Records of the Kirk of Scotland / containing the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies from 1638 downwards, as authenticated by the clerks of assembly.

FOOTNOTES:

Church of Scotland. General Assembly

1 1597.

2 Dec. 19, 1597.—1606, c. 2. 1612, c. 1.

3 “History of his Own Times,” p. 11 of imperial edition, 1837.

4 Acts, 1637.

5 Acts, 1633, c. 3.

6 1634.

7 November 1635.

8 Burnet, pp. 11-14. Burnet’s account of these several proceedings, confirmed as it is by authentic records, seems entitled to the fullest credit; for it is taken from documents in his hands, which enabled him to give a genuine and unvarnished statement of the most minute particulars.

9 See Neale’s “History of the Puritans,” a work of great research and value.

10 Clarendon, Baillie, Spottiswood, Burnet, Row, Guthrie, Calderwood, Kirkton, Melville; and, more recently, Hume, Laing, Cook, M‘Crie, Aiton, &c.

11 First Book of Discipline, c. iv. § 14; c.v. § 5.

12 1616.

13 Hist. of Ch. of Scotland, vol. ii., p. 360.

14 Balfour’s Annals, vol. ii., p. 226, et sequen.

15 Baillie, vol. i., p. 15.

16 Burnet’s Mem. 33; Baillie, i. 30-4; Hardwick’s State Papers, ii. 101.

17 3d Dec. 1557. 31st May 1559. 27th April 1560. Vide Knox.

18 See Booke of the Universall Kirke, annis 1580-1590.

19 Hist. of Ch. of Scot., vol. ii., p. 415.

20 Both Mr Laing and Dr Cook say it was the 1st of March, (on the authority, perhaps, of Guthrie and Stevenson,) but Rothes’ Relation, and the minutes of the subsequent Assembly, shew that it was in February. It is much to be regretted that Burnet, Baillie, and other chroniclers, and even later historians, are not sufficiently attentive to dates; and this carelessness in chronology often occasions great perplexity, and leads to much confusion of events in their narratives.

21 Vide these in Notes upon the Assembly 1638.

22 1606, 1608, 1610, 1616, 1617, 1618.

23 The King’s Commission and Letter, here inserted, are not in the print of Acts which is followed in this edition, but are copied from the “Large Declaration” by the King, p. 234, et sequen.—A.P.

24 Censura propositionum quarundam ex Hibernia per sacram Facultatem TheologiÆ Parisiensis facta.

25 Balfour, vol. ii., p. 207.—Although this document be the first ostensible indication of a movement on the part of the Churchmen with respect to the state of the form of Government, subsequently to the time which we have adopted as the commencement of these collections, yet several years sooner, there were various intimations of King Charles’s views, and of the opposition they were likely to encounter. Spottiswood had in 1624 sent a memorial to King James, recommending the introduction of the English Church forms, canons, &c. This motion, however, the King had not the courage to adopt. In April 1625, King Charles wrote to Spottiswood that he was resolved to enforce all the laws of the former reign, in reference to Church matters. In August following, he issued a proclamation for the enforcement of the Perth Articles. (Wodrow’s Life of Spottiswood, p. 12.) On 12th July 1626, he gave instructions (Balfour, vol. ii., p. 142,) not to enforce these articles against ministers who had been admitted prior to the Assembly 1618, and that such as had been ousted for nonconformity should be reponed on conditions; but conformity was to be enforced on all who had entered after the Perth Assembly. The bishops disliked this, and clamoured for conformity. On 8th February and 3d May 1627, (Balfour, vol. ii., p. 125, 126,) the King agreed to enforce it against Papists, but rebuked the Prelates for want of charity to their brethren; and, indeed, from a paper of Spottiswood on the state of the Church as to conformity, it appears that the Perth Articles were in very rare observance, and some of them not at all. In 1630 the King sent a letter to Spottiswood, intimating that the whole order of the English Church should be adopted in Scotland. In May 1631, the King sent orders for a meeting of bishops and subservient ministers, to advise as to the introduction of organs, surplices, a service book, and King James’s own translation of Psalms. An organ, &c. were introduced into the Chapel Royal; (Baillie’s M.S., p. 3, Row 272,) and considerable uneasiness created by these innovations. And when the petition from the clergy was presented to the King in 1633 at Dalkeith, the day before he entered Edinburgh, the King answered Rothes sternly—“No more of this, I command you!” From this it is evident that the King was inflexibly bent on enforcing the Episcopalian formularies and rites. This is more fully illustrated in the following documents, which are arranged in chronological order from 1636 down to the end of the year 1638. Vide, also, Aiton’s Life of Henderson, p. 125, et sequen, and authorities.

26 Balfour, vol. ii., p. 224.

27 Privy Council Record, from 1636 to 1639.

28 Privy Council Record.

29 Privy Council Record.

30 Ibid.

31 Privy Council Record.

32 Ibid.

33 Privy Council Record.

34 Balfour, vol. ii., p. 227.

35 Privy Council Record.

36 Balfour, vol. ii., p. 229.

37 Burnet, p. 31.

38 Balfour, vol. ii., p. 232.

39 Ibid, p. 233.

40 Balfour, vol. ii., p. 236.

41 Large Declaration, p. 33.

42 Large Declaration, p. 38.

43 Large Declaration, p. 41.

44 Ibid, p. 42.

45 Balfour, vol. ii, p. 237.

46 Large Declaration, p. 46.

47 Balfour, vol. ii., p. 240.

48 Balfour, vol. ii., p. 249.

49 There is on record a Declaration by the King as to the Service Bookes, (f. 242,) 7 Dec. 1637; a proclamation against Convocations, (f. 246,) on 19 Feb. 1638; a Declaration anent the Service Booke, (f. 258,) on 9 July; another, (f. 263,) 22 Sept. and act thereanent (f. 264,) and for the King’s Confession, (f. 265,) with the general bond for maintenance of the true religion, (f. 266.) An Act ordaining the lieges to sign it, (f. 269,) 24 Sept. A Missive from the King to the Council, for assisting the Commissioner at the Assemblie, (f. 271,) ult. Oct. Warrant for sealing Commissioner’s Commission, (f. 273,) 13 Nov. Charge against suche as goes to the Assemblie without Commission, (f. 274) 14 Nov. Missive for assisting the Commissioner at the Assemblie, (f. 275,) dated 8 Nov. Letter from the Councel to the King, (f. 275,) dated from Glasgow, 28 Nov. Proclamation for dissolving the Assembly of same date, (f. 276,) and a Proclamation anent the Assembly annulling the acts done therein, dated at Halyrud-house, the 18 of Dec. (f. 278.) Of these several Acts and Documents, the most material are inserted in the present collection—and such as are omitted will be found on the record of the dates, and in the folios of the original now indicated.

50 Large Declaration, p. 48.

51 Large Declaration, p. 50.

52 Balfour, vol. ii., p. 258.

53 Burnet, p. 36.

54 Burnet, p. 37.

55 Balfour, vol. ii, p. 252.

56 Large Declaration, p. 88.

57 Burnet, p. 39.

58 Burnet, p. 41.

59 Burnet, p. 43.

60 Burnet, p. 45.

61 Burnet, p. 46.

62 i.e., The Covenant.

