The History Of Scotland - Volume 9: From The Restoration To The Death Of Dundee E-Book

Andrew Lang

• Herausgeber: Jazzybee Verlag
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012

Seitenzahl: 325

Beschreibung

This is volume 9, covering the time from the Restoration to the death of Dundee. In many volumes of several thousand combined pages the series "The History of Scotland" deals with something less than two millenniums of Scottish history. Every single volume covers a certain period in an attempt to examine the elements and forces which were imperative to the making of the Scottish people, and to record the more important events of that time.

Leseprobe

The History Of Scotland – Volume 9

From The Restoration To The Death Of Dundee

Andrew Lang

Contents:

The Restoration. 1660-1666.

The Strife With The Covenanters. 1667-1679.

Bothwell Bridge. 1679-1680.

The Killing Time. 1680-1685.

Argyll's Rising. 1685.

Parliamentary Affairs. Victory And Death Of Dundee. 1689.

THE HISTORY OF SCOTLAND – VOLUME 9, Andrew Lang

Jazzybee Verlag Jürgen Beck

86450 Altenmünster, Loschberg 9

Germany

ISBN: 9783849604677

www.jazzybee-verlag.de

[email protected]

THE RESTORATION. 1660-1666.

THE Scottish rejoicings over the Restoration were picturesque, noisy, and convivial. Noll and the devil were burned in effigy, the Castle guns were fired, and not a little was drunk on the occasion. But the shouts died away, and where did Scotland stand? The constitutional novelties of Argyll and Waristoun expired by a natural death; Charles named his great officers of State as his ancestors had done, without calling or consulting Parliament, and the Lords of the Articles recovered power. Glencairn, who had fought for the Cause in its darkest days, was Chancellor; Rothes, who had more than the sensuality and none of the Liberalism of his father, was President of the Council; Lauderdale, now a Duke, remained with the king in London as his chief adviser on Scottish affairs, though things were done by his rivals in Scotland at which he found it safest merely to connive: his position was difficult.

Meanwhile we must go back, and trace the doings of a minister which were to lead to ecclesiastical changes and to all the Scottish unrest under the Restoration. On January 16, 1660, Monk, on his march to London, wrote to Douglas and Dickson, sending them, "according to their desire, a pass for Mr. Sharp." He, as we know (at this time he was minister of Crail, and a "regent" in St Leonard's College, St Andrews), had lain in the Tower, after 1650, and was released, perhaps after signing a "tender" of compliance with Cromwell. He had already been the envoy of the Resolutioners to the Protector, and was again in London in 1659. Soon after Sharp's arrival in town (February 1660) Lauderdale and Lindsay were set free from the Tower, and, with Sharp, informally represented the views of the less extreme Scottish party, Sharp corresponding with Baillie and Douglas. From the first, Sharp kept expressing a desire to be recalled: he found himself in deep waters and strong currents; he had seen too much of England and the world to be a perfect Presbyterian, and to suppose that he could give his party entire satisfaction. As early as February 21 he desires to return to Scotland; again on March 27, and so on frequently. Mr. Osmond Airy, editor of the Lauderdale Papers, avers that, "in the most comprehensive sense of the word, Sharp was a knave, pur sang." That is not a certain opinion; Sharp rather yielded gradually and not without resistance to strong corrupting influences. He seems to have made the state of affairs clear enough, in his letters to Douglas. He does, on occasion, adopt the style of "the good old cause," but his genuine views are transparent in his correspondence with the men who sent him as their envoy.

"Rigid Presbyterianism," he says from the first, will not be accepted, and, though Douglas strongly objects to the phrase "rigid Presbyterianism," which apparently means, not the mere absence of bishops, but the intolerable claims of Andrew Melville's school, Sharp purposely continues to use it in writing to Douglas. This was fair warning as to the state of his own opinions. Even more clearly than the leaders of his party, he sees that the Protesters are so grave a danger to a satisfactory settlement, that matters are sure to tend to "moderate Episcopacy." He is not afraid of the words which Douglas thinks a contradiction in terms. While the Covenant endured, there could assuredly be no moderate Presbyterianism; and Baillie, for example, was more attached to the Covenant, at this time, than even to the hope of ousting Gillespie from the Principalship of Glasgow University. Sharp obviously would, even at this time, have been content with the shadow of Episcopacy implied, later, in Leighton's attempted "accommodation."

