History of Civilization in England, Vol. 3 of 3

‘The godliest, wisest, learnedest, and most zealous men of the ministrie in Scotland, were either banished, warded, or detained in Ingland, of purpose that they might not be a lett to the grand designe in hand.’ Row's History of the Kirk, p. 238.

296

Scot's Apologetical Narration of the State of the Kirk, pp. 164, 165. Compare The Autobiography and Diary of James Melvill, pp. 642–645.

297

‘Quhen we wer gone out of the Palice a lytle way towards Kingstoune, Mr. Alexander Hay sendis back for us, and withall, in the Uttir Court, reidis to us a chairge from the King not to returne to Scotland, nor to com neire the King, Quein, nor Prince their Courtis, without a speciall calling for and licence.’ Melvill's Autobiography, p. 661.

298

M'Crie's Life of Melville, vol. ii. pp. 246, 252, 260, 337–339, 403, 407–411, 414. This truly great and fearless man died in exile, in 1622. p. 458.

299

Melvill's Autobiography and Diary, p. 709. Scot's Apologetical Narration, p. 194. M'Crie's Life of Melville, vol. ii. pp. 252, 253, 267, 268.

300

‘Royal missives were sent to the presbyteries, nominating the individuals whom they should chuse as their representatives to it.’ M'Crie's Life of Melville, vol. ii. pp. 387, 388. On the character of its members, compare Wodrow's History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland, edit. Glasgow, 1838, vol. i. p. 256. Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland, pp. 320, 321. Crookshank's Church of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1812, vol. i. p. 28; and Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. vii. pp. 97, 98.

301

Acts of the General Assemblies of the Kirk, vol. iii. pp. 1096, 1097. The Assembly even forbad the democratic notion of equality to be advocated. See p. 1101. ‘Because it is vncivill that laws and constitutiouns, either Civill or Ecclesiasticall, being anes establischit and in force, by publick and opin consent, sould be controllit and callit in questioun by any person: therfor, it is statute by vniforme consent of this haill Assemblie, that none of the Ministrie either in pulpitt in his preaching, or in the publick exercise, speake and reason against the acts of this present Assemblie, nor dissobey the same, vnder the paine of deprivatioun, being tryit and convict thereof; and speciallie, that the questioun of equalitie and inequalitie in the Kirk, be not treattit in pulpitt vnder the said paine.’

302

Mr. Russell (History of the Church in Scotland, vol. ii. p. 88), misled, probably, by a passage in Spottiswoode's History of the Church, vol. iii. p. 210, says, ‘A Court of High Commission was instituted.’ But it is certain that there were two such courts; one for the diocese of Saint Andrews, and one for that of Glasgow. See the ‘commissioun givin under the great seale to the two archbishops,’ dated 15th of February 1610, in Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. vii. pp. 57–62. See also p. 210. They were not united till December 1615. See Scot's Apologetical Narration of the State of the Kirk, pp. 218, 239; and Crookshank's History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 28. By the royal commission, these despotic tribunals were authorized (Calderwood, vol. vii. p. 59) ‘to call before them at suche tymes and places as they salle thinke meete, anie person or persons dwelling and remaining within their provinces respective above writtin of St. Andrews or Glasgow, or within anie dioceis of the same, being offenders ather in life or religioun, whom they hold anie way to be scandalous, and that they take tryell of the same; and if they find them guiltie and impenitent, refusing to acknowledge their offence, they sall give command to the preacher of that parish where they dwell, to proceed with sentence of excommunication against them; which, if it be protracted, and their command by that minister be not presentlie obeyed, they sall conveene anie suche minister before them, and proceed in censuring of him for his disobedience, ather by suspensioun, deprivatioun, or wairding, according as in their discretioun they sall hold his obstinacie and refuse of their directioun to have deserved. And further, to fyne at their discretiouns, imprisoun, or warde anie suche persoun, who being convicted before them, they sall find upon tryell to have deserved anie suche punishment.’ Hereupon, Calderwood justly remarks, p. 62: ‘This commissioun and executioun thereof, as it exalted the aspyring bishops farre above any prelat that ever was in Scotland, so it putt the king in possessioun of that which he had long tyme hunted for; to witt, of the royall prerogative, and absolute power to use the bodeis and goods of the subjects at pleasure, without forme or processe of the commoun law, even then when the Lower Hous in England was compleaning in their parliament upon the injurie therof. So our bishops were fitt instruments to overthrow the liberteis both of the Kirk and countrie.’

