Chapter XXVII

The Conflict from the Restoration to the Revolution.

THIS chapter covers a period of twenty-eight years; but the exposition of the movement and of the principles of the contending parties will not be unnecessarily burdened with minute details.¹

¹ To narrate the events and explain the series of causes which issued in the Revolution with the fulness which they well deserve, is a task that any man might be proud to achieve; and I may be permitted to express the hope that some historian of the future, with the requisite qualifications, may be induced by the interest of the period, by the ampleness of the materials, and by the vast importance of the subject, to devote the energies of his mind to produce a full history of the three kingdoms during the seventeenth century. [Since the hope expressed in the preceding sentence of the original edition was written, I have much pleasure in stating that Dr. Gardiner has produced an excellent History of the first half of this period.

The Restoration in both divisions of the Island was a reactionary movement. This arose partly from the inherited sentiments of the people; whilst amongst the nobility, the traditionary feelings and ideas associated with the social organisation and constitution of the monarchy, were interwoven with their personal interests and privileges of wealth, rank, and power. Under the Commonwealth, the hereditary nobles in England and in Scotland had suffered enormously. They had been deprived of power and influence, harassed, imprisoned, banished, and many of them ruined. With the hope of escaping from this state of depression, the Lords and Commons of England, in the light of their recent experience, and the knowledge of the claims of the head of the royal family to absolute powers, again committed themselves and the people of the Island entirely to the discretion of Charles II. Intoxicated with a fit of loyal enthusiasm, the English forgot the state of matters which had caused the late Rebellion, and thus unwittingly supported the reintroduction of a kind of government which had already produced much suffering in the land. But what had happened could not be completely reversed, nor the recollection of it extinguished, and at last, in 1688, it assumed the character of a Revolution.

But Scotland suffered far more from the Restoration than England, owing to various distinct causes. As already stated, the Reformation in England and in Scotland was accomplished by different agencies: In the former kingdom it was introduced and enforced by the King and his government, the English people themselves not being consulted; while in the latter it was embraced and sustained throughout by the people. Thus from the beginning of the Reformation in the middle of the sixteenth century, onwards, the contrast between the two nations was striking, and though somewhat modified, this original difference still remained at the Restoration. It was a comparatively easy matter to turn the English Church into her original groove. But the task which the government of Charles II. undertook in Scotland was more difficult; it was an attempt to change the current of religious thought and sentiment which had sprung from the Reformation of 1560. The attempt failed, though it was made with deliberation and persistence, every effort being made to crush the spirit of the people and to deprive them of their liberty.

At this crisis of the nation’s history, a number of the leading ministers met, among others, Mr. Robert Douglas and Mr. David Dickson, and commissioned Mr. James Sharp, in the month of February, 1660, to proceed to London and watch over the interests of the Church of Scotland. He received definite instructions, and much confidence was placed in his ability and honesty of purpose by the leaders of the Resolutioners, who employed him. He was directed to use his efforts so that the Church of Scotland should, without encroachment, enjoy her freedom and privileges as established by the laws of the land; and by all lawful means to represent the offensiveness of the lax toleration then permitted, in order that it might be remedied. He was to endeavour to secure the right application of the ministers’ stipends, and to procure for those regularly admitted by the presbyteries the benefit of the act abolishing patronage.

The correspondence between Sharp and his constituents began on the 14th of February, the date of his first letter from London, Mr. Douglas being the chief conductor of the correspondence from Edinburgh. Sharp’s account of his own proceedings, and of the state of parties in England touching religious matters, is minute and seemingly correct. He soon began to impress upon the Scottish ministers in Edinburgh, that Episcopacy would be re-established in England, and that it was useless to think of a Covenanted uniformity between the two nations. He repeatedly expressed the hope that the existing polity of the Church of Scotland would not be changed, and in his letters to Mr. Douglas he frequently made solemn averments of his devotion and attachment to Presbyterianism. Sharp returned to Scotland in the end of August, 1660, and on the 3rd of September, a letter which he brought from the King was communicated to the presbytery of Edinburgh. In it the King declared:​—“We do also resolve to protect and preserve the government of the Church of Scotland, as it is settled by law, without violation; and to countenance, in the due exercise of their functions, all such ministers who shall behave themselves dutifully and peaceably as becomes men of their calling.” This and other reassuring statements in the letter were ordered to be intimated to all the presbyteries in the kingdom, and the letter was considered satisfactory by the leading ministers of the moderate party. A committee was appointed to prepare an address expressing their humble thanks to his Majesty.¹ Thus it appears that the intention of the court had been carefully concealed from the Scottish clergy, and that Sharp, who was already virtually Archbishop of St. Andrews and Primate of Scotland, had acted his part with great craft and duplicity.

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume I., pages 5‒54, 80‒81.

When the King returned, many of the Scotch nobles and gentry flocked to London, all eager to present their claims for posts in the new government of the kingdom. The civil war and the subsequent subjection of the nation under Cromwell had rendered the Scotch nobles extremely poor and demoralised. As they had never been scrupulous about the means of attaining their ends, so they were now more than ever on the alert for everything that seemed likely to enhance their importance, or to advance their interest. This partly explains their subsequent proceedings, and their readiness to support the measures of the King and his advisers. In past struggles, many of them had joined with the people against the Crown and the government, but recently that line of action had been a losing and ruinous one, and there was no prospect of any personal advantage to be gained by it; accordingly, they elected to follow the King and the court in whatever might be proposed, as the most direct and safe way of promoting their own interests. Sentiments and principles were cast to the winds with scorn and contempt; religious convictions, covenants, equity, and justice, might all go to the wall, but Charles II. must be upheld in his rights and absolute prerogatives.

The Earl of Rothes was appointed President of the Council; Glencairn, Chancellor; Crawford, Treasurer; Sir Archibald Primrose, Clerk Register; and Sir John Fletcher, Lord-Advocate. Meetings of all the Scotchmen in London were held by the King’s authority, and they agreed that the committee of the parliament held at Stirling in 1650, should manage the affairs of Scotland till a new parliament should be assembled.

The resumption of office by the Committee of Estates was signalised at Edinburgh by a royal proclamation, on the 23rd of August, 1660. The same day they manifested their authority by dispersing a meeting of the protesting ministers. This section of the Presbyterians was in great danger, as their brethren, the Resolutioners, had placed too much confidence in Sharp and the King’s letter, had become cold and unyielding towards the Protestors, and even proceeded to depose some of them. The Protestors justly suspected that some design was hatching against Presbyterianism, and wished to join with the Resolutioners in an effort to frustrate it; but at the time the latter were so far deceived that they rejected this proposal, and only discovered their mistake when it was beyond remedy. Thus it was, when the real intentions of the government became known in Scotland, the Presbyterians were not in a position to offer effective opposition to the new scheme. The Committee of Estates immediately passed an act for the apprehension of Mr. James Guthrie, one of the venerable leaders of the Protestors, and other ministers of this party, and they were imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle. The committee waxed bold, and on the 24th of August issued a proclamation prohibiting all public meetings unless authorised by the King, and suppressing all seditious petitions. Another proclamation on the 19th of September condemned two books, one entitled Lex Rex, and the other The Causes of God’s Wrath. As these books were full of rebellious principles, calculated to turn the hearts of the people against “the King’s Majesty’s person, his royal authority and the peace of this kingdom,” therefore they ought not to be read nor kept by any of his Majesty’s subjects, and must be delivered up to one of his Majesty’s solicitors before the 16th of October. Accordingly on the 17th of the month, these books were burned by the hands of the common hangman at the cross of Edinburgh. Yet another proclamation was issued, forbidding the circulation of lies and slanders against his Majesty, or making speeches, uttering in sermons, in declarations, or by letters, libels, rhymes, and other writings, implying reproach of his Majesty’s person or his government, under severe penalties. The ministers were specially warned to be careful of their language in their sermons, in their prayers, and in their private discourses.¹ The new government was aware of the power of the human voice, and at the outset endeavoured to stifle it.

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume I., pages 65‒77.

On the 8th of July, 1660, the Marquis of Argyle was seized in London and lodged in the Tower; while orders were sent from the court to Scotland to arrest Johnston of Warriston and several other gentlemen. In autumn a number of the ministers were brought before the Committee of Estates, and some of them imprisoned. Already it was felt that a great change was impending.

The Earl of Middleton, as Royal Commissioner, arrived in Scotland the last day of December, and on the 1st of January, 1661, the new parliament met. The house immediately proceeded to business, and passed many acts for settling the affairs of the nation according to the new plot. The first act was a parliamentary oath of allegiance, to be taken by all the members of the house. By it they testified their faithful obedience to “Charles, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, and do affirm, testify, and declare, by this my solemn oath, that I acknowledge my said sovereign, only supreme governor of this kingdom, over all persons and in all causes ... and shall at my utmost power defend, assist, and maintain his Majesty’s jurisdiction, against all deadly, and never decline his Majesty’s jurisdiction, as I shall answer to God.” In other acts of this parliament it was stated to be his Majesty’s prerogative by divine right to choose all Officers of State, Councillors, and Lords of Sessions, as also the calling, proroguing, and dissolving of all parliaments; and that all meetings without his special authority were null; while in the preamble to one of the acts it was declared that “the happiness of the people depended upon the maintenance of the King’s prerogative.” Leagues and bonds without the King’s sanction were denounced and prohibited; and it was asserted that the King had the sole right of making peace and war. The swearing or renewing the League and Covenant, or any covenant or oath, was prohibited, without the King’s warrant. An act was passed in very strong terms “for taking the oath of allegiance, and asserting the royal prerogative.”¹ This act was afterwards used for annoying and punishing people; it became a test of loyalty, and when any suspected person was brought before the Council or any of the courts, it was tendered to him; if he signed it he was usually dismissed, but if he refused, the refusal was immediately turned into a libel against him and no mercy was shown.