Sharp's letters of this date and onwards appear to indicate clearly enough that he saw how the world would go, and that he, unless recalled, would go with the world. Douglas kept informing Sharp that the new generation in Scotland "bear a heart-hatred to the Covenant," "have no love to Presbyterial government, but are wearied of that yoke, feeding themselves with the fancy of Episcopacy." But Sharp tells Douglas that, in England, " I smell that moderate Episcopacy is the fairest accommodation, which moderate men, who wish well to religion, expect. . . . We " (the Scots) " shall be left to the king, which is best for us " (April 1660, no date of day). On April 26 Douglas wrote, saying that he wished Sharp to go and see the king; but already Monk had asked Sharp to go as his own envoy. Mr. Airy writes, " it is clear from extracts given by Wodrow that Sharp was playing the double game. He was supposed by the Resolutioners to be going to the Hague as their agent. In reality he went as Monk's." As Mr. Airy frankly observes, speaking for himself, "it is with difficulty that we constrain ourselves to keep our hands off James Sharp," but we must try to display the serene calm of history, and to look carefully into Sharp's conduct. Sharp did not conceal from Douglas and his friends that Monk had engaged him to go to Charles while Douglas was making the request by letter that he would do so (April 26). From Wodrow's extracts it is certain that Sharp (April 28) told Douglas that Monk was sending him to Breda, and he "is sorry he cannot stay till he have Mr. Douglas's mind." On May 8 Douglas writes " that his motion and the General's came together." Sharp therefore did not deceive Douglas as to his going to Breda for Monk. Both the Resolutioners and Monk were sending Sharp to see the king. With Sharp, Douglas and four of his allies sent a letter to Charles, saying that "the principles of the Church of Scotland are . . . fixed for the preservation and maintenance of lawful authority."

Charles knew better than any man how much truth there was likely to be found in that assertion, however sincere on Douglas's part; moreover, which was " the Church of Scotland "? Were Resolutioners or Protesters the genuine Kirk? In Sharp's instructions the five preachers in Edinburgh (whatever authority from the Kirk they may have had) remark that " we, for our part, shall not stumble if the king exercise his moderation towards them " (the Protesters), "yet we apprehend their principles to be such, especially their leaders, as their having any hand in affairs cannot but breed continual distemper and disorders." Baillie, later, suggests that as the protesting ministers can only live by preaching, and can only preach in English, they should be sent to the Orkneys. Even so, James VI. sent the recalcitrant Bruce to Inverness, to be out of the way. Such was the temper of the Resolutioners: could it have been used so as to establish a harmless Presbyterianism?

Sharp did go to Breda; and at once (May 10) Douglas and his group began to move him, and Lindsay and Lauderdale in London, against Charles's use of the English Liturgy "in his family," and against toleration of Dissenters in Scotland. The case is plain: these leaders of the less frenzied party in the Kirk were already feeling their way back to their old position of intolerance. Moreover, Argyll and Gillespie, "with a world at their back," were holding a Communion a Protesters' Communion at Paisley (May 27). Meetings of such " slashing communicants " had already been preludes to civil war. " Neither fair nor other means are likely to do with them," groans Baillie, and, in fact, these words of his exactly express the situation, and means in no way fair were employed to little purpose. Would it have been fair to exile all Protesters to the Orkneys? Was it even possible? 

Douglas believed, and said that, at Breda, Sharp was " corrupted." He later heard that Sharp carried a letter from a noble to the king, saying that he was in favour of Episcopacy. Burnet names Glencairn as the author of the letter: we have no other evidence. The personal question, so much debated, is merely as to the moment when Sharp decided to go with the prelatical current. If from the first he was " a knave, pur sang" If at the last, he had been debased into a politician who made the best of the situation for himself. But, on the public question, what could the Government do to prevent " the inconvenients of Presbyterial despotism "?