303

See Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland, p. 93, and Kirkton's History, p. 15. Kirkton indignantly says, that James ‘perswaded a few unworthy men to perjure themselves, and after their episcopall consecration by the English bishops in England, to exercise that odious office in Scotland against their own oath and the consciences of their brethren.’ Compare the contemptuous notice, in Row's History of the Kirk, p. 283, on the ‘anoynting of oyle and other ceremonies,’ and on ‘the foolish guyses in it.’ Indeed, on this subject, every Scotch writer who cared for the liberty of his country, expressed himself either with contempt or indignation.

304

Calderwood, with ill-suppressed bitterness, says, ‘efter the same maner that they were consecrated themselfs, als neere as they could imitate.’ History of the Kirk, vol. vii. p. 152. Compare Wodrow's Collections, vol. i. part i. p. 293. ‘The Bishops ordeaned in England keeped as near the manner taken with themselves there as they could.’

305

‘Some of them, by want of temper, or want of breeding, did not behave themselves with that decency in their debates, towards the greatest men of the kingdom, as in discretion they ought to have done, and as the others reasonably expected from them.’ Clarendon's History of the Rebellion, edit. Oxford, 1843, p. 35. In 1633, ‘nine of them were privy councillors;’ and ‘their pride was cried out upon as unsupportable.’ Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, p. 38. Sir John Scot imputes to them ‘insolence, pride, and avarice.’ Scot's Staggering State of the Scots Statesmen, Edinburgh, 1754, p. 41. See also Spalding's History of the Troubles, vol. i. pp. 46, 47, Edinburgh, 1828, 4to.

306

So early as 1613, a letter from James Inglish (preserved in Wodrow's Collections, vol. ii. part i. p. 110, Glasgow, 1845, 4to) complains that ‘the libertys of the Lord's Kirk are greatly abridged by the pride of Bishops, and their power daily increases over her.’ Civil rights were equally set at nought by the bishops; and, among other enactments which they obtained, one was, ‘that no man should be permitted to practise or profess any physic, unless he had first satisfied the bishop of the diocese touching his religion.’ Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 236. This at once gave them the control of the whole medical profession.

307

‘Not satisfied with ruling the church-courts, they claimed an extensive civil authority within their dioceses. The burghs were deprived of their privileges, and forced to receive such magistrates as their episcopal superiors, in concert with the court, were pleased to nominate.’ … ‘Archbishop Gladstanes, in a letter to the King, June the 9th 1611, says: “It was your pleasure and direction, that I sould be possessed with the like privileges in the electione of the magistrats there (in St. Andrews), as my lord of Glasgow is endued with in that his city. Sir, whereas they are troublesome, I will be answerable to your Majesty and Counsell for them, after that I be possessed of my right.” Ms. in Bibl. Jurid. Edin. M. 6, 9. no. 72.’ M'Crie's Life of Melville, vol. ii. p. 422.

308

And their prodigality was equal to their rapacity. When Archbishop Gladstanes died, in 1615, it was ascertained that, ‘notwithstanding of the great rent of his bishoprick, he died in the debt of twentie thowsand pounds.’ Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. vii. p. 197. See also p. 303. Also the case of the Bishop of Galloway, who died in 1619, and of whom Calderwood says (History of the Kirk, vol. vii. p. 350), ‘It is thought, that if just calculation were made of the commoditie extorted by him through his diocie, by advice of his two covetous counsellours, Andro Couper, his brother, and Johne Grilmour, wrytter in Edinburgh, for his use and theirs, by racting of rents, getting of grassoumes, setting of tacks, of teithes, and other like meanes, wold surmount the soume of an hundreth thousand merks, or, in the opinion of others, almost the double; so that manie within that diocie, and the annexed prelacies, sall hardlie recover their estates in their time.’ Compare Stevenson's History of the Church, pp. 212, 392.

309

On this change, which was completed in 1621, see Laing's History of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 88; Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. vii. p. 490; and Baillie's Letters and Journals, vol. i. p. 486, edit. Laing, Edinburgh, 1841.