63 Burnet, p. 50.

64 Large Declaration, p. 77.

65 Burnet, p. 55.

66 Burnet, p. 56.

67 Ibid, p. 58.

68 Burnet, p. 59.

69 Balfour, vol. ii., p. 266.

70 Burnet, p. 60.

71 Large Declaration, p. 96.

72 Large Declaration, p. 98.

73 Burnet, p. 61.

74 Burnet, p. 62.

75 Large Declaration, p. 91.

76 Balfour, vol. ii., p. 275.

77 Rothes’ Relation, p. 150.

78 Rothes’ Relation, (App. Bannatyne Club Print,) Napier’s Montrose, &c. p. 172.

79 Burnet, p. 65.

80 Large Declaration, p. 116.

81 Large Declaration, p. 117.

82 Large Declaration, p. 123.

83 Burnet, p. 67.

84 Burnet, p. 67.

85 Ibid, p. 69.

86 Burnet, p. 70.

87 Burnet, p. 72.

88 Burnet, p. 74.

89 Dr M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets.

90 Large Declaration, p. 129.

91 Burnet, p. 79.

92 Large Declaration, p. 146.

93 Large Declaration, p. 134.

94 Dr M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets.

95 Large Declaration, p. 157.

96 Large Declaration, p. 147.

97 Burnet, p. 81.

98 Large Declaration, p. 233.

99 Balfour, vol. ii., p. 295.

100 Large Declaration, p. 198.

101 Large Declaration, p. 200.

102 Ibid, p. 201.

103 Sic in copy.—Ed.

104 Burnet, p. 86.

105 Burnet, p. 84.

106 Burnet, p. 82.

107 Ibid, p. 90.

108 Large Declaration, p. 209.

109 Large Declaration, p. 230.

110 Dr M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets.

111 Burnet, p. 91.

112 Burnet, p. 99.

113 Ibid, p. 92.

114 Burnet, p. 93.

115 Ibid, p. 100.

116 Burnet, p. 94.

117 Appendix to an answer to the Protestation for Prelates, in Dr M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets, certified by Archibald Jhonston, the Clerk, compared with List in Stevenson’s History, and corrected by the original Commissions. It appears from the original Commissions still extant, and indorsed in the handwriting of Mr Archibald Jhonston, the Clerk, as “produced and approven 24 November 1638,” that three Elders from Dumfriesshire, are omitted in this Roll—viz., John Kennedie of Halleaths, bailie of Lochmaben, Walter Millar, clerk of Annan, and William Grierson, bailie of Sanquhar. The number of Members whose commissions were sustained, amounted at least to 140 Ministers and 100 Ruling Elders.

118 Burnet, p. 96.

119 Hardwicke’s State Papers, vol. ii., p. 113.

120 Maxwell.

121 Traquair.

122 Roxburgh.

123 Sir J. Hamilton.

124 Sir Thomas Hope.

125 Large Declaration, p. 265.

126 Burnet, p. 101. See also annexed Report.

127 See the Moderator’s Speech in annexed Report.

128 Large Declaration, p. 290.

129 Large Declaration, p. 294; and also in the Records of the Kirk, certified by the Clerk.

130 Hardwicke’s State Papers, vol. ii., p. 121.

131 Burnet, p. 108.

132 Burnet, p. 107.

133 Burnet, p. 109.

134 Dr M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets, verified by certified copy among the Records of the Church.

135 Folio MS., f. 46. There is no date to this Letter in the copy from which we transcribe; but it was probably written about the time the Assembly 1638 dissolved itself on 20th December, when the Supplication to the King from the Assembly was adopted, (vide p. 41 of these Records.) Baillie, in his 11th Letter, dated September 28, 1639, gives the following account of the reception of that Supplication; and it is interesting as an index to the state of feeling on the part both of the King and Covenanters. It is stated in the Folio MS., that the Supplication to the King was “sent up w? Mr George Winrahame,” who was probably, therefore, the bearer both of it and of this Letter to Hamilton. Baillie says (vol. i. p. 150), “The Supplication which we decreed in the Assembly of Glasgow to be sent to the King, could hardly be got presented. However, many would have ventured to have gone with it though their heads should have gone therefor; yet understanding of the King’s wrath and the danger there was, even in peaceable times, for any subject to play the ambassador, or capitulate with the Prince when he did not call for or his council did not send up, which by law and his declared will is appointed to be his only informer in high points of state; also hearing oft words from court of great spite against the very lives of most of our nobles, gentry, and ministry, who were able to agent our business, it was resolved that none of note or parts should go up, without greater assurance of their return than could for that time be expected; and withal, a gentleman of the Marquis of Hamilton’s acquaintance, Mr George Winram, undertook, on all hazards, to deliver to the Marquis the Supplication, and, upon his refusal, to give it to the King himself. He was no worse than his word, as, indeed, some of our fair undertaking statesmen thereafter did prove. He went to Court, shewed the Marquis his errand. His Grace acquainted the King, who was pleased that it should be received. His Grace took it, and on his knee read it to his Majesty in the Council. The best answer it got was, ‘When they have broken my head, they would put on my cowl.’”

136 It will be observed that there is a discrepancy as to Sessions and Dates during the earlier sederunts of the Assembly—the third being entirely omitted in this Report or blended with the second, while Baillie and the Clerk’s abstract give a different arrangement; but we deem it our duty to adhere inflexibly to the text as it stands.—Ed.

137 This gentleman was son-in-law of the Bishop of Orkney.—Ed.

138 The Deposition of the Bishop of Brechin is omitted in the Glasgow Folio MS., and is therefore supplied from Mr Laing’s Copy.

139 “The Bishops’ Doom. A Sermon preached before the General Assembly which sat at Glasgow anno 1638, on occasion of pronouncing the Sentence of the greater Excommunication against eight of the Bishops, and deposing or suspending the other six. By Mr Alexander Henderson, moderator of that and several subsequent Assemblies. With a Postscript on the present decay of church-discipline. Edinburgh: Printed by John Gray and Gavin Alston. Sold by them at their printing-house in Jackson’s close, and by W. Gray bookseller in the east corner of the Exchange. MDCCLXII.

“Advertisement.—It must be observed in justice to the venerable author of the following sermon, that by the journal of the general assembly 1638, he had only allowed him from the evening of the preceding day to study that sermon. His thoughts, amidst such a multiplicity of work as was then on his hand, behoved also to be much perplexed; and his sermon, though subjoined at the end of that journal, seems only to have been taken down in the time of delivery by an amanuensis. Yet, mank as such a fragment is, it seems worthy of being preserved; and the same will, it is hoped, prove useful not only for vindicating the practice of that assembly, but also for stirring up others to attempt a faithful discharge of the like duty, upon grounds equally relevant, as necessary not only for reclaiming the impenitent, but also as an indispensable testimony to the truth of our Lord’s dominion over the Church.”