On meeting the king, Sharp found that he had a royal memory of his preaching friends. He returned to London with the triumphant cortige, and (May 26) wrote that Charles "is resolved not to wrong the settled government of our Church." The editor of Baillie, David Laing, thinks it " evident that Charles entertained no such design " (of restoring Episcopacy in Scotland) " for several months after the Restoration," and if Charles did not, if Lauderdale did not (as Laing holds), it is improbable that Sharp did. At this time he repeatedly assured the brethren that no change was intended.

The Scots kept their Restoration festival on June 19, first with sermons, then with a banquet at Edinburgh Cross, the fountains running with claret. Three hundred dozen of glasses were broken after the toast to the king. Scotland was delirious with drink and joy; the nobles hastened to London among them Lome, who was well received. Argyll, we saw, had just been at a Protesters' Communion, tantamount, in the eyes of the Government, to a political meeting, and the protesting preachers' " study is to fill the people with fears of Bishops, Books " (the Liturgy), " destroying of the Covenant . . . and hereupon presses private meetings . . ." says Baillie. The Protesters discerned the signs of the times, but Argyll did not. There are about seven distinct stories of second-sighted men that warned him. Dumb men had premonitions; dogs " yowled " under his window; he was seen, by a gentleman who " had the sight," " with his head off and all his shoulder full of blood," on the bowling green at Inveraray. Wodrow, Law in his ' Memorials,' and Baillie are responsible for these anecdotes. But Argyll himself, though thus warned, and conscious of his own treasonable action against Glencairn in 1654; aware, probably, that Glencairn had then asked Charles to proclaim him a traitor, and that Glencairn was now in favour; aware that, though Lome was well received, his own curse on Lome for taking the king's side had been handed by himself in writing to the English, went up to London, in place of staying, perfectly safe, among his fastnesses, with galleys ready for flight.

Had he been invited by the king, he must later have produced his safe-conduct. Wodrow, in his 'Analecta,' gives two stories, one, that Lome was deceived into bringing his father to London; the other, that this was not the case. Argyll certainly showed no cowardice; he rather gave proof of audacity. Hyde refused to see him, and rebuffed him in the antechamber, probably expecting him to take the hint and escape. Undeterred by such conspicuous warnings, Argyll went straight to his undoing, was refused the king's presence, and was arrested. He was hated by the king. If any one gave Charles assurances for Montrose's safety, it was Argyll. He had tormented him with preachings, he had ruined the Engagement, he had accepted huge promises of money when Charles was at his mercy; and though much was covered by an Act of Indemnity, not thus covered was Argyll's action against the Royalists in 1652-1654. The marquis was conveyed to the Tower, where he lay till December, being then removed to the Castle of Edinburgh.

Meanwhile Sharp, in London, rather dissuaded Douglas from coming up himself: as for "the brethren," "I am apt to think they will not get content." He added that the new English Parliament "will make all void since 1639" (June 2). This was, one might think, fair warning that, in Scotland also, all might " be void since " 1638. Sharp discouraged addresses in favour of " settling religion according to the terms of the Covenant," as Douglas desired. His position was that the intended interference of the brethren in favour of English Presbytery was a blunder; their position was that their silence might be construed into approbation. They sent Sharp a paper for the king, intimating that the use of the Liturgy, in England, caused them "grief of heart." Their tastes were to dominate the desires of the sister kingdom!