310

Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. vii. pp. 472–474, 507, 509, 511, 517–520, 530–543, 549–553, 566, 567, 614, 621. Laing's History of Scotland, vol. iii. pp. 90, 91. Laing, very unjustly, accuses the bishops of being so merciful as to disapprove of some of these transactions. But whoever has read much of the Scotch literature of the seventeenth century, will cheerfully exonerate the bishops from a charge, which they would themselves have repelled, and to which they are nowise amenable.

311

In October 1637, Baillie, who was carefully watching the course of affairs, writes, ‘No man may speak any thing in publick for the king's part, except he would have himself marked for a sacrifice to be killed one day. I think our people possessed with a bloody devill, farr above any thing that ever I could have imagined, though the masse in Latine had been presented.’ And, in a postscript, dated 3rd October, he adds: ‘My fears in my former went no farther then to ane ecclesiastik separation, but now I am more affrayit for a bloudie civill warr.’ Baillie's Letters and Journals, edit. Laing, Edinburgh, 1841, vol. i. pp. 23, 25.

312

Laing's History of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 131. Chambers' Annals, vol. ii. pp. 101–104. Spalding's History of the Troubles in Scotland, vol. i. pp. 47, 48.

313

‘The accusation, among themselves a bond of union, and to their enemies a signal of hostility, was subscribed by the nobility, the gentry, the clergy, and afterwards by all ranks, and almost by every corporation in the kingdom.’ Laing's History of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 137.

314

Ibid., vol. iii. p. 138.

315

‘It was signed by a large majority of the people, in a paroxysm of enthusiasm beyond all example in our history.’ Chambers' Annals, vol. ii. p. 105. Kirkton, who was a contemporary, says, ‘And though only eleven private men (and some of them very inconsiderable) had the boldness first to begin this work, without ever asking leave of king or council, yet was it very quickly taken by all the people of Scotland, with hands lifted up in most solemn manner.’ Kirkton's History of the Church of Scotland, p. 33. Lord Somerville, taking a somewhat different view of affairs, remarks, that ‘the generalitie of the natione entered into a hellish covenant, wherein they mutually obleidged themselves to extirpate episcopacy, and to defend each other against all persones whatsoever, noe not excepting the persone of his sacred majestie; but upon conditiones of ther oune frameing.’ Somerville's Memorie of the Somervilles, vol. ii. p. 187.

316

There had been no General Assembly since 1618. Argyll's Presbytery Examined, p. 102; and the Spottiswoode Miscellany, vol. i. p. 88. But ‘the provincial synods, presbyteries, and sessions still remained, and in these, good men mutually comforted one another.’ Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland, p. 162.

317

‘The assembly went on at such a rate, that the marquis judged it no longer fit to bear with their courses.’ Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, p. 128. ‘In end, seeing nothing said in reason did prevail, he, in his majesty's name, dissolved the assembly, and discharged their further proceeding under pain of treason.’ p. 135.

318

Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland, p. 310.

319

‘Notwithstanding the Proclamation, the Assembly presently thereafter met, and sat daily for divers weeks, until they had done their affairs, and were themselves pleas'd to dissolve.’ Guthry's Memoirs, p. 41, edit. London, 1702.

320

Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, from 1638 to 1842, Edinburgh, 1843, pp. 9–18. Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland, pp. 332, 338.

321

See, on their fall, some highly characteristic remarks in Baillie's Letters and Journals, vol. i. p. 168. In 1639, Howell writes from Edinburgh, ‘The Bishops are all gone to wrack, and they have had but a sorry funeral; the very name is grown so contemptible, that a black dog, if he hath any white marks about him, is called Bishop. Our Lord of Canterbury is grown here so odious, that they call him commonly in the pulpit, the Priest of Baal, and the Son of Belial.’ Howell's Letters, edit. London, 1754, p. 276.

322

‘That people, after they had once begun, pursued the business vigorously, and with all imaginable contempt of the government.’ Clarendon's History of the Rebellion, p. 45. Now, for the first time, the English government began to tremble. On 13th December 1639, Secretary Windebank writes, ‘His Majesty near these six weeks last past hath been in continual consultations with a select Committee of some of his Council (of which I have had the honour to be one), how to redress his affairs in Scotland, the fire continuing there, and growing to that danger, that it threatens not only the Monarchical Government there, but even that of this kingdom.’ Clarendon State Papers, vol. ii. p. 81, Oxford, 1773, folio. This is the earliest intimation I have met with of Charles and his advisers being aware of their real peril. But though the king was capable of fear, he was incapable of compunction. There is no evidence on record, to show that he even felt remorse for having planned and executed those arbitrary and unprincipled measures, by which he inflicted immense misery upon Scotland and England, but more especially upon Scotland.