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., pages 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 44‒45.

But the greatest achievement of the session was the Rescissory Act, which rescinded all the Acts of Parliament since 1633 to the Restoration. After some debate it was passed, and so the entire legislation of the Covenanting period was swept away, and Presbyterianism ceased to be the form of government in the Established Church of Scotland, while the old laws in favour of Episcopacy were again brought into force. This act was directly followed by “an act concerning religion and Church government,” in which the King thanked God for preserving him through so many troubles and perils, and miraculously restoring him to his just rights and to the government of his kingdoms; and he was therefore desirous to do something for the glory and the honour of God. So he declared it to be “his firm resolution to maintain the true Reformed Protestant religion, in its purity of doctrine and worship, as it was established within this kingdom, during the reigns of his royal father and grandfather of blessed memory.... As to the government of the Church, his Majesty will make it his care to settle and secure it in such a frame as shall be most agreeable to the word of God, most suitable to monarchical government, and most conducive to the public peace of the kingdom.” Meanwhile he allowed the existing administrations by sessions, presbyteries, and synods.¹ Thus parliament left the definite settlement of the question of Church government in the hands of the King himself.

¹ Ibid., Volume VII., pages 86‒88.

When it became known that parliament was passing acts for subverting the established form of Church government, the ministers of Edinburgh and others exerted themselves to prevent it. Some of the presbyteries and synods openly declared against the reintroduction of Episcopacy, but their efforts were unavailing. In some instances the synods were dissolved, in others the party on the side of the government ordered the meeting to be purged of rebels​—of the opposition ministers​—and by such means the opposition was completely stifled.¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume I., pages 109‒130.

The new government deemed it necessary to sacrifice a few victims as a warning to others. On the 13th of February, 1661, the Marquis of Argyle was brought to the bar of parliament, and accused of high treason. After a long and tedious trial, he was found guilty, condemned, and executed at Edinburgh on the 27th of May. Mr. James Guthrie, minister of Stirling, was summoned before parliament on the 20th of February, and charged with high treason. The chief points of his indictment were that he contrived, consented to, and presented to the Committee of Estates, the document called “The Western Remonstrance”; and that he composed and published the pamphlet called “The Causes of God’s Wrath”; and that he framed and subscribed the paper called “The Humble Petition,” of the 23rd of August, 1660, when he was apprehended; that he had convened meetings without the King’s authority; that he had uttered treasonable expressions in a meeting in 1650; and that he had declined his Majesty’s jurisdiction. But at this time such charges, with a little variation, might easily have been brought against many persons. Guthrie was, however, condemned, and executed at Edinburgh on the 1st of June, 1661. Several other ministers were accused before parliament, and sentenced to undergo various punishments. Johnston of Warriston was another of the selected victims. He had been a very active man throughout the Covenanting period, and he had also been employed by Cromwell, which in the estimation of the government was a great crime. At this time he escaped to the Continent, but was condemned in his absence. He was afterwards taken in France, and sent to Edinburgh for execution. It has been reported that he received the sentence to be hanged with courage, and passed his last moments like a Christian man.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., pages 26, 29; Appendix, pages 13, 34‒59, 64‒70, 71, 73‒75; Wodrow’s History, Volume I., pages 131‒217.

This session of parliament closed on the 12th of July, 1661; and the following day the new Privy Council met. It was reconstructed and invested with greater powers than the old Privy Council, as it was to continue the functions of the Estates in the intervals between the sessions, and thus to exercise judicial, legislative, and political power. Throughout the following period of persecution it wielded its authority in a high-handed manner. The greater part of the higher nobles were in the new Privy Council, and the chief officers of State were also members; while the courts of session and justiciary were reconstituted, in place of the courts which Cromwell had introduced. Thus the new government, being fully constituted, proceeded with business.

On the last day of August, 1661, the Earls of Glencairn, Rothes, and Sharp, the future Primate, returned from London with a letter from the King, which was brought before the Privy Council on the 5th of September. In this paper, the King referred to his letter of the preceding year to the presbytery of Edinburgh, in which he had stated his intention to maintain the government of the Church of Scotland as settled by law; but the acts of the last parliament had rescinded all the legislation of the kingdom since 1633, as it was not in accordance with the monarchy and the “divine rights” of his Majesty. The King’s inference was therefore plain, the Church was now exactly in the same relation to the State as she had been in 1633; and by his royal authority he resolved to restore the “Church to its government by bishops, as it was by law before the late troubles, during the reigns of our father and grandfather of blessed memory, and as it now stands settled by law.” The Privy Council directly passed an act in harmony with the royal letter, and proclaimed it at the Cross of Edinburgh.¹ Thus Episcopacy was again established in Scotland.

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume I., pages 230‒231.

The scramble for the bishoprics immediately began. The men whom the court selected for this dignity, with one or two exceptions, were characters of meagre ability, poorly qualified for commanding the respect or the reverence of the people. Sharp had secured for himself the primacy, but many evil wishes followed him, and it is very doubtful if the post answered his expectations. The new bishops had again to receive consecration from England. The King and his Scotch government did all that they could to enhance the importance of the bishops, and to secure for them the respect of the people. He instructed the Privy Council to “take special care that all due deference and respect be given by all our subjects to the archbishops and bishops of that Church; and that they have all countenance, assistance, and encouragement, from the nobility, the gentry, and the burghs, in the discharge of their office and services to us in the Church; and that severe and exemplary notice be taken of all and every one who shall presume to reflect, or express any disrespect to their persons, or the authority with which they are entrusted.” The Council carried out these commands to the utmost of their power.¹

¹ Ibid., pages 235‒236, 248‒253; Dr. Grub’s Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, Volume III., pages 191‒198, 215, 242.

On the 8th of May 1662, the second session of parliament was opened by a sermon from the Bishop of Dunkeld; and Middleton again took his seat on the throne as royal Commissioner. The third statute passed was, “An act for the restitution and re-establishment of the ancient government of the Church by archbishops and bishops.” This act repealed all the laws in favour of the presbyterian polity, especially the act of 1592. While bishops were restored to all the rights and privileges which they enjoyed in 1637, and they were empowered to take upon themselves the whole government of the Church, with the assistance of any of the clergy who might be suitable for their purpose, untrammeled by any court, and responsible for their proceedings to the King alone. “And further, it is hereby declared that whatever shall be determined by his Majesty, with advice of the archbishops and bishops, and such of the clergy as shall be nominated by his Majesty, in the external government and policy of the Church, shall be valid and effectual.” It also reinstated the bishops in all the claims, rights, patronages, rents, possessions, and lands which were possessed by their predecessors in the year 1637, notwithstanding any gifts or alienations of these possessions since that date. When this act was passed, the bishops immediately resumed their seats in parliament.¹ Thus, as the servants of the Crown, the bishops were entrusted with ample powers.

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., pages 368, 372‒374.

The business of parliament was rapidly pushed on, and many acts were passed to secure the new order and the ends of the government. A statute was framed and passed for the preservation of his Majesty’s person, authority, and government. In this act it was asserted that the people were under great obligation to show all possible care for the preservation of the King’s person, as “in his honour and happiness consists the good and welfare of his people.” The evils of rebellion were expounded, and the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant were declared unlawful, and henceforth null and void. Hereafter, if any person plotted the death of the King, or intended any harm to his person tending to death, or put any restraint upon him, or deposed or suspended him from the style and the honour of the kingly and imperial Crown of the kingdom, or by writing, printing, preaching, or maliciously speaking​—expressed their treasonable intentions, all those found guilty of such crimes incurred the penalties of treason, and forfeited their lives, lands, and goods. Further, all who by writing, printing, praying, preaching, remonstrating, or speaking, may express “any words or sentences to stir up the people to the hatred or dislike of his Majesty’s royal prerogative and supremacy in all causes ecclesiastical, or of the government of the Church by archbishops and bishops, as it is now settled by law ... and being legally convicted thereof, are hereby declared incapable of holding any place or employment, civil, ecclesiastical, or military, within this Church and Kingdom, and shall be liable to such further penalties as the law demands.”¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., pages 376‒377, 379.

To render the new order more complete, patronage was restored. All the ministers who had entered on their charges since 1649 were deprived of the right to their livings, unless each of them received a presentation from his patron and institution from his bishop; and patrons were requested to give presentations to the incumbents who applied within a limited time. Another act was passed touching the professors and masters of the universities, ministers, private meetings, and conventicles. This act affirmed that it was necessary for the advancement of religion and learning, the good of the Church and the peace of the kingdom, that all the principals, professors, regents, and masters of the colleges, should be loyal to the King, and well-affected to the established government in Church and State; and it was therefore enacted that none of these should be permitted to remain in their offices, except they submitted to and owned the government of the Church by archbishops and bishops, after having given satisfaction on all points to the bishops, and in their presence taken the oath of allegiance. In the same act the ministers were enjoined to be careful in attending the bishops’ visitations, the diocesan synods, and assisting in all the acts of discipline which the bishops required; and if they refused to comply in these particulars, they were to be deprived of their benefices. Another clause of the act prohibited meetings or conventicles for religious exercises, because they were “the nurseries of sedition,” even though held in private families; and therefore all private meetings under the pretence of religious exercises, which tended to damage the public worship in the churches, to alienate the people from their lawful pastors, and their obedience to the Church and to the State, were henceforth forbidden. In future no one should be permitted to preach in public or in private anywhere, or to teach in any public school, or among the children of the nobles, without a licence from the ordinary of the diocese.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., page 379.