Sharp (June 5) said that, in the newspapers, a visit from Douglas and Dickson to London was announced he " wishes it may hold." " I am desirous to be taken off, and returned to my charge." They might have taken Sharp at his word, his desire to withdraw, so often repeated, so constantly ignored by his modern accusers. Douglas (June 12) replied that he and Dickson had never intended to come up. It was untrue that Scotland was in arms for the Covenant, but English reinforcements of the garrisons there arrived daily. Sharp writes (June 9), " I can do no good here for stemming the current of Prelacy, and long to be home." He has " sad apprehensions . . . and a languishing desire to retire home and look to God, from whom our help alone can come. . . . Take me off." "I hear they talk of bringing Episcopacy into Scotland" (June 10). He, Crawford, and Lauderdale do not know whether Douglas should come up or not. "You know I am against Episcopacy, root and branch," yet earlier letters had clearly shown no insuperable objection to "moderate Episcopacy" (June 12). On June 14 the king told Sharp that he "was resolved to preserve to us the discipline and Government of our Church as it is settled among us," and at that moment perhaps he was. Charles would grant a General Assembly, after a Parliament, but desired no visit from preachers. Sharp himself " saw no shadow of reason " for Scottish meddling with English ecclesiastical affairs. Dr Crofts, preaching before the king, said that Worcester rout was a divine punishment "for the guilt he had contracted in Scotland" (by taking the Covenant), "and the injuries he was brought to do against the Church of England." Both sides could take that line. In any case, says Sharp, "The Protesters' doom is dight" (June 25).

In a notable letter of July 3, Douglas writes to Sharp, " After this, Assemblies are not to interweave civil matters with ecclesiastic; and he wisheth that the king were informed of this." But what authority had Douglas for a promise which, if accepted and kept, would have saved Scotland from her miseries under the Restoration? He throws the blame of the "interweaving" on the Protesters. But the Assembly of July 1648 had bearded the Parliament before the Protesters existed as such. The Assembly had always meddled with civil affairs, when it was in its glory. If Assemblies could have been induced to act as Douglas says that they would, all might have been happily arranged. But when Douglas throws all the blame on the Protesters, he is so manifestly wrong that it is hard to believe him to have been candid. Wodrow, and Burnet, and Sharp's modern critics, believe that he was tricking Douglas, all through 1660. To myself he seems to have openly shown his hand at this time.

In Scotland (July 14) efforts were being made to secure Waristoun, but he escaped to the Continent for the time. Charles entrusted the government to the Committee of Estates of 1651 (captured, of old, by Monk, at Alyth), and Glencairn entered Edinburgh, as Chancellor on August 22. The Committee, of ten nobles, ten lairds, and ten burgesses, met on the following day, and, in a neighbouring house, met ten protesting preachers and two elders, under Guthrie. This was one of the "private meetings" which Baillie said "are, to my sense, exceeding dangerous," as showing "a resolution to keep up a schism and a party of the godly, as they will have them called, for themselves, that will obey no church judicatory further than they please." It seems then that Douglas's promise not to meddle with civil matters would have been of no effect. The Protesters might have called counter Assemblies, and being " the godly " would have had followers, in plenty. Peace was impossible. The private meeting proved fatal to Guthrie, who, it will be remembered, had procured the excommunication of Middleton, had troubled the last hours of Montrose, and had "preached the poor little army down," after Dunbar. His allies, like the Covenanters at the beginning of the troubles, drew up a "supplication." The Cromwellians, they said, had done many evil things, including the "barbarous murder" of Charles I. But " beyond all " they had established " a vast toleration " in religion, the height of wickedness. After copious professions of loyalty to the king whom they had opposed in the Remonstrance, and in the protest against the Resolutions, they denounced Malignants who wished to bring back the Service Book. Never must " the vomit of toleration " be again " licked up." His Majesty was implored to enforce uniformity of religion (that is, Protesting Presbyterianism) in the three kingdoms, to fill all posts with Covenanters only, to "extirpate Prelacy," and abstain from the liturgy in the royal chapel; and publicly to approve of the Covenants.

This supplication for a renewal of civil war (for it was nothing less) the Committee of the Estates instantly seized, with the men who drew it up. They were " in unlawful conventicle," " tending to disturbance . . . and if possible, rekindling a civil war." Illegal the arrest may have been, as illegal as the execution of Ladywell for " leasing-making," but something needed to be done, and probably it would have been wise to deport Guthrie to the Orkneys, as Baillie had suggested. Guthrie was for bringing chaos back again. One of the sufferers, Stirling, wrote to his kirk session, that they had only "avowed the Lord's marriage contract, in a sworn covenant, between the three kingdoms," and that they " abhorred a new war." But the " marriage contract " could be enforced at no smaller price. Glencairn proclaimed " unlawful conventicles " and " seditious remonstrances." Guthrie's ' Causes of Wrath ' and Rutherford's ' Lex Rex ' were denounced, and preachers of seditious sermons were threatened with loss of their stipends. The Resolutioners themselves had reason for alarm, but Sharp brought down a reassuring letter of the king to the Presbytery of Edinburgh (August 10). "We resolve to protect and preserve the government of the Church of Scotland, as it is settled by law." By what law? Did Charles then mean did Sharp know that he meant to " make void all before 1639"? A General Assembly was promised; Douglas and other preachers were to be sent for; and "we are very well satisfied with your resolution not to meddle without your sphere," says the king.