323

‘The kinge was now so waik, haueing nether toune, fort, nor armie, and Oxford being a waik and onfortified toune, from whence he looked daylie to be taken perforce, he therefor resolues to cast himself into the arms of the Scots; who, being his natine people, and of late so ongratfullie dealt with by the Inglish, he hoped their particular credit, and the credit of the wholl natione depending thereupon, they would not baslie rander him to the Inglish.’ Gordon's Britane's Distemper, p. 193, published by the Spalding Club, Aberdeen, 1844, 4to.

324

That it may not be supposed, that, as an Englishman, I misrepresent this transaction by looking at it from an English point of view, I will merely quote what Scotch writers have said respecting it. ‘Giveing up the king to the will and pleasure of the English parliament, that soe they might come by ther money.’ Somerville's Memorie of the Somervilles, vol. ii. p. 366. ‘The Scots sold their unfortunate king, who had fled to them for protection, to the commissioners of the English Parliament, for 200,000l. sterling.’ Lyon's History of St. Andrews, vol. ii. p. 38. ‘The incident itself was evidence of a bargain with a quid pro quo.’ Burton's History of Scotland, vol. i. p. 493. ‘The sale of the king to the parliament.’ Napier's Life of Montrose, Edinburgh, 1840, p. 448. ‘The king was delivered up, or rather sold, to the parliament's commissioners.’ Brown's History of Glasgow, vol. i. p. 91. ‘Their arrears were undoubtedly due; the amount was ascertained before the dispute concerning the disposal of his person, and the payment was undertaken by the English parliament, five months previous to the delivery, or surrender of the king. But the coincidence, however unavoidable, between that event and the actual discharge and departure of their army, still affords a presumptive proof of the disgraceful imputation of having sold their king; “as the English, unless previously assured of receiving his person, would never have relinquished a sum so considerable as to weaken themselves, while it strengthened a people with whom such a material question remained to be discussed.”’ Laing's History of Scotland, vol. iii. pp. 369, 370.

325

A letter from Sir Edw. Hyde to Lord Hatton, dated April 12, 1649 (in the Clarendon State Papers, vol. ii. p. 479, Oxf. 1773, fol.), says of Charles II., that the Scotch ‘sold his father to those who murdered him.’ But this is not true. Charles I., though certainly bought by the English, was not murdered by them. He was tried in the face of day; he was found guilty; he was executed. And most assuredly never did a year pass, without men far less criminal than he, suffering the same fate. Possibly, they are right who deem all capital punishment needless. That, however, has never been proved; and if this last and most terrible penalty is ever to be exacted, I cannot tell where we should find a more fitting subject to undergo it, than a despot who seeks to subjugate the liberties of the people over whom he is called to rule, inflicts cruel and illegal punishment on those who oppose him, and, sooner than renounce his designs, engages in a civil war, setting fathers against their children, disorganizing society, and causing the land to run with blood. Such men are outlaws; they are the enemies of the human race; who shall wonder if they fall, or, having fallen, who shall pity them?

326

The declaration was signed by Charles on the 16th August 1650. An abridgment of it is given in Balfour's Annales of Scotland, vol. iv. pp. 92–94; but the entire document is preserved by Sir Edward Walker. See Journal of Affairs in Scotland, in Walker's Historical Discourses, London, folio, 1705, pp. 170–176. In it Charles is made to state that, ‘though his Majesty as a dutiful son be obliged to honour the memory of his Royal Father, and have in estimation the person of his Mother; yet doth he desire to be deeply humbled and afflicted in spirit before God, because of his Father's hearkening unto and following evil councils, and his opposition to the work of reformation, and to the solemn league and covenant by which so much of the blood of the Lord's people hath been shed in these kingdoms.’ He went on to say, that though he might palliate his own misconduct by pleading ‘his education and age,’ he thinks it better to ‘ingeniously acknowledge all his own sins and the sins of his father's house.’ Burnet (History of his own Time, vol. i. p. 97) says of this declaration: ‘In it there were many hard things. The king owned the sin of his father in marrying into an idolatrous family: he acknowledged the bloodshed in the late wars lay at his father's door: he expressed a deep sense of his own ill education,’ &c.