Another act touching the declaration to be signed by all persons in public employment was passed. As this declaration was made the ground of much of the oppression which ensued, it may be quoted here:​—“I, ―― do sincerely affirm and declare, that I judge it unlawful to subjects upon any pretext of reformation, or other pretext whatever, to enter into leagues and covenants, or to take up arms against the King, or those commissioned by him; and that all those gatherings, convocations, petitions, protestations, and erecting or keeping of council tables that was used in the beginning, and for carrying on of the late troubles, were unlawful and seditious; and particularly, that these oaths, the one called the National Covenant, as it was sworn and explained in the year 1638, and thereafter, and the other, entitled a Solemn League and Covenant, were and are in themselves unlawful oaths, and were taken by, and imposed upon the subjects of this kingdom, against the fundamental laws and liberties of the same; and that there lies no obligation upon me or any of the subjects, from the said oaths or either of them, to endeavour any change or alteration of the government, either in Church or State, as it is now established by the laws of the kingdom.”¹ Besides this declaration, which might be tendered to anyone, there were the oath of allegiance, and the act declaratory of the royal prerogative and supremacy. And, as it was easy to entangle the people with legal documents of this description, these acts and oaths became the instruments of oppression and persecution.

¹ Ibid., pages 405‒406.

The new hierarchy thus thrust upon the nation was a curious establishment. It had no liturgy; the whole discipline of the Church was placed in the hands of the bishops; and the bishops themselves were entirely dependent upon the King, who was made pope and despot by the parliament of Scotland.

Towards the end of the session, parliament entered on the consideration of the long-delayed indemnity. A list of names was framed, containing of upwards of eight hundred persons, who were commanded to pay fines before they receive such protection as the law then afforded. Middleton, the royal Commissioner, also obtained the King’s warrant for excluding from offices of public trust any twelve persons whom parliament might name by ballot; but this balloting act, though carried by Middleton, was shortly afterwards annulled, and the royal Commissioner himself stripped of his position and power.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., pages 415‒416, 420‒429; Wodrow’s History, Volume I., pages 270‒279.

Parliament was adjourned on the 9th of September, 1662. The next day the Privy Council met, and ordered the diocesan synods to be held in October. These synods accordingly met as commanded. In the north they were pretty well attended, but in the south and in the west many of the ministers absented themselves. In the diocese of Glasgow alone, out of two hundred and forty ministers, only thirty-two were present at the synod;¹ while in the diocese of Galloway and Argyle none attended, except the newly appointed deans.

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume I., pages 280‒281; Dr. Grub’s Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, Volume III., page 201.

About the end of September, the royal commissioner and other members of the Privy Council went on a tour to the west, with the object of enforcing obedience to the bishops and to the new laws. At Glasgow, the archbishop complained to them that though the time appointed by the law was past, very few of the ministers of his diocese had presented themselves for institution; and it was reported that he urged them to enforce the provisions of the act. On the 1st of October, 1662, the Privy Council met in Glasgow, and passed an act announcing that all the ministers who had not complied with the law should forfeit their livings; also interdicting them from preaching, and ordering them to remove from their manses and parishes before the 1st of November, and not to reside within the bounds of their respective presbyteries. The Council had imagined that only a few of the ministers would refuse to comply; but when the date came, about three hundred of the ministers left their manses and their parishes, rather than subject themselves to episcopacy and to political bondage. In the northern and eastern parts of the kingdom many of the ministers submitted to the bishops, but in the west and in the south only one here and there. This was a serious blow to the new polity, and the Privy Council became alarmed at the result of its own proceedings. Sharp, the primate, disclaimed all responsibility in connection with the Glasgow act; and Middleton, incapable of understanding the sentiments of the refractory ministers, raged at the obstinacy of the men who persisted in ruining themselves for the sake of presbyterianism. Many of the people encouraged their ministers to resist the bishops, and rejoiced to see them manifest their honesty and constancy. The Council saw their mistake, and passed another act on the 23rd of December, allowing the ministers ejected under the Glasgow act liberty to apply for presentation and collation before the 1st of February, 1663. This however, induced only a few to resume their functions; and when the 1st of February came, many of the ministers relinquished their livings and left their parishes.¹

¹ Kirkton, pages 148‒154, 1817; Wodrow’s History, Volume I., pages 281‒286.

Meanwhile a number of ministers were under legal process on various grounds; the presbyterian ministers and all who openly adhered to them were severely treated. In September, 1662, the Privy Council announced that many persons disaffected to the King had resorted to Edinburgh; and, therefore, commanded the magistrates to furnish reports of the numbers of such persons in the city every evening. The ministers of the capital, who refused to conform to the new order of the Church, were commanded to depart from the city, while several were banished out of the King’s dominions, not to return under the penalty of death, and others under lesser penalties.¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume I., pages 297‒318.

In the winter of 1663, a contest arose between Middleton and the Earl of Lauderdale (the latter then secretary), for the chief place in the management of the government of Scotland. In spite of all that Middleton had done for the King in the Scotch parliament, Lauderdale prevailed on the King to dismiss him; and in March his commission was recalled, and shortly after he was deprived of all his other offices. The Earl of Rothes was appointed royal commissioner; but Lauderdale obtained, and long held the ascendancy in the government of Scotland, mainly by his pandering to the King.¹

¹ Sir George Mackenzie’s Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, pages 78‒114, 1821.

Rothes and Lauderdale arrived in Edinburgh in June, 1663; and Parliament reassembled on the 18th of the month. The lords of the articles were changed, and re-elected in the following mode:​—The bishops elected eight of the nobles, the nobles then elected eight of the bishops; and these together elected eight from the county members, and eight from the burgh members. Thus the committee of the articles was certain to be on the side of the court. The acts of the two last sessions of parliament were explicit on the powers of the King, and on the functions of the bishops of the Church; but to suppress and subdue the opposition to the new clergy which had been manifesting itself, another oppressive act was passed, and its aim was to prevent separation from the established worship, and disobedience to the episcopal authorities. It again asserted that the King had determined to maintain the government of the Church by archbishops and bishops, “and not to endure nor give in to any variation therein in the least.” The ejected ministers were prohibited from preaching or assuming any of their functions, under the penalty of sedition. All persons were commanded to attend the ordinary meetings of public worship in their own parish churches on Sunday; and if they absented themselves, they incurred the following fines:​—each noble, gentleman, or proprietor of land, the sum of one-fourth of his yearly rental​—each tenant, a fourth part of his moveable goods,​—each burgess, a fourth of his moveable goods, with the forfeiture of his freedom of trading and all privileges within the burgh. The Privy Council were ordered to enforce this act vigorously, and having called all persons before them, whom the curates and two witnesses had reported, to inflict on the offenders the above penalties, and any corporal punishment which they thought fit.¹ This act was excessively oppressive, and the people called it in derision “the bishops’ dragnet.”

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., pages 446‒449, 455‒456.

This parliament generously offered the King a force of twenty thousand foot and two thousand horsemen, who might serve him in any part of Scotland, England, or Ireland. The Estates adjourned on the 9th of October, and no more parliaments were assembled in Scotland for six years.¹

¹ Ibid., page 480; Mackenzie’s Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, pages 132‒133.

Some of the ejected ministers still resided in their parishes, and naturally continued to preach. The people in many places flocked to hear them; while the new incumbents often found their churches deserted, which was extremely displeasing to the government. Thus the religious meetings arose which the authorities called “conventicles,” and which parliament had already attempted to extinguish by compelling the people to attend the parish churches. In June, 1663, the archbishops of St. Andrews and of Glasgow were appointed Privy Councillors. On the 13th of August, the council passed an act, by which all the ministers appointed before 1649, who had not received presentation and collation, were commanded to remove from their parishes, with their families, within three weeks, and not to reside within twenty miles of their former parishes, or within six miles of Edinburgh, or any cathedral church, or three miles of any royal burgh, under the penalty of sedition. All landholders and householders in the kingdom were strictly forbidden to give any countenance to these ministers. On the 17th of September, the Privy Council issued a proclamation against persons who presumed to withdraw from the ordinary meetings of public worship, in parishes where curates were already planted; and not only commanded all the nobles, the sheriffs, the magistrates, and justices of peace, but also all the officers in the standing army, to assist the curates in compelling the people to attend their parish churches. The officers of the army were empowered to exact fines from all who absented themselves from the churches on Sunday; thus the course of persecution was begun and vigorously continued.¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume I., pages 340‒346.