140 Mr Stevenson, in his “History of the Church and State of Scotland,” (1753, et ann. sequen,) after giving the closing speeches of Henderson and Argyle, concludes his account of the Assembly, 1638, in these terms:—“The Assembly being thus happily concluded, Mr Henderson said—We have now cast down the walls of Jericho: let him that rebuildeth them beware of the curse of Hiel the Bethelite.” As Mr Stevenson does not state on what authority this is given, and as it is not mentioned in any other work that we have chanced to see, we merely add it in a note, (the expression being frequently referred to,) without having before us any contemporary voucher for its accuracy.

141 Although Lowdoun and Johnston, as we have seen (vide their Speeches, Report, p. 167), attempted to explain away the effect of the several Acts of Parliament to which we refer, yet it is due to the truth of history to say, that there is no mistaking the tenor and effect of those Acts. By the 1st Act of King James VI., 18th Parliament (9th July, 1606), the power and prerogative of the King are declared “over all estates, persons, and causes whatsoever, within the said Kingdom.” And by the very next Act (2d), he is declared to be “Soveraigne Monarch, absolute Prince, Judge, and Governour over all persons, estates, and causes, both spiritual and temporall;” and, further, the previous Acts by which Bishops had been ousted or denuded of their titles, privileges, and benefices, are rescinded, and the order “restored and redintegrated,” to all intents and purposes. Again, in 1612 (23d Oct.), there is another Act, ratifying the ecclesiastical arrangements made by the packed and bribed Assembly at Glasgow in 1610, which were out-and-out Episcopalian. Furthermore, there was an Act, 26th June 1617, anent the election of Archbishops and Bishops; and, finally, on the 4th of August 1621, there was another Act of Parliament ratifying the 5 Articles of Perth, adopted by another packed Assembly in August 1618. All these statutes, and the surreptitious and corrupt Acts of Assemblies which they ratified, were doubtless infamous encroachments on the liberties of the subject and the legitimate laws of the Church; but still they were the law of the land, emanating from the supreme authority of Parliament, and which Parliament alone could rescind. Johnston (the Clerk of Assembly) said—“I know certainlie that this office of Bishop was never established by any Act of Parliament in Scotland;” and Lowdoun averred that “the Act 1612 does not ratifie that which is concludit in Glasgow Assembly which now is condemned; that ground being taken away, the ratification also falls.” Johnston’s statement is contradicted by the statute-book; Lowdoun’s statement and his inference are equally contradicted, and inconsistent with themselves; for, if the Act 1612 had not ratified the Acts of the Assembly 1610, how could the condemnation of these by the Assembly 1638, infer that the ratification thereby fell? There is reason to apprehend, that the Assembly of 1638 was mystified by such statements—the Acts of Parliament and Assembly not being then, as now, accessible to the community generally—and hence we may ascribe some of the stretches of ecclesiastical authority at that Assembly, to malinformation as well as to passion.

142 Erskine’s Institutes, B. 4, tit. 1, § 17.

143 Baillie, vol. i., p. 150.

144 Acts, 19 and 20, 1639.

145 Row, p. 340.

146 Burnet, p. 111.

147 Mem. Ch. of Scot., p. 188. Stevenson, p. 679.

148 Burnet, p. 113; and Letter.

149 Baillie, vol. i., p. 151. Rushworth’s Coll., vol. ii. p. 830.

150 Baillie, vol. i., p. 152.

151 Burnet, p. 115.

152 Vide “Documents.”

153 Balfour, vol. ii., p. 221-3. Baillie, vol. i., p. 158-9.

154 Baillie, vol. ii, p. 160.

155 See p. 81 and 83.

156 Vane’s Letter, 4th June. Burnet, p. 139.

157 Baillie, vol. i., p. 173.

158 Vide Documents.

159 Bishop Burnet, in allusion to this treaty, remarks on it, (p. 143,) that “some made another observation, though of less moment, yet not unpleasant, upon Mr Henderson—that it was strange to see a Churchman, who had acted so vigorously against Bishops for their meddling in civil affairs, made a Commissioner for this treaty, and sign a paper so purely civil.” In making this paltry observation, the courtly prelate seems to have overlooked what he had recorded not two pages before, that this was not a treaty “purely civil.” Its first and leading condition related to religion, and pledged the King to call a free General Assembly, in which all ecclesiastical matters were to be settled, and afterwards to be ratified in Parliament. This was, in fact, the foundation and essence of the treaty; and it was fitting that the chosen representatives of the Church should be parties to so important a treaty. This was very different, indeed, from being a “Lord of Privy Council,” or a “member of the High Commission.”

160 This petition and deliverance are given from the Register of Privy Council, as the most authentic source. It varies in a few particulars, as well as in the orthography, from the copy authenticated and printed by the Clerk of Assembly—Ed.

161 Although several of these Acts are thus said to be “not printed” in the official edition, several of them appear in that edition, and in the foregoing reprint from it.—Ed.

162 Privy Council Record.

163 Rushworth, vol. ii., p. 791.

164 Ibid, p. 818.

165 Heylyn’s Life of Laud, p. 359. We have not been able to find the entire proclamation itself; but Heylyn’s account may be trusted as to its character.

166 Privy Council Record.

167 Privy Council Record.

168 Folio MS., f. 62.

169 Folio MS., f. 68.

170 Burnet, p. 118.

171 Ibid, p. 119.

172 Ibid, p. 119.

173 Burnet, p. 120.

174 Ibid, p. 121.

175 Ibid, p. 121.

176 Burnet, p. 123.

177 Privy Council Record.

178 Burnet, p. 122.

179 Folio MS., f. 65.

180 Burnet, p. 123.

181 Burnet, p. 124.

182 Edinburgh Town Council Record.

183 Edinburgh Town Council Record.

184 Burnet, p. 127.

185 Folio MS., f. 66.

186 Burnet, p. 125.

187 Burnet, p. 126.

188 Privy Council Record.

189 Privy Council Record. There are other Acts of Council relative to these matters—one on the 13th May, anent the fencing of Parliament (which was called for the 15th), and adjournment thereof to the 23d of July—and another on the 15th, in which it is recorded that the Lords of the Covenant had refused passports to Sir Tho. Hope and Sir Ja. Carmichael to go to the King; but these it is unnecessary to give. The meeting of Parliament was afterwards prorogued from time to time till November following.

190 Folio MS., f. 67.

191 Burnet, p. 136.

192 Ibid, p. 129.

193 Folio MS., f. 68.

194 Burnet, p. 131.

195 Folio MS., f. 67.

196 Burnet, p. 131.

197 Burnet, p. 130.

198 Burnet, p. 135.—This letter refers to Aboyne and others.

199 Folio MS., f. 69.

200 Burnet, p. 133.

201 Folio MS., f. 74.

202 Ibid, f. 70.

203 The name of the vessel whence this letter bears date, seems to have suggested the following effusion in verse, which, if it do not equal Thomas Campbell’s lines on the same theme, in poetical beauty, has, at least, a priority in point of time to recommend it.

VERSES UPON THE RAINBOW.
By Mr Patrick Hamilton, Minister of Cambuslang.

