand, the minister of Ayr, received, because he had ventured to defend the Liturgy in his sermon before the Synod of Glasgow, in the end of August, 1637. According to Baillie’s opinion, he defended it as well as any man in Britain could have done. But his sermon caused a great din among the women in the town. “At the out-going of the church, about thirty or forty of our honest women in one voice before the bishops and the magistrates, did fall rayling, cursing, scolding with clamours on Mr. William Annand. All the day, up and down the streets where he went, he got threats in words and in looks; but, after supper, while needlessly he will go to visit the bishop, he is no sooner on the street, at nine o’clock, in a dark night, accompanied with three or four ministers, than some hundreds of enraged women, of all ranks, are about him, with fists, staves, and peats, but no stones. However, upon his cries, and candles set out from many windows, he escaped all severe wounds; yet he was in great danger, even of his life.”¹ Thus was the curtain drawn, and the first scene of the long tragic drama enacted which convulsed the kingdom.

¹ Large Declaration. Letters and Journals, Volume I., pages 20‒21.