In October, 1663, different detachments of troops were sent to the south, to the west, and to the south-west, but the greatest suffering was inflicted in the south-west, and to this region Sir James Turner was despatched. He had served in foreign wars, and was a fit instrument for the work assigned to him. He was ordered to put the law into execution against all who withdrew from hearing the curates; and to impose a fine of twenty shillings Scots for every time that a person was absent. The process of fining was very summary: the curate accused whom he pleased to any one of the officers of the army, who acted as judge; no witnesses were required; the soldiers also executed the sentence; while very often the fine extorted far exceeded what the law allowed, and frequently went into the officers’ own pockets.¹ These proceedings were extremely galling to the people of the west, who were firmly attached to presbyterian principles. But some of the new curates adopted the device of calling a roll of the parishioners at the close of the service, and then handed the list of the absentees to the officer commanding in the district. If a tenant or the head of a family was unwilling or unable to pay the fines, the soldiers were sent to quarter upon him; and in this way many poor families were ruined, as their goods were distrained and sold. In executing these proceedings, the soldiers were often insolent, rude, and cruel; they mocked at family worship, and disturbed and annoyed the people when engaged in it; many of them were cruelly beaten, and driven to church and to prison with equal violence. Thus all the humble ranks of the people were treated; but the names of defaulting landed proprietors were directly forwarded to the Privy Council, and it speedily disposed of their cases. The military executed another form of oppression at the churches of the old presbyterian ministers, some of whom had remained in their parishes and had large congregations, which seems to have greatly offended the bishops. The soldiers were ordered to go to these churches and inspect the congregations. The mode of proceeding in such instances was this:​—A party of soldiers came to the church door and guarded it, then ordered the people to pass out one by one, and interrogated them upon oath, if they belonged to the parish; and if they could not answer that they were parishioners, the soldiers immediately fined them, and any money which they had on their person, was taken from them; but if they had no money, or not so much as was required, then their bibles, the men’s coats, and the women’s plaids, were taken from them. Instances have been recorded where companies of soldiers entered the presbyterian churches and interrupted the worship; while some were placed at each door, others drove the people out, and forced them to swear whether they belonged to this church or not, and according to the answers received, they were allowed to go or were conveyed to prison. There were yet other modes of compelling the people to attend the new curates, for some of the bishops even employed spies, who went to conventicles in disguise, and then informed upon those who were present.²

¹ Kirkton’s History, page 99; Wodrow’s History, Volume I., pages 373‒374.

² Wodrow’s History, Volume I., page 375; Kirkton’s History, pages 200‒201.

The government still deemed the means of coercion insufficient; and the King on the 16th January, 1664, authorised the erection of a Court of High Commission, to attend especially to ecclesiastical matters. This court was solely constituted by the royal prerogative. Its members consisted of the two archbishops, seven other bishops, and thirty-five laymen, including the chief officers of State; and any five of them, one being a bishop, were to form a quorum. The court was invested with plenary powers, and no one was exempted from its jurisdiction; the least suspicion that a person was disaffected to the established episcopacy might be construed into a crime; and it could cite ministers, censure, fine, depose, imprison, or banish, all who refused to submit to episcopacy. All the officers of the army, the sheriffs, the bailies of regalities, justices of peace, and the magistrates, were ordered to apprehend all such offenders and place them in the hands of the court; and the governors of the King’s castles, and the keepers of prisons were commanded to receive and to detain in close custody all such persons as the commissioners of the court committed to them. Then the fines imposed by this court were enforced by letters of horning; in short, it was calculated to be an effective engine of oppression and persecution. The record of its proceedings is lost, but contemporary accounts describe it in terms of unmitigated condemnation. Before the end of two years its powers were withdrawn, probably because the Privy Council thought that it encroached upon its own authority.¹

¹ Kirkton’s History, pages 201‒203, 205‒207; Wodrow’s History, Volume I., pages 384‒395.

The persecution was continued and increased in severity. On the 7th of December, 1665, the Privy Council passed an act against the nonconforming ministers, and ordered that the former acts should be rigorously enforced. At the same time the Council issued a proclamation against conventicles, and again commanded all those in authority and office to execute the law against every one attending these meetings. The soldiers in Galloway and in the west oppressed the inhabitants by quartering upon them; and they were authorised by the government to collect the fines from those excluded from the King’s indemnity, as well as the fines for nonconformity; and many acts of gross injustice and cruelty were perpetrated. The people manifested a determination to meet occasionally to hear their favourite preachers, in spite of all the efforts of the government to prevent them. At last, driven past the limits of human endurance and goaded to desperation, they turned upon their oppressors. Their first act of open resistance occurred in the vicinity of the small village of Dalry in Galloway, in November 1666, when four countrymen rescued an old man whom the soldiers were maltreating to extort his church fines. They were soon joined by others, and disarmed the small detachment of soldiers quartered in the district. Having committed themselves, they resolved to surprise Sir James Turner, and marched on Dumfries, where he had his head-quarters. They entered the town on the morning of the 15th of November, and took Sir James a prisoner, and disarmed his men. They then proceeded to the market cross and publicly drank the King’s health, and prosperity to his government. The rising was ill-concerted, however, and the insurgents hardly knew what next to attempt.¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume I., pages 428‒430; Volume II., pages 8‒13; Kirkton’s History, pages 229‒232.

They proceeded to Ayrshire, where they expected many persons would join them. But some of the leading men of the county were already in prison, so that few joined their standard, and the enterprise seemed hopeless. The insurgents then marched into Lanark, and in that county their numbers reached about two thousand; but they had no organisation or discipline. There they renewed the covenant, and issued a manifesto. Meanwhile the Privy Council had ordered Dalziel to march against the insurgents, who had advanced to the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, but were unable to take it, and retired southwards to the Pentland Hills. On the 28th of November, Dalziel with the royal army came upon the insurgents; and after a slight encounter, completely defeated them. About fifty of the insurgents were killed, and one hundred taken prisoners.¹

¹ Learmont’s Chronicle; Blackadder’s Memoirs.

The prisoners were brought to Edinburgh to be tried. Much care had been taken to magnify the rising as the result of some great conspiracy against the government; and the authorities resolved to try if torture would elicit a confession. Hugh McKail, a preacher, and John Neilson of Corsack, were both tortured, their legs being encased in that fearful instrument, the boot, and crushed unmercifully to extort a confession, but they had nothing to confess. Yet it never seems to have occurred to the authorities that their own oppressive treatment of these poor people was an all-sufficient explanation of the rising. McKail was executed, and the dismal work proceeded; nineteen were hanged in Edinburgh, and about the same number in Glasgow, Ayr, Irvine, and Dumfries; altogether forty persons were executed.¹

¹ Kirkton’s History, pages 247‒255; Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 39‒55.

Military execution directly followed, Dalziel and Drummond were despatched westward to crush out the spirit of rebellion, and compel the people to embrace episcopacy. The army acted with more rapacity than if they had been in an enemy’s country. Wherever they went they took free quarters. On the roads and in the fields robbery and murder were frequently committed with impunity; while complaints only occasioned more suffering. Suspicion was accepted as evidence of guilt, no proof of innocence was allowed, or mitigating circumstance considered. Many acts of extreme cruelty and outrage have been recorded, but I refrain from detailing these sickening scenes.¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 62‒80.

Much of the odium of this persecution was attributed to Archbishop Sharp. Whether rightly or wrongly, it was certainly believed that he had insisted on strong measures of repression. Some men of influence began to think that there had been enough of violence, and a rather milder mode of administration was attempted, though no change was made in the principles of the government itself. In August, 1667, the army was ordered to be disbanded; and in October, an indemnity was offered to all who had been engaged in the late rising, excepting a few who were especially obnoxious, on the condition that they appeared before the authorities and signed the bond of peace. This was to the effect that the persons who signed it, promised to keep the public peace and not rebel against the King’s authority. Thereupon the people enjoyed a short breathing time, and began to hope that they might again be placed under the protection of the common law of the kingdom.¹

¹ Ibid., Volume II., pages 80‒100.

In 1668 the government seemed to show some leniency to the presbyterians, but, on the 11th of July, an extremely untoward event happened in Edinburgh. James Mitchell, a young man who had been concerned in the recent rising, and one of those specially excluded from the indemnity, attempted to assassinate Archbishop Sharp. The primate was coming from his lodging, and had just stepped into his coach with the Bishop of Orkney, when a pistol shot was discharged at him, which missed him, but shattered the Bishop of Orkney’s arm. Mitchell crossed the street and instantly disappeared amid the confusion; and he was not taken till six years afterwards. The government naturally raised a great clamour about this dastardly attempt, and offered a reward of two thousand merks to any person who should discover the assassin, and three thousand to any one who should apprehend him. It was reported that Sharp was much touched by the attack on his life, and retained in his mind a vivid impression of the figure of the assassin.¹ The King in his letters to the Privy Council for some time after the attempt on Sharp’s life, warmly recommended the bishops and the loyal clergy to the care of the Council. He enjoined the Council to inquire minutely into all affronts and assaults upon them. In the south and in the west, the bishops and the curates required all the protection which the government could afford them; for they were odious and hateful to the majority of the people in these regions. The outcry was now renewed against the presbyterians and their conventicles, and the Privy Council took steps to enforce the acts against the nonconforming ministers and those who attended conventicles, or had their children baptised by persons unauthorised by the Established Church. Although many of the churches were vacant, the bishops complained bitterly of the conduct of the ejected ministers who officiated in their own houses and at conventicles. In consequence of these complaints many of them were brought before the Council.²

¹ Kirkton’s History, 277‒279. Kirkton calls Mitchell “a weak scholar, who had been in arms with the Whigs;” Wodrow says “he was a preacher of the gospel, and a youth of much zeal and piety” (Volume II., page 115). Sir James Turner called him “a preacher, but not an actual minister” (Account of the Pentland Insurrection). There is no evidence that he was a licensed minister.

² Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 120‒129.

In the month of June, 1669, by authority of the King, a temporising measure on a small scale was tried. The Privy Council was authorised to appoint as many of the ejected ministers as they thought fit to the vacant churches. Those who consented to take collation from the bishops were to receive their stipends; and those who did not were only to have the use of the manse and the glebe, with permission to exercise their functions, and to receive annually such a sum of money as the Council thought fit. All the ministers who accepted this offer bound themselves to attend the meetings of the presbyteries and the synods, and not to administer the communion to any one save their own parishioners, or baptise children, or marry parties from neighbouring parishes, without the permission of the minister of the parish to which they belonged; they were besides to discourage the people of other parishes from attending their preaching. As the government thought that these orders had removed all pretence for holding conventicles, the Privy Council was commanded to proceed with the utmost severity against all who preached without authority and those who listened to them. Upwards of forty ministers were re-admitted to parishes under the above conditions. But it soon became manifest that this compromise was unsatisfactory to all concerned. The true blue presbyterians asserted that it was merely an attempt to blind them; and those not included in the indulgence railed against the ministers who had accepted it. The episcopal party were equally displeased with it; and in a short time the Council refused to grant any more indulgences to the ejected ministers.¹

¹ Sir George Mackenzie’s Memoirs, pages 261‒262; Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 129‒136.

The second parliament of this reign was opened at Edinburgh on the 19th of October, 1669, with the Earl of Lauderdale officiating as a royal commissioner. The King in his letter to the Estates proposed a union of the two kingdoms, but the proposal came to no practical result. The Archbishop of St. Andrews preached a sermon before parliament, in which he stated that there were three pretenders to supremacy​—the Pope, the King, and the General Assembly of the presbyterians, all whose claims he maintained were untenable. The Lords of the Council were inclined to resent this, and an act was introduced and passed in parliament containing a full and definite statement of the King’s supremacy.

This act is not long, and as it presents an indication of the principle on which the government of the Church of Scotland was then founded, it may be quoted. “The Estates of parliament having seriously considered how necessary it is, for the good and peace of the Church and the State, that his Majesty’s power and authority in relation to matters and persons ecclesiastical be more clearly asserted by an act of parliament; having therefore thought fit it be enacted, asserted and declared; so his Majesty, with advice and consent of his Estates of parliament, does hereby enact, assert and declare, that his Majesty has the supreme authority and supremacy over all persons and in all causes ecclesiastical within this kingdom: and that by virtue thereof, the ordering and disposal of the external government and polity of the Church does properly belong to his Majesty and to his successors, as an inherent right of the Crown: and that his Majesty and his successors may settle, enact, and emit such constitutions, acts, and orders, concerning the administration of the external government of the Church, and the persons employed in the same; and concerning all ecclesiastical meetings and matters to be proposed and determined therein, as they in their royal wisdom shall think fit: which acts, orders, and constitutions, being recorded in the books of Council and duly published, are to be obeyed by all his Majesty’s subjects, notwithstanding any law, act, or custom to the contrary: likewise his Majesty with advice and consent aforesaid, does rescind and annul all laws, acts, and clauses thereof, and all customs and constitutions, civil and ecclesiastical, which are contrary to, or inconsistent with his Majesty’s supremacy, as it is hereby asserted, and declares the same void and null in all time coming.”¹ This act invested the Privy Council with full legislative power, and reasserted the position of Charles as King and Pope.

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., pages 551, 554; Sir George Mackenzie’s Memoirs, pages 159‒160.

The Estates passed an act for the protection of the episcopal clergy from the violence of disaffected and disloyal persons, and ratified all the former acts and proclamations of the Privy Council on this point, and all previous acts of parliament. Land-owners, life-renters, and others were commanded to protect, to defend, and to secure the persons, families, and goods of their ministers; guarding them not merely in the exercise of their functions, but in their houses and elsewhere, from all injuries and affronts at the hands of disaffected persons;¹ while an act was passed for facilitating the payment of disputed parts of the bishops’ and curates’ stipends and rents.

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VII., page 556.

The presbyterians had frequently met in private houses, but now they began to assemble in the fields; the men sometimes attending the conventicles armed, in case of being surprised by the soldiers who were always scouring the country. On the 13th of January, 1670, additional orders were given to the troops; and on the 3rd of February, a proclamation concerning conventicles was issued, by which the soldiers were commanded to seize the persons of landlords, ejected ministers, tenants, and others, who attended the conventicles, to compel them to find bail, and if they refused it, then to send them to the Council, with a list of the witnesses against them. This year many field meetings were held, three of them attracting particular notice owing to the crowds assembled. One met at Beithhill, in the parish of Dunfermline, in the middle of June; another at Livingseat, in the parish of Carnwath, about the same date; and the third at the Torwood, in Stirlingshire, in the beginning of July. One of the ministers who preached at the first of these meetings, has himself given an interesting account of it. The people began to gather on Saturday afternoon, and many lay all night upon the hill-side. The ministers who officiated were Mr. John Dickson and Mr. John Blackadder, the latter having come from Edinburgh on Saturday night. It was resolved to hold the meeting on the summit of the hill, for greater security; and a fitting spot having been chosen, they pitched their tent. Mr. Dickson conducted the service in the forenoon; and while this was going on, Mr. Blackadder placed himself at the outskirts of the crowd, with the men appointed to watch. During the time of the service some ill-affected people were observed to come in among them, and amongst others the two sons of the curate, with fourteen strong fellows at their back. Mr. Blackadder permitted them to come and hear, but not to depart, lest they should give the alarm, and the watch kept their eyes on them. The morning preaching, which began at eight, was peaceably concluded about eleven.

Mr. Blackadder preached in the afternoon; but before going to the tent, when revolving his sermon in his mind, he heard a noise, and found that it proceeded from a party bringing back the curate’s two sons, with some violence, for which he rebuked them, and ordered the men to let the youths come back without hurting them. After he had begun his sermon, the lieutenant of the militia stationed in the district, with a few others, arrived; he gave his horse to a man to hold, and passed in among the people and listened to the preaching for a time. He then returned to his horse and prepared to remount, when some of the guard interfered and requested him to stay, lest his abrupt departure should offend and disturb the meeting; but he refused to remain, and began to threaten by drawing his staff. The guards then seized him as he was putting his foot in the stirrup, and presented pistols at him. The minister fearing that they might kill him, stopped his sermon, and persuaded the people to allow the lieutenant to depart, and thus to manifest their peaceable intentions. After settling this stir, which lasted about half-an-hour, the minister returned to his tent and resumed his sermon, and brought the meeting to a close. But this interference with the King’s servant was afterwards made the occasion of several severe prosecutions, so intent and determined was the government on extinguishing conventicles.¹

¹ Blackadder’s Memoirs, pages 144‒148; Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 154‒159.

These meetings greatly irritated the government, and it was resolved to adopt more severe measures of repression. Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 28th of July, 1670, and passed a number of acts against all who disagreed with the Established Church. One act concerning the giving of evidence, commanded that every person in the kingdom when asked, should declare upon oath whatever they knew about conventicles and the individuals present at them. This oath to reveal what they knew might be administered by anyone authorised by the King; and refusal to take it was followed by fines, imprisonment, or banishment to the plantations in the Indies, “or elsewhere, as his Majesty’s Council shall think fit.” Another act touching field conventicles was still more severe. After stating the fines and punishments imposed for attending religious meetings in private houses, it was enunciated, “that field meetings are the rendezvous of rebellion, and tend in a high degree to the disturbance of the public peace; therefore it is statuted and declared, that whosoever, without licence or authority, shall preach, expound scripture, or pray, at any of these meetings in the fields, or in any house where there are more persons than the house contains, so that some of them be standing without doors, which is hereby declared to be a field conventicle, shall be punished by death and confiscation of goods. And it is hereby offered and assured, that if any of his Majesty’s subjects shall seize and secure the persons of any who shall either preach or pray at these field meetings, or convene any persons thereto, they shall for each person so secured have five hundred merks paid to them for reward, out of his Majesty’s treasury, by the commissioners, who are hereby authorised to pay the same; and the said seizers and their assistants are hereby indemnified from any slaughter that may be committed in the apprehending and securing of such persons.” A more mischievous act it would be difficult to conceive; and that its operation would drive a portion of the people into rebellion might have been expected. The act enforcing attendance at public worship in the parish churches was re-enacted under a different title; while another act was passed to punish those who offered their children to be baptised by any other minister than their own parish one, “or else by such as are authorised by the present established government of the Church, or licensed by his Majesty’s Council.” The aim of this was to prevent the ejected ministers from baptising; but one act of exclusive legislation usually demands another of a similar character. So parliament, in 1672, passed an act against those who were unwilling to have their children baptised in an orderly form; and enacting that these persons who failed to have their children baptised by their parish ministers, within thirty days after birth, rendered themselves liable to heavy fines. Thus, “every proprietor of land and life-renter shall be fined a fourth part of his valued yearly rent; every person above the rank of a tenant, having a personal but no real estate, in a fine of one hundred pounds Scots; every considerable merchant a fine of one hundred pounds Scots; every inferior merchant or considerable tradesman, and every tenant labouring land, fifty pounds; every meaner burgess, inhabitant of a burgh, and every cottar, twenty pounds; and every servant half a year’s fee.”¹ This act has the merit of definiteness and minuteness; but the enormous fines meant ruin to the offending parties.