The Rainbow was to man a signe of peace:
This doth portend much blood—no sign of grace.
God’s Rainbow stayed the floods—O, greatest wonder!
This threats to burn us all with fyrie thunder.
What greife!—that He was hop’t to grace our land,
Should, to destroy it, in his Rainbow stand!
Lord, either make his Rainbow like to the,
Or, under Thyne, let us sure shaddowed be.
Thyne reaches so long owre heaven, air, earth, sea—
This but a blast, and bounded is by The:
Tyme rotts the ane: Thyne doeth remain for ay,
Proclaiming peace unto thy saints alway.
Man’s Rainbowe’s collor’s red, and full of fyre;
Thine whyte, blew, red—signes of thy quenched ire.

204 Folio MS., f. 71.

205 Folio MS., f. 69. This is an answer to a short and general but very kindly letter from the Earl of Holland, dated 22d May.

206 Folio MS., f. 68.

207 Burnet, p. 137.

208 Burnet, p. 133. Reported by Sir Henry Devick.

209 Burnet, p. 138. Hamilton’s Letter, to which this is the answer, suppressed by Burnet.

210 Burnet, p. 139.—This letter affords sufficient evidence of the King’s apprehensions as to the increasing power of the Covenanters, which made him resolve “to keep himself on a defensive;” and it is confirmed by the King’s postscript. And Burnet (p. 140) tell us that Hamilton had warned his Majesty in the Gallery of Whitehall, “that few of the English would engage in an offensive war with Scotland.” This apologist of Hamilton states farther that, on reaching the English camp early in June, “the Marquis did shew the King that, while the fire-edge was upon the Scotish spirits, it would not prove an easie task to tame them, but would be a work of some years, and cost much money and many men: he therefore desired the King would consider if it were not fit to consent to the abolishing of Episcopacy and giving way to their Covenant till better times; and that, as the chief leaders had entered upon that course, being provoked by some irritations and neglects they had met with, so it might be fit to regain them by cajolery and other favours. And to persuade the King to this course was easier, that both his reason and his affection to his subjects did co-operate with it—a great strengthening coming to it by my Lord Canterbury’s opinion, who saw a pacification absolutely necessary for the King’s service, and did advise it.” And Hamilton got a warrant under the King’s hand, to “deal with” the Scotch leaders in the way thus suggested. It was at this time that Montrose was induced, by what motives still remains unexplained, to forsake the Covenant and join the King’s party; and previously to the treaty, Home, Buccleugh, and some others also forsook the national banner.

It is curious to contrast these disclosures of the real state of facts at the time referred to, with a piece of gasconade in Heylyn’s Life of Laud, (p. 365,) which, in its leading points, is contradicted by letters under the King’s hand to Hamilton. “These preparations (for negotiation, says this Doctor of divinity) being made, they fand an easier business of it than they had any reason to expect, to bring his Majesty to meet them in the middle way. It was not his intent to fight them, as I have heard from a person of great trust and honour; but only by the terrour of so great an army to draw the Scots to do him reason. And this I am the more apt to credit, because when a Noble and well experienced commander offered him (then being in camp near Berwick) that with two thousand horse, (which the King might very well have spared,) he would so waste and spoil the country, that the Scots should creep upon their bellies to implore his mercy,—he would by no means hearken to the proposition.”

211 Folio MS., f. 73.

212 Folio MS., f. 74-75.—The looseness of Burnet and others who treat of this pacification, and the lack of dates to several of the documents, referable to the period of the negotiations, is apt to create uncertainty and indistinctness as to the several steps and stages in its progress; and it is somewhat difficult to fix the precise days on which some of the notes, &c. were written and communicated. Minute exactness in this respect is perhaps now but of small importance, (though historical truth depends much on chronological accuracy;) but attention to the following particulars enables us, with considerable certainty, to assign to the several documents their proper place.

The repulse of the King’s troops at Kelso took place on the 3d of June; and in the interval betwixt that day and the 7th, the Earl of Dunfermline was despatched from the Scotch to the King’s camp, with renewed supplications for opening negotiations. On the 7th, Sir E. Verney brought a message from the King, requiring his proclamation to be published; and it was read at General Leslie’s table on the 7th, when, accompanied by Dunfermline, Verney returned to the King’s camp with a favourable report. On the 8th, the King agreed to negotiate, and wrote a letter to that effect. On the 10th, (Burnet says the 11th,) the first meeting took place, and three more afterwards—viz., on the 12th, 15th and 18th—at the last of which the King’s Declaration was adjusted, and the articles of pacification agreed to.—Vide Baillie, vol. i. p. 179-183.

213 Folio MS., f. 75.

214 Folio MS., f. 75.

215 Folio MS., f. 75.

216 Folio MS., f. 75.

217 Burnet, p. 141.

218 Folio MS., f. 78, and Burnet, p. 143.

219 Folio MS., f. 79.

220 Folio MS., f. 78. The correctness of this narrative of what passed at the negociations was afterwards impugned by Charles, and it was burnt in London by the hands of the hangman.

221 Privy Council Record.

222 Folio, MS., f. 79.

223 Burnet, p. 144.

224 Hardwicke, vol. 1., p. 141; who adds this note: “As Burnet, in his Memoirs of Hamilton, has already mentioned, though in an inaccurate way, this extraordinary warrant, it is thought not improper to publish it exactly from the original.”—Burnet’s statement thus referred to is to the following effect (p. 148:)—“But, before they came to Berwick, the King ordered the Marquis, by a warrant in writing, yet extant under His Majesties hand, to try what way he could gain upon them, and discover the bottom of their intentions, how the estate of Bishops should be supplied in Parliament, and how far they intended to lessen the King’s Authority. The King also allowed him to use what means he pleased, and speak to them what he thought fit; not onely authorizing, but requiring him to it, and warranting him, if he were ever questioned or accused for it by any. Bearing date at Berwick the 17th of July 1639.”

225 Burnet, p. 149.

226 Burnet, p. 154. “Penned” by Hamilton, and “interlined” by Canterbury.—Burnet, p. 153.

227 Burnet, p. 155.

228 Burnet, p. 156.

229 Privy Council Record.

230 Burnet, p. 158.

231 Folio MS., from f. 169 to f. 211.

232 It may be proper to explain that Mr David Dick, whoso name is so often introduced as taking a part in the proceedings of these Assemblies, is the same person as Mr David Dickson, minister of Irvine. This abbreviation of his name appears throughout all the MS. reports we have seen, although, in the list of members, 1638, and other documents, it is given at full length. This abbreviation, we presume, has arisen from some colloquial and conventional usage at the time; but it is right to note the circumstance, in order to prevent mistakes.

233 The “Large Declaration,” in which Henderson was vilified and depreciated.

234 It is impossible to peruse this interesting debate without remarking how assiduously the Commissioner, and those to whom he was opposed in the argument, kept in the back ground the main objection to the Assembly exercising judicial functions—namely, that it had no legal power to do so. The Assembly 1638 had not obtained the civil sanction to give any of its proceedings, or those emanating from its instructions, any legal authority—and the declarations of the Assembly 1639, confessedly by the Assembly itself, required the sanction of Parliament ere the Presbyterian Constitution could be in full and legitimate operation. It was, therefore, evidently premature and unwarrantable, to assume, at the very moment that so much anxiety was expressed for that sanction, that it already possessed that judicial character which it could not possibly derive, as an Establishment, from any other source than the supreme legislature of the country. It must be remembered that, by law, Episcopacy was still the established form of national religion; and nothing more preposterous can be conceived than the project of punishing any man merely for adhering to it.