Burnet has a story, from Primrose the Clerk Register, that Middleton read this letter before it left London, that he was angry with the concessions, till Sharp explained that they were merely meant to quiet the Presbyterians; a rescissory act would leave the law where it was before the Revolution. Middleton was a soldier; he acquiesced in but disdained the paltry equivocation. So Primrose told Burnet, but Burnet says that Primrose was " a man with whom words went for nothing." Primrose was only to be believed when he abused Sharp! We cannot be sure that the prevarication about preserving the government of the Church " as settled by law " was already determined upon, and was known to Sharp.

At "the end of 1660" Sharp writes to Lauderdale, in London, advocating a General Assembly " immediately after the Parliament of 1661." Are we to believe that Lauderdale, the secretary for Scotland, was now being deceived by Sharp in a matter where Middleton, according to Primrose's story, was correctly informed?

The certain facts as to the psychology of Sharp are, that from the time of his arrival in Scotland he was suspected and accused of forwarding the cause of a change to Episcopacy. He was, during the Scottish Parliament which opened on January 1, 1661, in constant attendance on Middleton, the Royal Commissioner. He was at the same time in correspondence with Patrick Drummond in London, a Presbyterian minister in attendance on Lauderdale; and Lauderdale, as he knew, would see his letters. In these he protests that he remains "a Scot and a Presbyter," and has not touched on Church government in "sermons or conferences" at Holyrood or elsewhere. These letters go on till March 21, when he says that his inference is that they must come to " Erastianism in its worst form," or to " constant commissioners, moderators, or bishops," " a change in which I would be very loth to have a hand." Sharp then went up (April 29) to London, and thence, on May 21, wrote to Middleton. He had seen Clarendon, and learned that what Middleton "did often tell me was not without ground," namely, that Episcopacy would be introduced. Here it is Middleton who, in Scotland, tells Sharp; not Sharp who, in London, tells Middleton, according to Primrose's anecdote, that Episcopacy would be introduced. Sharp's letter of May 21 need not contradict what Sharp, on March 21, wrote to Drummond, that he himself had not touched on the question in "sermons or conferences." Private talk with Middleton is not, in the sense here used, a " conference," whether in the French or English meaning of the word. I incline to suppose that Sharp did what he could, in the early months of 1661, to hit on some scheme more moderate than actual Episcopacy, less immoderate than intolerant Presbyterianism; that he found this impossible; that, " though very loth," he could not resist the temptation to go with the tide, and finally, reckless of his honour, took his chance and an archbishopric. It is probable that he was not the only waverer. In his letter to Middleton of May 21 he ends by saying, " I am sorry if Mr. Douglas, after such professions made to your Grace, shall disappoint your expectations." Douglas " got down " on the Presbyterian "side of the fence."

As for Sharp, he was now lost. His position involved him in statesmanship, for which he (as Baillie and Livingstone thought of clergymen at large) was unfit. Hated, as a clerical statesman, by his nobly born associates, just as Spottiswoode had been hated, he was also despised by them, was bullied, was a mere tool, as a prelate must needs be, when Episcopacy is only a measure of police, and bishops but screens or shields against the Presbyterian weapon of excommunication. Though he was not without some drops of gentle blood, his father had been a sheriff clerk, and now he was a pot of clay, swimming with pots of gold, silver, and iron. He had really, at heart, no superstitions about the divine right either of Prelacy or Presbytery. He was intent on destroying the anarchy resulting from the old Presbyterian pretensions, now mainly supported by the Protesters. On that essential point he was sincere if not fanatical; hence his later accession to many disgusting cruelties, though by nature, as Baillie's earlier letters show, and as his portraits indicate, he was a man of kindly nature.