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VIII. pages 7, 8‒10, 11, 72‒73.

In spite of this severity, the people in some districts continued to meet in the fields; and every fresh attempt to enforce uniformity only drove them into stronger dissent. Efforts of a more peaceful character were tried by Bishop Leighton to win over the ejected ministers and the nonconforming people of the west; but he met with little success. He selected six persons, among whom were Bishop Burnet and Lawrence Charteris, to preach to the people in the vacant churches throughout the western counties. Their sermons were attended by numbers of the people, but few of them were convinced or moved to change their views by the arguments of the episcopal preachers. Burnet himself says, “The people of the country came generally to hear us, though not in great crowds. We were indeed amazed to see a poor commonalty so capable of arguing upon points of government, and on the bounds to be set to the power of princes in matters of religion. Upon all these topics they had texts of scripture at hand; and were ready with their answers to anything that was said to them. This measure of knowledge was spread even among the meanest of them, their cottagers and their servants. They were, indeed, vain of their knowledge, much conceited of themselves, and were full of a most entangling scrupulosity; so that they found or made difficulties in everything that could be laid before them. We stayed about three months in the country, and in that time there was a stand in the frequency of conventicles, but as soon as we were gone, a set of these hot preachers went round all the places in which we had been, to defeat all the good we could hope to do. They told them the devil was never so formidable as when he was transformed into an angel of light.”¹

¹ History of His Own Time. “The harvest they reapt was scorn and contempt; a congregation they could never gather; they never pretended to have made a proselyte.”​—Kirkton’s History, page 294.

Parliament met at Edinburgh in June, 1672, Lauderdale being again royal commissioner; and excepting a short session in the following year, there were no more meetings of parliament for nine years. An act was passed renewing the former acts against conventicles; and the act specially commanding the observance of the 29th of May, in commemoration of his Majesty’s restoration to the kingdoms of his ancestors: this act was repeatedly passed, and all the people commanded to celebrate the event on the appointed day, by the ringing of bells, bonfires at night, and other manifestations of joy; while all the ministers were ordered to preach on this day, “that they, with the whole people, may give thanks to God Almighty for His so signal goodness to these kingdoms.” Those who failed to obey were to be severely punished. Along with other acts this one afforded ground for oppression.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VIII., pages 73, 89.

In September, 1672, the Privy Council granted another indulgence to the ejected ministers. They were enjoined to repair to certain parishes, which were named, in the dioceses of Galloway, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Argyle, and two and sometimes three ministers were appointed for each parish. They were permitted to preach and exercise their functions within the limits assigned to them, a portion of the stipend being allowed for their support. But this indulgence was disliked by many of the presbyterian ministers; and those who accepted it were hampered by many difficulties, while it gave little satisfaction to any.¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 201‒211.

On the 7th of March, 1673, the Privy Council ordered all the ejected ministers in Edinburgh to remove from it to a distance of five miles, unless they bound themselves to hold no conventicles. In April, the Council issued a proclamation announcing more severe penalties against conventicles; and some of the indulged ministers were punished for not confining themselves to the limits prescribed to them.¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, pages 211‒233.

But the conventicles became more and more common, and in March the government proclaimed an indemnity and pardon for past fines and offences incurred through the contravention of the penal acts, excepting the penalties already imposed, and all sentences of banishment and imprisonment. This indemnity extended to the penalties against conventicles, irregular baptisms, and marriages, up to the date of its publication. But the people looked upon it rather as an encouragement for the future than as a remission for past offences; and from this time conventicles of all kinds increased still faster, in houses, in churches, and in the fields. In the south, in the west, and in Fife, the people fixed upon positions in fields, on moors, and on the hills, where multitudes assembled every Sunday, till the defeat at Bothwell Bridge. “Then the conversation up and down Scotland was the quality and success of the last Sunday’s conventicle, who the preachers were, what the number of the people was, what doctrine the minister preached, what change was among the people; how sometimes the soldiers assaulted them, and sometimes killed some of them; sometimes the soldiers were beaten, and some of them killed. And this was the exercise of the people of Scotland for a period of six years.” In the summer of 1674, it was recorded that​—“Because men durst not, the women of Edinburgh would needs appear in a petition to the Council, wherein they desired that a gospel ministry might be provided for the starving congregations of Scotland. Fifteen of them, mostly ministers’ widows, engaged to present so many copies to the principal Lords of Council, and upon the 4th of June filled the whole Parliament Close. When the Chancellor came up, Sharp kept close to his back, fearing, it may be, bodily harm, which he then escaped. Only some of them reproached him, calling him Judas and traitor, and one of them laid her hand upon his neck, and told him that neck must pay for it ere all was done, and in that guessed right; but this was all he suffered at that time. Mr. John Livingston’s widow undertook to present her copy to the Chancellor, which she did. He received it, and civilly pulled off his hat. When she began to speak, and took hold of his sleeve, he bowed his head and listened to her, even till he came to the Council chamber door. She who presented her copy to Stair found no such kind reception, for he threw it upon the ground, which made one tell him he did not so with the remonstrance which he helped to write. But when the Council met, the petition was turned into a seditious libel by the vote of the Court. The provost and guard were sent for, but none of these were very cruel; only they threatened, and the women dissolved. Thereafter, for an example, some of them were cited, and some denounced rebels. Three women they imprisoned also for a time​—James Clelland’s wife, Miss Campbell, and a daughter of Johnston of Warriston​—and this was the end of that brush.”​—Sir George Mackenzie gives this account of the affair;​—“And petitions for able ministers were given in to the Council, by many hundreds of women, who filled the Parliament Close, threatened the Archbishop of St. Andrews, who passed along with the Chancellor, for whose coming he had waited in his own chamber; and some of them had conspired to set upon him, when a woman, who I shun to name, should raise her hand on high as a signal: to prevent which, the Chancellor, by entertaining the woman with insinuating speeches all the time as he passed to the Council, did divert that bloody design.”¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 266‒267; Kirkton’s History, pages 342‒346; Memoirs, page 273.

The government taxed its ingenuity to the utmost in devising means to prohibit conventicles, and to crush the spirit of the people. In June, 1674, the heads of families were made liable for their wives and children, and their servants; and the proprietors of land for their tenants and servants. They were obliged to subscribe a bond that they would obey this, under severe penalties. The bond is in these terms: “I​—bind and oblige me, that I, my wife, or any of my children in family with me, my cottars, or servants, shall not keep or be present at conventicles, either in houses or in the fields, as the same is defined by the 5th Act of the second session of his Majesty’s second parliament, under the fines therein contained.... And for the more security, I am content, and consent that these presents be inserted in the books of the Privy Council, books of Council and Session, or any other competent judges’ books, that letters and execution may pass thereupon.... God save the King.” Proclamations and orders were issued for apprehending the ministers who preached at conventicles, and the people who attended them, while the promise of rewards to persons who seized them was renewed. Indeed, every one in the kingdom was in some way obliged or encouraged to inform upon another, and every man to ruin his neighbour. On the 16th of July, 1674, thirty-nine of the ejected ministers, having been shortly before summoned to appear before the Council, and having failed to comply, were proclaimed rebels, and put to the horn; amongst the list of ministers thus denounced some were dead, and others had been indulged, but all were indiscriminately proscribed. Donald Cargill, the noted field preacher, and James Kirkton, the author of a history of the Church of Scotland, and other notable Covenanters, were included in this sentence. These ministers, along with others before denounced, then formed themselves into a body completely separated from the bishops and the curates; and a number of gentlemen and many of the people joined them. Having been outlawed, they were forced to betake themselves to hiding-places, to the fields, and to the hills. Being exposed to the attacks of the soldiers at their meetings, these parties usually carried arms.¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 234‒248; Kirkton’s History, pages 348‒352.

Nevertheless the rigorous laws of the government failed to prevent preaching in private houses and in the fields. In 1675, garrisons were placed in private mansions, where the nonconformists were most numerous; while letters of intercommuning were issued against upwards of a hundred persons, of whom eighteen were ministers. Thus the dissenters were not only outlawed but also deprived of all intercourse with their fellow men; all who held any intercourse with them became implicated in their crimes, and rendered themselves liable to the same punishment. In the terms of the law then proclaimed​—“We command and charge all our subjects, that they, nor none of them, presume to reset, supply, or intercommune with any of the aforesaid persons or rebels, for the causes foresaid, nor furnish them with meat, drink, house, harbour, victuals, or any other thing useful or comfortable to them, nor have any intelligence with them by word, writing, message, or any other way, under the penalty of being reputed and esteemed art and part with them in their crimes, and pursued therefore with all rigour to the terror of others.”¹ These modes of persecution forced many to leave their homes, and wander from place to place in want and weariness, shunned, spurned, and hunted by the authorities, sustained by nothing but by the glow and strength of their faith.

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 286‒288.

In March, 1676, the government issued a fresh proclamation against conventicles, commanding the authorities, under severe penalties, to seize all intercommunicated persons, and to put the penal laws in force against all offenders and rebels. The Council granted commissions to form and appoint committees, to put the laws against conventicles and dissenters into execution; one was ordered to sit in Edinburgh, one in Glasgow, one for Stirling and Fife, and one for Aberdeenshire, Moray, and Ross.¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 318‒323.