235 Improbation—a form of process in the law of Scotland, under which the testimony of a witness was challenged.

236 Although these several Declarations are to be found in the Acts (Records, pp. 207 and 208), yet, as the terms of them formed the subject of future debates, we have inserted them here, as we find them detailed in the report of proceedings in the Folio MS.

237 Vide Report, p. 251.

238 Amidst the multiplicity of documents, and of authorities to which we are obliged to resort for them, we see, on looking into Rushworth, that two have been omitted, which we take the earliest opportunity of supplying. These are, a Note by Lord Lowdon, at a conference with the King, on 11th June 1639, and his Majesty’s answer thereto, on the 13th. These are important, as shewing the primary basis of the negociation. They are in the following terms:—

“Memorandum.—That our desires are only the enjoying of our Religion and Liberties, according to the ecclesiastical and civil laws of his Majestys Kingdom,

“To clear, by sufficient grounds, that the particulars are such, we shall not insist to crave any point which is not so warranted. And we humbly offer all civil and temporal obedience to your Majesty which can be required or expected of Loyal Subjects.—(Signed) Lowdon.”—(Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 941.)

At the next Meeting in the King’s Camp, on the 13th, (where Henderson and Johnston were present,) the following answer, by the King, to Lowdon’s Memorandum, was produced:—

“That, whereas his Majesty, the 11th of June, received a short paper of the general grounds and limits of their humble desires, his Majesty is graceously pleased to make this answer. That, if their desires be only the enjoying of their religion and liberties, according to the ecclesiastical and civil laws of his Majestys Kingdom of Scotland, his Majesty doth not only agree to the same, but shall always protect them to the uttermost of his power; and if they shall not insist upon any thing but that is so warranted, his Majesty will most willingly and readily condescend thereunto, so that in the meantime they pay unto him that civil and temporal obedience which can be justly required and expected of Loial Subjects.—At his Majestys Camp, the 13th of June 1639.”—(Ibid., p. 942.)

We may also note that Rushworth gives all the dates more precisely than we find elsewhere. The Earl of Dunfermline went to the King’s from the Scotch Camp, on the 6th, with the petition from the Covenanters, (No. 49 of Documents, p. 225;) and Sir E. Verney returned with him, bearing the King’s answer, (No. 50, p. 226;) the “Reasons and Grounds,” &c., were produced on the 13th. The Scots deputies returned on Saturday the 15th, and again on Monday the 17th; and the treaty was signed on the 18th. On the 22d, the King left the Camp for Berwick; and, on the 24th, his army was dismissed and dissolved.—Rushworth, p. 943-946.

239 Vide Report, p. 268.

240 Vol. ii, p. 501.

241 Rushworth, vol. iii, p. 955.

242 Acts of Parliament, vol. iv., p. 285, 286. (Mr Thomson’s edition.)

243 Rush vol. iii. p. 992, 1016, et sequen. Vide also Franklyn, p. 796, et sequen; Clarendon, and others.

244 Vide Burnet’s Memoirs, p. 169, et sequen.

245 Vide Documents.

246 Minutes of Parliament, in Acts, vol. v., p. 256.

247 Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 983.

248 Burnet, p. 163.

249 Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 984.

250 Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1037.

251 Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1210.

252 Burnet, p. 170.

253 Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1212.

254 Ibid., 1213.

255 Baillie’s Letters, vol. i., p. 195.—A great number of Baillie’s Letters, relative to the troubles in Scotland, were addressed to Mr Spang, a Scotch Presbyterian minister at Campvere in Holland; and from these and other materials, that learned person afterwards compiled a work in Latin for the information of foreigners which is thus titled:—“Rerum nuper in Regno ScotiÆ gestarum Historia, seu verius Commentarius, causas, occasiones, progressus horum mottuum, breviter et perspicue proponens, simul cum synopsi concordiÆ, quantum hactenus inita est.—Excerptus ex scriptis intriusque partis scitu dignissimis, quorum primaria in Latinum sermonem nunc primum fideliter translata inseruntur, &c.—Per IrinÆvm Philalethen, Eleutherium.—Dantisci, Anno Domini 1641.” There is a copy of this work in the Theological Library, Edinburgh.

By an Act of Assembly 1641, the Scotch church at Campvere was brought into connection with the Church of Scotland, and the Kirk Session thereof authorized to send its minister and a ruling-elder to the General Assembly. This connection continued long after, till that branch of the Scottish Church was swept away in the French revolutionary war, since which it has not been renewed, although that church has been revived.

256 It appears fitting to embody in this collection a brief statement of the discrepancies betwixt the English and the obnovious Scotch Service Books, and to point out the resemblances which the latter had to the Popish missals. For this exposition we are indebted to a kind and learned friend, who is fully master of the subject.

257 Rushworth says it was on Thursday the 20th—Balfour, Friday the 21st.

258 Vide Documents.

259 Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1221.

260 Ibid, p. 1236.

261 Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1238.

262 Vide Documents, p. 299.

263 Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1257.

264 Ibid, p. 1276, 1277-1282.

265 Vide Documents, p. 302.

266 Rushworth, Baillie, passim.

267 Vide Documents, p. 303.

268 Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1221.

269 Ibid, p. 1223.

270 Burnet, p. 174.

271 Burnet, p. 176.

272 Burnet, p. 177.

273 Burnet, p. 178.

274 Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1295.

275 Rushworth, vol. iii., p. 1306.

276 Burnet, p. 182.

277 Baillie, p. 298.

278 Vide Documents.

279 Vide Balfour, vol. iii., pp. 4-9.

280 Vide p. 235. Minutes of Parliament. Acts, vol. v., p. 360.

281 Son of the Archbishop, and President of the Session.

282 Baillie, vol. i., p. 324.

283 Vol. iii., p. 40.

284 Vide Acts, vol. v., p. 370, 371, &c.

285 Balfour, vol. iii., p. 65.

286 The following lists of officers of state, &c., (from Balfour’s Annals, vol. iii., p. 148,) when compared with the rolls of the Assemblies in 1638 and 1639 shew, that the former of these, (and, indeed, the latter, too,) were quite as much political as ecclesiastical conventions. The lay leaders of the Tables, and in the Assemblies, were just the identical persons who had mounted on the ecclesiastical ladder to political power and place:—

“The 3 estaits of parl: hes delett out of the roll of counsellors giuen in by hes Maiesty, thesse follouing—viz., George, Marques of Huntley; Villiam, Earle of Airth and Menteth; Alexander, Earle of Linlithgow; James, Earle of Home; Patrick, Earle of Tullibardyne; Alexander, Earle of Galloway; Villiam, Earle of Dumfreis; Robert, Earle of Carnwathe. And in ther places the 3 estaits did put in Johne, Earle of Sutherland; Villiam, Earle of Louthean; Alex: Earle of Dalhousie; Johne, Lord Zester; Johne, Lord St. Claire; Johne, Lord Balmerinache; Robert, Lord Burlie.