It is the gradual tragedy of a soul: the history of Lauderdale is another. Beginning as a sincere fanatic in youth, very unlike his kinsman Lethington, Lauderdale suffered long imprisonment, and many other tribulations, due to the insensate follies of Presbyterianism in 1648-50. Even this did not dispose him to welcome Episcopacy, but the bloom had been rubbed off his soul, and he, an accomplished scholar and Orientalist, yielded to the claims of his powerful and sensuous temperament. There was no oath which he scrupled to take, his abundant intellect was prostituted to brigandage under the guise of government, and long before the end his prolix talk and disgusting coarseness, as Lord Ailesbury tells us, made him detested by Charles II. ('Memoirs,' 1. 14-16.)

On January 1, 1661, to return to secular affairs, Parliament met at Edinburgh, " and never any Parliament was so obsequious to all that was propos'd to them," says Sir George Mackenzie, the " bluidy Mackenzie" of Covenanting legend. The Act of Indemnity had not yet been passed; no man knew what he might suffer, or what he might gain, and Cromwell had tamed the Scottish temper of defiance. Middleton sat as Commissioner, and Lords of the Articles were chosen, though Tarbet opposed this practice, as "prelimiting the judgment of Parliament" How the Lords were chosen on this occasion we are not informed. On January 4 the House was told by Middleton that the king desired the honourable burial, at his own expense, of the mangled remains of the great Montrose. The act was graceful, whether Charles had all that he has been accused of to repent, or not. On January 7 the fragments of the marquis, and of Hay of Dalgetty, were unearthed from beneath the gibbet or recovered from the "airts" to which they had been dispersed. A coffin containing the trunk of Montrose, under a velvet pall, was borne by Atholl, Mar, Seaforth, and other peers, and by the young marquis, accompanied by 200 mounted gentlemen led by Kenmure, to the Tolbooth. Here Napier, with Inchbrakie, Gorthie, and other gallant Grahams, took down the head of the hero from its iron spike, Gorthie kissing it piously. He died that night, "a judgment," said the fanatics. The coffin was then conveyed to the Abbey Church at Holyrood, where it lay till May 11. On that day, with all possible solemnity and heraldic splendour, the remains of Montrose were carried to St. Giles's Church, where a stately and beautiful tomb, adorned by the escutcheons of his kin and his companions in arms, now marks the most sacred spot in Scotland, the resting-place of the stainless Cavalier.

For the rest, the Parliament was so reactionary as to provoke the censures of "bluidy Mackenzie," at that time no official, but a rising advocate. They framed an oath acknowledging the royal prerogative and supremacy "over all persons and in all causes," ecclesiastic as well as civil. Cassilis retired from Parliament on this score; Balmerino, with others, also retired, when renewing the Covenant without royal consent was pronounced illegal. Here was a breach of an act of the Parliament of 1651, says Wodrow, which ordained that all members should sign the great band. The king regained his right of appointing officers of State. After leading gradually up to it, the Parliament rescinded "all done in Parliament since the year 1638," save some private bills. They did but follow the example of the Covenanters who had rescinded the acts of all General Assemblies that were not to their liking. But Mackenzie remarks that others, as well as the fanatics, were displeased by the sweeping measures of reaction. The Parliament of 1648, which approved of "the unlawful Engagement," as the wild party called it, went by the board with the rest. As for church government, it was to be secured "as the king finds most consistent with scripture, monarchy, and peace," which did not promise well, on the second and third heads, for Presbyterianism. May 29 was appointed as a public holiday; " it was evidently framed to be a snare unto ministers," as all state holidays were. Patronage of livings was restored; it had been abolished in 1649, and remained, as we know, a stone of stumbling and an occasion of disruption. Moreover, presentees to livings had to take the oath of allegiance.