A large meeting of the presbyterian ministers was held in Edinburgh in the beginning of the year 1677. A considerable section of the people had now openly disowned and separated from the episcopal clergy and Church; and indeed the presbyterians were too numerous for the effective operation of the penal laws against them; but the government still attempted to put down conventicles. Sir George Mackenzie was appointed Lord-Advocate in August, 1677, and ever after he was an open enemy to the presbyterians, or “the fanatics,” as he called them. He expressed his views thus:​—“These fanatics finding all their hopes disappointed, resolved to try by force what they could not obtain from favour; and knowing that they might expect the connivance, at least, of the party in opposition to Lauderdale, and that party having blown up their expectations, by assuring them that the Parliament of England was, by many late elections, become more fanatical, they hounded out all their ministers to keep field conventicles in such numbers and so well armed, and to threaten so all the orthodox clergy, and to usurp their pulpits, that the Council was much troubled at the clouds which they saw so fast gathering; and Lauderdale was the more envenomed, that all these disorders were charged upon the late offers made by him of an indemnity and indulgence, and the news that was industriously spread, both in London and Edinburgh, of great sums of money promised to his duchess by the fanatics. Notwithstanding of all which, Sir George Mackenzie being lately admitted to be his Majesty’s Advocate, did prevail with the Council to prevent, by the ensuing articles, all the fanatics’ just exceptions against the forms formerly used against them. 1. That his Majesty’s Advocate be special as to time and place in libelling against conventicles and others pursued; but as he may libel any day within four weeks, or any place within such a parish, or near to the said parish, for else conventicles may be held upon the confines of parishes, merely to disappoint his way of libelling. 2. When any person is convened upon a libel, that in that case, he be only examined upon his own guilt and accession; seeing nothing can be referred to a defender’s oath but what concerns himself during the dependence of a process. 3. That if any person who is cited be ready to depone, or pay his fines, he be not troubled with taking bonds, or other engagements; seeing that the constant punishment of such as do transgress will supply the necessity of the bonds, and the law itself is the strongest bond that can be exacted of any man.”¹ Those who were cited never appeared, as they knew that imprisonment in the Bass awaited them, where at this time all were sent who could be seized.

¹ Memoirs, pages 322‒323; Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 346‒347.

In August, the government emitted a proclamation against those who withdrew from public worship, and attended conventicles​—“which we have so often declared to be the nurseries of schism, and the rendezvous of rebellion; tending to detach our subjects from that reverence due to religion, and that obedience they owe to our authority.” To this was annexed a bond for compelling the people to attend their own parish churches, under the penalties of the former acts.¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 364‒366.

Mitchell, since his attempt on the life of the Primate, had been living in Edinburgh, where Sharp frequently saw him, and caused him to be apprehended in February, 1674. When brought before the Privy Council, he was promised a pardon if he would confess his guilt, whereupon he admitted having been in the rising of 1666, and his attempt on the life of the Primate; but affirmed that no one else was connected with that deed. He was then remitted to the Court of Justiciary. When placed in the dock he denied everything, and as there was no evidence, the indictment was abandoned. He was returned to prison, and detained for two years. In January, 1676, he was again taken before the Council, and questioned whether he had been with the insurgents in 1666, and if he would acknowledge his former confession. Mitchell declined to criminate himself, and pled that when tried two years ago, the charge fell to the ground, that it was unjust to detain him in prison and insist that he should accuse himself. It was then agreed to torture him; and his right leg was placed in the boot and frightfully mangled, still he refused to acknowledge his confession, or to tell anything. After undergoing extreme suffering he was removed to prison. The policy of the government had created a host of enemies; and as the ruling party knew that their power rested solely upon fear, the Council and the bishops were loth to let any victim escape. Mitchell was again brought before the court in January, 1678, upon an indictment charging him with attempting to murder the Primate. He was defended by Lockhart, one of the foremost advocates of the time, and Mr. John Ellis, who both pleaded at great length on behalf of the panel. Ellis argued against the relevancy of the libel on five formal points; and next pled ably that a confession obtained in such circumstances could not be allowed as evidence in a court of law. Lockhart then argued with force and clearness, that as the confession was emitted upon the promise of the Privy Council to save his life, it could not be used as evidence for condemning him to death. But Rothes, Lauderdale, the Primate, and other councillors, denied upon oath that such a promise was ever given to him: Lockhart produced a copy of the act of Council in which it was recorded, and craved that the register of the Council’s acts should be produced, which the court refused; the act, however, was read, and Lockhart earnestly insisted for liberty to speak on it; but the court would not permit this. The jury found Mitchell guilty, and he was executed at the Grassmarket of Edinburgh on the 18th of January, 1678. Perhaps the lords had short memories, for the act containing the promise to Mitchell still remains in the register of the proceedings of the Privy Council.¹

¹ State Trials, Volume VI.; Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 454‒473.

The government now determined to extinguish conventicles by treating the west, the south-west, and other parts of the country, as if it had been in a state of rebellion. Towards the end of January, 1678, an army of ten thousand men was mustered at Stirling, of whom six thousand were Highland clansmen. This force was spread over the regions where the nonconformists, or the Whigs, as they were called in the speech of the time, were most numerous, there to live at free quarters; while a committee of the Privy Council accompanied the host, armed with special information and ample powers for punishing notable offenders. They were empowered to impose and exact such fines as they thought fit from all who refused to take the bond; and they were instructed to prosecute rigorously all who had been at field conventicles since the 1st of January 1677; while all persons who had been accessory to the building of meeting-houses, and also all landowners, and life-renters, who had connived at the erection of such houses, since the 24th March, 1674, were to be punished without mercy, and all the meeting-houses were to be razed to the ground. They were to prosecute all who had withdrawn from public worship in their own parishes, to disarm all persons, and to search for and seize arms and ammunition. The bond, tendered and backed by the presence of the army, was in the following terms:​—“We ―― faithfully bind and oblige us, that we, our wives, children, and servants, respectively, shall not be present at any conventicles or disorderly meetings in time coming, but shall live in obedience to the law, under the penalties of the acts of parliament: also we bind and oblige us, that all our tenants and cottars, their wives, children, and servants, shall likewise abstain from these conventicles, and other illegal meetings, and live in obedience to the law: and farther, that we nor they shall reset, supply, or commune with forfeited persons, intercommuned ministers, or vagrant preachers; but shall do our utmost endeavour to apprehend their persons: and in case our tenants and cottars shall contravene, we shall take and apprehend every person guilty thereof, and present them to the judge ordinary, that they may be punished therefore, according to the acts of parliament; otherwise we shall remove them and their families off our ground; and if we fail therein, we shall be liable to such penalties as the said delinquents have incurred by law.” The resistance to this form of oppression was almost universal; and even many of the landowners and small proprietors refused to sign the bond; in Lanarkshire only twenty out of three thousand householders subscribed the bond, and it was reported that those who did sign it suffered as much as those who refused, as the soldiers and Highlanders sent to execute the law spared no one, and acted without distinction of persons. The Highlanders were sent home in the end of February; and on the 24th of April the remainder of the army was disbanded, save a garrison left in Ayr. “When this goodly army returned homewards, you would have thought by their baggage that they had been at the sack of a besieged city; and therefore, when they passed Stirling Bridge, every man drew his sword, to show the world that they had returned conquerors from the enemy’s land, but they might as well have shown the pots, pans, girdles, and other household furniture with which they were loaded; and among them all, none purchased so well as the two Earls of Airly and Strathmore, chiefly the last, who sent home the money, not in purses, but in bags and great quantities. Yet under all this oppression the poor people bore all; only in Kampsey there was one of the plunderers killed by a countryman, who yet escaped punishment.”¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 378‒454. Kirkton’s History, pages 390‒391. It has often been noticed that none of the Whigs lost their life by the hands of this Highland host, as it was called.

The government was disappointed that the Highland army had effected so little; and therefore more force was to be employed. A Convention of Estates was summoned to grant money, which met at Edinburgh in the end of June, 1678. It passed an act authorising a sum of eighteen hundred thousand pounds Scots to be raised by a tax spread over five years, to enable the King to maintain more forces to uphold the orthodox clergy, extinguish conventicles, and crush the people. This act was extremely obnoxious to the presbyterians, but all were obliged to pay the tax under severe penalties.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume VIII., pages 213‒229; Kirkton’s History, pages 393‒396.

By the end of the year a considerable army was stationed, chiefly in the western and southern counties. In the beginning of 1679, detachments of troops were ordered to move up and down the country, to harass all who did not conform to episcopacy, and to collect the tax, which many of the people would not pay till they were compelled. The soldiers were commanded to search out and to pursue all who attended field meetings, to kill all who resisted them, to imprison and deliver to the magistrates, or send to the Council, all whom they apprehended.¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume II., pages 492‒495; Volume III., pages 11‒17.