“Acte anent the nominatione and electione of the counsellours votted and past, according to this subsequent roll:—James, Duck of Lennox and Richmond; James, Marq: of Hamilton; Archbald, Earle of Argyle; Villiam, Earle of Marishall; Johne, Earle of Sutherland; Johne, Earle of Mar; Alex: Earle of Eglintone; Johne, Earle of Cassiles; Villiam, Earle of Glencairne; James, Earle of Murray; Johne, Earle of Perth; Charles, Earle of Dumfermling; Johne, Earle of Vigtone; Johne, Earle of Kingorne; George, Earle of Seaforte; Johne, Earle of Lauderdaill; George, Earle of Kinnoule; Villiam, Earle of Louthean; Dauid, Earle of Southescke; John, Earle of Wymees; Alex: Earle of Dalhousie; James, Earle of Finlater; Alexander, Earle of Leuin; Archbald, Lo: Angus; Johne, Lo: Lindesay; Johne, Lo: Zester; Johne, Lo: St. Claire; Alex: Lo: Elphingstone; Johne, Lo: Balmerinoche; Robert, Lo: Burlie; James, Lo: Amont; Alexand?, Lo: Balcarras; S? Robert Gordon, Vice Chamberlaine; S? Patrick Hepburne of Vaughtone; S? Villiam Douglas of Cauers; S? Ja: Dundas of the same; Thomas Myrtone of Camwo; S? Dauid Grhame of Fintrey; S? John Erskyne of Dune; S? Robert Grhame of Morphie; S? Robert Innes of the same; Prouest of Edinbrughe for the tyme.

“Acte anent the nominatione and electione of thesse officers of estait retained in ther places, votted and past accordinng to this ensewing roll, they all beinng includit within the roll of counsellers also, viz:—

“1. Jo: Lord London, Chancelour;

“2. Commissioners for the office of Thesaurer, 3 of them to be a coram, votted, viz.:—Chancelour, Argyle, Glencairne, Lindesay, Th?? depute.

“3. Earle of Roxbrughe, Lo: Priuey Seall;

“4. Earle Lanricke, Secretarey;

“5. Mr Alex: Gibsone of Durie, Clerke Register;

“6. S? Tho: Hope of Craighall, Aduocat;

“7. S? Jo: Hamilton of Orbeston, Justice Clerke;

“8. S? Ja: Carmichell of the same, Th?? depute;

“9. S? Ja: Galloway, Master of Requysts.

“Supernumerarey counsellours, so called in his Maiesties rolls, wotted and approuen by the housse, wer:—Thomas Houard, Earle of Arundaill; Philipe Herbert, Earle of Pembrock and Montgomerey; Villiam Cicill, Earle of Sarisburrey; Henrey Riche, Earle of Holland; Lord Villoughbie; Eduard, Lord Houard; S? Henrey Vaine, Secretarey for England; S? Johne Cooke, knight.

“Acte ament the nominatione and electione of the ordinar and extraordinar Lordes of the Session, conforme to this roll, votted and approuen by the housse:—S? George Erskyne of Innerteill; S? Alex: Gibsone of Durie, elder; S? Androw Fletcher of Innerpepher; S? James Lermonth of Balcomey; S? George Halibrunton of Fodrens; S? James Mackgill of Cranston-Ridell; S? Johne Hope of Cragehall; S? Johne Hamilton of Orbestone; S? John Scott of Scottstaruett; Sir James Carmichell of the same; S? Alex: Falconer of Halcartone. Thesse foure follouing, by the estaits wer putt from ther places in Sessione, for crymes lybelled aganist them:—S? Rob: Spotswood, President; S? Jo: Hay, Clerke Register; S? Vill: Elphingstone, Justice Generall; S? Patrick Nisbett of Eastbancke. And in the place of thir forsaid foure, the estaitts put in John Lesley of Neutone; S? Thomas Hope of Kers; Mr Adam Hepburne of Humbie; Mr Archbald Ihonstone, Clerke of the Generall Assembley.

Extraordinarey Lordes of the Sessione, wotted and approuen by the housse this day, wer:—E. Argyle, L. Angus, L. Lindesay, L. Balmerinoche.”

287 Hume’s History, vol. vii., pp. 5-14.

288 Oct. 22, 1641. Rush. vol. iv., p. 399.

289 Acts, vol v., p. 519.

290 50 George III., c. 89, 15th June, 1810.

291 Burnet, p. 188. Rushworth, vol. iv., pp. 498, 501.

292 Rushworth, vol. iv., p. 501. Neal, vol ii., p. 519.

293 Whitelocke’s Mem., p. 57; Baillie, vol. i., p. 337; Clarendon, Guthrie, &c.

294 Rushworth, vol. iv., pp. 373-5.

295 Baillie, vol. 1, p. 337.

296 The several proceedings which we have thus characterised freely but honestly, are recorded in the Acts of the General Assembly 1642, to which we have alluded.

297 History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 245.

298 Vide the Account of Westminster Assembly, in excerpts from Baillie’s Letters among Documents.

299 Vide p. 362.

300 Vide Documents, p. 362.

301 Acts of Parl., vol. vi., pp. 107-9.

302 Acts of Parl., vol. vi., pp. 106-7.

303 Baillie’s Letters, vol. i, p. 373.

304 Baillie’s Letters, vol. i., p. 392.

305 Vide Baillie’s Letters.

306 Cheesly, afterwards Sir John Cheesly, was Mr Henderson’s servant.

307 Burnet, p. 196.

308 Ibid, p. 197.

309 Burnet, p. 198.

310 Burnet, p. 200.

311 Burnet, p. 203.

312 Lanerick.

313 Burnet, p. 205.

314 Burnet, p. 206.

315 Burnet, p. 210.

316 Burnet, p. 213.

317 Burnet, p. 215.

318 Burnet, p. 219.

319 Burnet, p. 221.

320 Burnet, p. 218.

321 Burnet, p. 225.

322 Burnet, p. 230, and Register of Secret Council.

323 Ibid, p. 230.

324 Ibid, p. 231.

325 Burnet, p. 226.

326 Burnet, p. 231.

327 Vide Rushworth, vol. iv., part ii., p. 499; and Clarendon, vol. ii., part i., p. 383.

328 Vide Letter among Acts.

329 As copies of Mr Thomson’s edition of the Acts are deposited in the office of every Sheriff-Clerk, and are accessible to all who think fit to consult them, it is not thought necessary to give more than the title and page in which several Acts, referring to the Church, may be found.

330 Acts of Parliament, vol. v., p. 61.

331 Ibid., p. 66, and Act of Ratification, ibid., p. 129.

332 Vide Acts, vol. v., p. 190.

333 Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, vol. ii., p. 170. Clarendon State Papers, vol. ii., p. 189. Spalding, vol. ii., pp. 273; 26, 27, 28; 83, 85.