327

In reference to this event the following entry occurs in Lamont's Journal: ‘1650, Dec. 22. – The fast appointed by the commission of the kirke to be keiped througe the kingdome before the coronatione, was keiped att Largo the forsaide day by Mr. Ja. Magill; his lecture, Reu. 3. from v. 14 to the end of the chapt.; his text Reu. 2. 4, 5. Vpon the Thursday following, the 26 of this instant, the fast was keiped in likemaner; his lecture 2. Chro. 29 to v. 12; his text 2. Chron. 12, 12. The causes of the first day (not read) was, the great contempt of the gospell, holden forth in its branches; of the second day (which were read), the sinns of the king, and of his father's house, where sundry offences of K. James the 6 were aknowledged, and of K. Charles the 1, and of K. Ch. the 2, nowe king.’ The Diary of Mr. John Lamont of Newton, p. 25, Edinburgh, 1830, 4to. See also Baillie's Letters and Journals, vol. iii. p. 107; Nicoll's Diary, Edinburgh, 4to, 1836, p. 38; Row's Continuation of Blair's Autobiography, edit. Wodrow Society, p. 255; Bower's History of the University of Edinburgh, vol. i. p. 253; Presbytery Book of Strathbogie, edit. Spalding Club, p. 169; and, above all, the Registers of the Presbytery of Lanark, published by the Abbotsford Club, Edinburgh, 1839, 4to, pp. 88, 89.

328

Wodrow, who had before him the records of the Privy Council, besides other evidence now lost, says, that the period from 1660 to 1688 was ‘a very horrid scene of oppression, hardships, and cruelty, which, were it not incontestably true, and well vouched and supported, could not be credited in after ages.’ Wodrow's History of the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to the Revolution, vol. i. p. 57. And the Reverend Alexander Shields, quaintly, but truly, observes, ‘that the said Government was the most untender, unpeaceable, tyrannical, arbitrary and wicked, that ever was in Scotland in any age or period.’ Shields' Scots Inquisition, Edinburgh, 1745, p. 24.

329

When James I. ascended the throne of England, ‘the principal native nobility’ accompanied him; and ‘the very peace which ensued upon the union of the crowns, may be considered as the commencement of an era in which many of our national strongholds were either transformed into simple residences or utterly deserted.’ Irving's History of Dumbartonshire, 4to, 1860, pp. 137, 166. The nobles ‘had no further occasion to make a figure in war, their power in vassalage was of little use, and their influence of course decayed. They knew little of the arts of peace, and had no disposition to cultivate them.’ The Interest of Scotland Considered, Edinburgh, 1733, p. 85. Under Charles I., the movement continued; ‘which fell out, partly through the giddiness of the times, but more by the way his Majesty had taken at the beginning of his reign; at which time he did recover from divers of them their hereditary offices, and also pressed them to quit their tithes (which formerly had kept the gentry in a dependance upon them), whereby they were so weaken'd that now when he stood most in need of them (except the chief of the clans) they could command none but their vassals.’ Guthry's Memoirs, edit. 1702, pp. 127, 128. Then came the civil wars, and the rule of Cromwell, during which they suffered both in person and in property. Compare Chambers' Annals, vol. ii. p. 225, with Laing's History of Scotland, vol. iii. pp. 515, 516. In 1654, Baillie writes (Letters and Journals, vol. iii. p. 249): ‘Our nobilitie, weell near all, are wracked.’ In 1656, ‘Our nobles lying up in prisons, and under forfaultries, or debts, private or publict, are for the most part either broken or breaking.’ Ibid., p. 317. And, in 1658, the same observer writes (vol. iii. p. 387): ‘Our noble families are almost gone: Lennox hes little in Scotland unsold; Hamilton's estate, except Arran and the Baronrie of Hamilton, is sold; Argyle can pay little annuelrent for seven or eight hundred thousand merks; and he is no more drowned in debt than publict hatred, almost of all, both Scottish and English; the Gordons are gone; the Douglasses little better; Eglintoun and Glencairn on the brink of breaking; many of our chief families estates are cracking; nor is there any appearance of any human relief for the tyme.’