This year, in the end of February, the government added a number of new commissioners to assist those appointed in August, 1677; their special work being the suppression of all schism and opposition to the Established Church, and all seditious meetings. Among other instructions touching the execution of their task, and to interest and encourage them in it, they were authorised “to apply the one-half of the fines of all the landed men and women, and their children, who lived within the bounds of their commission, to their own use, and such as they should employ.” This was sure to make the commissioners earnest in their work. The King also issued an order authorising the sheriffs in the south and west of the kingdom to recognise, and act with, a number of special sheriff-deputes nominated by the King himself, expressly to try and judge persons accused of attending conventicles, of withdrawing from the worship of the parish churches, or of irregular baptisms and marriages.¹ That men thus invested with judicial powers should sometimes act with an imperious hand was certain; and when William Carmichael, an ex-bailie of Edinburgh, was raised by the King to the dignity of a special sheriff in the county of Fife, of course he exerted himself to the utmost to show that he was worthy of his post.

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume III., pages 17‒21, 41.

This man, who had been treating those who attended field meetings in Fife with great severity, a few bold men resolved to frighten and punish. On the 3rd of May, 1679, under Hackston of Rathillet and John Balfour, they attempted to waylay him among the hills above Cupar, where they expected him to be hunting. They searched for him from early morning to past midday without success; but just when they were about to disperse, they were told that the Primate was in the neighbourhood, and would pass along the road in his carriage. They then bethought that if the subordinate had escaped, Providence had placed their great enemy within their grasp, and they determined to murder him. The Archbishop’s coach was driving along Magus Moor, about two miles from his own city, and the party instantly pursued it. Sharp cried to the coachman to drive hard; the pursuers fired several shots, overtook the coach, cut the traces, disarmed and dismounted his attendants, and commanded Sharp to come forth, that they might not injure his daughter, who was with him in the coach. As he refused to move, they fired into the coach; but he still clung to his daughter, who was screaming with terror. Then they dragged him out, and he fell on his knees, and in piteous tones implored them to spare his life, promising them forgiveness​—anything, if they would only show mercy: but they reminded him that he had imbrued his hands in the blood of many innocent people for a period of eighteen years, and that now he must die. A volley of shot was discharged at him, and his death was completed with their swords. The assassins, after rifling the coach and the Bishop’s clothes, remounted their horses and rode off, leaving the Primate’s daughter lamenting over his mangled body on the moor.¹

¹ Kirkton’s History, pages 403‒421; Wodrow’s History, Volume III., pages 41‒51.

There were a few persons in Scotland who approved of this foul deed, but the majority of the people regarded it as an atrocious murder. There were not many, however, who greatly lamented the fate of Sharp, and long afterwards some people thought that he deserved his cruel end. Assassination and murder cannot be justified under any circumstances, and must in all cases be emphatically condemned.

The murder of Sharp afforded the government a fresh excuse for greater severities against the nonconformists and all who attended field meetings. A reward was offered for the apprehension of the murderers, but they had fled to the west, where they were joined by others, and prepared to resist the authorities. The Privy Council immediately emitted proclamations against armed conventicles; but the people of the west were past the stage of being deterred by proclamation, as they were ripe for insurrection. A few of the most determined agreed to give what they called “a public testimony against the government,” and arranged to meet on the 29th of May, the anniversary of the Restoration. A party of eighty armed men marched into the burgh of Rutherglen, extinguished the bonfires, blazing in honour of the day, burned the Rescissory Act, and the acts establishing episcopacy, and then read their declaration and affixed it upon the market cross. In this manifesto they gave their testimony​—“1. Against the Rescissory Act, for overthrowing the whole Covenanted Reformation. 2. Against the acts for erecting and establishing of abjured prelacy. 3. Against that declaration imposed upon, and subscribed by, all persons in public trust, wherein the Covenants are renounced and condemned. 4. Against the Act and Declaration, published at Glasgow, for ejecting of the faithful ministers who could not comply with prelacy, whereby three hundred and upwards of them were illegally ejected. 5. Against that presumptuous act for imposing an holy anniversary day, as they call it, to be kept yearly on the 29th of May, as a day of rejoicing and thanksgiving for the King’s birth and restoration, whereby the appointers intruded upon the Lord’s prerogative, and the observers have given the glory to the creature that is due to our Lord and Redeemer, and rejoiced over the setting up of the usurping power, to the destroying of the interest of Christ in the land. 6. Against the Explicatory Act of 1669, and the sacrilegious supremacy enacted and established thereby.”¹ It may be observed that there is truth and force in this manifesto, especially as to the act of supremacy and the anniversary of the Restoration.

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume III., pages 52‒59, 66‒67.

A field meeting was to be held at Loudon Hill, in Clydesdale, on Sunday the 7th of June, 1679. Captain Graham of Claverhouse was then at Glasgow, and hearing of their design, he resolved to disperse the meeting. The services of the day were begun, when the watch gave the alarm that a body of troopers was approaching, and shortly Graham’s dragoons appeared on the rising ground. At this meeting of the Covenanters there were some men, such as Hackston, Balfour, and William Cleland, who possessed marked fighting abilities; and the assemblage determined on battle. After sending the women and children to the rear, the fighting men advanced to a swampy piece of ground and took up their position. A sharp but short skirmish ensued, Graham being completely defeated, and upwards of twenty of his troopers slain. The event is known in history as the battle of Drumclog. Encouraged by this success, they marched the following day upon Glasgow, but were unable to take it, and retired towards Hamilton, where they formed a camp. The outbreak threatened to assume serious proportions, as many from Ayrshire, Galloway, and other parts of the country joined them, and in a few days four thousand men were assembled. They had been driven to desperation. The extreme party of the government had at last produced what they probably desired​—a general insurrection, which gave them an opportunity of insisting on the utmost extremity of persecution against the presbyterians. The government quickly prepared to meet the emergency. Intelligence of every movement of the rebels was promptly sent to London; and it was deemed necessary to commission the Duke of Monmouth, the King’s natural son, to command the royal army and suppress the rebellion.¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume III., pages 68‒99.

The Duke arrived at Edinburgh on the 18th of June, 1679, and immediately placed himself at the head of the army. He marched westward on the 21st, and came within sight of the insurgents, lying on Hamilton Moor. The insurgents, however, were divided among themselves. There was bitter dissension concerning the indulgence; some proposing to hold a fast day to mourn for their sins, but on this all could not agree; while others were for recognising the King according to the Covenant, and others insisted on renouncing him. There was little discipline amongst them, and no united front was presented, when, on the 22nd of June, the royal army appeared on the opposite side of the Clyde. After much debate it was agreed to petition the Duke for terms of peace; but they found that his instructions demanded their immediate and unconditional surrender. These tidings increased the confusion amongst them; Hamilton, who had assumed the command, was opposed to any proposal of peace with an uncovenanted King; others were inclined to yield; but they came to no final resolution, and returned no answer to the Duke. The royal army, therefore, advanced to the attack, and the presbyterians were utterly defeated. Many were slain in the flight, and more than a thousand taken prisoners. The insurgent army being badly led, suffered severely.¹

¹ Kirkton’s History, pages 461‒472; Wodrow’s History, Volume III., pages 99‒111.

The following day the prisoners, tied two and two were driven into Edinburgh, and placed in the Greyfriars Churchyard, where they were kept in the open air for several weeks. Two of the ministers were hanged at the Grassmarket; and five of the other prisoners were executed on Magus Moor, on the 18th of November, as an atonement for the murder of the Primate. Those of the prisoners who acknowledged that the rising was a rebellion, and signed a bond promising to keep the peace and not rise again against the King’s authority, were liberated; but upwards of two hundred, who refused to sign the bond, were crammed into a ship and transported to Barbadoes, to be sold as slaves in the plantations.¹

¹ Proceedings of the Privy Council; Wodrow’s History, Volume III., pages 123‒140.

Many others suffered severely for being at Bothwell Bridge, or otherwise implicated in the rising. For about two months after this event, the soldiers committed many outrages upon the people, and sometimes upon innocent individuals and families.

In August an indemnity was offered to all who had been in the rebellions of 1666 and 1679, upon condition of promising not to rise again in arms against his Majesty’s authority, and of ceasing from attending field meetings in the future. In July, an act was published by the authority of the King, permitting the presbyterian ministers not yet indulged to preach and administer the communion, if they refrained from holding field meetings. This indulgence, however, was soon withdrawn: and it appears that many failed to take advantage of it from principle and conviction, and some from other reasons.¹

¹ Wodrow’s History, Volume III., pages 111‒122, 140‒146, 147‒157.

The difference between the two parties of the presbyterians had become more marked. Some of the extreme party had always protested against the indulgence; and they now took up a position apart from those of more moderate views, and unhesitatingly proclaimed and carried out their own principles. Donald Cargill was their first leader, and after him Richard Cameron and James Renwick may be mentioned as the heads of the party. This body was variously designated in the records of the time, as The Wild Whigs, The Wanderers, The Faithful Remnant, Covenanters, The Hillmen, The Cameronians, Macmillanites, and in later times Reformed Presbyterians, and other names. They were a bold, uncompromising, and determined class of men, who clung consistently and bravely to their creed and to their principles. They were not merely content to resist some of the measures of the government, they adopted a bolder line of action. They treated the offer of indulgence with scorn; they refused to pay taxes; and at last they renounced their allegiance to a King, who had utterly broken his Covenant engagements, and, by his tyrannical government, had forfeited his right to the throne; and therefore, they declared war against him and his government. They declined to hold communion with the moderate presbyterians, and formed themselves into a number of societies, and calling themselves The Society People. They exhibited much capacity for business and organisation; and they may be truly described as the party of honesty and vigour in the nation, amid the wreck of character, of time-serving, and of corruption, which then prevailed.