334 Vide Neal’s Hist. of Puritans, vol. iii., p. 131. Baillie, vol. ii., p. 85

335 Rushworth, vol. i., p. 268, 271.

336 In order to save the necessity of frequent references to the authorities on which this brief historical sketch is given, it may be deemed sufficient to state that the facts are given chiefly from Rushworth, (Part iv., vol. i.,) in which all the documents relative to the period are to be found in the most authentic form. Whitelock’s Memorials, Baillie’s Letters, Guthrie’s Memoirs, Crawford’s Lives, and Clarendon, may also be consulted by those who desire to obtain minute and exact information with respect to the transactions of those times. We think it right to state, that throughout we have taken the documentary evidence afforded by Rushworth as our safest guide, both as to the chronology and the character of events. The works of Mr Hume and Mr Laing, in relation to those times, may be regarded rather as able historical disquisitions than histories; for the almost entire want of dates renders their narratives extremely perplexed and unsatisfactory.

337 Vide Acts, p. 450.

338 Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 305.

339 Ibid., p. 306.

340 Ibid., p. 309, et seq.

341 Rushworth, part iv., vol. i. 319, 320.

342 Vide Documents.

343 Vide Documents.

344 Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 329.

345 Ibid.

346 Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 373.

347 Acts of Estates, vol. vi., p. 239.

348 Vide Documents.

349 Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 392.

350 Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 393.

351 Acts of Estates, vol. vi., p. 240; and Rushworth, part iv., pp. 395-6.

352 Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 398.

353 Laing, vol. i., p. 345, on the authority of Burnet.

354 A high controversy has recently been carried on by Mr Lister, (author of a Life of Lord Clarendon,) and certain writers in the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews, relative to the circumstances which preceded the surrender of King Charles I., by the Scottish Commissioners, into the hands of his Parliamentary antagonists. We have no intention of entering on the minutiÆ of this discussion, which relates mainly to Clarendon’s historical character, and to the communications that took place through the instrumentality of Montrevil, and the documents therewith connected. There is only one point to which we shall advert, as bearing on the statements we have given in the text, namely, as regards the footing upon which the King went to the Scottish camp. Referring to the last article inculpating the King in this matter, (Edinburgh Review, No. cxxxix., p. 104,) we find a document, said to be Montrevil’s, quoted p. 109, dated in April, 1646, stating the conditions that had been agreed to by the Scots Commissioners, on which they were to receive him; and, among other things, it appears, “with regard to the Presbyterian government, they desire his Majesty to agree with them—as soon as he can.” On this, a comment is made, by which this expression is converted into one of quite a different meaning—viz., that the Commissioners “told him [the King] plainly (as appears by this letter) through Montrevil, that, if he came to their army, he must be prepared to give his assent to their Presbyterian Government [in England] as speedily as he could.” It is quite obvious, from a single glance, that the terms of the document and this interpretation of it, are very different. In the former, it is only a desire that he should agree to their proposals “as soon as he can,” i. e., when, and if he could, make up his mind to do so; but, in the comment, this is converted into a peremptory and pointed requisition that he should do so, absolutely and speedily. This is scarcely a fair construction. Take the reviewer’s further statement, (p. 111,) “It is plain from this correspondence, that the Scots made no promises to the King which they did not fulfil. They engaged to assist him in his escape from Oxford—to protect his person, which was placed in danger by the votes of the two Houses, in case he was forced within their quarters—to treat him with honour and respect, and not impose force on his conscience—to admit into their camp three of his servants, &c. All this they performed, and more they refused to promise, unless the King gave his consent to the establishment of the Presbyterian Church in England.” The concluding assertion assuredly is not borne out by the document founded on; and, taking the reviewer’s own statement in these particulars, it humbly appears to us to be inconsistent with itself, and with the propositions that they fulfilled the compact, and that none of the actors of that period were responsible for the events which followed, (p. 125.) If they were bound to protect his person from danger, which they knew to be impending, as here assumed—if they were to treat him with honour and respect, and not to impose force on his conscience, surely it was a breach of such pledges, when they afterwards, not only insisted absolutely on his violating his conscientious, his inflexible, and oft-repeated declaration of aversion to Presbytery as the establishment in England, but delivered him over personally to his implacable enemies, without the slightest security either for his safety or his honour. Even on the reviewer’s own shewing, they violated their pledges; and, independently of the taint which the whole proceedings of the Scottish Commissioners received from the pecuniary part of the transaction, the reviewer only aggravates the turpitude of the whole affair by admitting that, in their negotiations with the King, as to this matter, they acted clandestinely and in bad faith towards the English Parliament. This new champion of the Scottish Commissioners, like all his predecessors in the same track, has signally failed in his attempts to vindicate them from the imputations of double dealing, dissimulation, bad faith, and sordid treachery, which has been but too conclusively laid to their charge.

355 Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 448. Thurloe, vol. i., p. 89, 92. Salmanet, p. 253-4.

356

The fire in the cavern of Etna concealed,

Still mantles unseen in its secret recess,

At length in a volume terrific revealed,

No torrent can quench it, no bounds can repress.

Byron.

357 Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 485.

358 Not that they are to be heer Printed, but because they being to bee Printed severally, this act is to be prefixed to them.

359 Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 320.

360 Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 327.

361 Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 328.

362 Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 390.

363 Vide p. 468.

364 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 871 and 880.

365 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 768 to 771. Acts of Estates.

366 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 810.

367 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 818.

368 Ibid. p. 842.

369 Ibid. p. 843.

370 Ibid. p. 859.

371 Ibid. p. 864.

372 Ibid. p. 869.

373 Burnet, p. 323-334. Vide also Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 946-950 et passim.

374 Acts of Parliament, vol. vi., p. 290.

375 Acts of Parliament, vol. vi., p. 292.

376 Ibid. p. 305.

377 Acts of Parliament, vol. vi., p. 319-322.

378 Hist. of Church, vol. iii., p. 153.

379 Baillie’s Letters, vol. ii., p. 286. See Documents.

380 Acts of Parliament, vol. vi., p. 331.

381 Acts of Parliament, vol. vi., p. 332.

382 Burnet, p. 341, et seq.

383 Turner’s Memoirs, p. 53.

384 Turner’s Memoirs, p. 56.

385 Burnet, p. 355.

386 Burnet, p. 348, et seq. Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 1193-1242. Turner, p.63.

387 The party appellation of “Whigamores,” or, briefly, “Whigs,” had its origin at this period; and the insurrection referred to was called the “Whigamores’ Raid” or incursion, that term being the common one for the predatory expeditions of the Borderers. This nickname being still preserved in the vocabulary of party, although there is truly none now existing that can be in any degree assimilated to the original sect, it seems proper to explain how the distinction originated. Mr Laing, in his history, (vol. i., p. 381, 2d ed. 1804,) informs us that “the expedition was termed the Whigamores’ inroad, from a word employed by these western peasants in driving horses; and the name transferred, in the succeeding reign, to the opponents of the court, in still preserved and cherished by the Whigs as the genuine descendants of the covenanting Scots.” And, in a foot-note, he adds—“According to others, from whig or whey, the customary food of those peasants.”