A yearly grant of £40,000 was made to the king, £32,000 being taken from the excise of ale and beer. " It lowered extremely the price of victual, because it heighten'd the price of beer and ale, . . . and it forced poor people also to leave off brewing. .." These seem rather salutary results, but already, in 1659, when the price of beer was raised, " God fra the hevinis declaired his anger by sending thunder, fyre, and unheard of tempests, and inundations," so Nicoll interprets the divine view of the case. The subsidy was collected by soldiers, who were quartered on sluggish payers, a very practical grievance. Against several of the proceedings of Parliament, the brethren, such as dared to meet, made remonstrances to Middleton, who declined "to be terrified by papers." The Synod of Fife set to work, but Rothes dismissed them, and the Earl of Galloway acted the same part in his shire. " The ministers did begin to thunder after their usual manner," says Mackenzie, but times had altered. The Synod even of Fife, the leader of old in many a struggle, was put to the door. The Synod of Lothian was forced to censure its protesting brethren, and suspend them, and was then dismissed. " All this is but a short swatch " (specimen) of the oppressions of the times, says Wodrow.

The next event of public importance was the trial of Argyll, who, during the session of Parliament, had lain in Edinburgh Castle. He was allowed counsel, in England a man accused of treason would not have been so fortunate, and Mackenzie was one of his advocates. The indictment, drawn up under Sir John Fletcher, the king's advocate, wandered over the whole career of the marquis since he first took the Covenant, and included many charges of barbarity to the Macdonalds, often alleged on mere hearsay; indeed, the indictment was mainly a deluge of irrelevancies introduced to excite prejudice. Argyll was safe, by virtue of acts of indemnity, for all offences prior to 1651; where he was vulnerable was in his aiding and abetting of the English invaders during Glencairn's and Middleton's rising, when his own son, Lord Lome, was in arms for the king. Argyll's defence on this point was that his conduct was but "common compliance wherein all the kingdom did share equally." Charles was fair enough to decree that only offences committed after 1651 should be insisted upon, and this grace was believed to be due to Lauderdale acting out of enmity to Middleton, and favour to Lome, who had married his niece. The restriction of the charge was no more than just, but was thought to be practically nullified when Middleton sent Glencairn and Rothes to court to work against the interest of Argyll. Meanwhile, during the numerous sittings of the Court in Edinburgh, Middleton pressed the charge of accession to the death of Charles I. Of this there was no kind of proof, nothing beyond conjecture as to the nature of talk between Argyll and Cromwell after Preston fight; and Parliament on this head acquitted the marquis honourably.

All now turned on his alleged abetting of the English in 1654-1655. Then came a dramatic moment. Says Mackenzie, "after the debate and probation was all closed, and the Parliament ready to consider the whole matter, one who came post from London knockt most rudely at the Parliament door, and upon his entry with a packet, which he presented to the Commissioner, made him conclude that he had brought a remission, or some other warrant, in favour of the marquis, and the rather because the bearer was a Campbell." The packet really contained "a great many letters" of the accused to Monk while commanding in Scotland; and these letters proved beyond cavil that Argyll had been giving intelligence to the English of the movements of the Royalists, and even of his own son.Of the extant letters three are to Lilburne, three to Monk; if Mackenzie rightly says that there were " a great many letters," no doubt the proof against Argyll was more copious it could not be more cogent than that which we possess. "No sooner were these letters produced than the Parliament was fully satisfied as to the proof of the compliance.

Next day Argyll was forfeited, and sentenced to be beheaded, not hanged like Montrose. His demeanour, says Mackenzie, "drew tears from his very enemies," who were of milder mood than the foes of his great opponent. A respite was refused, but Argyll was not insulted and harassed as Montrose had been. Monk has been much blamed for sending down Argyll's letters, as if they had been private communications to a friend. But Monk and Lilburne were addressed by Argyll in their public capacity, they were in no sense his friends. There was nothing to restrain Monk except the fact that, if Argyll had been a rebel against the king, he himself was in the same condemnation. Burnet says that Monk " betrayed the confidence in which they then lived." Monk lived in no confidence with Argyll: no one did, and Monk trusted Argyll no further than he could see him. Argyll was not staunch to the English for whom he acted as intelligencer. In October 1656, in a conference with Don John of Austria, Charles II. is reported to have said, "to tell truth I have more of him (Argyll) than of any other, and except for Cromwell himself, it is certain that he carries immortal hatred at Lambert, Monk, and all the rest of their officers, and of this evidence shall be given anon." Monk happened to be aware of the amiable sentiments entertained towards him by Argyll: the account of the conversation between Charles and Don John was sent to him by a spy named Drummond, who was present, or was informed by some person who was present. If the spy's report is correct, we have a very pretty picture of perfidy on all sides. Argyll (1654) betrays his son's movements to Monk, and is his "affectionate humble servant." In 1656 Argyll is apparently aiding the king with money, and " carries immortal hatred at Monk." In 1661 Monk, who knows this, sees his chance, and has his revenge on Argyll, while Charles takes the life of the rebel of 1654, of the friend who advanced money in 1656.

Argyll's reputation for courage, we know, was not good, and Burnet says that "his heart failed him," when the usual arrangements had been made for an escape. He had just put on his wife's clothes, and was going into her chair, but he feared that, if he were taken, his execution might be hastened. Wodrow puts it that, after getting into petticoats, he said that "he would not disown the good cause." w It does not appear how escape meant apostasy, any more than in the escape of Ogilvy from St. Andrews, or of the Earl of Argyll in 1681. But Argyll may have thought so, remembering the refusal of Socrates to break prison. As he said of Montrose, he " got some resolution to die," and " had a sweet time as to his soul," adds Wodrow. " I could die like a Roman, but choose rather to die as a Christian," he remarked to Mackenzie, who records the phrase. Did he mean that he, like Montrose, could have died " in the old Roman way " (as was fabled of Lethington), but thought suicide wrong? He met his fate with perfect courage and composure, insisting that " those who were then unborn are engaged to the Covenant." He may thus be regarded as a confessor, and extreme Presbyterians have proclaimed him a "martyr" of their creed.

The title was perhaps better deserved by James Guthrie, who was hanged on June 1. He had been the heart and brain, with Waristoun, of the Remonstrants, maintaining the highest opinions of the duties and privileges of ministers. With Guthrie began that hanging of preachers which, nearly a century earlier, Morton is said to have thought requisite for the restoration of peace to Scotland. A long and brutal struggle was to follow. The essence of Guthrie's offending, in Mackenzie's opinion, was his refusal to accept king and council "as judges to what he preached, in the first instance." This was the old quarrel with Andrew Melville. A preacher is accused, for example, of using the pulpit as a vehicle of seditious or treasonable libels. He will only be tried, in the first instance, by other preachers. If they acquit him, as they are likely to do, there can be no court of second instance. Apostolic authority has given its verdict. The question is, are preachers or laymen to rule the State? To ensure the supremacy of the State, a moderate Episcopacy without the Liturgy, or the Articles of Perth, was forced on Scotland. Nonconformist ministers were put out of their livings, as in Ireland by Jeremy Taylor; and as Conformist ministers had been used by the Covenanters, and were again used in 1689. Their flocks clung to them, and were persecuted. So far they were sufferers for conscience' sake. But the worthy men whom they followed were mortal enemies of freedom of conscience in religion. They suffered what, in 1638 and in 1689, they inflicted.

We have already criticised the proceedings of Sharp in 1660, 1661. On May 21, 1661, as we saw, he wrote to Middleton from London. He had seen Clarendon, who would only consent to the removal of the English garrisons from Scotland if Scotland adopted Prelacy. Lauderdale and Sharp were to write a Proclamation on the matter, to be issued after Middleton had visited London. It was, practically, Clarendon who hurried on the intrusion of Episcopacy. On the Scottish side, Middleton is said to have declared that the majority in Scotland was for it; and Sharp, says Burnet, assured the king that only the Protesters, and not twenty Resolutioners, were against it. Lauderdale and the king knew the Scots better, who had been bred in the faith, says Mackenzie, that Prelacy is " a limb of Antichrist." " The king went very coldly into the design," writes Burnet. The view of things that the Earl of Lauderdale had given him was the true root of the king's coldness in enforcing Episcopacy. But the Council in Scotland insisted on the change.