Sir Walter Scott, in his “Tales of a Grandfather,” (Prose Works, vol. xxiv.,) says:—“This insurrection was called the Whigamores’ Raid, from the word whig-whig—that is, get on, get on, which is used by the western peasants in driving their horses—a name destined to become the distinction of a powerful party in British history.”

In Daniel Defoe’s “Memoirs of the Church of Scotland,” (printed 1717,) p. 173, speaking of the Covenanters, he says:—“This is the first time that the name of a Whigg was used in the world—I mean as applied to a man or to a party of men; and these were the original primitive Whiggs—the name for many years being given to no other people. The word is said to be taken from a mixed drink the poor men drank in their wanderings, composed of water and sour milk.”

And Bishop Burnet, who lived nearer to the time in which the nickname was invented, gives the following explanation of it in the “History of his own Times,” (p. 26, imperial ed. 1837):—“The southwest counties of Scotland have seldom corn enough to serve them round the year, and the northern parts producing more than they need, those in the west came in the summer to buy at Leith the stores that came from the north; and from a word Whiggam, used in driving their horses, all that drove were called Whiggamors; and, shorter, the Whiggs. Now, in that year, after the news came down of Duke Hamilton’s defeat, the Ministers animated their people to rise and march to Edinburgh; and they came up marching on the head of their parishes with an unheard-of fury, praying and preaching all the way as they came. The Marquis of Argyle and his party came and headed them, they being about 6,000. This was called the Whiggamors’ inroad; and, ever after that, all that opposed the court came, in contempt, to be called Whiggs; and from Scotland the word was brought into England, where it is now one of our unhappy terms of distinction.”

The following description of the Whigs, in some of their risings after the restoration of Charles II., is taken from a MS. copy of a doggrel poem, (by Cleland, it is thought,) which the editor presented some years ago to the Library of the Antiquarian Society of Edinburgh—

“It was in Januar or December,
When I did see the outlaw Whigs
Lye scattered up and down the riggs
Some had hoggers, some straw boots,
Some uncovered leggs and coots;
Some had halbards, some had durks,
Some had crooked swords, like Turks;
Some had slings, and some had flails,
Knit with eel and oxen tails;
Some had speares, some had pikes,
Some had spades which delvit dykes;
Some had guns with roustie ratches,
Some had firie peats for matches;
Some had bows, but wanted arrows,
Some had pistols without marrows;
Some the coulter of a plough,
Some syths had, men and horse to hough;
And some with a Lochaber axe
Resolved to give Dalziell his paiks;
Some had cross-bows, some were slingers,
Some had only knives and whingers;
But most of all, (believe who lists,)
Had nought to fight with but their fists:
They had no colours to display;
They wanted order and array;
Their officers and motion-teachers
Were verie few beside their preachers:
Without horse, or artilzierie pieces,
They thought to imitate the Sweeses,
When from Novarr they sallyed out,
Tremoville and brave Trivulce to rout.
For martial musique everie day
They used oft to sing and pray,
Which chears them more, when danger comes,
Than others’ trumpets and their drums.
With such provision as they had,
They were so stout, or else so madd,
As to petition once again;
And, if the issue proved vain,
They were resolved, with one accord,
To fight the battells of the Lord.”

388 Vide Documents.

389 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 1282-1289.

390 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 1295.

391 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 1311.

392 Vide Documents.

393 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 1338.

394 Ibid. p. 1338-1343.

395 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 1350-1351.

396 Ibid. p. 1352.

397 Ibid. p. 1353.

398 Ibid. p. 1354.

399 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 1358-61.

400 Ibid. p. 1361.

401 Ibid. p. 1362.

402 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 1376-80.

403 Ibid. p. 1382-83.

404 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 1392.

405 Acts, vol. vi., p. 337.

406 Ibid. p. 339.

407 Ibid. p. 341.

408 Ibid. p. 349-50.

409 Ibid. p. 352-6.

410 Acts, vol. vi., p. 359-60.

411 Vide Documents.

412 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 1426, et seq.

413 Acts, vol. vi., p. 362.

414 Ibid. p. 363.

415 Ibid. p. 364.

416 Ibid. p. 411.

417 Acts, vol. vi., p 451, et seq

418 The annuity-tax to the six ministers in Edinburgh was first imposed by an Act on the 19th of June, 1649.

419 Burnet, p. 575.

420 Originals in the Register Office, Edinburgh.

421 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 1330.

422 Rushworth, part iv., vol. ii., p. 1395, et seq.

423 Acts of Estates, vol. vi., p. 411.

424 Scott’s Extracts from an Hospital Register of Perth, MS., in the Advocates’ Library, pp. 385-6.

425 Balfour’s Annales and Lamont’s Diary. Vide ante, p. 587-8.

426 Lamont’s Diary, p. 12. Vide ante, p. 589.

427 Balfour’s Annales, vol. iii., pp. 410-413.

428 Acts of Estates, vol. vi., p. 481.

429 Ibid, p. 491.

430 Ibid, pp. 504, 505, 506.

431 Acts of Estates, vol. vi. p. 513.

432 Vide Guthrie’s Waters of Sihor, postea, p. 619.

433 There was a General Assembly held at Edinburgh, on 10th July, this year, for which see Lamont’s Diary, postea.—Ed.

434 The volume containing these is not known to be in existence.

435 Vide ante, p. 599.

436 Vide ante, p. 613.

437 Vide ante, p. 604.

438 “The Waters of Sihor, or the Lands Defectione; founded on y? late Publick Resolutiones of the Comissione of the General Assembly, and of the Parliment at Perth, 1651, concerning the Imploying and Intrusting of the Malignant party in the Army and in the Judicatories, discovered and demonstrated,” 341 pages MS. in Advocate’s Library.—Wodrow MS., vol. xvii.—Rob. iii., 2.15. Such is the title of a work by James Guthrie, one of the leading Protestors, who made a great figure in the transactions of these times, and who was executed after the restoration of Charles II. We are not aware that this work has ever been printed, and think it right to give some specimens of the principles and practices of the Protestors, as exhibited in the writings of one of their most conspicuous leaders.

439 Vide ante, p. 501.

440 Vide ante, p. 600.

441 Vide ante, p. 599-600.

442 Vide ante, p. 599.

443 Journal, p. 160, et seq.

444 Vide ante, p. 599.

445 For the Heads of the Declaration, see p. 599, ante.

446 Wodrow’s 8vo MSS, vol. v., in the Advocate’s Library.

447 Most of these Documents are to be found in Wodrow’s MSS., vol. xvii., in the Advocates’ Library.

448 Wodrow’s 4to MSS., vol. xvii., in the Advocates’ Library.

449 Vide ante, p. 636.

450 The General Assembly was sitting in St Andrew’s at this time, and in consequence of the success of Lambert, on the 20th, adjourned to Dundee, and, finally, was broken up. Vide Gordon’s account of it, ante p. 626-631.

451 Most of these Documents are to be found in Wodrow’s MSS., vol. xvii., in the Advocates’ Library.

452 Vide ante, p. 649.

Clyx.com